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

Christiaan Huygens
Posted - 2008.07.31 23:59:00 - [61]
 

The idea of carriers having to specialise is an interesting one, and one I think would benifit the game as a whole.

maybe having to sacrifice the CHA and/or the SMA to achieve maximum DPS or repping potential would be usefull as well, and incentivising filling highslots with +DPS or repping modules (ie, make 4-5 DCUs or remote reps usable and useful) would make it harder to be a jack of all trades.

XEN0CIDE
Viziam
Posted - 2008.08.01 00:18:00 - [62]
 

Carriers within eve are setup totally wrong, Carriers are the end game ship & this should not be the case. Carrier realistically should be weak, fragile ships. In eve a Carrier can have the effective hit points of 2 Million is totally wrong. However CCP’s role for Carriers has caused this issue. So lets look at carriers as they should be,

Firstly what is a Carrier in real life ?

“An Carrier is a warship designed with a Primary mission of deploying and recovering aircraft, acting as a sea going airbase, Aircraft carriers this allow a naval force to project air power great distances without having to depend on local bases for staging aircraft operations.”

That’s what a Carrier should be in eve but the core issue with the Carrier class is one ship is covering the rolls of a complete class. We have 3 types of Battleship in eve. Each does a different job. We should have different types of Carriers.


Escort Carrier
The Tier 1 Carrier, This ship is the logistical carrier, Sporting the Logistical ability of current carriers, it is cheaper. It can’t launch any fighters but can fit four racial point defence systems. It is cheaper than the normal carrier but has a bigger jump range since the reduced mass. A lot of pilots current use Carriers to move there assets in & out of zero point zero.

Battle Carrier (Current)
The Tier II Carrier, this ship has the combat ability, It is a fragile & weak ship. Its primary combat role is to project its combat power in the form of fighters & Bombers against hostile targets within 5 light-years. These Fighters & Bombers require fuel. Therefore limiting the amount of times a Battle Carrier can launch its Fighters & Bombers. To deploy its Fighters/Bombers a Cyno most be dropped & a Assault Carrier must Cyno them into the system. The target must be preset. So once in they will attack a predefined target such as a Cyno Jammer and then leave. To do this the ships must be in some kind of Siege mod to maintain contact with there fighters.

Carrier are long range ships if they find themselves on the frontline they are dead. Simple as that. They operate far away from the frontlines & this should be reflected in eve

NOTE: This would be the Thanatos, Archon, Chimera & Nidhoggur.

Assault Carrier (Tech II)
As Assault Carrier is a type of Carrier employed to allow combat forces to bypass camped systems by deployment of its Jump Portal Generator, while the Assault Carrier resembles the Escort Carrier, the role of the Assault Carrier is fundamentally different: its facilities have the primary role of hosting a Jump Portal Generator.

These are jump my views on Carriers, they are totally wrong. The idea of the Point Defence system is to allow the carrier to destroy any large weaponry that make try kill it so to kill a carrier smaller weapons would be needed which the Point Defence system would have a harder time hitting.

Btw I build & sell carriers for a living, I fly them & love them but they are overpowered & wrong.

ElanMorin6
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2008.08.01 00:37:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
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.



It's really hard to pay any attention to some of the better points you might be making when you spout off rediculous bull**** like this.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.01 01:13:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Bane Glorious
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.
What you're asking for remains a request for the CSM to give you blind approval on an unlimited number of unspecified proposals.

Which takes this back to the problem with the original post starting this thread. This is merely a rewording of the same proposal you offered in a CSM meeting and which was voted down and voted down for good reason. You haven't changed the proposal in any way including refusing to limit your proposal to a specific set of proposals. "Sample" of your ideas? How many more you have waiting in the wings to bring forth if you get an escalation approval from the CSM?

Isn't there a time limit before a proposal can be reintroduced?

Windjammer

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.01 01:18:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: ElanMorin6
Originally by: Windjammer
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.



It's really hard to pay any attention to some of the better points you might be making when you spout off rediculous bull**** like this.
Your reply is typical of goonswarm. You guys go to the same school for this?

It's hardly my fault that goonswarm is iconic for a certain demographic and I'm not about to start posting like they aren't.Laughing

Windjammer

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.01 01:25:00 - [66]
 

Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Bane Glorious

The issue, raised by players and CCP and supported by a silent majority,


See, you gotta kinda prove that bit before we go any further.

List the names of your silent majority - otherwise refrain from making the claim.
Use the phrase "Me and my alliance mates".
In addition, I notice that there is no mention of the far from silent majority that posted against at least one of these suggestions when it was first put out by CCP Zulupark.

Regards,
Windjammer

Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.01 01:31:00 - [67]
 

Edited by: Fahtim Meidires on 01/08/2008 01:34:18
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: Bane Glorious
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.
What you're asking for remains a request for the CSM to give you blind approval on an unlimited number of unspecified proposals.

Which takes this back to the problem with the original post starting this thread. This is merely a rewording of the same proposal you offered in a CSM meeting and which was voted down and voted down for good reason. You haven't changed the proposal in any way including refusing to limit your proposal to a specific set of proposals. "Sample" of your ideas? How many more you have waiting in the wings to bring forth if you get an escalation approval from the CSM?

Isn't there a time limit before a proposal can be reintroduced?

Windjammer


First off, if the only thing approved is the carrier topic, it will be the only thing discussed due to the rules. I do see your qualms however: a perfectly reasonable worry is that the council will ask for more background information, which to anybody who hasn't flown in cap fleets before is substantial. You predict that Bane will bring up more and more issues along with a personal agenda, but I think the delegates will have sense to keep everyone on topic.

It is a very chicken/egg debate; I think that more of the council would be willing to discuss 0.0 in general if more of them knew what currently goes on and how it works. But unfortunately they can't until they approve of the discussion in the first place. We have to try and get the ball rolling, because so far the talks haven't scratched the surface of the entire topic.

Originally by: Jade from the exploration ship thread in Jita Park

We haven't officially decided what to do about issues recurring and in a situation where convincing arguments can be made that that the CSM reached an incorrect decision first time around I'm not averse to hearing items a second time. The player base has raised some pertinent criticism about our handling of this issue - I think its worth us asking ourselves if we made the correct decision since the exploration ship debate has direct impact on solo playstyle and expansion of a whole area of game content.



It would be nice if a portion of the CSM's time be devoted to discussion of 0.0 as there is certainly a portion of EVE that spends time there. Give it a second chance - why not?

Drakinar
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.08.01 01:39:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Bane Glorious

The issue, raised by players and CCP and supported by a silent majority,


See, you gotta kinda prove that bit before we go any further.

List the names of your silent majority - otherwise refrain from making the claim.
Use the phrase "Me and my alliance mates".


Surprised to see this particular BoB member trying to shoot down Bane's ideas, considering I happen to know that Avon is a Something Awful member of many years.

Bane, as always, expressed his ideas very eloquently and in such a way that demonstrates the amount of effort and thought he puts into everything he publishes for improvements to this game we all love.(Yes, you love the game, if you don't why are you reading this?)

Lumen Atra
GoonFleet
GoonSwarm
Posted - 2008.08.01 01:43:00 - [69]
 

Edited by: Lumen Atra on 01/08/2008 01:54:19
Edited by: Lumen Atra on 01/08/2008 01:54:07
Edited by: Lumen Atra on 01/08/2008 01:51:31
Edited by: Lumen Atra on 01/08/2008 01:46:58
Edited by: Lumen Atra on 01/08/2008 01:43:56
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: ElanMorin6
Originally by: Windjammer
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.



It's really hard to pay any attention to some of the better points you might be making when you spout off rediculous bull**** like this.
Your reply is typical of goonswarm. You guys go to the same school for this?

It's hardly my fault that goonswarm is iconic for a certain demographic and I'm not about to start posting like they aren't.Laughing

Windjammer


Stereotypes are wonderful, aren't they? Are you racist in real life, as well? It is pretty ignorant of you to proudly boast that you are going to continue thinking in a way that is incorrect.

Whether or not his response is typical or not doesn't negate the fact that he is right, and that your only retort is a personal attack.

As for Avon, I certainly agree that you shouldn't throw out something like "majority" unless there is something quantifiable to back it up. On the other hand, Avon, you did it yourself by flipping it to minority. In either case, it is a petty thing to quibble over; the point is that there is a part of the population that has concern.

And now to the point at hand: Bane's own idea certainly moves carriers into a fleet support role, however, as some have already mentioned, doesn't take into account the personal aspect of flying a ship (ie, why have fighters if the carrier pilot can't make use of them himself, or even to the extent that you would expect something named carrier to be capable of).

The issue is certainly worthy of discussion, as many things are. Rebalance is a tricky one, but to cover your eyes simply because it works for you is short sighted. I think arbitrarily saying a carrier cannot rep another when in "new" triage is silly, personally, if it works when not. If there are side effects of new triage that make it neigh on impossible to do so, that is different.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.08.01 06:50:00 - [70]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
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.


Originally by: Windjammer
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.


1) "Goonswarm just wants carriers to be easier to train for so they can get more of them!"

2) "Goonswarm just wants carriers to be less powerful so they don't need to get more of them!"

Look at how stupid you are.

LaVista Vista
Conservative Shenanigans Party
Posted - 2008.08.01 07:14:00 - [71]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
What you're asking for remains a request for the CSM to give you blind approval on an unlimited number of unspecified proposals.

Which takes this back to the problem with the original post starting this thread. This is merely a rewording of the same proposal you offered in a CSM meeting and which was voted down and voted down for good reason. You haven't changed the proposal in any way including refusing to limit your proposal to a specific set of proposals. "Sample" of your ideas? How many more you have waiting in the wings to bring forth if you get an escalation approval from the CSM?

Isn't there a time limit before a proposal can be reintroduced?

Windjammer


This post hits the nail right on. That was the exact reason the proposal was turned down in the first place.

But at present, there is not a time limit before it can be reintroduced.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.01 08:05:00 - [72]
 

Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
First off, if the only thing approved is the carrier topic, it will be the only thing discussed due to the rules. I do see your qualms however: a perfectly reasonable worry is that the council will ask for more background information, which to anybody who hasn't flown in cap fleets before is substantial. You predict that Bane will bring up more and more issues along with a personal agenda, but I think the delegates will have sense to keep everyone on topic.
The Carrier topic, as Bane has outlined, is everything to do with Carriers. That is to say, everything that has anything to do with Carriers is open to presentation to CCP if Bane gets the approval for escalation from the CSM that he seeks. Nothing will be excluded or limited. Bane is not even limiting himself to the rather wide range of ideas he's presented in his posts. He says they're only a sample.

Ideas and proposals for Carriers cover a very wide area. You wouldn't expect a CSM delegate to make a proposal to discuss the problems of the entirety of EVE with CCP. Neither should you expect a CSM delegate to ask for and receive escalation approval to discuss everything that comes to his/her mind regarding Carriers. Especially when he refuses to limit himself to previously announced specifics. Even CCP requires the CSM to specify components of a proposal prior to a CSM/CCP meeting.

You say the delegates would have the sense to keep everyone on topic. That's just it. The topic would be to discuss Carriers. Nothing to do with Carriers could be considered to be off topic.

Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
It is a very chicken/egg debate; I think that more of the council would be willing to discuss 0.0 in general if more of them knew what currently goes on and how it works. But unfortunately they can't until they approve of the discussion in the first place. We have to try and get the ball rolling, because so far the talks haven't scratched the surface of the entire topic.
As it happens there are easy answers to the chicken/egg debate. The answer depends upon whether you believe in creationism or evolution.

Nothing is preventing the CSM from discussing anything. They are free to discuss everything. They can do so amongst themselves or here on the forums or in any other of a number mediums. Again you have, in a way, discovered the problem. Bane does not seek to discuss these issues with the CSM delegates or anyone else prior to presenting them to CCP at a CSM/CCP meeting. He seeks blanket apporval to present his ideas and the ideas of those he agrees with and to do so without risking a discussion or vote on what he's going to present.

Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Originally by: Jade from the exploration ship thread in Jita Park

We haven't officially decided what to do about issues recurring and in a situation where convincing arguments can be made that that the CSM reached an incorrect decision first time around I'm not averse to hearing items a second time. The player base has raised some pertinent criticism about our handling of this issue - I think its worth us asking ourselves if we made the correct decision since the exploration ship debate has direct impact on solo playstyle and expansion of a whole area of game content.



It would be nice if a portion of the CSM's time be devoted to discussion of 0.0 as there is certainly a portion of EVE that spends time there. Give it a second chance - why not?
Of course the CSM should discuss 0.0 issues. Don't you think they should discuss them before voting them approved for escalation? You wouldn't purchase a car you hadn't seen or driven. You wouldn't purchase a house that hadn't been inspected. Why would you purchase an unseen bunch of ideas without discussing them?

Bane has failed to bring new evidence to the table showing the CSM made a mistake the first time they voted this down.

Windjammer

Sylthi
Minmatar
Coreward Pan-Galactic
Holy Empire of The Unshaven
Posted - 2008.08.01 08:16:00 - [73]
 

You know, a lot of these problems would take care of themselves if Zulupark and Nozh just suddenly, and irreversibly, found themselves unemployed.

I honestly wish THOSE types of proposals would fit into the CCP defined narrow scope of the CSM's "purview."

Yeah, I know, off topic. But still, blissful thoughts, eh?

Cheers.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.01 08:50:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Lumen Atra
Stereotypes are wonderful, aren't they? Are you racist in real life, as well? It is pretty ignorant of you to proudly boast that you are going to continue thinking in a way that is incorrect.
I hope your words were merely ill considered and I await your apology. The alternative is that they are the single most profoundly baseless and ignorant thing I have ever seen posted upon these or any other forums. Being the author of something like that isn't a prize to be envied.

In the US there are two main political parties, the republicans and the democrats. The republicans are iconic of one demographic and the democrats of another. It is not considered racist to say so. Why? Because the demographic is a gathering of people who have made a choice to behave, live and vote in a roughly similar way. It has nothing to do with the color of their skin.

Similarly, nothing I've said about goonswarm is incorrect or based upon the color of anyones skin. It is based upon the fact they have chosen to join an alliance which has a certain set of well known behaviors and composition. Some of these are legendary. They are displayed within goonswarm, in the entirety of EVE and easily seen in the posts made here on these forums. Actions and words presented for anyone who wishes to see them.

I doubt you would call me racist for saying Jade Constantine is a member of a certain demographic (role players) or that Avon is a member of a certain demographic. Nor would you label me with such a vile allegation for commenting on the preferences of such demographics.

Originally by: Lumen Atra
Whether or not his response is typical or not doesn't negate the fact that he is right, and that your only retort is a personal attack.
I see. He's right because you say so. His personal attack on me is justified and, no doubt in your mind, eloquent. I, on the other hand, am not entitled to issue a similar attack in response. Oh.......and you're justified in throwing around allegations of racist bahaviour. Do I have that just about right?


Windjammer

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.01 09:18:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Scatim Helicon
Originally by: Windjammer
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.


Originally by: Windjammer
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.


1) "Goonswarm just wants carriers to be easier to train for so they can get more of them!"

2) "Goonswarm just wants carriers to be less powerful so they don't need to get more of them!"

Look at how stupid you are.
Yeah. I'm the stupid one.
1) Goonswarm does want more of their pilots able to fly Carriers and other capitals. That way goonswarms higher numbers will have more effect against lower numbers of more highly trained individuals. This is not saying that there won't still be many within goonswarm who don't train for capitals or who are a long way from capital training even with the reductions in skill training Bane is seeking.

2) Goonswarm does want Carriers to be less powerful so that all those in goonswarm who aren't trained for Carriers and/or capitals (see above) will be able to hold sway over Carriers and capitals with sheer numbers.
2a)You have to look at the specific ways that are being sought to nerf Carriers. i.e. nerfing them to be logistic support for smaller ships at the expense of being effective combat ships in their own right. **This tends to cover items one and two.

It's a two pronged attack upon a goonswarm problem (low numbers of highly trained pilots defeating large numbers of lesser skilled pilots). Attacking this problem from both ends to achieve a minimization of defense against high numbers of lightly skilled pilots. If either of these attacks is successful, goonswarm wins. If both attacks are successful, goonswarm still wins......they just do it faster.

But then that's just me and as you so aptly pointed out with your study of the situation, I'm stupid.Rolling Eyes

Windjammer

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.01 09:23:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Sylthi
You know, a lot of these problems would take care of themselves if Zulupark and Nozh just suddenly, and irreversibly, found themselves unemployed.

I honestly wish THOSE types of proposals would fit into the CCP defined narrow scope of the CSM's "purview."

Yeah, I know, off topic. But still, blissful thoughts, eh?

Cheers.

I'd personally be happy with Zulupark going back to quality control. I've no wish to see the guy unemployed, I just think he's a bad fit for his current job.

As far as Nozh is concerned? There were 4 of them that sat down for 5 hours. I think it's very unfair that Nozh has to take all the heat for what they came up with in that short space of time.

Windjammer

destinationZERO
Minmatar
Pain Management Services
Posted - 2008.08.01 09:36:00 - [77]
 

just nerf everything that requires time, while you're at it.

Vio Geraci
Amarr
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.08.01 10:19:00 - [78]
 

I think carriers should be force multipliers rather than the foot soldier unit of fleets, but that Bane's solution in the original post is too convoluted. This is a serious game balance issue that is deleteriously affecting game-play in a lot of ways, I just wish a more elegant solution would present itself.

Duranium
Posted - 2008.08.01 12:07:00 - [79]
 

agreeing with bane

J'Mkarr Soban
Posted - 2008.08.01 13:19:00 - [80]
 

Given all Bane is asking for is a longer discussion (perhaps workshop?) with the devs on a particularly large and complex matter, I don't see what everyone's problem is. I'm up for it.

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.01 14:13:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: LaVista Vista
Originally by: Windjammer
What you're asking for remains a request for the CSM to give you blind approval on an unlimited number of unspecified proposals.

Which takes this back to the problem with the original post starting this thread. This is merely a rewording of the same proposal you offered in a CSM meeting and which was voted down and voted down for good reason. You haven't changed the proposal in any way including refusing to limit your proposal to a specific set of proposals. "Sample" of your ideas? How many more you have waiting in the wings to bring forth if you get an escalation approval from the CSM?

Isn't there a time limit before a proposal can be reintroduced?

Windjammer


This post hits the nail right on. That was the exact reason the proposal was turned down in the first place.

But at present, there is not a time limit before it can be reintroduced.


There are great ideas within the proposal, but it just needs to be rephrased to clearly state the extent and limits of what a "support" is supporting. The current phrasing is a carte blanche and that is what so many people, including myself, are wary of.

Sylthi
Minmatar
Coreward Pan-Galactic
Holy Empire of The Unshaven
Posted - 2008.08.01 15:59:00 - [82]
 

Edited by: Sylthi on 01/08/2008 16:21:19
Originally by: Windjammer
Originally by: Sylthi
You know, a lot of these problems would take care of themselves if Zulupark and Nozh just suddenly, and irreversibly, found themselves unemployed.

I honestly wish THOSE types of proposals would fit into the CCP defined narrow scope of the CSM's "purview."

Yeah, I know, off topic. But still, blissful thoughts, eh?

Cheers.

I'd personally be happy with Zulupark going back to quality control. I've no wish to see the guy unemployed, I just think he's a bad fit for his current job.

As far as Nozh is concerned? There were 4 of them that sat down for 5 hours. I think it's very unfair that Nozh has to take all the heat for what they came up with in that short space of time.

Windjammer


Wind, I honestly wish I had your level of forgivness and tollerance for the Neolithic level of stupidity and arrogance these two devs in particular have shown in recent months. Honestly, I do. I think it would make me a better person.

I see your point about Nozh. But, he was the one who made the blog, so its only kinda natural that he is going to get the brunt of the scorn. But, yeah, the other three sitting at that table are just as responsible for this latest disgrace.

At least we can agree that Zulu has no business being on the "balancing" team. Wink

I suppose its their unflinching attitute that they "know better" than all the other devs that came before them that pis_ses me off the most.

Ah, hell, what am I doing? It's not like anybody cares what I think or feel.

Cheers to you for at least reading and responding to my post Wind! Smile I'll troll off and enjoy the speed that my ships have at the moment.... I know its not going to last, no matter what the majority of players want.



waristina
Amarr
Slavers Inc
Posted - 2008.08.01 16:56:00 - [83]
 

I must admit that I agree in principle with the idea from the OP, BUT he must be specific about what he is trying to achieve. The OP is asking for support to an issue which has no clear boundaries and therefore is saying support me to do whatever I feel is necessary. If the OP could look at re-phrasing his suggestion to be put forward then I believe he would get a lot more support from all area's of the EVE populace. As it stands his idea's that he has put forward and the idea's he could put forward cannot be given viable support by the masses.
So quite simply Bane, give us a specific suggestion to agree or disagree with rather than trying to pull the wool over the ignorant's eyes and getting yourself a cheap shot at changing the carrier to the betterment of GoonSwarm alone.

javer
4S Corporation
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.08.01 17:03:00 - [84]
 

im against this idea, there is other more pressing issues to look at for capital ships like titans dd dmg

Treelox
Posted - 2008.08.01 17:44:00 - [85]
 

NO SUPPORT FROM ME


Why?

While I agree that Carriers could use some retooling, the ideas that the OP puts forth are too broad in scope for me to agree wholeheartedly with.

If Bane could narrow down the scope, maybe put up a few different threads, each with an individual idea. Then we the unwashed masses could pick and choose. With the way things are currently presented, it is too much an all or nothing, myself at this point I chose nothing.

Cat Gilligan
Caldari
1st Cavalry Division
Phalanx Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.01 17:46:00 - [86]
 

If CCP does the stuff to carriers that was being proposed in that blog, I will quit, plain and simple. It's unacceptable and is just punishing people for bothering to achieve something. Carriers are fine as they are now.

Scatim Helicon
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.08.01 18:38:00 - [87]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
1) Goonswarm does want more of their pilots able to fly Carriers and other capitals. That way goonswarms higher numbers will have more effect against lower numbers of more highly trained individuals.

The idea that Goonswarm is still made up of newbies in T1 caracals with 2 million SP each is pretty dumb, you know. Like I said earlier in the thread, we already have loads of pilots who are carrier and/or dread capable - there have been Goons playing EVE since the beginning, long before Goonfleet was formed.

Making carriers easier to get into doesn't benefit us in the slightest (in fact I'm not sure it benefits anyone but those players who train carrier alts in order to sell them on the eve-o forums), and if anything, its dreads that we're more keen to get people into, as any one of the many people with access to our notoriously-heavily infiltrated forums will tell you.

Quote:
2) Goonswarm does want Carriers to be less powerful so that all those in goonswarm who aren't trained for Carriers and/or capitals (see above) will be able to hold sway over Carriers and capitals with sheer numbers.
2a)You have to look at the specific ways that are being sought to nerf Carriers. i.e. nerfing them to be logistic support for smaller ships at the expense of being effective combat ships in their own right.
It's a two pronged attack upon a goonswarm problem (low numbers of highly trained pilots defeating large numbers of lesser skilled pilots). Attacking this problem from both ends to achieve a minimization of defense against high numbers of lightly skilled pilots. If either of these attacks is successful, goonswarm wins. If both attacks are successful, goonswarm still wins......they just do it faster.

Your tinfoil hattery is amusing, but ungrounded in reality. Goonswarm is not 'high numbers of lightly skilled pilots', as much as the LOL T1 N00BSWARM stereotype is played up we have huge numbers of characters with years of training behind them, we fly supercaps and HACs and T2 sniper battleships just like every other alliance. Any change to carriers affects Goonswarm carrier pilots in just the same way as it affects BoB or Roadkill or RAZOR or any other alliance's carrier pilots. Are other alliances somehow mentally incapable of adapting to use carriers as logistic support if such a change was made?

As it happens, I'm not yet convinced that Bane's specific suggestions will address the issue of carriers being the generic cap-for-all-occasions, but your paranoia that every suggestion raised by a goon is some orchestrated nerf plot to make us win more fights is pretty hilarious.

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute

Posted - 2008.08.01 19:22:00 - [88]
 

Carriers should be frontline vessels, because who likes parking their billion isk and year training time ship at a POS? Then carriers can also die in combat which is more fun.

I like a nerf to capital RR gangs. These gangs are a plague to Tranq and a huge source of lag and blobbage. I don't like making all carriers into mothership ewar immunity, that seems crazy to me. Maybe jamming/dampening immune but for gods sake not pt/web immune.

Bomber drones sound interesting, sounds like you are taking anti-carrier role away from dreadnaughts, I'd rather give bombers to dreads so they are the offensive vessel and carriers are the support, healing vessel. In fact, what we could really, REALLY use is a sub-capital ship that excels at damaging capital ships.

Carriers are the new BS of 0.0 warfare. They need to be easier to kill (aka must be on the front lines) They are also still swiss army knives.

A real shame most of the carrier fixes in said Zulupark dev blog never made it to TQ.

ian666
Minmatar
Virtual Democracy
C0VEN
Posted - 2008.08.01 19:32:00 - [89]
 

Originally by: Bane Glorious
As shown by Zulupark and Nozh's dev blogs last fall, the developers ...

Another word, goonswarm cant kill bob because bob have to many carriers and you want try to nerf them.... again

Wasted Mind
Gallente
Syntech Research and Development
Lords of the Damned
Posted - 2008.08.01 20:37:00 - [90]
 

Edited by: Wasted Mind on 01/08/2008 20:47:34
• 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.

While good in theory, this would never work and if you remember correctly is also the main reason carrier changes were shot down in the past by the public so extremely. As stated good theory however with the current state of lag when hopping into mass warfare carrier pilots would have no control at all with what is going on with their fighters as ppl try to warp around and all while trying to manage the fighter allocation, remote rep etc. This idea, just doesn't work....at least until something is done about the massive node lag (which may never even be able to happen) etc.

Another point is the whole making carriers easier to get into. You think that if you made carriers easier for someone to get into that suddenly there would be less of them? Please don't take this as a bash it's not meant to come off that way.

Overall i think CCP has handled carriers just fine as of late. They got rid of their hauler ability (no more haulers loaded with cargo) and over the years have done a pretty good job in balancing the cap fleets out. Capital ships such as carriers are more of an end game ship and one that takes well over 2 years to fully get into with proper skill levels in each area.

People use the term capital online and yes there are more out now but it makes sense (5 year old game) however if this really was the case why doesn't everyone have one so you can counter (insert random cap attack here) an attack with some of your own? I am willing to bet it's because of the huge pain in the arse and amount of time needed to train for one correctly (not just get in it).


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