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

ElanMorin6
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2008.08.04 23:35:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
The key word there was "practical". If you'd care to prove me wrong with the vast knowledge you've accumulated in your two years of play, do so. I stand ready to acknowledge your achievement.....assuming you meet the criteria inherent in the term practical.


You've already declined my offer to do so, and are clearly still incapable of figuring it out on your own.

Which brings me back to, why should anyone put any stock in your "experience" when you seem more interested in trolling goons than in addressing game balance issues?



LetsDoThis
Posted - 2008.08.05 00:39:00 - [122]
 

Windjammer if you can't be respectful to people that disagree with you, don't expect any in return.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.05 01:37:00 - [123]
 

Originally by: ElanMorin6
Originally by: Windjammer
The key word there was "practical". If you'd care to prove me wrong with the vast knowledge you've accumulated in your two years of play, do so. I stand ready to acknowledge your achievement.....assuming you meet the criteria inherent in the term practical.


You've already declined my offer to do so, and are clearly still incapable of figuring it out on your own.

Which brings me back to, why should anyone put any stock in your "experience" when you seem more interested in trolling goons than in addressing game balance issues?



Hey, whatever you have to tell yourself.Cool

Windjammer

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.05 01:39:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: LetsDoThis
Windjammer if you can't be respectful to people that disagree with you, don't expect any in return.
Posts 110, 118 and now 122. Identical. You go, girl/man.Smile

Windjammer

Captain Narmio
Blue Republic
Posted - 2008.08.05 05:24:00 - [125]
 

Edited by: Captain Narmio on 05/08/2008 05:24:19
This was actually a pretty interesting thread until this pompous cockprat showed up with this "goons ate my baby!" nonsense he ctrl-Vs into every thread he can.

It's a shame this forum doesn't support discussion better. There were some interesting ideas here that merited some debate.

ElanMorin6
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2008.08.05 16:17:00 - [126]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
Hey, whatever you have to tell yourself.Cool

Windjammer


you refused my offer here
and still claim it's not practical to tank a hulk

"You don't have enough experience or skill to figure it out on your own" seems like a pretty straightforward conclusion.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.05 19:32:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: ElanMorin6
Originally by: Windjammer
Hey, whatever you have to tell yourself.Cool

Windjammer


you refused my offer here
and still claim it's not practical to tank a hulk

"You don't have enough experience or skill to figure it out on your own" seems like a pretty straightforward conclusion.
Let's be clear, shall we? I refused the terms of the offer you made. If you can prove me wrong, then do so. Please prove me wrong. Right here on these forums in front of everyone. Here's your big chance, so do it.Smile

I still say there is no practical way an active (present and awake instead of afk) solo miner can tank a Hulk so that it will survive a competent solo suicide attack (defined as a single aggressing ship which does not exclude the use of a second alt controled ship in the role of Cov Op and/or bumper) in 0.7 or below. That's a little different than your twist on my words, "it's not practical to tank a Hulk". See the difference there?

It is impossible to prove something does not exist. (See "proving a negative") Your task on the other hand is simple. You claim something does exist and you say you have the means to prove it. So do it. Seems pretty straightforward and simple.

In the interest of fair play I'll even define what I mean by practical. A tank fit which does not do one or both of two things.
1) Fit a Hulk with items that are absurdly expensive. To do so is an unreasonable hardship on a miner as it compells him/her to spend huge sums of isk to simply survive in high sec. Also, it paints such an enormous "kill me" sign on his/her hull that the tank will fail to suicide attacks simply because those attacks will now come from multiple attackers instead of a solo attacker.
2) Fit a Hulk in such a way as to cripple its primary purpose which is to gather ore in an efficient manner. If you're going to do that, you may as well use another type of ship.....say a battleship for mining. You won't be getting what a Hulk is designed for anyway and a battleship tanks easier and better. Of course, then you won't be mining ice either, but if you're mining ice in a Hulk which has had its capacity for mining crippled, you're promoting afk mining and that's not active mining.

So why should anyone listen to you if you won't prove something you say you can? Why should anyone believe you have the competence you claim if you won't prove it as you so easily should be able to?

Windjammer

ElanMorin6
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2008.08.06 00:59:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Windjammer
So why should anyone listen to you if you won't prove something you say you can? Why should anyone believe you have the competence you claim if you won't prove it as you so easily should be able to?

Windjammer



Funny, that sounds almost exactly like what I was saying WRT to carriers.

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.08.06 01:13:00 - [129]
 

A goon in the CSM... this is why the CCP will never take this council seriously.

If you want CCP to truely listen to the CSM, then goonswarm needs to be removed from it.

If they say they exist to destroy the game and that in order to win eve is to get players to quit the game, what makes you think anything that comes from them is in your best interest??

Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.06 01:20:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky

If they say they exist to destroy the game and that in order to win eve is to get players to quit the game...


Wow could you link me that? I've always wanted to see where we announced that this is our "official position on EVE".

Or even more simply, EVE can be won?

Marlona Sky
Caldari Provisions
Posted - 2008.08.06 01:22:00 - [131]
 

Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Originally by: Marlona Sky

If they say they exist to destroy the game and that in order to win eve is to get players to quit the game...


Wow could you link me that? I've always wanted to see where we announced that this is our "official position on EVE".

Or even more simply, EVE can be won?


Just ask your queen bee.

AdmiralFreeman
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:32:00 - [132]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
A goon in the CSM... this is why the CCP will never take this council seriously.

If you want CCP to truely listen to the CSM, then goonswarm needs to be removed from it.

If they say they exist to destroy the game and that in order to win eve is to get players to quit the game, what makes you think anything that comes from them is in your best interest??


There is even more than one goon in csm....

Fahtim Meidires
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:26:00 - [133]
 

Originally by: Marlona Sky
Originally by: Fahtim Meidires
Originally by: Marlona Sky

If they say they exist to destroy the game and that in order to win eve is to get players to quit the game...


Wow could you link me that? I've always wanted to see where we announced that this is our "official position on EVE".

Or even more simply, EVE can be won?


Just ask your queen bee.


Credibility. Lost. Until you link your claim.

ian666
Minmatar
Virtual Democracy
C0VEN
Posted - 2008.08.06 16:13:00 - [134]
 

Topics like this one shows that goonswarm member shouldnt be a csm delegate

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.06 17:58:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: ElanMorin6
Originally by: Windjammer
So why should anyone listen to you if you won't prove something you say you can? Why should anyone believe you have the competence you claim if you won't prove it as you so easily should be able to?

Windjammer



Funny, that sounds almost exactly like what I was saying WRT to carriers.
1) Nothing strange about it. It should be obvious I crafted those two sentences for just that effect and to make a point.

2) You still have not made a reply. No more than you did in the thread you linked (post 126 of this thread). You claim I "don't have enough experience or skill to figure it out". You claim to have that experience and skill. You claim to be in possession of proof to your claims. I claim no such proof exists. When asked to provide that proof, you don't even offer a reason for not doing so.

3) Conclusion: There is no proof of your claims. Otherwise you'd post the proof, if for no other reason than to discredit me. This means your your credibility just went down in a big flushing sound and all you've been doing is blowing smoke out your keester.Laughing "Seems like a pretty straightforward conclusion".

Windjammer

P.S. When you swim in shark infested waters, you should take care not to cut yourself with your own knife.Cool

NanDe YaNen
The Funkalistic
Imperial Republic Of the North
Posted - 2008.08.06 18:27:00 - [136]
 

I apologize for attempting to hijack this thread, but I would like to talk about carriers and how to properly give them a more defined role.

Not to say limited. I have no problem if they're effective. I'd like them not to be the cornerstone of a fleet. To accomplish this, there are a few things that need to be fixed.

1) Make the single-ship-type RR circle harder to do without making sacrifices. Repper modules can take up more slots. Make a reason to go into triage without instantly entering the dread arena of conflict without offering any useful repair.
2) More types of fighters with different accuracies instead of the omni-fighter we have now. One with BS tier gunnery. One with cruiser tier. This will force carriers to choose where on the food chain they will feed and to have a more focused fitting.
3) Drone control units get less CPU requirement and more are required to maximize self-drone deployment capability.
4) Give carriers more tools for shepherding a group of ships who are carrying fighters, placing them more squarely in the role of a massive fleet-support ship that vastly increases the capabilities of the ship it's supporting.

Specific changes: Vastly decrease the stats of RR's. Increase their cycle speed and make them dish out smaller, faster repairs. Give triage a huge bonus to repair speed and amount, but with the ability to move on grid. Inability to repair other carriers in triage. Two types of fighters with the same bandwidth requirements. Allow carriers to assign fighters while in triage. Make drone control units have more effect while in triage and increase the bonuses to RR's.

In a Utopia of feature requests, I'd ask for instead of smaller reppers, a module that raises the resists of targeted friendly sub-cap ships when in triage. Just like POS's use stront to make themselves invulnerable, carrier stront is lathered onto the targeted ships and absorbs much of the energy of attacks.

Utopian Goal:
A carrier triage's while flying around as the overlord of a group of BS's, giving them huge damage buffs via fighters and huge logistics support. The carrier adds about 2k DPS via deployed fighters and can repair an additional massive amount of DPS. Carriers can't act to full effect as solo ships compared to what they can add to groups of battleships and cruisers.

ElanMorin6
Garoun Investment Bank
Posted - 2008.08.06 20:16:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: Windjammer

P.S. When you swim in shark infested waters, you should take care not to cut yourself with your own knife.Cool


Exactly. Nobody should listen to either of us until we're willing to prove ourselves. I'm glad you agree that you're just as full of **** as I am.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:43:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: ElanMorin6
Originally by: Windjammer

P.S. When you swim in shark infested waters, you should take care not to cut yourself with your own knife.Cool


Exactly. Nobody should listen to either of us until we're willing to prove ourselves. I'm glad you agree that you're just as full of **** as I am.

LaughingObviously I don't agree. Of the two of us, you're the one who proved himself to be full of it. You've kicked your credibility to the curb while attempting to discredit me. My credibility remains intact.

What you're doing right now bears a strong resemblance to a guy back pedaling madly while cupping both hands over his family jewels in an effort to minimize the incoming damage. You might consider manning up and apologizing rather than trying to drag me with you into your self made mud puddle.

Windjammer

Kelsin
Dirt Dog Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.07 16:58:00 - [139]
 

It's not really a question of credibility. It's just about whether the OP is too vague to support, which it remains. It really needs to be cleaned up to clearly state what it is recommending to CCP.

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.07 17:02:00 - [140]
 

Originally by: NanDe YaNen
I apologize for attempting to hijack this thread, but I would like to talk about carriers and how to properly give them a more defined role.

Not to say limited. I have no problem if they're effective. I'd like them not to be the cornerstone of a fleet. To accomplish this, there are a few things that need to be fixed.

1) Make the single-ship-type RR circle harder to do without making sacrifices. Repper modules can take up more slots. Make a reason to go into triage without instantly entering the dread arena of conflict without offering any useful repair.
2) More types of fighters with different accuracies instead of the omni-fighter we have now. One with BS tier gunnery. One with cruiser tier. This will force carriers to choose where on the food chain they will feed and to have a more focused fitting.
3) Drone control units get less CPU requirement and more are required to maximize self-drone deployment capability.
4) Give carriers more tools for shepherding a group of ships who are carrying fighters, placing them more squarely in the role of a massive fleet-support ship that vastly increases the capabilities of the ship it's supporting.

Specific changes: Vastly decrease the stats of RR's. Increase their cycle speed and make them dish out smaller, faster repairs. Give triage a huge bonus to repair speed and amount, but with the ability to move on grid. Inability to repair other carriers in triage. Two types of fighters with the same bandwidth requirements. Allow carriers to assign fighters while in triage. Make drone control units have more effect while in triage and increase the bonuses to RR's.

In a Utopia of feature requests, I'd ask for instead of smaller reppers, a module that raises the resists of targeted friendly sub-cap ships when in triage. Just like POS's use stront to make themselves invulnerable, carrier stront is lathered onto the targeted ships and absorbs much of the energy of attacks.

Utopian Goal:
A carrier triage's while flying around as the overlord of a group of BS's, giving them huge damage buffs via fighters and huge logistics support. The carrier adds about 2k DPS via deployed fighters and can repair an additional massive amount of DPS. Carriers can't act to full effect as solo ships compared to what they can add to groups of battleships and cruisers.
I'm not happy this thread has devolved into a personal credibility fight either. It happens sometimes in these threads.

Some of your suggestions are interesting and I'm sure you'd get commentary if you started a thread in Assembly Hall using your ideas as a proposal. Alternately, or in addition to doing that, you might want to post them in Ships and Modules for discussion.

Windjammer

Windjammer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.07 17:09:00 - [141]
 

Originally by: Kelsin
It's not really a question of credibility. It's just about whether the OP is too vague to support, which it remains. It really needs to be cleaned up to clearly state what it is recommending to CCP.
I don't blame you for not reading the whole thread. It's gone off track on these last couple pages. The credibility issue is the result of ElanMorin6 trying to discredit me in an attempt to stop me from posting.

Your assertion regarding the OP is bang on and is the main point of most of my posts in this thread.

Windjammer

TalonClark
Posted - 2008.08.07 22:25:00 - [142]
 

Well, i support this thread, simply because i want the issue further discussed. Here my views:

Carriers are the new BS, who claims otherwise doesnt really fly them i suppose. I myself are a fully skilled Carrier pilot (means all drones/support modules/everything on at least lvl4), so i spent my fair share of skilltime for it, and i'm part of this "silent majority" he speaks off (i rarly post on forums).

I participated in 0.0 warefare since back in 04 (its not my only character) and experienced all from BS blobs to titan warefare live and in contact with the fcs organizing the fleets for them.

The moment i finally knew that carriers/moms where overpowered was when i saw them in action by groups like MC, who really mastered this kind of warefare, and with a 100man cap-blob cleaned out the north in about 1 month. I had my carrier-character (this one) and my BS-character, and the BS-char was useless against the cap-blob, really frustrating.
After that we finally got the Titan nerf and a part of the carrier/mom nerf. We got the "cyno-jammers" to make BS needed again. Its still not enough in my books. Make carriers different, that has to be on CCPs agenda.

I for sure dont want the carrier beeing nerfed to death, i simply spent too much time skilling for it, but i dont want it to be a replacement for my BS either. This spring i found myself only flying caps every day to make 0.0 logistics, to fight, to support my corp/alliance. The carrier could do just everything, and better then everything else (well i trained for a rorqual too after the cargo-nerf). My carrier-char made my real pvp-char obsolete apart from small gang-warefare, and it was not rare that, when defending, even a small gang cynoed in a carrier/mom.

Long story short: go for it and discuss it with CCP, they will find solutions, but tell them the issue is still there.

Zareph
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.08.11 18:15:00 - [143]
 



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