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 : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Pallidum Treponema
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:04:00 - [211]
 

My proposal is to not nerf a carrier's fighting abilities, but instead make it MORE of a fighting vessel and LESS of a "support ship". It's not supposed to be a jump hauler, nor is it supposed to be a mobile repair station. A carrier is a tool of war, not a hospital ship.

Capital remote reps/Shield transfers. Make them a quarter of the size of a capital shield transfer. Adjust efficiency and cap usage to the same levels. Now, in order to rep the same amount, you need four of these modules. This makes it possible to go all-out and fit five remote reps for 25% more repping than you could do with one, OR you can fit for combat with DCUs, Neuts, smartbombs or whatever. There will no longer be a "one fitting suits all" setup, but instead you'll need to decide what you want to do.

ALTERNATIVELY, you may wish to introduce a stacking penalty to multiple remote reps used on the same target. If you do this, I suggest you boost remote reps at the same time, to compensate. Two ships remote repping would be very powerful. Forty would be relatively less so. Against stationary targets such as POS towers or station services, the stacking penalty would, of course, not be in effect.

Triage module, way useless today. Change it so that it allows carriers to still use drones, but give them a +100% bonus to DELEGATED fighters only. This would bring them closer to dreadnought type DPS, fitting for a capital ship, but it'd make carriers need to sacrifice their mobility and risk themselves for ten minutes in order to gain this bonus.

Introduce different types of fighters. Interceptor fighters and bombers have been mentioned. Change carriers so that they can only field different types of fighters instead of ordinary drones, but make them interesting enough so that carrier pilots don't feel that they were nerfed. Heck, make bombers the ultimate cap ship killers for all I care. A slow RoF citadel torp launcher on each bomber could be very interesting.


This is just some of the changes you can make to carriers, without changing their MAIN role at all. Carriers are supposed to be fighting ships, and need the ability to project power. If that is taken away, carriers will no longer be carriers.

MrTriggerHappy
Caldari
Priory Of The Lemon
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:06:00 - [212]
 

CCP Seriously..

This is a change the eve community doesn't want. There's currently a nice petition going on here (at the time of writing is at 39 pages)
Quote:
No ship in EVE should be the “end game” vessel, but that's what we feel we've got now

Carrier = end game vessel, hardly...

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

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

2 points that are closely related, make this change and carriers will probably end up back at their pos's and those support vessels will never be seen working with them.

Quote:
So I‘m not nerfed today but in 3 months instead?

Quote:
Yes, but not like proposed earlier. You will have more choices to make.

Easy, dont fix what aint broken

Perpello
Astralite Technologies
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:06:00 - [213]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur
...


Wait a minute.

Doesn't more choices mean better ability to carry out different roles even better? Because now you're talking about specializing in one role, re-configure and then specialize in another role.

I think you guys need to collectively step away from the table and mind reset. You started off on the wrong premise with an awful idea and it's just getting worse.

You seem have a different unjustified complaint about carriers each day and don't seem to have any focus at all.

You could try focusing on just triage rather than a myriad of stuff that will likely lead back to square one.

Damir36
Gallente
PPN United
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:07:00 - [214]
 

OK, after getting my Heartbeat and breathing to slow down a bit I would like to add something. Could it be that all this is a bit related with to many Fighters/Drones in space and the lag they create?

Why not just make 5 Drones/Fighters one Entity with a single graphic and you reduce the strain fighters and Drones are making on the servers by 80%. And the buggers would always attack a single target and not wandering off somewhere. If somebody cries that he needs to attack multiple Targets with his 5 Drones than let him split the stack by all means, but I am sure most Pilots working with Drones/Fighters would welcome the chance to controll packs of 5 without them wandering of sole.


Xthril Ranger
hirr
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:08:00 - [215]
 

I can live with the changes if:
-you find a way for carriers to get their full damage potential right after jumping into a system. If not noone will ever jump into another fleet again.
-you give the motherships some abilities so I feel like I get the full epeen value for the work I put into getting it. I feel that they should be big scary centerpieces in the battle.

Cailais
Amarr
Nasty Pope Holding Corp
Talocan United
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:11:00 - [216]
 

Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
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.


That (highlighted) is the real problem. Not the "small corp lone carrier pilot".

C.


Ravens Viking
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:11:00 - [217]
 

Please make sure that the solo carrier pilot with a cyno alt can defend him self as equally as he can now,we don't all fly in groups.

maria stallion
Destructive Influence
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:12:00 - [218]
 

If you want to change the carrier and mothership in more logistic ship, maybe you can do the following:
-capital smartbomb
these smartbombs won't work the same as the small-large smartbombs, the capital smartbomb will work the same as the bomb that stealth bombers can use.
It will be a module that uses cap(no ammo). This why small stuff won't get insta pwnd, however they can't just bump the ship all the time with the carrier being able to stop him.

The mothership will get a bonuss for the module(a range bonus and and maybe a explosion sig bonus or damage bonus)

-capital neutralizer
a neutralizer with a range between 30-40km the rest of the stats can be the same of the neutralizers of the pos, with a decent rate of fire.

-drone damage aply on all your fighters
When you delegate your fighters to someone the fighters will keep the drone damage bonusses for the skills your trainend and the bonusses the thanatos gives.

-increase the high slots
Give carrier type more room to play with there setup, more high slots will make sure people can setup there remote support

-give carriers bonusses that deacrease the cap useage of remote reps.
Logistics ships get bonusses on cap, why can't carriers get these bonusses if you want to make them more logistics?

-speed up locking time
in fleet battles you need to be quick on the support of you want to help your gang members, the locking time should be atleast 2-4 times faster.

I think these are some things that needs to be added/changed if you want to have a carrier limited to 5 fighters on there own without make the completly useless on there own.

Inflexible
Shokei
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:14:00 - [219]
 

Edited by: Inflexible on 24/10/2007 08:27:08
This is much better blog to discuss about...
But still I feel it is based on wrong assumptions. Carriers should be by definition versatile craft, because it CARRIES smaller craft for many purposes.

And they are not invincible solo pwnmobiles, because without defensive screen they are very vulnerable to RSD and or speedtanked (everyone speedtanks today) ships. Needless to say they can be bumped (hope this gets fixed soon). Fighters are paper thin, unable to hit even some battleships and very expensive.
Don't forget that carrier can survive enconter and still lose - losing his fighters is more expensive than whole cruiser gang capable of doing it.

In fact I think carriers as capitals are very well balanced - they will die if caught solo and they are very powerful as force multiplier for competent gang.

I'd like to see in which scenario you deem them overpowered and how did you test it, if it is possible.

And if you want them true carriers, then simply scrap entire drone ship idea, make them true carriers - dockable, with hangar for at least 15 cruisers in case of carriers and at least 15 BSes in case of motherships. Give them station services, like clonning a repair. And don't forget about impressive point-blank defense, they should rip small ships apart if they dare come close...
I like capitals like they were in Wing Commander.

Gyle
Caldari
Arcana Imperii Ltd.
Atlas Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:25:00 - [220]
 

Edited by: Gyle on 24/10/2007 08:30:03
Originally by: Pallidum Treponema
My proposal is to not nerf a carrier's fighting abilities, but instead make it MORE of a fighting vessel and LESS of a "support ship". It's not supposed to be a jump hauler, nor is it supposed to be a mobile repair station. A carrier is a tool of war, not a hospital ship.

Capital remote reps/Shield transfers. Make them a quarter of the size of a capital shield transfer. Adjust efficiency and cap usage to the same levels. Now, in order to rep the same amount, you need four of these modules. This makes it possible to go all-out and fit five remote reps for 25% more repping than you could do with one, OR you can fit for combat with DCUs, Neuts, smartbombs or whatever. There will no longer be a "one fitting suits all" setup, but instead you'll need to decide what you want to do.

ALTERNATIVELY, you may wish to introduce a stacking penalty to multiple remote reps used on the same target. If you do this, I suggest you boost remote reps at the same time, to compensate. Two ships remote repping would be very powerful. Forty would be relatively less so. Against stationary targets such as POS towers or station services, the stacking penalty would, of course, not be in effect.

Triage module, way useless today. Change it so that it allows carriers to still use drones, but give them a +100% bonus to DELEGATED fighters only. This would bring them closer to dreadnought type DPS, fitting for a capital ship, but it'd make carriers need to sacrifice their mobility and risk themselves for ten minutes in order to gain this bonus.

Introduce different types of fighters. Interceptor fighters and bombers have been mentioned. Change carriers so that they can only field different types of fighters instead of ordinary drones, but make them interesting enough so that carrier pilots don't feel that they were nerfed. Heck, make bombers the ultimate cap ship killers for all I care. A slow RoF citadel torp launcher on each bomber could be very interesting.


This is just some of the changes you can make to carriers, without changing their MAIN role at all. Carriers are supposed to be fighting ships, and need the ability to project power. If that is taken away, carriers will no longer be carriers.



TBH m8 i think thats the feeling of most of the community. i wrote a propsal like that about 2-3 hours ago. check it out


The direction ccp should be taking carriers!!!!

These are the kind of ideas that ccp should be looking at

Its not exactly the same as yours and a little more radical. But like your idea, it retains the carriers for what people actuly want to use them for

Garia666
Amarr
T.H.U.G L.I.F.E
Xenon-Empire
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:27:00 - [221]
 

Edited by: Garia666 on 24/10/2007 08:52:16
Edited by: Garia666 on 24/10/2007 08:50:00
I have read it twice and i must say this is the most pathetic blog i have read so far.
It seems CCP is incapable of even imaginating what will happen when they implement something new in to this game.

I have seen it so many times now.

microwarp drive
missle launchers
command ships
amarr khanid changes
titans
capitals

And now new ships comming allong..

i have an advice for ccp.. before implementing something new again think about the possibilitys.. imagen what you could do if you implement a new item in to this game.

try to abuse it.

currently you use the live server as your test server and that happend once to much if you ask me. people pay for this game.. they spend allot of time in to it.. now thet get to see there training time being wasted again.. they could have put there time in to something else..

Eve is an great game but ccp should get more in to the minds of the players.

1. Ask your selfs, how long do players need to train to achieve a goal? ( of flying of using something )
Is it more then 6 months?, check and double check how you implement something..
2. Ask your self what happens when 100.000 of our members would fly this ship / use item what kind of impact it could have.
3. Hold longer test sessions..
Mabe an idea ( After implementing tell people there will be an 6 months review which could change the aspects so they are warnned before hand ).

i could go on and on..

learn from your mistakes.

PS CCP. If you need a person who could imagen what kind of effect a ship or item could have.. come and talk to me in game. Ill be more then glad to help.

breadcat
Hedion University
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:33:00 - [222]
 

Edited by: breadcat on 24/10/2007 08:33:40
Very good and informative blog. It's good to see CCP really cares about game balance.

Rusty PwnStar
Centus Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:35:00 - [223]
 

Well I'm not sure what to do now, your new blog hasn't cleared much up for me.
Do I continue to train for these things, or should I abandon it right now?

One line, that really points out the fact you havn't listened is this.

* 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.


It's these ships above all the pose the greatest problem to Carriers and Motherships.
Long locking times, speed, bubbles, damps the list goes on. To stop the poor situation with have with those class of ship now, by completely stopping us from ever being able to kill them, well it just beggars belief.

You say you've listened and taken in what we said in the 100+ page retort, in some respects you have, but it srikes me, this Idea was already set for TQ, you just have nothing to replace it yet.

The Triage module, is quite frankly a joke..

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

It sure can, on SiSi, but using it on TQ at the moment just begs for death.

I just get the feeling you hit us with a really nasty nerf, so any change you bring to the table now, looks sweeter.
You really need to tread softly with this one guys, the time input alone, makes any change a hard knock.

Very disillusioned.

Treelox
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:35:00 - [224]
 

Originally by: "nozh"
There are more than 10,000 Carriers in play


OMG!!!! there are 6436umptybillion shuttles in play too, quick nerf shuttles.


---

Seriously, this figure of 10k is meant to impress and humble the masses. TBFH it means nothing without the context with which it was taken. How many BS, BC, Cruiser, Dreads, Freighters, Shuttles, Frigs, Destroyers are in play? What does "in play" mean, do they undock daily, weekly, monthly?.

Also while 10k carriers sounds like a lot, if we supposedly have an active account range of around 150k users, that means only 7.5% of the active player base has a carrier (provided "in play" means active).

Since you hate to see ships that serve dual purposes so well, can I expect my geddon salvager/looter setup to be nerfed soon?

Sinder Ohm
Demonic Corp
G00DFELLAS
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:40:00 - [225]
 

Originally by: CCP kieron
Oh crikey guys we just realised we are going to lose alot of the long time playerbase


Honestly CCP what did you expect when you gave this task to Zulu? As soon as I read that blog my pulse went to 300 and so did many other peoples. Think before you post such drastic changes.

My 2 accounts are still pending cancelation btw, if you think carriers are such pwnmobiles then please do the following:

1. Log into TQ
2. Form a carrier/ms gang with NO support in 0.0
3. Inform Tri or any other well known cap killer alliance where you are
4. Fight said alliance in your unsuported MS/carrier gang
5. Come back and tell us they are still overpowered

regards

Sinder

Yvain Dragonheart
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:44:00 - [226]
 

Damn,

I m so amazed by all the CCP reactions that i cannot even think of a right answer ; however, all the posts from my m8 (who are obviously against these new round of nerfbating) seem right to me.
In other words :

Why do you guys spend time trying to fix things which arent that broken, or to implement new things as ships, modules, rather than spending time FIXING what's need fixes or tweaks in the game ? (lag ftl i.e.)

It's how you normaly would work : no need to put a brand new mp3 player in a car which has no wheels to move (well, unless you live in it as a flat...).

I guess you see my point.

Take care

FireFoxx80
Caldari
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:45:00 - [227]
 

I'm going to agree with the constructive posters here.

Carriers are in the logistics/freighter/re-fueling role, as there is simply no better ship out there capable of doing the same thing. Hopefully the jump-capable freighter should alleviate this, but not replace standard freighters entirely.

As for other roles, I agree with those who propose the carrier-level mods. Expanding the carriers' triage role, expanding the carriers' drone/fighter role, and expanding the carriers' 'carrier' role. Pilots should be forced to decide which of these they want to pursue and be forced to stick to that path.

Glassback
Body Count Inc.
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:48:00 - [228]
 

Sooooo, you released an "idea" that everyone hates which is no surprise. THEN you come up with "idea No.2" which is the same as "idea No. 1" but worded differently.

Do you hope that everyone will just go "Oh well, it's not as bad as it could be" and not cause as much fuss?

Poor show.

G.


Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:51:00 - [229]
 

You know, I stated playing EVE a couple months before RMR came out. I do specifically remember there being modules that would increase certain things for fighters/drones. They was I think 8 different modules. There was even modules that would go in the low slots. I added these modules to my list of favorites on the market menu. I even owned a couple of them. Then there was an abrupt patch and these modules disapeared out of the game. The ones I bought vanished but the funny thing is I still had the modules added to my favorites list. Even if you clicked on it it would not pull up anything on the market. But there it was, evidence that they did in fact exist. Now I was a noob then and maybe someone remembers these mystery modules. My guess is they nerf fighters and if you want to deal some damage, these modules that increased the effectiveness will find its way back to being seeded on the market.

Now I am all about customizing my ships. I would not mind modules that would boost things on fighters like tracking or even new fighters. But please, oh please do not nerf fighters and then force us to fit these modules (gimping our tank or something) to get the same damage or effectiveness as the fighters are now.

I honestly think fighters need a serious HP boost. For being so expensive, and if it looks like we have to give the responsibilty of the expensive little guys to gang mates, they should have much better staying power instead of getting one web on them and dying very, very fast.

So if you do modules, you could do one that increases fighter HP or tracking or damage or top speed, or... one that makes fighters launch torps or something.

So if you have modules to make fighters better, that would take away from other things it would be not so great at, like maybe tanking or tackling.

I don't know, but options is the key. Like you said, if we get to decide depending on setup, on which part of the carrier we want to boost and of course nerf something else at the same time. Then we would be heading in the right direction maybe.

And people, they won't walk away from this without doing something, so instead of yelling, "Don't do anything and all will be fine!" is not going to cut it. They have their gun pointed directly at the carrier, they are GOING to pull the trigger, we just need to make sure they don't hit any vital organs.

Rusty PwnStar
Centus Inc.
Posted - 2007.10.24 08:59:00 - [230]
 

I have one question.

The proposed ideas of new modules etc, does this mean even more high ranked skills?

Garia666
Amarr
T.H.U.G L.I.F.E
Xenon-Empire
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:01:00 - [231]
 

Originally by: Rusty PwnStar
I have one question.

The proposed ideas of new modules etc, does this mean even more high ranked skills?


ofcourse more skillz more moneh... moneh... !

Gama24
EXTERMINATUS.
Nulli Secunda
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:08:00 - [232]
 

Stop ****ing around with caps.

NO! N-O!


Helison
Gallente
Times of Ancar
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:09:00 - [233]
 

I´ve not read the complete thread till now, but there are some points which are important in my eyes:

*) Carriers are NOT massivly overpowered, but they are a bit too good in 2 single areas: fighting against smaller ships (except if they have damps) and spider-remote-tanking.
*) Delegating fighters is NOT the way to go.
*) I don´t think that specialicing carriers much more is a good idae, this will create even more problems with balance. I think it is better to create/buff other ships, so they are better in special things. I like the idea of the carrier being a jack of all trades, but without mastering anything (perhaps except logistics).
*) Massive changes are always a problem, please try to adjust it step by step, if necessary.

What I personally would change for carriers (might require some programming):
+) Remove their ability to use more than 5 regular drones, but keep their amount of fighter drones (don´t know if this is possible with the current code).
+) Add a second type of targeting: Targeting gang members, which is much faster, only useable for logistics and where damps don´t work as well. (like as you have fitted 3 sensor boosters)
After this works, normal targeting can be nerfed a bit, so it will be more difficult to attack smaller ships.
+) As soon as we have useable (and cheap!) jump-freighters: Ban industrials from maintenance bay and make the bay a bit bigger.
+) Reduce cap-usage of capital remote reppers, but perhaps make them less efficent to rep other ships (less HP repaired). A bonus to repair structures like POS modules would be a good way to implement this.
+) Ban motherships from low sec or restrict their abilities there.

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:12:00 - [234]
 

Originally by: Shigawahhhhh
Don't get me wrong I like hanging out with corp mates and friends but sometimes I pop on eve for like 10 minutes...not worth hooking up just to go ratting.


I pop on to eve for like 10 minutes, not worth hooking up with an escort just to hop my freighter a jump through a low-sec gatecamp, so I shouldn't need them to help me? Personally, I'd think "hey, not practical right now, I'll run some smaller cargo through in my blockade runner instead".

There are some things in Eve that can be done solo. There are some that can't. This is completely fine and normal. The fact that you cannot always get a group together is not a good argument for removing the need for a group to do certain things.

Maybe when you're just on for 10 minutes with no mates around, you undock in something other than your carrier?

Originally by: Shigawahhhhh
Also when your up at different times to those you would usually trust with fighters. Cuase while there under someone elses control you've basically lent them a BS worth of value. I have maybe 5 people in eve I would be prepared to do that for


Well, that's really down to your corp organisation. Any corp that is incapable of organising group reimbursement for group losses is, frankly, not deserving of a carrier pilot in it's ranks in the first place.

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


The introduction of a better option does not reduce the carrier's existing efficacy at that task. Sure, the jump freighter may become the better option, so people won't specifically aim for carriers for that role anymore. But if unchanged, carriers would still be a perfectly viable stand-in, and there will be a large stock of them available due to their other uses. Having a viable alternative, even if it is inferior, on a ship that is desirable for other reasons as well, inherently devalues the specialisation of the specialist ship.

Originally by: Thargor II
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.


As a player, I think there's something wrong in anyone expecting to survive 15 vs 1 against a group set up to take them out, no matter how big a ship the 1 is in.

Originally by: Perpello
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.


"fighting off any kind of foe, small or big" does not refer to them pwning entire fleets of smaller ships. Clearly, they can't, no-one is arguing that. The problem is, that ship-for-ship, it's too effective at too many things at once, even for it's cost.

If a battleship want's to be any use with remote repping, it's not going to have a lot of guns left, or cap to run either guns or it's personal tank. If it want's to do piles of damage, it's not going to have much tank. If it wants to tank hard, it won't be doing much damage. It doesn't really have the option of being a decent hauler at all. If it wants to deal with frigs effectively, it's going to need webbers, smaller guns, smaller drones etc.

The carrier, on the other hand, can present a decent damage output, decent tank, and transport a fair amount simultaneously. If you want to be effective at remote repping too, somethings going to give, but generally you'll be goot in at least 2 of them, and still passable in the others. It's a big difference compared to the battleship.

Yes, the effectiveness of each specialized choice needs to be assessed when they're introduced, but that doesn't preclude the idea of introducing them in the first place.

Bad Brown
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:12:00 - [235]
 

Politicians often try to justify what they want to do because it is “for the better good” or “good of all” and they normally get away with it. But when a proposal as unpopular as this is forced upon a people it is not just the one politician who falls.

It’s your call CCP, do you have the bxlls to waste a game play for so many who love it the way it is.

Sometimes it’s the imperfections that make something perfect (look at your wife)

Viqer Fell
Minmatar
RETRIBUTIONS.
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:16:00 - [236]
 

Edited by: Viqer Fell on 24/10/2007 09:18:46
A few points you need to take into consideration when looking at this change:

Encourages people to bring support vessels with their capital fleet No it doesn't at all. People would already have brought wingmen to the fight if they could. People dont intentionally leave behind support if they could bring it.
Increase teamplay and make the low skillpoint, non-capital pilots more valuable in fleet combat Utter balls. If I dont trust my fighters to an experienced pilots what makes you think i'm trusting an inexperienced rookie with 200m of my gear???
A standard Carrier pilot (10 fighters) will need at least one "wingman" to field all his fighters. Well this would be acceptable except that the delegation system is impossible to use in many fights due to the poor server performance. Lag effectively means this proposed change would result in no-one ever having more than 5 fighters out
Delegation control is much easier with the improved gang member list and the new "watch list" Can't comment, not seen it but I doubt it will circumvent the primary problemn of lag so I refer you to point above
We definitely don't want Carriers to be parked at starbases, they should be at the front lines keeping their gang mates alive. I fail to see how you thought that this change would do anything but send the carriers back to POS City Car park
Carriers are also receiving a ship maintenance bay / corporation hanger boost, allowing them to bring more ships and modules to the front lines. This encourages their use as haulers and again promotes their use as a big hauler rather than a front line fleet support ship

All in all I don't mind change but at least lets have some solid basis for the change

Jita TradeAlt
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:16:00 - [237]
 

Ok ccp, just step back from this one. As much as I'd love to see MC practically having to disband thanks to this nerf then it's very much not needed. As long as you don't nerf the effects of damps on carriers, the effect of smartbombs on fighters and the damage a sieged dread will do to an average carrier then we'll be fine.

And if there ever was an issue then turning 1bn isk ships with 4-500m worth of fittings and fighters into well skilled dominixes in terms of damage output would not be the solution.

Hatsim
The Collective
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:19:00 - [238]
 

Edited by: Hatsim on 24/10/2007 09:25:38
Please visit your user settings to re-enable images.


WAY TO GO CCP!!!!!! WAY TO GO four more years four more years! four more years

Raoul Endymion
Gallente
x13
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:21:00 - [239]
 

how about :

a) add a bonus to assigned fighters so they do more damage, that way its more attractive to assign them.

maybe restrict that bonus to one shipclass

if the carrier/mothership is stationed at a pos, the assigned fighters wont get the bonus.

b) add a module that increases damage (and perhaps hp/speed/tracking etc) by 20-30%, to make it more attractive to assign them.

maybe restrict that module to one shipclass (ie. interceptor)

if the carrier/mothership is stationed at a pos, the assigned fighters wont get the bonus.

c) a combination of the above

-----

essentially, carrier and mothership pilots all agree on that they are fine as they are since they wont loose the ability to defend themselfs and with only 5 drones/fighters they will lose that.

but if some of the above is implemented in some way they wont loose that, and there will be a huge benefit on actually being on the front line and assigning fighters to gang mates.

my five isk..

- Raoul

Clamn8er
Gato Nero
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:23:00 - [240]
 

Originally by: Gnulpie
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!


If you really feel compelled to do something, then maybe introduce a module system to allow the carriers to specialise in particular direction - though I (and everyone else here) STILL cannot understand why of all the challenges and issues you have decided to start on something that seems to work fine.

Agreed too that M/S maybe should not be in lo-sec.

But whatever you do, DO NOT MAKE THE CARRIER DEPENDENT on an even bigger support fleet and its survival (which already is tenuous enough against a determined foe) absolutely reliant on the surrounding players.

Maybe there is a problem in massive capital fleets facing off (though I only see this as a structural lag problem which is CCP's responsibility and not a gameplay problem at all), but I keep hammering away in here as a voice for the small corps.

CCP, you need to SUPPORT small corps.

The gameplay environment has moved increasingly towards skilless blobbing (excluding of course the small number of big and skilled corps Cool) without completely removing capitals from our hands.

Small corps cannot field the numbers needed and will now face an even greater disadvantage as the bigger enemy will be able to clobber them with everything including capitals without us having any recourse.

As a result, you therefore unwittingly pushing people to merge into greater numbers (to what end?) requiring less skill, instead of encouraging the essence of EVE pvp; skilled combat between highly quality teams regardless of size.


Pages: first : previous : ... 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 11 12 ... : 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