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

Baun
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:31:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Shalis


I think you and alot of other people are missing the point. Understandable since your minds are problably clouded at this time due to the strong emotions flowing around.

I can see CCPs point. Its not that carriers/moms do not require support right now, they do, but the support right now is provided by other carriers/moms. As it is there is not point in flying nothing else. The only reason people aren't flying carriers/moms now is cause they don't have the skill points/isk to do it. Give it another year and all you will see is carriers/moms.

All CCP is trying to do is make it so that there will be more diversity in fleets. The easy way would had been to make carriers/moms more expensive but that would only prolong the inevitable, it just would take extra time to reach the same end of all carriers/moms flying around. So they took the harder way which is to nerf the carriers/moms so that they don't become the obvious choice for everyone to fly in.



You aren't entirely wrong, but you are far from right.

As things stand now battles progress in stages.

Stage 1: Roaming gangs

In this stage of territorial invasion one relies primarily on fast moving gangs with HACs, Ceptors, Command Ships, Recons and the occasional battleship.

These gangs soften up regions and try to decrease player base in preparation for stage 2.

Stage 2: Taking out the cyno jammer

This stage, by definition, requires an enormous number of battleships. BSs are the only type of ship that can tank sufficiently in terms of pure hp and deal enough damage to do the job.

Stage 3: Taking out POSs

This stage, by definition, requires alot of dreadnoughts and carriers/motherships. Since sieged dreadnoughts are incapable of defending themselves against BSs, carriers will join them on grid as they disable a POS in order to prevent the dreads from being systematically destroyed.

After the guns are down the support fleet will come in (can be earlier too, but it often isn't needed). The key here is that there must be a support fleet. Dreadnoughts cannot be remotely repaired and if all you have are carriers to defend them the enemy will just warp their BS gang around the grid and overpower dread tanks one at a time while baiting and destroying fighters.

When it comes down to taking a system, will a fleet commander prefer a carrier to a battleship? Yes, of course. The reasons, for this, however, are primarily lag oriented.

A pure carrier + dictor fleet would not fair well against a fleet of mixed BSs, carriers and other support if not for lag. With lag, especially the lag created by a ton of on grid fighters, a BS may get killed by a fighter swarm approaching from 100km away when he normally could warp easily and in so doing take an enormous amount of firepower off the battlefield. With lag, a dictor can often successfully bubble the same fleet, no matter how well setup it is, multiple times before having to warp. With lag, a BS gang is much more likely to get DDed by a Titan even if they were aligned and ready to warp out.

If lag were actually fixed then the mobility advantage of having mixed and balanced fleets that do direct-fire damage would be enormous. Carriers are used because they have large HP buffer zones and because when lag neuters the advantages of mobility and strategy EVE will become a numbers/brute force game. When you cannot exploit the weaknesses of carriers because of lag you have to take them on with even more carriers.

If we could actually play the game then CCP would never envision making this change. This is probably the most disheartening news with respect to the prospect that lag could ever be fixed in the near future.

Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:32:00 - [122]
 

Edited by: Merin Ryskin on 24/10/2007 03:34:33
Originally by: Shalis
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


WRONG. What happens is the following:

The first corp sits in a single system (assuming you don't want the MS to get picked off one at a time while split up), as they have no cyno and fuel support to move anywhere. The second corp has complete freedom to either engage, or simply go about their business as if there wasn't a war.

Assuming they somehow come into contact with the MS fleet, the MS fleet fails completely at locking anything, and the second corp runs away laughing.

Assuming a 40-mothership blob is just stupid, and they're really flying carriers, the 40 carriers are damped into uselessness by some cheap ewar cruisers, tackled by interceptors/interdictors, and ripped apart one at a time by a handfull of dreads. Note that even if it somehow WAS a group of 40 motherships (which is just stupid from a logistics point of view), the only thing keeping this kind of massacre from happening is the ewar immunity, not their offensive power.

Get it through your thick head: an un-supported capital ship is an expensive fireworks show.

Felysta Sandorn
Celestial Apocalypse
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:33:00 - [123]
 


Refazed
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:34:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: Shalis
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.

Shalis


Then make a solution to carrier/mom blobs if so worried about it, not that its any different then the situation right now of T2 bs blobs vs. T1bs+support.

Dont nerf the ship to stupidity because you dont like how its used. Create a counter for that undesierable use instead.

Dungar Loghoth
Caldari
Gank Bangers
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:35:00 - [125]
 

Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 24/10/2007 03:38:03
Still not good enough. Drop this completely and focus on something that actually needs fixed. This does nothing to alleviate lag, and only encourages more blobbing (instead of cap vs cap fights, you're going to have cap + intys + fighters vs cap vs intys + fighters).

Stop searching for problems that don't exist. Here are some you can work on instead:

Fix Amarr.
Fix the blobbing.
Fix the lag.
Fix the "risk vs rewards" of empire vs lowsec vs 0.0.
Fix everything else you promised to deliver at release but haven't.

In that order.

Spartikaz
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:36:00 - [126]
 

I agree with what ccp is doing and it was about time!

Nerf the damn carrier:

- Increase the shields to 500.000
- Armor to 1.000.000
- Resists to 80% all across
- 8 high slots, 8 med slots, 8 low slots
- 200.000m3 drone bay
- Ship maintenance 9.000.000m3
- Corporate Hangar 500.000m3
- 50 fighter at same time.


TheSystem
Brutally Clever Empire
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:38:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: Shalis


I think you and alot of other people are missing the point. Understandable since your minds are problably clouded at this time due to the strong emotions flowing around.

I can see CCPs point. Its not that carriers/moms do not require support right now, they do, but the support right now is provided by other carriers/moms. As it is there is not point in flying nothing else. The only reason people aren't flying carriers/moms now is cause they don't have the skill points/isk to do it. Give it another year and all you will see is carriers/moms.

All CCP is trying to do is make it so that there will be more diversity in fleets. The easy way would had been to make carriers/moms more expensive but that would only prolong the inevitable, it just would take extra time to reach the same end of all carriers/moms flying around. So they took the harder way which is to nerf the carriers/moms so that they don't become the obvious choice for everyone to fly in.


Grimpak
Gallente
Midnight Elites
Echelon Rising
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:39:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Felysta Sandorn
Please check this out for a proposed capital ship idea...


and I add mine and Jin's idea to this



oh as a discussion about the devblog:

I see what's your point, but carriers are not as good as you think. nor motherships.

oh and I laughed about the triage mode being usefull.
this is not SiSi. this is TQ.

velocity7
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:40:00 - [129]
 

Edited by: velocity7 on 24/10/2007 03:43:11
Last I checked, carriers were not solopwnmobiles, but solopwnedmobiles.

My vote in the petition still stands.

Treean
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:51:00 - [130]
 

I say you get rid of the damn things all together.

Mr Friendly
The Lost and The Damned
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:55:00 - [131]
 

As someone on SHC pointed out, Eve is not WoW. In WoW, respeccing into a new focus is easy. In Eve, it can take months and months to do so. Further, in Eve, given the tremendous time commitment, people absolutely flip out when changes are made to a ships role that had little or nothing to do with the original aim(s) of the ship. You should never have released a Dev Blog this unpolished.

Within an hour, there were targeted critiques intelligently attacking the deficits of said blog and giving more intelligent (and consistent with Eve) suggestions for improvement. Again from SHC, someone mentioned that this should have been released in the game development forum with some padding to hide your true intentions. You would have received the same level of intelligent discussion without all of the "OMG the sky is falling and lets all kill the Dev. Burn the Witch" comments that inevitably happen from nerd rage. You should never have released a Dev Blog this unpolished.

Also, Zulu mentioned this change was change 'only about balance and not about lag'. At this stage of Eve's development, you cannot consider ship changes without simultaneously considering performance questions. If, in example, retaining the front line combat ability of carriers requires (by your own admission) lower sp pilots having a new use for fleet/large gang use, then lower sp pilots will be used (of course, this assumes that more people can be brought to bear whether alts or actual people). So, more players in gang, more lag, more crappy gameplay experiences and more frustration. Making balance changes to ship MUST take into account more than just raw dps applied/ dps repped/ stuff hauled. Ignoring things like lag are ignoring the Greater Eve Game. And that's just idiotic. You should never have released a Dev Blog this unpolished.

One final thing and then I'll shut up. You characterized carriers as EXTREMELY proficient (caps added) in multiple roles without refitting. Guys, my Oneiros is extremely proficient in repping, a freighter is extremely proficient in hauling, gank battleships are extremely proficient in laying down the pain (looking at cost/dps of course). The carrier is proficient (NOT extremely proficient) at these things. You're disconnected from the reality of the ship class which leads me to think you are working from false assumptions; always a bad thing when looking at balance issues in my opinion.

Please reacquaint yourselves with the carrier class before you start messing about.


Delphi Disra
Macabre Votum
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:55:00 - [132]
 

I really want to laugh and cry at the same time? You dont get it do you CCP? I can completley disable a carrier with less than 1m in ships and 3 noob alt pilots, yet you think of them as MULTITASKING GODS?

They are very vulnerable as they are, if anything they need a boost in some aspects, nerfing them further? I think it would be logical for carrier pilots to sell all their accounts and just buy 20-30 noob accounts LOL

Thargor II
Amarr
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:57:00 - [133]
 

I do not feel that the developers of this game play enough eve when it comes to PvP and different fleet sizes on Tranquility. A fleet of 14 sub battleship class ships can take a solo carrier with ease it isn't funny. As a player I think there is something wrong when a fleet of 15 ships only 1 or 2 being tech 2 can take out a "Capital" ship. Ok I don't care if the capital ship cant wtfpwnbbq a fleet of small ships but a tiny fleet shouldn't be able to lock down and kill a capital ship either. You can't have it both ways. Honestly have you guys ever tested out your ideas when there are 800 people in local? I think in principal the idea is good but quit with the delegation thing. Make people choose if they want to be a logistical carrier or a hauling carrier or a front line carrier but don't tell them unless you have enough people to lock the grid they can't field their carrier fleet.

It is a serious flaw in a business model that come before a fairly close nit player base and just throw out a entire shift in 0.0 warfare post planning stage. You should have ask us about it during the entire process. No one here would deny that the game would be a poorer place if fleets were entirely consisting of carriers or moms. We all just feel that the way you are going about rectifying the short sighted design of carriers caused is to make them very unenjoyable to play. If you anger enough of the carrier pilots that significant portions cancel their accounts you will decimate the ability of corps in 0.0 to logistically support themselves and politics will be turned on its head. It will also drive more than ever the idea that to win any war you just need Swarms of cannon fodder to lag out the system. A Battleship is still the most cost effective way to unless fire power onto the field of battle even with carriers if there was no lag. They are also much easier to get into warp "if the lag is not present".

I agree that allowing a ship to dominate a battle field that takes 2 years to fly would make attracting new players near impossible but you will drive away your current player base if 1,000 4 month old accounts with 20 3 year old acounts can absolutely dominate a group of 350 3 year old accounts just because the sheer numbers as opposed to pilot skill.

Fix the need of alliances to lock down systems for 7+ days to take 1 system and make POS warfare a much faster pace affair and you will see the numbers of carriers drop. You have made certain parts of the game so ridiculous that it is obvious what the player base will do in your sandbox to counter it.....make a POS be able to nuke any BS in 1 volley....ok we need bigger ships so we can out rep the damage...make 0.0 warfare be slanted towards the side that has the most ships....ok everyone gets the biggest ship they can afford to easily replace...most massive fleet engagements have battleships that are primaried lasting less than 3-5 seconds (if you are lucky) people want to have a much longer sustained battle so they get a bigger ship with more fire power....everyone that can brings a carrier. Its your own fault for having game mechanics that drive the player base to blob so they can insta pop the dps of the opposing fleet. Also, if the lag gods are kind you can just decimate a fleet when they are almost helpless to do anything.

My suggestion is to FIX 0.0 WARFARE THEN REVISIT CARRIERS.

Callthetruth
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:58:00 - [134]
 

we just need more types of carriers, seperate damage dealers, fighters , perhaps a new mini titan that has a reduced dps and a smaller range.

James Draekn
X.E.N.O.
OWN Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 03:58:00 - [135]
 

Looked at your goals for what you want to achieve as far as carriers and moms go. This ship class only needs a small fix to achieve your goal rather then a massive adjustment. The main fix to make this ship the center of the fleet (ie logistics and punch) would be to fix the Triage module. Now that I understand your goals, here is a few proposals.....

1. You want the carrier to be effective versus BS and larger but vulnerable to smaller vessels. Remove the ability to launch regular drones (minus the ECM and Logistics drones). You already have a effective anti-BS and up weapon (fighters), but the smaller drones make this ship class to versatile. Most of us that train for carriers want to be able to field 15 fighters (just looks cool) rather then 5 (lame). Then reduce the sig radius a bit on Destroyers and Battlecruisers to separate them from the next tier of ship class.


Now the Triage Module..............................


Triage mode:
This module has a great idea behind it but it lacks a bit of foresight into how combat in eve is played.

1. Cap usage is doubled due to the halved cycle time on remote reppers, but their is no cap decrease on the remote reppers. Add a bonus to decrease cap usage to the module, by about 65% when module is active.

2. When in Triage you can't be remote repped, understandable when you factor the other bonuses, but see point one as to why your tank is now screwed when supporting others. Why bother supporting others. See point 1 as to why this is a important reason why Triage isn't used as much as damage, fix the cap usage, see more logistics.

3. Mobility, speed is life, at least for smaller ships. But if you are suck at gate XZY and the fight moved to gate ABC you aren't much good to your gang when the enemy changes the field location on you and you can't follow due to Triage mode keeping you stuck. Your opponents in this game will quickly switch the field to kill the remote repping advantage you have one location. I completely agree that jump drives should be offline, but warp drive needs to be online. Allow warping while Triage module is active since POS warfare isn't the only warfare in-game, fights move very quickly.

4. Your 1 Billion isk ship lost all ability to provide your gang with some extra punch. Allow the carrier to launch its fighters when in Triage. But require them to be assigned to another player to engage the enemy.

5. Range. enough said. If it is on Grid (250km), you should be able to rep it. Increase Capital reppers range to 250km (or at least double it from current levels), carriers and moms aren't able to nano-fit so it makes sense to be able to provide logistics on the field.

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:00:00 - [136]
 

Carriers have never seemed unbalanced to me. Big, versatile, powerful under the right situations - they fit their price bracket perfectly.

The problem with carriers en masse is just lag - you have no manoeuvering options, because of the lag. If it was actually possible to warp in around a carrier group then you'd be able to **** fighters with impunity unless it was supported (and, eventually, the carriers).

There is no problem here. If you want carriers to be used more for support, then look at the problems which are GENERAL TO ALL SUPPORT ships, and fix those.

Ket Halpak
ANZAC ACADEMY
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:16:00 - [137]
 

Thankyou for the dev blog and adressing our concerns, but unfortunatly I do not belive that this response was adequate. I will attept to adress some of the concerns I currently have with a carrier:

Logistics.
The current problem with logistics is the lock time of a carrier. Throw in a sensor damp or 2, and it is seriously screwed. While triage mode can help here, it has a serious drawback in that the carrier effectivly becomes a sitting duck and needs to micromanage more due to the increased cap consumption rate.

Hauling.
With the introduction of the Jump capable freighters, I believe that carriers will be pushed aside in favour of the t2 freighters due to increased cargo capacity. While their range may not be so great, a carrier can still be used in a pinch for small sized high value cargo.

Current Hanger capcity.
The current ship maintainence array on a carrier only allows for a maximum of 4 cruiser sized vessels to be hauled to the front lines. In the current face of warefare in eve, where there can be hundreds of participants on either side, this is a serious drawback.

The corporate hanger is only 10km3. The majority of this will be taken up by reserve jump fuel. In reality, the corporate hanger is largely useless for anything other than holding reserve fuel.

Tanking.
This is more related to a chimera. For an effective tank, a chimera must use ALL med and low slots to compensate for a crappy capacitor. A chimer pilot cant fit a sensor booster or even a warp disruptor. With the long lock times of a carrier, any prey can easily escape before a carrier can acheive a lock, kinda sways them away from being solopwn mobiles.

In short, carriers are not solopwnmobiles, they are already nerfed. Changing them will result in many unhappy customers. There are some great ideas floating around these threads and I suggest you take note of them.

Hmm, attempt no 4 to post this, forums dont like me :(

Cosmo Raata
T-Cells
Moar Tears
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:17:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Dungar Loghoth
Edited by: Dungar Loghoth on 24/10/2007 03:38:03
Still not good enough. Drop this completely and focus on something that actually needs fixed. This does nothing to alleviate lag, and only encourages more blobbing (instead of cap vs cap fights, you're going to have cap + intys + fighters vs cap vs intys + fighters).

Stop searching for problems that don't exist. Here are some you can work on instead:

Fix Amarr.
Fix the blobbing.
Fix the lag.
Fix the "risk vs rewards" of empire vs lowsec vs 0.0.
Fix everything else you promised to deliver at release but haven't.

In that order.


Signed!

Frug
Omega Wing
Snatch Victory
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:26:00 - [139]
 

Originally by: Menellaix
Maybe all the emo kids will get off the message boards now...


I find the explosive nerdrage of these douchebags hilarious.

SIr Urza
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:32:00 - [140]
 

Do you guys(nerfers) like EVER play the game??
You are speaking of the carriers and MoM's as if they were ALLMIGHTY... well they are NOT! Lets take this by parts.
Carrier:
-Enemy gets damps on you... you are just a big dumb animal sitting in space
-Fighter drones: Slow and EASY to kill... technically speaking an untanked cruiser at most
-they are FAT and SLOW... you undock and a fraking ceptor can bump the heck out of you and then web you while support kill you... I mean its like a fly hitting a wall and moving it.
-YOU NEED to fit it for the occasion... exmpl, you are not gonna go support ur fleet w/ a jumping setup, furthermore you have to adjust your setup according to the intelligence you get of the battle lying ahead... else general fitted carrier= dead
- When you go to 0.0 (if you nerfers and whiners EVER GO THERE) you FEAR the dictors... 1 dictor can trap a whole fleet of carriers... when they can't warp and they dampened... its just a matter of how log will it take for ur friends to come and play and BAM I just lost a carrier fleet.
-Fighter drones yeah, you can assign them to ur enemy... big deal they warp into a bubble and ur enemy MWD away and SHAZAM u just lost X ammount of figher drones WHICH BTW are 18mill a pop (and a pain to transport to 0.0 unless you do it in ur carrier, and if you lost ur drones that means jumping to "empire" JUST to buy em)...
-They require A LOT of planning before being moved... ergo who is gonna pop me a cyno?? its not like they can just jump around like bunnies... if you got no cyno U STUCK!

Now MoM's:
-For startes...THEY ARE 30 BILLIONS EACH (NOT INCLUDING FITTINGS OR DRONES!)
-Yeah they got ECM immunity...just takes a Dictor to get you killed
-All the problems mentioned in the carrier section except for the damps part
-MoM pilots have to spend BILLIONS in FITTINGS in order not to get killed; so if they get it destroyed they just lost 50-70+ BILLIONS in one painful experience
-They are exclusive; not everyone has the money to buy the equivalent to 30+carriers in one shot
-They take MONTHS to be built soo if you want one u Need to wait and If you lost one... sucks for you cause now u need to get a crap load of isk to get a new one then find the mods u need (can take MOTHS just to find a mod)

NOW are they Overpowered?
in the case of The MoM well they are Pwnmobiles...BUT THEY BETTER BE FOR 70B of investment!!! What bout carriers? In my oppinion as a REAL carrier pilot (not like those quickfit whining m.orons) NO they are not overpowered... everytime you use it you are like touching wood every min or soo to give u luck on the next onslaught soo you won't die on a blob of who knows how many. If you are in 0.0 (which is the only Worthy place to use carriers imo) you are gonna use your carrier in Fleet ops... and guess what's there in the fleet ops? OMFGWTFPWN LAG!! Soo you might have died 5 mins ago and you don't even know it... plus you probably lost your pod with all your slave (in my case) implants (and billions keep going to the toilet)

Conclusion
Ships that atm can barely fend themselves in battle (not speaking 1v1 cause who would be S.tupid enought to 1v1 a carrier in a bc?), and by battle I mean more than one foe (which apparently you guys at the Nerfing HQ only consider carriers like GODS in 1v1 which almost never happens), what would happend if you take out the ability to deploy more than 5 drones? They become nothing less then a huge, expensive, useless Dominix.
If you decide to take away something else (that you havn't specified yet) from them what will they be? just useless big junks of junk.
SOO In order to NOT S.CREWING the people that went on the harsh way of training for a carrier LEAVE EM ALONE!!If you start listening to the real players in eve (not the whining bunch o I.diots in the forums) then the real eve community will be happy!

How to make this happen? Make a POLL! Make US decide wha WE want for ourselves as WE are the ones PAYING YOU!

Icome4u
Caldari
28 Meows Later
Infinitas Consortium
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:36:00 - [141]
 

Originally by: Frug
Originally by: Menellaix
Maybe all the emo kids will get off the message boards now...


I find the explosive nerdrage of these douchebags hilarious.


Nice late 2006 player with a 6 men corp and a brand new Alliance talking smack. Care to try it when I'm in local with you noob?

BlackKnight1717
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:42:00 - [142]
 

Edited by: BlackKnight1717 on 24/10/2007 04:46:29
Hammerhead, Oveur and our janitor in any ill thoughts you may have as a result of EVE's direction.

You all fail, expecially the janitor, atleast he should know better.

1Of9
Gallente
The Circle
White Noise.
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:44:00 - [143]
 

Keep in mind that in a carrier/mom life, 75% of his life he's "alone" with his cyno buddy.

What do you (for example) expect when a carrier jumps to a system, but when jumping in, get's bumped from the station and end's up several km's away?

It's very common.... and .. the end result is also v.common: WRECK.


It's just too much efforts to get one of this things and isk to see it all go away now. I speak for myself, i just worked too hard for my mom, all seems useless now.

You nerfing something that dont need nerf.

Gix
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:44:00 - [144]
 

Make a POLL! Make US decide what WE want for ourselves as WE are the ones PAYING YOU!

/signed

Captain Schmungles
Caldari
Freelancing Corp
Confederation of Independent Corporations
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:49:00 - [145]
 

Somewhat better post, but honestly I still fail to grasp CCP's logic for this nerf at all. They reason that:

Carriers are used by a lot of people for a lot of different roles
Carriers constitute an "endgame" ship for many people
Carriers can (apparently) win every pvp engagement
Therefore, a nerf is needed to make carriers less effective at pvp and to make them more specialized.

Okay, so, let's look at the premises. Yes, carriers are used for a lot of different activities, but I thought this game was predicated around the concept of players having the freedom to use features/ships in ways that the devs never thought of? What happened to the "open sandbox" concept that this game is (theoretically) based on? The fact that one ship can be used for so many different rules should be lauded as vindication that the "open sandbox" concept can function in a MMOG. Yes, there aren't a lot of refits involved, but frankly, there aren't a lot of capital-class mods that you can use on a carrier, so I doubt that, given current game content, there are a lot of other viable fits for carriers anyway.

And yes, carriers do constitute an endgame ship. They're outrageously expensive. The skill training takes forever. Why shouldn't players perceive them as an endgame ship? Furthermore, why is that a bad thing? Would CCP be using this same line of argument if a lot of people viewed a crow as an endgame ship? Once again, this is an "open sandbox" game where players are free to set their own goals. It's not a problem if some players ultimately look to be carrier pilots.

Also, carriers cannot win every pvp engagement. Especially since anyone flying a maulus can use ewar on a carrier (which, honestly, makes absolutely no sense save for the fact that people were whining), and that carriers aren't specialized to do anything well, I'd say that so long as the enemy is intelligent and organized a carrier is quite vulnerable. Now, if CCP means I should be able to hop in a Raven and have a fair fight against someone in a Thanatos, well, a capital ship SHOULD ALWAYS WIN against a single battleship (or anything smaller).

This nerf is unnecessary. CCP simultaneoulsy recognizes that this nerf will screw most carrier pilots yet they don't seem disinclined to go forward with it. Asking people who have spent significant amounts of time working for a carrier to delegate multi-million ISK fighters to a bunch of noobs in their kestrels is so ignorant and disrespectful of the time and effort players put in to getting a carrier that I can't accurately put it into words.

Brigitte
S.A.S
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:54:00 - [146]
 

lmao..
so "were not making changes to ur capital fleet... for like 3 months ..lol..then we will dribble in the changes....ffs ... man this still is a crok od shi;te
guess i will be parking up my 1 man pwnmobile in 3 months and trowing away the keys then as ccp seem to have no clu how capitals are used...

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2007.10.24 04:55:00 - [147]
 

Edited by: Hugh Ruka on 24/10/2007 04:55:43
Now this one should be in place of Zulus blog. You'd have fewer problems.

disclaimer: I do have no experience with flying carriers first hand.

I would say that the carrier versatility comes from the fact that they are actualy not versatile at all. I mean the come with a drone bay to hold fighters and drones. they come with a maintenance array and a corp hangar. and they have slots only for tank and logistic modules.

So where exactly is the versatility offered by different fittings ? I mean can the carrier choose NOT to fit a hangar but a larger drone bay instead (or the other way around)? Or some guns instead of logistic modules ?

You created a ship class that has all the capabilities out of the box, has almost NO fitting options and now you complain it is too versatile ?

And the relevant point, that delegated fighters loose out on skill/ship bonuses of the owning carrier pilot is silently omited. It's one of the main reasons why fighter delegation is not popular.

The other one being to assign a few 10s of millions of isk to another pilot so he can play for free with them.

Sort out the fighter mechanics (boht points mentioned above) and then come again with this nerf, you may find different replies next time.

Trent Nichols
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:03:00 - [148]
 

Even if the carrier was a master of all trades (it is certainly not), your paying customers do not care about your original design concept and we do not want a carrier nerf.

but if you are still determined...

I understand your goal but mindless swings of the nerf bat are not going to do it. Where in your latest blog were the suggested buffs that would make the carrier better in a particular role if we have to choose just one at a time?

Before you nerf carriers or really any ship for that matter, ask yourselves and ask your players "is the ship still worth the time and effort put into acquiring it?" If the answer is "no" you need some buffs to counter your nerfs and with a "NO!!" this big, you need to be showing us some serious buffs.

Reticenti
Loc-Nar
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:03:00 - [149]
 

This truly makes me sad. I was looking forward to carriers, but now they're even more like a giant e-peen, and I already have an Iteron for that role. ugh

It makes me disgusted that CCP isn't listening to the ENTIRE EvE community in this matter.

Perpello
Astralite Technologies
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:12:00 - [150]
 

It hurts to keep reading that CCP still believes solo carriers are capabable of "fighting off any kind of foe, small or big" and "ripping apart everything that gets in their way". That simply isn't the truth for a solo carrier. And actually "pretty much defenseless against small ship classes without support" is the truth.

Focused fire from carriers is not a lot different to focused fire from regular fleets.

"We definitely don't want Carriers to be parked at starbases" and that's good because we don't want forced delegation of fighters or drones. We want to directly control the same number of fighters and drones as it is now. We don't care how easy it will be either with the new overview. Delegation does not solve focused firepower from a fleet and focused firepower does not need fixing: it's how disciplined fleets operate.

If there is a problem with carriers and motherships might it be more related to how they are used in low-sec? At least, the ability to deploy fighters in low-sec should to be removed from carriers and motherships. Pirates would still be able to use the same numbers of drones and be as effective.

Quote:
Triage mode can be very effective in small scale fleet combat when applied correctly.


Simple truth is that the overwhelming majority of carrier pilots do not use triage for any purpose.

We have toyed with the idea of using triage to repair station services but still dismissed it as too risky. We certainly don't use it in small scale fleet combat because fights are decided quickly and having a defenceless carrier exposed on the field for 10 minutes is bad.

Want triage to be used? Scrap how it works right now. When triage is used make it impossible to deploy fighters and drones and have no other drawbacks with using the mode. And then give the carrier pilot options to choose one single benefit while in triage mode i.e. double repair, or double the speed of repair, or double the range of repair. A bit like the ARM enabled modules. It doesn't have to be like dreadnoughts in siege mode, carriers could enter triage mode and still move, warp and change session without the same drawbacks as siege mode. They would still be vulnerable to electronic warfare.

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

Module sizes being increased in Revelation III would probably have something to do with that.

For example, capital modules being increased from 1,000m3 to 4,000m3 in volume. Carriers tend to carry capital logistics modules in the corporate hangar and fit them when needed. And then they carry other non-capital modules that they might need to fit and modules that other ships in the fleet might need to fit. All of those modules will have more volume in the next expansion, kind of making the point about increased hangar size moot.

What kind of a boost in ship maintenance bay are you talking about? 5%, 100% ... not meaningful without numbers.


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 https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only