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

John McCreedy
Caldari
Eve Defence Force
Posted - 2007.11.17 01:02:00 - [1081]
 

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





Most people in real life could never hope to have $4.5 bn lying about (the cost of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier) but in Eve, that kind of money is very achievable and many, many players have well in excess of that. Also bear in mind that an Eve Online Carrier costs around 900 million ISK, which is considerably less than than the real world price tag of $4.5 bn.

Assuming it was as easy in real life to make billions of Dollars/Pounds/Euros or whatever currency you wish to choose, we all could easily afford to have Aircraft Carriers as our personal play things. My advice would be to stay away from drawing real life comparrisons with a game since the very point of a game is escapism and suspended belief.


Marcus Tedric
Gallente
Tedric Enterprises
Crimson Steel Empire
Posted - 2007.11.17 09:30:00 - [1082]
 

Originally by: John McCreedy


Most people in real life could never hope to have $4.5 bn lying about (the cost of a Nimitz class aircraft carrier) ......



I'd recheck that source - out by a factor of 10 I believe....

Single B2 Stealh bomber costs over $2.1bn.

RL analogies aren't really relevant, but if they were then our current carriers are really more like the small escort carriers produced in WWII - or perhaps even the oddly named 'through deck cruisers' that the Royal Navy currently have - air wings of about 15 planes/helicopters.

Best change I could think of for carriers/motherships would be if they could use the same numbers of drones for local defence (or just have a drone boost for all damage/repair/ecm strength etc (bit like Moros) as that would keep down drone numbers) - but they have proper two-way Clone Vat Bays and real pilots to fly the Fighters/Ships in bays.

Clones that are real and can use Implants and are held in the unpackaged clone vat bay just like stations/outposts.

Clone Vat Bays are different to the regular ones - you can jump too and from a specific one once per day (so you can jump, do a 2-6hr op and jump back) - and/or also allow pilots to re-dock with the carrier/mom and jump with it.

Then they'll only be fully useful with gang mates, but not impossibly weak on their own.

Joe Smiles
do you
-Mostly Harmless-
Posted - 2007.11.17 16:37:00 - [1083]
 

I'm drawing real life comparisons only to show that game mechanics could employ more RL mechanisms to make ships in general more rare for realistic reasons.

This was my main point... I find nerfing offensive... the game is played by players in a linear progressive fashion... yet the "advances of the game" progress backward! Nerfing should be reserved for evening out a ships capability -not for proliferation control... after the fact. Meh.

I agree with this being a space-game and not RL... totally agree... but it is obvious from at least the carrier perspective, that CPP feels they should be as rare as and used like the carriers in modern naval operations. If this is truly a problem then a mechanic to such an end should have been implemented. Wanted to drive this home... I despise "fixes" that do nothing to prevent the problem from occuring all over again a while later.

Perhaps RL comparisons on the part of CPP is part of the problem as well. CPP should perhaps stop making real-world references all together. Half the ship base refers to naval operations.

-A couple more of my cents.



Cade 90
Posted - 2007.11.18 17:32:00 - [1084]
 

Cancelled my second account because of this nerf. (Transferred my alt to the primary account before doing so).
Was using the account for a cyno alt to support carrier play, but since carriers will be only useful in fleet ops after the nerf, dont need it any longer. Suggest that if any others are doing likewise, they post here and in the cancellation popup when they do cancel. If CCP sees a significant revenue issue, they might reconsider. Otherwise, they will feel free to trash a years worth of player effort while by adding "improvements" which no one seems to want. Why dont they simply throw up a page on their site that would let players log in and vote yea or nay on proposed game enhancements? If they are about to make drastic changes, let the player base vote their preference. Spending dev time and money on changes that we dont want, versus the ones that we do, doesn't seem all that logical.

Scarcus
Caldari
Stain of Mind
Posted - 2007.11.19 06:33:00 - [1085]
 

Capital ships were released overpowered from the get-go and trying to pull them back into reality is going to fail bigtime. First of all, capitals should have had the "once you are in it, you stay in it" tag just like the titan's. That would have reduced their numbers. Nerfing them with all the crybaby lifers in eve is a joke. They will always want their "I Win" button. Good luck with that.




TypoNinja
Caldari
Void Angels
The Church.
Posted - 2007.11.20 23:19:00 - [1086]
 

This has already been done to death, the only people speaking out in favour of this are characters who are too young and died in gate camps when they had no business leaving empire space.

CCP is going about this backwards, games don't devolve they evolve, and while the nerf bat occasionally is necessary (nano tank anyone?) it should never be the first option.

If carriers are popular and doing everything in the capital ship area then look at WHY this is happening.

If you see carriers being used for a half a dozen roles don't nerf a carrier give us 6 new capital ship types designed to fill that role and blow the carrier away for that use.

Give us a jump freighter, Give us a capital logistics ship thats worth a fart in a vac suit, give us a REAL carrier that can move a group of battleships around. Give us a capital fighter/drone platform that sacrifices cargo space for more sensors so it can actually lock up smaller ships at reasonable times. This list goes on, pick a role and beef it.

Do this and then people will drop plain old carriers like last weeks garbage (Or simply use them for stepping stones) people will go the the specialist version for what they want.

Weather you do this by whole new ships, or simply some kind of reconfig module, or a whole new item slot that when fitted makes the base carrier into what ever variant is immaterial.

Whats important is you can expand your game, address any possible issues with the carrier AND give more functionality and options to the capital class, without alienating your player base, and in a subscription game where you need us to stay happy and keep playing so that you get to keep eating thats a very large benefit.

Part of the reason carriers are used for just about anything is because the OTHER capital ships possible uses are too limited. Any of the tier two ships are straight out, since they aren't 'entry' level capital ships (if i can get away with entry level and capital in the same sentence?).

That leaves us with a carrier a dreadnought an a rorqual.

Of the three the rorqual is most certainly not a combat ship, PURE mining and logistical support there, so at this stage i ask my self if i want to fight in my capital or not. If the answer is no, i get a rorqual, if the answer is yes we go on to...

Dreadnought vs Carrier.

Well lets see here, Dread's are only really good for killing other capital ships and POS's, with perhaps a side order of BS smackdown, but the limited mobility of a capital ship means this baby only comes out for the BIG fights. A very usefull and nessicary role but not something im going to spend all day in.

A carrier, well damn this is an easy choice now isn't it? This ship isn't very good at any one thing, but its got a few uses and if my corp has any 0.0 presence at all it will e quite useful.

You see what happened there? lack of alternatives. very narrowly defined ship roles are not an issue when you have dozens upon dozens of options like in the cruiser/hac/commandship/battleship areas, but once you hit capitals your's stuck with a paltry 5 ships across the whole set, to underline how ridiculously small that selection is keep in mind that the gallente get EIGHT options for simply moveing freight around. The five iterons, two transport ships, and a freighter.

The answer to this issue isn't to mess with what we already have, its to give us more new ships.

Clorthos
Gallente
The Maverick Navy
Posted - 2007.11.21 16:23:00 - [1087]
 

They are giving you more ships to cover more roles, but

jump frieghters are going to have to be invented from frieghter bpc's (30 days to copy and with fail rates WTF CCP)

no logistics yet but watch for it, they will so something to help move all the ammo and stront to the pos killing sites, that prolly takes 300 more days to train up to.

The truth of the matter is that people using carriers and more pointedly motherships to gate camp in low sec is the cause of this "correction". And once the carrier type ship was on the butcher block to get corrected the flood gates came loose and everyone got thier chance to put in thier idea on what needs to be changed.

Apperently nobody at CCP likes the carriers in thier ability to do 5 or 6 things ok, not great but just .... ok. The only thing that it has shown is that the player base is using this ship as a swiss army knife since it has been foced to so play in deep 0.0 or the smaller corp/alliance where jump ships and pos's to park cyno alts is the only option.

The ideas are epic fails, and the bigger fail is ccp failing to listen since the changes are still rolling downhill.


CEO Saffron
Posted - 2007.11.25 12:46:00 - [1088]
 

I have to say something about this change and some of the opinions posted. This is one of the most opposed changes ever in eve. There doesnt appear to be much if any of a change in ccps plans in fact they posted suggestions got flamed then posted the suggestions in full only delaying the changes.

A carrier requires investment in time and isk.... changing goalposts is one of the biggest problems in eve as training for a carrier costs substantial isk (2x the avg isk per account in eve). And it costs money..... i think what people need is a clearer idea of the future of eve so that skills can be better planned. For example some people have trained for carriers may wanted to have actually have trained for the t2 frieghters which do not require the cap ship skill (450 mil) and adv spaceship command to 5 (months training). Carriers have been used in solo pvp since they first appeared on the test server so there was plenty of indecation that with 10/10 complex money an alliance could use them en mass like RA AAA BOB and the MC do. It is not the fault of these alliances for doing this it is simply that is a tactic that works and they have the isk to do it.

As for people blaming low sec pirates this isnt really the issue anymore as according to another thread and a dev or 2 you weill be able to tackle motherships in low sec using heavy interdictors and scripts [i really hope thats not a hoax Embarassed.

For me the reason ccp want to limit ships that can perform multiple roles is simple... MONEY. The more you have to train down different paths the more time in eve is required this applies across all ships in eve they are after all a business we should not be suprised by such design choices.

Now one statement was very important they said they dont want carriers to be able to fight smaller tagets and battleships. Basically this means that normal drones will likely not be allowed in the fighter bay in the future. This is not really related to a carriers capabilities in pvp as its very easy for a pilot to evade a carrier using speed in pvp... it is related to using drones in the fighter bay for mineral compression.



Chronnick Bladerunner
Posted - 2007.11.25 20:58:00 - [1089]
 

OK, I have to put my thoughts in too,

What you want is:
"* Encourages people to bring support vessels with their capital fleet"

OMFG YOU KNOW THAT STATEMENT IS LUDICROUS!!! YOU ALREADY NEED IT NOW!!! Is like saying "Encourages people to put things into the slots of their ship" Is something that doesn't NEED ENCOURAGING, have a billion isk carrier go poof to a roaming gang ...COME ON WAKE UP!

* Increase team play and make the low skill point, non-capital pilots more valuable in fleet combat

OMFG!! So SERIOUSLY, the best answer you guys come up with is to NERF the Carrier, which we all know takes the biggest time and skill investment, instead of BOOSTING the "low skillpoint non-capital pilots" ship selection or effectiveness?
I guess its true,,,Its always easier to destroy than to create.
The EW frigates are an excellent start M'Kay?

* A standard Carrier pilot (10 fighters) will need at least one "wingman" to field all his fighters.
* Delegation control is much easier with the improved gang member list and the new "watch list"


Another weak and BAD idea at trying to integrate gang members.
I can guess you all brainstorm in a room into the wee hours of the morning..trying to come up with viable solutions to the perceived dilemma, however methinks your early hour debates have made your choices of solutions somewhat suspect.
I., and I would say most Carrier pilots from what I have been reading.. DO NOT want 100 million Isk of fighters (read OUR ASSETS) in control of someone else...Those precious few seconds required to communicate to gang members,add that into their response time... coupled with game and internet lag..and you just lost yourself a good chunk of isk...perhaps it was all you could do to afford that last 10th fighter and now you only have 5. we all dont have steady Isk flow to cover continuously losing 5 fighters from gang assignment.

* We definitely don't want Carriers to be parked at starbases, they should be at the front lines keeping their gang mates alive.

M'Kay.. Well with the "proposed" changes thats exactly where they'll be gravitating to.

* Carriers are also receiving a ship maintenance bay / corporation hanger boost, allowing them to bring more ships and modules to the front lines. "

WITH fittings? WITH PILOTS? WITH cargo? UN-PACKAGED?

So what your saying is, I could let my corpmates dock with me..say 5 frigs PLUS 3 cruisers PLUS a couple of BS's and jump into a battle, then everyone undocks out of my hanger and deploys straight into combat? Yep GREAT EFFIN idea!

Thats TOTALLY OK with me!

AGAIN the "Master of all trades" ONLY happens when properly FITTED...taking time and a cap ship hanger.
Yeah it can do alot of things "Jack o' all trades" but again when in such mode it is master of none!
WAKE UP.. Dont stay up so late trying to wrack your brains.. try getting some sleep. THEN have all the people at CCP thinking carriers need nerfing ..jump into one on SISI..
All us Carrier pilots will jump into cruisers snd frigates and decimate you.

" there are 10,000 carriers in the game"
So?
What are BS stats? BC? Cruisers? frigs? shuttles?
Plz give us something which which to compare your seemingly "big" number. Lobbing a number out of the blue makes it sound impressive..but probably is relatively low compared to total amount of ships..again I'd site server based decisions as a major contributing factor.

Gazer Loki
Posted - 2007.11.30 01:41:00 - [1090]
 

Ive read through i don't know how many posts saying sorta the same thing, but for the sake of saving the ship i have got to get my opinion in there.

"Fighting off any kind of foe" i can see where you can get this idea.. until you are part of a small 6 man gang in nothing bigger then cruisers that are able to keep a carrier there for 20 mins till people gather and pop it. The fact of the mater is yes they can deploy a lot of drones, but if you have a 2bill + ship (yes market price is 900 mill but toss in insurance fittings etc and its not cheep) id like to be able to fight off a a group of ships that are worth about 4% of what i payed to field mine. enough said

"jump capable haulers" Trinity just fixed that no and now my dread can carry just a little less then my carrier. By removing the ability to carry filled indy ships you have just taken away half the capacity not to mention adding jump freighters.

"Great logistics ship" Ok setting aside the whole 50+ carrier spider tanking thing, carriers are decent in this role but isn't that what you want them to be used for? i remember something to the effect of being more involved in front lines, or have we changed our minds again? The fact is unlike bob and good swarm not every alliance can field 50+ carrier's But rather then totally nerfing this ability why no make it so olny X number of capital repers can be used on any 1 ship? oh sorry that would take to much coding your looking for a quick mess over i forgot.... fact is yes 50+ cap repers does make a ship enter god mode and yes that needs to be changed

"Excellent support ships" Support as in jumping pos fuel to poses inside enemie space sure ships have you ever flown a ship in an alliance ? Ive never been told after loosing a bs in an encounter, "go grab another ship from one of our carriers," that just happen to be full of alliance ships for who ever to use. As far as assigning fighters, have you ever had to replace a bay of 10 fighters because you decided to assign fighters to some idiot that sends em after a gang who warps away and proceeds to web scramble and kill 18 mill 1 fighter at a time? bet not

a couple points

Cost : as far as carriers go even with insurance and Minimal fittings and fighter load, loosing one is 700+ mill i don't know about you but i don't often have more then a couple bill sitting in my wallet and i am considered quite well of by a lot of people.. the fact is that carriers are not cheap to field and fly and every time i fly mine i already make sure i have a full support fleet with me. Fighters on the same hand are are as costly as a couple cruisers and are about as dumb as a sack of nail i send out 10 and before damage even shows up i garentee the enemies support fleet has at least 3 or 4 webbed so that i can pretty much kiss them bye bye

Motherships: i have been mostly talking about carriers here but why are we even considering nerfing Motherships, how many players can say they have had one on there death mail? the fact is there just no good enough as it is... no one in there right mind would take one into another fleet without a massive amount of CAPITAL support. We just are not seeing enough use out of the Super capitals (titan, ms) because the fact is for the amount they cost its just to easy for a well prepared fleet to take one out and with the addition of cruisers that can bubble your going to see a lot less capitals get away cuz the dictor went down

Final note, CCP get your bloody brain in motion thats why we pay you per month. Nerfing something is never the answer, tweaking or countering on the other hand is never a bad thing. And the dark side your really not looking at is with these kicks in the balls your proposing your going to see eather a massive decrease in there usages for anything other then hauling or your just gonna see them being popped like they were bs's which causes the demand for "illegal isk buy" to go out the roof to make up the difference.

Valadeya uthanaras
GK inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.11.30 06:09:00 - [1091]
 

I will make it short:


STOP WAISTING TIME ON STUFF LIKE CARRIER AND MOM WICH ARE FINE


AND GET ON THE AMARR CASE ASAP, STOP THE DAM ...we don't know how to boost them.....AND START TESTING YOUR PLAYERS ADVICES

I AM SURE YOU WILL COME ACCROSS A SOLUTION THAT WILL PLEASE YOU

from 1 dev:

sleipnir with only 220 mm autocannon deal 620 dps, 0 cap use

absolution with heavy pulse laser deal 620 dps, 15cap/s use...

OHHHH ITS BALANCE...right......

dammit one trade tracking for range, and the one with range CANT CONTROL RANGE

ohhhh... its not broken....

OH AND ONE CAN SELECT TYPE of damage.....other is stuck with the worst one...EM

booohoohooo

FIX AMARR THEN THINK ABOUT NERFING STUFF LIKE CARRIERMadMadMadMadMadMadMadMadMadMadMadMadMadMadMadMadMadMadMad

Typo91
Posted - 2007.11.30 20:16:00 - [1092]
 

Clearly CCP isn't reading this, or stoped reading it probably around page 8

Disposeable Idiot
Posted - 2007.12.01 01:00:00 - [1093]
 

Edited by: Disposeable Idiot on 01/12/2007 01:01:31
Wrong char

Edited by: Disposeable Idiot on 01/12/2007 01:00:29

raisn cain
Posted - 2007.12.01 01:02:00 - [1094]
 

Months of training billions of isk spent to train and buy the ships and modules and now it get reduced to a POS hugging piece of junk? The price and the effort justifice all the roles it can perform. Now we have to rely on gangs to use the ship we worked so hard for. I am already looking forward to the next big battle where I hang at a POS wondering how the fight is going and cheer when I can repair a gang member and send him of to have all the fun.

Oh.. The nerf so you cannot put in loaded haulers... WTF? Ammo you can take but other equipment not? One hauler will fit in the shipmaintanance bay.. One hauler carries about a week of POS fuel. yeah that really needed nerfingNeutral..

From all the nerfs I seen in the time I play this really makes me think you guys play WOW in youre spare time. You have no clue on what goes on in youre own game and how hard it can be to keep up logistics.

Cain.


Darknesss
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2007.12.01 02:13:00 - [1095]
 

CCP, look to the market, just your mentioning these nerfs has taken MS sales down from 30+ billion to 20ish billion. And i dont think thats supply/demand, you can pick up a carrier on contracts for 760 million isk. Before your proposed changes the price was around 1.1 billion.

Everything to do with carriers/motherships has dropped in price and you've only mentioned the possibility of changes. I would say maybe 1 in 100 people find remote repairing someone enjoyable, would a person risk a 1 billion isk ship to remote rep someone... of course not.

Motherships currently are i would say relatively balanced, you're bringing out heavy interdcitors, you already have smaller interdcitors, low sec camping is out the window. When Trinity comes you will have achieved what you wanted to achieve, you will have a ship which can be held down by a small gang, a large ship that CAN defend itself against smaller ships but still has a weakness to them.

The simple fact is the idea is not practical, nor ideal for any pilot in Eve. This is an age of eve where 500+ gangs are achievable, what the hell is a remote rep gonna do.

And to end on my whine, i've been training skills for my Mothership for probably 4-5 months in total... "we're sorry" doesnt quite cut it.


Zaethiel
Infinity Research
Posted - 2007.12.01 04:11:00 - [1096]
 

TBH i dont why im bothering to reply to this topic. Not like CCP plays the game at all.

Quote:
Fighting off any kind of foe, small or big. Most have a set of fighters and a lot of normal drones in their drone bay. This means they can choose drones / fighters based on their enemy's size, choose their damage type and even be quite effective jammers using ewar drones.


They might be very versatile with drones, but even with 12 fighters a Carrier can killed by 6 BS. They might win every 1v1 but Carriers are already useless without support. As for Motherships they are atm only an end game ship because they can't be warp scrambled. With the Hac-Dictors soon the be in game, you will find that even 20 fighters won't save motherships from being locked down and killed. Its rediculous to see that a MoM was killed in low sec already with it being immune to warp disruption.

Quote:
Great logistics ships - They've got plenty of capacitor to be very effective logistics ships using capital sized logistic modules. Triage mode can be very effective in small scale fleet combat when applied correctly.


They are great logistics ships. Sadly "logistic ships" are rather useless in PvP and well if you use a carrier in PvE it will most likely be killed. I've already killed severeal in missions. All they will good for is repping a POS.

Quote:
Jump capable haulers - Although not an intended role, they're currently being used as jump capable haulers, which is probably the safest way to transport stuff from empire space to 0.0 and vice versa.


I can understand why you feel the need to stop them from hauling stuff but you are going about it in the wrong way. With jump freighters being tech 2 it will take a good 2-3 weeks before someone who already has every single skill trained ready to go can actually start to produce some. Those will cost extreme amounts. The fact remains that it will take months to fully integrate them into the market system. There will be a downtime where the only way to fuel 0.0 towers is run haulers from empire jump bridges and titans. or just jump by jump. You may think well thats not that bad, but there are some people whos only reliable way of getting fuel is carrier jumping. CCP should only implent this after jump freights have time to be integrating into the market.

Quote:
Excellent support ships - They can bring ships and modules behind enemy lines, are capable of fighter delegation and able to help damage-wise with minimal exposure to the enemy.


So this is the one ability you chose to leave them with. Well the moving things behind the lines thing is rather useless now, but they can delegate fighters woot (sarcasm). You say over 10,000 carriers in play. I would be surprised to see those carriers being destroyed if all they do is sit at POS's and delegate drones. Now there is less money sink in the game.

Quote:
* Encourages people to bring support vessels with their capital fleet


Lets encourage blob tactics more.

Quote:
* Increase teamplay and make the low skillpoint, non-capital pilots more valuable in fleet combat


I guess i should buy another computer if im going to create 3 new trial accounts to delegate my fighters to. Or just run them as Minimum base charecters on my other 2 accounts.

Quote:
* A standard Carrier pilot (10 fighters) will need at least one "wingman" to field all his fighters.


and the name of my wing man will be leihteaz. thats Zaethiel backwards.

Quote:
* Delegation control is much easier with the improved gang member list and the new "watch list"


makes it easier to delegate drones to my alts woot. (sarcasm)

Zaethiel
Infinity Research
Posted - 2007.12.01 04:12:00 - [1097]
 

Edited by: Zaethiel on 02/12/2007 07:39:20
Quote:
* We definitely don't want Carriers to be parked at starbases, they should be at the front lines keeping their gang mates alive.


WHAT? How do you figure the changes will promote this any more than it already is done? You reduce a carriers usefulness on grid as a support ship by reducing its damage output. You just said you want them to sit at POS's and delegate drones. You are contradicting yourselves.

Quote:
* Carriers are also receiving a ship maintenance bay / corporation hanger boost, allowing them to bring more ships and modules to the front lines.


Thats nice, but it depends on the amount. Since i could fit 36k worth of ships in my impel + HACs and Ceptors in my bay already.


EDIT: I killed the conversation with Logic =(
Also, why don't carriers get all 3 remote bonus'? Amarr cant even repair most POS shields =(
Large Medium and Small Remote boosters/transfers should be boosted range wise tbh. Maybe not Large as much as small and medium.

Three11
Posted - 2007.12.04 00:21:00 - [1098]
 

If I read correctly, we will no longer be able to use our carriers to transport industrial ships with cargo.

I didn't get a character capable of transporting Starbase fuel in a carrier to watch it get nerfed 2 months later. Your vision of the future Eve universe is appalling. You are destroying your customers' confidence in your ability to run an online game properly. You have just made it so that people are going to have to spend vastly more time hauling crap around, watching more of it get blown up, just to run their starbases, which already COST a GREAT DEAL to run. Don't give me any line about jump freighters either. It's a completely different skill set that carrier pilots should never have to embark on.

I do not want to spend MORE time than I already do, hauling more items around!! NO ONE WANTS TO!! Do you understand that CCP? NO ONE WANTS TO HAUL MORE CRAP AROUND. We want to PLAY THE GAME. That means more than JUST HAULING, since apparently you haven't noticed.

You've destroyed an entire races' purpose with your Trintiy nerfs already.

STOP MESSING WITH THE REST.

We are SICK of your ARROGANCE, poor customer relations and general "who gives a damn what the players want" attitide when it comes to these matters.

If you want to nerf something, start with the paychecks of the CCP employees ruining OUR game (seeing as our money pays for YOUR jobs).

Show some resepct. I think we've paid for it.

IamBen
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.12.04 01:29:00 - [1099]
 

this carrier nerf is totally uneeded. Is the limiting of drones still going to be in effect? Because if so than the thanatos just became the worst of the carriers :(

Evil Biatx
Posted - 2007.12.06 02:05:00 - [1100]
 

Leave CCP ALONECrying or Very sad.


Admiral Nova
Strike Team Nova
Posted - 2007.12.06 05:18:00 - [1101]
 

Edited by: Admiral Nova on 06/12/2007 05:29:16
Now that this ship can no longer do 3 of the 6 things mentioned in this blog, is it time for a revisit ?

Also, carrier vs frigate... have any of the devs ever tried to lock a frigate in one ?

Mawnee
Posted - 2007.12.06 09:02:00 - [1102]
 

So what happened to the carrier nerf being 3 months away ?! CCP has gained the ability to warp time and space....that in addition to its innate ability to pi$$ off its hardest working playerbase.....

Vx15i
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2007.12.06 17:41:00 - [1103]
 

This is a very valid reason to think about canceling. It takes far too long to train up to fly a carrier, only to have what can only be described as a poorly reasoned and implemented nerf make all that time and money spent completely worthless.

I renewed my accounts for 30 days instead of the usual 90 to get my ships docked in station and other affairs in order, so that maybe if CCP ever starts listening and reverses this silly nerf, I can start playing again.

So, no, you can't have my stuff.

I don't see the problem with the carrier being a jack of all trades. It has significant weaknesses and using it is a tremendous risk. But at the very least, if you are going to nerf the carrier, come up with something that makes sense, and at implement improvements at the same time instead of waiting.

IamBen
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.12.07 03:19:00 - [1104]
 

logged in to my thanatos today... Yeah. wow. Nice, there goes a good ship, now useless.

Shmekla
Gallente
Rim Collection RC
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2007.12.13 11:44:00 - [1105]
 

I can't fly carrier yet, but as it stands now, I see that Thanatos for example, have 375 Mb db, that means that it can launch 15 heavy T2 drones. That nearly 3 BS dps as support.
motherships have nearly doubled db.
Also drone are relatively free compared to fighters so it's not big risk assign them to you gang mate .

Regarding fighters Thanatos can launch also 15 of them .Old thanatos could launch 10 fighters only with maxed skills.

So is carrier are so useless, if it can nearly double small fleet (around 3-4 BS) DPS only with it's drones (even more with fighters, but as I understand only several would assign them to others ) and also there goes remote armor repair or shield boost?

Andreas Kallesoee
Celestial Horizon Corp.
United Corporate Ventures
Posted - 2007.12.13 19:39:00 - [1106]
 

Originally by: Shmekla
I can't fly carrier yet, but as it stands now, I see that Thanatos for example, have 375 Mb db, that means that it can launch 15 heavy T2 drones. That nearly 3 BS dps as support.
motherships have nearly doubled db.
Also drone are relatively free compared to fighters so it's not big risk assign them to you gang mate .

Regarding fighters Thanatos can launch also 15 of them .Old thanatos could launch 10 fighters only with maxed skills.

So is carrier are so useless, if it can nearly double small fleet (around 3-4 BS) DPS only with it's drones (even more with fighters, but as I understand only several would assign them to others ) and also there goes remote armor repair or shield boost?


Ordenary drones dont have warp drives and wont follow you around the system and the max number of drones are still controlled by your carrier skill and your adv. drone control skill and the number of drone controll units you have on your carrier.

About the remote rep, well i have to lock people first and in a laggy inviroment they will be dead before i can manage that and triage mode is still suicide

Shmekla
Gallente
Rim Collection RC
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2007.12.14 09:54:00 - [1107]
 

Yes, number of directly controlled drones depends on you skill but you can launch 5, assign them, launch 5 more and so one. Total numbers of drones would be 15 and it not depends on your skill only on db, as I understand. Also I see here tactical opportunity like assign 5 drones to interceptor and you get very fast lock time with BS sized DPS.

Zzleeper
Amarr
Dark.. Matter..Inc.
Posted - 2007.12.14 10:27:00 - [1108]
 

Way to go nozh, keep up the good work.

Carriers and moms need to be nerfed!

I approve of this blog!


Andreas Kallesoee
Celestial Horizon Corp.
United Corporate Ventures
Posted - 2007.12.14 11:47:00 - [1109]
 

Originally by: Shmekla
Yes, number of directly controlled drones depends on you skill but you can launch 5, assign them, launch 5 more and so one. Total numbers of drones would be 15 and it not depends on your skill only on db, as I understand. Also I see here tactical opportunity like assign 5 drones to interceptor and you get very fast lock time with BS sized DPS.


ummmm no, it is totaly dependant on your skills, why else whould the ship bonus be +1 fighter pr lvl ?

Budsin Adar
Posted - 2007.12.19 17:36:00 - [1110]
 

to that Disese that Budsin Adar was talking about (HikWorm)if it was not said about it he is right. Also there was huge Bar fight and the 2 people went to medical bay in Jita but were both found to have it and the cure is not that far in EVE yet. They both bashed heads into the bars and walls and had to be knocked out.
2 days later they were dead just from the sickness he as told about. Evil or Very MadMaddarn it 1 was a good pilot to me and the other was his wife.. but they did not need to suffer. HURRY FIND the cure or 25% of the people will fall ill and of those 25% ,73% will die or kill others in the process


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