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 : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

ThisAlt IsUseless
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:41:00 - [91]

create many new carrier, 3-4, each with specific role, like any other ship class right now

then for the current carrier in game, allow the owner to "transfer" his current carrier into a new one in that new list of choice

same with BPO

don't change skill req
don't change build cost

just split the current carrier into multiple one...

StarForged Universal Assembly
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:42:00 - [92]

I for the most part cant see how deligating fighters and increasing ship maintainence and corp hanger will make people want to use these craft on the front lines. They are too easily jammed to be used well as a repair platform on the frontlines of a battle. All i see this new revised idea of yours as doing is making a carrier a mobile POS hugger.

Idea for Carriers and Motherships

Oh and PS. Carriers and Motherships are very easily killed by small fleets of ships. You dont want to end up having 4 of 5 mates babysitting you as ur flying ur ship between lowsec stations. A carrier is a HUGE investment in skill time and ISK, please treat any changes to this ship accordingly. Oh and maybe make it so the ship while in Triage mode can deligate fighters, i think that would make the ship usable on the frontlines of a battle rather than sitting in a POS.

Davlin Lotze
Raging Destruction
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:43:00 - [93]

Edited by: Davlin Lotze on 24/10/2007 03:04:58
Edited by: Davlin Lotze on 24/10/2007 02:47:34
Originally by: CCP kieron
It is obvious that the last Dev Blog concerning some proposed changes to Carriers was the equivalent to kicking the proverbial ant hill. The community's response to potential changes to a favorite ship has been more fierce than we expected. However, that does not change the core idea behind the change to Carriers, that one ship should not be able to do everything and do so effectively without penalty.

We've listened to the feedback, discussed the proposed changes and have another proposed list of changes. We do not see a problem with a ship being a jack of all trades and as long as it is a master of none, but when the ship is a master of all trades, then it departs from the original design concept.

We hope the new proposed changes will be more palatable than the previous. To find out what those proposed changes are, please read Carriers, the Swiss Army Knife of EVE???

Not good enough. Sorry guys, what we need to hear you say is as follows:

1) As an empirical fact, carriers and motherships are NOT overpowered.

2) That you will stop this farce of "balancing" according to the whines of some foolish players who get smartbombed at a low sec gate by a mothership. As if somehow this is evidence of Motherships being "solopwnmobiles."

3) That you have actually taken the time to talk to Mothership pilots. Or maybe, just look at recent Mothership survivability experience. HINT: They are dropping like flies already...even in low sec. I dare say a group of 1 dozen ships could kill a mom in low sec. It's all about the cap **** baby :) Ofc, had you asked ANY mothership pilot they would have told you this.

Here's a short TO DO list, if you desire\care enough:

1) Look at the x13 kill of a mothership in low sec.

LOOK AT THE FRAPS, again and again and again.......

Alot of people discount it saying that "well, he was a n00b by being at a gate." How ******ed and misinformed. HE could have been at a busted safespot, outside a station, anywhere, and the x13 hit would have succeeded. What x13 did was take away his ability to jump and bracket him physically with dreads\carriers. A very nicely placed cyno I might add. He wasnt going anywhere, couldn't jump after just a few seconds of cap rapage, and could not warp because he was being bumped by large object carefully placed around him.

Summary: Until the factual basis from which your balancing starts is changed, the entire balancing enterprise on your part is doomed and every carrier\mom pilot would do well to go ahead and cancel their account despite the "temporary repudiation" of Zulus meanderings.

Scorched Evil
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:45:00 - [94]

I wouldnt mind if there were a few types of carriers, but only if their roles were built upon and improved... not nerfed.

The idea that our technology gets worse through time is just dumb.

Salia Deluri
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:47:00 - [95]

The carrier is Jack of all trades master of none.
To try and make it master at any one thing is a bit ridiculous.

So I pose this.

If you plan to do this then it should take at least 10 frigs to scram and damp a carrier.
You keep goign to balance the big ships but do nothign to the smalls.
A frig bumping a capital or warp scrambling it while the capital can't hit it.
come on be real..

Cyan Nuevo
Dudes In Crazy Killing Ships
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:47:00 - [96]

Stop with this whole listening to your customers thing, people might not be able to make SOE references anymore! Oh wait, of course they will...

I definitely agree that something must be done and also liked the original idea, but oh well at least we won't have to put up with the screamos as much anymore. But do please try to hurry up and do something before EVE becomes even more capital-infested.

Apocalytica Insomnia
Blue Labs
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.24 02:48:00 - [97]

Edited by: Apocalytica Insomnia on 24/10/2007 02:51:10
2nd part, cause i can only use 4k characters.



I'd recomment taking the ability to prevent Jumping out from Dictor Bubbles, but leave it on heavy Dictors (since not beeing able to warp out and be unharmed to prevent jumping) and Anchoarable Bubbles. and perhaps adding a third type of scrambler, that can only fitted on BC and up (PG whise) and prevents Dreads/Carriers from jumping.
End Game

Having watched Alias today, so sorry about the name, but after reading the words "If you can do all that with a single ship, why would EVE need any others?" i thought, how about 2-3 more carrier types? One for Close combat (no logistic Boni) about 1,5 times the cost like current one but with more damage - causing havoc, one for boosting Posses and doing support in Battles, being almost like a Logisticship, fielding 5 drones (no Fighters), but be a real logistics *****. (full rack of Capital Shield/armor/hull remote repair modules) but at half the cost and half the tanking ability.

But then, what to do with the current carriers ? So scrap that, new ships are always bad for the market and everyone, am i right ? (no didn't think that either, but hell).

real Solution

So i'd suggest, you add an additional High-Point on each Carrier/Mothership. You keep the change of carriers you proposed. Then you add 3 Modules to the game. (following numbers might suck, i am no numbers cruncher, but you get the idea!)
  • 1.
  • MOD. boosts non-assigned Fighters damage and hitpoints by 300% when used in close-combat) and makes it possible to add fighters to Drone-bay, but makes it unable to use logistic-drones, Logistic Modules.Removes fitting-Capability, reduces Ship maint-Bay by 75% and Cargo-bay by 50%.
  • 2.
  • Mod boosts efficiency of Logistic Modules, adds 20% Cap-Recharge (to use logistics properly), makes it unable to fit Fighters and E-war. Removes fitting-Capability, reduces Ship maint-Bay by 75% and Cargo-bay by 50%.
  • 3.
  • Mod, Reduces Cap-recharge by 20%. makes it unable to fit Capital Size Highslot logistic modules. Reduces amounts of fighters used directly. Reduces amounts of fighters used directly to 5 (+5 drones at L5)(still able to field 15 fighters, but needs to delegate). Boost Hangar and ship maintbay by 50%. Gives Fitting Capability.

    Rina Tsukimura
    Posted - 2007.10.24 02:55:00 - [98]

    I like the module-fitting approach to role limitation.
    It's a much better idea than the initial suggestion.

    People are going to whine no matter what is proposed;
    unless a skill point refund is announced as well, of course.

    Merin Ryskin
    Peregrine Industries
    Posted - 2007.10.24 02:57:00 - [99]

    Originally by: Athena Volo

    If you must force the carrier to specalize in something, then make sure it does that very well. I'd suggest the following:

    Triage Module: Loose the siege mode. Boosts remote repair at the cost of some (not all!) offsensive capabilities (+repair +cap -extra drones)
    Flight Deck Module: Allows the effective oporation of figters, boosted fighter capability, at the cost of some (not all!) defensive capability (+fighter +drone damage -cap -repair ammount)
    Command Module: Allows the improved use of gang assist modules, with a mild Titan-esque gang bonus, at the cost of being mediocre on offense and defence.(+gang -cap -extra drones)

    Something like this would be a good idea, but not with such severe penalties:

    1) Remove +1 fighter/level and logistics bonuses. Replace them with a general bonus, +5% cap/level or something.

    2) Add +1 low slot for the new modules.

    3) Add the following modules (in-universe rationalization being the vast amount of hull space and power required for these functions). Modules of the same type are NOT cumulative:

    * Expanded fighter decks: allows +1 fighter per level.

    * Improved energy transfer systems: gives the existing logistics bonuses. You can still use triage without it, but the penalties on that module are severe enough as it is.

    * Expanded command facilities: gives either a fleet-command 3%/level and 3 gang mods, or a titan-style x%/level bonus.

    * No module for cargo carriers. Jump freighters will make these completely obsolete, the only reason anyone uses them now is no proper jump-capable hauler exists.

    Note these are NOT limited to one per ship, but you only get one 'free' module. For example, you might be able to fit both the expanded fighter decks and improved command facilities modules for sitting at a POS, but if you plan to take your carrier into battle directly, your multi-role pwnmobile is going to pay a high price for that flexibiliby.

    Now this keeps everyone happy:

    1) Carrier pilots lose no ability in any single role (the "free" module).

    2) No painfully stupid decisions to make carrier pilots spend more time fighting with the "assign fighters" interface and trying to coordinate on teamspeak than actually shooting people.

    3) Concerns over excessive flexibility are solved. While carriers will be just as good at any single role as before, carrier pilots will have to pick which role they want to be good at.

    4) Flexibility is not nerfed too badly. Without the module, you can still use that aspect, just not as well. For example, a logistics fitted carrier can still use the standard 5 drones/fighters, and can still fit DCUs (though why you'd give up remote reps on a logistics carrier, I don't know). And if you really want your flexibility back, you can give up those valuable low slots (in other words, cripple your tank) to keep it.

    Posted - 2007.10.24 02:58:00 - [100]

    Edited by: RtoZ on 24/10/2007 03:01:16
    I'm sorry, but I still thing the "gamebalance" team in CCP dosen't have a clue. Nerfing carriers is moronic, they are not what you state they are, not by a long shot. They are slow, vulnerable and useless against all but a gang of noobs solo. They have *some* versatility, but so do a lot of ship classes, like for example an EOS. And these are ships that are allmost a year into the game, so even if there are a lot of them in the game, they will never be a majority of ships, and the ISK investment means they are used in roles which are not directly related to combat, something which the jumpfreighter will change.

    And I don't believe the motives stated in the blog, to me it seems that ccp are struggleing with lag, which comes from a basic design mystake which is to let more players in a game environment than the hardware can take, and are trying to reduce the data in said environments in whatever ways possible, not really thinking about actual gameplay.

    Like hell i'm gonna use a carrier to sit at a POS delegating fighters, like hell I'm gonna fly a 'carrier' to launch 5 drones, like hell i'm gonna depend on a gangmate to launch fighters as I allready do for interstellar movement, like hell i'm gonna keep a game that dangles me a ship class carrot which I focus on, skill for, make the isk for, and then lose because it gets turned into something else, something which I did not want. Like I said in my original post on the original carrier nerf thread, I have allready made that mystake with cruise, only to get shafted, and I won't stand for it again. I only have two accounts but if CCP persist with a blanket nerf in a missguided attempt to solve their technical shortcomings I will just stop playing because EVE for me has become chasing shadows.

    Get your act together ccp, you have to do better than this if you want eve to survive. Eve depends on long term subscribers, and while its true you can keep people playing a bit longer to get an effective skillset with these nerfs, sooner or later people will see through then and start quitting, and the future of eve will be declining subscriber rates.

    Fix crap people complain about. I do not remember the last time people complained a carrier was a wtfbbqsoloswissarmyknifecarebearpirateffspwnmobile. I don't think there was one.

    This blog is basically the same as the first one with some rhetorical psuedo apologies. I for one am not happy with the way this whole fiasco is going, and as a player that focused on this class I have a word to say, and this word will by my subscription. I would leave eve if there was a carrier nerf, they have enough caveats as it is now.

    Want to fix lag? Fix the mechanics of solarsystem navigation, cap the number of players per system. Do not hurt players like me because goons and bobites use drones to crash nodes.

    The only good thing I can see in this whole situation is that eve is just a game (one that is getting more boring for me every month at this rate) and it should be fairly easy to walk away.

    Fusion Enterprises Ltd
    Posted - 2007.10.24 02:59:00 - [101]

    Edited by: Yaay on 24/10/2007 03:00:17
    Ok, there is one very great equalizer that the devs aren't seeing. 100% of a carrier's Damage can be neutralized by simply killing it's drones. When Tyrrax Lost his mothership, it didn't matter if he had 1000 drones deployed. It didn't matter that he had a corp hanger, or remote repairers, or Transporting abilities.

    Tyrrax lost his Mothership because of 2 things, we killed any drones he released, and quite quickly, and he didn't have a support fleet. Someone explain the jack of all trades thing to me again.

    Keep in mind developers that we're not throwing out 1 counter to a big problem like the old nos complainers used. We're completely and totally refuting any argument you make over this. Any carrier pilot not only knows, but fears it's vulnerability. Yet here you are trying to make it more vulnerable than before.

    Acacia Everto
    Posted - 2007.10.24 02:59:00 - [102]

    Originally by: Bein Glorious
    pulling up archaic arguments (for instance, the fact that Sensor Damps will be nerfed in Trinity and shouldn't pose such a huge threat to carriers as they do now,

    Dead wrong. Very, very wrong. No, sensor damps can now do either range or time based damping. So, all that's required with a Carrier's already awful lock time is you set all your damps to range and presto, the Carrier can't lock past 10km. Good job trying to remove a still very valid argument through your own lack of knowledge on the nerf in question.

    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:00:00 - [103]

    Edited by: BhallSpawn on 24/10/2007 03:00:42
    "Ps. Don't mind the changes on Sisi, they'll be reverted on next update and were accidental."

    This is a bold faced lie.
    No other way to put it.

    You don't suggest a huge nerf, then put it on sisi, and say "oops, we didn't mean to do that"

    You had plans in the very short term of implimenting this HORRIBLE idea, and its still HORRIBLE.

    Cap ships die... If the people going after them know how to do ECM effectivily, they DIE ALL THE TIME.

    Go solo a cap ship any where in eve.
    you'll be dead very shortly. (swiss army knife my ass)

    Ivor Gunn
    No One Expects The Spanish Inquisition
    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:01:00 - [104]

    Originally by: Vily
    where the **** is the ensalver? cause i know there is at least one person in CCP who should know what the **** is going on.

    Now, now, let's not forget the position T20 held in a certain prominent alliance Razz. Curious that as soon as he's shifted to UI development, carriers get shat on.

    Clerence Thomas
    Black Lotus Heavy Industries
    Ethereal Dawn
    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:01:00 - [105]

    Originally by: Sertan Deras
    Yesterday CCP was the delusional one, with that misguided five fighter idea.

    Today, it's the Carrier pilots who have lost their minds and can't see anything objectively. If you guys can't see how popular Carriers are becoming, and why they are becoming that popular (hint: flexibility without refitting), then you are just as blind as CCP was yesterday. You just don't want to admit it, because it might mean you have to change your tactics slightly and *gasp* have to specialize with modules just like every other ship in the game.

    Hmmm. I won't stoop to name calling but I will point out that there is no universal fit for carriers, just lots of options that don't make much difference from the baseline. And CCP still hasn't found their mind, they've just explained WTF they were thinking when they lost their mind. :)

    agent apple
    Pandemic Legion
    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:02:00 - [106]

    Only thing a carrier can do a domi cant is haul, and im pretty sure noone gives a flying **** about its hauling ability.

    Shira d'Radonis
    The Amarr Mission
    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:04:00 - [107]

    I like the idea of making fitting more important for carriers. That'll help solve the problem.

    But in the end, it seems like giving delegation of fighters bonuses rather than penalties will be the best way to solve the problem. Also, reducing the costs of fighters so that carrier pilots won't be so reluctant to hand them out would make sense too.

    And in order to prevent fleets from becoming totally comprised of carriers, one possible technique would be to have bandwidth penalties apply across a fleet so that you can only have so many drones/fighters out at once. This could help with lag as well.

    I mean, I'm sure that'd have it's own problems too, but I would hate to see a huge nerf people will hate.

    I see CCP's point of view though. In the same way that some players are saying the game will be killed by nerfs of powerful ships like this, they think it will be killed by having an over abundance of these ships... but I think they're also fundamentally overestimate the power of the carrier currently as well.

    Merin Ryskin
    Peregrine Industries
    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:04:00 - [108]

    Originally by: BhallSpawn
    Edited by: BhallSpawn on 24/10/2007 03:00:42
    "Ps. Don't mind the changes on Sisi, they'll be reverted on next update and were accidental."

    This is a bold faced lie.
    No other way to put it.

    You don't suggest a huge nerf, then put it on sisi, and say "oops, we didn't mean to do that"

    You had plans in the very short term of implimenting this HORRIBLE idea, and its still HORRIBLE.

    Let's not jump to conclusions here. The carrier issue on SISI apparently was an accident with bandwidth, not the carrier changes. When I was on earlier, people were reporting being unable to assign more than 5 fighters, something explicitly stated to be possible under the new changes. And even before this dev blog, one of the devs replied that it was a known bug, and would be fixed (regardless of any carrier changes).

    It's still an incredibly stupid idea that needs to be forgotten asap, but that wasn't the issue today.

    James CX
    Dogz Of War
    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:12:00 - [109]

    Edited by: James CX on 24/10/2007 03:30:39
    Edited by: James CX on 24/10/2007 03:27:08
    Edited by: James CX on 24/10/2007 03:19:19
    Ok my turn:

    Let's take a look at what Carriers and Motherships are currently capable of: <- response to these topics:

    Lets imagine someday we conquer space:

    Response to Point 1: Carrier has lots of drones -> Of course it must.
    RP2: The logistics of a carrier is good, but the triage module sucks, triage is a joke...
    RP3 + RP4: It can only carry very little amount of sips inside of it, the cargo of ship is not that uber like ccp say.

    As for the damage that deals my mate was tanking me with a megathron when i had 9 fighters on him, so i dont know what inceneration 0.2 secs ur talkin about but maybe if i set my 15 fighters + nos + neutralizers and go have lunch+dinner and come back i might have him killed, maybe u mean 2.0 hours no?

    Logistics, that its good if we dont activate triage mode... but in a large fight i barely see who to rep when i can barely activate my mods because of lag(biggest problem in eve).

    Another point -> Fighters are expensive like someone already said and do low damage!!!

    Usually people that use a carrier alone as a solo pawnmobile get one thing only, wich is getting owned, like someone said back 2 or 3 dampeners and the carrier is dead in the sand wow and ccp says its a super ship!!

    Quoted from the dev blog "Carriers are also receiving a ship maintenace bay / corporation hanger boost" <- this = joke and throwing sand to our eyes since ccp cannot get a single decent reason o positive points to backup this nerf, to increase its cargo and ship maintenace is like turning into a obelisk that can use 5 drones.

    If theres so many carreirs in eve its because people like them and people work hard to get them. This nerf will only make people loose more interest on them.

    I am a carrier pilot for 2 years already, i say they are weak, today we did an op and engaged 2 minmatar carriers outside of a station with 15 hacs/cruisers they where unable to do anything and where forced to dock, because they had no one to support them, if carriers where to uber like ccp claims damn 2 carriers would "incinerate our little fleet in seconds", it took us 1 min to down a carrier to hull thats how big of a joke a carrier is...

    These complaints about nerfing ships all the time is wrecking this game nerf by nerf, only thing thats gona come out of these nerfs is that people will get tired of this game and start playing other games, because all the things they train hard for and sometimes a year of train gets flushed down the toilet in a quick patch...

    Carriers are not super weapons they are weak and they need to be boosted instead and ccp got the proof with these 2 last threads of comments about this matter.

    If nerf it to use only 5 drones by the pilot and making a really good support ship for combat then make it able to assign 5 fighters per carrier level and 5 fighters per each drone module. That would be something decent towards carriers and fix that damn triage module!!

    The damn ship costs 1 bilion the skills another bilion, to be able to use 15 fighters myself at same time was one of the main reasons i decided to pay that much for them.

    I would like a refund of skill points and isk i wasted training to have a big fukin piece of ****!

    They do a bit of everything? Yeah they do it in a lame way or they barely do it, just take some of the features of the ship and increase the others so that it gets to be decent at something...

    Quoting a firend of mine on TS: CCP WANTS TO MAKE THIS GAME MINMATAR ONLINE!


    Di-Tron Heavy Industries
    Initiative Mercenaries
    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:13:00 - [110]

    Originally by: War Bear

    # 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"

    This ... this I completely and whole heartedly do NOT agree with. At no time do I want any other pilot touching fighters that don't belong to him especially when a 5 pack of them cost more than a tier 2 battleship. Why should a carrier not be able to control his own fighters? Why the need for wingman? Gah ...

    Not to mention the fact that they are once again COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that lag exists.

    If you can't fix the lag, at least acknowledge that it is THERE, and don't force us to have to "assign fighters to wingmen" to have offensive capabilities when anyone who has ever flown a carrier in a fleet battle knows that it is completely impossible to do once the action starts.

    Morsus Mihi
    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:13:00 - [111]

    I seriously wonder if some members of CCP play this game at all. Carriers are anything but overpowered.

    Ben Murder
    Priory Of The Lemon
    Atlas Alliance
    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:15:00 - [112]

    Nice to see we don't even have say in a game we pay for. Nerf away seems like you ask our opinions for nothing other then to look like you care.

    Majesta Empire
    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:16:00 - [113]

    Okay got to say this one actually shows some thought and lets us know what your thinking. Not just were making you less effective...whad-ya-think-about-that?

    I don't really have a problem with us needing to fit for the role were doing but please don't make it so I and any other carrier pilots need 1 or 2 pilots just to get our full damage. Don't get me wrong I like hanging out with corp mates and friends but sometimes I pop on eve for like 10 minutes...not worth hooking up just to go ratting. Also when your up at different times to those you would usually trust with fighters. Cuase while there under someone elses control you've basically lent them a BS worth of value. I have maybe 5 people in eve I would be prepared to do that for.

    Modules for a expanded ship maintance bay/corp hanger would actually be quite an expanded cargo hold for them.

    Scorched Evil
    R A G E
    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:17:00 - [114]

    Originally by: Raketefrau

    Not to mention the fact that they are once again COMPLETELY ignoring the fact that lag exists.

    If you can't fix the lag, at least acknowledge that it is THERE, and don't force us to have to "assign fighters to wingmen" to have offensive capabilities when anyone who has ever flown a carrier in a fleet battle knows that it is completely impossible to do once the action starts.

    I thought talking about lag was a bannable offence...

    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:17:00 - [115]

    Sometimes the best solutions are the simplest.

    If you DO NOT want carriers to be solopwn, then there have to be drawbacks, however they dont have to be massive.

    If you want to continue along the lines of bigger drones for bigger targets, then you can maybe stop fighters locking smaller then capitals, heavy drones smaller then BS and so on down the line, if that was possible, it would force carriers to swap drones to match targets, would make them require a little more mircomanagement in fleet situations, but would also give people an incentive to bring smaller support craft so the carriers could focus on the bigger targets huh? :)

    You also have to look at what carriers are used for, sure they are used for 0.0 logistics, but if you design the jump freighters right, that will decrease once people get them.

    Remote reps is another reason people throw carriers around a lot, spider repping might be something for you guys to at least look at, because its an incentive to bring more carriers, to keep the ones you have alive. Not to say its overpowered, but its a factor in the equation.

    Might also want to consider giving people incentives to put things over then smartbombs and drone controls in high slots too, like new high slot mods, and adjustments to triage mods for example, bonuses to logistics drones. That could mean less fighters in space and more specialised carrier fits.

    Basically, all im saying is, why use a sledgehammer to fix the problem, when a screwdriver or spanner will do the trick, think outside the box, players do it all the time :)

    my 2 pence.


    Multiversal Enterprise Inc.
    Cry Havoc.
    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:18:00 - [116]

    Thank you for going back and taking a second look.

    This is not something that should be changed without a lot of thought, input, and changes to fighter mechanics.

    I think you made a good decision reversing the change until other game mechanics can be worked out.

    Manfred Doomhammer
    ShadowTec Inc.
    Curatores Veritatis Alliance
    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:20:00 - [117]

    now, this blog sounds a lot more reasonable, goes a long way if you tell us what it is exactly that you feel warrants a nerf...

    yes, the carrier is a versatile vessel, and no , i dont think its a bad idea to force choices during fitting.

    hell, id even say, give us only 5 fighters/drones to control basically, and make the +1/+3 from the ship also dependend on drone control units (so a carrier with 2 drone control units will only be able to lauch 9 drones(5+2(drone control units give +1 each) +2 (if pilot has at least carrier lvl 2))
    so if we want to outfit them for drone carnage we have to use our highslots for it as well

    making the carrier more modular, and less of a jack of all trades all the time sounds good in my book, i was only previously objecting your intention of pressing it into the sole role of a glorified oversized logistic ship.

    feels good to know that ccp actually takes the communities opinion at face value and not just shrugs it off like other gaming companies have done before (soenge :P)

    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:23:00 - [118]

    Originally by: QwaarJet
    I seriously wonder if some members of CCP play this game at all. Carriers are anything but overpowered.

    I don't think you guys still get the point.

    picture this:

    2 corps right now have 40 members each. they are at war. Both corps have enough isk and skill points on all its members to field any ship up to and including motherships.

    1st corp field 40 motherships
    2nd corp (because its been reading these forums and belives in what you guys are saying) fields 40 battleships (or whatever mix of tacklers/battleships you want doesn't matter)

    what you think will be the outcome? even if corp 2 can jam half of corp 1s fleet they still gona get waisted, 20 moms vs 40 BS hahaha

    one of the most important resources in the game is pilots/characters. in 1 year time alot of the players in eve will be in a position to fly a carrier/mom. What do you think they will want to fly, and what do you think their corp/alliance will want them to fly?

    when its 10 vs 10 or 200 vs 200, who would want to be flying the less number of carriers/motherships ? 200 carriers vs 200 BS who is gona win? how about 200 motherships vs 200 BSs or even 50 bs and 150 tacklers/jammers still won't matter unless you field enough jammers to jam enough carriers/motherships so they don't blow up your fleet you gona be dead. and in 1 years time there will be ALOT of carrier pilots.

    i don't think CCP is worried about solo carriers, they worried whats gona happen in 1 or 2 years time when everyone and their sister can field one what will happen to the rest of the ships in eve.

    Its already happening, and it will only get worse as people finish training their skills.

    think about it.


    Interstellar eXodus
    BricK sQuAD.
    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:25:00 - [119]

    Still no clue.

    Everytime I undock my carrier I do so with the understanding that if I make the slightest mistake in lowsec or 0.0 I'll die a horrible death. I stand to lose 1-2 Billion isk worth of ship and modules because someone in a mach decides to bump me 50k off station. No way they are anywhere near solo ships.

    Yea, I can bring ships and modules to the front line? Gee whiz. Who might I be bringing those too? my freakin support fleet thats who. oh and don't ask me to bring anything larger then a battlecruiser.

    Jump capable haulers? Dont make me laugh. You get ~55k of space with rigged itty 5 and viator while losing your ability to move ships or carry any of your own mods and spare fuel. Oh and pos sitting is so much fun. It always makes me glad I have 2 computers so I can rat on another account to replace the fighters that just got killed at an enemy pos.

    I can fight off any class of ship? Try fighting off a 9k/s sabre who keeps you perma-bubbled or even a small gang of t1 ships who know what they are doing. Add a damp or two in the mix and I have the option of going to get a drink while I slowly die or self-destruct so I can get a eve-o post on how lame I am.

    Great logistics ships? for about 5 minutes until your cap is gone. Try running a capital class repair module and a capital remote repair module at the same time and see how long before your hardeners turn off.

    if carriers are a swiss army knife they are the Chinese knockoff with the fake label. Yes they do a bit of everything but expect to buy a new one every month if you use it for more than a hanger decoration.

    Kalica Kahn
    Goonswarm Federation
    Posted - 2007.10.24 03:30:00 - [120]

    I can see what CCP is trying to do and I agree with it entirely.

    Just stop and think for a minute, when carriers were first released (before my time) there would’ve only been a handful of players capable of flying them, and therefore they were filled the role they were designed for. You’d see a handful at most in a fleet, and while they could turn the tide of a battle, they were not the ship the decided the battle, that was always the battleship.

    These days, there are 10000 carriers in the game according to that dev blog, and we’ve seen fleet battles with 40 – 50 carriers in system at one time. When 10% of the ships in system are carriers, you know something’s not right.

    One of the major selling/marketing points of this game is the huge fleet battles (and I don’t want to go into lag at the moment, that’s a whole different issue which should be helped in the next update, fingers crossed)
    The thing is I believe CCP want a balanced fleet involving players of all skill levels. So you have the majority of the fleet made up of battleships and lower, (ships which everyone can fly) and a handful of capitals, and maybe 1 or 2 supercaps as well, with each type of ship having a role to play in the fleet. Instead what we’ve been seeing is 30+ carriers, 3+ motherships, and occasionally 2 or 3 Titans.

    As more and more people get up into the higher skill levels, changes need to be made to the game to prevent it becoming “capitalship-online” as people have called it.

    Now think about this for a second. What CCP have done here is put out a blog saying, “Here are the changes we think need to happen”. They then made those changes on Sisi so everyone could try it out (the whole idea of sisi) and when so many people complained about the changes, CCP come back and say “ok, so maybe it’s not the best way to implement these changes, but something has to change because we don’t like the way it is heading.”

    Honestly what other game company does that sort of thing? Now instead of whining, getting abusive, and threatening to cancel accounts (come on grow up) why don’t you accept the fact that something needs to change, and throw out some ideas that you think are better?

    No other game has captured my attention for so long, and I still enjoy it as much as I did a year ago. The only thing that lets eve online down in my opinion is the whiny, demanding nature of it’s community, and that’s nothing to do with CCP.


    Pages: first : previous : 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 9 ... : 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

    These forums are archived and read-only