EVE Online Capital Ship Change Prompts Community Revolt
by Nick Breckon, Oct 23, 2007 1:04pm PDTBecause EVE Online skill training is a constant for all players, it can take nearly a year's worth of dedication in order to fly one of the game's massive capital ships, on top of the exorbitant monetary cost. This would explain why the EVE community has been in a full revolt over the past two days, following an announcement by developers CCP that detailed proposed changes to the game--changes which would significantly weaken the power of both Motherships and Carriers "What we want is pretty basic: We want to make fighter wielding capital ships more reliant on their support fleet and less of a direct über deathbringer," wrote newly-instated game designer Zulupark. "We feel that capital ships are being used way too much as better-than-battleships-at-killing-stuff ships, when we in fact think that they should be used more as the-ships-that-keep-other-ships-alive and provide-them-with-additional-firepower ships." Dealing with a game that takes months to get into, and years to master, any far-reaching changes instantly become sensitive issues. Sensing imminent backlash, Zulupark stressed that the drastic proposal was only that, and requested feedback from the community. What he received was overwhelming. In a 90-page forum thread--still growing at a rapid pace--reactions have ranged from cautiously optimistic, to calling for the developer's head. "This is a great change," wrote Popperr of Goonswarm. "While this change has a well-found base logic, this is not the way to apply a fix," wrote Akira Miyamoto. "With this change, a carrier has no way in hell to even minimally defend itself." Others were not as kind, or as coherent. "So for **** sick, first u telling that now we r the solopwn mobiles, after u saying wtf where my support was cuz i can't do solo atm , and triage mode, ROFL--buy a book CArrier--book for dummies--i can't move, can't deploy the fighters, so u don't know how the carrier works, so stfu pliz. U just ****** up urself dude," wrote a cogent Inturist. "CCP you are a bunch of lying scumbags. Take a long walk off a short pier," said Druadan. "Accounts cancelled. Hellgate: London, here I come." Dozens of players have pledged to cancel their accounts over the controversy. CCP developers have apparently made no final decision one way or the other, but the changes were already implemented on the EVE test server as of today.
Daily Filter: The Witcher 2: Assassins of Kings Enhanced Edition, MLB 12: The Show
Cradle trailer shows off Russian indie adventure game
WoW Monopoly, StarCraft RISK announced at Toy Fair
Jersey Shore's 'The Situation' signs App deal
Blacklight: Retribution open beta begins Feb 27







Comments
http://myeve.eve-online.com/devblog.asp?a=blog&bid=514
Also appears the uproar over the Sisi implementation was accidental (or maybe not) according to the blog.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 3 replies.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 3 replies.
To put it in terms the shack community at large might understand: Imagine it took you a year of training to be the Heavy Weapons guy in TF2, and when you finally get to be the HW guy the devs say "no you can't use the Minigun, you have to give it to your teammates and use the shotgun while your team mates mow people down with your minigun." that is what this i like. Yes, there are other balance issues to take into consideration, but taking away people's toys is not the answer. Instead they shoud make another toy that counteracts the carriers. Like making frigates highly effective against fighters, that is the best suggestion I have heard so far.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 3 replies.
How... typical...
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 12 replies.
That quote from me was in response to the devs putting the change, half-implemented, on the test server, when they had told us they would get back to us with developments. They lied to us, basically, to shut us up while they went ahead with the plan.
The problem here is that this change cripples carriers and motherships beyond any other ship class, when carriers are no where near the solopwnmobiles that the dev claims - they can be easily taken down with only a small group. We have had a longstanding problem this year with devs not understanding their own game, and this was a landmark issue, as it threatened to break a huge area of the game.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 4 replies.
All the carriers are supposed to do is extend the reach of a fleet. Then again this is for supercarriers though and its a strategy the US navy uses. Russian carriers were sort of a floating battleship with a runway on top of it that has a jump pad on the end.
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.
Man, just thinking about how much I got screwed in that game really pisses me off. Fuck Galaxies.
For the motherships I don't really agree with nerfing them as they are supposed to be ridiculous.
If you don't like gate camping with motherships, send in some AI ships to get them to move. Don't nerf it an make it less viable to spend over a year and countless hours building it just so they stop gate camping. That's not balancing.
If they nerf motherships they had better make it easier to get one.
no other ship in a lower class can do that kind of thing. you can take out a bs with 1 cruiser under the right circumstances, why not nerf capships?
You still have the same number of fighters... just not controlling them all the way you could before. Of course, this opinion is from someone who has never played EVE
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 4 replies.
These imbalances, imperfections, ways to exploit game dinamics in ways designers haven't through of is a huge part of what makes me come back to eve. Well that, pvp, and just stirring political shit up.
The balanced games like WOW are a horrendous bore to gamers like me for a reason. Keep the shit the way it is - unless its an outright stalemate (like repping a high sec ganker was).
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 3 replies.
Not that I'm complaining, this sounds like the right thing to do.