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 : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Brock McF
Caldari
Einherjar Rising
Cry Havoc.
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:21:00 - [151]
 

Edited by: Brock McF on 24/10/2007 16:53:31
I am glad CCP realizes this was not the correct way to change such a class.

I am still concerned, but glad we now have a chance to come up with some more realistic changes.

I wouldn't mind a specialized role, because as most have pointed out, the carrier does not really fit a role, and is ok at many.

It is really going to be hard to find the role, since everyone trained them for what they are now.

I think it is important to distinguish what we are actually concerned about, the class by itself, the class as a _BLOB_, or the class vs other classes of ships. It is ok at all these categories, but even if it is specialized you are not going to fix the real issue in EVE _LAG_ and the _BLOB_ creating it. You will just have a mixture of new specialized carriers vs the old jack-o-all trades carriers. Lets talk about _end_game_ this is the ultimate _end_game_. We yet to have a ship (not game breaking and nerfed) that specialized in a _ANTIBLOBLAG_ role.

Long road ahead. Personally this digs deep at the real fundamental flaws in EVE. We need to stop producing ships that are better in mass.


[ENH]Brock

Regaul Kinath
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:23:00 - [152]
 

Lets do a strike if they decide to implement this...

James CX
Dogz Of War
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:25:00 - [153]
 

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

/signed



SIGNED !!

Vaarmoth Malinigvious
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:26:00 - [154]
 

Edited by: Vaarmoth Malinigvious on 24/10/2007 05:32:19
I read about two lines and stopped.

Do you guys at CCP understand the problems you 'think' carriers represent are inherent flaws in Eve? Such as agro'ing at a station/tank/redocking. I could go on, but really why bother.

Before you even THINK about touching carriers/moms overhaul POS warfare(and I dont mean another half-assed band-aid).

Edit: THe masochist in me read more: Triage? lol? has anyone even fit that mod on tq? Secondly, your grandious ideas about usage such as remote repping and delegation eveporate with your game ruing lag (thx largly to pos warfare).

Shuckstar
Gallente
Hauling hogs
Swine Aviation Labs
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:31:00 - [155]
 

Originally by: Lightof God
allow me to say it simply CCP

YOU ARE NOT GETTING THE FRICKING POINT

your playerbase on the whole has said that carriers do not need to be nerfed in any way shape or form. The module slot system provides the limiting choice factor you desired NOW.

You can choose to have a good defense or you can choose to help you mates.

Carriers need no nerfing. NONE WHAT SO EVER. Go back to the drawing board from which this idea came and erase it, then burn that drawing board for it can no longer be the bearer of anything good. After you have done that take who ever thought of the idea and fire him, if it is multiple people fine fire the lot of them. If it was all 3 orignal designers FINE leave your own game cause you are ruining and poisining it.


This


Gyle
Caldari
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:35:00 - [156]
 

Ok now since it seems the devs are watching this post then it would be a logical place for discussion.

The reason CCP seems to have an issue with carriers is because they call them a master of all traits in their latest blog. If they still believe that something needs to give and there needs to be changes on these vessels it then becomes a case of damage limitation.

CCP, as too many forum posts to mention have demonstrated, the general feeling of outrage at the original proposalswas a direct result of your intent to disable their offensive capabilities. If you canít look here for a change then you must consider other alternatives.

Here are my proposals at a sort of compromise.

1. Leave their offensive power as it is

As previously discussed carriers offensive power is perfectly balanced. This must not change. They are not solopwnmobiles as most people agree. (Apologies to the noobs but itís a fact. An arazu or a gang fitted with sensor damps can paralyze a carrier) If CCP can just leave sensor damps as they are this will not change. Motherships should remain immune to EW as this is the benefit of the price tag.

2. Rethink their support role all together

A carrier is an offensive tool. You do not see aircraft carriers pulling up alongside battle ships in the middle of a sea battle and affecting repairs. Now donít freak out. But what if CCP was to remove their ability to use capital armor/shield/energy transporters? You could shift that ability onto rorquals or any of a dozen new capital class logistical/industrial vessels that CCP could introduce that could do it more effectively (címon we all know how CCP loves to introduce new ships). You could also increase the range on the non capital mods to allow BS to help with pos repairs rather than just the poor cap pilots. Oh and while we are at it for the love of god, the ships that would get the new bonus to capital reps should have double effectiveness against repping stationary stuff like towers/mods/stations etc. If these ships have no offensive capabilities you wonít get them aiding a pos while it is under siege.

3. Shift their logistical role completely.

Reduce the carriers ship maintenance bay to 0 M3 but allow them to keep the tab so other ships can still refit at them. Again Motherships retain current maintenance size. You can then introduce logistical carriers that have 0 drone bay and no offensive power but have an enormous maintenance bay such as 10million m3 and maybe a clone vat bay as well. Jumpfreighters are about to make carriers more and more obsolete in this role anyways and this is the avenue that CCP should be taking. Split combat and logistics. Do not penalize offensive ships and pilots who have decided to take that route. Simply add alternatives and promote teamwork and vessels that will do those other tasks more effectivly. Again you do not send aircraft to deliver supplies. You send an industrial vessel.

To sum up
Introduce new capital ships for capital repping on stations and other caps. Push harder down the lines splitting hauling and carriers and introduce better tools and ships to deal with the gap that would create. And finally and most importantly stay well away from any changes you are even thinking about making to carriers drone/offensive capabilities.

All comments welcome



Vaarmoth Malinigvious
Destructive Influence
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:36:00 - [157]
 

Originally by: shuckstar
Originally by: Lightof God
allow me to say it simply CCP

YOU ARE NOT GETTING THE FRICKING POINT

your playerbase on the whole has said that carriers do not need to be nerfed in any way shape or form. The module slot system provides the limiting choice factor you desired NOW.

You can choose to have a good defense or you can choose to help you mates.

Carriers need no nerfing. NONE WHAT SO EVER. Go back to the drawing board from which this idea came and erase it, then burn that drawing board for it can no longer be the bearer of anything good. After you have done that take who ever thought of the idea and fire him, if it is multiple people fine fire the lot of them. If it was all 3 orignal designers FINE leave your own game cause you are ruining and poisining it.


This




yep

Cyana Fox
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:44:00 - [158]
 

Originally by: DevBlog
Let's take a look at what Carriers and Motherships are currently capable of:

* 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.


Based on that comment I am going to sit here and assume you people have never flown a carrier in a solo pvp situation. Because a gang of 5 could kill a carrier. Once it gets damped, webbed, scrammed, and is off station....its DEAD. Don't believe me? Go to Sagain where carriers undock and are automatically outside dock range and count how many have died there. I've seen at least 4 and none of them had a real chance to defend themselves even with SENTRY support.

12 deployed fighters/t2 drones of choice will do NOTHING if the carrier is already damped. If it were immune to EW, then maybe I'd say its broken...but its NOT. The Mom is, but its also a SUPER CAPITAL. Seriously, before you make changes trying using the ship in pvp solo and see how much of a 'solopwnmobileofsuck' it is.

You guys who play war games on paper should actually try playing them in the game before you start jotting notes on how to nerf how uber they are on paper. At least you didn't emphasis that they melt BS's in 0.02 seconds again...oh wait..you did. =/

It really seems you guys behind the desks have more issues with MOM's *gettin podded by a smart bombing MOM on your newbie mains while flowing through low sec are we?* than carriers. Because carriers are completely useless on their own.

Cyber Blue
Gallente
The Cybrin Initiative
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:48:00 - [159]
 

Originally by: Reticenti
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.


As of now in this thread around 180 people, even if that goes up to 2400 to 3000, I really do not believe that represnts the entire EvE community. It does not represent my feelings on this matter at all. CCP is trying to do the right thing in my opinion. Also, it appears CCP is listening to this small minority and actively trying to decide on a compromise to this problem. One of the reasons I stay with EvE is the fact that CCP really seems to care so much for its community and its game.

Now lets all have a group hug. Well, maybe leave Backdoor Bandit out of it.

Perpello
Astralite Technologies
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:55:00 - [160]
 

Quote:
Itís against everything that EVE stands for that one ship is able to counter ďalmostĒ every other ship, can do all roles, all the time, without drawbacks. And that must change.


Rolling Eyes

Hi Lo
Alcedonia Nex
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:56:00 - [161]
 

hey CCP, listen to the people that pay for your wages. Laughing

With Love, Hi Lo

Skidblatnir
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:57:00 - [162]
 

It's so funny seeing all the people moaning the devs aren't playing enough when a couple of months ago they demanded they are forbidden to do so by death sentence.

Hilarious.

As for carrier specialization, we have that already.
Thanatos = damage carrier
Archon = armortank carrier
Chimera = shieldtank carrier
Nidhoggur = logistics carrier

The problem is, that spec works only on paper.
Thanatos = good damage, sufficient tank, sufficient logistics
Archon = good tank, sufficient damage, sufficient logistics
Chimera = honestly no idea if after the CPU buff the tank is up to par, otherwise see Archon
Nidhoggur = sufficent logistics (no cap to make the bonus shine), insufficent tank (crap slots / fitting), sufficient damage

The spec choices right now really are: "good in one aspect, same as everyone else in others" or "generally worse".

So instead of "cripple everyone", differentiate them further. The people that got into a Thanatos probably did so because of the fighter damage bonus. Same with the guys that went Nidhoggur, they knew they would get a more-logistics carrier.

Buff their characteristics, tone down aspects that other carriers are supposed to fill. Make them excel at something, traded for versatility. They way people can use their carriers gets limited, and many won't like it. But they most likely chose their carrier for their defining characteristic - buff that one.

Quutar
Ars ex Discordia
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:58:00 - [163]
 

if you want a carrier to choose... adjust the modules it uses in it's high slots... add modules for the mids's low

for example...

take away the +1/3 fighter per level... and change it to +2/5 fighter per DCU equipped (carrier/mothership)

so if a carrier is fully logistics equipped... then they will only have 5 fighters... if they are battle equipped... then they will have DCU on the highs instead of logistics modules

maybe not this specifically... but somethign along these ways

Peter Powers
FinFleet
Raiden.
Posted - 2007.10.24 05:58:00 - [164]
 

while i dont see why it should be necessary to nerf carriers (they allready have that "huge-target-sign-on-hull"-nerf, and as a carrier pilot you have to be a lot more carefull then in other ships (for example everyone sees and is able to warp to your incoming cyno if you enter a system)).

Your a bit wrong about that "can fill all roles at once"

- for a hauling carrier you will be fit for maximum cap recharge and have your maintenance bay full of haulers to have a maximum of transport capability and a cloak for hiding in systems without pos.

- as a fighting carrier you have drone control units & neutralizers, maybe a smartbomb in your highs, and a heavy tank

- as a support carrier you have your highs full with support modules (remote repairers/shield boosters), a "medium" tank (well speaking of carrier tanks - still larger then the tank of other ships) and the rest fitted for cap recharge

so you see - you allready have several choices to make.

IF you are not satisfied with that allready, then please please please make sure that if you do something like the proposed hangar module and so on - players can use it without additional training, cause i dont want the carrier which i just got for my alt (finishing training for the capital shield boost today...) to be worthless until i put even more training in it, its allready a frustrating long step from flying a non capital to flying a carrier.

Scorched Evil
R A G E
NEGATIVE TENDENCIES
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:03:00 - [165]
 

Originally by: Skidblatnir
It's so funny seeing all the people moaning the devs aren't playing enough when a couple of months ago they demanded they are forbidden to do so by death sentence.


You mean the devs we caught cheating? Those ones? Yeah they can **** off and go work for apple. The rest who seem to have a clue can get back to listening to the playerbase.

Rolling Eyes


Ms Tinker
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:03:00 - [166]
 

Nice blog, it states the reasoning behind the change pretty well. Tho the solution should not be what was proposed in previous blog. Having logistical modules sounds pretty feasible. But like said, it's not a solopwnmobile at present either, without support it's a dead carrier.

As you say, you can make it with modules, I might think it this way: drone control units decrease efficiency of remote repairs and vice versa? Make a drone bandwidth module for the pilot to choose a drone/fighter type they want to use? Try to fix the small problems on this blog, not the whole role at once, let carrier have it's abilities.

Synapse Archae
Amarr
Viziam
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:04:00 - [167]
 

Originally by: d026
Edited by: d026 on 24/10/2007 01:02:57

1 damp frig 2 damps = 15k lockrange chimera.
add anotehr damp whooha = 9k lockrange!




I'm both a chimera pilot and a roaming gang PVPer. Enthusiastic about both roles, but I can tell you some things about my experience.

If I'm in my carrier, I'm either 100% safe (station/pos hugging) or I've got 2 dozen plus support and scouts. If youre bringing it into a small battle its too easy for your support to get wiped quickly and what did you gain for your 1bn investment? No point in risking a big ship for a couple kills vs a roaming gang. Plus if you do, they come back next time with damps, a cyno gen, and 10 dreads undocked in jumprange.

If I'm roaming, and we see a carrier, thats the next best thing to a mining op. Its like a frigging christmas present. We might worry about having enough DPS to break its tank, but we dont care one bit about fighters or drones it might put out, especially if we have damps (and most good roaming gangs do.)

A carrier alone is not a solopwnmobile. Its a sitting duck. Nerf it down to just fighters if you want, then you can make it a completely defenceless sitting duck, either way its going down anyway.

A friend of mine in a solo interceptor held a carrier for 20 minutes until his cap ran out. Wasnt the least bit worried about anything that carrier had. So much for the "pwns everything" theory.

Sentinel Eeex
Caldari
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:06:00 - [168]
 

Originally by: Z'kario
so 3 200k isk frigs dampening a 2 bil isk carrier to the point it can't defend itself is not good enough.


No. Carrier support will kill 3 frigs in less than 20 seconds.

Forty Three
Masuat'aa Matari
Ushra'Khan
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:07:00 - [169]
 

While I didn't think the originally proposed change was particularly good (although I didn't think it was as catastrophic as people made it out to be), I just want to say that I think it's really *really* poor form what a lot of people here have been doing. Threatening the devs? Attacking them personally instead of using proper arguments? Please.

there are much better ways to convince the devs that the change they proposed is not healthy to the game than being total arsehats and threatening people...

oh, and Laughing at the people who accuse devs of not playing their own game, when probably about half of them were the same ones that a few months ago were WHINING that the devs got to play the game.

stop the hypocrisy please

Treelox
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:12:00 - [170]
 

Originally by: "nozh"
Ps. Don't mind the changes on Sisi, they'll be reverted on next update and were accidental.


{{{translation}}}

[with a small wave of his hand] "You don't need to see his identification

These aren't the droids you're looking for. "


---

Anyways on to the "constructive" part of my post........

Oh wait I dont have much more of anything to add here, all my objections were raised in the first thread. All this "new" devblog is a rehash of yesterdays ill thought out idea, with slightly less inflamitory language and a bit more sugarcoating, so my post in the first thread continues to apply to this one.

I do have one additional comment to this "newer friendly, but still full of it devblog".

Originally by: "CCP Nozh"
In fact, no other ship classes are as versatile and powerful without requiring you to refit for it


So that huddle of carriers and moms that I see over on the other side of the POS from me arent refiting from their travel setup to their repper setup, or their DCU setup, or their UBER tank setup??


So Nozh I have a question for you, think about it, and get back to me....
"Why do you think that carriers are being used as the "swiss army knife of eve"? Is it due to lack of player imagination, or a limitation of how the mechanics work in the real world VS the idealic world of the CCP offices, or maybe because the "logistics" side of carriers is woefully borked?"

Coolgamer
Destructive Influence
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:32:00 - [171]
 

Originally by: Gyle
Ok now since it seems the devs are watching this post then it would be a logical place for discussion.

The reason CCP seems to have an issue with carriers is because they call them a master of all traits in their latest blog. If they still believe that something needs to give and there needs to be changes on these vessels it then becomes a case of damage limitation.

CCP, as too many forum posts to mention have demonstrated, the general feeling of outrage at the original proposalswas a direct result of your intent to disable their offensive capabilities. If you canít look here for a change then you must consider other alternatives.

Here are my proposals at a sort of compromise.

1. Leave their offensive power as it is

As previously discussed carriers offensive power is perfectly balanced. This must not change. They are not solopwnmobiles as most people agree. (Apologies to the noobs but itís a fact. An arazu or a gang fitted with sensor damps can paralyze a carrier) If CCP can just leave sensor damps as they are this will not change. Motherships should remain immune to EW as this is the benefit of the price tag.

2. Rethink their support role all together

A carrier is an offensive tool. You do not see aircraft carriers pulling up alongside battle ships in the middle of a sea battle and affecting repairs. Now donít freak out. But what if CCP was to remove their ability to use capital armor/shield/energy transporters? You could shift that ability onto rorquals or any of a dozen new capital class logistical/industrial vessels that CCP could introduce that could do it more effectively (címon we all know how CCP loves to introduce new ships). You could also increase the range on the non capital mods to allow BS to help with pos repairs rather than just the poor cap pilots. Oh and while we are at it for the love of god, the ships that would get the new bonus to capital reps should have double effectiveness against repping stationary stuff like towers/mods/stations etc. If these ships have no offensive capabilities you wonít get them aiding a pos while it is under siege.

3. Shift their logistical role completely.

Reduce the carriers ship maintenance bay to 0 M3 but allow them to keep the tab so other ships can still refit at them. Again Motherships retain current maintenance size. You can then introduce logistical carriers that have 0 drone bay and no offensive power but have an enormous maintenance bay such as 10million m3 and maybe a clone vat bay as well. Jumpfreighters are about to make carriers more and more obsolete in this role anyways and this is the avenue that CCP should be taking. Split combat and logistics. Do not penalize offensive ships and pilots who have decided to take that route. Simply add alternatives and promote teamwork and vessels that will do those other tasks more effectivly. Again you do not send aircraft to deliver supplies. You send an industrial vessel.

To sum up
Introduce new capital ships for capital repping on stations and other caps. Push harder down the lines splitting hauling and carriers and introduce better tools and ships to deal with the gap that would create. And finally and most importantly stay well away from any changes you are even thinking about making to carriers drone/offensive capabilities.

All comments welcome





+1
this is the carrier i want to see

goods ideas Gyle



Amaron Ghant
Caldari
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:34:00 - [172]
 

More words, same refrain.

How the hell is a carrier the master of all trades?

You know what, forget it, whats the effing point. Have at CCP; nerf to your hearts content.

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:41:00 - [173]
 

Carriers are not the master of all trades and operating on this premise will produce sub-par results. They just have the benefit of starting with the single most useful in EVE - the longest range jump drive of any ship.

People have developed every other use for them from there.

Ztrain
Versatech Co.
Blade.
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:42:00 - [174]
 

Originally by: Regaul Kinath
Lets do a strike if they decide to implement this...

The strike has already begun. Many of us have cancelled their accounts and are waiting to see if CCP gives us a reason to renew. So far even with this new blog they have not yet done so.

Z

humbleThC
The humble Crew
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:50:00 - [175]
 

Originally by: Ztrain
Originally by: Regaul Kinath
Lets do a strike if they decide to implement this...

The strike has already begun. Many of us have cancelled their accounts and are waiting to see if CCP gives us a reason to renew. So far even with this new blog they have not yet done so.

Z


Here's something anyone on any side of any war agree's on... CCP listen to us... or fear the wrath of loosing our dollar.

Jazmyne Lee
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:51:00 - [176]
 

LOOK coming from someone who is starting to get sick of eve just a little. I have two char's skilled to fly carriors all level4 skills so i could have all but 2 fighters out per carrior all the fittings are the best i could find i have them fully outfitted in a 0.4 station AS I SAID TWO DAM CARRIORS and never left the station cos i still need a support ship to move dam thing i need to be friendly with 0.0 corp and on top of that 14mil a fighter. come on there good ships but still not a solo ship. also i was hoping level5 missions would need the carriors as support ships but again ****** NO!!!!!!! not happy guys i trained for carriors now i have to go back train a support ship to do level5's salfly DAM IT PLAY THE GAME YOU WRITE ABOUT.

Jordan Musgrat
Convergent
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:52:00 - [177]
 

Someone had a good point, make Drone Control Units to where they only allow more fighters, not more drones. Also, if you give every carrier another low slot, and add a module that is the SMA, that's fine. Maybe make the SMA and Corp Hangar both require separate modules, and only give us 1 slot. You've got soo many options.

The main thing is that you balance the carrier while not nerfing any one aspect.

Mindlles
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:54:00 - [178]
 


Yeah offcurse carrier is abit off a swiss knife, have to agree on that. But is it as powerfull in the diffrent sections as u say, no. Well maybe the hauling bit :/.

Sure 80 carriers toghter is a nasty tought, but so is 80 bs, or 80 intys. Tho u can meet 80 carriers with 80 carriers, just as u can meet 80 bs with 80 bs...... So no bigger diffrence there.

Do they do alot off dmg? Yeah 5 carriers toghter is nice dmg, if something gets close enough to be locked down by some off eves most slow ship. Can they tho work good as a logistic group with some firepower ? Oh yeah. But they are best when it comes to kill other captials. A group off 5 carriers toghter with skill pilots can be hard to kill with a group off 20. But at the same time that group off 20 "smaller ships" can easly kill does 5 carriers if they know what they do. Pick them off one by one, and kick their arse while keeping them loocked down.

May i ask why this need so much attantion when u still havent delt with ppl exploting logg off mechanics, "even in the worst pvp mmorpg ever - WOW - u cant save ursefl by logging off". And why have u not delt with ravens cloaking in belts. We all know most battleship pilots with cloaks are isk farmers annyway?.

I cant help my self from standing with my jaws in the floor and wondering if ur even in this game, i been around since beta and some off the biggest problems in eve is not delt with, but some **** problems that have started to occure now becouse one group is good at using it, and one is worthless. Has to be delt with right away..

Eve is a cold hars place someone said,, i tought in this cold harsh place the skilled pilot surive, and the guy without anny imagination, displine die. Isnt that what have made all us vets played the game for such a long time?

So far the changes towards carriers have been great "at realse they where abit to easy to use". Just a fact off not letting carriers realse drones in side pos shilds have caused extrem amount off carriers deaths.

As u understand by now, i have a hard time agreeing with u how good this ships are.. Specilly not when my corp kills them on regular basic with commands, bs, and nano groups???

Or is this just another proof that u guys are really bad in this game? Or is it the fact that u are just implenting another thing to make the game even more in easy mode for all does masses who dont use their heads when they play?

RAFAEL101
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:58:00 - [179]
 

As far as i know this is the worst change to take place i eve history. Your comparisons are idiotic if a bs vs a carrier who should win. Duh the carrier its 1 v 1 what do you want them to be equal? Regardless if the carries was unable to use all of its drone abilities the have massive tank and would still be able to take out 10 bs. I know this because the CEO of my crop tanked 10 bs / support fleet until they ran out of ammo, and he did not fire a shot. At the end he even offered to sell them more ammo. So by nerfing the fighters you realy aren't getting to the heart of the problem. You should listen to the people who play the game they know what they are talking about. I might not know a whole lot about carriers because i don't yet fly one, however it doesn't take a carrier pilot to know this is a bad idea. Please try to reconsider your changes to the carriers.

Also i have personally seen carriers go down durring battles with ease. The fighters are real easy to pop and without fighters a carrier is totally useless. Yes fighter do pop easily, a few smart bombs and there all gone.

PS: I know this might not make much sense, but i was sleeping while writing this so give me a break.

Clamn8er
Gato Nero
Posted - 2007.10.24 06:59:00 - [180]
 

Originally by: Baun
Originally by: Crovan

In the end, carriers are no more a swiss-army knife than a Battleship, just on a different scale. Force specialization, sure, but do not nerf them. Make the specializations go beyond current capabilities and you will have a much less angry playerbase, and a game with a lot more flavor.



Holy-intelligent-post batman!

If CCP were less arrogant they might actually listen to their player base that contains people like this and they wouldn't risk destroying 6 years of work in 3 days again.


I agree completely.

Personally I am Evil or Very Mad angry Evil or Very Mad that the following issues have still not been addressed.

A. The lack of apology at the terrible judgment displayed by certain Devs on the day of the "proposed" nerf announcement that was humiliating on top of enfuriating, which served to push the community into white-hot fury.

B. The fact that the effect on SMALL CORPS has been completely ignored and NOTHING is being said about this.

C. On what GAMEPLAY facts did the Devs base their opinion that a Carrier is a "pawnmobile."

EVERYONE WHO USES THEM SAYS THEY ARE NOT.

So what the hell are we missing?

Evil or Very Mad


Pages: first : previous : ... 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 ... : 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