Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Hurri Nakrar
Hedion University Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 14:08:01 -
[241] - Quote
The horrible thing about all this is the follow:
Once the patch is coming we gonna hear from CCP: We are so happy about all your positive feedback about this patch and we are excited to see your reaction. The thing that any player who is doing ratting/PVP in a super or carrier want to throw their Capital into their faces is being ignored right from the ground.
I own one of the most expensive Ships in all the universe (Super) and CCP just took it and made it into the most useless Ship. It-¦s not worth to fight with it so in fact i got a 30 Bil Logistic Super for no other use than transporting my Subcaps from A to B in the huge Shipbay.
It takes years of training which means i payed a shitload of money to CCP and a hell lot of time to get the isk for this Ship and all the modules you need. And theirs no better thing than getting smashed right into to the face by having the most useless Ships ever.
CCP Instead of trying to get new people into the game quick as possible how about you try to keep the current one instead of nerfing them away in every way you can? |
Shkiki
MastersCraft
4
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 14:56:07 -
[242] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones.
I've seen this "Bring stuff in-line" a 100 dozen times so far. What I think it fails to mention is that fighters were in-line to begin with, you just want to make the line narrower.
Carrier ratting is already a very user interactive play style, you need to be on top of the situation with drones so you don't lose them currently. As it stands there is already a long list of anom's that carrier pilots will not attempt because you will lose drones to them. If fighters become a bigger target, what's to say they won't simply take their 2.4 billion isk ship off the field in favor of something cheaper that is less isk intensive. This takes juicy potential pvp kills out of play for roaming gangs and penalizes higher skilled players from using the skill they earned.
To be fair, if you are risking not only the ship hull, but ~430m worth of fighters already, and if rats will obliterate fighters more often then not, then risk to reward diminishes drastically. If you lose even a handful of drones in an anom, then you've lost isk and doing the anom in a carrier was worthless.
The isk per hour of a carrier isn't so vast that it qualifies for a nerf. I think it's unwarranted at this time. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3159
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 15:02:48 -
[243] - Quote
Shkiki wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote: These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones.
I've seen this "Bring stuff in-line" a 100 dozen times so far. What I think it fails to mention is that fighters were in-line to begin with, you just want to make the line narrower.
How can you say they were "in line" when they were not even 50% of a heavy drone sig size? |
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
39
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 15:44:09 -
[244] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Shkiki wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote: These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones.
I've seen this "Bring stuff in-line" a 100 dozen times so far. What I think it fails to mention is that fighters were in-line to begin with, you just want to make the line narrower. How can you say they were "in line" when they were not even 50% of a heavy drone sig size?
Because drones get resistances, and 3 layers of HP. Fighters have shields only, and no resists. |
Davros of Skaro
Cult of Skaro Children of Davros
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 15:47:58 -
[245] - Quote
EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE
But seriously
Exterminate
I agree with one of the posts above here that says: Why so much focus on the capital ships. If you look at all gameplay. 90% of it is subcap if not more. Most PVE goes on in cruiser, or battleships. Most pvp goes on in cruiser and smaller.
There are a TON of ships that are absolutely inferior within their class for years, such as ships with 2 mid slots (you need at least 3 in any scenario to be remotely viable to pvp with, technically 4, since dictating range and speed is 95% of the fight)
Plus the changes (i couldnt care less about them myself) seem strange. Whats happening on capital levels is that certain groups just dreadbomb, titanblob and superblob the **** out of every small entity that tries to make anything happen anywhere. If you do not have the backup of one of these few groups, you cannot viably take out your capital. Besides, if you WERE to go small gang/ solo carrier pvp, you will get nuked by a large group of dudes almost guaranteed. And you will die and not be isk efficient.
Thats what the reality is. That's why people are so pissy. Changing fighter signature only means the carebear ratters will take a large hit in their moneymaking, people will find it harder to come up with funds to pvp in and spent more time doing pve. If anything, this will have the opposite effect on what you are trying to achieve: fun capital pvp.
People will spent less time in carriers, for the wrong reasons. I'm pretty sure the carrier is the least used capital in pvp right now, maybe after the Jump freigther (although im not sure, JF's can be pretty Op if you feather with them).
EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE EXTERMINATE my children of davros! The DALEK are coming. |
Ralph Shepard
The Dysfunctionals Fidelas Constans
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 16:01:18 -
[246] - Quote
I guess CCP is trying to top EU in making the most stupid decisions. |
Captain Awkward
Republic University Minmatar Republic
136
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 16:10:04 -
[247] - Quote
Juvir wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Shkiki wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote: These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones.
I've seen this "Bring stuff in-line" a 100 dozen times so far. What I think it fails to mention is that fighters were in-line to begin with, you just want to make the line narrower. How can you say they were "in line" when they were not even 50% of a heavy drone sig size? Because drones get resistances, and 3 layers of HP. Fighters have shields only, and no resists.
Well T2 fighters have resists. Its only that they have resists that are completely the oposite of what the NPC you use them against are fireing at it.
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3160
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 16:21:17 -
[248] - Quote
Captain Awkward wrote:Juvir wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Shkiki wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote: These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones.
I've seen this "Bring stuff in-line" a 100 dozen times so far. What I think it fails to mention is that fighters were in-line to begin with, you just want to make the line narrower. How can you say they were "in line" when they were not even 50% of a heavy drone sig size? Because drones get resistances, and 3 layers of HP. Fighters have shields only, and no resists. Well T2 fighters have resists. Its only that they have resists that are completely the oposite of what the NPC you use them against are fireing at it.
The one layer of HP on a fighter also seem to be bigger than heavy drones 3 combined. The resist being garbage (T2) or inexistant (T1) seems to be the actual problem. This could probably be looked into or at least confirmed by DEV if the actual EHP of a fighter is supposed to be below a heavy drone level. |
Whippy Whip
Pan Intergalactic Industries
18
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 17:38:15 -
[249] - Quote
maybe fighters should get proper t1 and t2 resists to compensate
otherwise their effectiveness in pvp will be crap if they are getting vollied off the field with ease |
Cade Windstalker
1017
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 18:02:54 -
[250] - Quote
Davros of Skaro wrote:I agree with one of the posts above here that says: Why so much focus on the capital ships. If you look at all gameplay. 90% of it is subcap if not more. Most PVE goes on in cruiser, or battleships. Most pvp goes on in cruiser and smaller.
Because Capitals just got a major rework and are still getting a lot of attention as a result. Caps really needed the rework and the results have been mostly positive, CCP are just tuning the results at this point.
Frostys Virpio wrote:The one layer of HP on a fighter also seem to be bigger than heavy drones 3 combined. The resist being garbage (T2) or inexistant (T1) seems to be the actual problem. This could probably be looked into or at least confirmed by DEV if the actual EHP of a fighter is supposed to be below a heavy drone level.
I'm pretty sure you can take it as confirmed if that's what the stats in the game say... despite the opinions of some CCP don't generally do things on accident.
Besides, EHP doesn't tell the whole story. Fighters are much faster and even after these changes have a better sig than Heavy Drones.
Whippy Whip wrote:maybe fighters should get proper t1 and t2 resists to compensate
otherwise their effectiveness in pvp will be crap if they are getting vollied off the field with ease
They're not, at least at the small scale, hence these changes. A well prepared and competent enemy against a solo carrier can fairly effectively neuter him, but that gets exponentially harder if the Carrier has support. Of course as fleet fights get bigger it gets easier to remove Fighters from the field, but that's always going to be true. If fighters get too much HP it won't actually stop them from getting volleyed in large fights, it'll just make them impossible to deal with in small ones.
There's a happy medium somewhere, and I can't swear that this is it, but I've yet to see much evidence that it's not. |
|
Whippy Whip
Pan Intergalactic Industries
18
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 20:10:58 -
[251] - Quote
why do small nano *** gangs think all balancing should be done around them? why should they be able to kill a carrier in their keres, griffin and ortherus combo? a carrier SHOULD be able to smash these nano fags, its a capital ship after all |
Kagi Anzomi
CK-0FF Reverberation Project
20
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 23:07:55 -
[252] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:I'm pretty sure you can take it as confirmed if that's what the stats in the game say... despite the opinions of some CCP don't generally do things on accident.. So the Networked Sensor Array not having stacking penalties with sensor boosters wasn't an accident? What about Fighter Support Units giving a penalty to fighter shield regen instead of a bonus? Lowsec sentry guns not shooting fighters if the carrier is out of range? Fighters warping after the carrier while tackled? Fighters disappearing from space while tackled if the carrier logs off? Regular neuts getting the sig radius reduction of capital neuts? There are a lot of things that were obviously not working as planned after the Citadel patch, many for months. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3881
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 00:21:51 -
[253] - Quote
Whippy Whip wrote:maybe fighters should get proper t1 and t2 resists to compensate
otherwise their effectiveness in pvp will be crap if they are getting vollied off the field with ease
they are already crap
if there are few enough that they are getting shot any competent FC is just jamming them
BLOPS Hauler
|
Cade Windstalker
1022
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 03:33:51 -
[254] - Quote
Kagi Anzomi wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:I'm pretty sure you can take it as confirmed if that's what the stats in the game say... despite the opinions of some CCP don't generally do things on accident.. So the Networked Sensor Array not having stacking penalties with sensor boosters wasn't an accident? What about Fighter Support Units giving a penalty to fighter shield regen instead of a bonus? Lowsec sentry guns not shooting fighters if the carrier is out of range? Fighters warping after the carrier while tackled? Fighters disappearing from space while tackled if the carrier logs off? Regular neuts getting the sig radius reduction of capital neuts? Blueprints inventing the T2 version of a different item? Requiring an item as input to build itself? Reprocessing ammo for more materials than used to make it? There are a lot of things that were obviously not working as planned after the Citadel patch, many lasted for several months.
There's a difference between something kind of fiddly, like stacking penalties or how a bonus applies in code, and something fairly obvious like the basic HP value and lack of resists that someone very clearly sat down and wrote out specifically. There's a big difference between a bug and a defined value.
If you can't tell the difference then I'm really not sure how to explain it to you without teaching you how to code first. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3881
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 05:13:41 -
[255] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Kagi Anzomi wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:I'm pretty sure you can take it as confirmed if that's what the stats in the game say... despite the opinions of some CCP don't generally do things on accident.. So the Networked Sensor Array not having stacking penalties with sensor boosters wasn't an accident? What about Fighter Support Units giving a penalty to fighter shield regen instead of a bonus? Lowsec sentry guns not shooting fighters if the carrier is out of range? Fighters warping after the carrier while tackled? Fighters disappearing from space while tackled if the carrier logs off? Regular neuts getting the sig radius reduction of capital neuts? Blueprints inventing the T2 version of a different item? Requiring an item as input to build itself? Reprocessing ammo for more materials than used to make it? There are a lot of things that were obviously not working as planned after the Citadel patch, many lasted for several months. There's a difference between something kind of fiddly, like stacking penalties or how a bonus applies in code, and something fairly obvious like the basic HP value and lack of resists that someone very clearly sat down and wrote out specifically. There's a big difference between a bug and a defined value. If you can't tell the difference then I'm really not sure how to explain it to you without teaching you how to code first.
from what i understand the low/no resists were added so frigates could do enough dps to overcome the passive recharge. maybe rather than backing resists into the fighters we can lower the recharge bonus of the FSU and add a small resist bonus
BLOPS Hauler
|
Kagi Anzomi
CK-0FF Reverberation Project
20
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 06:10:26 -
[256] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: from what i understand the low/no resists were added so frigates could do enough dps to overcome the passive recharge. maybe rather than backing resists into the fighters we can lower the recharge bonus of the FSU and add a small resist bonus
Even with 5 T2 FSUs on a max skilled Thanatos I can break the passive regen with three Heavy Assault Missile launchers on a Legion. That's under 300 paper DPS, only about 80 of which applies. For months FSUs actually had a penalty to regen rate that offset the increase from extra shield capacity, and no one even noticed. |
Axhind
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
287
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 08:06:50 -
[257] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:If it hasn't been obvious before - this is why! From the Economic ReportThe massive increase is almost entirely due to Carrier/Super-ratting.
Problem is that this is the first time ratting is actually engaging game play. You have to pay attention and you can't multibox it which puts on a nice limit for scaling. First time ever that PvE is somewhat engaging and now it is being removed. |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
92
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 11:14:02 -
[258] - Quote
Axhind wrote:Marcus Tedric wrote:If it hasn't been obvious before - this is why! From the Economic ReportThe massive increase is almost entirely due to Carrier/Super-ratting. Problem is that this is the first time ratting is actually engaging game play. You have to pay attention and you can't multibox it which puts on a nice limit for scaling. First time ever that PvE is somewhat engaging and now it is being removed.
On your first two-and-a-half points I can only agree.
But it's not being removed - it's being made more difficult - which should have the intended effect.
Yes, I will also be one of those affected, but I understand why it's being done. Hyper-inflation is bad. Printing money is bad - I just wish the BoE and our silly Chancellor(s) would get that too........
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Axhind
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
287
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 11:32:27 -
[259] - Quote
Marcus Tedric wrote:Axhind wrote:Marcus Tedric wrote:If it hasn't been obvious before - this is why! From the Economic ReportThe massive increase is almost entirely due to Carrier/Super-ratting. Problem is that this is the first time ratting is actually engaging game play. You have to pay attention and you can't multibox it which puts on a nice limit for scaling. First time ever that PvE is somewhat engaging and now it is being removed. On your first two-and-a-half points I can only agree. But it's not being removed - it's being made more difficult - which should have the intended effect. Yes, I will also be one of those affected, but I understand why it's being done. Hyper-inflation is bad. Printing money is bad - I just wish the BoE and our silly Chancellor(s) would get that too........
From what I've seen on Sisi it is being removed. Losing several fighters per site means that your profit is lower than just putting in an AFK drone boat.
I guess we'll see how it works for real once it hits tq. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15293
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 15:01:22 -
[260] - Quote
Axhind wrote:
From what I've seen on Sisi it is being removed. Losing several fighters per site means that your profit is lower than just putting in an AFK drone boat.
I guess we'll see how it works for real once it hits tq.
You must be doing it wrong.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MXxGlPBrWCA
https://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/5y298o/just_ran_a_haven_in_a_carrier_on_sisi_without/
The worries about carrier ratting are misplaced, nothing bad is really happening here. |
|
Cade Windstalker
1025
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 15:18:56 -
[261] - Quote
I mean, the skill ceiling is apparently being raised, which might be a bad thing if you multibox or don't like paying attention, but overall no this is not the carrier ratting apocalypse. |
Axhind
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
287
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 15:33:00 -
[262] - Quote
Yea I've seen that on our forums too. Single mistake or missed command and blap 4 fighters dead (last wave rock haven). It will be doable but seems a bit excessive. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3173
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 15:57:46 -
[263] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:I mean, the skill ceiling is apparently being raised, which might be a bad thing if you multibox or don't like paying attention, but overall no this is not the carrier ratting apocalypse.
Multiboxing should be hard and paying attention should be required. Let's make this even more apparant by removing the afk ability of drone boats so people stop comparing their carrier ratting attention requirement to afktars.
Nobody would think it's a huge deal to have to pay attention while ratting if it never had been possible afk. |
Axhind
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
287
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 16:14:02 -
[264] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: Multiboxing should be hard and paying attention should be required. Let's make this even more apparant by removing the afk ability of drone boats so people stop comparing their carrier ratting attention requirement to afktars.
Nobody would think it's a huge deal to have to pay attention while ratting if it never had been possible afk.
Remember that EVE is a game and most of us are not teenagers without a worry in the world. Having main income source in 0.0 require insane amount of effort and concentration will just lead to burn out and people dropping the game.
That should be a balance and not just going to extremes. |
Cha'ka Khan
Jaded. Riplomacy
42
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 16:22:11 -
[265] - Quote
These changes are completely unnecessary in EVERY possible way. Normally I am very supportive of CCP but fighters are incredibly easy to take off grid as it is. In small gang PVP operations, especially in wormhole space, those of us that use carriers for defense or for fun are going to suffer hard for it. Fighters are too squishy as is and should not be given any more reason to just simply die. Not cool guys. Not cool at all. Fighters are too expensive to be brought in line with heavy drones like this. fact of the matter is that this is a solution to a problem that doesnt exist. if pilots in PVP are not engaging those fighters and killing them or jamming them out, it is not the fault of anyone but the bad choice of the players not doing so. That does NOT mean that fighters need nerfing though to compensate for said terrible choices.
The only thing we have to fear, is new pilots and AFK miners.-á
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3173
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 16:46:08 -
[266] - Quote
Axhind wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Multiboxing should be hard and paying attention should be required. Let's make this even more apparant by removing the afk ability of drone boats so people stop comparing their carrier ratting attention requirement to afktars.
Nobody would think it's a huge deal to have to pay attention while ratting if it never had been possible afk.
Remember that EVE is a game and most of us are not teenagers without a worry in the world. Having main income source in 0.0 require insane amount of effort and concentration will just lead to burn out and people dropping the game. There should be a balance and not just going to extremes.
Having to select your targets and tell tell your weapon system to engage said target is "an insane amount of effort and concentration"? |
Axhind
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
287
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 17:17:41 -
[267] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Axhind wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: Multiboxing should be hard and paying attention should be required. Let's make this even more apparant by removing the afk ability of drone boats so people stop comparing their carrier ratting attention requirement to afktars.
Nobody would think it's a huge deal to have to pay attention while ratting if it never had been possible afk.
Remember that EVE is a game and most of us are not teenagers without a worry in the world. Having main income source in 0.0 require insane amount of effort and concentration will just lead to burn out and people dropping the game. There should be a balance and not just going to extremes. Having to select your targets and tell tell your weapon system to engage said target is "an insane amount of effort and concentration"?
Losing your fighter if you miss one command is a bit excessive as it means that you can't let your concentration drop. To keep the fighters alive you have to be constantly telling them to orbit new targets. Which is not so bad if you don't have any distractions but if there are (and most of us do have them in the form of family) then it does become a bit pointless. Losing 1-2 fighters (especially t2) will eat up any profit compared to ishtar or similar.
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15295
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 18:14:51 -
[268] - Quote
If it's too much hassle then don't do it. Or refit to make your drones tougher (the video I linked shows Sutonia doing them in a carrier that doens't have Drone Durability Rigs). And/or Switch to ratting with a Thanatos that gets a Fight Hitpoint bonus.
I find it amazing how people are freaking out about this, despite seeing people do it successfully on sisi and without even trying to figure out the situation for themselves.
Personally , I never jumped on the Carrier Ratting bandwagon except to test it out (didn't like it, prefer subcap gameplay). I farm anomalies with a Machariel that can also do every 10/10 in the game except the blood raider one without refitting. |
Erik Kisenger
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 18:17:28 -
[269] - Quote
One of the things occurring on sisi now is that Command Shield Burst modules are now applying to fighters - is this intentional because it's partially balancing out the sig nerf, which is nice. |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15296
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 18:29:29 -
[270] - Quote
Erik Kisenger wrote:One of the things occurring on sisi now is that Command Shield Burst modules are now applying to fighters - is this intentional because it's partially balancing out the sig nerf, which is nice.
I can see it now. Coming soon to this very thread:
"BUT BUT THAT MEANS I HAVE TO GIVE UP A HIGH SLOT...GRRRR CCCP" |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |