open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [Issue] Discuss Zulupark's carrier dev blog
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic

Dzajic
Gallente

Posted - 2008.07.31 12:30:00 - [31]
 

What if (with fixing current bombs) CCP added either new class of torpedo bombers, or new weapons for SBs that did sufficient damage to capital ships. 99% grid reduction for citadel launchers? To prevent them from being used against POS modules instead of dreds they could get very tiny range (so POS guns will always slaughter them).

Machine Delta
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.07.31 12:54:00 - [32]
 

Haters get out.

Voting to stop Capital Inflation 08'

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.07.31 13:22:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Swamp Ziro

bob, yet again trying to stunt game balance in favor of in-game vested interests


Or maybe I don't think the minority should be able to claim they are speaking for the majority when pushing an agnda which suits their vested interests?

You get that, right?

Yorda
Battlestars
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.07.31 13:27:00 - [34]
 


Danyael Tyren
Merch Industrial
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.07.31 13:40:00 - [35]
 

Originally by: Avon
Or maybe I don't think the minority should be able to claim they are speaking for the majority when pushing an agnda which suits their vested interests?

You get that, right?


Originally by: Crivens
someone quote avon and say that the support of the silent majority is an empirical matter; argumentum ad populum is a fallacy and the matter should be judged on its own merits. Acknowledge it was employed for rhetorical effect - just like avon's attempt at a derail.



Alexander Knott
ElitistOps
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.07.31 13:48:00 - [36]
 

Supported

dan 1
GoonFleet
Band of Brothers
Posted - 2008.07.31 13:55:00 - [37]
 

i enjoy this one here

Mel 1
Posted - 2008.07.31 13:56:00 - [38]
 

good idea

Twyce Nyetlee
The 5th Freedom
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2008.07.31 14:04:00 - [39]
 

This is really a lot of work, between nerfing nano ships and caps. Wouldn't it just be easier to do a general skillpoint reset along with a 15 million sp cap?

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.07.31 14:12:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Bane Glorious
Recommended changes:
At base, carriers can deploy 5 fighters/drones of their own (125mbit/sec bandwidth), but can still delegate up to 10 (including original 5) to gang members with Carrier V. A mothership can use 10 fighters on its own (250mbit/sec bandwidth) at base but has 20 overall to use at once.
Change DCUs so that they give +2 fighters/drones controllable by the carrier instead of +1, and +50mbit/s bandwidth.
Introduce new highslot module that does something like
o Disallows fighter delegation to gangmates
o Enables the carrier to use new "bomber" fighters that do 5x the damage of fighters, but have 1000m Signature Resolution for their turrets, are slower, occupy 5000m3 (like a normal fighter), but you can only launch five at once.
o Disrupts the warp and jump drive
o Lasts 5-10 minutes and consumes fuel (or not?) similar to siege mode
o Problem: This makes a carrier's max DPS similar if not the same as a mothership's. Maybe give motherships an extra damage bonus to bombers, so they can do around 3500 DPS (4375 for a Nyx)?
Consider dividing the drone bay into specific bays: one for ordinary drones and one for fighters and bombers. Make the regular drone bay 1000-2000m3 just in case the fact that carriers can carry thousands of light, medium, and heavy combat and logistics drones bothers you. (it's not really a huge issue for me, but I dunno, it does kind of rub me the wrong way from time to time)
Reduce Capital Remote Armor Repairer, Capital Shield Transporter, and Capital Energy Transfer Array rep amount and cap use by 1/3 (don't freak out until you get to the end, please)
Vastly reduce CPU requirements for Capital Energy Transfer Arrays, Capital Shield Transporters, and Drone Control Units
Increase the CPU need for Officer Smartbombs; many officer and faction items are harder to fit than other meta levels, but smartbombs are an exception
Change Triage module to have something like the following bonuses (note that some bonuses are already there currently):
1. +1000% bonus to Sensor Resolution (faster locking)
2. Immunity to Electronic Warfare
3. Cannot move, warp, or jump (probably, maybe could negotiate the ability to move on grid)
4. 2x bonus to Capital remote rep/shieldtransporter/energytransfer amount (more efficient)
5. 2x bonus to Capital Armor Repairer and Capital Shield Booster amount
6. .5x bonus to Capital Armor Repairer and Capital Shield Booster duration (more repaired, but harder on cap use)
7. Immunity to Capital Remote Armor Repairers, Capital Energy Transfer Arrays, and Capital Shield Transporters (but NOT large, medium, or small ones)
8. 1000x Capacitor need for Electronic Warfare Modules
9. Cannot use its own fighters but can still delegate them to gangmates (probably?)
10. Small boost to capital logistics module range?
Reduce skill prerequisite for Tactical Logistics Reconfiguration to Logistics IV instead of Logistics V



Just to be clear, is this the part that would be escalated? There are several different ideas brought up in your writeup, but it isn't completely clear which ones would be the ones proposed to CCP if this passes.

Kashbrok
Ars ex Discordia
Test Alliance Please Ignore
Posted - 2008.07.31 14:28:00 - [41]
 

Lots of words that I generally agree with.

Bane Glorious
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.07.31 14:32:00 - [42]
 

Originally by: Kelsin

Just to be clear, is this the part that would be escalated? There are several different ideas brought up in your writeup, but it isn't completely clear which ones would be the ones proposed to CCP if this passes.


As I said, these ideas are just sample solutions to the problem; what CCP decides to do is entirely up to them. All three will be included in the submission template for them to read, and they will likely give their opinions on their viability.

Escalation in this case is as the topic says, a discussion of the issue of carrier spam. CCP has no obligation to give a flying fart about my idea specifically.

Vladimir Tinakin
Caldari
Wife Aggro Productions

Posted - 2008.07.31 15:47:00 - [43]
 

Supported, at least as far as to have CCP readdress the situation. The current solution is less than optimal for numerous reasons; not the least of which is the lack of a focus for carriers.

Dreads kill structures and non-nano'd capitals. (nanotitans are abominations, but anyhoo...)

Rorquals are mobile mining and hauling beasts.

Carriers (and by extension, motherships) and titans don't have very well-defined roles. Titans at least have a dedicated logistics/tactical angle to them with their jumpbridge ability. Motherships can jump into an area and clonejump in some support, though this facility is of limited use aside from raiding.

Carriers are basically large Dominixes, that have a large cargohold. Is it any surprise then, that they are becoming "the new battleship"?

Give carriers a role and a defined function.

Heartstone
Aliastra
Posted - 2008.07.31 16:11:00 - [44]
 

Edited by: Heartstone on 31/07/2008 16:11:32
Well despite the fact that you already raised this exact issue before and been voted down I still support it in theory although without specific proposals it is impossible to give any support to the thread. Unless of course you are planning on not presenting the issues without any proposals to CCP in which case I can't support it either as it would be a waste of their time.


Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.07.31 16:37:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Heartstone
Edited by: Heartstone on 31/07/2008 16:11:32
Well despite the fact that you already raised this exact issue before and been voted down I still support it in theory although without specific proposals it is impossible to give any support to the thread. Unless of course you are planning on not presenting the issues without any proposals to CCP in which case I can't support it either as it would be a waste of their time.




Didn't read the rest of the posts?

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.07.31 16:47:00 - [46]
 

I think this proposal just needs a clearer mission statement as the initial writeup in the OP is vague, and then it quickly gets into very detailed specifics and you have to really dig to figure out what exactly the proposal is all about. At present simply supporting 'having a discussion' could go in so many ways that it is very hard to lend support to it, despite much more concrete sample recommendations appearing later on in the proposal.

A firm statement at the start would really help this out. Something like "The CSM should recommend that CCP revisit the idea of changing the Carrier's role, and that that revisiting should involve increasing the level of specialization in any given Carrier fit to prevent it from being a Jack of All Trades on the battlefield." And then later get into the specific types of fits you'd like to see possible, and what their weaknesses and strengths would be.

Basically something broad enough that people don't reject the concept because of some silly detail, but not so vague that people can't tell what they're signing on to when they support it.

Bane Glorious
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.07.31 17:15:00 - [47]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
I think this proposal just needs a clearer mission statement as the initial writeup in the OP is vague, and then it quickly gets into very detailed specifics and you have to really dig to figure out what exactly the proposal is all about. At present simply supporting 'having a discussion' could go in so many ways that it is very hard to lend support to it, despite much more concrete sample recommendations appearing later on in the proposal.

A firm statement at the start would really help this out. Something like "The CSM should recommend that CCP revisit the idea of changing the Carrier's role, and that that revisiting should involve increasing the level of specialization in any given Carrier fit to prevent it from being a Jack of All Trades on the battlefield." And then later get into the specific types of fits you'd like to see possible, and what their weaknesses and strengths would be.

Basically something broad enough that people don't reject the concept because of some silly detail, but not so vague that people can't tell what they're signing on to when they support it.


Then I'll be sure to mention this in the meeting this Sunday.

Can I have your thumbs up now?

Eternal Error
Exitus Acta Probant
Posted - 2008.07.31 17:33:00 - [48]
 

ITT Goonswarm tries to get capitals nerfed so they have a chance.

Brennah
Minmatar
Posted - 2008.07.31 18:14:00 - [49]
 

Edited by: Brennah on 31/07/2008 18:15:08
why is there no thumbs down option, because that's what I would pick

ElanMorin6
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2008.07.31 18:27:00 - [50]
 

Edited by: ElanMorin6 on 31/07/2008 18:37:18
Ugh. CCP has enough problems coming up with sweeping changes on their own. It rarely works out. As much as it might bore the Lead Developer, small incremental changes are the only way to do things in a game like EVE, because the only place you can really learn about game balance is on the live server. The skewed risk/reward on Sisi makes it useless as an indicator of how ships will actually be used on TQ, and CCP has shown a complete inability to predict totally obvious yet potentially abusive game mechanics (cruise missles on kestrals, titan fleets, etc).


The biggest problem is that this post completely sweeps under the rug what your own alliance did over the past two weeks, where non-capital fleets were used convincingly. Breaking spider tanks isn't rocket-science, everyone knows how to do it (although it would be nice if damps on bonused ships at least could manage this again). The reality isn't that capital ships are necessarily overpowered, but that once you reach a carrier fleet of a certian size it's impossible to bring to bear a large enough subcap fleet against them. This is a lag issue as much as a cap-ships online issue.

That said, you make a strong point about carriers being able to do too much at once while in combat. Remote-rep + fighter DPS + smartbomb/neut/etc means they don't have a lot of weaknesses other than ECM, and a large enough carrier blob will be able to survive those 15%-20% jam chances enough to maintain it's spider-tank. Nerfing captial remote-reps seems like a pretty simple and straightforward solution (eg: cutting their rep amount and cap use in half) that isn't likely to have any major side-effects (you'd need to half the volume of the reps as a result, and their mineral cost, and make every single cap remote-rep into two when the change is implemented, but that's all stuff that's been done before).

Jenny' JoJo
Caldari
State War Academy
Posted - 2008.07.31 18:46:00 - [51]
 

Caps turned this game from intresting and fun into boring POS wars and lagfests.

Bane Glorious
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.07.31 19:26:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: ElanMorin6
Edited by: ElanMorin6 on 31/07/2008 18:37:18
Ugh. CCP has enough problems coming up with sweeping changes on their own. It rarely works out. As much as it might bore the Lead Developer, small incremental changes are the only way to do things in a game like EVE, because the only place you can really learn about game balance is on the live server. The skewed risk/reward on Sisi makes it useless as an indicator of how ships will actually be used on TQ, and CCP has shown a complete inability to predict totally obvious yet potentially abusive game mechanics (cruise missles on kestrals, titan fleets, etc).


The biggest problem is that this post completely sweeps under the rug what your own alliance did over the past two weeks, where non-capital fleets were used convincingly. Breaking spider tanks isn't rocket-science, everyone knows how to do it (although it would be nice if damps on bonused ships at least could manage this again). The reality isn't that capital ships are necessarily overpowered, but that once you reach a carrier fleet of a certian size it's impossible to bring to bear a large enough subcap fleet against them. This is a lag issue as much as a cap-ships online issue.

That said, you make a strong point about carriers being able to do too much at once while in combat. Remote-rep + fighter DPS + smartbomb/neut/etc means they don't have a lot of weaknesses other than ECM, and a large enough carrier blob will be able to survive those 15%-20% jam chances enough to maintain it's spider-tank. Nerfing captial remote-reps seems like a pretty simple and straightforward solution (eg: cutting their rep amount and cap use in half) that isn't likely to have any major side-effects (you'd need to half the volume of the reps as a result, and their mineral cost, and make every single cap remote-rep into two when the change is implemented, but that's all stuff that's been done before).


This is a good enough post, so thank you. I agree that the biggest problem with carriers is the difficulty with breaking spider tanks and how their strength increases in a supralinear fashion as carrier numbers increase.

Ernest's idea for carriers might be the most like what you're looking for.

Avon
Caldari
Versatech Co.
Raiden.
Posted - 2008.07.31 19:50:00 - [53]
 

Originally by: Jenny' JoJo
Caps turned this game from intresting and fun into boring POS wars and lagfests.

No, I think you'll find that POSs did that.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.07.31 20:58:00 - [54]
 

Originally by: Eternal Error
ITT Goonswarm tries to get capitals nerfed so they have a chance.

We have an absolute ****load of carriers these days.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.07.31 21:31:00 - [55]
 

Edited by: Scatim Helicon on 31/07/2008 21:34:52

Originally by: Kelsin
A firm statement at the start would really help this out. Something like "The CSM should recommend that CCP revisit the idea of changing the Carrier's role, and that that revisiting should involve increasing the level of specialization in any given Carrier fit to prevent it from being a Jack of All Trades on the battlefield." And then later get into the specific types of fits you'd like to see possible, and what their weaknesses and strengths would be.

I'd support that statement more or less unedited.

Calling them 'jack of all trades' sums up the issue nicely: the issues with carriers is not that they are, strictly speaking, 'overpowered' (they die fairly frequently in combat, even to subcapitals) but that they have the ability to carry out almost any role one can think of reasonably well with a single generic omni-fitting. It would be more in keeping with EVE if carrier pilots were forced to commit to a particular role like the pilots of every other shiptype are, if not at the point of purchase then at least at the fitting screen.

Soleil Fournier
StarFleet Enterprises
Systematic-Chaos
Posted - 2008.07.31 21:35:00 - [56]
 

Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 31/07/2008 21:57:47
I will never support a change that takes fighters out of my own control.

They're MY fighters, not my gangs. I trained for them, I bought them, I want to control them. And I think it -highly- unfair that in order to use my ship, I'm required to have other people around to use it for me. That's ridiculous. I should always have the option to use my ship as I see fit, and not require other people to use it. The -risk- should be higher without support players around me, but that would be my choice to use my ship in a risky manner.

Imagine me telling you that in order to use a Battleship, you HAD to be in the gang of a person with Wing Command 3 in order to use your guns? That you can only use 3 of your 6 guns if you aren't in a gang w/ a wing commander 3 leader? Yeah, it makes about as much sense as me not being able to order my own fighters around.

The issue is spider repping. The issue is NOT fighter control. Nerf the spider repping, the issue with capitals being all powerful will begin to fade. It's a very simple fix. You can only use Capital remote reppers if in triage mode. This makes carriers a sitting duck.

I support making DCUs more viable. A dmg increase sounds nice.

Capitals should use capital-modules-only in high slots. Give us a capital smartbomb/neut, make sure the fitting requirements are increased, restrict non capital mods in highs, and you'll see less problems.

Mothership tanks need to be improved. They're too easy to take down solo. The right gang can do it quickly and without a ton of players involved. I expect a ship that I paid 25 billion (incl fittings) and trained 2 freaking years for will last longer than 3 minutes on the battlefield.

Vladimir Tinakin
Caldari
Wife Aggro Productions
Posted - 2008.07.31 22:13:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: Soleil Fournier
Edited by: Soleil Fournier on 31/07/2008 21:37:57
I will never support a change that takes fighters out of my own control.

They're MY fighters, not my gangs. I trained for them, I bought them, I want to control them. And I think it -highly- unfair that in order to use my ship, I'm required to have other people around to use it for me. That's ridiculous.

Imagine me telling you that in order to use a Battleship, you HAD to be in the gang of a person with Wing Command 3 in order to use your guns?


That's just it though--this isn't a battleship, and one of the points of this thread is to keep them from being less-mobile harder-hitting versions of battleships. Maybe nerfing the spidertank will be sufficient; maybe more of a stick is needed to wedge carriers into a specific role.

I'm in the same boat--I've actually trained several accounts to use carriers, and it is entirely possible that when the carrier is "repurposed" or "better-defined" I'll be screwed out of the utility I had in mind. However, a generic do-everything ship is not good for eve.

One thing I'm hoping for is a reduction in the capital remote rep modules in terms of fitting and ability....and a reduction to Logistics 4 for the triage module. I think the original vision of the carrier was for a subcapital support vessel/force multiplier, and if that happens to be the defining vision then I hope it gets to be a bit easier to train into that role. Having to train dozens of skills to 5 as prerequisites to even sit into the carrier and fit the mods (let alone use them well) is very harsh; Logistics 5 is basically forcing people to train battleship 5 all over again.

Soleil Fournier
StarFleet Enterprises
Systematic-Chaos
Posted - 2008.07.31 22:43:00 - [58]
 

My example was just used for the principal of the matter.

I 100% agree that carriers shouldn't be the "all around gods" of the battlefield.

But carriers are just that - carriers of fighters. The fighter should define the carrier, not the mods the carrier pilot decides to equip. If carriers want to do better at repping members of their gang, withdraw their fighters and put out repping drones.

So again, reduce the effectiveness of the remote reppers, remove the ability to equip non-capital modules in high slots (add more of a variety of capital modules with appropriate fitting costs though), and you will see a big difference in the ability of capitals to demolish everything on the battlefield and never die. Yeah, making logistics 4 the pre-req for triage won't hurt either.

There is no need to require delegation of fighters or put other cavioughts (sp) in order for a pilot to even use his ship though in order to obtain a balance of capitals in the game.

Scarnhorst
Posted - 2008.07.31 23:11:00 - [59]
 

I think that this is worth pushing forward.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.07.31 23:45:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Bane Glorious
Post 5 through 10 equaling the single biggest post I've ever seen.
Even assuming you limit yourself to these proposals, that's just it. They are proposals in the plural. You're still attempting to forward a large number of proposals in one CSM vote. You need to break it down into individual proposals.

Congratulations. A really big post. This is your proposal to the CSM for escalation? All these changes and ideas from yourself and others whom you give URL's for? This is nothing more than a goonswarm wish list designed to give them a bigger, easier win button.

As you claim to be a recent graduate in business, I would have expected a much better presentation than this confusing, bulk array of ideas, quotes, opinion from a player you don't even name (Darius?), personal opinion expressed as the "silent majority" and nerf ideas for Carriers. One of these ideas, "At base, carriers can deploy 5 fighters/drones of their own (125mbit/sec bandwidth), but can still delegate up to 10 (including original 5) to gang members with Carrier V. A mothership can use 10 fighters on its own (250mbit/sec bandwidth) at base but has 20 overall to use at once", is the same one CCP Zulupark was unmercifully flamed for when he made it. Forcing Carrier pilots to have what amounts to a co-pilot(s) in order to deploy their own fighters.

What this all boils down to is:
- Reduce effectiveness of Carriers.
- Decrease skill training necessary to pilot Carriers.
- Force Carriers into a support role as opposed to a direct combat role.
- Increase the effectiveness of smaller ships against Carriers.
- Decrease effectiveness of Carriers against smaller ships.
- Increase the dependence of Carriers upon smaller ships. Even to the point of making the Carrier pilot dependent upon smaller ships to deploy the Carriers own drones.
- Minimization of the effectiveness of skills older players have and maximization of the effectiveness of skills newer players have.

And what that boils down to is; Candyland for a large alliance composed of relatively new players who are too impatient to dedicate the resources to train for and purchase capitals and who prefer to blob with less expensive and easier to fly ships. Instant gratification has always been the hallmark of goonswarm.

Older players with more skills and resources that have been developed over years are what is under attack here. Without Carriers and other capital ships these players will be easily overwhelmed by an alliance such as goonswarm represents.

Windjammer

P.S.
Originally by: Bane Glorius
To all of these people (who disagree with me): you can kiss my black ass.
Playing the race card is repulsive enough without being vulgar about it. Besides, photographic evidence seems to indicate you're a curly haired white kid. Needless to say I and others will not be puckering up regardless of the skin color.


Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

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