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) |
Smoothlezz
4Th Horsman
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:25:55 -
[961] - Quote
Dean Dewitt wrote:I understood the reason they didn't listen to us (the people who don't want the assignement remove), they don't want us to use the assignement for the next step for the 0.0 sov. It would be too easy to defend the sov with fighter assignement.
ccp said main reason for removal is small ships killin small ships in pvp using fighters not related to next sov changes even so bring carrier to sov fight get other capital ships on youre head:)
even if the sov war changes doesnt mean everyone will stop using capital ships altho they dident think they probably remove the dreadnoughts role from the game if sov structures dont need to be atacked... |
Dean Dewitt
Babylon Knights DARKNESS.
37
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:41:39 -
[962] - Quote
Yeah but it's in the same package, small and big ships, in the next sov patch, it would be so easy to add fighters dps to any ships. So if people want to use the fighter dps, they will have to put their carrier/mothership on the field, it would have been easy to defend with the assignement.
Maybe they didn't think about it either, but they have to make capitals more useful. |
Smoothlezz
4Th Horsman
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:47:01 -
[963] - Quote
Dean Dewitt wrote:Yeah but it's in the same package, small and big ships, in the next sov patch, it would be so easy to add fighters dps to any ships. So if people want to use the fighter dps, they will have to put their carrier/mothership on the field, it would have been easy to defend with the assignement.
Maybe they didn't think about it either, but they have to make capitals more useful.
you probably havent read about new sov changes you will have to change systems for taking control over a system what means to assing fighters as you think as it now they will have to have pos or station in every system so the carriers will be safe
in other words the atackers will have to put pos in the whole constalletion prior the atack too much logistics and isk as i see it to take one system and they will have to go though the gates (or jump 1 system at a time = fatigue)
what im trying to say is fighter assigment will be harder with the new sov system if you think about it more technically |
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
69
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:29:32 -
[964] - Quote
I mean really, I never used skynet to rat. (not like that clown with the Revenant anyway)
If I want to rat with my super, I will. Don't nerf it into the ground so I can't even create content for these lonely lowsec t1 frigates who so insist that it's their right to tackle me with 2 Atrons and an Ibis. Please give them the Drifter Doomsday too, that way they can't complain about Supers being overpowered.
Seriously, CCP, please put this on the back burner, for now. Supers and carriers are not the Evil Incarnate (TM) of the game right now. There is a lot more that is broken that needs to be addressed. This is such a small part of the game, that really only a small part of the community b!tches about it.
Fix ECM, fix T3's and Ishtars.
With so many changes to Null Sov and all the changes to jump drives, our big shinies need a break from the nerf bat.
Not to go back to the Real World example of carriers.. ok I have to, but this is a valid example.
The US carrier fleets patrolling the oceans around the world are a perfect example of the way that supers and carriers are, right now. Yes, they do their dirty work hundreds of miles from hostile shores, with a near impenetrable bubble of defensive aircraft, Aegis command ships, and support ships.
Why would they risk a multi-billion dollar ship by going right into the port of a hostile nation, where every terrorist with an rpg and a Koran can shoot at it with impunity? This is what carriers and supers are designed to do. Attack targets from a safe distance, minimizing risk to such a valuable and terrifying resource.
What these lowsec guys are saying is that CCP should strip away the defensive fleet, the Aegis cruisers, the ECM planes, the high powered Ewar on the ship, the CIWS defense, so that Somalian pirates in a Zodiac with ak47s can come and try to sink it.
How on Earth or Amarr does that even remotely make sense?
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Dread Operative
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
416
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 23:55:17 -
[965] - Quote
This is such an EASY fix, don't allow carriers to assign fighters within (X)k of POS shield. They already have the mechanic, siphons, depots, cynos, etc etc. Carriers would continue to be useful while adding tons of vulnerability. |
Davir Sometaww
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 01:04:09 -
[966] - Quote
Panther X wrote:I mean really, I never used skynet to rat. (not like that clown with the Revenant anyway) If I want to rat with my super, I will. Don't nerf it into the ground so I can't even create content for these lonely lowsec t1 frigates who so insist that it's their right to tackle me with 2 Atrons and an Ibis. Please give them the Drifter Doomsday too, that way they can't complain about Supers being overpowered. Seriously, CCP, please put this on the back burner, for now. Supers and carriers are not the Evil Incarnate (TM) of the game right now. There is a lot more that is broken that needs to be addressed. This is such a small part of the game, that really only a small part of the community b!tches about it. Fix ECM, fix T3's and Ishtars. With so many changes to Null Sov and all the changes to jump drives, our big shinies need a break from the nerf bat. Not to go back to the Real World example of carriers.. ok I have to, but this is a valid example. The US carrier fleets patrolling the oceans around the world are a perfect example of the way that supers and carriers are, right now. Yes, they do their dirty work hundreds of miles from hostile shores, with a near impenetrable bubble of defensive aircraft, Aegis command ships, and support ships. Why would they risk a multi-billion dollar ship by going right into the port of a hostile nation, where every terrorist with an rpg and a Koran can shoot at it with impunity? This is what carriers and supers are designed to do. Attack targets from a safe distance, minimizing risk to such a valuable and terrifying resource. What these lowsec guys are saying is that CCP should strip away the defensive fleet, the Aegis cruisers, the ECM planes, the high powered Ewar on the ship, the CIWS defense, so that Somalian pirates in a Zodiac with ak47s can come and try to sink it. How on Earth or Amarr does that even remotely make sense?
QFT -this hits the spot. When I think of carriers; I think of the one game that made me fall in love with space. Wing Commander.
|
Ramases Purvanen
EVEL Tendancies The Methodical Alliance
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:19:16 -
[967] - Quote
Sieur NewT wrote:i'm against removing fighter assist.
removing it is a bad idea. if you do that, super cap will be useless it's BAD
and near force field, supercap is not "safe" a titan can jump in 1 seconde and DD it's not safe it's juste "less dangerous"
i agree to nerf A LITTLE fighter assist, but not HEAVY nerf i agree to make impossible to assign to inty's but i think assist super's fighter to carrier MUST stay.
so, please, CCP, don't do that this way. let the super assist to carrier. carrier only if you want.
and for fighter you can warp or not, let them warp when they are assist, and not when they are not assist.
thx you and do the right thing. :)
I concur with this, if CCP goes ahead and removes the feature all together then there isn't much point to owning a carrier except for triage and moving ships long distances in the cargo hold. (maybe i should convert it to a gas miner in wormholes)
CCP will be losing multiple monthly paid active subscriptions due to this change and I know of other people who will be doing the same as carriers will be rendered useless!
Thanks CCP yet again for screwing up the game... (mainly Rise with the Nerfbat which gets wielded too often! |
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
71
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 02:34:17 -
[968] - Quote
Dread Operative wrote:This is such an EASY fix, don't allow carriers to assign fighters within (X)k of POS shield. They already have the mechanic already; siphons, depots, cynos, etc etc. Carriers would continue to be useful while adding tons of vulnerability.
...and bingo was his name-o.
CCP, take some advice from bittervets on this. The carrier mechanic is working AS INTENDED, really. Carriers and Supers are force projectors. If you force them on-grid because some lowsec jackwagon with a chip on his shoulder cause he can't hold sov says "assists r bad", well you are taking a step towards alienating the bittervets who have put hundreds, even thousands of training hours into these monsterous machinations of death and cosmic destruction.
What this change is effectively doing, as so many of my brethren have eloquently (some not so) stated is turning carriers into jump capable Bowheads. Just a bigger truck carrier like you see blocking up your town's main drag while they offload a bunch of Toyotas.
Do you really see carriers as a delivery service for Camrys, or as the USS Ranger? A floating city, with the offensive capability to turn any rogue nation's rickety old collection of MIG-29's into so much burning scrap?
Carriers are the FedEx of destruction and the UPS of Foreign Policy. Don't turn it into Ted's Bike Couriers.
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery Prolapse.
2134
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:28:06 -
[969] - Quote
Rroff wrote:mannyman wrote:Another thing to consider,
Its the tracking modules in mid-slot thats the problem with fighters, the active omnis give way better tracking, why not just remove module enhancement to fighters when they are delegated/assisted (or offgrid from super or carrier) ? That makes it harder to track and damage wont get out of proportions Its been suggested a few times in this and the related threads. It would go a long way to fixing the problem but I kind of like where fighters have finally got to (outside of skynet use) and that takes away from it - albeit maybe it would need to happen but IMO a better fix would be to make the sig component have more weight in the chance to hit so even if the fighter tracking is good enough to bring its damage to smaller stuff it still wouldn't hit reliably due to the difference between the fighter turret sig res and the target signature res. I'm not sure it can really be accomplished just by increasing the turret sig on the fighters or not - more likely to really kill over the top skynet use against smaller roaming gangs it would need to be implemented in similar style to titan's turrets. As an aside I think it would be a good change for sentries too as it would go a long way to balancing ishtars without otherwise shaking them up.
I have said on the Ishtar thread already that the roblem isn't the ship itself, or its drones, it is the proliferation of drone buff modules.
i agree that this needs looking at. The whole tracking and gun res thing is a piece of maths that I agree CCP needs to really get to grips with in some fashion...because sig tanking is basically the only game in town for anything except drone ships, who get a variety of high slot, midslot and low slot modules to jeck up their drone parameters.
i mean, look at the typical Skynet carrier - it is entirely tankless and just loaded down with DDA's, omnis, drone control units, tracking links, blah blah blah. Maybe even capital drone rigs if they go all out. What starts as moderately balanced is pushed into a really ludicrous place.
The problem with your logic and reasoning is, basically, CCP doesn't do logic and reasoning. Secondly, the players will just adapt with 10MN Daredevils, or Ashimmu, se-bo's HICs, you name it, there will be a way (probably Garmur and Hyena related) to keep Skynet viable...or viable versus a wide variety of cruiser sized targets.
The only ways to really stop Skynet is, a) ensure no fighter assign when <40km from a POS shield (a small risk of hotdrop) or remove it entirely.
Prolapse. Taking fights since 2014.
Sudden Buggery. Got duumb? Hola, Batmanuel!
http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
|
Ramases Purvanen
EVEL Tendancies The Methodical Alliance
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 03:41:43 -
[970] - Quote
Panther X wrote:Dread Operative wrote:This is such an EASY fix, don't allow carriers to assign fighters within (X)k of POS shield. They already have the mechanic already; siphons, depots, cynos, etc etc. Carriers would continue to be useful while adding tons of vulnerability. ...and bingo was his name-o. CCP, take some advice from bittervets on this. The carrier mechanic is working AS INTENDED, really. Carriers and Supers are force projectors. If you force them on-grid because some lowsec jackwagon with a chip on his shoulder cause he can't hold sov says "assists r bad", well you are taking a step towards alienating the bittervets who have put hundreds, even thousands of training hours into these monsterous machinations of death and cosmic destruction. What this change is effectively doing, as so many of my brethren have eloquently (some not so) stated is turning carriers into jump capable Bowheads. Just a bigger truck carrier like you see blocking up your town's main drag while they offload a bunch of Toyotas. Do you really see carriers as a delivery service for Camrys, or as the USS Ranger? A floating city, with the offensive capability to turn any rogue nation's rickety old collection of MIG-29's into so much burning scrap? Carriers are the FedEx of destruction and the UPS of Foreign Policy. Don't turn it into Ted's Bike Couriers. Yours Truly, Panther X
You do notice that the only people bitching and whinging for these changes are people who cant fly carriers/never will fly carriers and cant afford carriers. Why alienate the people who do choose to fly them and take the risk of having an expensive ship! Seriously CCP....
|
|
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2800
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 05:46:09 -
[971] - Quote
Our solution is simple methinks.
Kickstarter: Adam Online.
the new home of Capital ships.
Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
|
Elg'caress Estanesse
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:18:11 -
[972] - Quote
There are a lot of things in EVE that are almost unavoidable or really hard to counter. Pipebomb, logon trap, hotdrop, (counter hotdrop), offgrid boosters, falcon alts, afk cloaking, the list goes on. Hell, its square and fair to suicide gank a ship worth hundreds of millions with a 2-4 million isk ship... where is the risk/reward and fairness in that? But somehow assisting fighters is the new devil and every other things are just fine... or will they be removed to?
And the most frightening thing isnt that assist gets removed: it is that the answer to an issue is the removal of a feature, no effort taken to fix/balance it, no answer given, why the community proposed fixes would not work.
Furthermore: After the upcoming sov changes and the forceprojection nerfs plese tell me, what are the purposes of a carrier? Ahh sorry, I get it now: their main and probably only purpose is to satisfy bored titan pilots for a DD driveby... |
Matanui1488
VX9 Intergalactic Gaming Inc. Sanctuary Pact
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 06:55:53 -
[973] - Quote
My two cents on this being a cap pilot and having utilized fighters for other purposes besides skynetting. I believe if your going to put your fighters out of field you yourself should be on grid as well placing the risk/reward out there.
Another option that has been mentioned has been to restrict what ship class can receive fighters as well cruisers and above I believe would be a good start point for this with the exception of t3's because of the shear dps and or tank capabilities they have.
|
Kazaheid Zaknafein
Mara's Hounds
7
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:44:00 -
[974] - Quote
Guess its time to un-sub my fleet of capital toons, wont be needing them for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG while now.
If CCP wants to kill caps so bad just remove them from game, would be faster and easier. |
Kane Carnifex
Yard Evolution The Kadeshi
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 07:57:45 -
[975] - Quote
Kazaheid Zaknafein wrote:Guess its time to un-sub my fleet of capital toons, wont be needing them for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG while now.
If CCP wants to kill caps so bad just remove them from game, would be faster and easier.
Made my day :)
|
Smoothlezz
4Th Horsman
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 08:47:47 -
[976] - Quote
Matanui1488 wrote:My two cents on this being a cap pilot and having utilized fighters for other purposes besides skynetting. I believe if your going to put your fighters out of field you yourself should be on grid as well placing the risk/reward out there.
risk reward? are you talking about pve? cuz if you talking about solo pvp on a carrier LOL ITS SUPPORT SHIP!!! get it already carrier has a role and it is to support
p.s: i few years ago on my main was killed by hotdrop and there was a carrier there who got on field and gone into triage well he fixed a battleship in 2 sec to full hp maby carrier not suppose to go into triage its too POWERFULL!!! @$#@!#$%!!! |
Vorstellung
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:25:21 -
[977] - Quote
Sieur NewT wrote:i'm against removing fighter assist.
removing it is a bad idea. if you do that, super cap will be useless it's BAD
and near force field, supercap is not "safe" a titan can jump in 1 seconde and DD it's not safe it's juste "less dangerous"
i agree to nerf A LITTLE fighter assist, but not HEAVY nerf i agree to make impossible to assign to inty's but i think assist super's fighter to carrier MUST stay.
so, please, CCP, don't do that this way. let the super assist to carrier. carrier only if you want.
and for fighter you can warp or not, let them warp when they are assist, and not when they are not assist.
thx you and do the right thing. :)
doing a classic QFT !
|
Flo Skyler
Indy Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 09:30:11 -
[978] - Quote
Im guessing that they would have to remove fighter assist or else it would be too easy to protect your timers with the newly proposed sov system. |
Scooter6976
Order of Celestial Knights S I L E N T.
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:03:53 -
[979] - Quote
Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, as there are currently 49 pages to sift through. I just read the original post, and eve news article, and the solution while having minimal gameplay and functionality complaints is so simple and apparent to me.
Keep fighter assist. Its one of the primary things that makes carriers and supers something that new players want to fly. Its part of their heritage if you will, without getting too wordy. Im sure others have mentioned all the various pros and cons. I say fighter assist is a keeper.
Keep fighter warping. This is what makes fighters special, and obviously allows you to provide some assistance for your mates while at the same time attempting to provide yourself some measure of safety.
The goal here seems to be to limit the potential abuses of retaining fighter assist in its current form; ie inty fleets with 5 fighters each. that's just silly.
Assigning fighters currently requires that the recipient pilot be able to field drones, and is then limited to only controlling the same # of fighters as the # of drones they are currently trained to be capable of fielding. This does not factor their current ship's drone bandwidth in any way. Fighters require a much greater bandwidth each, and as such no sub-capital ship would ordinarily be able to field even a single fighter.
THE SIMPLE SOLUTION::::
Make fighters require 25m bandwidth (same as heavy's for purposes of assisting) be available to the recipient pilots' ship for control purposes. Limit the # of assignable fighters to a given pilot based on the recipient pilots' current ship bandwidth values, after factoring in all skills. Also force abandon the recipient pilots in space drones (if any), and do not allow the recipient pilot to launch any drones beyond their bandwidth limit if they have fighters currently assisting them. Obviously the carrier pilot would still be limited by the current fighter bandwidth requirements vs. ship/skill capabilities for launching purposes themselves.
This obviously means that only a couple frig sized ships could receive fighter assistance, and even then would be limited to only 1 or 2 with max skills and no other drones to compliment the fighters. Cruiser class and up would potentially be able to receive the current 5 fighter max limit.
Yes I know this would technically be a buff primarily for drone boats, and YES I know drone boats are currently the LEAST in need of a buff.....
BUT....
In my humble opinion it should be becoming more apparent than ever to ccp, that they kinda over-buffed gallente. Im not hating; Im a huge gallente ship fan, but I can admit when things are a bit tilted. In fact ccp has already announced changes to rails and the Ishtar/sentries, specifically because ccp wont do broad drone>ship changes. For the record im NOT in favor of making the following suggested changes, just providing an alternative to the "-2.5% this, and -15% to this other" crap that seems to be the new(old) fever @ ccp.
Either
A: Keep all gallente and related drones/sentries the same, and just buff the drone bays and bandwidth of the other race's ships,
OR
B: make minor reductions to gallente drone bays and bandwidth
I mean these last two suggestions not JUST for gallente drone boats, but all primarily drone related ships. Again, IF they(ccp) insist on doing such adjustments at all.
What im certain of, is that they should NOT turn off fighter warping OR fighter assist. Keep both and find another way.
|
Smoothlezz
4Th Horsman
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:20:40 -
[980] - Quote
Flo Skyler wrote:Im guessing that they would have to remove fighter assist or else it would be too easy to protect your timers with the newly proposed sov system.
plz read sov changes prior to posting here or read page 48 with my comment about new sov chages and fighter assist... |
|
Zen BraZen
Repercussus Goonswarm Federation
12
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:31:44 -
[981] - Quote
I'm against removing fighter assist completely.
What about having carriers being required to assign fighters only on grid.
Fighters will only warp when returning to the carrier if the carrier left grid. |
Smoothlezz
4Th Horsman
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 10:37:44 -
[982] - Quote
Zen BraZen wrote:I'm against removing fighter assist completely.
What about having carriers being required to assign fighters only on grid.
Fighters will only warp when returning to the carrier if the carrier left grid.
you just slapped yoreself... why do i need to assign fighter if im already on grid? and while carrier align you will be able to launch and scoop drones 10 times.... |
mannyman
High Flyers The Kadeshi
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:11:26 -
[983] - Quote
I took the time to read 5 pages oOo..
So to wrap it up: - Empire control of electronics prohibits delegation/assist of fighters in Lowsec.
- NullSec is anarchy and player driven, so fighter delegation is allowed in this area. - Fighter delegation to use bandwith, which will preferr drone boats and BS (which needs a buff anyway) - Remove buff from ACTIVE modules in mid slots. It overpowers the tracking entirely, also removes the drone navigation buff. - Most supers can mostly only use 10 drones anyway, restrict each super to max 10 drones by prohibiting the usage of capital Drone Link for supers, while carriers can still use it (as carriers has way lower DPS). - Fighter delegation has to be outside 20km from the Forcefield of any POS. To ensure there is no absolutely safety for delegating, and to ensure super and carrier will have some kind of tank and not overpower the drones in low slots. - Make POS go shields UP automatically when onlining it, so the online stick trick cant be used. too much safety for cyno's and delegated fighters. - Make fighters warp core pointable, so we can actually kill them. - If delegated ship cloak up, fighters return to super/carrier. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
944
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:22:42 -
[984] - Quote
Having lowsec restrictions is a bit arbitrary.
Fighter delegation using bandwidth does nothing to solve the problem just shuffles it around a bit.
Removing drone bonuses from assigned fighters would solve most of the core problems but a sad step backwards - IMO a better option exists there (turret sig based tweaks).
Reducing fighter amounts doesn't solve anything in regard to skynet.
Fighter delegation range around POSes would need fixing.
Making fighters warp disruptable would need to be looked at/opened for discussion. |
mannyman
High Flyers The Kadeshi
10
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:27:13 -
[985] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Having lowsec restrictions is a bit arbitrary.
Fighter delegation using bandwidth does nothing to solve the problem just shuffles it around a bit.
Its not arbitrary, its necessary as you can not get bubbled in lowsec, and you will have to do risk vs reward and be on grid. Any HAC a super / carrier can shoot down anyway pretty easy. But a interdictor can tackle for 3 min after it gets shot down with the bubble.
Fighter delegation doesnt shuffle it around, with drone bandwith, it ensures small noob ships cant get fighters, and also fast locking interceptors and shuttles and pods. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
944
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:42:32 -
[986] - Quote
mannyman wrote: Fighter delegation doesnt shuffle it around, with drone bandwith, it ensures small noob ships cant get fighters, and also fast locking interceptors and shuttles and pods.
Assuming fighters still have bonuses you still have fighters that can murder small stuff even if there are restrictions on the number you can assign to certain ships, if you remove fighter stats then it doesn't make that much odds as fighters will be back to being not very effective. |
Syrix Death
Dirt 'n' Glitter
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:10:35 -
[987] - Quote
Goddamnit CCP!!!! Stop removing features just because you failed balancing the mechanics!
What about just to tighten the regulations in low sec, like carriers have to be ~10, 20 or 50km of the force field. Thats enough! |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1614
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 14:29:31 -
[988] - Quote
Syrix Death wrote:Goddamnit CCP!!!! Stop removing features just because you failed balancing the mechanics!
What about just to tighten the regulations in low sec, like carriers have to be ~10, 20 or 50km of the force field. Thats enough!
Knowing how most stuff at CCP works, it would prevent other boats from using drones withing those range too. Cyno could be made to not work because it's an activated mod. |
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
77
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:52:55 -
[989] - Quote
Well cynos are a whole other kettle of fish.
It looks like the naysayers have given up because they know that this is a bullsh1t move. Why is always that when someone feels they are getting squished, features get removed, rather than fixed or adjusted to reflect a true balance? Balance by definition means to serve as a counterpoise to; counterbalance; offset:
Nerf, by video game defintiion is: a nerf is a change to a game that makes something less effective or desirable
So let's get terms right; stop calling this hack job "balancing" you aren't making a counter to carriers, you are making them less effective.
So what's the plan? Give us some transparency. Do you want to eliminate carriers, supers and titans from the game? Be up front and tell us. Don't just nickle and dime us to death with "making less effective". If you want balance, make other things more effective, to the extent of what you are actually trying to balance.
You want to balance "Skynet"? Fine, balance it, the counter to "Skynet" is to force the carrier away from the pos, make is less easily available to turn on pos shields (which i think is a sh1tty tactic anyway). For example, a distance factor; 50km from the tower is a reasonable distance. It takes a long time to slow boat into the shields from that distance (approximately what 15km to edge of shield?) so you force the carrier to be aligned to a safe and to warp to the safe to escape. That's balance.
This eliminating features is just pushing capitals out the door.
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Erroch
STK Scientific
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 15:59:24 -
[990] - Quote
I think this is a less then optimal way of solving the problem, we're cutting off a limb to remove a blemish.
I believe it's the carrier's 'off grid' boosting via mods of the fighters which makes them far more lethal. There is little risk to the carrier, beyond a titan jumping in and firing its doomsday the carrier, as most carriers doing this are on the edge of a pos shield.
If this does not go far enough, remove the ability for fighters to warp when assigned, or perhaps require the carrier to keep the ship the fighters are assigned to locked while fighter assist is active. |
|
|
|
|
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 |