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 : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : last (38)

Author Topic

Matthew
Caldari
BloodStar Technologies
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:26:00 - [241]
 

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


To be honest, I don't think the majority of pilots realise the true flexibility of the carrier now anyway. It's practically impossible to make proper use of all the bonuses at once, yet by allowing them all to be active at once means they have to be balanced down to the "jack of all trades master of none" level. Being able to pick what you want your carrier to do should allow the selected area to be boosted, so could actually be a boost to carrier pilots by allowing them to ditch the bonuses they don't want to use in favour of more of the ones they do.

Originally by: Rusty PwnStar
* 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.


Except that's not what they're saying. Note the at the same time qualifier. A battleship fitted out optimally for killing battleships is hugely vulnerable to frigs. A battleship fitted for killing frigs is far less effective at killing battleships. A battleship set up to be able to lay down some fire against all classes is going to have reduced effectiveness against all of them.

That's what they're talking about.

Moving on to the "frigs with damps" issue, that's not a problem unique to carriers, it's a horrible issue at all levels. It really needs it's own global solution, rather than just a hack to paper over the crack at carrier level.

Shmekla
Gallente
Rim Collection RC
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:27:00 - [242]
 

I didn't read all the post, it impossible to objectively look at each of it.
So if carriers from now on must have specialized role then probably there possible to make some specialized "role" modules.

Example: fitting fighting module you can use your fighters and drones, but all others carrier ability (like cargo bay capacity, repairing possibility and others) are heavily gimped.
with logistic module you have gimped fighting possibiltty to use only 5 drones or fighters.

And maybe you can change this modules once in 40 hours or similar.

Rinaldo Titano
Caldari
Caldari Elite Force
Apocalypse Now.
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:31:00 - [243]
 

Dear CCP, if u see the carriers so, that they are so extreme powerfull against all ships in eve, i think u should play more!

1st. U know about the thing in the game called EW? I can take out from the fight a carrier with single small ship and dampeners. The carrier would not be able to lock and attack u, where some BS's can easy take it down. And u cant go even closer because u so slow.
And if we speak about too much damage against every size of ship: An avarge carrier cant kill a very good tanked BS where carriers are capital ships with long training time and a BS is a ship u can afford and fly after 2-3 months. If carriers are so overpowered, than what about the MOROS? U can kill everything with this ship, good against POSes, against other capitals, if a BS is pointed u can pulvarise them with some shoots(and thats every time, because fighters can be shooted down, but hybrid ammo not, and in they immune to EW too), and if u have smaller enemy or even against BS u can just launch 5 drones, which have much more tracking than fighters and for example 5 OGRE II's have almost the same damage as the swarm of fighters on an avarge carrier.
So far about the damage against all size of ships.


2nd. Hauling is nice, but after u nerfed the GSC's in haulers u already nerfed the hauling capability of this ship. I can haul more in the Amarr dread(what is absolutely not designed for hauling)

3rd. Support role of this ship is very good, sure that should be the main role, but the cap on the carriers is not so uber as u think. (Try to play your game) and if u use Triage module (what is a BIG FAIL as is now on TQ) u r even worst on. Not mentoined the thing, that the support modules are very unbalanced. Remote armor reppers have much less fitting req's and much better effectivity.

So i think u failed again! And i don't Think Zulupark should be fired, just pls try to be a bit more communicative with the customers like now, and sometime u could adopt some ideas too. I know 90% of the players ideas is crap. Like most of my ideas too :), but the remaining 10% tbh is much better than yours.

There is so much things in the game u nerfed too, and so much which is still not nerfed.
For example the noschange was a bit too hard, there was much better ideas on the forums.

Malachon Draco
eXceeded
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:32:00 - [244]
 

Sorry CCP, now you've lost me.

I agreed with the need to cut down the 'carrierblob' and accepted the nerf on that basis, but it's to cut down on flexibility???

WTH?

There is nothing wrong with the flexibility of the carrier, for that cost and time investment, it deserves to be flexible. What needs fixing is the rediculous amount of capitals that can be fielded effectively at the same time. And that has little to do with flexibility.

A single carrier is pretty damn vulnerable, as well as ungainly. In return, it deserves to be flexible.

What is needed are a few things:
- A counter to Moms in lowsec
- A more effective way to deal with 50 ship carrier blobs.

With your current twist on 'flexibily', you achieve NEITHER. Only good idea so far as to limiting carriers that would make sense is the separation of the drone control module into a drone and a fighter control module so at the moment of fitting you have to choose which one to use.

What is REALLY needed if you want to nerf the carrierblob and the lowsec Mom, which are IMO the real problems with capitals:
- Capital warpscrambler that can warpscramble motherships and titans, for lowsec use.
- Add 2 utility highslots to dreadnaughts so they can fit smartbombs in addition to their guns and take out fighterswarms.

- Only change in terms of fighters would not be because of versatility, but because of lag, and could be that you reduce the number of fighters by about a third, and in exchange increase their damage by a third and their hitpoints by 50%. That way you'd have less fighters doing the same amount of damage, you'd need to increase the hitpoints a bit more than 33% IMO in order to offset the easier time hostiles have in terms of locking and and such.

ArmyOfMe
Hysera.
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:33:00 - [245]
 

Please, no more new skills now.

With that said, the changes might be a good thing..

Ps: it was damn scary to read how many carriers there are in the game.

DTee
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:34:00 - [246]
 

Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 09:37:39
I completely agree with many anti-carrier nerf opinions in this thread. Expressed alot better then i personally could have.

I would like to challenge CCP to show concrete evidence of the opinions they have brought forth in both dev blogs. I would also happily challenge then to a fleet vs cap fleet fight.

There is clear evidence that in today EVE and its lag it is hardly possible to effectively use the carriers capabilities in full on the battlefield since all it takes is 1 frigate to dampen or Jam you and a dictor to drop a bubble from that point onwards you are a master of NO TRADES.

I have alot more ideas I would like to put down here and opinions but it seems CCP has thrown all common sense ou tof the window and continue to ignore the playerbase. They insist upon making changes rather then spending those man hours in to fixing the lag or various other issues.

Clearly this is CCP gone mad in the bid to secure as many players and revenue as possible.

I would however do not mind a module system or other changes limiting its flexibility but making it more specialized but for the time being CARRIERS ARE FINE! FIX WHAT NEEDS TO BE FIXED.


WAKE UP CCP.

Flem'berk
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:36:00 - [247]
 

1) solo carriers die everyday
2) even if not solo i have tackled carriers in my domi for long enuff for back up to arrive. - ecm burst ftw
3) logistics yes, but if im at apos and my fleets in a buuble no logistcs for me
4) - quote: Damage dealing (Small scale PVP, Capital PVP, Starbase Warfare), Logistics (Small scale PVP, Capital PVP, Starbase Warfare) Support (as in bringing along spare modules and ships behind enemy lines)
PvE (Ratting, missions, complexes etc.), 0.0 Transporting ,POS fueling - my bs can do all of these and black ops with jump drive even better.
5) - quote: Increase teamplay and make the low skillpoint, non-capital pilots more valuable in fleet combat - sp isnt to important u can spawna small gun rax alt in a week and beat much older players with it and lets see how many 1 month old ravnes i can find ^^
6)in fairness carriers do hold a major advantage but given the cost and skill trianing factor it is worth it, but if hte carirer pilto is noob they can die to just afew non cap ships
7) when i first read about carriers it was desnged to figth samller craft, ok firgs maby not but anyhting bigger sure... its effective ness in pos take downs should probably be conidered instead.
8)again on solo carirers, so if solo in my bs and kille veryhting including sevral other bs's at teh smae time my bs is to powerful?
9) on test i found drones no longer auto aggressed so 2 of these new ew frigs will ruin my carriers day and by the looks of it sevral of my suport at teh same time.
10) alot of people ahve probably said this already but that dosnt make it less true...

Low Blow
Amarr
Destructive Influence
IT Alliance
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:36:00 - [248]
 

After what i saw, i believe some of you guys (developers) should stay away from the computers and start your new careers in the restrooms.

thanks

CCP Oveur

Posted - 2007.10.24 09:37:00 - [249]
 

Originally by: DTee
I completely agree with many anti-carrier nerf opinions in this thread. Expressed alot better then i personally could have.

I would like to challenge CCP to show concrete evidence of the opinions they have brought forth in both dev blogs. I would also happily challenge then to a fleet vs cap fleet fight.

There is clear evidence that in today EVE and its lag it is hardly possible to effectively use the carriers capabilities in full on the battlefield since all it takes is 1 frigate to dampen or Jam you and a dictor to drop a bubble from that point onwards you are a master of NO TRADES.

I have alot more ideas I would like to put down here and opinions but it seems CCP has thrown all common sense ou tof the window and continue to ignore the playerbase. They insist upon making changes rather then spending those man hours in to fixing the lag or various other issues.

Clearly this is CCP gone mad in the bid to secure as many players and revenue as possible.

WAKE UP CCP.


I'm actually reading every word posted here and I'd like to hear those ideas of yours.

1Of9
Gallente
The Circle
White Noise.
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:38:00 - [250]
 

Originally by: CCP Abathur

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.




Several questions:

1 - Will this "specializations" be permanent? i mean, let say i choose i whant max DPS, can i swap for MAX tank later on? or am i stuck in my 1st choice?

2 - How about mom's? i mean .. i understand you whant to give the little guy more chances, but it's very frustrating you spend months of work, tons and tons of isk, years of skills to be killed by couple frigs Evil or Very Mad

Dionisius
Gallente
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:41:00 - [251]
 

Question that i posted on the other thread too, will there be any skilbooks that will give more bandwith to carriers?

Something like drone adv drone interfacing but giving you more bandwith allowing you to control one more fighter per skill level?

Will there be any skilbook that reduces de amount of bandwith from modules or even the drones?Similar to electronics upgrades but applied to drones categories?

Could you implement a skill for mothership pilots something around the lines of "Capital Flagships" or something to increase even a bit further their fighter/drone unit numbers, or in option their fighter damage/hitpoints?

And i add, will you give the carriers faster locking times or improved built-in defenses against electronic warfare?

Could you create bombers for instance? A new type of fighters efective against Battleships and capitals only, or just capitals.

Could you create fighters that work interceptor style but only damage the smaller types of ships, ie. frigs and cruisers?

Just some toughts.

CCP Oveur

Posted - 2007.10.24 09:42:00 - [252]
 

Originally by: 1Of9
Originally by: CCP Abathur

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.




Several questions:

1 - Will this "specializations" be permanent? i mean, let say i choose i whant max DPS, can i swap for MAX tank later on? or am i stuck in my 1st choice?

2 - How about mom's? i mean .. i understand you whant to give the little guy more chances, but it's very frustrating you spend months of work, tons and tons of isk, years of skills to be killed by couple frigs Evil or Very Mad


1) You simply refit for your role, nothing permanent here.

2) It's not about allowing 3 frigates to take out a mothership. It's the other way around, it's the Motherships effectiveness against frigates. You'll still need a whole lot more than a handful of frigates to take you out, much more if you fit for the role.

Malachon Draco
eXceeded
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:44:00 - [253]
 

Oveur, please. Can you tell us exactly what problem you are trying to fix?

Is it the versatility of the single carrier?

Or is it the lowsec bombing Mom?

Or is it the capital blob of 50+ carriers and Moms?

What is it that you don't want to see happen?

faltzswher
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:45:00 - [254]
 

.


I'm actually reading every word posted here and I'd like to hear those ideas of yours.


ok afew ideas:

1) only le them use 2 types of fighters: assulters - liek the ones currrently on eve but poor tracking so wont hit smalelr stuff, and defenders these are alsmot station paltforms covered in small guns that fire medium range and only effective agistn frigs and crusiers. that way they dont get adorne size mix but must choice whihc figther type to use - anti small ships or the larger bs/anti cap ones ( with skill the assutlers shoudl hit bc's ^^)

2) put a figther docking delay so that carirers cant marco their figthers.

3)if u give me a ship maintenance bay / corporation hanger boost ill jsut have alarger hauler \o/

4)make me a dev so much simlpier :P jk

CCP Oveur

Posted - 2007.10.24 09:47:00 - [255]
 

Originally by: Dionisius
Question that i posted on the other thread too, will there be any skilbooks that will give more bandwith to carriers?

Something like drone adv drone interfacing but giving you more bandwith allowing you to control one more fighter per skill level?

Will there be any skilbook that reduces de amount of bandwith from modules or even the drones?Similar to electronics upgrades but applied to drones categories?

Could you implement a skill for mothership pilots something around the lines of "Capital Flagships" or something to increase even a bit further their fighter/drone unit numbers, or in option their fighter damage/hitpoints?

And i add, will you give the carriers faster locking times or improved built-in defenses against electronic warfare?

Could you create bombers for instance? A new type of fighters efective against Battleships and capitals only, or just capitals.

Could you create fighters that work interceptor style but only damage the smaller types of ships, ie. frigs and cruisers?

Just some toughts.


New skillbooks: No, we'd like to use what's already out there.

More bandwidth: Three routes, make the current skills apply, new skills or modules.

More hell to unleash: Yes, that is one situation which can become possible, by sacrificing a other abilities when fitting.

Fighter Bombters and Interceptors: Yes, that's one of the things we're looking at. But to have a full setup of all possible Fighter combinations, you'd sacrifice something else.

Jiks
Caldari
Prophets of Doom
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:47:00 - [256]
 

Good to see a responsible adult on the scene at last.

However, as has been eloquently explained by many people in both threads CCP thinking does not seem based either on clear kill board evidence or in game experience.

There are DIRE problems with the game that desparately need addressing, please CCP leave this "balancing" stuff alone untill the real problems have been sorted out; i.e. lag and the causes of lag, etc.

Lastly, please learn from this latest PR disaster and bury the whole idea in a deep dark dungeon and throw away the key.

Jiks

Nick Curso
TunDraGon
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:50:00 - [257]
 

Edited by: Nick Curso on 24/10/2007 09:52:59
Agreeing with what was said earlyer.

Carriers arnt solo pwn mobiles without support. I have seen it on many occasions 20-30 man gangs kill cariers without a single loss.
The fact is that one ure gang dampens the carriers (This would only take a griffen or 2 to do)the carrier is useless aslog as u dont agress his fighters. All the carier can do at this point is sit and die.

So i find it hard to understand how the carrier atm doesnt need support as said in the new dev blog

"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."

Not to mention the fact cariers are Expensive,Very skill intensive.

This change is too late IMO alot of ppl have them 10,000 i think was said these ppl have spent alot of time training for what the carrier is capable of.

I have heard alot of knee jeark reactions ofc such as "if CCP do this im canceling all my accounts" and things like "Does CCP not care what the players think anymore". But with quotes like this :-

"The community's response to potential changes to a favorite ship has been more fierce than we expected. However, that does not change the core idea behind the change to Carriers, that one ship should not be able to do everything and do so effectively without penalty."

Does this sound like **** u but were gonna do it anyway and ure gonna like it to anyone else?

This isnt the CCP ive known for 4 years now. Agreed alot of ppl were out of order in there response to the proposed changes, But alot of these ppl have spent ALOT of time to get this ship and now its gonna be changed completly.

Now ive had my rant is early and probably incohearent so thank u and good night lol

Dionisius
Gallente
the muppets
RED.OverLord
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:50:00 - [258]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: Dionisius
Question that i posted on the other thread too, will there be any skilbooks that will give more bandwith to carriers?

Something like drone adv drone interfacing but giving you more bandwith allowing you to control one more fighter per skill level?

Will there be any skilbook that reduces de amount of bandwith from modules or even the drones?Similar to electronics upgrades but applied to drones categories?

Could you implement a skill for mothership pilots something around the lines of "Capital Flagships" or something to increase even a bit further their fighter/drone unit numbers, or in option their fighter damage/hitpoints?

And i add, will you give the carriers faster locking times or improved built-in defenses against electronic warfare?

Could you create bombers for instance? A new type of fighters efective against Battleships and capitals only, or just capitals.

Could you create fighters that work interceptor style but only damage the smaller types of ships, ie. frigs and cruisers?

Just some toughts.


New skillbooks: No, we'd like to use what's already out there.

More bandwidth: Three routes, make the current skills apply, new skills or modules.

More hell to unleash: Yes, that is one situation which can become possible, by sacrificing a other abilities when fitting.

Fighter Bombters and Interceptors: Yes, that's one of the things we're looking at. But to have a full setup of all possible Fighter combinations, you'd sacrifice something else.



Hmm thank you the clarification Oveur.Razz

NavyMaster
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:51:00 - [259]
 

"The community's response to potential changes to a favorite ship has been more fierce than we expected. However, that does not change the core idea behind the change to Carriers, that one ship should not be able to do everything and do so effectively without penalty."

You really are stupid! Let me explain : If you change something for the players but they dont want it then you are changing against them !

IM NOT TALKING ABOUT 1 PERSON .10 ,100 ,1000 IM TALKING ABOUT EVERYONE



MOS DEF
0utbreak
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:51:00 - [260]
 

Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: 1Of9
Originally by: CCP Abathur

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.




Several questions:

1 - Will this "specializations" be permanent? i mean, let say i choose i whant max DPS, can i swap for MAX tank later on? or am i stuck in my 1st choice?

2 - How about mom's? i mean .. i understand you whant to give the little guy more chances, but it's very frustrating you spend months of work, tons and tons of isk, years of skills to be killed by couple frigs Evil or Very Mad


1) You simply refit for your role, nothing permanent here.

2) It's not about allowing 3 frigates to take out a mothership. It's the other way around, it's the Motherships effectiveness against frigates. You'll still need a whole lot more than a handful of frigates to take you out, much more if you fit for the role.


I have a question for you.
Do you really think that a few frigates should e a threat to a mothership that costs 40 billion isk if it a mediocre fit?
It is VERY hard for a motherhip to actually kill a frigate that has some brains simply because of the extremely bad locktime. You don't just lock up a frig and kill it in a mothership. A bomber for example (yeah i know they suck) can warp in deploy a bomb and warp out before a mothership ever had a chance to get a lock.

I do know that isk should not rule this game. On the other hand a motheship should never ever be threatened by a few frigates.
You devs make it look like carriers and motherships are wtfpwning everything soilo as it is. Have you been in a capital fight lately because it looks like you haven't.
The current situation is that carriers get killed by small roaming gangs without any issues. Motherships can't and they never EVER should.

Takling down a mothership is a challenge. Is that so wrong?
Personally i like challenges. If you put some thought into it and a mothership does what you claim = solopwn stuff you can got here and kill it easy bercause a solo mothership is nothing but a huge target waiting for death.
Lowsec is a different story but maybe you should've put your thought into fixing that instead of ruining the ship alongside the carriers.

CCP Oveur

Posted - 2007.10.24 09:52:00 - [261]
 

Originally by: Malachon Draco
Oveur, please. Can you tell us exactly what problem you are trying to fix?

Is it the versatility of the single carrier?

Or is it the lowsec bombing Mom?

Or is it the capital blob of 50+ carriers and Moms?

What is it that you don't want to see happen?


It's their versatility, at the same time, without drawbacks.

Lowsec bombing moms is an entirely different problem. The capital blob won't be addressed by changing capital ships, that's changed by goals existing which encourage you to split up your force. Today, it's best to bunch them up.

DTee
The Collective
Against ALL Authorities
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:52:00 - [262]
 

Edited by: DTee on 24/10/2007 09:56:22
Originally by: CCP Oveur
Originally by: DTee
stuff

WAKE UP CCP.


I'm actually reading every word posted here and I'd like to hear those ideas of yours.


I personally think that currently with more pressing issues carriers are fine as they are. I agree with the devblog that the carrier is a jack of all trades but clearly it is not extremely pro-efficient at any one role.

Many players have expressed opinions and presented ideas, which I find are relatively tame compared to the fighter nerf that was initially suggested.

The carrier maybe able to act as a logitics ship, a transprot ship and a damage dealer but how does removing its drone bay help remove its flexibility? It makes the carrier COMPLTELY useless.

There are other ships with roles such as Transports or Logistics. I would have thought that removing triage mode or the logistics capabilities would be a more sensible idea in my opinion. Making carriers pos hugging and forcing capital pilots to delegate fighters is clearly not the answer.

I would also like to take this opportunity once again Oveur to ask you/CCP to present evidence backing the opinions on the dev blogs. THe opinions brought forth in these dev blogs, ar ethey agreed upon by the devs in various alliances?

I can see how carrier blobs of 50 - 150 ar ebeing used in the current war that is taking place but how does that justify the nerf of the smaller corps and alliances? Since the introduction of eve why dont we see EVERY SINGLE player flying them? it is fairly obvious that they have draw backs.

I am happy with the removal of certain roles of the carrier. I personally rarely use its remote repping ability or use it myself for transport. (even more so with the t2 freighters coming in to the arena) So why take its most valuable ability?

I hope this makes sense and apologize for any mistake or inaccuracies.


I also realize that the carrier soriginal role maybe have been that of a support ship but it is too late with the introduction of triage mode and various 180's being made on carriers. Firs they were what they needed to be then you buffed the HP then came along triage mode.

Why not go back to reducing the HP making it more risky to take your carrier on the field?

NathanMoore
Meltd0wn
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:53:00 - [263]
 

I like the new Idea.
But boost some aspects if you have to go specialised in the future. Anti-Capital Fighters or fightersize sentry pls. :)

ArmyOfMe
Hysera.
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:55:00 - [264]
 

As i pointed out, these changes can be a very good thing for the game.
(but imho i still feel capitals should never have made it into the game in the first place)

but if you nerf a carriers ability to defend itself against smaller ships i wish you would at least find a way to make it harder to takler carriers.

I cant see a single reason why a small ship can both takle and render a carrier totaly useless

CCP Oveur

Posted - 2007.10.24 09:56:00 - [265]
 

Originally by: Jiks
Good to see a responsible adult on the scene at last.

However, as has been eloquently explained by many people in both threads CCP thinking does not seem based either on clear kill board evidence or in game experience.

There are DIRE problems with the game that desparately need addressing, please CCP leave this "balancing" stuff alone untill the real problems have been sorted out; i.e. lag and the causes of lag, etc.

Lastly, please learn from this latest PR disaster and bury the whole idea in a deep dark dungeon and throw away the key.

Jiks


We have quite a number of programmers and millions of dollars working on lag, I have covered this numerous times in my dev blogs. It's ranging from optimizations and fixes which impair performance to rewriting our graphics engine and totally replacing our server cluster in early 2008 with supercomputing technology such as Infiniband.

RREBEL13
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:56:00 - [266]
 

I agree some what with the devs change but I do DO NOT agree with dropping the # of drones deployed.If you are going to drop that # then you need to change them from carrier to Capitol Dominix since the carrier will only be aloud to use the same amount of drones as most eve ships.
Carriers are called carriers for the simple and main fact known through out the world for their ability to launch a lot of fighters.
THEY WILL NOT BE A CARRIER if you limit the drones to that of any other ship.
Please find another alternative to this bad decision.
I myself have been training for this ship now I will stop training for this ship and choose another because of this decision.Sad

faltzswher
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:58:00 - [267]
 

no one eve comments on my idea - sniff stop arguing about role dedication that can be sorted by have the only 2 figthers idea - defenders : lots of small gns will kill frigs and crusiers and maby larger stuff if u have alot of time but these cant move, and assutlers more powerful and these ones can only assigned but reduction to tracking ect so against cruiser/ bc's or smaller they dont hit that well. that way it can defend its self at a cost of dps.

Faridah
Solar Storm
Sev3rance
Posted - 2007.10.24 09:59:00 - [268]
 

I still don't agree with the dev blogging about carriers!
(Low-sec motherships have to go, but that's a totaly different ship.)

Dunno what kind of language I have to use, so I try this:

SELECT * from ships where ship_class = carrier AND
Have >9 fighters/drones with DMG > Average close range BS DMG AND
Have modules to even keep those ships on grid AND
Tank small gangs < 10 on it's own AND
Use capital remote reppers AND
Be able to haul lots of *usefull* ships to the frontline
--
Result: None


Here is my *allround* Thantos (best carrier?) setup. It's medicore at doing several roles with focus on survival.
HIGH: 2*Faction Smartbombs, 1 capital remote armor repper, 2 DCU
MED: 1 Sensor booster II, 4*cap recharger II
LOW: 2*capital armor reppers, 3*T2 hardeners, 1*damage control II
RIGS: 3*CCC
Fighters in bay: 17
Drones in bay: huh, can't remember off the top of my head, but probably 10ish of every type T2, and 30ish T1 logistic drones.

According to forum this is very close to what everyone think is the best all round setup for a Thanatos. Can tank quite a lot, can remote repp some, and can keep droneswarms away while being able to do less than short range BS damage.

How can I kill *anything* with this solo without a wingman or refitt? Ok, a capsule coming into Smartbomb range *should* go pop. Everyone with a brain stays out of the magic 10km of capital ships tho.

ok, I drop 2 cap rechargers and go WEB/Scram.. Now I'll be able to kill 1 poorly tanked BS piloted by a noob before I get neuted to death because of cap recharge rate. That noob should have stayed out of web-range anyway. OR BROUGHT A WINGMAN to repp him, which would mean *perma-tanking* the carrier without the need for cap boosters.

ok, I'll bring a wingman or 2 maybe, the solution to all problems.. I'll kill those 10 mixed hostiles now. whooops, the hostiles did have a clue and have an Arazu on grid. Poff, both wingmans dead because I can't lock/repp anything before dinner is ready. Might as well log off. This ain't going to be any fun at all.

Yes, I've been constructive and proposed a lot of ideas in 3 threads on this subject, but still see semi-ignorant posts on what carriers can and can't do from people working with this game all day, every day.
You don't even acknowledge valid points made by your customers.

Why can't CCP use 1, ONE day to cyno carriers into different systems.. camp gate solo, and then come back and report how many random ships you killed before you got owned by someone who know the mechanics of this game?
In a major pipe in 0.0 I'll give you 15 minutes and your're dead. Random low-sec, same. Low population pipes, upto 1 hr.

Seems to me you shouldn't have to think anymore to kill a carrier, WHITE WOLF directors(2 of them) with 4M SP should be able to warp in, hit orbit at whatever that is optimal on their guns, and do a carrier HEADSHOT! if that carrier is alone.

As it stands today, carriers have a lot of weak spots. If you want to make life a bit harder for carrier pilots just enlighten people how to counter it, not nerf it.

I'm not talking about BoB/-A-/RA/Goon carrier chains here.. If you want to make life harder for them you could just limit the number of carriers in a gang to 50.

Eraggan Sadarr
Comply Or Die
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:01:00 - [269]
 

Edited by: Eraggan Sadarr on 24/10/2007 10:01:44

This second blog seems much more reasonable to me, compared to the first.
I like the goal of having to fit for the role, as this applies to almost all other ships in eve.

To me it seems that we need more comments from people who do not fly carriers, but have felt the unfairness of the carriers versatility on their own hulls?

I have only attacked carriers trying to escape, so i really haven't had the bad experience of the carrier. I live in low-sec, and as far as i know, you always have the cyno-pilot to help you.

So good luck with the balancing.

gordon cain
Posted - 2007.10.24 10:03:00 - [270]
 

Just finished reading the Blog. Some good ideas, some bad!

To start off: All the ideas I write about below is based on minmatar carrier class (the only thing I fly) Moms, I will come to that later.

You said that player owned carriers are limited to doing these 3 things today: (I will not even talk about NPC'ing in these things)

1) Damage Dealing
2) Logistics / 0.0 movement
3) Support

Your idea seemed to go in the direction of "modules" of some kind, that would have to be fitted in order for the ship to effectively fill its role. I like this idea alot.

My idea:
1) Combat Module
This is what all the boys want. Damage Damage Damage. But it comes at a cost. You loose serious Scan Resolution and when you put on this module you will have a bigger dammage with the fighters, but heavily decreased dammage with light, medium and heavy drones. This is used when you seriously want to kill big things.

2) Logistic Module
Lets be honest. Right now most people use the carriers for the ease to bring stuff to 0.0. This is what we need an (not to overpriced) jump freighter to do. Not the carrier.

So the first step would be to say that no items should be allowed in the ships stored in the carrier (i.e no stuff in the haulers). Modules fitted is completely ok.

This would shift the role from mini-jump-freighter to actual carrier.

This would basically mean that a niddie with no logistic module still only have 500.000m3 Ship Maint Bay. But when fitted the module should give 500% increse making it on size with MS ShipMaintBay. This would make it more than capable to transport 2 BS and a number of other ships around when in logistic mode.

3) Support Module
This is Teh Support module. Designed to increase the bonus to your gang mates, remote repair duration decrease. This is basically a modified triage module.

When activated you are not able to launch your fighters and heavy drones. Lock times on gang m8s via the gang broadcast signal have to be made faster.

This is my ideas just off my head. Moms is a whole other deal and in my opinion should not even be compared with normal carriers.

Gordon Cain


Pages: first : previous : ... 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 ... : 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