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) |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
623
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 14:57:04 -
[901] - Quote
Rise, consider that this capital rebalance you claim to take seriously might not be very appreciated if everyone's given up flying them by the time you finally get around to it.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
739
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 14:57:53 -
[902] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again.
Swing and a miss by CCP again. We are not only concerned about a loss of return on investment, but on the increasingly worrying attitude of listening to the whiners and a very vocal minority who demand CCP remove or nerf whatever the FOTM is. I have not seen any good arguments as to why assist should be removed. If you were going to remove assist from the beginning, next time don't lie to us, and say so in your first post. You have not given one reason why the minimum distance from a POS idea would not work or is invalid. Before fighters were affected by drone modules, people would use ships such as a Huginn or Rapier sitting in the middle of a bubble field, as their long-range webs and bonus to paints would go some way towards compensating for th poor performance of fighters. These carriers would be very tanky as they would not have to remove tank for drone application modules, which meant that drive-by DD's were rare. Now that ships are shedding tank faster than someone dropping a hot pan, they are opening themselves up to drive-by DDs, or a single Moros. Why are they being punished for accepting a massive increase in risk?
e:
afkalt wrote:Because they'll spend time and money sorting POS mechanics and people will just hide in dead space pockets and nothing will change. We already disproved this. If you figure out where in the general system he and the POS are located, you can set up a stop or a drag bubble, wait for him to warp, and then drop him. Hell you only really need a single Armageddon to neut out a carrier now, especially if he's fit for fighter DPS. Toss in a few Talos or torpedo bombers, and you have a newly acquired killmail. |
Myrona
Space Explorer Institute Northern Associates.
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:01:40 -
[903] - Quote
Fighterassist was a cool option.
What about to make FA only for PVE?
So its not overpowered but a nice buff, specialy for newbies.
If Drones delegated -> PVE If Drones assisted -> Both
I think the risk vs reward is here ok.
Its less risky to fly anos with a carrier (insured, 1,5 tb, 3600 dps, 1 account) than with a 3 tb marauder with 5 fighters.
FA in PVE situations help newbies and make eve more "atractive".
Between is a nice option.
Please consider that FA was for many people an important purpose to skill a cap/scap.
please think again about the decision, very many people like this feature.
sorry for my bad english and o7 |
Dictateur Imperator
Babylon Knights DARKNESS.
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:02:08 -
[904] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Rise, consider that this capital rebalance you claim to take seriously might not be very appreciated if everyone's given up flying them by the time you finally get around to it.
Rise use the RISK VS Reward argument : I use the same argument to said make your change you only increase risk for people who create ressources, not for roam. And roam win Reward and loss many risk.
So if i follow the risk VS reward : They must rebalance capital in same time they nerf skynet. i want a public/private debat with CCP rise. I thin CCP don't understand a simple fact: player are not against nerf, we want argument of CCP for this nerf. And agree with the devblog they have 0 argument to do this. So why make the balance now, and don't wait the rebalance ? |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
935
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:02:25 -
[905] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Because they'll spend time and money sorting POS mechanics and people will just hide in dead space pockets and nothing will change. They don't do that today because the POS is mechanically easier but if there's one thing we know about EVE players - effort knows no bounds when it gives a stupid advantage.
So the list is actually stations, POS AND deadspace - and you can bet your bottom dollar that's some legacy ass code so old it's probably haunted.
The problem isn't just the ways that people can make themselves safer or safe from repercussion - its as much and more so really the fact that skynet fighters can do things that other ships with comparable firepower simply can't ongrid or offgrid - a good start would have been to address that and see how things panned out before other changes that have a far wider reaching impact.
Hiding on the edge of DED pockets while shouldn't be possible is far less reliable to do than many other techniques and does atleast mean someone is moving a capital about space which gives chances to catch them at some point - atleast the capital is there with a chance of being caught (and with minimal impact on roaming gangs if my other advice is sound - which I believe it is though can't easily test for myself) unlike this change which means the capital won't be there in the first place even if the problem is gone. |
Kane Carnifex
Yard Evolution The Kadeshi
17
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:10:08 -
[906] - Quote
Rroff wrote: really the fact that skynet fighters can do things that other ships with comparable firepower simply can't ongrid or offgrid
They are expensive drones which have the ability to warp and chase targets which you pay with 20 Million for around 200DPS per drone. Also they are easy to kill if you want, but doesn't produce a kill mail so not interesting for PVP.
Rroff wrote: Hiding on the edge of DED pockets while shouldn't be possible is far less reliable to do than many other techniques and does atleast mean someone is moving a capital about space which gives chances to catch them at some point - atleast the capital is there with a chance of being caught (and with minimal impact on roaming gangs if my other advice is sound - which I believe it is though can't easily test for myself) unlike this change which means the capital won't be there in the first place even if the problem is gone.
You pointed it out, there is maybe a Problem with DED Pockets which get miss used. But these player which found this feature... they have my respect.
|
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1137
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:10:38 -
[907] - Quote
Cpt Patrick Archer wrote:Kane Carnifex wrote: Hello CCP Rise,
I didn't saw any good point against it but many for it. Is it a real problem which small/medium gangs get raped when they search for juice ganks? As this was my first time in a Forum trying to raise my voice i am disappointed neither i got a good discussion running or good feedback about my points. I have the feeling my voice just died under all these small scale pvp player which have a problem with fighters as they search for easy kills.
Why does CCP always thinks in grey zones and in this time you go Black or White and nothing between....
This is the 3rd nerf i see in my capital time and i still don't have the feeling which my capitals are OP.
Thank you for opening this Thread, unfortunately it doesn-¦t has any impact if you write in it or not.
This reply is spot-on sir. Couldn't have said it any better.
If your voice was suffocated under the mass of people disagreeing with you, then apparently voices were heard and you were just in the minority.
That's not oppression, that's CCP listening to the feedback of the majority of their players over a whiny minority when it comes to feedback. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
796
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:11:45 -
[908] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:We already disproved this. If you figure out where in the general system he and the POS are located, you can set up a stop or a drag bubble, wait for him to warp, and then drop him. Hell you only really need a single Armageddon to neut out a carrier now, especially if he's fit for fighter DPS. Toss in a few Talos or torpedo bombers, and you have a newly acquired killmail.
I don't think you know how the mechanic to which I refer actually works.
@Rroff: It is not ideal, I'll fully admit - but it was likely the most pragmatic fix available. I would hope that any capital rebalance is sooner than later and this is taken into account. In many ways, maybe it is better to lose this NOW than after a rebalance. It gives a rebalance a better shot of working well. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
935
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:20:55 -
[909] - Quote
Kane Carnifex wrote:Rroff wrote: really the fact that skynet fighters can do things that other ships with comparable firepower simply can't ongrid or offgrid
They are expensive drones which have the ability to warp and chase targets which you pay with 20 Million for around 200DPS per drone. Also they are easy to kill if you want, but doesn't produce a kill mail so not interesting for PVP.
With the skynet fits they can apply levels of alpha even to tiny stuff that is normally the upper end of battleship territory and through to capitals - which should never happen and is to my knowledge (atleast where I first started to see complaints about it) where most complaints about skynet stemmed from - from a properly fit super/rev you only need like 2 of the fighters to get good hits (which they will sooner rather than later in most cases) to kill many smaller frigs - which they can also easily chase down. If they were tweaked so as to be ineffective against sub BC type stuff I believe most of the skynet issues would go away with minimal knock on effect - sure people who use skynet for ratting would have to assign to something a little more expensive on the field to kill frigs and some cruiser NPCs off as quickly as they used to but I have little sympathy in that regard.
Killing fighters when assigned to someone isn't that easy if they are on the ball, they can immediately recall them or assign them to another player who is further away. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
739
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:22:01 -
[910] - Quote
afkalt wrote:I don't think you know how the mechanic to which I refer actually works. Then please do educate me. If you're referring, however, to the instance where an interceptor warps into a gated pocket, burns just out of grid, has the carrier warp to him, slowboat inside the grid, finish the pocket so that the gate despawns, that has been ruled an exploit and will result in one getting banned. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1027
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:22:06 -
[911] - Quote
'concerns about the state of capitals'
as though capitals aren't all grossly overpowered and in dire need of enormous nerfs all around |
Kane Carnifex
Yard Evolution The Kadeshi
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:23:09 -
[912] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:
That's not oppression, that's CCP listening to the feedback of the majority of their players over a whiny minority when it comes to feedback.
Hello Anhenka,
I am sorry but i don't agree with you.
If 200 People write the Sky is green, do you believe the Sky is green? No, but if the 200 People explain why the Sky is green and you can understand it i would suggest you would change you mind, which the same i would do.
I will repeat it again and again the risk vs reward is balanced as there are enough options given to kill a carrier either by a titan or an single dread in a drive by. Unfortunately most people writing here are not capable of an vessel like this neither they have friends in eve which could help them. Also do not forget a CYNO Jammer, which make it impossible to jump in. These people decided to live in 0.0 and own this area, why they are not allowed to have a better defence than some roaming pvp group? Because it is unfair, there are no rules in 0.0.. just bring 4 Basis and your are fine with the incoming dps.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
935
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:27:19 -
[913] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:afkalt wrote:I don't think you know how the mechanic to which I refer actually works. Then please do educate me. If you're referring, however, to the instance where an interceptor warps into a gated pocket, burns just out of grid, has the carrier warp to him, slowboat inside the grid, finish the pocket so that the gate despawns, that has been ruled an exploit and will result in one getting banned.
Not directed at you but on that topic even removing assignment and forcing carriers on grid there is always going to be some cases where they can take advantage of mechanics to reduce the risk to themselves either via grid-fu or just sitting on the edge of the fight and cynoing out if anything threatens them and so on - sure they are a lot less safe than now - what next remove grids :D and cynos :S. |
Kane Carnifex
Yard Evolution The Kadeshi
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:33:42 -
[914] - Quote
Rroff wrote: With the skynet fits they can apply levels of alpha even to tiny stuff that is normally the upper end of battleship territory and through to capitals - which should never happen and is to my knowledge (atleast where I first started to see complaints about it) where most complaints about skynet stemmed from - from a properly fit super/rev you only need like 2 of the fighters to get good hits (which they will sooner rather than later in most cases) to kill many smaller frigs - which they can also easily chase down.
- These fits doesn't provide a Tank, which make it possible to get killed by a single dread (drive by shooting)
- If there are 3 vessels on grid we talk about 15x Fighter which increases the chance of an hit by 15.
- Regarding my experience a proper Pilot is able to kite them, once he is scram/webbed he dies.
Rroff wrote: If they were tweaked so as to be ineffective against sub BC type stuff I believe most of the skynet issues would go away with minimal knock on effect - sure people who use skynet for ratting would have to assign to something a little more expensive on the field to kill frigs and some cruiser NPCs off as quickly as they used to but I have little sympathy in that regard.
They are, but the weak fit make it possible to increase the chance to hit. I would say fighter works perfect against Cruiser and above which can provide enough tank to kill the ship which the drones are assigned before they die. But you will never be perfected suited against Fighter as it is not needed in a small/medium PVP gang.
Rroff wrote: Killing fighters when assigned to someone isn't that easy if they are on the ball, they can immediately recall them or assign them to another player who is further away.
You found a Problem, now think about a solution. Try to keep all people busy during the fight don't give time for thinking. I dont know if a pointed/bubbled fighter is able to warp.
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1453
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:34:27 -
[915] - Quote
If capital pilots are upset about a repeated series of nerfs to capital ships, maybe they should be supporting some form of skill point remapping (like I proposed here) in order to re-allocate those "wasted" skill points.
Remapping only, not buying.
My Many Misadventures
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I seek to create content, not become content.
|
Kane Carnifex
Yard Evolution The Kadeshi
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:35:38 -
[916] - Quote
Rroff wrote:
Not directed at you but on that topic even removing assignment and forcing carriers on grid there is always going to be some cases where they can take advantage of mechanics to reduce the risk to themselves either via grid-fu or just sitting on the edge of the fight and cynoing out if anything threatens them and so on - sure they are a lot less safe than now - what next remove grids :D and cynos :S.
GRID-FU will be the next good option to "assist" fighters without seeing the carrier in a L form.
and solution found to bypass the change.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
935
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:37:29 -
[917] - Quote
Kane Carnifex wrote: You found a Problem, now think about a solution. Try to keep all people busy during the fight don't give time for thinking. I dont know if a pointed/bubbled fighter is able to warp.
Pointing fighters won't stop them warping - this was done on purpose originally due to gameplay reasons don't really have my head in it enough to know if they are still relevant reasons today.
Kane Carnifex wrote:
Regarding my experience a proper Pilot is able to kite them, once he is scram/webbed he dies.
When I was playing around with it (on SISI I don't do skynet on TQ as its lame) it was possible to make fighters that largely would blap even an inty trying to evade them unwebbed. Even without a full skynet fit they can apply something like 1/3rd of their DPS to an ABing, sig reduction linked, guardian.
EDIT: Its not a 100% guarantee - sometimes every single fighter will miss 2 volleys in a row - other times most of them will get good hits with the first volley. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
796
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:38:10 -
[918] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:afkalt wrote:I don't think you know how the mechanic to which I refer actually works. Then please do educate me. If you're referring, however, to the instance where an interceptor warps into a gated pocket, burns just out of grid, has the carrier warp to him, slowboat inside the grid, finish the pocket so that the gate despawns, that has been ruled an exploit and will result in one getting banned. Not directed at you but on that topic even removing assignment and forcing carriers on grid there is always going to be some cases where they can take advantage of mechanics to reduce the risk to themselves either via grid-fu or just sitting on the edge of the fight and cynoing out if anything threatens them and so on - sure they are a lot less safe than now - what next remove grids :D and cynos :S.
That's new, last I checked it was ruled ok. GM ConsistencyGäó FTW.
As I say, I would seriously hope that the rebalance is a) soon and b) takes this new change into account (For example now they are forced on grid, there's no reason to not have really awesome fighter/FB abilities).
This had to die, it really did. Efforts to get some neat ideas together for the rebalance might be a good way to go forward. |
Kane Carnifex
Yard Evolution The Kadeshi
18
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:41:07 -
[919] - Quote
Rroff wrote:
Pointing fighters won't stop them warping - this was done on purpose originally due to gameplay reasons don't really have my head in it enough to know if they are still relevant reasons today.
Ok, this would be a point which i would adjust before i go to remove assign. The Option to keep the fighter/bomber on grid and avoid them to leave it whenever they get new assigned. This would give the attacker the option to reduce the damage on field.
Jeah, i am read only and will post again if needed. Need to setup some buy orders to get some new carriers in 0.0.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
625
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:41:35 -
[920] - Quote
Bronson Hughes wrote:If capital pilots are upset about a repeated series of nerfs to capital ships, maybe they should be supporting some form of skill point remapping (like I proposed here) in order to re-allocate those "wasted" skill points. Remapping only, not buying. No.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
|
Cpt Patrick Archer
Quam Singulari Northern Associates.
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:44:19 -
[921] - Quote
afkalt wrote: This had to die, it really did. Efforts to get some neat ideas together for the rebalance might be a good way to go forward.
I don't agree with you on the first part, but definitely on the second part. Let's hope they do survey's to query their ideas with the playerbase, on top of the CSM. Since the election proces is so incredibly complicated that hardly anyone bothers to vote. I tried to vote 2 times in a row, maybe i'll get around to it now.
Back on topic, CCP when can we expect carrier changes? Is this included in the nullsec update and building stargates and all that, or is this planned afterwards? Which means multiple carrier accounts can stay unsubbed untill then?
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
739
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:44:27 -
[922] - Quote
afkalt wrote:That's new, last I checked it was ruled ok. GM ConsistencyGäó FTW. As I say, I would seriously hope that the rebalance is a) soon and b) takes this new change into account (For example now they are forced on grid, there's no reason to not have really awesome fighter/FB abilities). This had to die, it really did. Efforts to get some neat ideas together for the rebalance might be a good way to go forward. I'd much rather them postpone this for the rebalance so we can see what they're doing overall, and pass judgement then. This feels like they're going to postpone it forever and SoonGäó it forever. What if they increased the sig radius of fighters, and made scrams affect them? That'd provide a good incentive to not use em. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
935
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:52:14 -
[923] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: What if they increased the sig radius of fighters, and made scrams affect them? That'd provide a good incentive to not use em.
^^ Its one thing people seem to forget when suggesting shooting fighters - revenant fighters (which in terms of "skynet" are a fair proportion of the use) get a big bonus to sig reduction and a decent bonus to EHP. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
739
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:03:15 -
[924] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote: What if they increased the sig radius of fighters, and made scrams affect them? That'd provide a good incentive to not use em.
^^ Its one thing people seem to forget when suggesting shooting fighters - revenant fighters (which in terms of "skynet" are a fair proportion of the use) get a big bonus to sig reduction and a decent bonus to EHP. I would say the relative rarity of the Revenant, not to mention the rarity of actually moving it outside of a POS's shields, would balance it's DPS. Additionally, according to my EFT, a Nyx out-DPS's it. I felt that the increase of sig radius, coupled with the ability to turn off a fighter's MWD and pin it down, would lead more carrier pilots to be more careful when assigning drones. |
Belinda HwaFang
Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi
44
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:28:06 -
[925] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:
The problem with the delegation mechanic is it is incredibly buggy and there still are multiple exploits or "clever use of game mechanics" that you can use to give you a significant advantage while assisting your drones, even if you were prevented from doing it on grid with a station or POS.
1. It's possible to get a Thanatos to "hard-to-probe" status by using another "hard-to-probe" Tengu with Remote ECCM. Spurs on the Thanatos and use of X-Instinct. (By "hard-to-probe" I mean the requirement of a max skilled covert ops character with some virtue implants required to probe the Thanatos/Tengu pair). Which makes it close to invulnerable and outside repercussions for the vast majority of gangs unless they specifically know what you're doing and bring Virtue Implants or an incredibly specific fit tengu into your space (risking more than your carriers net-worth), even then, it's possible for you to be aligned out to a POS with refit to WCS in your cargo in the event you get tackled, and RLML fitted on your booster Tengu, in a cynojammed system, making a black ops drop from multiple bombers and back-up recons (all of which you can scout) the only realistic means for your death. If you lose the Tengu+Thanatos and your implant set it still comes into around 2 billion isk ballpark if thanatos is uninsured. Which given what the other people have to field to have a fairly realistic chance of actually catching and killing you (which isn't guranteed) is marginal.
That sounds like more of a reason to rebalance a Thanatos' sensor strength / probing formulae than to provide weight to the argument about fighters.
Suitonia wrote:2. Fighters assigned to ships do not agress the ships using them. Unless CCP manages to bug-fix this aspect, this still makes ridiculous things possible such as fighters assigned to double 1600 plate covert ops, nullified subsystem t3s which sit on a gate with anchored bubbles and never aggress and just put fighters on people, jumping out as soon as they lose their 600,000 EHP to almost complete safety.
Clearly this needs to be changed, fixed ASAP. If CCP can't fix this, then I agree, remove fighter assignment altogether, but fixing it clearly is preferable.
Suitonia wrote:3. You can take 1) even further by burning a Confessor/Svipul with 10mn MWD in speed mode to the edge of a deadspace pocket in a complex (or a mission in npc 0.0), then setting up there, bringing your carrier 2-3km into the deadspace pocket and requiring even a snaked linked malediction <30minutes to burn to your thanatos if they probe out the plex, which you can easily just type "07 to ur t00nie" into local when it gets below 1000km on dir scanner and warp out. [/suitonia]
This again is talking about probing mechanics and deadspaces. While most people don't know about this stuff, some people do and I agree it's annoying, but it's far from a compelling argument to nerf the Thanatos, it's a much more compelling argument to look at the balance between the hunter and hunted in nullsec anoms/plexing. Also you fail to mention how long it takes the Svipul to burn there, presumably also around 30 minutes?
[quote=Suitonia]4. Delegated fighters still fight while a Carrier is in warp so you can easily just assist your fighters to ships, then engage in a long warp to a friendly POS and your fighters will continue to fight while you're in warp and in complete invulnerability landing in the center of a safe POS when you land.
Very good to know, I learnt something. Well, again this needs to be fixed by CCP.
5. offline POS can be used (as they are done currently, right now with skynet/supers) with passwords entered and ready to go online to bypass CCP's current forcefield exclusion zone mechanics. [\quote]
I've never understood why this works the way it does, supposedly it's just a side-effect of how the originally developer wrote the "online_starbase(Password)" function.
Apparently I can only quote 5 times per message so I've used the code tag.
You make some good points Suitonia but it seems to me that the TL/DR version of your post is:
1. Fighter assignment gives a lot of power while keeping the carrier too safe due to many broken mechanics (assign continues while carrier in warp, pos insta-onlining by not entering password, assigned subcap doesnt get aggression)
2. Carriers that are out in space are also pretty safe because people are using unprobability with a Tengu alt or just hiding at the edge of a deadspace.
Therefore CCP needs to decide if it's going to address these problems by rebalancing the root cause of these problems (which isn't the fighter assignnment itself) or if it just wants to remove it altogether to keep it nice and easy for them workload wise.
If fighter assignment is kept "on grid only" and that it aggresses the subcap (just like normal drone assist) then I think you would be happy Suitonia, at least as far as Skynet is concerned. -- Fang |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
630
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:33:13 -
[926] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Rise, consider that this capital rebalance you claim to take seriously might not be very appreciated if everyone's given up flying them by the time you finally get around to it. I'd like to revise this post.
"Rise, consider that nobody's going to ever try your capital rebalance because this game will be dead long before you get to it. See: sov rebalance devblog and comments."
"Capital rebalance is important to us" CCP has gone even further and made capital ships useless for sov warfare.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Dictateur Imperator
Babylon Knights DARKNESS.
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:36:16 -
[927] - Quote
The only thing who make carrier/super carrier can be use in next sov warfare is now remove. GG CCP
Capital change before June ?XD |
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
62
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:42:04 -
[928] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Yazzinra wrote:I'm sure someone in the thread has said it, but:
Isn't the obvious answer to "skynet" just to remove the bonuses from the carrier (in the case of the thanatos) and modules when the fighters are assigned to someone? Few pilots used fighter assignment till the skills/module changes were introduced since fighters really are not ideal against small targets without them. You just made fighters viable after years of near uselessness, now you want to nerf them?
I think most everyone agrees fighters warping is fine and should be left alone. It really is a cool feature. Yea, it's been said (a few dozen times now) but can't hurt to say it again. That's the part that's really galling to me, it's super easy to see the cause of the problem (CCP's previous buffs to fighters) but rather than just fix what they created the idea here is to nix a unique and ancient game mechanic in and of itself didn't cause the problem.' It just keeps happening. For example, in pve you used to be able to reset expedition timers by going to the system and warping to it. A very small number of people abused this by cargo scanning overseers and if they didn't like the loot, they'd just come back the next day and try again (everything resets at down time). Was CCP's answer to this? Was it the common sense "make overseers unscannable blockade runners are" (ie the scalpel option)? Nope, it was get rid of the ability to reset all together. So now it don't matter that you get an escalation late into your session and want to come back later and reset so you can do it a couple days later. Now you got 24 hours, period, all because a FEW people abused something. It's extremely lazy development policy if you ask me.
This goes into what I was talking about in the last changes in regards to fighters (the nerf to scan res). Are these changes necessary or is there a better way to fix them? Is it the code or *working as intended* but now its changed because someone doesnt like that mechanic?
The rebuttals were all about how the best fix is the easiest fix ( and a lazy one at that) rather than fix the spaghetti code or the actual root of the problem.
But I'm not a coder nor a dev, just an invested party.
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Necharo Rackham
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:44:04 -
[929] - Quote
Kane Carnifex wrote: Try to keep all people busy during the fight don't give time for thinking. I dont know if a pointed/bubbled fighter is able to warp.
It can, points and bubbles are ineffective against fighters. |
Necharo Rackham
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
51
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 16:45:14 -
[930] - Quote
Kane Carnifex wrote:
GRID-FU will be the next good option to "assist" fighters without seeing the carrier in a L form.
You can see everything on an L shaped Grid. Without assist, if the carrier is off grid it won't be able to attack. |
|
|
|
|
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 |