open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog, Nozh on Carriers Redux, Part II
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 30 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 : last (38)

Author Topic

Crash 0verride
Caldari
Extreme Freedom
Posted - 2007.11.10 11:25:00 - [1051]
 

Any NERF ON CARRIERS = FAIL they are pretty usless on their own anyway especially against a fleet, why make them worse, if one gets into trouble how can it defend itself if there is no-one around 5 fighters is pretty weak seeing as how they can be easily tanked with a propper setup. i don't see the point in Nerfing them. and if you are going to nerf them whats the point in spending 1 billion on skills, then 1 billion on the ship then an extra bil or 2 fitting it, and spending months training, jus to be nerfed not very rewarding. Evil or Very Mad

Herring
Caldari
Pimpology
Posted - 2007.11.10 11:30:00 - [1052]
 

Originally by: Lil Mule

CCP has not learned its lesson in setting proper expectations with its player base. I believe it has a lot of work to do in that respect. I think we can all name at least 3-4 ships that have experienced the nerf bat in the last little while. I understand that balance takes time to achieve, but set expectations LOW in the beginning and increase them if need be - people dont mind getting more functionality. It is however very bad policy to create Epic expectations and then start chiseling them down, and removing functionality.


Right on the money. Because the game hasn't progressed this way, and because many, many people see this as a very logical way of progression and balance in a game, many people are ****ed. Expectations are important to players. I suspect this sort of thinking is alien to members of the development staff however. They're changing major mechanics in the game for what they see as long term healthy changes, and given that justification, they don't really care about what their existing customers think.

I for one have been down this road before, and it doesn't end well.


NithHaiah
Posted - 2007.11.10 13:13:00 - [1053]
 

Edited by: NithHaiah on 13/11/2007 21:28:54
...

Reservoir'Dog
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.11.10 14:27:00 - [1054]
 

Originally by: NithHaiah
Originally by: Crash 0verride
Any NERF ON CARRIERS = FAIL they are pretty usless on their own anyway especially against a fleet, why make them worse, if one gets into trouble how can it defend itself if there is no-one around 5 fighters is pretty weak seeing as how they can be easily tanked with a propper setup. i don't see the point in Nerfing them. and if you are going to nerf them whats the point in spending 1 billion on skills, then 1 billion on the ship then an extra bil or 2 fitting it, and spending months training, jus to be nerfed not very rewarding. Evil or Very Mad


Actually not, they need to nerf it because everyone is training for it thinking is the top of line and they forget about smaller ships, I know many people in eve that is just training for carrier and they can be done just with 11.6mil spīs on the char sheet, this nerf (as most of them) will prevent newcomer players to use it and go to smaller ships, the only nerf carriers I desliked is the no ship with itens in cargo and the gsc,but this new one I sign, they are too overpowered, but not at the point of solo but some people use it as one.

and jump freighters are comming now, so why use carriers as haul ship since its main point is to help others with remote repping and fighter delegation (thatīs the point I see carriers) people will dreads instead of jump freighters, then I think ccp wil nerf its cargo or something just to people donīt use it because they are for POS killing and there are ships that can be used to haul things (jump freighters, freighters, industrials, transports)


Too silly to read much further...Idea

This is like saying that there are too many people training to be lawyers so we should neuter and spay all the existing lawyers so there is no unreasonable expectation for what their quaility of life is like when they finally get to be a lawyer. I would go on from there but the idea of neutering and spaying lawyers is making me giggle too much...

Anyone playing the game will have gone through all the smaller ships to get to a carrier as the cost of the ship and skills requires that you do. Unless you are violating the EULA, you have to have other ships to make the isk to purchase the skill books (450,000,000 for carrier skill alone...) the carrier and a decent set of mods...(about a billion for the ship, add another for the mods and fighters)

When I finally got into my carrier the second thing I noticed was that is was not the end all be all I thought it was. I've used it only in fleet engagements and occasionally to jump around for more skillbooks. It is hardly worthwhile to use as a logistics ship, what with the cost of fuel and trying to get someone to pop a cyno when I need one.


I almost regret getting a carrier now, with the limitations that it has. I got jumped by a Raven of all things and sic'd the fighters on him, then monitored the health of my fighters for several minutes. He was using EW to continously break the fighter lock and jumping about. I then started to watch one of my 20 million isk babies start to lose shields so I pulled them back... no kill that day.

In summation, your arguement was properly summitted, but lacked proper context. Carriers do no fall from the sky, unless warp scrambled and dampened. They take time to train for and isk that requires all sorts of mission running, ratting, mining, theiving, pirating, begging, peading and dealing with the associated losses from getting pwned, blasted, scammed, panhandled, and the general interference of real life in the game. I could not have gotten into a carrier without learning how to use a Frig, Cruiser, BC, BS Mining Barge, Industrial, HAC, Inty, Recon and oh yeah.. the support of my corpmates, which is absolutely necessary to just fly the big bastard...

Ta' - o7


Reservoir'Dog
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.11.10 14:32:00 - [1055]
 

Edited by: Reservoir''Dog on 10/11/2007 14:32:06
SNIP OFF SOME STUFF
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Oh and PLEASE...

POST WITH YOUR MAIN, It damages the credibility of your argument

toffi3
Posted - 2007.11.11 03:09:00 - [1056]
 

Edited by: toffi3 on 11/11/2007 03:24:36
Edited by: toffi3 on 11/11/2007 03:18:30
Edited by: toffi3 on 11/11/2007 03:14:03
Edited by: toffi3 on 11/11/2007 03:11:00
I Oppose this change.
#1. Why shouldnt a ship thats 7-9 times the value of a battleship NOT be able to take on 3-4 bsīs ?
#2. Iīm sure your intentions are good, but itīs not hard for a good gang of 4-6ppl to take down a carrier.
#3. Why not just BAN carriers alltogether. ( guess itīs easy if your a GM to just spawn a carrier, take it to battle and pwn ) SPECIALLY cause you dont have to pay for it.... WTF GET REAL CCP and take the heads outta the butts. WERE NOT ALL IN BOB U KNOW !!!!
#4. Mabe Iīd better move to a mmporg where the players actions have any affect in where the game leads, INSTEAD of this COMMUNIST (mmorg) that ccp is trying to create here.
#5. I forsee that eve-online will be dead within 1-3 years, as of to much "manipulation" steering by CCP. Enjoy while it lasts.

Crassus Silverwolf
Caldari
Liberty Forces
Posted - 2007.11.11 06:26:00 - [1057]
 

So been thinking through the issues raised in this thread & I still do not see the need for nerfing the Carrier in the massive manner that is being proposed.

BUT having heard Hilmar at the Fanfest it is coming.......Sad

I do believe that there is some room for movement with the Carriers launching all its drones. A possible comprimise could be that if a Carrier is a part of a fleet it can still launch all its fighters but these need to be assigned to a fleet member allowing you to keep 5 with you for close defence. HOWEVER, if not in a fleet then a Carrier pilot should be able to launch all its Fighters/Drones within his skill & module parameters to use as he wishes. This covers the problem of a Carrier pilot caught on his own & being able to defend himself against hostile targets. I do not know tech stuff but I assume the coding for this should not be difficult, could be wrong though.

The possible nerf to carrying stuff in holds is NUTS. The idea is or was that you can carry spare ships for your comrades into a battle. The last thing you want to do is drop the ship, climb in & find that there is no ammo to go fight OR that you need to spend 5 minutes loading ammo into your hold from the Corps HAnger, in the mean time there may be a few pilots waiting to do the same behind you & the battle is over. It is a drop & go sort of thing. The Corp Hanger should be used to allow ships to resupply & change modules. So whilst nerfing the Carrier to prevent it being a POS resupply monster, lets noit nerf it so it has no tatical use in a fight.

What would be a very COOL feature would be the ability to carry the Ships in the SMA with the PODS inside so you can deliver a small fleet to a specified location in 1 hit. It would make better use of the Force Recon element of the game and allow some smaller Corps to actually win a fight against a bigger enemy by being sneaky. This single feature could see a big change in tatics, more guerilla & also a real reinforcement possibility that could see fleet engagements swing in different directions as new ships are delivered with their pilots to the field of battle.YARRRR!!

Just some ramblings for consideration by the devs.

BTW in case anyone is wondering I am a CARRIER PILOT so I do know what it is like to fly & know their shortcomings. I think if some features are removed BUT replaced with considered ideas it could be a good thing. HOWEVER, NERFING FOR NERFING SAKE OR APPEASING LESS SKILLED PLAYERS IS NOT THE WAY TO MOVE FORWARD.....YARRRR!!

BIRDofPREY
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2007.11.11 14:32:00 - [1058]
 

Edited by: BIRDofPREY on 11/11/2007 14:34:02
Originally by: toffi3
Edited by: toffi3 on 11/11/2007 03:24:36
]

Snip stuff...
#4. Mabe Iīd better move to a mmporg where the players actions have any affect in where the game leads, INSTEAD of this COMMUNIST (mmorg) that ccp is trying to create here.
#5. I forsee that eve-online will be dead within 1-3 years, as of to much "manipulation" steering by CCP. Enjoy while it lasts.



I don't know from communist, but I do see this a either CCP taking their older players for granted, assuming that we will stick around after the Nerf. Financially this is no big deal to CCP, there are NOT 10,000 Carriers in EVE, but closer to 1000. If 1/3 move on, no biggie. They make that up in a few months and they still get the Nerf. Or consider the simple possibility that this is a "Beheading" of the top end of EVE in an attempt to make 0.0 more accessable to new and midlevel players. (I personally think that the former is the reason, but they are hoping for the later.)

I can see them making the carrier pick a roll, Logistics (which is a silly waste) or combat. I can also see the need to fit a carrier to full either of these roles but not both. But to take away my fighters, assuming I will trust someone with over a hundred million worth of my personal defense/offense is a game killer for me.

Shigawahhhhh
Caldari
Metalworks
Majesta Empire
Posted - 2007.11.11 16:37:00 - [1059]
 

Edited by: Shigawahhhhh on 11/11/2007 16:37:55
For people who keep saying make a way to effectivily fight carriers. There already are several. The simplist is a few of you fitting sensor dampners. There good value for whoever your fighting really.

edited to fix typoes.

Stay Upwind
Posted - 2007.11.11 16:58:00 - [1060]
 

Carriers could use some balancing and the ideas stated in dev blog hold some weight.

The answer is less in what a carrier can fit in its high but more in the fighters
Themselves.
Do not nerf the number of fighters one can field (this is bad mojo)
*** Nerf that carriers will not be able to use Normal Drones ***
ADD utilty Fighters (EWAR - Rep - Scramers - webbers - target painters)
** some might need a speed increase with there roles **
Right now you can add 5 fighters without useing DCU's
Right now you can add 10 fighters using 2 DCU's (Normal Carrier)..
ok..15 fighters

** Change how DCU's Work **
Your Base Number of fighters can be Anything (DMG.Ewar whatever)
But Control Units would be broken down into classes (DMG.EWAR.REP)
Also these units would give some small bonus to that class.

So in most cases a carrier using 2 dmg dcu's
12 dmg fighters + 1 scrambler + 2 webber = 15
Actual Dmg with the DCU's would be closer to 13.5 fighters so not losing much really

Carriers targeting range is way 2 small.. probably should have a base closer to 250km

My 2 cents if its worth that much Wink

Leigh Goslin
Posted - 2007.11.11 19:24:00 - [1061]
 

....anyone here wondering where the devs are?

question: (yes the above was a question heres the next one) why cant there be a solo pwn mobile...carriers arent coz they get violated indecently by small gangs... but why not? not EVERYONE wants to be in a massive gang....some people wanna fly solo and indecently violate people... if the skills take ages to train and the ship is expensive (again no reference to carriers) why cant i fly up to someone in an inferior ship...and blow them into 3007? just a thought. please any feedback would be great.

back to question one... i see 36 pages here and maybe 2 replies from CCP. im getting the impression that CCP is gonna go ahead and do it anyway... just coz they can and they get paid well to do so...even if the peopel paying them dont want to...just coz some 9 year old from california who lives in a mansion spoilt by his parents and gets what he wants...decides to throw his dummy out the pram because he got indecently violated 7 times in a row by someone in a better ship than him because hes flying a ferox and doesnt realize...that its a gate camp...decides to write a forum post that his dad wrote for him who happens to be a lawyer...and wtfbbqs the game for everyoen else because ccp think its an excellent idea...even though 100 thousand people scattered over the worlsd tell them other wise.

i think my last pst stated clearly the argument behind my claims as to why the carrier should not be nerfed. now im just having a whine because i can(although i dont get paid for it)


thumbs up CCP...(sense the sarcasm there)

regards

Unforgiven Soldier
Order Of The Sentinel
Posted - 2007.11.12 07:31:00 - [1062]
 

Edited by: Unforgiven Soldier on 12/11/2007 08:10:53
Edited by: Unforgiven Soldier on 12/11/2007 08:10:04
Edited by: Unforgiven Soldier on 12/11/2007 07:41:43
I am new to the carrier scene, and I have noticed before Trinity the survivability of a carrier isnt great in front line combat. So, now to "even the field" they are going to take away the carriers only ability to defend itself....great. 5 fighters against any enemy of any size = dead carrier. For almost 100 USD (EDIT: to keep the acount open to train the skills NOT BUYING ISK) to train up just the pre-reqs I think this nerf is in poor taste and isnt going to be favored well by the public (as the size of this thread shows). For a company that wants to reduce blob tactics, this nerf is counter productive. Great work guys, maybe I should train for a dread, when I get the skills you will probably decide it is to expensive to build and will take it out of the game. MadMadMad

ed: To continue my rant...I saw the carrier when I started playing and I asked myself "I wonder what it would be like to fly one?" So, after about 10 months of gameplay I decided to train directly for it. Saved up the money and bought the skillbooks and trained for over 6 months for the skills I didnt have. Looking at the current situation, I dont see how anyone now can pick a ship and say to themselves "I wonder what it would be like to fly that" without asking "I wonder how long I can fly that before CCP decides to nerf it?". I cant say I wasted all the time of course, the skills will come in handy on other ships. But I do love the carriers, not because they are pwn mobiles (which unless you are sitting at a gate shooting noobs all day with one a pwn mobile they dont make) but because it is a show of how much time and effort you put into your character. I must say, I feel, as the rest of you, left a bit jaded by their disregard for the players.

Unforgiven Soldier
Order Of The Sentinel
Posted - 2007.11.12 07:51:00 - [1063]
 

Edited by: Unforgiven Soldier on 12/11/2007 07:54:07
Edited by: Unforgiven Soldier on 12/11/2007 07:51:54
Originally by: Abyssal Angel
Edited by: Abyssal Angel on 24/10/2007 01:07:26
This dev blog is alot clearer on the thoughts behind the carrier nerf (which it still will be), no fault on Zulu's side but this covers the reasons as to why, something which you will find was asked countless times in the longish other comments thread.

Nerfing carriers to be better at the single roles, is an understandable and sensible approach, cause as it is right now, the carrier CAN indeed do most roles in EVE without the drawback.

As far as combat goes, Imagine 1 carrier versus 1 BS, no reason to ask who would win.

Same goes for 10 bs vs 10 carriers, just to a much larger magnitude.

And thus it scales up, to a point where, if you bring sufficient amounts of carriers, the only thing that could realistically beat you, are 1 of two blobs; a titan or a stealthbomber blob, both of which would have to be capable of instapopping or at least kill in 2 volleys, the entirety of the carrier blob.

If they were just badly hurt, good carrier pilots would recognize the need for logistics modules and splitting the blob into squads responsible of repping each others back up.

With the changes, the survivability would be the same and the carrier blob will still be a ***** to tackle, trust me, I spent some months in FAT oggling the MC and BOB et al blob, while still being virtually impossible to kill, the offensive abilities would dwindle.

I for one can support he sentiment brought forward in this argument, but I would likewise hope for an option to set the carrier for "gank-mode", think low and midslots to boost fighters damage, tracking, speed, capital fighters and what not.

The carrier will only continue to rise in popularity as more people train the skills for it and raise the ridiculous amount of isk for the skillbooks, so this change or something akin to it was needed.


umm, is anyone else thinking what I am thinking. Did you just say if you put a carrier up to a bs who would win? That would be like putting a BC up against a BS, 5 BS's and a carrier (not motherships) would have a problem, 2 damp frigs and 2 bs's and the carrier is in trouble. After this nerf, 1 BS against a carrier I am not sure who would win. Probably not the carrier if he only has 5 fighters. I agree with the first post (on pg 1 after the dev), I would be suprised if the devs have ever flown a carrier on TQ. Going from a jack-of-all-trades to being jack at any is wrong. Plain and simple.

ed: misspellings corrected

Hul'ka
Minmatar
tr0pa de elite
Triumvirate.
Posted - 2007.11.12 22:23:00 - [1064]
 

Only problem with capitals are motherships..
super capitals shoudl not be alowed to enter low sec..

Brigitte
S.A.S
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.11.13 19:23:00 - [1065]
 

totally stupid
wots next we all get to use 1 gun per ship
other guy holds ammo for you
other guy has the drones ...omg devs ..lol have u ever played the game .. as in pvp.. erhm i guess not...

John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2007.11.13 21:52:00 - [1066]
 

Originally by: NithHaiah
Edited by: NithHaiah on 13/11/2007 21:28:54
Actually not, they need to nerf it because everyone is training for it thinking is the top of line and they forget about smaller ships, I know many people in eve that is just training for carrier and they can be done just with 11.6mil spīs on the char sheet, this nerf (as most of them) will prevent newcomer players to use it and go to smaller ships, the only nerf carriers I desliked is the no ship with itens in cargo and the gsc,but this new one I sign, they are too overpowered, but not at the point of solo but some people use it as one.

and jump freighters are comming now, so why use carriers as haul ship since its main point is to help others with remote repping and fighter delegation (thatīs the point I see carriers) people will dreads instead of jump freighters, then I think ccp wil nerf its cargo or something just to people donīt use it because they are for POS killing and there are ships that can be used to haul things (jump freighters, freighters, industrials, transports)



You really are missing the entire point and that point is that Carriers are not overpowered. Let me say it again - Carriers are NOT overpowered. A relatively small fleet of tech 1 Cruisers could take a Carrier down if they fit the right setup. They make up for the their lack of real combat ability through their flexibility across multiple roles. A Jack of all Trades does not mean a Master of all trades and people who know nothing about Carriers need to stop their baseless opinions and leave it to those of us who have extensive expereince in Carriers to voice those opinions. By all means, create a specialisation path for Carriers but don't nerf them from their current versitility to do that. Make a user choose between versitility across various roles or specialisation within one. What happens then is Carriers become less predictable and CCP achieves what they want without upsetting a huge proportion of the playerbase.

As for Jump-capable Freighters, this is something those of us living in 0.0 have wanted since day one and we finally get it and what happens? CCP makes it Tech 2! The reason we're so upset is because it takes six weeks to copy a Freighter BPo just so you can invent its tech 2 counterpart. Given the high demand, large production cost and low supply, how expensive do you think these things are going to be? By all means, remove a Carrier's ability to load ships, with items in their cargo bay, in it's ship maintenance array but don't do that unless you are serious about giving us a viable alternative. To do what CCP wants will simply pull the rug from under us who live in 0.0 because again, all you're doing is making it more difficult to conduct logistical operations out here which again, upsets the playbase.



MetalI
Trojan Trolls
Controlled Chaos
Posted - 2007.11.14 03:09:00 - [1067]
 

This kinda brings me back to my SWG days and why i left SWG to come to EVE

Stone Boulderson
Posted - 2007.11.14 05:39:00 - [1068]
 

Edited by: Stone Boulderson on 14/11/2007 05:59:43

The only compromise I can see is:

    Lower the base cargo, drone, and fighter capacity
    Introduce modules that increase drone capacity
    Introduce modules that increase fighter capacity
    Introduce modules that increase cargo capacity

At least this way, the carrier pilot has to choose which he wants more of: drones, fighters, cargo, or triage (since these take up modules spaces too). The limited module space means he can't choose all of these choices simultaneously.

But if CCP is concerned about "overpowered" ships, where is the outcry to nerf the HAC? Power of a battleship, speed of an interceptor, and the signature radius of a spec of dust. It is nearly impossible to damage (let alone kill) a HAC without ganging up on one.... just like a carrier.

Over 6 months to train.
Over 2 billion to outfit.

Damnit, I want something for my time, money, and effort. A carrier with 5 fighters? What's the point? Makes the carrier zero fun but hey, at least it's nerfed. Rolling Eyes

With the upcoming T2 ships.. the carrier will be even more vulnerable that it is now. At minimum, CCP should hold any adjustments to the carrier until after the Trinity and T2 ship update. Who knows... changes to the carrier might be even more unnecessary than they are now.

Kenn
Caldari
McKae Industries and Research
Posted - 2007.11.14 06:11:00 - [1069]
 

Edited by: Kenn on 14/11/2007 06:12:43
Edited by: Kenn on 14/11/2007 06:12:00
Seems like something that CCP didn't think through again. If you nerf it then don't bother calling it a mother ship. It is after all supposed to be an UBER class ship. Now CCP is upset because they think it's acting like one. I just don't get it.

I haven't trained carrier skills yet. I was going to but if they nerf it I probably won't bother. The isk is considerable and I feel bad for everyone who paid into this garbage. It really is an insult to the player. It's not the first time they did this and it won't be the last. It's simply how they run this game.

Crying or Very sad


BellaMax
Posted - 2007.11.14 09:30:00 - [1070]
 

Lets keep it simple to please BOTH ccp and players:

1. Don't change any of the current stats or abbliities of the Carriers/Mom's. Or any related items used with them.

2. Add the Modlues you sugguested (Carriers/Mom's can uses Fighters by default) light drone, medium drone, heavy drone, Corporate hanger, Ship hanger, modules "passive of course" to limit the ships one-time ablitiy.

3. Let carrier/mom use 15/25 drones or fighters ITSELF... as long as they have adaquate members in a GANG in system... IE 5 controled per 1 gang member! Or they can delegate control if they desire.

I think these 3 simple things will please both CCP and may players the have dedicated MILLIONS of skillpoints to using these ships!

Hope my feedback helps!

Joe Smiles
do you
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2007.11.14 13:20:00 - [1071]
 

The carrier nerf isn't even ABOUT carriers... it's a side effect to having personal ownership of capital ships.

Capitals are supposed to be powerful, vulnerable & rare.

A Capital should not be in the reach of any one player and other game mechanics that reflect real life should be implemented ( should have been... sigh ) to enforce this.

No one person can afford a U.S. Super carrier... hell no one person can afford to fuel the thing. It also has 4500 crew members! Building it requires a vast infrastructure, maintaining it... huge amounts of time / money. Operating it... vast resources. It is the asset of a government... not a person. It is protected by a huge battle group because losing it can be the end of a conflict... not just a battle.

This game allows anyone who hordes money and waits for skills to suddenly own such a ship. This is the reason you have to nerf it... these are the ONLY two game mechanics in place!

CPP if you wanna fix this... you need to add more game mechanics that effect ships like these. The fix is the same order of magnitude as what you are going thru to fix the T2 lottery... and yes it would be a pain in the arse ( and cause some grief from players )... but anyway -my thoughts.

-Lets just say the carrier as it is now is demoted, nerfed or countered but some new ship class making it less of a carrier -personally I say leave em be for now. Allow NEW SUPER CARRIERS to only be OWNED by a corp. ( Motherships & Titans -alliances ).

-A criteria would have to be established to rate a corps size / capability... this would determine the number of carriers it could support. ( maybe tax generation, total active online time of all it's members... ect: )

-The same idea as above for construction... and make it so multiple parties must be involved ( players ) to complete a construction. ( scale manufacturing efforts by more than just time & parts ) Scale all aspects of the games with regards to capitals so that it requires multiple players. ( kinda goes with the teamwork aspect of the game...! )

-The sale of super-capitals is only from corp to corp or alliance to alliance.

-Any pilot can train for it... but the opportunity to pilot it comes from access to one and proper roles within a corp... Make it so no-one can pilot a carrier without the corp being a certain size rating ( as described above ) so dummy corps arent created just so carriers can still solo.

-Increase the cost of skill books for all capitals 10 fold or more ( including titan )...

-THEN MAKE CAPITALS POWERFUL AGAIN...! yet vulnerable without support of a fleet.

If the mechanics of this game made capitals rare, vulnerable & powerfull, and only possessed by corps with the manpower, money and infrastructure to support them... THEN they would truly be rare and used as intended.

If you examine this issue closer you'll find this effects ALL ship classes and all ships. Without changes of this nature EVERY ship becomes the subject of the nerf. If everyone can get into the best ship...and you nerf it, then it's only a matter of players learning what the next best ship is... then process repeats itself... and CPP nerfs it.

CPP change the mechanics to fix the PROBLEM... nerfing ship capability at every turn only compounds the problem down the road... this lesson should have been learned many times before.

-------

One last unrelated thought... don't allways nerf by killing what the ship can do...

Think about it... in real life if something gets to powerfull... it;s only a matter of time before a couter-measure is created. It would fit the storyline of the game for some weapon's inventor, at this time, to invent an ANTI-CARRIER weapon to counter the sudden vast amounts of carriers in use.

Would some players object -SURE.

But, I would bet some would except it... it's another challenge for them, maintains that the game is evolving forward... ( not nerfed backward )... and they didn't train for nothing!

-Joe Smiles

Lahila Astravnar
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:02:00 - [1072]
 

- Call actual carrier Light Carriers,
- remove remote repair on all ships save very dedicated ships, as logistic ones. - Allow fighters repair on board with spare consumption.
- Reduce cargo space of the light carriers and remove the fitted ships transport feature.
- Give the jump gate feature to light carriers.
- give back some money to light carriers owners.

Fighting:
at moment is very easy to put down fighters (16M each one !) and leave a scambled carrier undefended. After a carrier is been dumpened, fighters can attack no more. So what's the problem? Change the production cost of a carrier, but don't nerf the actual fighting features please.

PS: sorry for my clumsy english.

Ericca Slais
Posted - 2007.11.14 15:36:00 - [1073]
 

This is just a way for CCP to try and make the game easier for new players to compete with the older players. Rather then have them have to spend the next year training up there skills and learning the basics and advanced tactis that they need. CCP dosent care what we think nor do they really want to know they only care about if we pay that we continue to pay. But just like all good things EVE will come to a ned do to there own stupidty

Clorthos
Gallente
The Maverick Navy
Posted - 2007.11.14 17:01:00 - [1074]
 

I agree capital ships vs the under 12 month player is a huge deal for the newer player, however instead of actually doing somethign to help the newer player get sp faster ... like assign sp bonus to some missions so the newer player can get the 15th faction mission and get a bonus to help them learn faster. (just an idea to help the playerbase)

Instead of adding to the game, ccp has taken away from the game in attempts to have carrier pilots require more help and therefore put the newer player in potential command of a carrier's fighters and helping on a camp or pos kill.

Honestly do you think I would ever assign 200 mil worth of ships to a guy that may afk and let gate rats pop them?

There are a lot of different ways to help the new player help the old player and help things remain stable or a little more stable than training up to have it all taken away or at least another 6 months of training to use effectivly.

Loney
CyberDyne R-D
Posted - 2007.11.14 21:43:00 - [1075]
 

Originally by: Clorthos
I agree capital ships vs the under 12 month player is a huge deal for the newer player, however instead of actually doing somethign to help the newer player get sp faster ... like assign sp bonus to some missions so the newer player can get the 15th faction mission and get a bonus to help them learn faster.


This is a not a good idea... If you want to "learn" faster and get "POWERLEVELED" go play WOW. Everyone learning at the same pace is what make EVE unique from other games and prevents some NEWBIE having a lvl 70 character in 1 weeks time!

There is NO REASON EVER that a 2 week or even 2 year old character should EVER has nearly as many skillpoints as a player that has been playing for 5 years!

Best Regards,
Loney

Reservoir'Dog
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2007.11.15 03:42:00 - [1076]
 

"No one person can afford a U.S. Super carrier... hell no one person can afford to fuel the thing."


I don't think a single person can afford a Perry Class Frigate either....Confused



Samurai XII
Posted - 2007.11.15 09:11:00 - [1077]
 

Originally by: Reservoir'Dog
"No one person can afford a U.S. Super carrier... hell no one person can afford to fuel the thing."


I don't think a single person can afford a Perry Class Frigate either....Confused





OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!

Damned Force
Minmatar
Republic Military School
Posted - 2007.11.15 10:38:00 - [1078]
 

Originally by: Loney
Originally by: Clorthos
I agree capital ships vs the under 12 month player is a huge deal for the newer player, however instead of actually doing somethign to help the newer player get sp faster ... like assign sp bonus to some missions so the newer player can get the 15th faction mission and get a bonus to help them learn faster.


This is a not a good idea... If you want to "learn" faster and get "POWERLEVELED" go play WOW. Everyone learning at the same pace is what make EVE unique from other games and prevents some NEWBIE having a lvl 70 character in 1 weeks time!

There is NO REASON EVER that a 2 week or even 2 year old character should EVER has nearly as many skillpoints as a player that has been playing for 5 years!

Best Regards,
Loney


Agree
It was a huge sux already that players who made his char 2 weeks after my main got 800k beginning, for what i was needed to train a month!
Is ok they want new players, but why to blame the old ones. I train years to be a nice carrier pilot and than a 6month old noob should be better. Thats idiotic.

I hate u devs, because u think just on the new money and not on the old players which ones payed for your checks in last years

Joe Smiles
do you
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2007.11.15 11:23:00 - [1079]
 

Originally by: Samurai XII
Originally by: Reservoir'Dog
"No one person can afford a U.S. Super carrier... hell no one person can afford to fuel the thing."


I don't think a single person can afford a Perry Class Frigate either....Confused





OWNED!!!!!!!!!!!!



lol... your correct of course... but the SCALE of things in this game is much larger not? ( It is a space game... and you are BORN owning a frigate! ) So lets say you can OWN a frigate just by "being born"... then everything else would scale up in the same manner... and a battleship would eventually be possible ( and realistic in this context ) to own as well... all that said... I still believe capital ships should not be possible to acquire thru skills and isk alone. They should also not be personal property.

Fixing this would help end the need to nerf ship capabilities again and again, because every player can allways obtain the best solo ship ...and why wouldn't they?

Good ahead argue the carrier nerf... CPP is nerfing it, like it or not.
and the sig...

Fight for you right to veto stupid design decisions?

Nerfing carriers is a response TO a stupid design decision. Your years too late to veto!

Until they accept and commit to fixing the ROOT CAUSE of this problem then nerf's are the only option. They wont be ABLE to stop nerfing till the game is unplayable.

-Joe Smiles


Velas Opium
Posted - 2007.11.16 16:43:00 - [1080]
 

ccp u suck tbh


Pages: first : previous : ... 30 31 32 33 34 35 [36] 37 38 : last (38)

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only