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 : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Shevar
Minmatar
Target Practice incorporated
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:02:00 - [181]
 

I still don't know what you guys want a carrier to do during a fleet op.

Logistics is a rather broad term... You want them repping other ships? If so then why does it take ages to lock anything? You want them on the front lines assigning fighters? If so don't you think they either need to become a lot cheaper/less skills required or A LOT thougher to kill? You want them to sit at a safespot assigning fighters to others? Yeah that sounds usefull and fun to do.

Wouldn't it be better to implement ships that can better counter cap ships? For example boosting dreads so they can tear through them without going into siege mode?

Merrick Solipsus
Shadows Of The Requiem
Eternus Imperium Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:12:00 - [182]
 

I havent read all the pages here so this may have been covered but I wanted to add something about the blog.

In it, you say you want to change it so Carriers are not as effective against small ships. I can understand this however want to point out that the 25+ second locktime is already a large "penalty".

Shortly after you say youre looking at tracking on Fighters and drones. I am guessing this means you want to lower the tracking so they cant hit small things very well.

I understand the reasoning but would like to point out that fighters already have a very hard time hitting anything smaller than a battlecruiser. As for other drones, Im worried that if you change them because of carriers you will be severely hurting all other ships that depend heavily on drones.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:15:00 - [183]
 

So how about this... if you don't want them to be OH-so-versatile and stuff:


* can ONLY launch fighters
* can only control a maximum of 5 * [1 + (ships_in_fleet/carriers_in_fleet)] fighters


This way, you make them COMPLETELY vulnerable to small ships (so you NEED to bring smaller support with you) *and* you can only launch as many as you could have normally delegated anyway.

Fixes ALL of the things that this ridiculously initially proposed change tried to, and even nerfs them a bit more, but at least it retains their FEASABILITY.
Because once you make it dependant on assigning, you're opening up to lagtasticity, and it's all downhill from there.

Shigawahhhhh
Caldari
Metalworks
Majesta Empire
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:22:00 - [184]
 

I still don't like the idea of having to have fleet members just to lunch fighters...imagine if you said to a dread pilot that (s)he had to have a fleet member for each gun. They would just look at you and laugh.
This is in reply to the person above this post not the blog itself as thats not what the blog was suggesting.

James Duar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:24:00 - [185]
 

The blog itself is ******ed because there is nothing objectively wrong with carriers, as far as can be presently discerned. There is a major issue with lag and the effectiveness of drones in it.

You can't balance carriers when we in fact have no idea about how they actually work or how hard they are to fight against.

Sentinel Eeex
Caldari
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:28:00 - [186]
 

Although I was flaming CCP for past 2 days, I am at least satisfied that they've explained what bothers them now. I don't really like them nerfing carriers, but I can understand it.

Minor detail which everyone seems to ignore: There are more than 10,000 Carriers in play

A carrier is not overpowered nor is a solopwnmobile. And it is easy to kill.

However, 50 carriers in a gang are overpowered. We're nearing the stage where you end up having more carriers in a gang, than support ships. And that is not good for the game. And it's only going to get worse.

Before making any carrier nerfs, though, CCP has to fix the lag problems. Because, nerf like this would kill carriers totally, if lag isn't fixed.

If this is CCP's attempt to "fix" lag, then we can only laugh.

CCP Abathur


C C P
C C P Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:29:00 - [187]
 

Edited by: CCP Abathur on 24/10/2007 07:29:47

Good Morning All.

I realize that emotions are still running high so I'd like to point out a few things that might reassure some of you.

One of the big differences between this blog and the first one is that we're now focused on providing you with a series of choices to make when it comes time to take your ships out. This has nothing to do with comparing what a carrier can do against a single battleship or whatever. What we're talking about is entirely different.

We're looking at giving you the ability to specialize carriers and motherships in a way not really done before. We know that some of you have never even bothered to use your carriers for 'hauling'. We know that some of you just hop into them, jump to a cyno and want to rip things up. Well, you'll still be able to do that (perhaps in some ways better than before) but you will have to trade off something for it.

Perhaps you want your fighters to be able to do more damage to larger ships? Maybe hit that dread fleet with a little extra DPS, but at the cost of a smaller or no ship maintence array?

Perhaps you want to focus your carrier to be better able to repair other ships? Faster lock time? Improved repair amounts, but at the cost of offensive firepower?

Less fighter control and more tank on your ship? Modules that increase fighter durability in exchange for speed? Better tracking on fighters but less DPS?

These are just some of the ideas we are looking at. There will be advantages and there will be penalties. Nothing is set in stone but the intent is all about trade-offs and specialization. We're going to be looking at the fighters themselves as well, tweaking them and possibly adding new variations.

Your feedback is important to this process so please keep it coming. There are a lot of options that we intend to explore in order to provide you with the most important thing EVE has to offer - the power of choice. Cool

Khan Soriano
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:32:00 - [188]
 

I just can't find another word that best describes CCP without using some massive curse words, so I'd have to go with idiots & cowards.

After the carrier/ms devblog a bunch of people start whining about their UBERWTFPWNZORMOBILES being straightened to fit a role that they were designed to do!!! What is the reaction of CCP? Immediately issue a second devblog in which they appologise to people flying carriers (abusers totally ruining this game for everyone else) and then they retract the changes they thought of (I think it was a great change to force them into logistic, fleet support) and delay any nerf by 3 months!!!

But when people are whining about Amarr being UTTER CRAP nothing happens for over a year. This is despite promising OMPH (well we got a little with Khanid but thats like 5 ships out of 30), repeated promises about finding a role for the whole race (as currently it lost its guns&tanks to Gallente) and ships (APOC!!!).

So basicly when you've got a ship thats completely unworthy of flying, you have to wait 1+ years for something to happen. But when you have a SOLO-GROUP-WHATEVER-YOU-NAME-IT-PWNMOBILE then you can be damn sure CCP will do all it takes so that you will preserve your UBERNESS a lot longer.

CCP you are clearly understaffed in terms of creative&thinking departament maybe its time to do something about it? If you can't hire people with this characteristic maybe its time to use some of your playerbase ideas, I'm sure nobody will mind if in the end they'll get a better, balanced game.

Carniflex
StarHunt
Fallout Project
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:36:00 - [189]
 

Rather nice blog filling in the 'why' part mostly missing from the previous one. It just might work out.

Sentinel Eeex
Caldari
Thunderwaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:36:00 - [190]
 

Edited by: Sentinel Eeex on 24/10/2007 07:41:21
Edited by: Sentinel Eeex on 24/10/2007 07:40:34
Originally by: CCP Abathur

Your feedback is important to this process so please keep it coming. There are a lot of options that we intend to explore in order to provide you with the most important thing EVE has to offer - the power of choice. Cool


- Carrier pilots must be able to 'preassign' fighters, so when they cyno in and launch fighters, fighters automatically follow the controlling pilot. Otherwise, anyone cynoing into big battle will be useless.

- Make it possible for carrier pilots to be able to control full number of fighters. But, make them sacrifice high slots to be able to do that. Fill all high slots with modules that allow you to control 12 fighters = no smartbombs, no repping, etc.

- If carrier wants to fit for repping (POSes, gangmates, etc), make it impossible to control many fighters.

- Even if number of fighters that can be controlled will obviuosly be limited, let carriers control full number of drones, which their skills allow.

- You want a carrier to be more like a 'real world' carrier? Fine. Allow carrier to choose X number of ships of certain class that can jump (bridge ;) through cyno with him. Frig/destroyer/cruiser class, for example - so carrier can at least have some support when he jumps out through cyno, as opposed to being a sitting duck as it is now.

- FIX THE LAG

Dominator9987
Minmatar
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:38:00 - [191]
 

Quote:
No ship in EVE should be the “end game” vessel, but that's what we feel we've got now. There are more than 10,000 Carriers in play, a vessel which can be everything you want it to be (which is part of the problem) without having to fit for the occasion.


/me reminds you about Moros vs Carrier results in carrier carcass.

So is the dread the endgame ship? (rhetorical). I know the devs mean well, I might spend a lot of time chuckling about the mixxed intentions in the EULA, but if you truely want to keep the game fun, then make sure that the rewards for true effort and long term planning dont go up in smoke as the result turns out to be a co-dependant useless wretched mass of spacefareing steel.

You want to weaken them a bit? Don't bother. It'll make people mad. But if you wanna tone em down in the scale of things try for the Dragon Ball Z effect (much like a sphere of soap made of many old bars of soap). Just tack on something else into the game that specializes in taking those ships out.

hint: just so you dont have to nerf ANYTHING on the mothership and still address the problem of them just waving / jumping away; try a stealth neut ship that can neut enough cap to kill the ability to jump while completely disabling its own offensive.

Mindlles
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:38:00 - [192]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 24/10/2007 07:29:47

Good Morning All.

I realize that emotions are still running high so I'd like to point out a few things that might reassure some of you.

One of the big differences between this blog and the first one is that we're now focused on providing you with a series of choices to make when it comes time to take your ships out. This has nothing to do with comparing what a carrier can do against a single battleship or whatever. What we're talking about is entirely different.

We're looking at giving you the ability to specialize carriers and motherships in a way not really done before. We know that some of you have never even bothered to use your carriers for 'hauling'. We know that some of you just hop into them, jump to a cyno and want to rip things up. Well, you'll still be able to do that (perhaps in some ways better than before) but you will have to trade off something for it.

Perhaps you want your fighters to be able to do more damage to larger ships? Maybe hit that dread fleet with a little extra DPS, but at the cost of a smaller or no ship maintence array?

Perhaps you want to focus your carrier to be better able to repair other ships? Faster lock time? Improved repair amounts, but at the cost of offensive firepower?

Less fighter control and more tank on your ship? Modules that increase fighter durability in exchange for speed? Better tracking on fighters but less DPS?

These are just some of the ideas we are looking at. There will be advantages and there will be penalties. Nothing is set in stone but the intent is all about trade-offs and specialization. We're going to be looking at the fighters themselves as well, tweaking them and possibly adding new variations.

Your feedback is important to this process so please keep it coming. There are a lot of options that we intend to explore in order to provide you with the most important thing EVE has to offer - the power of choice. Cool


Do me a favour, go focuse on some more importen problems in eve - like logging off to save ur ship witch is still a big problem, as said before in my post wow the worst mmorpg pvp game have better system for this then eve-online that are suppose to be the top pvp mmorpg.

Deal with the cloaking problems on battleships?

Deal with the sovernity problems, "yeah poses and sovernity has just made the game more easy and more laggy".

Or are u magicly playing this game and missing does problems? And only reading numbers?

Gane Green
Gallente
Dominus Imperium
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:42:00 - [193]
 

Edited by: Gane Green on 24/10/2007 07:48:21
You cannot put out flames with sugar ccp.

If you are looking something to fix try fixing the corp interface, or POS's. There is plenty to fix there that wont **** people off.

Btw good morning.

Also I dont have high emotions at all. Im looking at this with a blank face.

Bullet Shield
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:43:00 - [194]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 24/10/2007 07:29:47

Good Morning All.

I realize that emotions are still running high so I'd like to point out a few things that might reassure some of you.

One of the big differences between this blog and the first one is that we're now focused on providing you with a series of choices to make when it comes time to take your ships out. This has nothing to do with comparing what a carrier can do against a single battleship or whatever. What we're talking about is entirely different.

We're looking at giving you the ability to specialize carriers and motherships in a way not really done before. We know that some of you have never even bothered to use your carriers for 'hauling'. We know that some of you just hop into them, jump to a cyno and want to rip things up. Well, you'll still be able to do that (perhaps in some ways better than before) but you will have to trade off something for it.

Perhaps you want your fighters to be able to do more damage to larger ships? Maybe hit that dread fleet with a little extra DPS, but at the cost of a smaller or no ship maintence array?

Perhaps you want to focus your carrier to be better able to repair other ships? Faster lock time? Improved repair amounts, but at the cost of offensive firepower?

Less fighter control and more tank on your ship? Modules that increase fighter durability in exchange for speed? Better tracking on fighters but less DPS?

These are just some of the ideas we are looking at. There will be advantages and there will be penalties. Nothing is set in stone but the intent is all about trade-offs and specialization. We're going to be looking at the fighters themselves as well, tweaking them and possibly adding new variations.

Your feedback is important to this process so please keep it coming. There are a lot of options that we intend to explore in order to provide you with the most important thing EVE has to offer - the power of choice. Cool



I Think the New Ideas Floating around with the 2nd Dev Blog Sound Pretty Exciting, Customizing a Carrier to preform good at some roles but take hits on others is the same choises all other ships in eve have to make.

Keep throwing around the ideas of how you would like to use your carrier so when the changes are made carriers are left in as good or better positions depending on your fitting.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:43:00 - [195]
 

Sounds good CCP - allowing Carriers to fit for specialized roles seems to make a lot of sense. Perhaps you'd better give CCP Zulupark a better gig next time eh? That last one was a tough initiation. I dunno he could announce a boost to something (like the Amarr - or the pilgrimVery Happy): better do it pronto otherwise noone will buy him beer at fanfest!!! Wink

C.


CountDrakula
Perkone
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:43:00 - [196]
 

i 100% agree that carriers are currently, being abused from there original intended purpose. I however think your aproach simple swinging the nerf bat is not going to get you far. I suggest if you serrisly want to change the carrier roles you do somethign liek the following.

1 - remove the drone bay, instead replace with a LARGER fighter bay. I.e only fighters can be loaded, NO DRONES

2 - provide new fighter types, so i can load say 20 dmg fighter,s 10 ewar fighters and some logistic fighters.

3 - to the normal damage fighters, boost there damage, and reduce there tracking. So there primary role is nailin BCs, Bs and will do some decent damage to other capitals.

4 - change the logistic bonus to a cap bonus on logistic equipent. I.e a 10% reduction in cap usage of logistic modules

5 - give a carrier a bonus to gang modules, similar to the fleet comands, but still only allow it to use 1 gang module at a time.

end result is a carrier with higher dps vrs cpaitals and bs but no defence ther than what it fits to its high versus smaller ships. Its now has a decent amount of firepower vrs other capitals thanks to the increase in fighter damage, but its fighter tracking reduction protects enemy ceptors from getting BBQ. But the biggest change is that fact that by only being able to load fighters, you won;t nerf drone users, such as curses, domi or typhoons.

All in all if you implement its bonuses, you end up with a carrier that in a small gnag or a fleet is a decent anti bs/capital deterient anda are gang logistic/bonus buff. But requires suport to counter smaller moving targets. Which currently just get nailed by the carriers warrior IIs

Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:44:00 - [197]
 

Nozh joins the club I see....
The club of "Clueless people at CCP who've never actually flown a carrier in battle but thinks they know how they work"....

Current members: Zulupark, Eris Discordia, Nozh

Lots look at your arguments and see where you're wrong:

Can fight any foe
Technically correct, unless that person is damping you, or has a couple of friends. If he has a couple of friends nearby, and one of them has a scrambler, you're screwed as they'll simply shoot your drones/fighters before killing your carrier.

Great logistics ships
What game did you play? It for sure wasn't EVE!
Triage is useless, and long locking times and lag makes carrier repping of anything smaller than another capital ships more or less useless in fleet battles. The concept of focused fire must be quite novel to you....

Jump capable haulers
Please, stop grasping at any small straw to support your failed proposal! The only reason they're used that way is because there is no other alternative. THIS use is going to go away when you bring in the T2 freighter.

Excellent support ships
If they are so excellent at delegating fighters, why is it that most carrier pilots don't want to do so. Oh, right! Because they'll most likely loose those fighters!

Activities players use them for
PvP: What they're designed to do!
Logistics: ...Read above. They're ****E at this.
Support (spare modules/ships): Yes..
PvE: Don't be stupid! Unless you do that in a completely secure area, you run a very big chance of a dead carrier. For that matter, I didn't see even one person in the other thread mentioning this (after page 45).
0.0 Transporting: Only because no other way of doing it!
POS fueling: As above.

End game
Of cause they are. They're the biggest PvP ship (a dread is not a PvP ship) you can fly! That in itself is what makes people aim to fly it!
If you knew how 0.0 was, you'd also know that carrier pilots frequently park their carriers to jump into a battleship or other ship (unless they have an alt that can fly that). Carriers are pretty specialised ships, and if you ONLY flew a carrier, you'd be bored 90%+ of the time.
Quote:
We don’t want to see either of these ships ripping apart everything that gets in their way, no matter the size

They don't, except on non-realistic 1v1's. Try playing the game!

A few points.....
Bring support: People ALREADY bring support. A carrier fleet without support is either dead or doesn't accomplish anything.
Quote:
We don‘t want Carriers and Motherships to be as effective against smaller ships (Frigates, Destroyers, Cruisers and Battlecruisers) while being just as effective against the larger ships (Battleships and up) at the same time.

They're not! If you're fighting a BS and want to fight frigates, you first have to disengage and retract your fighters (this is NOT fast), then deploy drones. If your oppositions has a damper, you're completely and utterly screwed and will die!
Look at how carriers are ACTUALLY used in fleet. They don't fight frigates Rolling Eyes
---

You just make the same worthless statements as Zulupark, albeit better packaged (i.e. as I was saying in the other thread, sugarcoating it). It still totally shows that you haven't got a clue either as to how carriers are actually used in 0.0 warfare.
  • Without a support fleet, they die or don't accomplish much
  • They don't "Fry everything in 0.2 seconds" (please don't take forum whines as the eternal truth)
  • Their offensive 'tooth' is so easy to remove if you know what you're doing. Shoot their fighters/drones, and you can kill them at your leisure
  • Damps....
  • They SUCK at fleet logistics (and Triage is absolutely useless)! The only thing they really can do there is rep POS'


So, as a lot of us said in the other thread. This is a clear indicator that you want us older players to leave. Must make sense to you I suppose....

Lorn Yeager
Versatech Co.
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:47:00 - [198]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 24/10/2007 07:29:47

Good Morning All.

I realize that emotions are still running high so I'd like to point out a few things that might reassure some of you.

One of the big differences between this blog and the first one is that we're now focused on providing you with a series of choices to make when it comes time to take your ships out. This has nothing to do with comparing what a carrier can do against a single battleship or whatever. What we're talking about is entirely different.

We're looking at giving you the ability to specialize carriers and motherships in a way not really done before. We know that some of you have never even bothered to use your carriers for 'hauling'. We know that some of you just hop into them, jump to a cyno and want to rip things up. Well, you'll still be able to do that (perhaps in some ways better than before) but you will have to trade off something for it.

Perhaps you want your fighters to be able to do more damage to larger ships? Maybe hit that dread fleet with a little extra DPS, but at the cost of a smaller or no ship maintence array?

Perhaps you want to focus your carrier to be better able to repair other ships? Faster lock time? Improved repair amounts, but at the cost of offensive firepower?

Less fighter control and more tank on your ship? Modules that increase fighter durability in exchange for speed? Better tracking on fighters but less DPS?

These are just some of the ideas we are looking at. There will be advantages and there will be penalties. Nothing is set in stone but the intent is all about trade-offs and specialization. We're going to be looking at the fighters themselves as well, tweaking them and possibly adding new variations.

Your feedback is important to this process so please keep it coming. There are a lot of options that we intend to explore in order to provide you with the most important thing EVE has to offer - the power of choice. Cool


First, no.

If you want to do all that to a shiptype, you better rewamp the requirements both skillwise and materials needed.
Fighters are overexpensive as it is. Carriers are slow enough as it is.

Smaller ship maintence array for more dps? Why call it a carrier then?
Less fighter control and more tank? (lol) The triage-module tried that but it only makes you a large target.

Feedback is, even the most constructive kind imaginable, that this is just wrong.

Choises allready have to be made. Carriers and moms die all over the place as it is.

If you want to have a ship that requires so much work and effort to get into, it'd better be worth it.

Im sorry, I cannot trust you with my VISA card information anylonger.


Gnulpie
Minmatar
Miner Tech
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:49:00 - [199]
 

Originally by: CCP Nozh
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.

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

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

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





The assumptions are not at all valid. And from invalid assumptions you can draw any conclusions you want - so no wonder that CCP comes up with 'strange' ideas.

Carriers are NOT the solo pwnmobiles!!

Let a carrier appear in 0.0 somewhere without support and I guarantee that the carriers, once it got spotted, will be dead within the next 1-2 hours - unless he cynos out.

Carriers can not fence off easily any kind of foe! Where are you living?? Surely not on Tranq - please have a look at the current state of Eve and how it is played. And don't mistake a few motherships in low sec camping gates for the general picture. Look at the various killboards for example!

Great logistic ships. Yes, they would be great in fleet battle if they wouldn't be dampened to less than a few km targetting range. If people know what they are doing, they can render carriers very effectively useless. And then the support is bye-bye.

Jump-capable haulers. Carriers are used for hauling because there are no other options available! Introduce jumpdrive freighters and carriers won't be used for hauling that easily any more.

Support vessels to move ships behind the lines? How many battleships fit into a carrier? Enough said I guess.

So the assumptions are all wrong.

If CCP insists on their wrong assumptions then the need to 'fix' carriers will always arise.

The only problem are supercaps in low sec - because you cannot drop bubbles around them. And even then it was possible to kill a mom there already.

Arrow You don't want carriers to be haulers? Introduce jump freighters.

Arrow You don't want carrier pilots to control that many drones (why not btw?)? Give a bonus if you delegate them to other gang members!

Arrow You don't want carrier blobs and fighter swarms? Make BOMBS working much better!

But I cannot see any need to nerf the carriers themselves. Also consider that you need to train 1 year for carrier and that it should not be possible to counter that ship with a 1 month old noob.

Also consider that carriers cost 1+ bil and that they should not be countered with 10 mil ships either.

If the fighters of a carrier are gone, it is sitting dead. What other defences does it have?? Some sort of point defence guns would be good to have.



Idea You want different roles? Give carriers different modules!


  • Triage module = carrier becomes better at logistic

  • new module = carrier becomes better at hauling/supplying

  • new module = carrier becomes better with fighter/drone/dps



Now add to the module activation some specific drawbacks and you have solved all your problems in a gentle and elegant way!

MOS DEF
0utbreak
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:51:00 - [200]
 

It makes me sad to see that you really don't get it. I wish some of you would really play the game still. And i mean more then logging in and run a level 5 mission. Carriers are endgame eh? Maybe you should fix missions then because i only can see some carebears use them like that and tbh even there only few do so. You wont see carriers used for belt ratting much.
I have came across some of them and guess what: Your solopwnmobile died to a small roaming gang wthout any problems.

Carriers are NOT solo pwn mobiles. Carriers can NOT kill of targets of any size. Carriers in fact get dampened by one single dampener ship and then die a horrible death without being able to fight back if they think they can fly solo.

Funny thing is you just made carrier killing easier AND cheaper with the introduction of the new frigate calss. The new gallente frig will be all it takes. One of those and a bit DPS and a carrier is dead. Isn't that enough for the new player to participate? He can hop into a cheap frigate and help take down that very expensive ship a veteran spent so much money on.

It's really shockign that you did read all the feedback and still don't get it. Where exactly is the problem with carriers? They are not used that much as you probpose. There is other things going on in this game then the BOB VS goons war. You hardly see carriers fielded in smaller scale combat. People don't dare it because they cost a lot and are a major drawback fro many when they loose it.

The Eos is my most used ship. You nerfed it. I can see they outcry in the community but it really is only the pilots that flew it. My opinion: Yeah nerf it - it was not in line with the other commands. I can live with that. I could see that one comming.
Nerfing carriers is totally unneeded though. If they carrier would be so overpowered and the swiss army knife you claim it to be everyone would use them in combat.

The line i like most: We still want you to bring them to the frontline: O really. The first change you had in mind was giving control over 5 out of 10 fighters to the carrier and five OUT OF 20 to the mothership pilot. Yeah right, i'd risk it on the frontline for that. 5 Fighters can be tanked by pretty much any ship.


Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:52:00 - [201]
 

Originally by: Mindlles
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 24/10/2007 07:29:47

Dev Comment ON CARRIERS Cool


Do me a favour, go focuse on some more importen problems in eve - like logging off to save ur ship witch is still a big problem, as said before in my post wow the worst mmorpg pvp game have better system for this then eve-online that are suppose to be the top pvp mmorpg.

Deal with the cloaking problems on battleships?

Deal with the sovernity problems, "yeah poses and sovernity has just made the game more easy and more laggy".

Or are u magicly playing this game and missing does problems? And only reading numbers?


Are you magically reading this post and like, missing the words? Its a Dev Blog on 'C a r r i e r s'. If youve got some solutions to your other percieved gripes, why not head over to the 'features and ideas' forum and I dunno, contribute rather than making that whinning noise eh?

C.


Kerfira
Kerfira Corp
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:52:00 - [202]
 

Originally by: Synapse Archae
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.

This carrier pilot sums up the state of affairs perfectly!
THIS is the carrier of today, and it shows how well balanced it actually is!

Damir36
Gallente
PPN United
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:58:00 - [203]
 

Carriers are Solopawnmobiles? Show us a solo Carrier an we are instant in warp to the gate in his direction. Carriers can be completly neutralized by a single Arazu. Add a Rapier and he is Dead, even if it takes 15 Minutes till the Gang arrives, and even a Cruisergang is enough. You train for nearly a year for the things to get the firepower, most of the Carrierpilots do, only a few train it for logistics and support.You spend 1 Bil in ISK to buy the Skills and another 1.5 Bill to buy and equip the thing only to get told: "Sorry mate, go back to your liitle POS and start Shieldboosting"?.

As Carriers are now you sit most of the Time on the POS to wait for your Deployment, most of the time you do not even leave the forcefield with a Carrier. And you can not deploy and delegate Fighters in an enviroment as laggy as Fleetbattles are today. You can start the Damm things some 250 to 300 Mils worth and wait 5-10 Minutes till they start attacking and dying to Smartbombs.

What Carriers need is not still more logistic capacities but a more offensive Role so they get used and popped at the front. Right now Carriers at the front are only deployed if the deploying side knows it has the biggest Capitalblob or if the goal is worth loosing Capitals. If not, Carriers stay at the Pos.

And please clarify about the Drones. Will that realy mean when a Carrier gets bumped from Pos or Station (btw, why can a frig bump a Carrier?) he can launch 5 measly Drones to get rid of tacklers? Even a Cruiser could tank that and Web/Scramble a Carrier till the gang arrives to kill him. I spent nearly a year to buy the Skills, train them and then buy the Ship. I would never have trained Carriers and Fighters to V only to get it nerved.

I was saving for a Nyx, but instead I thing I go and play something else.









Avos Sova
Posted - 2007.10.24 07:59:00 - [204]
 

The versatility of Carriers is more a show of the general versatility of drones themselves. The Domi is also very versatile since it can have a full set of whatever type of drones it wants. The addition of fighters for carriers is what changes so many things.

Have you considered separating the drone bay for carriers into 2 separate bays? One large one for fighters and a smaller or non existent one for drones. As it is now much of the versatility comes from being able to cram vast amounts of small drones in the very large bay, which is so large because it needs to fit fighters.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:00:00 - [205]
 

Edited by: Cailais on 24/10/2007 08:05:24
For those who haven't quite grasped why CCP are looking at Carriers and Moms -

It has nothing to do with its solo ability.
It has nothing to do with it with a support fleet of mixed ships.

It has a LOT to do with 'Carrier Fleets' who ability to simultaneously rep each otherand drop large qtys of fighters on a singular target, while not too bad a problem now will be a BIG problems as the carrier pilot population increases.

(edit) - If CCP do nothing then all you will see in the near future are Carrier Fleets, literally 70-100 Carriers plus and nothing else.

C.


Rexthor Hammerfists
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:00:00 - [206]
 

the idea of being able to specialise with ur carrier is neat,
but apart from that, plz
make carriers more costly to loose


with removing the insurance, or other means.

when loosing carriers hurts more its more of an accomplishment to kill enemy carriers thus ppl are happy theyre on the field.

Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:02:00 - [207]
 

First of all, thanks CCP for a well written response, although I don't agree with everything that was written.

To dissect:

Quote:

Fighting off any kind of foe, small or big. Most have a set of fighters and a lot of normal drones in their drone bay. This means they can choose drones / fighters based on their enemy's size, choose their damage type and even be quite effective jammers using ewar drones.
Great logistics ships - They've got plenty of capacitor to be very effective logistics ships using capital sized logistic modules. Triage mode can be very effective in small scale fleet combat when applied correctly.
Jump capable haulers - Although not an intended role, they're currently being used as jump capable haulers, which is probably the safest way to transport stuff from empire space to 0.0 and vice versa.
Excellent support ships - They can bring ships and modules behind enemy lines, are capable of fighter delegation and able to help damage-wise with minimal exposure to the enemy.



First of all, yes, they are able to vary damage types and sizes, from light drones to fighters. This is true, and is one reason for the versatility of carriers. In fact, it very closely resembles the way modern carriers work today, in real life, with air superiority fighters, bombers, ASW, AEW, EW etc. A carrier has many different types of aircraft, and most of them can reconfigure for multiple roles.

Logistics ships, yes. That they also are. I'm talking in the eve-sense of remote repping, rather than hauling or transporting goods now. That is part of what makes carriers so powerful, in that they can support themselves and other ships as well.

Jump capable haulers. Also true. With a sizable cargohold, in addition to a corporate hangar, and a ship hangar that can take cargoexpanded haulers, a carrier is more than capable of transporting large amounts of goods. This is also somewhat similar to real world carriers, who are able to hold supplies such as food, spare parts or fuel for their smaller escorts.

Support ships, once again true. Carriers do have the option of being logistics ships in the true sense, as in allowing refitting or carrying spare ships and modules to replace those lost in combat.




Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:03:00 - [208]
 

Now, assuming that carriers are, in fact, overpowered as in that they can perform all of these roles, what part of them makes them so overpowered, and conflicts so badly with their intended role?

In my opinion, carriers are fighting ships first of all. This is an opinion I have based on the impression I have of carriers both from real world influences, but also from fiction (David Weber's Honorverse, Battlestar Galactica etc). While it may be debated whether or not they should be on the frontlines, I believe that carriers in eve needs to be on the frontlines in order to make the game exciting. A carrier left at a POS, which is what will happen if the change is put through as proposed, will be near invulnerable as long as the POS is well armed, and they are spidertanking. On the frontlines, however, the same carrier is at the risk of being tackled away from its support, isolated, or simply primaried and killed before it could receive remote rep assistance.

Jump hauling? Well, this aspect of carriers will be reduced with the introduction of jump freighters. It still doesn't change the fact that the carrier is a good tool for jump hauling though. This is because of a sizable cargohold, corporate hangar and ship hangar. The carrier currently need the cargohold to carry the vast amounts of fuel it requires. More often than not, a sizable chunk of the corporate hangar is also used for this purpose. An easy fix to this is to give the carrier a separate fuel bay. Heck, make it 10 or even 20k m3 in size, for multiple jumps, so that the players feel that it's a boost rather than a nerf. To prevent this being used to haul POS fuel, make it impossible to take fuel out of the bay once it's put in, and make it take only the specific isotopes that this carrier require. That would also eliminate the embarrassing event of a carrier pilot carrying the wrong isotopes. You could also ban haulers from being transported by carriers and limit its ship maintenace bay to only combat ships. That'd also reduce the carrier's hauling abilities and force this role onto jump freighters and rorquals instead.

Support ships, no need to change this aspect. This is an option for carriers and should remain.

Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:03:00 - [209]
 

So, what is it that makes carriers so overpowered? It can't be their firepower, in fact they have roughly the same DPS as a short range battleship, and suffer some significant disadvantages over that of a battleship. Their damage isn't dealt directly, and their firepower can be killed off. They DO have the ability to vary damage types, which is very useful, but their total damage dealing output is very low, considering their size.

A carrier DOES have a far better tank than a battleship. This is to be expected of a ship that is much bigger. However, even a carrier's tank can be broken by only a few smaller ships. The sustained tank of my chimera, for instance, can be broken by just five close range battleships, so even carriers are vulnerable.

What I believe makes the carrier so powerful in combat is that it's able to give and receive remote assistance to its peers. Should I have three other carriers to assist me, my tank would be more than doubled. Ten carriers, quadrupled, and so on. A sufficiently large group of carriers are able to spidertank enough for them to be near invincible, short of being alpha striked before reps can take effect.

This is also why I believe carriers are jack-of-all-trades. They ARE able to perform so many tasks on the battlefield, some of which there are no other precedence for in real world history, nor fiction. I do not see Battlestar Galactica projecting shieldbeams onto its fighters, or the civilian ships in the convoy, for instance.

Lorn Yeager
Versatech Co.
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:04:00 - [210]
 

Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: Mindlles
Originally by: CCP Abathur
Edited by: CCP Abathur on 24/10/2007 07:29:47

Dev Comment ON CARRIERS Cool


Do me a favour, go focuse on some more importen problems in eve - like logging off to save ur ship witch is still a big problem, as said before in my post wow the worst mmorpg pvp game have better system for this then eve-online that are suppose to be the top pvp mmorpg.

Deal with the cloaking problems on battleships?

Deal with the sovernity problems, "yeah poses and sovernity has just made the game more easy and more laggy".

Or are u magicly playing this game and missing does problems? And only reading numbers?


Are you magically reading this post and like, missing the words? Its a Dev Blog on 'C a r r i e r s'. If youve got some solutions to your other percieved gripes, why not head over to the 'features and ideas' forum and I dunno, contribute rather than making that whinning noise eh?

C.




Its a devblog that makes more problems than it solves. Interface and background code (lag) is not the aim as stated by Zulupark himself.
Also consider the amount of time and effort put into carrier deployment today. Its no easy feat.
If you want to reduce its capabilities, you should reduce the work behind it. But before anything the game needs to be stable enough for
people to actually risk the reduced carriers.




Pages: first : previous : ... 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 9 10 11 ... : 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