Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 50 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
421
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:22:34 -
[811] - Quote
Dictateur Imperator wrote:Aiyshimin wrote:Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:I must admit to a bit of confusion.
If you at CCP didn't want this situation, whatever made you think that applying the originating carrier's mod bonuses to assigned fighters was a change worth implementing?
Assigned fighters were AFAIK not a huge problem when they were assigned without ship bonuses (specifically damage and tracking).
Assigned fighters still aren't a problem, but the fact that you can use them 101% risk-free from the safety of a POS. EDIT: Let's face it: not a single one of these renter scrubs would use assigned fighters if there was any risk in it. Not a single one. Have you already play to eve ? You can kill carrier/super near pos. But yes you need to send more is on the gris as he is on anom... and use ship create for it. In fact CCP want allow it's easier to kill with 100 M carrier or 500M/1B on the field super. Actually engage 2B of ship do for killing cap near pos, you kill carrier, but yes defenser can kill some opponent with help of pos. Engage 15B of ship on a super neat pos, you can kill him same if you play well, bt yes again you can have loss. This update it's for the moment only for people who cry to have easy KM. CCP want risk VS reward, but the risk must be in each part of the game, not only for the defense. People who attack must have risk to, they 're reward :good KM.
If your skynet carrier is so easy to kill on pos, why do you use it? Or is it less at risk than if you would be outside the POS?
This question is only for the babies who cry to keep their risk-free skynet.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10008
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:22:46 -
[812] - Quote
FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:ISD Ezwal wrote:I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. The Rules:12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category. you are an awful forum moderator. either you know full well what you are doing, or you don't understand the seriousness and criticalcality of what you are deleting. people need to see majority of posts you are deleting please stop and let someone else do your job. Besides. you're just a "Vice" admiral. im a "Fleet" admiral.. i out Rank you.
Someone needs their medication.
Now.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
832
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:41:26 -
[813] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:FleetAdmiralHarper wrote:wow, that is actually very helpful for a change. thank you. my OP was here if anyone wants to read it. http://eve-search.com/thread/409271-1/page/25#726 and remember kids and CCP. just because people aren't keeping totally calm and polite DOESN'T mean, what they are saying matters any less. if mass hordes of people are THAT UPSET. foaming at the mouth raging in opposition of this, or ANY change, THAT'S PROBABLY A SIGN you should stop and seriously consider what the heck you are doing. hell sign nothing, that's a Beacon with an airport air traffic controller and glow wands, and strobe lights, telling you this is an AWFUL idea. You do realise people were more than likely raging and foaming at the mouth about change like removing AoE and remote DD right? People also foamed at the mouth for close to every tiericide changes post. Freighter fitting options were epic too especially when people foamed at the mouth for the fail investement in capital rigs BPOs. People always rage.
Yes but those changers weren't done because of one abuse of a mechanic while many other people used it in other ways
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
gto Okaski
Crown Solutions TOGETHER WE STAND
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:56:31 -
[814] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: So you'll have to forgive us if we take this with a grain of salt the size of a Iapetan Titan as some of us don't trust CCP anymore to respond or listen to their playerbase if you don't have a "CSM" tag next to your name. People are tired of being told "we really do want your opinions, honest!" and then watching CCP turn around so fast they get whiplash.
Can't believe I "liked" a goon post.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
832
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 16:59:17 -
[815] - Quote
gto Okaski wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote: So you'll have to forgive us if we take this with a grain of salt the size of a Iapetan Titan as some of us don't trust CCP anymore to respond or listen to their playerbase if you don't have a "CSM" tag next to your name. People are tired of being told "we really do want your opinions, honest!" and then watching CCP turn around so fast they get whiplash.
Can't believe I "liked" a goon post.
it's not all of ccp some do seem to do their best to respond to the player base
others yes it seams like they will open up a feedback thread and then never even act like the go back and read it fozzi being the worst with this.
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Cpt Patrick Archer
Quam Singulari Northern Associates.
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:00:41 -
[816] - Quote
I've had a quick readthrough of most of the pages and I felt like I had to comment anyway. If only to give more power to the already mentioned points.
It may become a long one, so here's a TL;DR for ya all:
- Killing fighterassists will hurt the new players. - A lot of effort to get a (super)carrier, especially when you are just starting off. (This is a good thing). - Combat: * Attack someone's homesystem with a 5-10 man gang, without a proper scout party you should get raped anyway. * Easy ways to disengage * Does not create extra content for 'capital pilots' - Possible fix: * I totally agree with the same suggestion that has been posted about 1000 times now, minimum distance from forcefield * Or capital is not able to move/jump/cloak untill fighters are returned to their own grid (unless they are scrambled maybe?)
For the long one: Killing fighterassists will hurt the new players. I spead for our corporation and many others that I know. We use skynet to give new players (1- 4 months) free fighters to help them with ratting and make some extra isk. This way they can start flying ships that are actually meaningfull in small gang nullsec combat and enjoy the game, instead of rotting away on level 4's in highsec.
A lot of effort to get a (super)carrier, especially when you are just starting off. (This is a good thing). Players have spend years to perfect characters to pilot these awesome capitals, spend billions upon billions to aquire them. And now one of the features that makes a carrier unique is just getting removed. Making the assest, years of training and billions next to useless in quite a few scenario's.
Combat: * I personally think that if you are roaming with a gang of about 5-10 people (these are apparently the people that actually get 'hurt' by fighter assists) and you are attacking someone's homesystem. You are going to have losses.
* These proposed changes remove content for super accounts, making them less usefull and not important to keep subscribed for quite a number of supercapital owners. I do not think that people will warp supers to gates to kill an Ishtar gang or whatever. What I do see happening is people warping their damage/tracking fit carrier to the gate, bypassing subcaps completely (apart from a few fasttackle) and remote sensorboosting the carriers for the same effect. Small gang still gets raped, because they shouldn't be in a position to kill any number of capitals in a 10 man gang anyways.
* The creating extra content agrument is especially missing it's point because nobody in their right mind is going to put their main and only toon in a super. The guys at the gate are usually the mains, so they are not missing content.
I do think that there needs to be more risk involved in assigning fighters because it's a big force multiplier, but removing them completely is outragous, shortsighted and removes an awesome and unique gamemechanic that does not ruin gameplay, but creates it. Otherwise people might choose to blueball.
Possible fix: * Minimum distance from POS like tons of others have pitched already. * (Super)caps can't move untill fighters are back on grid with the ship. This increases the risk a lot, and makes a super that is assigning fighters a viable target for a 10-20 man gang without killing this awesome feature. |
Hammering Hank
Eve Engineering Logistics Eve Engineering
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:05:07 -
[817] - Quote
Hammering Hank wrote:Pomponius Sabinus wrote:
Well it seems like you realised the problem is risk vs reward while asigning fighters from the edge of a POS FF. But instead of making it more interesting by finding some way to make it more dangerous to asign fighters you sadly take the easy way out and just remove it. It would be way more interesting for the game if you found a way to make carriers that asigned fighters more vulnerable.
The best solution is to introduce a Fighter Assist module for carriers. Like a Triage module, it needs an activation timer and stops all locomotion. It could also increase the Signature Radius of the Carrier (easier to scan down) and not allow any remote boosting. Recommend naming the module T-Meg. The new module allows fighter assist to stay but carriers become more vulnerable.
The Fighter Assist (T-Meg) could also not be activated within 50k (or 100k) of any FF or gate (or anything using very high energy). Story line being that the Fighter communications systems cannot work around interference. |
Zajian
Inglorious Gamers Incorporated Legion's.
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:15:31 -
[818] - Quote
I am not against fighter assist, but what i prefer is to make them only usable for cruisers and bigger ships.
That removes that ceptor/frigg problems with 1k dps.
Fighterassist ist a major feature of carrier/supercarriers and nerves them pretty hard, fighter bomber warp should be still in the game in future.
|
Lavrenti Palych
Zima Corp Infinity Space.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:20:32 -
[819] - Quote
One more thing:
I hope your next move will be to remove off-grid bonuses including combat and orca/rorqual.
Because - you know... Nobody must be safe - like assist fighters carrier on POS.... |
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
3934
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:20:53 -
[820] - Quote
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!
The Rules: 12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.
The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category.
ISD Ezwal
Vice Admiral
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
134
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:27:54 -
[821] - Quote
make assisted fighters use ship bandwidth. they use 25 on a carrier so they should also use 25 of the ship there assigned to. so only frigs like the Tristan and ishkur could run 1 fighter. Thorax 2, vexor 3. myrmidon 4.
maraudas could only run 1 (2 for kronos)
the only ships that would be able to natively run 5 fighters would be the ships that already use drones as their damage output. so T3's would either run 0 or 1 with proteus at 4
wow a whole page of comments disappeared while typing this |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1611
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:33:46 -
[822] - Quote
Lavrenti Palych wrote:One more thing:
I hope your next move will be to remove off-grid bonuses including combat and orca/rorqual.
Because - you know... Nobody must be safe - like assist fighters carrier on POS....
I would love that but up until now, their only "workable" solution would kill the nodes so it was not implemented. I'm not 100% sure but I think it was either said by Fozzie or Veritas. |
Lavrenti Palych
Zima Corp Infinity Space.
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:44:54 -
[823] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: I would love that but up until now, their only "workable" solution would kill the nodes so it was not implemented. I'm not 100% sure but I think it was either said by Fozzie or Veritas.
Well, I see their "workable solution":
-Man, I have headache! -All right! Hey guys - cut his head off!
You know, like Carroll's Queen of Hearts... |
Gypsien Agittain
University of Caille Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:55:41 -
[824] - Quote
41 pages of proposals and 99,99% are more reasonable than removing assist while fixing the skynet problem.
Imo CCP Leadership and shareholders should start thinking about whats happening with the team developing the game when even the less gifted capsuleers are able to provide much better solutions to game balance.
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
849
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 18:11:40 -
[825] - Quote
This whole thing makes me fear something is rotten at the heart of Eve. "We don't have a clue how to fix POS code, or off-grid boosters, or local chat, or really anything except modify a few numbers in some spreadsheets, so let's do that."
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
57
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 18:23:16 -
[826] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:I know this is a hard concept to grasp for some of you.
Polite works far better then inarticulate swearing and insults. You are mad, we get that and do not need you to make any sexual references to prove that for you sex and anger are one and the same.
You don't like the changes? Some of you have done a fine job of suggesting alternatives or asking for lessening of the changes ot just voicing your concerns. Good.
Others, not so much.
Me? I am in favour of the change because I never think a person should be able to be totally uninvolved and still be a part of the on field force. I dislike off-grid boosting for the same reason.
But the fighters were a mechanic that was fine, for a while, but then became abused more and more. What did you expect? That since it was fine yesterday it must be fine today and always will be? The game changes, for the better or worse will show in the longer run. But if you want to be heard, if you want to have a single iota of a chance to be heard by CCP then keep it civil.
If what I said ticked you off . . . well, I am running for CSMX. Vote accordingly.
m
Ignore people that are cursing/insulting and not providing any real feedback, like the rest of us do. Even with CCP's poor history of 'listening to players', we are still trying to provide clear & good feedback to them.
So what about AFK cloakers? Intelligence Gathering cloakers? Off-Grid Boosters? Cloak boosters?
All of those are the same as skynet, you don't put your ship in danger. Hey, let's force the rorqual in asteroid belts, it's only fair after all...
Since you and a few other's missed the message/point, let me make it clear: We are NOT saying it's expecting to be fine for ever, that's why we are suggesting work around like modules not boosting fighters, no fighter assignment near POS, fighters no longer follow hostiles in warp, etc.
FT Diomedes wrote:This whole thing makes me fear something is rotten at the heart of Eve. "We don't have a clue how to fix POS code, or off-grid boosters, or local chat, or really anything except modify a few numbers in some spreadsheets, so let's do that."
That's how it feels and looks like... |
Haywoud Jablomi
1st Stage Alternate Allegiance
56
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 18:56:25 -
[827] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:make assisted fighters use ship bandwidth. they use 25 on a carrier so they should also use 25 of the ship there assigned to. so only frigs like the Tristan and ishkur could run 1 fighter. Thorax 2, vexor 3. myrmidon 4.
maraudas could only run 1 (2 for kronos)
the only ships that would be able to natively run 5 fighters would be the ships that already use drones as their damage output. so T3's would either run 0 or 1 with proteus at 4
wow a whole page of comments disappeared while typing this
Everything he said.. Do it... DO IT NOW!!!
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
|
Liet Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
22
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 18:58:31 -
[828] - Quote
CCP -
I am interested in the graph assessing Battlecruiser use.
Since this assessment (in the blog) was made based on PvP activities, is the purpose of BCs to engage in PvP activities only?
Or if not, is there a similar graph in existence for PvE type use of ships? Ideally, I'd love to get a "sanitized" copy of the numeric data to play with.
More generally, all the changes noted in this blog seem to focus around PvP, which is certainly a major portion of the player base and thus worthy of attention. However, I'm certain the designers and developers also know there are PvE types playing as well as businesspeople, miners, etc. Is there a release anywhere on the horizon to address changes/fixes to things like DED and FW complexes, or hacking/relic sites, or some more encouragement for miners to leave high sec?
I'm sure I'll get flamed into oblivion for daring to post anything suggesting that developers take any time away from delivering "more important" fixes, but that's the Eve forums for ya.
|
Darmok Tamal
Kitchen Sink Kapitals
8
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 19:00:03 -
[829] - Quote
Mods removes people that disagree with fighters being assigned.
These forums are too stronk
http://meatspin.fr/ |
FleetAdmiralHarper
Kitchen Sink Kapitals
47
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 19:01:26 -
[830] - Quote
Darmok Tamal wrote:Mods removes people that disagree with fighters being assigned. These forums are too stronk http://meatspin.fr/
you mean the ones who dissagree with the removal of them? and yeah they do. |
|
TerminalSamurai Sunji
Bureau of Explosions
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 19:32:05 -
[831] - Quote
[Tears] These changes are pretty personal to me unfortunatly, I've litterally injected a racial carrier skill about a week ago and just finished leadership V for the sole purpose of injecting fighters today. And now I feel like it's a moot point to continue training down this path, so for the last 90 days I've been grinding specifically for a carrier and said skills I have been wasting my time. And yes I know a lot of you have invested much more time than I have in these skills. At this point I'd rather just have all of my isk / sp reimbursed.
[Opinion] Fighter Assist goes away, fine (Sitting by a pos doesn't have enough risk, I get it). Fighter warping goes away... Whats the theory here? If your not assigning them in the first place then you're putting your carrier at risk. If I have to recall drones every site because my CRUISER sized drones don't have a warp drive, then that's pretty lame. Might as well go back to spider tanking Domis or rattlesnakes which are easiesr to train into anyways.
[Theory Mechanic Solutions] Other Eve weapon systems have a reload time, why don't drones?
Previous fighter nerfs were due to abusing drones. Is the underlying drone code that ugly that mechanics CANT be added? only removed? If so, then I feel bad for the devs, Every one is now paying the price for code debt. (Not just the frustrated devs)
|
Pandorik
Nordic Demons Inc Warped Intentions
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 19:32:43 -
[832] - Quote
Dear CCP,
Removing the Fighter assist and allowable warp is simply appalling . This Risk vs Reward venture of CCPs scope should be focused on High sec so that we may actually fight gankers.
Either way I am utterly disappointed that CCP is removing content and play styles instead of introducing a mechanic that would allow players to counter. In lay-mans terms we are talking about taking the scissors out of RPS instead of adding a new way to play or a way to counter the "Skynet Problem"; lets just remove it.
How about removing the skewed dynamics that Gankers use to their advantage and leaves everyone else high and dry? Oh wait they are trading a 4M isk fit for a hauler carrying a few billion isk, that sounds like a really square Risk v Reward dosent it? Then not having any possible way to strike back at them, sounds like everything is in order here, right!?
Moving forward with this you will see a tremendous decline of Carrier use. Thats on you.
I say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO to all and any form of changes to the carriers.
- Panda
P.s. Your making a mistake.
|
Darmok Tamal
Kitchen Sink Kapitals
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 19:46:59 -
[833] - Quote
How long before CCP loses all of it's subscribers? 1 year? 6 months? |
Goosius Tal
Bacon Buccaneers League
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 19:51:56 -
[834] - Quote
Removing fighter assist/warp would negativly effect the games expiriance for many. Making people stay on grid to use their carriers would mostly restrict use to alliances that can feild large numbers to support them. If people are "worried" about loosing their fighters because they run off there is a box that says chase target they shouldn't have it clicked. Last i knew fighter bombers didn't warp off any ways. Not every one that uses their carrier for fighter support is hanging out by a pos. I may only occasionaly use my carrier for random stuff but even at this point i have to worry about people jumping a fleet on me as soon as i make use of it. Keeping carriers the way they are or even lowering the damage a bit would atleast keep the versatility and more unique style of play for those of us that have trained for and spent the isk to be able to fly them.
|
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate
62
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 19:53:35 -
[835] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:I know this is a hard concept to grasp for some of you.
Polite works far better then inarticulate swearing and insults. You are mad, we get that and do not need you to make any sexual references to prove that for you sex and anger are one and the same.
m
irony, look it up.
|
Byson1
Origin Unlimited Natural Selection Initiative
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 19:54:10 -
[836] - Quote
Nada Spai wrote:fighters should definitely still warp, as they are more like frigs than drones and it adds a degree of difficulty to using them as well as fighting them. the question you were looking to answer was not "are fighters op" but "how do we stop skynet" so this is the answer i propose. Fighters should be able to be assigned to any other ship to control while ON GRID WITH THE CARRIER/SUPER! Once they leave that grid, they can longer issue an order to the fighters, who would return to the carrier after completed its final orders. Regular drones can be assisted so it isnt reasonable to say fighters have no right to be. A bs can assign drones to a frig to make up for lower scan res, a carrier should be able to do the same. Changing fighter assist to require both ships be on the same grid most definitely includes the amount of risk to a capital as you are intending, and it will lower the overall dominance skynet has over a system by requiring caps to stay more connected to the fight.
Completely useless to only be able to assign fighters while on grid that would be what is considered assist rather than assign. |
Langbaobao
Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion
46
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 19:56:00 -
[837] - Quote
As a capital and supercap pilot, and one who uses them often, I don't have anything against removing fighter assignment to subcaps. I guess people using them for ratting by assigning fighters to a subcap and having the carrier safe at a POS will complain, but I don't really care since I don't get my ISK with ratting. And TBH, if they want to use fighters they should put their carrier or super on the line.
With regards to fighters warping, I don't think it's really necessary to remove it. Removing fighter assignment already kills the so-called 'skynet' tactic, so I don't really see the necessity to kill fighter warping. Fighter warping in itself isn't really a problem if they can't be assigned. |
Mike Azariah
The Scope Gallente Federation
2530
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 20:14:01 -
[838] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:So what about AFK cloakers? Intelligence Gathering cloakers? Off-Grid Boosters? Cloak boosters? All of those are the same as skynet, you don't put your ship in danger. Hey, let's force the rorqual in asteroid belts, it's only fair after all... Since you and a few other's missed the message/point, let me make it clear: We are NOT saying it's expecting to be fine for ever, that's why we are suggesting work around like modules not boosting fighters, no fighter assignment near POS, fighters no longer follow hostiles in warp, etc. FT Diomedes wrote:This whole thing makes me fear something is rotten at the heart of Eve. "We don't have a clue how to fix POS code, or off-grid boosters, or local chat, or really anything except modify a few numbers in some spreadsheets, so let's do that." That's how it feels and looks like...
I have said before and I will say again. AFK cloakers, off grids boosters, all of those things. If they encourage you to log on and not PLAY they are bad.
Intelligence cloaking, where you are there and watching? You are playing, I have no beef with them anymore than I think snipers in the military should wear dayglo orange.
m
Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
|
Byson1
Origin Unlimited Natural Selection Initiative
29
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 20:22:47 -
[839] - Quote
Kane Carnifex wrote:Skynet, an overview and suggestions review
...
Note: If you cannot kill a carrier with your fleet DPS , you will not have a chance against it on grid or off grid. [/i]
IMHO
Your 20 men fleet is hunting for everything in a region which doesnGÇÖt belong to you. This region knows you and chooses the fight which they could win. Either you travel through a gatecamp and die in the camp as you not able to get to optimal or you will be baited. Nobody would bait you if they are not able to win the isk war or to bring the death to you whole fleet. Due the intel in this region the defender knows more about you than you about his fleet.
You can expect following long before you know the enemy fleet: -More vessels (more DPS) -Powerful vessels (fleet multiplier) -Logistic -If you only bring stuff from one race, be ready to get jammed. -Lets cover the jamming under EWAR. -Skynet Carrier (fleet multiplier)
So you donGÇÖt choose the fight, the living people choose the fight and it is not required to have a fair fight. Why should we? It is eve, RL ethics doesnGÇÖt work here. This is war, combat it will be unfair for one of the fighting sideGǪ the advantage is to let them believe which they could win or have a bigger support fleet in the backhand.
LetGÇÖs spin this little bit up. You jump into a system which is heavily camped as it is an pocket entrance. You see fighter drones on grid and decide to first probe out the carrier for a Titan drive by. You bring a fleet up which supports the titan and a fleet which fights the local gate camp. Unfortunately once the Titan landed in the System it got holded by an hic and the defender brings in more reinforcesGǪ. Escalation escalation escalationGǪ
Is there now a Problem?
People build up a POS, Station or make a deep safe spot somewhere in space. They are the defenders which want to defend their space unfortunately CCP doesnGÇÖt provide tools for defending space neither a own controlled concord or gate guns or something else to defend it. But you can use carriers to provide a locate defense in this system which allows you to turn a fight to your advantages, yes you also can bring an offgrid boosterGǪ I
The Skynet carrier live in 0.0 also with the advantages and disadvantages which this space area brings. Why should a PVP Fleet from Highsec get more advantageGǪ they come to unknown k-space and search for a fight the others just live and defend their space whit it.
Also you can easy kite out the fighter drones with an cruiser as these small medium scale pvp ships are always build for kitingGǪ you will be hard to hit, once you get webbed it is over.
I am starting to spinning around with my points, but I think I made my point clear which I donGÇÖt think this is a good decision to remove this function. If you cannot fight it ask you friends for help.
Capitals Ships requires high skills and it also requires high skills to counter it easy or a huge amount of mid skilled player to kill it.
Its my point of view, and yes i am pro skynet :)
Well said. The whole point of this nerf is - A CCM and a few with load voices wants the game to be easier. They get CCP to change mechanics for their advantage.
my opinion: A FLEET WITH A CARRIER should have an advantage. IT SHOULD take effort to hunt it down and kill it at a POS or where ever. LEAVE IT ALONE
you want options: learn how to target, kite fighters, they are more expensive than your frig ships you bring to greif miners. Risk vs Reward right? There is nothing wrong with this. It's worked for those who have come before you.
The current mechanics of carrier dps takes more pilots to do a bit of dps, with these mechanics level of work it takes to kill capitals represents the risk reward it should be- rather than carrier pilots have all the risk at a gate and a reward of woot you killed a frig good job.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
931
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 20:26:56 -
[840] - Quote
Haywoud Jablomi wrote:Ncc 1709 wrote:make assisted fighters use ship bandwidth. they use 25 on a carrier so they should also use 25 of the ship there assigned to. so only frigs like the Tristan and ishkur could run 1 fighter. Thorax 2, vexor 3. myrmidon 4.
maraudas could only run 1 (2 for kronos)
the only ships that would be able to natively run 5 fighters would be the ships that already use drones as their damage output. so T3's would either run 0 or 1 with proteus at 4
wow a whole page of comments disappeared while typing this Everything he said.. Do it... DO IT NOW!!!
Doesn't really solve anything though - shuffles the problem around a bit but doesn't address the core issue. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 50 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |