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) |
|
CCP Larrikin
C C P C C P Alliance
680
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 09:48:53 -
[1] - Quote
Hi m8s,
In March, we're releasing a number of balance tweaks and we would love your feedback.
FIGHTERS We'd like to increase the potential counter-play options vs fighters. We're going to do this by increasing their signature radius which makes them a little easier to hit. They are currently around the small-medium drone range. This will put them in the same size category as heavy drones. Additionally, we're giving Shadow fighters a balance pass.
Changes:
- Light Fighters (Space Superiority) - Signature Radius: 80 (+43)
- Light Fighters (Attack) - Signature Radius: 100 (+59)
- Support Fighters - Signature Radius: 120 (+80)
- Heavy Fighters (Attack) - Signature Radius: 110 (+60)
- Heavy Fighters (Long Range) - Signature Radius: 120 (+60)
- Shadows - Signature Radius: 100 (+55)
- Shadows - EM Damage: 200 (+40)
- Shadows - Thermal Damage: 200 (+40)
These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones. Lastly, there was a bug when our AI evaluated the threat of fighters. NPCs didn't consider fighters as threatening as they should have. This bug has now been fixed, and NPCs will more often shoot at fighters. You may also want to check out this thread about brand new fighter hotkeys (thanks Five-0!)
SUPERCARRIERS After our discussions with the CSM, they brought up the state of the Wyvern fighter hangar bay (and shield supers in general). While we'll re-asses the state of shield supers after the release of Shield Slaves, we think their points about fighter hangar bays had some merit.
Changes:
- Wyvern Fighter Hangar Bay): 90,000 (+10,000) m3
- Hel Fighter Hangar Bay: 110,000 (+10,000) m3
BURST PROJECTORS We're going to increase the effect duration of burst projectors. The difficulty in using them doesn't really justify their existing small effect time.
Changes:
- ECM Jammer Burst Projector Effect Duration: 40 (+10) seconds
- Sensor Dampening Burst Projector Effect Duration: 60 (+30) seconds
- Weapon Disruption Burst Projector Effect Duration: 60 (+30) seconds
- Target Illumination Burst Projector Effect Duration: 60 (+30) seconds
- Warp Disruption Burst Projector Effect Duration: 40 (+20) seconds
- Stasis Webification Burst Projector Effect Duration: 40 (+20) seconds
Game Designer | Team Phenomenon | https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin
|
|
|
CCP Larrikin
C C P C C P Alliance
680
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 15:29:56 -
[2] - Quote
Reserved for Questions & Answers
Game Designer | Team Phenomenon | https://twitter.com/CCP_Larrikin
|
|
lanyaie
Nocturnal Romance The Initiative.
1170
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:02:47 -
[3] - Quote
g
Spaceprincess
|
clipper shore
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:02:53 -
[4] - Quote
first
|
Favonius85
House Aratus Goonswarm Federation
33
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:06:38 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: NPCs will more often shoot at fighters.
Haha, really? |
Kenneth Feld
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
425
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:13:27 -
[6] - Quote
Burst Projectors
That time should be quadrupled at least.
40 sec warp bubble - LOL - no thanks
The rest are just as laughable and they will get used no more than they do now, which is probably about zero |
Cade Windstalker
882
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:15:09 -
[7] - Quote
Any sort of vague ETA on Shield Slaves? They've been mentioned like they're just around the corner since roughly the Shadows of the Serpent event like 8 months ago.
Also won't the increased sig radius and the threat changes compound on one another? I know a lot of NPCs pick targets at least partly based on sig radius so I would think there would be a least some multiplicative effect here. |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Badfellas Inc.
341
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:15:14 -
[8] - Quote
Way to buff goons more :( |
Querns
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
2670
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:18:32 -
[9] - Quote
Glad to see the poor Wyvern shown some love. Thanks!
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Jay Amazingness
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
68
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:19:28 -
[10] - Quote
Nice, this makes the wyverns fighter bay a little more usable. Any word on adding more types of faction fibos with different abilities?
CEO of serious space alliance I too am gay, a member of the Memeperium
|
|
Miyamoto Uroki
TURN LEFT
6
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:21:36 -
[11] - Quote
Excellent change for the signature changes for fighters. Now if you could make them a little opressive in terms of applying dps to mwding cruisers? that would bring them back into balance imho |
Tara Read
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
880
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:25:18 -
[12] - Quote
"Lastly, there was a bug when our AI evaluated the threat of fighters. NPCs didn't consider fighters as threatening as they should have. This bug has now been fixed, and NPCs will more often shoot at fighters."
Are you freaking serious? Do you know how many times in missions fighters eat s#$& because of the horrible buggy way fighters interact with NPC's already? Try going from an entire squadron of fighters to having them completely alpha'd off field without hardly any way to have them MWD back to you. This includes mission ewar effects on complet squadrons as you watch an entire squadron die to web effects through an MWD cycle. Ever try running a Fortress without an entire squadron dying? Try it.
I remember when the new fighter mechanics were first introduced and dozens of people who used carriers for PvE were shocked at just how badly fighters were eliminated off grid without any sort of way to have them return through npc aggression. Maybe you guys need to actually play this game instead of doing rediculous changes when the UI for fighters and fighter control are so buggy and messed up already. We've petitioned submitted bug reports and just lived with these horrible UI issues ever since the changes were released. Players have been patient and NOW you are going to ramp up NPC aggression on a UI layout and mechanic that is heavily bugged and complained about?
I mean I know you guys want to eventually eliminate how PvE is done in this game entirely and we've all known about the nerf coming to running missions and sites in capitals was coming but this isn't the way to do it by just having squadrons wiped off and agressed by rats as soon as you land on grid and launch them. |
Eris Tsasa
Serenity Cartel The Bastion
6
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:28:36 -
[13] - Quote
I just have to ask. Really? Fighters are already incredibly easy to web and melt. They're so squishy, at least give them an ehp buff, a single web when they're out of scoop range of your carrier means if they manage to return, you'll have lost half. A single npc frigate can easily chew through them.
Also, burst projectors. Please, reduce cycle time. Already at max skills it's 6 minutes of cycle, the entire time with a weapons timer, then another minute for timer to cycle away. During that time can't refit, de-agress, ect. Also the 10s warmup beacon telling people where it'll land and tiny sphere of influence make them pretty useless. Please, make a few more changes. |
OverLord V1C70RY
Absolute Massive Destruction Test Alliance Please Ignore
4
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:32:40 -
[14] - Quote
**counter-play options vs fighters**
i dont like this because it will affect ratting as well. fighters get enough agro as it is |
Swoop McFly
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
61
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:33:01 -
[15] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:This bug has now been fixed, and NPCs will more often shoot at fighters.
I think you made a typo here. Should say less often. They already aggro my fighters all the time when ratting. |
Lucy Callagan
TURN LEFT
221
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:34:23 -
[16] - Quote
https://media.giphy.com/media/1Z02vuppxP1Pa/giphy.gif
plz ccp looks like you're on a dank good change spree, can you buff medium projectile next ? |
Blood Animus
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
2
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:35:47 -
[17] - Quote
Not sure why all the fighters were nerfed so hard when they're already easy to counter, and support fighters are especially screwed. Could've at least given them a slight tracking/application bonus to compensate for having to pull them every 4 seconds against anything with a web. |
Bobmon
Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion
206
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 21:48:58 -
[18] - Quote
Yeeey Finally :) now time to watch the communitty responds :)
@BobmonEVE - BOBMON FOR CSM 12
|
Douevenliftbro
Heretic Army Escalating Entropy
2
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:04:23 -
[19] - Quote
It isn't April fools yet. Stop ccp.
|
iscariot sister
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:05:19 -
[20] - Quote
Does anyone att CCP even play eve? have you seen the air superiority kill light fighters? its murder,and now you make their sig bigger? Also for ratting throwing away fighters is basicly you nerfing it to the ground,meanwhile the FAXs carriers are a joke where you have to active tank them and cant spidertank so you need full faction or officer fit to even make it mediocre on the field and it will still just go splat,but instead you nerf fighters...play the game! |
|
Kagi Anzomi
CK-0FF Spaceship Samurai
3
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:08:52 -
[21] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Changes: [list] Support Fighters - Signature Radius: 120 (+80) ... Lastly, there was a bug when our AI evaluated the threat of fighters. NPCs didn't consider fighters as threatening as they should have. This bug has now been fixed, and NPCs will more often shoot at fighters. I don't understand the support fighters getting such a large increase compared to light fighters. They're slow and except for Sirens not really used. I've never seen sirens that didn't die quite quickly when they needed to be dead, so tripling the sig radius seems like overkill.
How do NPCs shoot something more than 100% of the time? I don't think I've spent a second ratting with fighters out where they weren't shooting the fighters.
Except for those two things the changes look decent enough. Making fighters even more vulnerable when they're already the weakness of carriers doesn't seem like a wise move, but oh well. |
Xanuth
Absolute Massive Destruction Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:15:34 -
[22] - Quote
Do any of you Devs even play, or understand how fighters currently operate in both PvE and PvP?
I mean seriously, wtf are you thinking with these changes? Do you want everyone to stop using carriers totally? Fighters are already easily countered by ECM/Webs and destroyer/frigates/SS and your plan is to make them even worse vs. cruisers/BCs and Rats?
Is your intent to revert them back to pre-carrier changes where no one even undocks them and we either go sub-cap or super blob? I am literally lost as to what went through your minds when proposing the aggro and sig radius changes... |
Locko DeLavida
Hogyoku Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:16:50 -
[23] - Quote
Can you please, for 1 time just stop with capitals shenanigans and focus with assault frigs and ships like stabber and some 2 mid-slotted ships? They are actually aweful, there is no point in flying them. PLEASE |
Gazzz
Fweddit The Initiative.
12
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:20:17 -
[24] - Quote
Increasing sig radius to improve the counter play options against fighters does have some merit but inceasing the sig radius by so much essentially is nerfing them to much IMO.
Look at the current fighters, Superiority squadrons chew right through and fighters (Heavy, Support, or LIght) with the added webs and target painters often provided in fights your fighters never make it back. I am speaking from experience on this as both the Receiver of the damage and the guy doing the defanging.
Also by giving fighters an increased sig radius you have also now given a Buff to the Thanatos and the Nyx which in turn is going to vastly favor these two hulls with their bonus FIghter HP while nerfing not only Fighters themselves but also all other Carriers, and Supercarriers. In addition to add to this, the +10k M3 to the Wyvern and the Hel would not make a difference in making them more viable to be used compared to the Nyx.
I honestly felt fighters were in a good spot with the exception of the Webification and ECM Support Fighters as they provide no additional value or reason to use them in a fight due to the majority of the time Long range webs and ECM is already on grid with the Fleet.
And finally the Burst projectors, while off to a good start with the added duration still, Does not give a good enough reason to still fit them to a super. Speaking from personnel experience using my Hel, whenever a animation of a burst projector being used is shown in space, a Hostile fleet simply burns away from the area that would be affected by any Projector. This is especially troublesome when using the Warp Disruption Burst Projector trying to keep tackle. In order to promote more use of the various Burst Projectors I would ask you if it would be worthwhile to look into either A) Getting rid of the Burst Projector Animation that is shown while the projector is being activated. OR B) Reducing the Activation time of a Burst Projector to give an enemy fleet less time to react to whatever Projector is being used.
|
Koenig Yazria
Adversity. Pandemic Legion
24
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:27:14 -
[25] - Quote
Confirmed that you didn't test it at all before or after change. I'm also pretty sure you haven't played/tested this game in a long while if you consider fighter aggro to be too easy. |
Anya Aivora
Sister Margaret's School for Wayward Clones
4
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:28:02 -
[26] - Quote
THIS is what you're spending your time balancing? THIS? Did you accidentally forget about locking down a carrier/super via easy mode ecm? This isn't even an issue. |
Demolishar
United Aggression Corpse Collectors Group
1232
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:30:14 -
[27] - Quote
Please increase the Revenant drone bay too. No reason Hel should get a buff from 100 to 110, but Revenant should be stuck with 100. |
Hudders
Frozen Corpse Industries The-Culture
34
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:36:17 -
[28] - Quote
So, if we are going to nerf the crap out of already fairly weak fighters can we at least remove the ability to make a 3b carrier worthless or 30b super worthless with 2-3 5m griffins?
Like why is ECM even a thing on that. You can't ECM a dread or defang one either. I had a corp mate permajam 3 fighter squads on a carrier we caught with 1 griffin. I really don't understand the balance logic at play here. |
Jibrish
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:37:58 -
[29] - Quote
Fighters never had an issue with NPC agro. They get shot at constantly and require constant attention and micromanagement - much more so than nearly any other ship in the game.
Not to mention it's incredibly easy to counter fighters in a PvP setting. This makes absolutely no sense. |
commander aze
241
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:38:30 -
[30] - Quote
Can we not increase the rate at which nocs switch to fighters.... its hard enough keeping the bastards alive (harder even with larger sigs) thoughts?
Commander Aze For CSM XII
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=506400
Support the Community #Broadcast4Reps
|
|
Trevize Demerzel
69
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:45:06 -
[31] - Quote
I don't understand.....
It's already ridiculously easy to de-fang a [super] carrier. Rats also already eat fighters up. Not to mention just what an active click fest using fighters is! Watching an Ishtar rat while watching a movie, or even better watching a buddy rat with 8 ishtars while watching a movie :-P. But you chose fighters to nerf and make harder...
Both my primary ships being nerfed..... sigh. Rorq and carrier forsale!
-
|
Trespasser
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
69
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:47:05 -
[32] - Quote
this is the first post in a long time from someone at CCP talking about shield slaves
So my question is when will we see these implant sets ? its been quiet a long time and we don't have them yet.
Also if sansha's are now a shield tanking group and it looks like its going be that way for the future.. are you guys planning on changing how the NPC's work? right now they armor tank.
And if they are going to be shield tanked.. you should also switch all of the centus armor mods to shield mods.. have sansha start dropping shield loot instead of armor. |
Mawderator
The Tuskers The Tuskers Co.
71
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:47:30 -
[33] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Hi m8s, FIGHTERSChanges: - Light Fighters (Space Superiority) - Signature Radius: 80 (+43)
- Light Fighters (Attack) - Signature Radius: 100 (+59)
- Support Fighters - Signature Radius: 120 (+80)
- Heavy Fighters (Attack) - Signature Radius: 110 (+60)
- Heavy Fighters (Long Range) - Signature Radius: 120 (+60)
- Shadows - Signature Radius: 100 (+55)
- Shadows - EM Damage: 200 (+40)
- Shadows - Thermal Damage: 200 (+40)
These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones.
Bolded the important part. Light Fighters and Heavy Drones now have the same signature radius at 100m. Light Fighters having at minimum the same signature radius as Heavy Drones makes sense. Prior to the the Capital/Fighter rework, individual fighters had a signature radius of 125m.
Tara Read wrote: Ever try running a Fortress without an entire squadron dying? Try it.
There are L5 missions that can kill 2 or 3 of your fighters in a squadron if you're unlucky. The Fortress is not one of them. |
Alhira Katserna
Teutonum Confederation Evictus.
2424
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:50:08 -
[34] - Quote
Sorry but the sig increase is waayy too much.
Fighters are very vulnerable as they-¦re now. You have ECM, Tracking Disruption working on them and in most cases you have no chance to kill a cruiser going 2500 m/s without support as it will be out of range as soon as the mwd ability runs out.
Application on them also isn-¦t really an issue, just look at how easily a fighter squad is defanged by SS fighters. A Hurricane with 425s cannot apply to them? Well it cannot apply to a Interceptor squad either.
And last but not least you make the already most vulnerable ffighter types (support fighters) even more vulnerable by giving them even bigger sig then heavy fighters. |
Doomchinchilla
Collapsed Out Pandemic Legion
166
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:51:10 -
[35] - Quote
I still don't see why anyone would use shadows over the ability to just use the F3 of regular heavies. Just make Shadows LR fibos. |
Delekon
Art Of Explosions Hole Control
20
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:52:02 -
[36] - Quote
1.Who the hell has problems countering carriers?
2. Carriers were supposed to be long range supportive caps. By increasing the sig you are forcing the carriers to deploy only at point balnk range.
3. Can you please adress the problem of capital cap injectors instead? They made caps neut-proof and that means its nigh impossible to kill a cap in whspace.
4. Carriers are a joke compared to dreads. In null space superiority is the only current PvP use. In whspace they maybe feed cap and only in home defense. In whspace, where you can only field up to 3 caps away from home, you never ever use the mass for a carrier. Why use a ship that has just 30%dps?
5. Carriers cannot be used for PVE in whspace. They trigger an escalation and contibute very little.
So yeah, huge cry for help here. Can you please review the cap use in whspace for both pvp and pve? |
Malthuras
The Scope Gallente Federation
19
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:54:56 -
[37] - Quote
These changes are terrible for both PvE and PvP
1. Tach Nightmares can somewhat reliably track fighter squads. Increasing their sig is stupid
2. Carrier ratting is completely interactive, and if you don't respond in an amount of time, npc's start wasting your fighters already. This change is dumb to make them more aggressive.
Just stop, carriers are in a good place. Work on parts that aren't. |
Mr Floydy
Side Kicks The-Culture
339
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:56:20 -
[38] - Quote
Fighters can already die damn quick in PvP and require constant micromanaging in PvE, sig changes this large and a change to aggression at the same time seems to be completely overkill. If you're going to make changes can you please do so a little more gradually so you don't end up risking carriers becoming useless overnight... |
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
4
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:57:08 -
[39] - Quote
Sig radius increased on fighters? NPCs not shooting them enough? Heck I can't KEEP NPCs off of my fighters currently, even battleships are ripping my fighters up during ratting. This is going to make carrier ratting not worth it at all anymore. The cost of replacing fighters already is approaching the ticks I get from running them.
This is also widening the gap between carriers and dreads. As said already, carriers are a joke compared to dreads, now we're reinforcing that point. I see NPCs ignore drones more often than my fighters. Time to shelf it I guess, it has no more use for me in pvp or pve. |
Qerek
Full Spectrum Inc Integritas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:57:17 -
[40] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones. Lastly, there was a bug when our AI evaluated the threat of fighters. NPCs didn't consider fighters as threatening as they should have. This bug has now been fixed, and NPCs will more often shoot at fighters.
Can you guys elaborate on your intentions relating to carriers in a PVE environment? Obviously, EVE is very PVP centric, but using a carrier in null anomalies seem to be pretty much required to get proficient with the interface so you can eventually feel comfortable dropping your carrier in PVP. Your interface update made carrier ratting "fun" again at the same time eliminating the multiboxing carrier issues of the past. Are you unhappy with the level of isk earned by carrier ratting?
Regarding your Fighters -> Heavy Drones comparison...the best ships I can think of (someone correct me here) to utilize heavy drones (arguably the only ones worth using) are:
Rattlesnake Eos Myrmadon Prophecy (?) Ishtar VNI
Every single one of these ships have large bonuses to BOTH drone HPs and drone speed (velocity or MWD). This means the base stats of heavy drones are worthless for comparison because almost no one uses them at those HP/speed to sig radius ratios. These bonuses are what consistently keeps these heavy drones alive, therefore keeping there use affordable.
With carriers, you choose between a very small HP bonus (Thanatos) or a very small speed bonus (Nid) and that's it. Also, loosing fighters is much more expensive.
I think you are getting a lot of negative feedback from these changes because we all thought carrier risk/reward was in a pretty solid place currently. Don't get me wrong, I totally get the bug fix thing...but the combined sig radius change seems like you will be destroying a really fun activity. |
|
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
168
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:57:19 -
[41] - Quote
Increase the sensor strength of fighters as well so they're not much easier to scan down now (and have them harder to be jammed) Aggro was fine on the fighters unless you want NPCs to permatarget and shoot fighters. Do implants affect drone/fighter EHP? Should they? |
Jackson Ikkala
Not Recruting
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:57:59 -
[42] - Quote
THIS worrys me greatly as carrier ratting is my main source of income and plex any changes that affect carrier ratting greatly concerns me i'm worried this will make ratting extremely harder and is unnecessary
CCP Larrikin wrote:Hi m8s, In March, we're releasing a number of balance tweaks and we would love your feedback. FIGHTERSWe'd like to increase the potential counter-play options vs fighters. We're going to do this by increasing their signature radius which makes them a little easier to hit. They are currently around the small-medium drone range. This will put them in the same size category as heavy drones. Additionally, we're giving Shadow fighters a balance pass. Changes: - Light Fighters (Space Superiority) - Signature Radius: 80 (+43)
- Light Fighters (Attack) - Signature Radius: 100 (+59)
- Support Fighters - Signature Radius: 120 (+80)
- Heavy Fighters (Attack) - Signature Radius: 110 (+60)
- Heavy Fighters (Long Range) - Signature Radius: 120 (+60)
- Shadows - Signature Radius: 100 (+55)
- Shadows - EM Damage: 200 (+40)
- Shadows - Thermal Damage: 200 (+40)
These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones. Lastly, there was a bug when our AI evaluated the threat of fighters. NPCs didn't consider fighters as threatening as they should have. This bug has now been fixed, and NPCs will more often shoot at fighters. You may also want to check out this thread about brand new fighter hotkeys (thanks Five-0!)SUPERCARRIERSAfter our discussions with the CSM, they brought up the state of the Wyvern fighter hangar bay (and shield supers in general). While we'll re-asses the state of shield supers after the release of Shield Slaves, we think their points about fighter hangar bays had some merit. Changes: - Wyvern Fighter Hangar Bay): 90,000 (+10,000) m3
- Hel Fighter Hangar Bay: 110,000 (+10,000) m3
BURST PROJECTORSWe're going to increase the effect duration of burst projectors. The difficulty in using them doesn't really justify their existing small effect time. Changes: - ECM Jammer Burst Projector Effect Duration: 40 (+10) seconds
- Sensor Dampening Burst Projector Effect Duration: 60 (+30) seconds
- Weapon Disruption Burst Projector Effect Duration: 60 (+30) seconds
- Target Illumination Burst Projector Effect Duration: 60 (+30) seconds
- Warp Disruption Burst Projector Effect Duration: 40 (+20) seconds
- Stasis Webification Burst Projector Effect Duration: 40 (+20) seconds
|
JITA Char2
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 22:58:06 -
[43] - Quote
The patch has a big problem.
Cause the problem is that a lot of T1 fighters are already randomly diyingin a lot of anos. (Also if you use best way of killing all npc's)
Which means actually that if they die faster the fighter will cost more than the npc payout will bring.
Which makes Carrier Ratting useless. |
Kagi Anzomi
CK-0FF Spaceship Samurai
6
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:10:41 -
[44] - Quote
Mawderator wrote:There are L5 missions that can kill 2 or 3 of your fighters in a squadron if you're unlucky. The Fortress is not one of them. I see you've never tried doing the Minmatar version. The Minmatar frigates web and paint fighters with a vengeance. |
progodlegend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
190
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:11:48 -
[45] - Quote
HOLY ******* ****. HOLLLLYYYYYYY FU************** SHI***************
FOZZIE YOU BEAUTIFUL BASTARD. YOU ARE LISTENING UP THERE. WE DID IT BOYS, WE ******* DID IT.
SUBCAPS AREN'T DEAD JUST YET.
LARRIKIN YOU SON OF A ***** YOU CAME THROUGH ON THIS ONE.
OH MY GOD.
OH MY GOD.
I CAN'T BREATH.
BEST CHANGE EVER.
HOLY ****.
HOLY ****
OH MY GOD
OH MY G |
progodlegend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
190
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:12:55 -
[46] - Quote
JITA Char2 wrote:The patch has a big problem.
Cause the problem is that a lot of T1 fighters are already randomly diyingin a lot of anos. (Also if you use best way of killing all npc's)
Which means actually that if they die faster the fighter will cost more than the npc payout will bring.
Which makes Carrier Ratting useless.
Dude literally 0 people care if carrier ratting is useless. No one gives a **** about whether you can carrier rat or not. Get a different ship. who cares. |
Jackson Ikkala
Not Recruting
2
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:14:42 -
[47] - Quote
GO ******* DIE I SURVIVE IN EVE ON CARRIER RATTING
progodlegend wrote:HOLY ******* ****. HOLLLLYYYYYYY FU************** SHI***************
FOZZIE YOU BEAUTIFUL BASTARD. YOU ARE LISTENING UP THERE. WE DID IT BOYS, WE ******* DID IT.
SUBCAPS AREN'T DEAD JUST YET.
LARRIKIN YOU SON OF A ***** YOU CAME THROUGH ON THIS ONE.
OH MY GOD.
OH MY GOD.
I CAN'T BREATH.
BEST CHANGE EVER.
HOLY ****.
HOLY ****
OH MY GOD
OH MY G
|
Anthar Thebess
1680
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:19:25 -
[48] - Quote
Signature change? It was ever an issue?
People kill fighters easily using subcapitals. Superiority fighters chew other fast. Rats can easily alpha a T2 fighter on a max skilled thanathos. I lost wings while they where MWD back to the carrier but they got webs and died.
There was an bug that made rats not aggro fighters? Constant management on fighters recalls to fix and replace lost fighters.
Next thing support fighters - only sirens are good, there is no point in using any other.
Shield Slaves and shield super balance - when? I know that there are plenty of other things but those are not small toys, people invested a lot of time and $ Shield supers are very broken due to neuts - maybe introduce a passive adaptive lowslot thingy and balance this later instead of making people to wait 2 more years.
I know that EVE is a game about patience - but do we really need to skill it so hard?
Super fleet hangars - nice, but can support fighters have size reduced?.
Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists
Show your support to The Cause!
|
Blood Animus
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
8
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:19:32 -
[49] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:JITA Char2 wrote:The patch has a big problem.
Cause the problem is that a lot of T1 fighters are already randomly diyingin a lot of anos. (Also if you use best way of killing all npc's)
Which means actually that if they die faster the fighter will cost more than the npc payout will bring.
Which makes Carrier Ratting useless. Dude literally 0 important people care if carrier ratting is useless. No one useful gives a **** about whether you can carrier rat or not. Get a different ship. who cares.
I hope you like more dictors, cheap HACs, and light tackle because that's what you're going to see your fleet comps have a decent bit more instead of mainline T3 dps and CS/Recon support. Since carriers probably fatten your line members wallets and corp wallets and in turn SRP funds. But who am I to know. |
progodlegend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
190
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:27:44 -
[50] - Quote
Blood Animus wrote: But who am I to know.
Next time just lead off with that. |
|
Zelden Aurilen
SUPERFLUOUS WANDERLUST The-Culture
5
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:30:08 -
[51] - Quote
Copying my reddit reply;
Are you kidding about increasing fighter sig radius? They already bleed fast as anything in a fleet fight. You usually lost 7/9 fighters if you pull them as soon as the first damage/ewar effect lands on them.
Honestly small fleets may be having trouble with them (they shouldn't, just bring ecm or a single web/paint) but in large fleets they are so vulnerable.
I'm not saying this as rhetoric. I've been in a decent number of carrier fights since the last set of changes, both in the context of citadel sieges, response fleets to small gangs, and just now a 40 carrier drop on two 100 man fleets (t3s and cerbs)
Fighters are actually awful to use in these fights effectively. It went typically like this;
* Lock targets as broadcast * Launch fighters * MWD fighters towards target, start applying dps. * Sync volleys with all other carriers because fighter dps can't break subcaps * Have eyes on fighters on all time, as soon as a single ewar effect or damage appeared pull that particular squad with MWD on * Watch as most of the squad is melted before it returns * Pull the other squads as they are targetted, restock and relaunch ASAP * Berate the fact nothing is dying because you're having to constantly pull and relaunch and wonder how long you can continue for as the fighter stock dwindles.
Honestly have you guys done significant playtesting with this or is it mostly a case of observing complaints from people who struggle to kill them. Carriers are INCREDIBLY easy to defang, you literally need a few logi, a single webbing ship or a single target painter. If you're fighting a solo carrier or a small group of them you can even defang them with T1 ECM Ships (Griffins) because they have such a low sensor strength and the lock time even with NSA isn't fast enough to lock and pop.
I strongly urge you guys to reconsider on the fighter changes and do some homework (like a mass test). Yes if you bring a battleship or unsupported cruiser gang to kill a carrier you will get melted, but they are so obscenely easy to counter it's laughable. |
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
5
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:30:44 -
[52] - Quote
Qerek wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote: These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones. Lastly, there was a bug when our AI evaluated the threat of fighters. NPCs didn't consider fighters as threatening as they should have. This bug has now been fixed, and NPCs will more often shoot at fighters.
Can you guys elaborate on your intentions relating to carriers in a PVE environment? Obviously, EVE is very PVP centric, but using a carrier in null anomalies seem to be pretty much required to get proficient with the interface so you can eventually feel comfortable dropping your carrier in PVP. Your interface update made carrier ratting "fun" again at the same time eliminating the multiboxing carrier issues of the past. Are you unhappy with the level of isk earned by carrier ratting? Regarding your Fighters -> Heavy Drones comparison...the best ships I can think of (someone correct me here) to utilize heavy drones (arguably the only ones worth using) are: Rattlesnake Eos Myrmadon Prophecy (?) Ishtar VNI Every single one of these ships have large bonuses to BOTH drone HPs and drone speed (velocity or MWD). This means the base stats of heavy drones are worthless for comparison because almost no one uses them at those HP/speed to sig radius ratios. These bonuses are what consistently keeps these heavy drones alive, therefore keeping there use affordable. With carriers, you choose between a very small HP bonus (Thanatos) or a very small speed bonus (Nid) and that's it. Also, loosing fighters is much more expensive. I think you are getting a lot of negative feedback from these changes because we all thought carrier risk/reward was in a pretty solid place currently. Don't get me wrong, I totally get the bug fix thing...but the combined sig radius change seems like you will be destroying a really fun activity.
This sums it up nicely. You're basically destroying the fun inherent in ratting with a carrier. It has also been pointed out that this is going to make the spread on carriers so wide nobody will fly the archon or chimera for any reason, due to needing the increased fighter HP or speed for sig tanking.
I can't run sites now without my fighters always being fired upon in Sansha space. I'm not sure where the data comes from that they're not being shot at enough, but can it really get worse than 100%? |
progodlegend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
190
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:32:27 -
[53] - Quote
Zelden Aurilen wrote:Copying my reddit reply;
Are you kidding about increasing fighter sig radius? They already bleed fast as anything in a fleet fight. You usually lost 7/9 fighters if you pull them as soon as the first damage/ewar effect lands on them.
Honestly small fleets may be having trouble with them (they shouldn't, just bring ecm or a single web/paint) but in large fleets they are so vulnerable.
I'm not saying this as rhetoric. I've been in a decent number of carrier fights since the last set of changes, both in the context of citadel sieges, response fleets to small gangs, and just now a 40 carrier drop on two 100 man fleets (t3s and cerbs)
Fighters are actually awful to use in these fights effectively. It went typically like this;
* Lock targets as broadcast * Launch fighters * MWD fighters towards target, start applying dps. * Sync volleys with all other carriers because fighter dps can't break subcaps * Have eyes on fighters on all time, as soon as a single ewar effect or damage appeared pull that particular squad with MWD on * Watch as most of the squad is melted before it returns * Pull the other squads as they are targetted, restock and relaunch ASAP * Berate the fact nothing is dying because you're having to constantly pull and relaunch and wonder how long you can continue for as the fighter stock dwindles.
Honestly have you guys done significant playtesting with this or is it mostly a case of observing complaints from people who struggle to kill them. Carriers are INCREDIBLY easy to defang, you literally need a few logi, a single webbing ship or a single target painter. If you're fighting a solo carrier or a small group of them you can even defang them with T1 ECM Ships (Griffins) because they have such a low sensor strength and the lock time even with NSA isn't fast enough to lock and pop.
I strongly urge you guys to reconsider on the fighter changes and do some homework (like a mass test). Yes if you bring a battleship or unsupported cruiser gang to kill a carrier you will get melted, but they are so obscenely easy to counter it's laughable.
Dude if you couldn't kill two 100 man fleets with 40 carriers you should check your fits out man, because that's just pathetic. You should have absolutely wrecked those cerbs and t3s. You don't even need to sync up your volleys you should be doing like 100k DPS+ easy. |
Doomchinchilla
Collapsed Out Pandemic Legion
167
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:33:28 -
[54] - Quote
Just went on sisi to test it all out. The sig radius' are pretty cool, can definitely hit them alot easier. But the Shadow still feels out of place. ALSO the tool tip is broken for it, it says it only deals thermal damage when it's loaded in your bay, not thermal/EM. |
Aeryn-Sun
Panda Express Inc. Elemental Tide
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:34:17 -
[55] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Hi m8s,
Lastly, there was a bug when our AI evaluated the threat of fighters. NPCs didn't consider fighters as threatening as they should have. This bug has now been fixed, and NPCs will more often shoot at fighters.
As i understand from your post, you want to: Make their signature radius larger (so other players can more easily target them) Unbugg the NPC's hostile intentions to the Fighters (they are already very hostile towards them, but you want them to be more so).
Ok fine, but in return, you better make the fighters worth the money, time, skills etc. Give them a large increase in EHP, respective of the m3 of space they occupy. Make EWAR less effective, perhaps by the number of fighters left in that squadron. Reduce their refueling time substantially. (since we will be returning them to bays more often) Reduce their m3 so we can fit more of them in our fighter bays since they will be dying that much more often. Reduce the mineral cost required to manufacture fighters since we will be going through them that much more often. Increase the fighter's tracking speed and damage so the effective DPS will actually be more - since they will be spending more time flying back and refueling and being topped up in numbers, than before...
Increase Support Fighters usefulness - ie Cenobite Neut amount or reduce their cycle time. because they are already lacking in the usefullness department for the fact there are only 3, take up 9k m3 of space for one flight of them, and are easily alpha'd and now even more so if your changes go though...
|
progodlegend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
190
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:34:24 -
[56] - Quote
ITT:
tears over not being able to carrier rat for 100mil ticks anymore.
tears over not being able to obliterate subcaps with impunity anymore.
Adapt or Die
git gud
learn 2 play |
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
5
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:37:59 -
[57] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:ITT:
tears over not being able to carrier rat for 100mil ticks anymore.
tears over not being able to obliterate subcaps with impunity anymore.
Adapt or Die
git gud
learn 2 play
If you think a group of 20 battleships getting wasted by a single carrier is not supposed to be right, you obviously haven't flown caps since the BoB days. No they shouldn't have impunity, but they should be able to rat. And whoever is getting 100m ticks is exploiting somewhere. Average tick in a carrier is ~50m. Try it sometime before you talk about it? |
Alhira Katserna
Teutonum Confederation Evictus.
2427
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:40:49 -
[58] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:ITT:
tears over not being able to carrier rat for 100mil ticks anymore.
tears over not being able to obliterate subcaps with impunity anymore.
Adapt or Die
git gud
learn 2 play
Can you please just go and shake the palm and let the grown ups give reasonable feedback? Thank you. |
penifSMASH
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
466
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:43:27 -
[59] - Quote
For the most part, the changes look good! The Wyvern sorely needed a larger drone bay and the burst projectors needed a buff.
A few suggestions:
1) Shadows will still be bad and un-used after the patch. If you want supercarriers to actually field them, you should instead make them a long range fighter bomber that gets an Afterburner prop mod.
2) Revenant fighter bay should be large as a Nyx's
3) The web strength bonus on a Vendetta should apply to Dromis and not to the web burst projector. |
Farming Salt
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:43:59 -
[60] - Quote
Well...as soon as i get into Carriers both for pvp and PVE...you pull out that oversized nerf bat that kills any ship in it's path...Time to move to dread at least those you know you have almost 90% or more chance of being killed...at least i can kill while getting killed.... Forget about PVP or PVE in carriers now haha RIP
Also...Support fighters are like..killing a T1 Frig as it is...
Well...time to off load my carriers/fighters and get.....nothing?
|
|
Demolishar
United Aggression Corpse Collectors Group
1232
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:44:35 -
[61] - Quote
While we're at it, can we somehow change the sensor strength / sig radius of supercaps so that they're not so difficult to scan down compared to normal caps? It doesn't make a lot of sense really the way it is right now. |
Blood Animus
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
12
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:49:46 -
[62] - Quote
Juvir wrote:If you think a group of 20 battleships getting wasted by a single carrier is not supposed to be right, you obviously haven't flown caps since the BoB days. No they shouldn't have impunity, but they should be able to rat. And whoever is getting 100m ticks is exploiting somewhere. Average tick in a carrier is ~50m. Try it sometime before you talk about it?
Pretty sure the top end of a completely faction and DED fit hyperspatial ratting carrier is going to be about 90m at the bleeding edge of efficiency, but it's going to be worth an easy 5-6B and have little in the way of tank and rely mostly on blapping everything as quick as possible. Seems pretty balanced to me as to how valuable it is and how much time you'd need to invest in the skills and micromanaging the fighters. |
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
7
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:53:18 -
[63] - Quote
Blood Animus wrote:Juvir wrote:If you think a group of 20 battleships getting wasted by a single carrier is not supposed to be right, you obviously haven't flown caps since the BoB days. No they shouldn't have impunity, but they should be able to rat. And whoever is getting 100m ticks is exploiting somewhere. Average tick in a carrier is ~50m. Try it sometime before you talk about it? Pretty sure the top end of a completely faction and DED fit hyperspatial ratting carrier is going to be about 90m at the bleeding edge of efficiency, but it's going to be worth an easy 5-6B and have little in the way of tank and rely mostly on blapping everything as quick as possible. Seems pretty balanced to me as to how valuable it is and how much time you'd need to invest in the skills and micromanaging the fighters.
And it comes down to risk/vs reward at that point too, which is pretty balanced as it stands right now. Increasing the loss of fighters is going to nullify costs. Those 5-6b fits are using T2 fighters that, when you lose a squadron or two of them a site, adds up in cost quickly. I just don't understand where their data comes from thinking fighters aren't already getting easily killed, or targeted enough by NPCs. |
Sub Starasque
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
22
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:58:01 -
[64] - Quote
I'm not a fan of this change to fighters at all. They already get chewed up pretty fast by anything that is supposed to actually harm them, not even mentioning how ecm renders them useless (which can be done by a 2 mil Griffin). It doesn't exactly help that T2 FSUs are actually garbage considering how little of an upgrade they are over T1 *before* stacking penalties.
Also, fighters get wrecked in PvE if any frigates are present, and at the same time they apply quite poorly to the same frigates that are chewing them up. I don't think they necessarily needed any more help dying in anoms and the like.
Notice how all of the people "liking" this change are the TURN LEFT and other assorted picogang whatever dudes. Your kitey gang of 4 dudes was never meant to be able to engage a capital and win. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
437
|
Posted - 2017.02.23 23:59:04 -
[65] - Quote
lanyaie wrote:This has been a bad day for all of my ships.. Support Fighters - Signature Radius: 120 (+80) Why did support fighters get such a massive increase? Especially considering there's only 3 of them in a squadron, why weren't they brought in line with regular light fighters but instead heavy fighters? Also, the only useful support fighter is the Siren, why have you not done a balance pass on the other ones? There's absolutely no reason to use the other ones currently as one would rather have the fighter hangar space Agreed seems like a large increase compared to the number of these fighters in a squad.
Sub Starasque wrote: It doesn't exactly help that T2 FSUs are actually garbage considering how little of an upgrade they are over T1 *before* stacking penalties. Very true - the bonus for T2 support over T1 is sub-standard
Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.
Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
|
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners Northern Coalition.
186
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 00:00:10 -
[66] - Quote
- 1. for the fighter changes. Micromicromanagement on carries is not ez, and on supers it's a total nightmare.
Also yes the mission rats agro fighters all the time and if they web them whole squadron is lost and will not make back
Making NPC's have more agro on fighters is just "WeW LaD" way not make it possible for rats to destroy your guns than? idk.
They already haras fighters a lot .... |
Tara Read
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
893
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 00:16:53 -
[67] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:ITT:
tears over not being able to carrier rat for 100mil ticks anymore.
tears over not being able to obliterate subcaps with impunity anymore.
Adapt or Die
git gud
learn 2 play
You are just happy less of your dopey members will lose capitals in pve to us. |
Blood Animus
Plundering Penguins Solyaris Chtonium
14
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 00:17:21 -
[68] - Quote
Sub Starasque wrote:Notice how all of the people "liking" this change are the TURN LEFT and other assorted picogang whatever dudes. Your kitey gang of 4 dudes was never meant to be able to engage a capital and win. They get upset if people don't feed ships to their kitey gangs and feel obliged to whine when the first thing they catch lights a cyno and they have to beat a hasty retreat from space they don't own. |
Sentient Blade
Crisis Atmosphere Coalition of the Unfortunate
1814
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 01:18:05 -
[69] - Quote
So you've made it so fighters will get instablapped even harder by NPCs when they just decide to sit perfectly still after completing a command... |
Aiwha
Infinite Point Test Alliance Please Ignore
1232
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 01:30:56 -
[70] - Quote
Yay! Now the wyvern can actually carry a full set of fighters.
Sanity is fun leaving the body.
|
|
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs WE FORM V0LTA
47
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 02:00:08 -
[71] - Quote
Your job is not done yet CCP, but that's the right direction ))).
Next step is nerfing the application, you can do it !
Sub Starasque wrote:Notice how all of the people "liking" this change are the TURN LEFT and other assorted picogang whatever dudes. Your kitey gang of 4 dudes was never meant to be able to engage a capital and win.
Implying progodlegend is a member of the famous #Picogang community. |
aussieftw
Marvinovi pratele Circle-Of-Two
8
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 02:09:42 -
[72] - Quote
Hairpins Blueprint wrote:- 1. for the fighter changes. Micromicromanagement on carries is not ez, and on supers it's a total nightmare. Also yes the mission rats agro fighters all the time and if they web them whole squadron is lost and will not make back Making NPC's have more agro on fighters is just "WeW LaD" way not make it possible for rats to destroy your guns than? idk. They already haras fighters a lot .... Pretty much this. I dont like these changes for fighters. |
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
5747
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 02:16:16 -
[73] - Quote
I don't even fly carriers and I can see that most of these changes suck... What does that say?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Doomchinchilla
Collapsed Out Pandemic Legion
173
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 02:17:30 -
[74] - Quote
I still don't feel that changes to Shadows are good after testing them some more. Their F3 tooltip also doesn't tell you any information. On top of the fact why would anyone suicide 2.4b worth of fighters each time just to kill something. They either need a better F3... or maybe long range fighters, or something. They're just worthless. |
Archeos
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
14
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 02:32:25 -
[75] - Quote
Horrific changes. The fighters are already easy to kill in PVE by frigs and destroyers, and are targetted all the time. Just a moment of distraction and forgetting to give them another command and you loose a fighter. As for PVP they can be ECM'ed , smartbombed and easily killed by any ship that has webs.
If you want to increase their sig radius, you have to increase their EHP as well, or else you will kill carrier use.
As for making them more like drones in sig size and being targeted more in pve, well if you want to make them more like drones than make them behave more like drones -> GIVE THEM AUTO AGGRO on enemies.
Really is there anyone asking for those changes ? Why do you want to fix something that isn't broken. |
Malthuras
The Scope Gallente Federation
29
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 02:39:14 -
[76] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:ITT:
tears over not being able to carrier rat for 100mil ticks anymore.
tears over not being able to obliterate subcaps with impunity anymore.
Adapt or Die
git gud
learn 2 play
This is why someone like you shouldn't be in any position whatsoever.
Coming in to brag about how its your idea, probably because others have more supers than you but you can bring bigger subcap numbers.
You're like Grath on crack. |
Jo Kiyoko
Perkone Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 02:58:54 -
[77] - Quote
You're flying a carrier, not only a SP intensive class but requiring a lot of experience, at this level you should be an expert at handling any sort of inconvenience and work around it, yet it looks like most of you need a pacifier in your mouths. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
440
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 03:36:04 -
[78] - Quote
Malthuras wrote:progodlegend wrote:ITT:
tears over not being able to carrier rat for 100mil ticks anymore.
tears over not being able to obliterate subcaps with impunity anymore.
Adapt or Die
git gud
learn 2 play This is why someone like you shouldn't be in any position whatsoever. ... It is always bad form for anyone with any level of authority, especially when it was derived from voters, to be condescending to others.
The only way to deal with them is to deprive them of their authority since ignoring them often ensures they gain more authority or otherwise muck up the things you enjoy.
Cloaking is the closest thing to a "Pause Game" button one can get while in space.
Support better localization for the Japanese Community.
|
progodlegend
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
198
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 03:56:05 -
[79] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:Your job is not done yet CCP, but that's the right direction ))). Next step is nerfing the application, you can do it ! Sub Starasque wrote:Notice how all of the people "liking" this change are the TURN LEFT and other assorted picogang whatever dudes. Your kitey gang of 4 dudes was never meant to be able to engage a capital and win. Implying progodlegend is a member of the famous #Picogang community.
Gimme that invite bro so we can form voltron |
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs WE FORM V0LTA
47
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 03:59:16 -
[80] - Quote
progodlegend wrote:Daide Vondrichnov wrote:Your job is not done yet CCP, but that's the right direction ))). Next step is nerfing the application, you can do it ! Sub Starasque wrote:Notice how all of the people "liking" this change are the TURN LEFT and other assorted picogang whatever dudes. Your kitey gang of 4 dudes was never meant to be able to engage a capital and win. Implying progodlegend is a member of the famous #Picogang community. Gimme that invite bro so we can form voltron
Feel free to contact herrbert ))) |
|
Sieve Boy
No Vacancies No Vacancies.
5
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 04:32:38 -
[81] - Quote
Carriers are already a pathetic joke in wormhole space already, they get used to roll holes and that is it. The sleepers tear the fighters apart just fine and any pvp carrier gets defanged because it's hilariously easy.
Not sure what game you're playing or stats you are watching Larrikan, cause I make fighters in hi sec and they sell pretty quickly, people lose them so much. Except for support fighters. It's sirens or forget it.
Instead of making something already in a bad place worse, how about you address the problem of DSTs full of booster 3200 parked next to cap injector faxes in WH space? Something that requires a stupid number of Bhaalghorns to neut out. |
Captain Longstreet
The Graduates The Initiative.
9
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 05:08:14 -
[82] - Quote
When do NPC's not shoot fighters? Making rats shoot them more really wont matter since it's already pretty much %100 of the time. But making the sig bigger? Ratting in a carrier is already really active. Forget to send fighter to orbit the next NPC just before the one you are shooting dies and BLAP just lost a fighter. They are always taking damage. I don't lose one if I'm on the ball but look away for a second at the wrong time and BLAP just lost a fighter. Most nights before I log I like to jump in an archon and run havens for an hour. I generally make about 100mill in that hour since I don't fit for max tic. I'm at my keyboard and playing the game for that hour. If I lose a few fighters a night I might as well just fit up a VNI and go watch a movie for 40 min come back warp to the next one and repeat.
In PVP it's already pretty easy to defang carriers/supers. One griffin can kill a carriers DPS. Webs = dead fighters. Target painter = dead fighters. Space superiority fighters absolutely murder fighters. Fighters are pretty big and the fighter bay really doesn't hold that many making the sig higher is only going to make them die faster. Having to ship in new fighters is a pain. Only way to really do it is a jump freighter. |
Proeliator Bahis
Nameless. Northern Coalition.
4
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 05:14:44 -
[83] - Quote
Lets Make Carriers Great Again.
Oh wait... |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1278
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 08:15:58 -
[84] - Quote
still op imo
too much damage application, too fast
and those long range ones you get on supers are just ridiculous |
Lost Perineum
State War Academy Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 09:31:56 -
[85] - Quote
Do you even play your own game?
Fighters eat **** if anything even looks at them. They don't have the hitpoints or tank to support such a buff to signature radius.
Did Larrikin die to a fighter in PVP, so it must be nerfed? This isn't a mere tweak.
|
Bud Herojuana
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 09:45:14 -
[86] - Quote
Are you guys serious about the fighters or is this an early Aprils fools?
You're saying that rats don't agro fighters? What?! :D
How much more you want to increase the PvP counter play? Single T1 ECM frigate can already counter a carrier.. |
Mr Floydy
Side Kicks The-Culture
341
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 09:52:25 -
[87] - Quote
So to try and add some more constructive comments here rather than just comments along the lines of "are you kidding me?!"
What are you aiming to achieve here Larrikin? Do you want fighters to die quicker, or just be easier to apply damage to? Assuming the latter (because the former just seems mental - as you can see from the majority of comments here) can you give the fighters a EHP buff with their additional sig? |
Koenig Yazria
Adversity. Pandemic Legion
35
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 10:20:01 -
[88] - Quote
I have rarely seen such unanimity with negative feedback. Kinda should make you think. |
Naye Nathaniel
COBRA INC
13
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 10:34:32 -
[89] - Quote
As long as i read the "March" news - i can say; CCP really want to screw many pilots :) But this time they split they screwing hammer to everyone around;
Rorq pilots; HIC; Miners; Now carrier(super carrier) pilots;
Come on! stop making this threads one - two per day, just tell us in a list what u gonna touch so it's gonna be unplayble - so we can decide sooner if we gonna stay and watch how u ruin this game or stay and still having fun around; |
Pesadel0
Zonk Squad Badfellas Inc.
125
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 10:58:35 -
[90] - Quote
So basically you nerf the figthers in sig and in agroo but dont give even a bit of HP or something? I mean damm if this release is the Tomb nerf bat it is a really **** one .
P.S: We have been asking and waiting for the shield slaves for how many years now? Please do us a favor and dont post something you cant release. |
|
Hurri Nakrar
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 11:14:58 -
[91] - Quote
If you guys nerf the Carriers on such way, incursions should be nerfed aswell. You take away PVE Content in 0 sec with this because Carriers almost cant be used efficent anymore for any site. And for fleet fights why should any big Alliance now use supers? You can blop their Drones like a Piata now. |
Naye Nathaniel
COBRA INC
15
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 11:58:55 -
[92] - Quote
CCP really want us all to pay in $/euros/pounds for their game :) It looks like they are trying to do EVERYTHING to lower your ISK income per month or force u to lose more ISK per month (well it's still making you less ISK per month =) )
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
3863
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 12:18:07 -
[93] - Quote
CCP. Has any thought been given as to how this affects Citadels & other structures. Especially in high sec the fighters are the main source of applicable damage to most targets, and these changes to fighters will make the already weak citadel fighters (since they get no benefit from any of the skills that normally help) even weaker. Are Citadels in high sec also viewed as too strong a defence currently? |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2806
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 12:22:25 -
[94] - Quote
Terrible changes. You have Carriers out in space doing things that require active input and attention, so you decide to nerf that activity. This month it's like you had a focus group with the agenda "How can we make the smallest number of people happy while pissing off the most possible people?" I guess you will be announcing gold ammo from the Aurum store next. The mobile warp disruptor changes were good, everything else needs to go back to the drawing board.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Aleverette
Peoples Liberation Army Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 12:56:57 -
[95] - Quote
RIP T2 fighters
Throw half of a PLEX onto anything's face with that signature radius? Hell no |
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15234
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 13:34:32 -
[96] - Quote
I'm not a Carrier Ratter, I can do it but I don't like it, I prefer to use sub caps in null. My Mach can do anomalies and then do DED escalations without having to refit (and a carrier can't fit through a DED's gate lol). So this nerf to Carrier ratting is good for me personally.
But I disagree with it as long as there is no change to AFK Drone ratting first (ie ratting with anything that can field heavy drones, from the VNI and Ishtar to the Eos and Myrm and others). At least the Carrier jocks are at their computers making isk, the afk ratter many times isn't, and it's easy because of how things work. I know, I run a couple VNI toons doing lesser anoms while also ratting wth my Mach in better anomalies, I only have to tab over to the VNIs twice an hour to keep the gravy train running.
Not like I want you all (CCP) to nerf me, I'm not a sadist lol. But honesty demands I say this. You shouldn't be nerfing active PVE isk making while leaving AFK ratting intact, this is completely backwards to what you should be doing. |
Zockhandra
Flames Of Chaos
34
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 13:35:43 -
[97] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Hi m8s, In March, we're releasing a number of balance tweaks and we would love your feedback. FIGHTERSWe'd like to increase the potential counter-play options vs fighters. We're going to do this by increasing their signature radius which makes them a little easier to hit. They are currently around the small-medium drone range. This will put them in the same size category as heavy drones. Additionally, we're giving Shadow fighters a balance pass. Changes: - Light Fighters (Space Superiority) - Signature Radius: 80 (+43)
- Light Fighters (Attack) - Signature Radius: 100 (+59)
- Support Fighters - Signature Radius: 120 (+80)
- Heavy Fighters (Attack) - Signature Radius: 110 (+60)
- Heavy Fighters (Long Range) - Signature Radius: 120 (+60)
- Shadows - Signature Radius: 100 (+55)
- Shadows - EM Damage: 200 (+40)
- Shadows - Thermal Damage: 200 (+40)
These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones. Lastly, there was a bug when our AI evaluated the threat of fighters. NPCs didn't consider fighters as threatening as they should have. This bug has now been fixed, and NPCs will more often shoot at fighters. You may also want to check out this thread about brand new fighter hotkeys (thanks Five-0!)SUPERCARRIERSAfter our discussions with the CSM, they brought up the state of the Wyvern fighter hangar bay (and shield supers in general). While we'll re-asses the state of shield supers after the release of Shield Slaves, we think their points about fighter hangar bays had some merit. Changes: - Wyvern Fighter Hangar Bay): 90,000 (+10,000) m3
- Hel Fighter Hangar Bay: 110,000 (+10,000) m3
BURST PROJECTORSWe're going to increase the effect duration of burst projectors. The difficulty in using them doesn't really justify their existing small effect time. Changes: - ECM Jammer Burst Projector Effect Duration: 40 (+10) seconds
- Sensor Dampening Burst Projector Effect Duration: 60 (+30) seconds
- Weapon Disruption Burst Projector Effect Duration: 60 (+30) seconds
- Target Illumination Burst Projector Effect Duration: 60 (+30) seconds
- Warp Disruption Burst Projector Effect Duration: 40 (+20) seconds
- Stasis Webification Burst Projector Effect Duration: 40 (+20) seconds
The problem with counter-play to fighters is not their sig size though. Even if you have ECM on field, its still possible to fail jam, and loose a great deal of ships.
If you do not have ecm, your battling against a monumental ALPHA, fighters simply have too much weapon accuracy in order to be balanced. Frigates are not normally blapped by heavy misisles cruisers when travelling at 3km/s why should fighters be any different.
You stated once in one of your original Dev documentaries that "in EVE size doesnt mean everything" but in fighter cases, that seems to be a little out of perspective.
I would highly reccomend re-visiting the accuracy of the weapons you have made specifically for fighters (which use both partially-use missiles and turret mechanics) in order to reduce their damage to smaller targets, and make evasive fleets viable again.
Shield are red, Armor is too, i slapped my heavy neut, all over you.
Fingers crossed, broken shattered and burned,
across from the bubble and into your hull.
|
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords Kraftwerk.
83
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 13:36:05 -
[98] - Quote
This makes me laugh ^^
I've done some carrier ratting and the following statement is true:
If you are carrier pveing and your fighters target dies, you have less then 5 seconds. if you dont attk the next target in these 5 seconds the first fighter is gone.
Also webbing npcs make your fighters die fairly quickly already.
Does that REALLY need a nerf? just lol ^^
Fighter squads are really expensive. Most ppl i know dont even use t2 fighters for pve because they are really risky to use.
Just lol....
If you want battleships to hit fighters, at least seriously buff their hp pls...
lol |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3813
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 13:40:01 -
[99] - Quote
Sieve Boy wrote:Carriers are already a pathetic joke in wormhole space already, they get used to roll holes and that is it. The sleepers tear the fighters apart just fine and any pvp carrier gets defanged because it's hilariously easy.
Not sure what game you're playing or stats you are watching Larrikan, cause I make fighters in hi sec and they sell pretty quickly, people lose them so much. Except for support fighters. It's sirens or forget it.
Instead of making something already in a bad place worse, how about you address the problem of DSTs full of booster 3200 parked next to cap injector faxes in WH space? Something that requires a stupid number of Bhaalghorns to neut out.
If they are selling that well it means they are getting used that well...
But yeah they are a joke and it has nothing to do with killing them in pvp they are stupid easy to jam and yeah I wish I knew why they made support fighters so ****
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3813
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 13:41:41 -
[100] - Quote
Destriouth Hollow wrote:This makes me laugh ^^
I've done some carrier ratting and the following statement is true:
If you are carrier pveing and your fighters target dies, you have less then 5 seconds. if you dont attk the next target in these 5 seconds the first fighter is gone.
Also webbing npcs make your fighters die fairly quickly already.
Does that REALLY need a nerf? just lol ^^
Fighter squads are really expensive. Most ppl i know dont even use t2 fighters for pve because they are really risky to use.
Just lol....
If you want battleships to hit fighters, at least seriously buff their hp pls...
lol
As pve balance issue really isn't a concern when up against how it's balanced pvp and it was kinda dumb that they were harder to hit than heavies
BLOPS Hauler
|
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15234
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 13:46:07 -
[101] - Quote
Pesadel0 wrote:So basically you nerf the figthers in sig and in agroo but dont give even a bit of HP or something?
That's a big issue.
Does any one know, do the the Drone Durability Enhancer rigs affect fighters? I know the description says so but thats from back before the fighter changes.
If it does I might have a use for some of those "uselss" capital BPCs I've aqquired over the years |
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
18
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 13:48:05 -
[102] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Destriouth Hollow wrote:This makes me laugh ^^
I've done some carrier ratting and the following statement is true:
If you are carrier pveing and your fighters target dies, you have less then 5 seconds. if you dont attk the next target in these 5 seconds the first fighter is gone.
Also webbing npcs make your fighters die fairly quickly already.
Does that REALLY need a nerf? just lol ^^
Fighter squads are really expensive. Most ppl i know dont even use t2 fighters for pve because they are really risky to use.
Just lol....
If you want battleships to hit fighters, at least seriously buff their hp pls...
lol As pve balance issue really isn't a concern when up against how it's balanced pvp and it was kinda dumb that they were harder to hit than heavies
They're also piloted by people, rather than being computer controlled. Being harder to hit makes more sense in that aspect. Which is why I personally have always questioned how they sit still and do NOTHING without a command, since they are supposed to be piloted by a sentient being. Are people dumber than computers in Eve?
While I don't think they need an auto aggress feature like drones have (I honestly LIKE the active management required while ratting in a carrier, vs afk VNI ratting) why don't they orbit a nearby celestial? Or auto return? Or orbit themselves in a small pattern? These are people, why in the world would they sit absolutely still for that long, seeing how much fire they are under? |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3813
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 13:57:51 -
[103] - Quote
Juvir wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Destriouth Hollow wrote:This makes me laugh ^^
I've done some carrier ratting and the following statement is true:
If you are carrier pveing and your fighters target dies, you have less then 5 seconds. if you dont attk the next target in these 5 seconds the first fighter is gone.
Also webbing npcs make your fighters die fairly quickly already.
Does that REALLY need a nerf? just lol ^^
Fighter squads are really expensive. Most ppl i know dont even use t2 fighters for pve because they are really risky to use.
Just lol....
If you want battleships to hit fighters, at least seriously buff their hp pls...
lol As pve balance issue really isn't a concern when up against how it's balanced pvp and it was kinda dumb that they were harder to hit than heavies They're also piloted by people, rather than being computer controlled. Being harder to hit makes more sense in that aspect. Which is why I personally have always questioned how they sit still and do NOTHING without a command, since they are supposed to be piloted by a sentient being. Are people dumber than computers in Eve? While I don't think they need an auto aggress feature like drones have (I honestly LIKE the active management required while ratting in a carrier, vs afk VNI ratting) why don't they orbit a nearby celestial? Or auto return? Or orbit themselves in a small pattern? These are people, why in the world would they sit absolutely still for that long, seeing how much fire they are under?
Don't start thinking of lore or realism when it comes to balance you'll hurt yourself.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
3813
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 13:58:39 -
[104] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Pesadel0 wrote:So basically you nerf the figthers in sig and in agroo but dont give even a bit of HP or something? That's a big issue. Does any one know, do the the Drone Durability Enhancer rigs affect fighters? I know the description says so but thats from back before the fighter changes. If it does I might have a use for some of those "uselss" capital BPCs I've aqquired over the years
It does
BLOPS Hauler
|
Mr Floydy
Side Kicks The-Culture
345
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 14:09:06 -
[105] - Quote
Juvir wrote:While I don't think they need an auto aggress feature like drones have (I honestly LIKE the active management required while ratting in a carrier, vs afk VNI ratting) why don't they orbit a nearby celestial? Or auto return? Or orbit themselves in a small pattern? These are people, why in the world would they sit absolutely still for that long, seeing how much fire they are under?
Some sort of orbiting themselves would be great to have. Watching fighters immediately stop and sit stationary after every kill is frustrating enough in PvE, let alone PvP... |
Sieve Boy
No Vacancies No Vacancies.
9
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 14:09:12 -
[106] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Sieve Boy wrote:Carriers are already a pathetic joke in wormhole space already, they get used to roll holes and that is it. The sleepers tear the fighters apart just fine and any pvp carrier gets defanged because it's hilariously easy.
Not sure what game you're playing or stats you are watching Larrikan, cause I make fighters in hi sec and they sell pretty quickly, people lose them so much. Except for support fighters. It's sirens or forget it.
Instead of making something already in a bad place worse, how about you address the problem of DSTs full of booster 3200 parked next to cap injector faxes in WH space? Something that requires a stupid number of Bhaalghorns to neut out. If they are selling that well it means they are getting used that well... But yeah they are a joke and it has nothing to do with killing them in pvp they are stupid easy to jam and yeah I wish I knew why they made support fighters so ****
They sell quite well because they die. A lot. |
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners Northern Coalition.
194
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 14:25:16 -
[107] - Quote
Eris Tsasa wrote:I just have to ask. Really? Fighters are already incredibly easy to web and melt. They're so squishy, at least give them an ehp buff, a single web when they're out of scoop range of your carrier means if they manage to return, you'll have lost half. A single npc frigate can easily chew through them.
Also, burst projectors. Please, reduce cycle time. Already at max skills it's 6 minutes of cycle, the entire time with a weapons timer, then another minute for timer to cycle away. During that time can't refit, de-agress, ect. Also the 10s warmup beacon telling people where it'll land and tiny sphere of influence make them pretty useless. Please, make a few more changes.
True that, if you gona boost signature the EHP should be boosted like 10x fold to make it remotly ok in the curren enviroment and lack of rr on carriers/super to rep the drones. They are paper thin right now and melted in a instant. now you have 100 mil!!!!! Squadron of drones that single t1 cruiser will kill in no time just WeW LaD.
|
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners Northern Coalition.
194
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 14:34:17 -
[108] - Quote
Sieve Boy wrote:Carriers are already a pathetic joke in wormhole space already, they get used to roll holes and that is it. The sleepers tear the fighters apart just fine and any pvp carrier gets defanged because it's hilariously easy.
Not sure what game you're playing or stats you are watching Larrikan, cause I make fighters in hi sec and they sell pretty quickly, people lose them so much. Except for support fighters. It's sirens or forget it. .
+1 I do not see a reason for drones/Fighter getting agro from NPC's. way won't they just tracking distrupt them / jam etc. like they do your ship. You can't kill off Guns on a ship so way would they pop your 100 mil drone squadron.
Carriers were able to kill tackle Pre Fighter change EZ, now carrier is not able to kill a single interceptor. It is very easy to kill fighters in any fleet vs fleet fight. Insted of Nerfing them you should boost the EHP by a LOT! and fix the buggy UI. ADD CONTROL GROUP to make micromanagment less of a nightmare .....
Insted of all that you are making the whole ship class obselite, for whom and way? for couple risk averse dudes that can't bring single web/TP to a kill a carrier thay are ganging? ..... IDK what is happening here .... |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3814
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 14:41:18 -
[109] - Quote
Sieve Boy wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Sieve Boy wrote:Carriers are already a pathetic joke in wormhole space already, they get used to roll holes and that is it. The sleepers tear the fighters apart just fine and any pvp carrier gets defanged because it's hilariously easy.
Not sure what game you're playing or stats you are watching Larrikan, cause I make fighters in hi sec and they sell pretty quickly, people lose them so much. Except for support fighters. It's sirens or forget it.
Instead of making something already in a bad place worse, how about you address the problem of DSTs full of booster 3200 parked next to cap injector faxes in WH space? Something that requires a stupid number of Bhaalghorns to neut out. If they are selling that well it means they are getting used that well... But yeah they are a joke and it has nothing to do with killing them in pvp they are stupid easy to jam and yeah I wish I knew why they made support fighters so **** They sell quite well because they die. A lot.
Can't die if they are not being used and they won't sell if ppl don't see value in buying them
BLOPS Hauler
|
Krieg Austern
18
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 14:43:17 -
[110] - Quote
I only just started with carriers - but looking at these changes, that was a waste of training and ISK, may as well continue using my Ishtar instead and mothball it.
Looking at this change, as well as the Rorqual changes - is it your intention to make Capital ships just a bigger loon pinata? Seriously, how does a single T1 ECM hull or something as tiny as an interceptor completely negate a multi thousand metre ship? I can understand a gang of ships being able to wear a carrier down, but now there will be zero defence even against a small group? Why are drones smarter than fighters, at least you can trust them (most of the time) to get on with their own stuff if you are prioritising targets. |
|
Naye Nathaniel
COBRA INC
20
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 14:48:23 -
[111] - Quote
Krieg Austern wrote:I only just started with carriers - but looking at these changes, that was a waste of training and ISK, may as well continue using my Ishtar instead and mothball it.
Looking at this change, as well as the Rorqual changes - is it your intention to make Capital ships just a bigger loon pinata? Seriously, how does a single T1 ECM hull or something as tiny as an interceptor completely negate a multi thousand metre ship? I can understand a gang of ships being able to wear a carrier down, but now there will be zero defence even against a small group? Why are drones smarter than fighters, at least you can trust them (most of the time) to get on with their own stuff if you are prioritising targets.
I feel exactly that same - I planed to do some Carrier stuff with Fighters, but I heard they are easy to be killed; So I waited for any buff for it than throwing by window about few mil for a single fighter (when u need at last 27 of them);
Now I see that my carrier is nothing else just an logistic ship (for moving out stuff etc); |
Eye-Luv-Girls wDaddyIssues
Hookers N' Blow
27
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 15:06:10 -
[112] - Quote
CCP HARD AT WORK FINALLY!
All your recent changes really seem geared toward content and they all look great.
Increasing the sig size of the fighters makes hitting them with medium weapon systems a lot easier, and since we have an incoming RLML nerf this seems wise.
Also adds some risk to null ratting, which is great.
Everything is great. Looking forward to some balancing on the regular combat ships whenever that happens. Mixed with weapon system tiericide, weve got an exciting few months ahead of us.
|
Uther Moldune
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 15:13:12 -
[113] - Quote
Fighters were already getting aggro. I often have fighters getting chewed up by Rats and that is with 100% attention. This change would push people away from carrier ratting which in turn would reduce content.
The Thanatos and Nyx were already considered the best Carrier/Super and this also widens that gap. |
Sieve Boy
No Vacancies No Vacancies.
10
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 15:14:47 -
[114] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Sieve Boy wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Sieve Boy wrote:Carriers are already a pathetic joke in wormhole space already, they get used to roll holes and that is it. The sleepers tear the fighters apart just fine and any pvp carrier gets defanged because it's hilariously easy.
Not sure what game you're playing or stats you are watching Larrikan, cause I make fighters in hi sec and they sell pretty quickly, people lose them so much. Except for support fighters. It's sirens or forget it.
Instead of making something already in a bad place worse, how about you address the problem of DSTs full of booster 3200 parked next to cap injector faxes in WH space? Something that requires a stupid number of Bhaalghorns to neut out. If they are selling that well it means they are getting used that well... But yeah they are a joke and it has nothing to do with killing them in pvp they are stupid easy to jam and yeah I wish I knew why they made support fighters so **** They sell quite well because they die. A lot. Can't die if they are not being used and they won't sell if ppl don't see value in buying them
Carriers ending up in the same place as assault frigates would be horrible.
|
Capqu
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
1272
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 15:35:12 -
[115] - Quote
give them a bit more base sensor strength plz
especially dps heavy fighters
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Zockhandra
Flames Of Chaos
34
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 16:54:10 -
[116] - Quote
Capqu wrote:give them a bit more base sensor strength plz
especially dps heavy fighters
I could aggree with that being a suitable change for Heavy fighters, but since light fighters apply damag more accurately to smaller craft..... I would have to disagree since its their only real defensive hole for roaming squads.
Shield are red, Armor is too, i slapped my heavy neut, all over you.
Fingers crossed, broken shattered and burned,
across from the bubble and into your hull.
|
wouroo
Aideron Robotics
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 16:54:47 -
[117] - Quote
the salt in this thread is enough to populate all of new edens ice belts for year, wow. seeing the community feedback though, I'd agree that it would be good to lower the build cost of fighters to compensate for them getting killed all the time. that seems like a reasonable bone to toss to everyone.
|
Zockhandra
Flames Of Chaos
34
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 16:57:58 -
[118] - Quote
wouroo wrote:the salt in this thread is enough to populate all of new edens ice belts for year, wow. seeing the community feedback though, I'd agree that it would be good to lower the build cost of fighters to compensate for them getting killed all the time. that seems like a reasonable bone to toss to everyone.
Why? now that rorq's are being used again the EVE mineral economy is in a fairly good place, why cut production costs when they are being supported by the new influx of materials. If they became cheaper you'd have the potential of never running out of fighters (in a respective region), which would render all other drones boats to dis-favour when carriers and good fighter supplies are available.
Ironically examples of this area are allready visible with such a high level of usage of these carriers, so many people camp their bubbled null gates with said ships now, because they are difficult to fight and can afford to loose the fighters and/or the hull.
Shield are red, Armor is too, i slapped my heavy neut, all over you.
Fingers crossed, broken shattered and burned,
across from the bubble and into your hull.
|
Alhira Katserna
Teutonum Confederation Evictus.
2431
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 17:07:28 -
[119] - Quote
Zockhandra wrote:wouroo wrote:the salt in this thread is enough to populate all of new edens ice belts for year, wow. seeing the community feedback though, I'd agree that it would be good to lower the build cost of fighters to compensate for them getting killed all the time. that seems like a reasonable bone to toss to everyone.
Why? now that rorq's are being used again the EVE mineral economy is in a fairly good place, why cut production costs when they are being supported by the new influx of materials. If they became cheaper you'd have the potential of never running out of fighters (in a respective region), which would render all other drones boats to dis-favour when carriers and good fighter supplies are available. Ironically examples of this area are allready visible with such a high level of usage of these carriers, so many people camp their bubbled null gates with said ships now, because they are difficult to fight and can afford to loose the fighters and/or the hull.
The Rorqual is once again getting nerfed because the mineral market rn is apparently not in a good shape. Cheaper stuff so ships explode more often is apparently bad for the game... Maybe it would be smarter to have another look at Ore compositions instead of nerf so this stuff can get brought in line.
Also regarding carrier: Why does everything in EvE have to be centred about nano roaming gangs? Now we can-¦t HIC scram them anymore, the little chance you had before to rip them apart with a carrier is also gone now that fighters are easier to hit then a 40t truck with a snowball.
Just waiting on a nerfbat for recons... |
Zockhandra
Flames Of Chaos
34
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 17:14:46 -
[120] - Quote
The Rorqual is once again getting nerfed because the mineral market rn is apparently not in a good shape. Cheaper stuff so ships explode more often is apparently bad for the game... Maybe it would be smarter to have another look at Ore compositions instead of nerf so this stuff can get brought in line.
Also regarding carrier: Why does everything in EvE have to be centred about nano roaming gangs? Now we can-¦t HIC scram them anymore, the little chance you had before to rip them apart with a carrier is also gone now that fighters are easier to hit then a 40t truck with a snowball.
Just waiting on a nerfbat for recons...[/quote]
But thats not entirely accurate, Carriers are still capable of applying damage to smaller ships and destroy them. Regarding the type of gang discussed, nano gangs are generally preferred because they can avoid 'most' larger blobs. Armour assets tend to get locked down and destroyed fairly quickly. Sadly both types of fleet fall prey to fighters because of: A: their insane velocity and ability to catch interceptors B: their huge alpha damage delivery which is pin-point accurate C: even small fast ships that can hold point on carriers simply dont have the range/dps to hold point before fighters are manually piloted into their paths to destroy them
Also the last time i checked, HICs can still use forcused warp scrambles up to 38KM. There are not many fleet comps that will actively try to fight that with a carrier on field anyway.
Shield are red, Armor is too, i slapped my heavy neut, all over you.
Fingers crossed, broken shattered and burned,
across from the bubble and into your hull.
|
|
Jonatan Reed
Origin. Did he say Jump
87
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 17:42:45 -
[121] - Quote
Change Shadows to LR.
I'm okay with sig radius change, but sensor strength should be buffed at least a bit, give and take.
I like the burst projector buff.
I'm okay with hel and wyvern getting a buff to hangar space, maybe less okay with hel.
Not bad changes overall. Carrier blobs are oppressive as **** but making fighters totally useless in pvp isn't the solution either.
ELITE PVP, WHADDUP
|
Blodi deVriis
Sisters of Steel Moist.
7
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 17:58:55 -
[122] - Quote
CCP, You make carriers useless in WH space. Fighters are already dying like flies, especially because they are even dumber than drones. And the fighter UI is also as bad as it can be.
I cannot tell you, how angry you make me. Especially because at the same time you nerf again Excavator drones.
Large scale industrial operations. On demand, on time, on budget.
Selling: T2, T3 ships and their respective blueprints. Buying: minerals, salvage, datacores.
|
Brain Gehirn
Reikoku
80
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 18:45:56 -
[123] - Quote
Can you please consider buffing projectors a bit more? The reactivation timer is huge for such a small benefit. We rarely used then more than one time in a kinda long fight (IF we do use then at all). |
Titus Fletcher
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 19:23:50 -
[124] - Quote
This is depressing... look CCP, look at your player base. The VAST majority of us are not in favor of these shenanigans. There are so many ships in the game that you have nerfed to the point that players avoid them like the plague. Now you're going to remove a huge means of isk income. If I am not making isk, I am not out losing ships in fights.
It seems to me (and apparently 90% of the thread) that this 'tweak' is in good intentions but a poorly executed target. These ships are supposed to be dangerous! They are worth 4 times that of a blinged-out BS! Therefore, their ability should reflect that kind of isk and skill-time investment. The only people complaining about carriers being 'OP' are the people who look at carriers and think about a huge juicy KM ripe for the picking... aren't capitals supposed to scare people in cruiser and below? As it is, when I take out a carrier, I am dreading a single nuet jumping in system. A gang of ships worth 1/6 the cost of my ships can already bend me over and have their way with me. Every cap pilot I have ever spoken to has stressed the importance of alining and running THE SECOND a nuet or red jump into system... what is the incentive to climbing the ranks to get into a cap if a team of interceptors can actually contemplate taking on and successfully killing a carrier? It's only means of attack are now as usless (even more so now) as an attack frig in nullsec...
You want feedback? A 5 mill griffin can be a valuable asset in carrier killing and fozie sov, seemingly more valuable than a single, city sized, capital ship. Don't go through with this... please... it's already difficult to keep a player base around with the carrot of 35-50mil ticks after a 1-2 year membership. (Yes yes skill injectors... but I earned mine the hard way.) I feel like dedicated pilots should have a good reason to stick around; work their way up into a capital and have some power. At least enough power to scare off a 6 man nano gang and a kit/grif or two.
Hats off CCP. It can't be easy hearing so many opinions, but there is a reason it takes 1+ years of skill cue to get into a capital. Please don't neuter the carriers any more than the carrier update. If you decide to do it, regardless of what most of us are saying, please consider buffing their EHP and sensor strength accordingly.
Thanks Devs, -T |
Krieg Austern
20
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 20:43:12 -
[125] - Quote
I've been playing EVE a relatively short time compared to others, but this all smells like wanting to get "more action, more instant thrill" into the game. EVE is famous for it's skill queue grind, for the time taken to fly bigger ships - that's what made it unique. For those into the setting, flying a carrier should be something you WANT to grind for. I know I did.
Nerfs like this just seem like a way to let Alphas blow up big shiny ships, so they can see how "cool" EVE is, with big explosions and guns and ships and stuff. This is not COD, please don't attract that sort of crowd. |
Krieg Austern
20
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 20:46:46 -
[126] - Quote
Jonatan Reed wrote: Not bad changes overall. Carrier blobs are oppressive as **** but making fighters totally useless in pvp isn't the solution either.
The problem with that is, if carrier blobs are OP, you shouldn't just nerf the hell out of the ship class to the point where they are pointless to solo pilots. Address carrier fleets specifically, rather than just penalising everyone who flies a carrier.
|
Majuan Shuo
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
69
|
Posted - 2017.02.24 22:22:47 -
[127] - Quote
Yeah, so fighters are already dying plenty to NPCs - what is this guy on about?
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar
|
Gadzooki
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 00:07:51 -
[128] - Quote
Proof CCP doesnt play thier own game....maybe they will have better luck breaking in to the Call of Duty market with thier awesome shooter....oh...ya...nvm |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3831
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 03:24:53 -
[129] - Quote
Krieg Austern wrote:[ The problem with that is, if carrier blobs are OP, you shouldn't just nerf the hell out of the ship class to the point where they are pointless to solo pilots. Address carrier fleets specifically, rather than just penalising everyone who flies a carrier.
well.... no a capital ship should not be viable to a solo pilot. they are not solo ships capitals should always require a fleet
only thing i'm worried about with this is how the chimera and archon already have meh to **** poor dps and so little fighter bay this is going to push things even more into just using nid/thanny
BLOPS Hauler
|
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
23
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 03:33:09 -
[130] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Krieg Austern wrote:[ The problem with that is, if carrier blobs are OP, you shouldn't just nerf the hell out of the ship class to the point where they are pointless to solo pilots. Address carrier fleets specifically, rather than just penalising everyone who flies a carrier.
well.... no a capital ship should not be viable to a solo pilot. they are not solo ships capitals should always require a fleet only thing i'm worried about with this is how the chimera and archon already have meh to **** poor dps and so little fighter bay this is going to push things even more into just using nid/thanny
It's also a capital ship though, it should never be useless to a solo pilot. The amount of time and isk required is indicative that the pilot has the knowledge to know not to drop it on a fleet of 40 battleships (in theory). However, if a gang of 4 cruisers down comes after my carrier while moving it, or ratting, I should be able to fend them off easily. This is going to make defanging my carrier quick, and then they just papercut me to death until support can arrive. I should be able to fend off 4 ships and make an escape before backup arrives.
You're right about the difference in carriers this is going to create too. The Archon already isn't really used anymore, the Chimera very little. If the fighters get these nerfs, nobody will undock either, it wouldn't make sense to. |
|
Kagi Anzomi
CK-0FF
9
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 04:21:31 -
[131] - Quote
The Archon and Chimera problem is that their fighter bays are too small and fighters die far too easily for their tank bonus to matter. In any battle where you actually need their tank, they're already useless because their fighters will be wiped out long before a Thanatos or Nidhoggur would be in danger. |
Dip PotatoChip
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 07:08:18 -
[132] - Quote
Don't touch fighters please :( the new Chimera model is so cool |
TeflonMag Usoko
Aerodyne Collective. Brothers of Tangra
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 09:28:39 -
[133] - Quote
Well, i smell a money making scam somewhere.
Someone is preparing to bail out and sell its platform along with the player base.
When you are not interrested in expanding content and make your product attractive to new players in a 2017 way means you are retiring.
Milking the last cents out of existing paying customers, exploiting the time and effort they already invested.
I wont fall for this. I worked moths to build tens billions worth of assets just to see their value reduced to 50%-25%
I resubbed with cash for a few accounts days before this announcement.
After expiry, i will take a break. Every good thing has to end. Thats life. EVE is not an exception.
We live to create good memories.
RIP |
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs WE FORM V0LTA
52
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 09:30:23 -
[134] - Quote
TeflonMag Usoko wrote:Well, i smell a money making scam somewhere.
Someone is preparing to bail out and sell its platform along with the player base.
When you are not interrested in expanding content and make your product attractive to new players in a 2017 way means you are retiring.
Milking the last cents out of existing paying customers, exploiting the time and effort they already invested.
I wont fall for this. I worked moths to build tens billions worth of assets just to see their value reduced to 50%-25%
I resubbed with cash for a few accounts days before this announcement.
After expiry, i will take a break. Every good thing has to end. Thats life. EVE is not an exception.
We live to create good memories.
RIP
Feel free to give me your stuff. |
TeflonMag Usoko
Aerodyne Collective. Brothers of Tangra
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 10:36:19 -
[135] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:TeflonMag Usoko wrote:Well, i smell a money making scam somewhere.
Someone is preparing to bail out and sell its platform along with the player base.
When you are not interrested in expanding content and make your product attractive to new players in a 2017 way means you are retiring.
Milking the last cents out of existing paying customers, exploiting the time and effort they already invested.
I wont fall for this. I worked moths to build tens billions worth of assets just to see their value reduced to 50%-25%
I resubbed with cash for a few accounts days before this announcement.
After expiry, i will take a break. Every good thing has to end. Thats life. EVE is not an exception.
We live to create good memories.
RIP Feel free to give me your stuff.
Yeah, like you got anything for free, ever :))
To keep it on the topic: guess CCP is happy to see us raging .. thats their business goal. Seems to me investments in game/gametime should slow down to minimal due to impredictability of the game environment.
What is lost is lost. Only thing to be done is mitigate loss to an acceptable level. This can be easily done by playing with what i have and not get into new projects like Titans or 3 accounts rorq mining or any other multi-billion investment.
I love to engage in developing new business lines and sometime i watch them fail. Never because i was cheated on by the vendor that sold me an application and two months after, at update, half functions are gone because EULA :)))
In the industry, a company that does this, suffer consequences that lead to income shortening. Customers deciding to spend less because trust degradation are more dangerous than mitigating inflation and surplus in a sandbox.
I dont see how on earth you cannot find new exciting things to build to spend all that mineral excess... lol what a joke
|
kosmomicu Life
Gladius Veritatis Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 12:26:14 -
[136] - Quote
Hello I'm really playing eve on full time for a while now, short one and already as a noob player I ve spotted so many bugs, instead of messing the game please fix your bugs, also look out there how other games improved lot more, make the game better not worse please : ) all what u do is just nerf everything and silent nerf other, REPAIR YOUR GAME FIRST AFTER U CAN TAKE ACTIONS AGAINST SOME OF THE FEATURES, what about fighters that land at 3000 km distance ? What about when the sites are getting buggy and in 1 sec u lost 3 fighters ? What about when your ship is stuck near the gate in warp and u have to relog 5 times to try your luck? And ..............one week later can continuue this... |
Fifth Blade
Jump Drive Appreciation Society Jump Drive Appreciation Alliance
94
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 14:23:01 -
[137] - Quote
Miyamoto Uroki wrote:Excellent change for the signature changes for fighters. Now if you could make them a little less opressive in terms of applying dps to mwding cruisers? that would bring them back into balance imho Honestly it's the extremes which are the problem.
They need to be significantly less oppressive to mwd cruisers, and more oppressive to 100mn ab cruisers. Otherwise we'll be flying them until the end of time, as the only viable option. Very boring. No diversity at all. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3834
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 16:19:59 -
[138] - Quote
Dip PotatoChip wrote:Don't touch fighters please :( the new Chimera model is so cool
it's ****
the took a powerful sturdy looking ship and made it look fragile and awkward
BLOPS Hauler
|
Fynite Hita
Ascendance Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 17:36:28 -
[139] - Quote
MMMmm, I have to say I personally do not use carriers for ratting but I have done so in the past, where you get this idea that fighters are not targetted is a bit of a joke and I think you are full of it to be honest. I have seen 3-4 fighters get nuked when triggering a new wave of NPC in a site simply during the cool down on them from the last ship they shot.
When i used to run 10/10 sites for blood raiders i would try to use heavy drones in the second stage to kill the frigates that spawned, but it dawned on me pretty quick just how easy they die, before you can even get your drones in range to start damaging the NPC in question you can lose 2 heavy drone, making them useless. And now you want to do it too fighters, WOW
The Fact that the Rorq is taking a hit as well would seem to suggest you are now focusing on nerfing the ability for null sec alliances to make Huge profits( You have already stated the amount of Isk made in null is seriously ridiculous) and I think this is a way you have found to change it without making it blindly obvious.
People invest a lot of time effort and money too get these ships (yes we have skill injectors now) but most older players would of put months in to getting in to them ships and you have effectively made them hugely vulnerable to some of the smallest ships in the game that can be operated by an alpha clone.
This change is clearly aimed at reducing the amount of Isk for null alliances and feeding the new player base (alpha clones) the easy ability to get right in there and **** over some of the biggest ships in eve. You know the ones that are the symbol of the mighty empires, Are now a bit of a joke
The same as these so called Events like the new gala sites ( clearly aimed at alphas and some of the most uninteresting content ever) for older players.
|
Matschpirat Tsero
Gambrini
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 19:19:41 -
[140] - Quote
Wow theses changes
Now you cant use carriers in c5 sleepers sites at all because youur fighters are getting instakilled by everything! Dunno why you would have to change the aggro mechaniks....
|
|
Benevolant George
Weapons of ass destruction SE7EN-SINS
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 19:58:56 -
[141] - Quote
Quote: Regarding your Fighters -> Heavy Drones comparison...the best ships I can think of (someone correct me here) to utilize heavy drones (arguably the only ones worth using) are:
Rattlesnake Eos Myrmadon Prophecy (?) Ishtar VNI
Every single one of these ships have large bonuses to BOTH drone HPs and drone speed (velocity or MWD). This means the base stats of heavy drones are worthless for comparison because almost no one uses them at those HP/speed to sig radius ratios. These bonuses are what consistently keeps these heavy drones alive, therefore keeping there use affordable.
WHAT HE SAID + additionally all of these ships have a way of generating dps from their highslots too - so even when their drones do die - they still arent completely useless on the field.
I dont know why u need to touch the sig radius AT ALL - i have to mirror others opinions here that fighters die pretty easy already -and if u HAVE TO DO THIS - increase HP, ECM resistance.....also sirens in squads of 3.....maybe increase to 5?
seriously though ur balancing team - it really doesnt feel like they play the game at all and have no concept of what it is they are doing. |
Benevolant George
Weapons of ass destruction SE7EN-SINS
1
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 20:03:06 -
[142] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Dip PotatoChip wrote:Don't touch fighters please :( the new Chimera model is so cool it's **** the took a powerful sturdy looking ship and made it look fragile and awkward
chimera - looks great phoenix - shoebox Wyvern....uh what am i looking at? im not sure...
LETS RESCULPT THE CHIMERA!!
...why? |
Cade Windstalker
914
|
Posted - 2017.02.25 20:31:58 -
[143] - Quote
Fifth Blade wrote:Honestly it's the extremes which are the problem.
They need to be significantly less oppressive to mwd cruisers (bc/bs are obviously in a worse spot still), and more oppressive to 100mn ab cruisers. Otherwise we'll be flying them until the end of time, as the only viable option. Very boring. No diversity at all.
an example depending on which prop mod i use on my cruiser: I can choose to either be 1-2 shot (mwd) or I can choose to infinitely tank 3 squadrons (actually more) with no problem at all.
They should not counter, nor be countered so absolutely.
I think this presents a decent argument in favor of maybe adjusting the sig bloom on the MWD to account for the sig changes here, but it really does need some testing to back it up.
Which brings up nicely the number of people going "OMG this is gonna wreck ratting!" without any evidence to back that up.
If you want to make an argument one way or the other the changes are on SiSi, someone go out and film an hour or two of competently run Carrier sites and see what it actually costs you in Fighter losses vs on TQ.
Forum pro-tip: CCP respond best to arguments backed up by hard facts, data, math, and/or spreadsheets. Screeching like nails on a chalkboard doesn't work so well. CCP Greyscale made an awesome post a long while back on how to good-post. It's an awesome read. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3842
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 03:14:00 -
[144] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Fifth Blade wrote:Honestly it's the extremes which are the problem.
They need to be significantly less oppressive to mwd cruisers (bc/bs are obviously in a worse spot still), and more oppressive to 100mn ab cruisers. Otherwise we'll be flying them until the end of time, as the only viable option. Very boring. No diversity at all.
an example depending on which prop mod i use on my cruiser: I can choose to either be 1-2 shot (mwd) or I can choose to infinitely tank 3 squadrons (actually more) with no problem at all.
They should not counter, nor be countered so absolutely. I think this presents a decent argument in favor of maybe adjusting the sig bloom on the MWD to account for the sig changes here, but it really does need some testing to back it up.
im not sure altering the bloom on all mwds just to account for carriers is a good idea.
besides that extreme is just wrong you can shut off your mwd when you see fighters headed in your direction and tank them relatively well with no prop mod (particularly with logi) only time this is a problem is if you are all anchored on one guy in one spot and the entire fleet has to shut off their mod but that avoidable with better fleet tactics. When it comes to ABs it's sort of true but if the carrier has a proper support fleet with webs and paints its not all that bad.
only issue with fighters is HAW are better in most med sized fleets do to the carriers extra cost over dreads and the fighters vulnerability to ECM.(this is also true for small gangs but that not an area caps need to be balanced around) in large fleets they have a role since the number of fighters makes ECM less practical but by that time you may as well be using supers.
another issue with fighters is since carriers have such a small bay and you can not mix fighter squads it means carriers are generally damage locked. and to a large extent role locked. if you decide to bring Kin and EM fighters you will wind up in situations where you still have fighters in the hold but are unable to field a full 3 squads of fighters drastically hampering your dps. Chimeras and Archons are also in a bad place. chimeras melt under even the smallest amount of neut pressure and have a minuscule fighter bay anchons get anemic dps if they want any tank at all and again that fighter bay.
that said just upping the fighter bay is not that good of an option either considering the monster amount of resources CCP has made fighters. the T2 ones will cost you more than the carrier itself if you bring a full load. Really i think carriers would be in a good place if the cost of fighters was cut by ~25% at least this way carriers and dreads would cost about the same to field combine this with a 2x to fighter sensor strength and over all i think they will be a more viable choice.
BLOPS Hauler
|
Oren-Ishi
Serious About Space Things. Circle-Of-Two
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 03:41:05 -
[145] - Quote
Jesus CCP, I know you have been actively trying to run this game in to the ground but at this point its just ridiculous. Its like this game is being developed by North Korea just to troll us. |
Thomas Lot
Astrocomical Warped Intentions
103
|
Posted - 2017.02.26 04:41:14 -
[146] - Quote
Hi m8s,
In March, we're releasing a number of balance tweaks and we would love your feedback.
Let me translate this for you all... "We at CCP have no clue how to accurately balance gameplay and will swing the balance pass WILDLY until everyone is equally dissatisfied. We really do NOT want your input, we just want to sit back and laugh at you as you scream at how we are ruining your gameplay."
These changes bring Fighters closer in-line with the signature of Heavy Drones. Lastly, there was a bug when our AI evaluated the threat of fighters. NPCs didn't consider fighters as threatening as they should have. This bug has now been fixed, and NPCs will more often shoot at fighters.
Anyone interested in buying several Carriers? They're basically useless now. I guess this is part of CCPs reaction to the massive isk faucet that is null-sec bounties. |
Archeos
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
26
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 02:33:05 -
[147] - Quote
If you want the fighters to die more often, you have to cut their build price by 50% If you dont want to cut the price, then double the fighter EHP, they will still be easily tracked, but they will be able to survive atleast a few seconds more on the battlefield. |
Cade Windstalker
931
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 03:53:34 -
[148] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Fifth Blade wrote:Honestly it's the extremes which are the problem.
They need to be significantly less oppressive to mwd cruisers (bc/bs are obviously in a worse spot still), and more oppressive to 100mn ab cruisers. Otherwise we'll be flying them until the end of time, as the only viable option. Very boring. No diversity at all.
an example depending on which prop mod i use on my cruiser: I can choose to either be 1-2 shot (mwd) or I can choose to infinitely tank 3 squadrons (actually more) with no problem at all.
They should not counter, nor be countered so absolutely. I think this presents a decent argument in favor of maybe adjusting the sig bloom on the MWD to account for the sig changes here, but it really does need some testing to back it up. im not sure altering the bloom on all mwds just to account for carriers is a good idea. besides that extreme is just wrong you can shut off your mwd when you see fighters headed in your direction and tank them relatively well with no prop mod (particularly with logi) only time this is a problem is if you are all anchored on one guy in one spot and the entire fleet has to shut off their mod but that avoidable with better fleet tactics. When it comes to ABs it's sort of true but if the carrier has a proper support fleet with webs and paints its not all that bad.
Apologies Lugh I was unclear. I meant adjusting the sig bloom on the MWD ability *on the fighters* to account for the sig radius change on the fighters that CCP is proposing. The idea being that Fighters get easier to kill once they're on you and killing your face, but have a slightly better chance of actually getting to that point or escaping back to their mothership when they take agro.
Again, I was unclear, apologies. |
Harry Forever
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
1326
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 14:49:22 -
[149] - Quote
nearly doubling the sig radius of fighters in addition to increased npc aggression sounds a bit much to me.. when is this live on SISI? I want to test what this means for carrier ratting
Harry Forever vs. Goonswarm
|
Atum' Ra
Nomen-illis-Legio Legion of xXDEATHXx
102
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 15:38:45 -
[150] - Quote
Such nerf has no sense. Now the operation of super requires a top level of micromanagment. After nerf I see no sense to use supers in PVP and at PVE at all. The only point using them will be counter drop at dreds.
How good was Super with 25 drones. I remember such times when neighbors fly from another region just to see these war machines. Now super is not "super" at all. In those times EVE was great! Very sorry that EVE will never be so great as it was.
I suggest to make a ship which will cost 200b or more but can be "one man army". 1 vs 256 sub-cap pilots will be good enough. |
|
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs WE FORM V0LTA
59
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 15:43:13 -
[151] - Quote
Atum' Ra wrote:Such nerf has no sense. Now the operation of super requires a top level of micromanagment. After nerf I see no sense to use supers in PVP and at PVE at all. The only point using them will be counter drop at dreds.
How good was Super with 25 drones. I remember such times when neighbors fly from another region just to see these war machines. Now super is not "super" at all. In those times EVE was great! Very sorry that EVE will never be so great as it was.
I suggest to make a ship which will cost 200b or more but can be "one man army". 1 vs 256 sub-cap pilots will be good enough.
Noone care about your PVE bullshits |
Cade Windstalker
937
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 15:53:07 -
[152] - Quote
Harry Forever wrote:nearly doubling the sig radius of fighters in addition to increased npc aggression sounds a bit much to me.. when is this live on SISI? I want to test what this means for carrier ratting
I believe it's live now, but I'm not positive on that. |
Mirian Elnara
Nomen-illis-Legio Legion of xXDEATHXx
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 15:56:38 -
[153] - Quote
"super" carrier...
facepalm |
Fifth Blade
Jump Drive Appreciation Society Jump Drive Appreciation Alliance
95
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 16:08:41 -
[154] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: besides that extreme is just wrong you can shut off your mwd when you see fighters headed in your direction and tank them relatively well with no prop mod (particularly with logi) only time this is a problem is if you are all anchored on one guy in one spot and the entire fleet has to shut off their mod but that avoidable with better fleet tactics.
Everything you have posted here is wrong. Clearly you have never used a carrier or mwd cruiser against a carrier.
This is why - a 1 omni, 3 DDA NID does: 1700+ dps to an mwding cynabal 1500+ dps to a (prop off) cynabal 334 dps to a 100mn AB cynabal
Anchoring doesn't apply since we don't do that. At least check yourself in pyfa before making ignorant comments in future.
Edit: All numbers before links, snakes or heat. T2 fits. |
firkinballbag
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 16:43:40 -
[155] - Quote
from what i can see this topic is pretty much clear that noone likes it noone wants it its not good for the game but heh ho ccp dont care they gonna introduce it anyway so why are we wasting our time putting posts here.i think we all know the ccp motto if its not broke FIX IT. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Mercenary Coalition
3163
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 20:57:43 -
[156] - Quote
firkinballbag wrote:from what i can see this topic is pretty much clear that noone likes it noone wants it its not good for the game but heh ho ccp dont care they gonna introduce it anyway so why are we wasting our time putting posts here.i think we all know the ccp motto if its not broke FIX IT. From this thread alone maybe.
Let's not pretend that 150 posts (not 150 people, and not all in agreement) represents the thousands or hundreds of thousands of players in Eve.
Doing that would be even worse than not taking feedback at all imo. |
March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
2077
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 21:10:49 -
[157] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:Atum' Ra wrote:Such nerf has no sense. Now the operation of super requires a top level of micromanagment. After nerf I see no sense to use supers in PVP and at PVE at all. The only point using them will be counter drop at dreds.
How good was Super with 25 drones. I remember such times when neighbors fly from another region just to see these war machines. Now super is not "super" at all. In those times EVE was great! Very sorry that EVE will never be so great as it was.
I suggest to make a ship which will cost 200b or more but can be "one man army". 1 vs 256 sub-cap pilots will be good enough. Noone care about your PVE bullshits Choose another tree if you need to bark to make a post on forums
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Chixy
3BE3DHblE CTPAHHuKu P-A-T-R-I-O-T-S
0
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 22:52:22 -
[158] - Quote
Rip supper-carriers.... and carriers why you do that?! suppercarrier and carriers was not over powered you have alrdy fixed them all the EHP but why you make the sig bigger? a bomber squad and fighter is rly easy to kill but you have make that he get killed a much better with this cruiser signature if you do that make that the fighters and bombers cant get jammed or get a reb...CCP pls think what you do with the carriers.. and supers |
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs WE FORM V0LTA
59
|
Posted - 2017.02.27 23:57:54 -
[159] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Choose another tree if you need to bark to make a post on forums
Let's be honest, most of the people here are bitching because they'll lose more fighters to rats than before, which noone care. |
Demolishar
United Aggression Corpse Collectors Group
1237
|
Posted - 2017.02.28 14:15:35 -
[160] - Quote
Can you give Revenant and Vendetta their command burst bonuses? Vanquisher too for that matter. Seems strange that they don't get the 2%/lvl of other supercarriers. |
|
Benjamin Hamburg
SnaiLs aNd FroGs WE FORM V0LTA
60
|
Posted - 2017.02.28 16:09:55 -
[161] - Quote
I'll give my opinion on this at the end... for now the amount of salty tears here justify we sit together and talk before this thread become the Dead Sea.
Basically, most points of concerns about carriers vs Small gang were:
- Insane amount of alpha, dps, and application
- Lock faster than your mother, actually faster than most cruisers (which mean: initiative)
- Fighters goes so fast I'm pretty sure Han Solo don't have the fastest ship in the Galaxy anymore
- Incredible synergy when several carriers are on field. Quickly reach the GTFO point.
According to Wikipedia, "The GTFO point is a bit like the Godwin point: it may be funny to reach it once per week, but when it become each day, it quickly p*** people off."
This lead to some aberration, gameplay wise:
- Carriers more or less able to alpha (or 2-3 shots) anything that use a MWD (unsurprisingly, logistics and recons are first choices here)
- Impossible to kill fighters EXCEPT with dedicated ships to counter them (web, ecm, paint)*
- Impossible to tank fighters EXCEPT with several logistics ships (a single squad will outdps the remote of a single scimi) #
- End result: It reduce gameplay options to fight back *#
* Being restrained to specifics shiptypes choices isn't exactly what the term -½meta-+ imply. In this case, it's the absolute obligation to choose the least punishing scenario vs what is perceived to be overpowered.
# Because the inability to tank fighters, this lead to a single, efficient way to deal with them: 100mn AB on everything. Literally: 100mn Orthruses, 100 mn Tengues, 100 mn VNI, 100mn Recon ships... I see 100mn so much I even came to think that if I die and for some unexplainable reasons, go to paradise: I won't be welcomed by 100 virgins but by 100 freaking meganewtons. I just know it.
-- So after all this, what does sig augmentation and npc aggro REALLY change? Nothing. People are mad because fighters will die like flies and other pvp groups will probably continue to be mad because they still get stomped by carriers.
Since people are complaining about the sig augmentation, why not just nerf something else? Like damage application and MWD for example?
--
TL;DR People complaining about the proposed signature radius augmentation are just asking for a worse nerf. We'll take it. |
Cade Windstalker
947
|
Posted - 2017.02.28 17:31:21 -
[162] - Quote
Benjamin Hamburg wrote:I'll give my opinion on this at the end... for now the amount of salty tears here justify we sit together and talk before this thread become the Dead Sea. Basically, most points of concerns about carriers vs Small gang were:
- Insane amount of alpha, dps, and application
- Lock faster than your mother, actually faster than most cruisers (which mean: initiative)
- Fighters goes so fast I'm pretty sure Han Solo don't have the fastest ship in the Galaxy anymore
- Incredible synergy when several carriers are on field. Quickly reach the GTFO point.
According to Wikipedia, "The GTFO point is a bit like the Godwin point: it may be funny to reach it once per week, but when it become each day, it quickly p*** people off." This lead to some aberration, gameplay wise:
- Carriers more or less able to alpha (or 2-3 shots) anything that use a MWD (unsurprisingly, logistics and recons are first choices here)
- Impossible to kill fighters EXCEPT with dedicated ships to counter them (web, ecm, paint)*
- Impossible to tank fighters EXCEPT with several logistics ships (a single squad will outdps the remote of a single scimi) #
- End result: It reduce gameplay options to fight back *#
* Being restrained to specifics shiptypes choices isn't exactly what the term -½meta-+ imply. In this case, it's the absolute obligation to choose the least punishing scenario vs what is perceived to be overpowered. # Because the inability to tank fighters, this lead to a single, efficient way to deal with them: 100mn AB on everything. Literally: 100mn Orthruses, 100 mn Tengues, 100 mn VNI, 100mn Recon ships... I see 100mn so much I even came to think that if I die and for some unexplainable reasons, go to paradise: I won't be welcomed by 100 virgins but by 100 freaking meganewtons. I just know it. -- So after all this, what does sig augmentation and npc aggro REALLY change? Nothing. People are mad because fighters will die like flies and other pvp groups will probably continue to be mad because they still get stomped by carriers. Since people are complaining about the sig augmentation, why not just nerf something else? Like damage application and MWD for example? -- TL;DR People complaining about the proposed signature radius augmentation are just asking for a worse nerf. We'll take it.
I think your logic here is pretty good, but I don't think that necessarily means that the current changes are well balanced. The thing I'm most concerned about and want to see some testing on is the effect this sig bloom has on a MWDing Fighter squad, especially on burn in towards a target, and the combination of the sig changes and the agro fix. |
Ion Blacknight
The Graduates The Initiative.
87
|
Posted - 2017.03.01 12:24:06 -
[163] - Quote
Juvir wrote:
They're also piloted by people, rather than being computer controlled. Being harder to hit makes more sense in that aspect. Which is why I personally have always questioned how they sit still and do NOTHING without a command, since they are supposed to be piloted by a sentient being. Are people dumber than computers in Eve?
While I don't think they need an auto aggress feature like drones have (I honestly LIKE the active management required while ratting in a carrier, vs afk VNI ratting) why don't they orbit a nearby celestial? Or auto return? Or orbit themselves in a small pattern? These are people, why in the world would they sit absolutely still for that long, seeing how much fire they are under?
+1 They could orbit the wreck of the last target killed, or orbit the ship firing on them, anything except sit still. Things like this are what CCP should address and not fix things which are not broken and no one is complaining about. All that work put into the carrier interface to make them exciting to use again, and then this. It's hard to comprehend.
War reports: Blacknight active
|
Captain Awkward
Republic University Minmatar Republic
135
|
Posted - 2017.03.01 12:25:49 -
[164] - Quote
Well I use a carrier to rat in null. I find it very inconsistent how NPCs agress fighters. In Rock Havens they agress my fighters, in cloud havens they dont.
But I am very concernd that more agression to fighters pared with the increased Sig radius will lead to a lot more fighter losses in PvE. That beeing said, even a single lost T2 fighter can ruin your ratting tick. So if it turns out that losing a fighter is inevitable, then T2 fighters are totally useless in PvE.
In order to compensate, I suggest that the ressist profiles of T2 fighters are switched so they match the dmg type of the NPCs they are used against.
So a Templar II for example would get a 30% EM / 15% Thermal resist bonus instead of the 30% Explosion / 15% Kinetic resist it currently has. |
Aleverette
Peoples Liberation Army Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.01 12:34:45 -
[165] - Quote
Benjamin Hamburg wrote:I'll give my opinion on this at the end... for now the amount of salty tears here justify we sit together and talk before this thread become the Dead Sea. Basically, most points of concerns about carriers vs Small gang were:
- Insane amount of alpha, dps, and application
- Lock faster than your mother, actually faster than most cruisers (which mean: initiative)
- Fighters goes so fast I'm pretty sure Han Solo don't have the fastest ship in the Galaxy anymore
- Incredible synergy when several carriers are on field. Quickly reach the GTFO point.
According to Wikipedia, "The GTFO point is a bit like the Godwin point: it may be funny to reach it once per week, but when it become each day, it quickly p*** people off." This lead to some aberration, gameplay wise:
- Carriers more or less able to alpha (or 2-3 shots) anything that use a MWD (unsurprisingly, logistics and recons are first choices here)
- Impossible to kill fighters EXCEPT with dedicated ships to counter them (web, ecm, paint)*
- Impossible to tank fighters EXCEPT with several logistics ships (a single squad will outdps the remote of a single scimi) #
- End result: It reduce gameplay options to fight back *#
* Being restrained to specifics shiptypes choices isn't exactly what the term -½meta-+ imply. In this case, it's the absolute obligation to choose the least punishing scenario vs what is perceived to be overpowered. # Because the inability to tank fighters, this lead to a single, efficient way to deal with them: 100mn AB on everything. Literally: 100mn Orthruses, 100 mn Tengues, 100 mn VNI, 100mn Recon ships... I see 100mn so much I even came to think that if I die and for some unexplainable reasons, go to paradise: I won't be welcomed by 100 virgins but by 100 freaking meganewtons. I just know it. -- So after all this, what does sig augmentation and npc aggro REALLY change? Nothing. People are mad because fighters will die like flies and other pvp groups will probably continue to be mad because they still get stomped by carriers. Since people are complaining about the sig augmentation, why not just nerf something else? Like damage application and MWD for example? -- TL;DR People complaining about the proposed signature radius augmentation are just asking for a worse nerf. We'll take it.
I feel the problem comes from the all-purpose light fighters.
How about giving space superiority fighters capability of dealing a moderate amount of damage to small ships (200 dps per squadron maybe fine?) with regular attack, and additional damage to drones/fighters when "tackle" ability is activated?
In exchange, significantly decreases normal lighter fighters' accuracy but blesses them with heavier weaponry so they can only hurt battlecruiser and above? |
Aleverette
Peoples Liberation Army Goonswarm Federation
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.01 12:45:02 -
[166] - Quote
Ion Blacknight wrote:Juvir wrote:
They're also piloted by people, rather than being computer controlled. Being harder to hit makes more sense in that aspect. Which is why I personally have always questioned how they sit still and do NOTHING without a command, since they are supposed to be piloted by a sentient being. Are people dumber than computers in Eve?
While I don't think they need an auto aggress feature like drones have (I honestly LIKE the active management required while ratting in a carrier, vs afk VNI ratting) why don't they orbit a nearby celestial? Or auto return? Or orbit themselves in a small pattern? These are people, why in the world would they sit absolutely still for that long, seeing how much fire they are under?
+1 They could orbit the wreck of the last target killed, or orbit the ship firing on them, anything except sit still. Things like this are what CCP should address and not fix things which are not broken and no one is complaining about. All that work put into the carrier interface to make them exciting to use again, and then this. It's hard to comprehend.
Exactly, one small lag now could directly result in one fighter loss even when people manage to control them perfectly right.
Giving more manual control to carrier ratting is the right direction, I mean, but fighters are just... not stupid, but brainless. At least give them ability to auto-orbit the wreck of previously destroyed target. |
Problem Addict
Triplanetary Development Integritas Constans
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 09:49:09 -
[167] - Quote
People actually lose fighters in PvE?
I've never lost a fighter. I just like. . . . pay attention and like. . . . . . think.
Do you alt tab and watch an entire episode on netflix then alt tab back and freak out because you lost 2 fighters?
What's going on here?
Get real. |
Captain Awkward
Republic University Minmatar Republic
135
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 13:19:16 -
[168] - Quote
Problem Addict wrote:People actually lose fighters in PvE?
I've never lost a fighter. I just like. . . . pay attention and like. . . . . . think.
Do you alt tab and watch an entire episode on netflix then alt tab back and freak out because you lost 2 fighters?
What's going on here?
Get real.
Losing a figher is acutally quite rare atm. But currently, only a fiew NPCs actually bother to shoot at the fighters at all. The concern is that with the proposed changes the combination of increased sig radius and increased NPC agression to fighters, losing some will be inevetable. A single T2 fighter currently costs about 10m isk. So loosing even a single one srews your ratting income to a point where afk VNI ratting is more profitable and less risk.
Pulling them back isnt going to help ether. You may prevent fighter losses, but pulling them back all the time will screw your effective DPS and you are again back to below VNI income. |
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
817
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 15:13:31 -
[169] - Quote
Captain Awkward wrote:
But muh ISK ticks!.
Maybe thats the point, carrier ratting is pulling in absurd amounts of isk and was never intended as a mostly risk free way to make absurds amount of isk. So theyre making it more difficult.
Frankly, the propogation of carriers in all aspects of EVE disgusts me and makes me a little salty. Newbie carrier doctrines, the overwhelming spread of carrier ratting, carriers in small gang, fighting carriers in solo roams... its like the sentry carriers of old, and CCP didnt learn that making something that can kill anything from its class and down makes for very stale gameplay.
"Carriers fielding sentries able to blap every subcap is too strong and breaks class balance"
"Lets give them light support fighters that do the same thing, just with a 10 second delay before they can apply that damage and alpha any ship with an MWD on, or any BC/BS that just exists."
If anything, I think light fighters need an application nerf more than a sig increase.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
Cade Windstalker
977
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 15:34:11 -
[170] - Quote
Captain Awkward wrote:Problem Addict wrote:People actually lose fighters in PvE?
I've never lost a fighter. I just like. . . . pay attention and like. . . . . . think.
Do you alt tab and watch an entire episode on netflix then alt tab back and freak out because you lost 2 fighters?
What's going on here?
Get real. Losing a figher is acutally quite rare atm. But currently, only a fiew NPCs actually bother to shoot at the fighters at all. The concern is that with the proposed changes the combination of increased sig radius and increased NPC agression to fighters, losing some will be inevetable. A single T2 fighter currently costs about 10m isk. So loosing even a single one srews your ratting income to a point where afk VNI ratting is more profitable and less risk. Pulling them back isnt going to help ether. You may prevent fighter losses, but pulling them back all the time will screw your effective DPS and you are again back to below VNI income.
Changes are up on SiSi. Instead of posting about how concerned people are about these changes how about going out and actually testing it for an hour and then posting results? |
|
Captain Awkward
Republic University Minmatar Republic
135
|
Posted - 2017.03.02 18:40:27 -
[171] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Changes are up on SiSi. Instead of posting about how concerned people are about these changes how about going out and actually testing it for an hour and then posting results?
Id love to. However, I cant find any Combat Anomalys on SiSi to actually test the carrier against a Sanctum or Haven.
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
105
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 03:20:00 -
[172] - Quote
Bobmon wrote:Yeeey Finally :) now time to watch the communitty responds :) I certainly hope the reaction would be proper. As in you receiving 2 votes, one from you and one from your boyfriend, pwned.
@CCP cant try this due to alpha on sisi, so have to assume the worst on this change as well. Should I unsub my carrier pliot also to make my point or "PLAYING YOUR OWN ******* GAME YOU *******, ARE YOU ALL ON DRUGS THERE?!" would suffice? |
Cade Windstalker
982
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 04:01:32 -
[173] - Quote
No one is forcing anyone to assume anything...
If your account has Alpha status on the Test Server at present you can request that be fixed in the appropriate forum section.
Also for the guy who can't get anoms to spawn, you should be able to claim sov if needed for testing. IIRC CCP pulls down all the sov structures to avoid Test Server intel. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
105
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 04:37:24 -
[174] - Quote
Rowells wrote:firkinballbag wrote:from what i can see this topic is pretty much clear that noone likes it noone wants it its not good for the game but heh ho ccp dont care they gonna introduce it anyway so why are we wasting our time putting posts here.i think we all know the ccp motto if its not broke FIX IT. From this thread alone maybe. Let's not pretend that 150 posts (not 150 people, and not all in agreement) represents the thousands or hundreds of thousands of players in Eve. Doing that would be even worse than not taking feedback at all imo.
By exactly 0 likes on your post we may agree that squaeking for these changes represents nobody, while the voice against them represents at least someone. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
105
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 04:41:49 -
[175] - Quote
Dude, I already know from the last thread that you are a hisec moron, please kindly buzz off from null discussion and go whine about wardec avoidance or whatever is hisec most important whine right now.
Cade Windstalker wrote:No one is forcing anyone to assume anything...
yeah because due to the way to get solid data being broken for the 3rd month now we're not forced to assume.
Cade Windstalker wrote:If your account has Alpha status on the Test Server at present you can request that be fixed in the appropriate forum section.
And while you're at it, update your info. The reactivation thread was permanently closed last year with a post saying that new alpha-omega status doesn't require reactivation. Then, alpha-omega status link between TQ and Sisi was broken and currently the only omegas on it are people who were omega on TQ on new year. There is no service currently that can make alpha into omega on Sisi. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
105
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 04:45:04 -
[176] - Quote
Stitch Kaneland wrote:Captain Awkward wrote:
But muh ISK ticks!.
But muh 10mil cruiser blap!
Give this guy a 4 bil cruiser which doesn't get alpha'd by carriers and call it a day.
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
105
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 04:56:18 -
[177] - Quote
Benjamin Hamburg wrote:
- Carriers more or less able to alpha (or 2-3 shots) anything that use a MWD (unsurprisingly, logistics and recons are first choices here)
- Impossible to kill fighters EXCEPT with dedicated ships to counter them (web, ecm, paint)*
- Impossible to tank fighters EXCEPT with several logistics ships (a single squad will outdps the remote of a single scimi) #
- End result: It reduce gameplay options to fight back *#
This part completely killed your argument.
- If you have problems killing fighters, which are squishier than practically any ship, then how are you killing anything at all?
- You're trying to sell us the point of view where A ******* WEB, ECM AND PAINT is "dedicated ship to counter fighters". Those are present in every gang. Get real.
- If you can't tank a ratting carrier, you're bad and deserve to die.
- PvP carriers get tankable in a minute it takes to defang them. Are you mad you're not allowed to do that without SOME losses in a fleet that costs like ONE fighter squadron? (and even then, with ECM, you can do that without any loss).
HTFU. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
105
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 05:17:47 -
[178] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:March rabbit wrote:Choose another tree if you need to bark to make a post on forums Let's be honest, most of the people here are bitching because they'll lose more fighters to rats than before, which noone care.
Let's be honest, most of the people on your side of the argument are crying me a retriever that their 10mil cruiser just died to 27 of 10mil fighters and somehow assume this is not rightfully so.
And it's even funny how you try to pretend it's a big deal while you are literally less than a fighter squadron in representation here. |
Atum' Ra
Nomen-illis-Legio Legion of xXDEATHXx
105
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 11:23:38 -
[179] - Quote
Benjamin Hamburg wrote:I'll give my opinion on this at the end... for now the amount of salty tears here justify we sit together and talk before this thread become the Dead Sea. Basically, most points of concerns about carriers vs Small gang were:
- Insane amount of alpha, dps, and application
- Lock faster than your mother, actually faster than most cruisers (which mean: initiative)
- Fighters goes so fast I'm pretty sure Han Solo don't have the fastest ship in the Galaxy anymore
- Incredible synergy when several carriers are on field. Quickly reach the GTFO point.
According to Wikipedia, "The GTFO point is a bit like the Godwin point: it may be funny to reach it once per week, but when it become each day, it quickly p*** people off." This lead to some aberration, gameplay wise:
- Carriers more or less able to alpha (or 2-3 shots) anything that use a MWD (unsurprisingly, logistics and recons are first choices here)
- Impossible to kill fighters EXCEPT with dedicated ships to counter them (web, ecm, paint)*
- Impossible to tank fighters EXCEPT with several logistics ships (a single squad will outdps the remote of a single scimi) #
- End result: It reduce gameplay options to fight back *#
.... TL;DR People complaining about the proposed signature radius augmentation are just asking for a worse nerf. We'll take it.
Now please make your logic at finance way... Super = 25b so you will need a gang with the ship cost at 1.5*25b to defeat the target without problems.
|
Doctor Tower
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 12:42:41 -
[180] - Quote
please also nerf networked sensor array for 50% scan resolution, to make BS greate again
|
|
ISD Max Trix
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1652
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 14:16:34 -
[181] - Quote
Quote: 2. Be respectful toward others at all times.
The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.
Removed a Post for the above.
ISD Max Trix
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Mr Floydy
Side Kicks The-Culture
352
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 14:43:26 -
[182] - Quote
Doctor Tower wrote:please also nerf networked sensor array for 50% scan resolution, to make BS greate again
I'd more than happily have the Network Sensor array significantly changed. I do feel it's a flawed module in the scheme of things. Whilst I can understand it was added to make anti-fighter carriers viable the net result is that a carrier can often lock and heavily damage a lot of targets before they can do much about it. |
xOmGx
Order's Academy SOLAR WING.
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 14:47:19 -
[183] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Hi m8s, bunch of crap [/list]
ccp pls die
Stop destroying capital sized ships and nerfing them with every patch
If you plan to introduce Shield Slaves them pls give armor auto regen and active armor hardener similar to Invulnerability field
Wyvern has best passive tank of all motherships (even considering slave set on armor ones as standard) and yet you want to boost it even more?
lel |
Trevize Demerzel
79
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 15:13:33 -
[184] - Quote
So I was just reading up on the shadow fighters. Odd.. suddenly I felt like I was reading lore right out of Babylon 5.
-
|
Doctor Tower
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 15:20:46 -
[185] - Quote
xOmGx wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Hi m8s, bunch of crap [/list] ccp pls die Stop destroying capital sized ships and nerfing them with every patch If you plan to introduce Shield Slaves them pls give armor auto regen and active armor hardener similar to Invulnerability field Wyvern has best passive tank of all motherships (even considering slave set on armor ones as standard) and yet you want to boost it even more? lel
atm you need just 30 carrier + faxes to counter any subcap fleet. only armor t3 can nearly tank them excluded there logis, they just get alphad...
and don't ask about any shield doctrines....
|
Cade Windstalker
986
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 16:14:09 -
[186] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:yeah because due to the way to get solid data being broken for the 3rd month now we're not forced to assume.
....
And while you're at it, update your info. The reactivation thread was permanently closed last year with a post saying that new alpha-omega status doesn't require reactivation. Then, alpha-omega status link between TQ and Sisi was broken and currently the only omegas on it are people who were omega on TQ on new year. There is no service currently that can make alpha into omega on Sisi.
Per CCP Habakuk:
CCP Habakuk wrote:The omega status of accounts on Singularity has been extended now: All accounts, which were omega last week (when the mirror was deployed) will stay omega on Singularity for the next 3 months.
If your account wasn't Omega on the 18th then it wouldn't be now, if it was then you should still post on the test server because that's an error and CCP will get around to correcting it when they can.
Also, if you'll note the first post from that thread, the sync isn't broken it's not implemented yet, it should be implemented for the next mirror.
Orca Platypus wrote:This part completely killed your argument.
- If you have problems killing fighters, which are squishier than practically any ship, then how are you killing anything at all?
- You're trying to sell us the point of view where A ******* WEB, ECM AND PAINT is "dedicated ship to counter fighters". Those are present in every gang. Get real.
- If you can't tank a ratting carrier, you're bad and deserve to die.
- PvP carriers get tankable in a minute it takes to defang them. Are you mad you're not allowed to do that without SOME losses in a fleet that costs like ONE fighter squadron? (and even then, with ECM, you can do that without any loss).
This is largely incorrect.
- Fighters don't have very much HP but they speed tank quite well, even Cruiser sized guns struggle to apply DPS effectively to them, and Frigates will rarely hit for full damage unless the Fighters are burning straight at the target, which is user error.
- Having all of those on one ship though is fairly specialized, and ECM is far from present in every gang. Also aggressed fighters can still boost away and dock up to get out of trouble.
- A ratting Carrier is quite difficult to tank in a Cruiser, and ratting carriers tend to be fit for max DPS as opposed to PvP carrier which may have more tank and fewer DPS mods. A Carrier with support of its own and nuke a Cruiser off the field quite easily because of the burst DPS on its rocket attack.
- This only applies if the group killing your Carrier is spec'd and specialized to do so and is prioritizing your fighters. Basically this only applies when you get dropped on by a prepared group that's hunting Carriers and came equipped for the job.
Basically you seem to have taken his comments and only applied them to one very specific case, which judging by your other comments you're on the receiving end of more than anything else. His comments are still broadly fairly accurate, though the DPS has at least been toned down since the original Citadel release. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
110
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 16:23:19 -
[187] - Quote
Doctor Tower wrote:
atm you need just 30 carrier + faxes to counter any subcap fleet. only armor t3 can nearly tank them excluded there logis, they just get alphad...
and don't ask about any shield doctrines....
"Bawww I can't kill capital fleets in my Ferox, CCPLS kill them".
Drop dreads or HTFU. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
110
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 16:34:06 -
[188] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:This is largely incorrect.
- Fighters don't have very much HP but they speed tank quite well, even Cruiser sized guns struggle to apply DPS effectively to them, and Frigates will rarely hit for full damage unless the Fighters are burning straight at the target, which is user error.
- Having all of those on one ship though is fairly specialized, and ECM is far from present in every gang. Also aggressed fighters can still boost away and dock up to get out of trouble.
- A ratting Carrier is quite difficult to tank in a Cruiser, and ratting carriers tend to be fit for max DPS as opposed to PvP carrier which may have more tank and fewer DPS mods. A Carrier with support of its own and nuke a Cruiser off the field quite easily because of the burst DPS on its rocket attack.
- This only applies if the group killing your Carrier is spec'd and specialized to do so and is prioritizing your fighters. Basically this only applies when you get dropped on by a prepared group that's hunting Carriers and came equipped for the job.
Basically you seem to have taken his comments and only applied them to one very specific case, which judging by your other comments you're on the receiving end of more than anything else. His comments are still broadly fairly accurate, though the DPS has at least been toned down since the original Citadel release.
Dear hisec moron, please buzz of from null discussion, I already asked you nicely twice, you don't know what you're talking about.
- Fighters "speed tank" works till the first web. They can't avoid it as they have to orbit their target at 5km. Nobody needs to apply full DPS to kill such a squishy target.
- I knew you would be dumb enough to cry about "having all of those", because it's quite apparent that you can defang a carrier having ANY of those, for anyone who actually flew or dunked a carrier at least once this year. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about so please buzz off to hisec thread you came from.
- Fighters that boost away deal no damage, you have any problem with fighters that deal no damage?
- A ratting carrier will have a very specific damage type, a no-brainer to prepare for. You're like "baww I'm not allowed to fly stupid anymore, ccpls nerf".
- Because webs on brawling fleets, and TP/ECM on kiting fleets are totally not a thing any fleet would have? Or you're crying "bawwwww I can't kill a 4 bil capital ship in my 300mil dps only roam"?
For the 5th time, please would you be so kind and gracious to buzz off from a topic you're absolutely clueless in? |
Apple129
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 17:18:27 -
[189] - Quote
Well as far as I know this change will completely make ratting in carriers not viable anymore. I like to think I'm a pretty decent carrier pilot and have ratted a lot on my Nighoggur so I've got experience. On Tranquility I've never lost a T2 fighter to rats, but I log on to the test server to find out how the sig radius and aggression increase will affect ratting...
I lose 2 fighters the first haven, 1 fighter the second haven, and 3 the third haven I attempted...
It's near impossible to do anything about it... On almost every haven I did (except for the second one) I always had one fighter get completely one shot alpha'd the last wave of the haven. That odds and frequency will completely kill carrier ratting since one T2 fighter cost almost half as the site is worth to finish. Not to mention the down time of having to dock up and get more fighters every hour or so since you're losing so many of them...
Great job CCP... First you made carrier ratting interesting and fun... now you've decided to make it obsolete and a complete waste of time and ISK. |
Skosne Oczy
T O R T U G A Cohortes Triarii
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 17:54:27 -
[190] - Quote
I had a dream of flying rorqual and carriers. Of course both were nerfed before Ive managed to complete training characters. Im glad you guys did it though. I was so close to buying 28 plex and I would feel so stupid afterwards. Now I get to save on the subscriptions as well. |
|
Cade Windstalker
987
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 18:14:23 -
[191] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:
- Fighters "speed tank" works till the first web. They can't avoid it as they have to orbit their target at 5km. Nobody needs to apply full DPS to kill such a squishy target.
- I knew you would be dumb enough to cry about "having all of those", because it's quite apparent that you can defang a carrier having ANY of those, for anyone who actually flew or dunked a carrier at least once this year. Once again, you don't know what you're talking about so please buzz off to hisec thread you came from.
- Fighters that boost away deal no damage, you have any problem with fighters that deal no damage?
- A ratting carrier will have a very specific damage type, a no-brainer to prepare for. You're like "baww I'm not allowed to fly stupid anymore, ccpls nerf".
- Because webs on brawling fleets, and TP/ECM on kiting fleets are totally not a thing any fleet would have? Or you're crying "bawwwww I can't kill a 4 bil capital ship in my 300mil dps only roam"?
- One web will cut a Fighter's speed down to between 300 and 400m/s, which is still more than enough to beat the tracking on any Battleship guns, most cruisers, and still reduce damage noticeably on Frigates. The experience you're probably speaking from here likely had multiple webs and TPs, which is what any gang specifically hunting unsupported Carriers will bring. In a larger fight with support on both sides this doesn't really work well unless you have a specifically kitted out ship on Fighter duty, and that ship had better pray to heck he isn't nuked off the field before he can kill most of the Fighters.
- This is just... yeah no. This is completely wrong. The closest you can come with one out of those three is a full rack of jams but a smart Carrier will just yank his Fighters back and ask his support fleet to primary the squishy ECM ship. Other than that TPs or Webs alone aren't enough to deal with Fighters except in fairly high numbers.
- Fighters that boost away don't die either, and you can also boost in a circle around your target for a temporary tank boost without losing any application.
- This is just false. Unless the Carrier you're dunking is *terrible* at fitting he'll have other Fighters in his bay to swap to, either as soon as you drop or when he notices he's not doing much damage with his current set. At that point if you've tanked to a specific damage type you're screwed.
- Nooo.... if you'd care to read back in the thread I was simply saying that your general points here are inaccurate and extremely narrow. I'm on the fence about these changes as to whether they're going too far or not. Your claim that Carriers are amazingly easy to kill is just ridiculous though, and easily disproven by anyone who knows anything about fielding Carriers outside of a belt or anom.
|
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
35
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 18:23:07 -
[192] - Quote
Apple129 wrote:Well as far as I know this change will completely make ratting in carriers not viable anymore. I like to think I'm a pretty decent carrier pilot and have ratted a lot on my Nighoggur so I've got experience. On Tranquility I've never lost a T2 fighter to rats, but I log on to the test server to find out how the sig radius and aggression increase will affect ratting...
I lose 2 fighters the first haven, 1 fighter the second haven, and 3 the third haven I attempted...
It's near impossible to do anything about it... On almost every haven I did (except for the second one) I always had one fighter get completely one shot alpha'd the last wave of the haven. That odds and frequency will completely kill carrier ratting since one T2 fighter cost almost half as the site is worth to finish. Not to mention the down time of having to dock up and get more fighters every hour or so since you're losing so many of them...
Great job CCP... First you made carrier ratting interesting and fun... now you've decided to make it obsolete and a complete waste of time and ISK.
This is taking into effect that the nidhoggur has a velocity bonus on their fighters, so more speed tank. T2 fighters aint cheap. Losing 6 across 3 anoms that bring a max of 30m each, and T2 fighters generally cost ~10m-15m each. That means 2/3 or more of your max income on those anoms went to replacing fighters, that's not including fuel cost if necessary, or replacing the cost of the ship and fittings in the first place. This is what we mean when we say it nullifies carrier ratting entirely CCP. The Risk/reward is being removed from carrier ratting with these changes
|
Wizzard Ozz
Frozen Corpse Industries The-Culture
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 21:32:20 -
[193] - Quote
CCP, while you are "correcting" fighters, please adjust that a light fighter squadron consists of 9 fighters yet a single jam landing jams them all. It should take 9 successful jams to render a squadron useless, 1 jam lands, 89% effective, 2 jams, 78% effective and math the rest of the way to 0. Why are squadrons of 9 being treated as a single entity when it comes to ewar? Are their sensor strengths being added together?
I'm not against these changes, just fix their treatment as a single entity when it comes to ewar as it completely cripples their effectiveness. Yes, it should take 21-27 jams landing to render a COMBAT carrier ineffective.
Those people looking for application nerfs because "a cruiser sized drone applies guns to my cruiser sized hull, so unfair", you already had a reasonable nerf, stop tackling capital ships if they are killing you, it's like the definition of insanity. |
Prometheus Centuri
Interstellar Deshipping Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 22:24:49 -
[194] - Quote
Is this CCP's new era of generating more KM's so the game actually looks cool on the outside but is actually bitter on the inside?
KM's with mobile warp disruptors (easier to kill also) KM's with excavator drones (1.5b each, so no need to hunt for carriers anymore) and even more KM generation assists with increased fighter signatures.... Lets just blap the fighters first so we get 4 KM's in total when we're done with the poor ratting guy... Not only does he loose an asset, lets mess up his killboard too along with his alliance and crop killboard. Throw in a few mobile bubble kills before entering ratting system, there you have it! 7-8 killmails without effort! Op success! Let's return home, no need to hunt for others...
Not only does this change ruin the moral and killboard of the capital pilot even further, it also gives him limited chance to defend against a small gang if the gang decides to remove the fighters off the field (which is what a decent gang would do) before moving on to the carrier. The carrier would just give away more killmails in the process of trying to attack the gang by loosing fighters over and over again. Even now the fighters are rapidly killed by a 8 man jackdaw fleet before you can even pull them in...
Just why?
As a conclusion; More reasons not to use capitals More reasons not to use the rorqual (in relation to the coming rorqual changes) Mpre reasons not to use mobile warp disruptors...
Thnaks CCP, I might as well move to highsec for t1 frig duels... |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
114
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 23:17:08 -
[195] - Quote
I just realized we're seeing the usual case of CCPL duplicity.
This change accomplishes absolutely nothing in PVP:
0 damage vs Griffin before 0 damage vs Griffin after
Fighters dead to 1 web before Fighters dead to 1 web after
You can see the pattern. No change whatsoever. A neatly engineered tweak to not affect pvp in the slightest.
The real nerf here is to make carrier ratting dead. They don't want carriers in space. They don't want carriers in sites. They don't want carriers anywhere. Your carrier is now a bad version of jump freighter.
Also, the "bugfix". I bet you hair on my toosh there was no bug - fighter aggro was there all the time, with skill and luck you could avoid losing fighters often, but bad luck would still cost you a fighter here and there. So this is not a bugfix, as there's no bug to fix. This is a nerf camouflaged as bugfix. We're witnessing the already-traditional form of CCPL damage control we've seen countless times. They even removed CCPL Fozzie from the role of announcer as he's the trademark of CCPL duplicity and would be suspected for shenanigans right away.
All this was to avoid making every carrier ratter mad. People that invested in the game, in the capital skills, in injectors, in capital faction modules, wasted $30 of subscription money to train Fighters V, etc. To cowardly avoid telling them to the face that none of them are welcome anymore. To avoid telling them CCPL has decided to run off with their money.
Well here we have it boys. Apparently, carrier content was not worth carrier faucet. So now both are being cowardly purged, sticking knife in the back of both carrier ratters and carrier hunters (no carrier ratting - no carrier hunting). We could've seen another tuning of faucet like we see rorqual being tuned once again (though rorqual was another form of honeytrap to make people invest in them and expect that they stick to them and still be targets since they're now invested).
I find it yet another proof that eve is dying. Nobody would resort to this degree of customerfucking and straight-face lies if he intends to keep them customers paying. This also sheds some light on rorqual nerf - the giant mineral sink that was carrier and supercarrier building for pve needs is getting purged, so need to balance the freed up minerals into shape or the market would drop drastically and insurance scams will faucet what ratting carriers didn't. And even the bubble removal meganerf is now seen in the new light as well, an attempt to create a tremendous mineral and manhours sink for essential layer of protection to counteract complete stopping of carrier production.
Basically, after completing NERF HISEC campaign, the next turn is NERF NULLSEC FOR THE SMALL GUY. Welcome to YC119, #nopoors, only titan ratting is allowed (until HAW nerf because it "applies too well to MWDing cruiser") with a hand on batphone, but hey, at least CSM is happy - now that nobody is ratting they can whelp inty roams to each other's ratting titans and keep their RMT farm going with people who want to join the titan ratting club. Just remember, you cannot sell supers outside "coalition", and "coalition" is buying for 40bil and selling for 200bil, provided you agree to be the part of the mandatory batphone, otherwise you're a renter, your fee is 10bil per month, and your position is occasionally reported to the neighboring NIP coalition to laugh at your tears while blaming you for not joining the compulsory batphone service and not kissing a ring twice a day. Exciting future for everyone who thought CSM is there for anything other than their own mortgage.
/tinfoil hat |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
114
|
Posted - 2017.03.03 23:46:25 -
[196] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
- One web will cut a Fighter's speed down to between 300 and 400m/s, which is still more than enough to beat the tracking on any Battleship guns, most cruisers, and still reduce damage noticeably on Frigates. The experience you're probably speaking from here likely had multiple webs and TPs, which is what any gang specifically hunting unsupported Carriers will bring. In a larger fight with support on both sides this doesn't really work well unless you have a specifically kitted out ship on Fighter duty, and that ship had better pray to heck he isn't nuked off the field before he can kill most of the Fighters.
- This is just... yeah no. This is completely wrong. The closest you can come with one out of those three is a full rack of jams but a smart Carrier will just yank his Fighters back and ask his support fleet to primary the squishy ECM ship. Other than that TPs or Webs alone aren't enough to deal with Fighters except in fairly high numbers.
- Fighters that boost away don't die either, and you can also boost in a circle around your target for a temporary tank boost without losing any application.
- This is just false. Unless the Carrier you're dunking is *terrible* at fitting he'll have other Fighters in his bay to swap to, either as soon as you drop or when he notices he's not doing much damage with his current set. At that point if you've tanked to a specific damage type you're screwed.
- Nooo.... if you'd care to read back in the thread I was simply saying that your general points here are inaccurate and extremely narrow. I'm on the fence about these changes as to whether they're going too far or not. Your claim that Carriers are amazingly easy to kill is just ridiculous though, and easily disproven by anyone who knows anything about fielding Carriers outside of a belt or anom.
God, please, either enlighten this pretentious but clueless chimp or remove him.
- You have clearly no idea how webbing a fighter works. I was piloting a carrier vs Mach fleet last month, so let me enlighten you a bit on the topic. Once fighter gets webbed, Machs start applying to it. Then they deploy drones, drones hit. They have good tracking, so their guns also hit. Fighter are squishy, so they die. At this point, you have 2 choices. One is letting your fighters go down guns blazing. The other is to pull them back... and now they travel in a straight line and probably MWDing too (otherwise you're never shaking that web at 400m/s), with 500% sig bloom... blap, dead. Can you see where I'm getting at? Fighters die regardless of your choice. Always. Doesn't require multiple webs, one is enough. Doesn't require TPs, Machs and drones will hit. Doesn't require ECM, Machs will tank. Please get that through your thick skull - carriers are pretty much good-for-nothing against anything but fat mwding dps-only zero-support cruiser lolroams.
- You're down to complete nonsense here or answering not to me because your second point doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Either you never piloted ECM ships to know how they survive, or think that 4bil carrier that "yanked his Fighters" and doing absolutely nothing because you have brought 12mil Blackbird on the field is ok. Both of those assumptions make you look ********.
- Already answered above. Fighters that boost away are not only useless but also have bloomed sig and go straight. They die.
- This isn't false, you're simply not informed about fighter hangar sizes and replacement time. Short version: a mid-skilled carrier has 2 extra squadrons. That's it. And one is usually to cover PvE losses. With other getting instantly primaried and killed, or at best repeatedly pulled doing absolutely nothing either way. That means that you're only screwed when attempting to headbutt a supercarrier which has spare hangar space. A regular carrier would barely have anything up its sleeve.
tl;dr dear unexperienced jita undock dweller, please, for the 9th time I'm asking you extremely nicely, to buzz off from a discussion of mechanics you clearly do not engage in neither theoretically nor practically, and you're not generally smart enough to provide anything of value either. Stick to the threads that nerf jita undock shenanigans and let actual carrier pilots sort this. |
Cade Windstalker
987
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 00:22:17 -
[197] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:
- You have clearly no idea how webbing a fighter works. I was piloting a carrier vs Mach fleet last month, so let me enlighten you a bit on the topic. Once fighter gets webbed, Machs start applying to it. Then they deploy drones, drones hit. They have good tracking, so their guns also hit. Fighter are squishy, so they die. At this point, you have 2 choices. One is letting your fighters go down guns blazing. The other is to pull them back... and now they travel in a straight line and probably MWDing too (otherwise you're never shaking that web at 400m/s), with 500% sig bloom... blap, dead. Can you see where I'm getting at? Fighters die regardless of your choice. Always. Doesn't require multiple webs, one is enough. Doesn't require TPs, Machs and drones will hit. Doesn't require ECM, Machs will tank. Please get that through your thick skull - carriers are pretty much good-for-nothing against anything but fat mwding dps-only zero-support cruiser lolroams.
- You're down to complete nonsense here or answering not to me because your second point doesn't make any sense whatsoever. Either you never piloted ECM ships to know how they survive, or think that 4bil carrier that "yanked his Fighters" and doing absolutely nothing because you have brought 12mil Blackbird on the field is ok. Both of those assumptions make you look ********.
- Already answered above. Fighters that boost away are not only useless but also have bloomed sig and go straight. They die.
- This isn't false, you're simply not informed about fighter hangar sizes and replacement time. Short version: a mid-skilled carrier has 2 extra squadrons. That's it. And one is usually to cover PvE losses. With other getting instantly primaried and killed, or at best repeatedly pulled doing absolutely nothing either way. That means that you're only screwed when attempting to headbutt a supercarrier which has spare hangar space. A regular carrier would barely have anything up its sleeve.
Please cease with the personal attacks. Thanks.
As to your points...
- Yup, that's how it works. I think I see the problem here now though. The problem is your assumption that your solo Carrier should be able to take on an entire fleet by itself and come out on top. That has never been the intent for these ships, and it would be bad for the game if they worked like that.
- See above. If you want your carrier to take on a fleet bring a support fleet of your own and have them deal with the Blackbird. If you want a ROFL solo-pwn mobile go play some other game. Caps need support to be effective, this is intentional and good for the game.
- You do not, in fact, *have* to move them back to you in a straight line, though yes it certainly does make them easier to hit generally. Less the case if you're in the middle of the fight though.
- Um.... no? An all-5s Thanny can fit 9 full flights of Fighters, that's enough for two full different damage types plus three squads of support fighters if you feel the need for whatever reason, same for the Nidhoggur. The Archon can only fit 8, and the chimera can only fit 7. With 4s only the Nidhoggur loses enough space to lose a full flight, but in all cases you can fit at least 2 full launches of Fighters with level 4 skills.
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
116
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 00:59:07 -
[198] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Please cease with the personal attacks. Thanks.
Please have an accident that will make you stop lowering the entire forum IQ with your posts. Thanks in advance.
As to your points...
Cade Windstalker wrote:
- Yup, that's how it works. I think I see the problem here now though. The problem is your assumption that your solo Carrier should be able to take on an entire fleet by itself and come out on top. That has never been the intent for these ships, and it would be bad for the game if they worked like that.
- See above. If you want your carrier to take on a fleet bring a support fleet of your own and have them deal with the Blackbird. If you want a ROFL solo-pwn mobile go play some other game. Caps need support to be effective, this is intentional and good for the game.
- You do not, in fact, *have* to move them back to you in a straight line, though yes it certainly does make them easier to hit generally. Less the case if you're in the middle of the fight though.
- Um.... no? An all-5s Thanny can fit 9 full flights of Fighters, that's enough for two full different damage types plus three squads of support fighters if you feel the need for whatever reason, same for the Nidhoggur. The Archon can only fit 8, and the chimera can only fit 7. With 4s only the Nidhoggur loses enough space to lose a full flight, but in all cases you can fit at least 2 full launches of Fighters with level 4 skills.
- The problem is your assumption that my however greatly supported carrier should be absolutely useless against a single griffin, and countered by anything with a web. About fleets, I agree, carriers should not come out on top against fleets of comparable cost, skill and preparation. However, I believe there is an intent for them to be able to come out on top of people who try to headbutt them with your level of fighter mechanic knowledge and then cry a 4bil carrier dares to apply damage to their supposed-to-be-invincible pvp shitfit 10mil cruiser of doom. Right now you're allowed to completely overpower a 4bil capital ship by means of astonishing web/TP/ECM fitting skill, regardless of how the carrier is fit. This is not right.
- Learn to read. I was in a fleet with all the meaningful support. Could it keep my fighters alive any longer, considering shield transfer doesn't work on them? No. Carriers get defanged regardless of any support they have. By a single web. Or TP. Or rendered useless by ECM.
- Whether way of pulling them back you prefer, they will be moving straight, and directly away from whatever they were engaging. You can bounce them from something outside web range, but can't make their trajectory any less straight to that point either.
- Don't get me started with all-V on capital ships. I'd bet 95% of pilots do not have those, as it is a tremendous time sink for no benefit other than stuffing yourself with more killmails for the enemy who came with anything better than a yolo headbutt fleet.
|
Cade Windstalker
989
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 02:38:52 -
[199] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:
- The problem is your assumption that my however greatly supported carrier should be absolutely useless against a single griffin, and countered by anything with a web. About fleets, I agree, carriers should not come out on top against fleets of comparable cost, skill and preparation. However, I believe there is an intent for them to be able to come out on top of people who try to headbutt them with your level of fighter mechanic knowledge and then cry a 4bil carrier dares to apply damage to their supposed-to-be-invincible pvp shitfit 10mil cruiser of doom. Right now you're allowed to completely overpower a 4bil capital ship by means of astonishing web/TP/ECM fitting skill, regardless of how the carrier is fit. This is not right.
- Learn to read. I was in a fleet with all the meaningful support. Could it keep my fighters alive any longer, considering shield transfer doesn't work on them? No. Carriers get defanged regardless of any support they have. By a single web. Or TP. Or rendered useless by ECM.
- Whether way of pulling them back you prefer, they will be moving straight, and directly away from whatever they were engaging. You can bounce them from something outside web range, but can't make their trajectory any less straight to that point either.
- Don't get me started with all-V on capital ships. I'd bet 95% of pilots do not have those, as it is a tremendous time sink for no benefit other than stuffing yourself with more killmails for the enemy who came with anything better than a yolo headbutt fleet.
- Any other ship gets countered pretty much just as hard, but it doesn't take 3+ jams to do it, it takes one. Also if your support is any good that ECM ship is going to be on grid for about the time it takes two people to target lock him. If they've got enough Logi on grid that they can keep a squishy ECM boat on field then the problem is no longer with the Carrier it's that the enemy fleet is better than yours. Also no, it's not just the ability to fit a few modules. As long as you're not playing your carrier from 200km off the fight then you need to be able to lock and deal with all three Fighter squads more or less as they're launched because while there is a delay on loading the fighter tubes there is no such delay on Fighters dealing damage after being launched, and they're very capable of nuking something like a Griffin or Blackbird off the grid.
- Kinda sounds to me like you're just not a great Carrier pilot. There are plenty of people out there having success with Carriers, it's just very micro intensive and requires very quick decision making.
- This assumes that everything shooting them is in the direction they're burning away from. This will only be the case if your Carrier is outside the actual fight by a decent distance. If you're within about 30-40km then the enemies have about 2-3 ticks to shoot your fighters before they're safe back in your hangar.
- This isn't even all 5s, I listed loadout with 4s, which take roughly 1/5th the training time of a Level 5 skill. Even with Fighter Hangar Management *1* a Thanatos can fit 8 Squads of Fighters. Your original claim is just blatantly inaccurate.
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
118
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 03:20:56 -
[200] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
- Any other ship gets countered pretty much just as hard, but it doesn't take 3+ jams to do it, it takes one. Also if your support is any good that ECM ship is going to be on grid for about the time it takes two people to target lock him. If they've got enough Logi on grid that they can keep a squishy ECM boat on field then the problem is no longer with the Carrier it's that the enemy fleet is better than yours. Also no, it's not just the ability to fit a few modules. As long as you're not playing your carrier from 200km off the fight then you need to be able to lock and deal with all three Fighter squads more or less as they're launched because while there is a delay on loading the fighter tubes there is no such delay on Fighters dealing damage after being launched, and they're very capable of nuking something like a Griffin or Blackbird off the grid.
- Kinda sounds to me like you're just not a great Carrier pilot. There are plenty of people out there having success with Carriers, it's just very micro intensive and requires very quick decision making.
- This assumes that everything shooting them is in the direction they're burning away from. This will only be the case if your Carrier is outside the actual fight by a decent distance. If you're within about 30-40km then the enemies have about 2-3 ticks to shoot your fighters before they're safe back in your hangar.
- This isn't even all 5s, I listed loadout with 4s, which take roughly 1/5th the training time of a Level 5 skill. Even with Fighter Hangar Management *1* a Thanatos can fit 8 Squads of Fighters. Your original claim is just blatantly inaccurate.
Thanks for confirming you have no idea how to fly an ECM ship, and have zero experience flying against one. Logi on ECM ships, what a joke, you're literally a clown. Okay, hisec clown education time. With ECM ships, you don't have to stay within lock range for longer than you have to. You go on a perch. Then you choose the best way to come down, so you are at optimal. And you align back to your perch, or another one of you're too close. Then you attempt a jam, ready to warp out to your perch whenever you're feeling targeted. You don't have to be on grid the whole time, jams last 20 second. And ffs, you're ECM, you don't broadcast for reps unless logi is free, your defense are your perches, not your tank.
Also confirming you've no idea on fighter mechanics either. There is a delay on fighters damage dealing ability - they have scan res and they lock targets before dealing damage to them just like a player ship would. They can be jammed and they can be damped. And if you remember there's also a burst jammer that can be effectively wielded on non-ecm ships...
Finally you're talking your guts out confirming you've no experience on the matter and all you know is based on someone's bragging. There is no skill element involved with webs. They hit your fighters, fighters are dead. It's as easy as fitting webs. Then you are telling me that my support fleet is bad because it has to remove all webbers before carriers are allowed to finally do something without being insta-defanged? You sound like a delusional maggot.
So you're suggesting carriers should be parked within enemy dreads optimal? Daaaaaaaaaaaaam son, you're dopey. Your only excuse is that there are no dreads on jita undock, so you only heard about them and never had to deal with them. Carrier withing a few dreads optimal is asking to get alpha'd. Even FAX reps are not instant and not 50k-100k hp that a dread can shave off in a single volley.
No, you can't insta-nuke griffin or blackbird off the field with freshly launched fighters. You have 40+ kilometers to cover before that. Either slowboat and you're jammed before you reach your destination, or fire mwd, blow up your fighters sigs, get them instalocked and still jammed. Where do you think that ECM boat is? Go back to eve uni and ask them to teach you the basics of flying ECM, you obviously missed that class with all the nonsense about reps on ECM and insta-blapping like it's sitting on top of you.
Ok with hangars, my measurements came from piloting underskilled Chimera. You can have extra fighters, though the point is not as clear since someone has killed previous ones if you need those (assuming full hangar you can't unload a tube), and nothing is stopping them from killing it again.
And stop already. You're disgracing yourself and losing credibility with every post. You have no idea about carriers, dreads, or flying ECM boats or using ECM in general. It's clear you're NOT QUALIFIED for this discussion. I'm educating you at my own good will, but since you're not making any progress, my patience is running out. Go back to hisec thread you came from. |
|
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
817
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 03:31:49 -
[201] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:
- The problem is your assumption that my however greatly supported carrier should be absolutely useless against a single griffin, and countered by anything with a web. About fleets, I agree, carriers should not come out on top against fleets of comparable cost, skill and preparation. However, I believe there is an intent for them to be able to come out on top of people who try to headbutt them with your level of fighter mechanic knowledge and then cry a 4bil carrier dares to apply damage to their supposed-to-be-invincible pvp shitfit 10mil cruiser of doom. Right now you're allowed to completely overpower a 4bil capital ship by means of astonishing web/TP/ECM fitting skill, regardless of how the carrier is fit. This is not right.
- Learn to read. I was in a fleet with all the meaningful support. Could it keep my fighters alive any longer, considering shield transfer doesn't work on them? No. Carriers get defanged regardless of any support they have. By a single web. Or TP. Or rendered useless by ECM.
- Whether way of pulling them back you prefer, they will be moving straight, and directly away from whatever they were engaging. You can bounce them from something outside web range, but can't make their trajectory any less straight to that point either.
- Don't get me started with all-V on capital ships. I'd bet 95% of pilots do not have those, as it is a tremendous time sink for no benefit other than stuffing yourself with more killmails for the enemy who came with anything better than a yolo headbutt fleet.
1. HA, Wow you're ignorant of how EVE works. "But muhh 4b carrier should kill everything!!!111". And you want to go around calling people dumb.. and making personal attacks. All the while hiding behind an alt. Lemme guess, your main has carrier losses that go along with your cry baby fest agenda and attacking anyone who doesn't agree with your whining? Can't find any KB records on the character you're posting from. So either, its an alt to hide your main, so you make personal attacks and play an agenda that no one can look information up on, or you are actually a clueless null bear who's just crying cause his isk ticks are going to get hurt by this.
Let me tell you about a ship, its a big a ship with big guns, used to roam space in relative freedom, then everything started getting faster, buffed and smaller ships got lots of the same abilities. Smaller ships were able to get under this larger, much more expensive ships guns and completely disable it. A well equipped gang could incapacitate this ship and take very little damage in return. The ship cost 200x as much as the much smaller ships that could make it a glorified paper weight.
What ship might that be you ask? The battleship, which outside of pirate battleships has fallen into obscurity due to carrier proliferation, HICs, HAW dreads and swarms of small ships.
So your whole idea that your 4B isk carrier should kill an entire gang just because its bigger and costs more is wrong on every level. It is right, it is how EVE is balanced, HTFU.
4. I'd bet you you're just pulling numbers out of your ass to fit your agenda. I am certain most pilots in long standing null blobs who sit in Super's or enjoy tossing around cap's have their favorites capital's to 5. I'm at this moment training Cal dread to 5. Not to mention all the nullbears who want maximum ticks with nothing else to train, i'm sure plenty of them have capital's to 5.
Give Battlecruisers range to fullfil their Anti-Cruiser role - OP SUCCESS
Make the Muninn great again!
|
AgentMaster
Platinum Octopus Infernal Octopus
4
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 05:17:54 -
[202] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Hi m8s,
In March, we're releasing a number of balance tweaks and we would love your feedback.
FIGHTERS We'd like to increase the potential counter-play options vs fighters. We're going to do this by increasing their signature radius which makes them a little easier to hit. ...
Why?! Whu need this? Whu is that little sh....? He know how much cost a T2 fighter? Most of answers in that feedback was NO - DO NOT CHANGE FIGTERS SIGNATURE! Do you agree or will do whatever you have decided, despite the desire of the people?
Blessed is the man who has nothing to say and remain silent yet!!
|
Cade Windstalker
990
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 06:28:50 -
[203] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:Thanks for confirming you have no idea how to fly an ECM ship, and have zero experience flying against one. Logi on ECM ships, what a joke, you're literally a clown. Okay, hisec clown education time. With ECM ships, you don't have to stay within lock range for longer than you have to. You go on a perch. Then you choose the best way to come down, so you are at optimal. And you align back to your perch, or another one if you're too close. Then you attempt a jam, ready to warp out to your perch whenever you're feeling targeted. You don't have to be on grid the whole time, jams last 20 second. And ffs, you're ECM, you don't broadcast for reps unless logi is free, your defense are your perches, not your tank.
Also confirming you've no idea on fighter mechanics either. There is a delay on fighters damage dealing ability - they have scan res and they lock targets before dealing damage to them just like a player ship would. They can be jammed and they can be damped. And if you remember there's also a burst jammer that can be effectively wielded on non-ecm ships...
Finally you're talking your guts out confirming you've no experience on the matter and all you know is based on someone's bragging. There is no skill element involved with webs. They hit your fighters, fighters are dead. It's as easy as fitting webs. Then you are telling me that my support fleet is bad because it has to remove all webbers before carriers are allowed to finally do something without being insta-defanged? You sound like a delusional maggot.
So you're suggesting carriers should be parked within enemy dreads optimal? Daaaaaaaaaaaaam son, you're dopey. Your only excuse is that there are no dreads on jita undock, so you only heard about them and never had to deal with them. Carrier within a few dreads optimal is asking to get alpha'd. Even FAX reps are not instant and not 50k-100k hp that a dread can shave off in a single volley.
No, you can't insta-nuke griffin or blackbird off the field with freshly launched fighters. You have 40+ kilometers to cover before that. Either slowboat and you're jammed before you reach your destination, or fire mwd, blow up your fighters sigs, get them instalocked and still jammed. Where do you think that ECM boat is? Go back to eve uni and ask them to teach you the basics of flying ECM, you obviously missed that class with all the nonsense about reps on ECM and insta-blapping like it's sitting on top of you.
Ok with hangars, my measurements came from piloting underskilled Chimera. You can have extra fighters, though the point is not as clear since someone has killed previous ones if you need those (assuming full hangar you can't unload a tube), and nothing is stopping them from killing it again.
Oh man and you're calling me the High Sec player... rule one of Null, assume bubbles. Even if you didn't bring them someone probably brought a Dictor or a HIC to the party, especially with Carriers on field, so perches are right now. That basically only works in Low and High Sec because in Null good pilots and groups use bubbles for range control, and if you so much as warp towards a bubble you get sucked into it. This only works if you have bookmarks setup well in advance, not if you're dropping someone offensively. This honestly sounds like something you read somewhere, not something you've ever actually tried to implement, and certainly not in a smaller gang drop.
Yup, Fighters do have a lock time, and even if you lock them as fast as physically possible in a stock Griffin and *even with the sig changes* they still get to shoot you once because they get a free tick of lock time before you can try to lock them and their scan res is 800, which means they lock you a tick after you lock them. Throw in the fact that you can't easily jam all three squads in the same tick and you're probably gonna die without logi help.
And yes, Logi will generally not prioritize ECM broadcasts, which makes it even easier to remove them from grid with a competent support fleet.
The idea that webs are on grid and your fighters just die is just... what? Never mind lock times in a big fight someone still has to prioritize your Fighters over other targets, which means those other targets get to play, and this just more or less stops working well with more than 1 or 2 Carriers on grid, never mind a Fleet Fight. At that point it's just Smart Bombs all the way and no one even bothers trying to actually lock fighters except maybe other Carriers with a superiority setup.
As for dreads, nope I'm saying in a small fight you should be up close, in a large one be positioned wherever is good because no one is gonna be locking and popping Fighters individually. Now stop moving the goal posts around by talking about one fight scenario and then jumping as soon as your argument gets refuted for that scenario.
Your measurements are still bad. Those numbers were raw hanger, nothing stored in tubes, and the Chimera only needs Fighter Hangar Management to 3 to fit 7 full squadrons of Light Fighters, which is slightly more than a 1 day train from 0. This also says you're cherry picking rather than actually trying to present accurate information.
At this point you just sound ineffectually mad and you're doing a terrible job of putting together a coherent argument here. |
Axhind
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
286
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 10:21:14 -
[204] - Quote
Mr Floydy wrote:Doctor Tower wrote:please also nerf networked sensor array for 50% scan resolution, to make BS greate again
I'd more than happily have the Network Sensor array significantly changed. I do feel it's a flawed module in the scheme of things. Whilst I can understand it was added to make anti-fighter carriers viable the net result is that a carrier can often lock and heavily damage a lot of targets before they can do much about it.
Well, if you guys ever undocked anything other than interceptors and dictors you might be able to kill them just like everyone else, easily.
I'm looking forward to this nerf. I was already getting very worried about actually having interactive ratting and having to pay attention. Engaging game play is one thing we definitely don't want in EVE. Nerf everything until everyone ends up doing L4s in assault frigates. No fun allowed in EVE! |
Hathor' Ra
PvE Holding Shadow of xXDEATHXx
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.04 20:40:56 -
[205] - Quote
CCP: We created new gameplay, new ships, new level of escalation of heavy forces at low and nul-sec Players: WOW that's cool! CCP we love you! CCP: we want to tell you that we want to se how do you like them and maybe we'll improve them Players: Of cause! These carriers are so cool! CCP you are so cool!!!
...one month later...
CCP: We would like to impruve the gameplay... We'll nerf these cool ships which you like so much. You will like these improvements! Players: Okay... If you think so... but... CCP: no more question! New gameplay will arrive at 3, 2, 1....
... one more moth later....
CCP: Hi guys! We would like to make your gameplay more better! We want to make some tweaks at your cool ships Players: WTF??? O_o CCP: we want to nerf them more... Three times more... Because we think that such gameplay will be better! Players: We love these ships! We bought skins for them! We want to fly them! Please STOP!!! CCP: No more questions! You can test all these cool innovations at Sisi! Just tell us what are you thinking about them! Players: We tested. We don't want them at Tranq CCP: Thank you for your answers We think that all these tweaks are very cool! New update will arrive at Tranq at 3, 2, 1... Players: But we don't want them! CCP: No more questions! Enjoy new gameplay of new EVE ! EVE become better and better every day! \ Players: WTF??? O_o
P.S.:You forget to nerf all Logistic ships. One target - one support.
|
Smugest Sniper
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
38
|
Posted - 2017.03.05 06:46:04 -
[206] - Quote
I have maxed out drone skills, tested forsaken hubs, Havens, and sanctums on sisi.
Used both T1 and T2 fighters, the results are clear.
Super ratting still works fine outside of sanctums.
Carriers burn hubs ok.
There's nothing in these changes that makes a significant different in PVP, if I can lock you in my carrier, you are going to die if you don't warp away.
You can maybe kill a T1 fighter on your way down, but you will die.
All this does is nerf carrier ratting, super ticks are unaffected.
Before: anything cruiser down was a threat to your fighters in sites, kill them first, fighters don't die.
After: Every single site you have to pull drones between waves to stop battle ships from alpha striking them off the field this is with max drone durability etc. even then they still may get blapped pretty regularly. There is no way to keep your fighters from dying with these changes.
This is a hard nerf to carrier ratting. No more no less.
Amusingly enough, you can now just warp 0 on rock havens and do smart bombing carriers and get better tick efficiency than with fighters.
I think rather than whining on the forums about this change, it just needs to be escalation through action.
Head shot every high-sec incursion spawn, kill more high-sec players, and burn down every poco in high-sec if this change goes live. KILL the game and the way they want it to be played if you can't play it your way. |
Cade Windstalker
996
|
Posted - 2017.03.05 07:50:34 -
[207] - Quote
Smugest Sniper wrote:I think rather than whining on the forums about this change, it just needs to be escalation through action.
Head shot every high-sec incursion spawn, kill more high-sec players, and burn down every poco in high-sec if this change goes live. KILL the game and the way they want it to be played if you can't play it your way.
I think this would probably just make the CCP devs chuckle (and more than a few incursion runners, given how the last "lets nuke Incursions" group ended). If you want to make an argument post a log of your wallet ticks and fighter losses before and after the change.
Maybe CCP decides that's acceptable, maybe they don't, but it's got a better chance of doing something than going off and nuking High Sec does.
Personally I'm not really a fan of "can't avoid losing Fighters" in PvE. I'm fine with them taking agro, I'm fine with it being a little difficult to keep them alive, but at the end of the day people PvE to make ISK and having it cost a significant chunk of income to do the PvE in the first place defeats the point a bit.
If I had to guess, based on what you posted, the sig radius changes have pushed Fighters into the realm where Battleships start shooting them, and that's what's causing the problems here. If possible I'd like to see the agro mechanics around fighters changed a bit so they don't take BS aggro the way Heavy Drones sometimes do. |
Smugest Sniper
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
39
|
Posted - 2017.03.05 10:34:14 -
[208] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
If you want to make an argument post a log of your wallet ticks and fighter losses before and after the change.
Maybe CCP decides that's acceptable, maybe they don't, but it's got a better chance of doing something than going off and nuking High Sec does.
If I had to guess, based on what you posted, the sig radius changes have pushed Fighters into the realm where Battleships start shooting them, and that's what's causing the problems here. If possible I'd like to see the agro mechanics around fighters changed a bit so they don't take BS aggro the way Heavy Drones sometimes do.
Once I find a more stable place to chain sites, I can give you a better estimate of tick changes.
Once the battle ships start to agress it becomes much harder to keep them alive, they will sit around 60-70% until you clear most of the smaller ****, but after you clear a few battleships it seems that they start trying to blap your fighters.
If you aren't running 3-4 FSU's though they will die if you get the same squad targeted, or you'll have to pull them if you see them start to go lower than 50% if the battle ships aren't targeting you.
This also means you have to be alot more sparing with your missle attacks, as it not at all, or you can't relaunch fast enough to cycle fighters through their switch time.
Will post more soon |
Captain Awkward
Republic University Minmatar Republic
136
|
Posted - 2017.03.05 11:17:16 -
[209] - Quote
Smugest Sniper wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
If you want to make an argument post a log of your wallet ticks and fighter losses before and after the change.
Maybe CCP decides that's acceptable, maybe they don't, but it's got a better chance of doing something than going off and nuking High Sec does.
If I had to guess, based on what you posted, the sig radius changes have pushed Fighters into the realm where Battleships start shooting them, and that's what's causing the problems here. If possible I'd like to see the agro mechanics around fighters changed a bit so they don't take BS aggro the way Heavy Drones sometimes do.
Once I find a more stable place to chain sites, I can give you a better estimate of tick changes. Once the battle ships start to agress it becomes much harder to keep them alive, they will sit around 60-70% until you clear most of the smaller ****, but after you clear a few battleships it seems that they start trying to blap your fighters. If you aren't running 3-4 FSU's though they will die if you get the same squad targeted, or you'll have to pull them if you see them start to go lower than 50% if the battle ships aren't targeting you. This also means you have to be alot more sparing with your missle attacks, as it not at all, or you can't relaunch fast enough to cycle fighters through their switch time. Will post more soon
Can you please tell me how you managed to find / spawn Havens / Sanctums? I cant find a single system that as any combat anomaly. I was told to upgrade a system so the sites spawn, but I nether have a ship that is able to transport sov upgrades, nor do I have any idea how to use them. Its seems that CCP is making it incredible hard to actually test these changes. |
Smugest Sniper
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
39
|
Posted - 2017.03.05 11:48:44 -
[210] - Quote
Quote:
Can you please tell me how you managed to find / spawn Havens / Sanctums? I cant find a single system that as any combat anomaly. I was told to upgrade a system so the sites spawn, but I nether have a ship that is able to transport sov upgrades, nor do I have any idea how to use them. Its seems that CCP is making it incredible hard to actually test these changes.
It wasn't easy, found a system someone else had already upgraded in impass and was grinding it a bit. 9I-SRF if you wanna see for yourself. but I suggest looking somewhere that has sanctums more profilerated than this place.
In that system I chained Rock Havens and Forsaken Hubs, made 30-40mil ticks being conservative and pulling my fighters in on the final waves. If you can't pull your fighters in fast enough on the final waves or during a big wave to reset agro, they will die. Even a few seconds too long and without good durability skills and FSU's they will die.
Quote:[Nidhoggur, Smugest Sniper's Nidhoggur] Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Damage Control II
Sentient Drone Navigation Computer Capital Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Capital Shield Extender II
Networked Sensor Array Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I
Capital Core Defense Field Extender II Capital Core Defense Field Extender II Capital Core Defense Field Extender II
Einherji I x20 Templar I x48
I pretty much maxed drone support skills and fighters 4 light fighters 3.(I have higher on live now) I've lost 2 fighters in the first haven until I changed tactics but I need to see how much worse Gas havens are with these changes to know for sure. So I dunno, I'm mixed in opinion thus far, if I didn't have the skills and fit I used, I would have had more dead fighters than I did. I want to try with 3 FSU and a cyno but we'll see what the other sites do before I make any final judgement.
Quote:2017.03.05 11:18:50Bounty Prize Corporation Tax-2,000,539 ISK1,169,325,254 ISK[r] Corporation tax on pirate bounties 2017.03.05 11:18:50Bounty Prizes40,010,793 ISK1,171,325,793 ISK[r] Smugest Sniper got bounty prizes for killing pirates in 9I-SRF 2017.03.05 10:58:50Bounty Prize Corporation Tax-1,540,888 ISK1,131,315,000 ISK[r] Corporation tax on pirate bounties 2017.03.05 10:58:50Bounty Prizes30,817,762 ISK1,132,855,888 ISK[r] Smugest Sniper got bounty prizes for killing pirates in 9I-SRF |
|
Zazz Blammy Matazz
The Institution. Did he say Jump
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 11:06:43 -
[211] - Quote
Larrakin, the risk from firing a bust projector is still not inline with the reward. They have near the same penalty as a doomsday with Nowhere near the offensive/defensive capabilities. If you insist on these rediculously useless periods of effect, you need to remove the jump/cloak/warp penalty if you actually want them used. As they stand, they're still useless. |
Tabyll Altol
Vision Inc Hole Control
183
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 12:33:52 -
[212] - Quote
So much tears from the PVE 0.0 Carebears.
I ratted about 40 hours in a niddy. My drones had around 5-6 times the aggro and i managed to lose only 1 fighter.
If this is 100% for some guys or way to much. No it isn-¦t stop crying. Carrier ratting was/is way to safe for the ticks.
This is a start.
+1 |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3872
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 12:36:13 -
[213] - Quote
Tabyll Altol wrote:So much tears from the PVE 0.0 Carebears.
I ratted about 40 hours in a niddy. My drones had around 5-6 times the aggro and i managed to lose only 1 fighter.
If this is 100% for some guys or way to much. No it isn-¦t stop crying. Carrier ratting was/is way to safe for the ticks.
This is a start.
+1
i would gladly see ratting carriers made nonviable if it some how meant they could have a decent place in pvp q.q
BLOPS Hauler
|
Jenn aSide
Shinigami Miners Test Alliance Please Ignore
15269
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 13:44:13 -
[214] - Quote
Smugest Sniper wrote:Quote:
Can you please tell me how you managed to find / spawn Havens / Sanctums? I cant find a single system that as any combat anomaly. I was told to upgrade a system so the sites spawn, but I nether have a ship that is able to transport sov upgrades, nor do I have any idea how to use them. Its seems that CCP is making it incredible hard to actually test these changes.
It wasn't easy, found a system someone else had already upgraded in impass and was grinding it a bit. 9I-SRF if you wanna see for yourself. but I suggest looking somewhere that has sanctums more profilerated than this place. In that system I chained Rock Havens and Forsaken Hubs, made 30-40mil ticks being conservative and pulling my fighters in on the final waves. If you can't pull your fighters in fast enough on the final waves or during a big wave to reset agro, they will die. Even a few seconds too long and without good durability skills and FSU's they will die. Quote:[Nidhoggur, Smugest Sniper's Nidhoggur] Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Drone Damage Amplifier II Damage Control II
Sentient Drone Navigation Computer Capital Shield Extender II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II EM Ward Field II Adaptive Invulnerability Field II Capital Shield Extender II
Networked Sensor Array Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I Fighter Support Unit I
Capital Core Defense Field Extender II Capital Core Defense Field Extender II Capital Core Defense Field Extender II
Einherji I x20 Templar I x48
I pretty much maxed drone support skills and fighters 4 light fighters 3.(I have higher on live now) I've lost 2 fighters in the first haven until I changed tactics but I need to see how much worse Gas havens are with these changes to know for sure. So I dunno, I'm mixed in opinion thus far, if I didn't have the skills and fit I used, I would have had more dead fighters than I did. I want to try with 3 FSU and a cyno but we'll see what the other sites do before I make any final judgement. Quote:2017.03.05 11:18:50Bounty Prize Corporation Tax-2,000,539 ISK1,169,325,254 ISK[r] Corporation tax on pirate bounties 2017.03.05 11:18:50Bounty Prizes40,010,793 ISK1,171,325,793 ISK[r] Smugest Sniper got bounty prizes for killing pirates in 9I-SRF 2017.03.05 10:58:50Bounty Prize Corporation Tax-1,540,888 ISK1,131,315,000 ISK[r] Corporation tax on pirate bounties 2017.03.05 10:58:50Bounty Prizes30,817,762 ISK1,132,855,888 ISK[r] Smugest Sniper got bounty prizes for killing pirates in 9I-SRF
I'll be on later to get on SiSi, but if you play before that then try a Drone Durability Enhancer rig and see if it helps.
I'm also going to give the old "distract them with ECM bursting" trick people moved away from when fighters/carriers changed.
|
Solidus Obscura
Body Count Inc. Mercenary Coalition
14
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 14:08:33 -
[215] - Quote
Quote:Lastly, there was a bug when our AI evaluated the threat of fighters. NPCs didn't consider fighters as threatening as they should have. This bug has now been fixed, and NPCs will more often shoot at fighters.
This is just going to make PVEing in Carriers a lot more frustrating. How will you make it easier for players to see that their fighters are taking significant damage? Right now 1-99% is just a single color.
Solidus for CSM!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=512158&find=unread
|
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
38
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 14:12:15 -
[216] - Quote
Tabyll Altol wrote:So much tears from the PVE 0.0 Carebears.
I ratted about 40 hours in a niddy. My drones had around 5-6 times the aggro and i managed to lose only 1 fighter.
If this is 100% for some guys or way to much. No it isn-¦t stop crying. Carrier ratting was/is way to safe for the ticks.
This is a start.
+1
Yes, because this is so OP compared to wormhole mining and site running -_-
Next nerf coming will be incursions. I mean why not? We've released a FTP model, might as well put everything past alpha behind a "pay wall". One of the most attractive things about this game is that you CAN make enough income to pay for your accounts using in game currency. But hey, my WH group can't kill a carrier with 3 people, so we need to nerf them. |
Cade Windstalker
1001
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 14:16:22 -
[217] - Quote
Zazz Blammy Matazz wrote:Larrakin, the risk from firing a bust projector is still not inline with the reward. They have near the same penalty as a doomsday with Nowhere near the offensive/defensive capabilities. If you insist on these rediculously useless periods of effect, you need to remove the jump/cloak/warp penalty if you actually want them used. As they stand, they're still useless.
They're not supposed to be in line with the reward of a Titan Doomsday though. That's a much more expensive ship producing a shorter duration effect. Completely removing the penalties associated with a Burst Projector would also completely remove almost all trade off with their use and make them incredibly ubiquitous in Null combat. Given the strength of their AoE effects I don't think that would be particularly good for the game.
|
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
38
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 14:48:34 -
[218] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Zazz Blammy Matazz wrote:Larrakin, the risk from firing a bust projector is still not inline with the reward. They have near the same penalty as a doomsday with Nowhere near the offensive/defensive capabilities. If you insist on these rediculously useless periods of effect, you need to remove the jump/cloak/warp penalty if you actually want them used. As they stand, they're still useless. They're not supposed to be in line with the reward of a Titan Doomsday though. That's a much more expensive ship producing a shorter duration effect. Completely removing the penalties associated with a Burst Projector would also completely remove almost all trade off with their use and make them incredibly ubiquitous in Null combat. Given the strength of their AoE effects I don't think that would be particularly good for the game.
I think he more meant the time of the effect vs the duration of the negative effect. I agree it shouldn't be as powerful as a doomsday, but at the same time the negative effect is almost as bad. If the duration of the effect isn't going to increase porportionally to the effectiveness vs. the risk, it's never going to be used. |
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords Kraftwerk.
90
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 15:52:30 -
[219] - Quote
Is there even a single comment on this thread agreeing fighte sig rad or aggro needs a nerf? lol ^^ I haven't seen one and I agree with fighter pve/pvp beeing in a good place.
Maybe Anti-fighters are a bit too good at their job against upers, but otherwise? |
Cade Windstalker
1002
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 16:20:48 -
[220] - Quote
Juvir wrote:I think he more meant the time of the effect vs the duration of the negative effect. I agree it shouldn't be as powerful as a doomsday, but at the same time the negative effect is almost as bad. If the duration of the effect isn't going to increase porportionally to the effectiveness vs. the risk, it's never going to be used.
I'd agree that the duration on the effect could use either a skill affecting it or a reduction, considering some Titan DDs have a shorter duration on the module than these things do, but I don't think the risk/reward trade off should ever feel like a no brainer for these modules. These should be something where you go "OMG the enemy left himself open to this, do it now!" not an "oh, it's off cooldown, firing burst projector again".
Destriouth Hollow wrote:Is there even a single comment on this thread agreeing fighte sig rad or aggro needs a nerf? lol ^^ I haven't seen one and I agree with fighter pve/pvp beeing in a good place.
Maybe Anti-fighters are a bit too good at their job against upers, but otherwise?
I actually do think the sig radius changes are probably justified, I'm just a little worried about two things here:
- The combined effect of the agro fix and the sig radius change on NPC agro in sites, since the sig radius change pushes Fighters up past the level of Medium Drones and almost to the same level as Heavies.
- That Fighters already don't have a ton of HP so while I like the idea of increasing counter play it feels a bit too binary if they're just getting nuked off field all the time considering in small to medium gang fights an Ishtar can still yank his drones in as they take agro most of the time.
The problem here is that in larger fights drones and other things that work well against Fighters just nuke them off the field by sheer volume of fire, but if you balance them around surviving agro under those circumstances then they become unkillable wrecking machines in smaller fights. I think CCP is more balancing around the smaller fight case since that's more controllable. |
|
Trevize Demerzel
79
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 17:11:07 -
[221] - Quote
Few things
#1 - I don't understand the point of these Dev posts. All they do is anger the player base and CCP does the change anyway ignoring pages of feedback.
#2 - before this change goes live I believe they must first fix/change he ui so players can easily see the % health of each fighter.
#3 - for ewar each fighter must be treated as an individual. Why should it be easier to lock down a [super]carrier then a drone boat Dominix.
Balancing things is all well in good but the CCP nerf bat swings way to extreme these days.
These [proposed] nerfs must come with the ability for the players to more easily see fighters' health. Or must we all start support tickets for getting fighters refunded due to poor ui design. We will be loosing fighters faster then the ui pop-op will appear. So makes logical sense to me.
-
|
Thomas Lot
Astrocomical Warped Intentions
116
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 17:19:04 -
[222] - Quote
Make no mistake, THIS
Isk Faucet
is the reason for this change to fighter sig and npc aggression. No matter that virtually EVERY carrier pilot does not want this change, it is being forced on us without ANY consulting opinion from the player base that it is effecting.
Hey CCP Devs, why not consult the player base BEFORE making such a drastic change instead of forcing it on us and asking for our opinion which you will obviously ignore.
If you don't want or do not plan to use our opinion on a topic, then don't ask for it.
SHEESH |
xOmGx
Order of Order SOLAR FLEET
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 17:35:08 -
[223] - Quote
CCP nerfs everything people like
as for me they nerfed Motherships so hard that i am starting to think that they are super useless now
Before they used to be interesting anti capital plarform that used to put out 10-13k dps (back then it was 2x Dred DPS) It was worth to get a Mothership coz it did reasonable DPS for its costs It was also able to hold its own against subcapitals Now all supers - just a EHP box - easy kills for subcapitals who cant defend themselfs
Now mother do what? 4-6k dps? LOL compared to 10-15k Dread dps is just LOL lol loooool DPS *by dps i mean consistent DPS 3 torpedo thingies are not serious in capital engagement*
Now these changes hit capitals even more making them more and more... useless
CCP should boost Supers and make them worth their pricetag And change claim mechanics that will motivate Alliances field capitals and super on battlefield
Every capital need boost (maybe beside dreads tho they do need some dps reduction imho)
Ow ye CCP plz fire the person responsible for fighter mechanics (how EWAR works on them) it take 2-3 BlackBirds to lock out Carrier / Mothership lel
And start doing something that matter - make it possible to heal fighters in combat and show each figher HP in the fighter bar (not just RED) |
Thomas Lot
Astrocomical Warped Intentions
116
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 17:49:52 -
[224] - Quote
xOmGx wrote: - make it possible to heal fighters in combat and show each fighter HP in the fighter bar (not just RED)
THIS ^
You want a feature that the Carrier and Super player-base can support? Look into this. |
Zazz Blammy Matazz
The Institution. Did he say Jump
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 18:10:48 -
[225] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Zazz Blammy Matazz wrote:Larrakin, the risk from firing a bust projector is still not inline with the reward. They have near the same penalty as a doomsday with Nowhere near the offensive/defensive capabilities. If you insist on these rediculously useless periods of effect, you need to remove the jump/cloak/warp penalty if you actually want them used. As they stand, they're still useless. They're not supposed to be in line with the reward of a Titan Doomsday though. That's a much more expensive ship producing a shorter duration effect. Completely removing the penalties associated with a Burst Projector would also completely remove almost all trade off with their use and make them incredibly ubiquitous in Null combat. Given the strength of their AoE effects I don't think that would be particularly good for the game.
I'm not saying do away with the penalty, just either shorten the penalty or lengthen the effect
|
Cade Windstalker
1005
|
Posted - 2017.03.06 19:12:48 -
[226] - Quote
Zazz Blammy Matazz wrote:I'm not saying do away with the penalty, just either shorten the penalty or lengthen the effect
Which is what they're doing now. Given the tweaks they've been making to caps fairly regularly since Citadel dropped I'd be very surprised if this is the last change they make to the class as a whole. If they don't see any changes to Burst Projector use after this then they'll probably tweak things again since this suggests that they want to differentiate Supers from "Carriers but bigger and better" in a meaningful way and are trying to use the BPs to do that to an extent.
xOmGx wrote:CCP nerfs everything people like
Nah, it only seems that way because people like and gravitate towards OP things. Those things are then fun for the players using them and less fun for everyone who isn't. Then the thing gets nerfed, the people who didn't like it just silently nod and breath a sigh of relief, and people using the OP thing get pissed.
This holds for every game, not just Eve.
Trevize Demerzel wrote:Few things
#1 - I don't understand the point of these Dev posts. All they do is anger the player base and CCP does the change anyway ignoring pages of feedback.
#2 - before this change goes live I believe they must first fix/change he ui so players can easily see the % health of each fighter.
#3 - for ewar each fighter must be treated as an individual. Why should it be easier to lock down a [super]carrier then a drone boat Dominix.
- Two things here. One, if CCP doesn't make these announcement posts people get even more pissed. Two, CCP listens but "OMG no nerfs! Nerfs bad!!!" isn't much of an argument. People get pissed whenever CCP changes anything, or refuses to change anything, or pretty much does or doesn't do anything. If people not yelling in a thread was a criteria for game balance CCP would never change anything. These posts exist primarily for people to point out issues or things CCP might have missed and for CCP to provide explanations and feedback to the playerbase, not for CCP to bow to a few dozen player's rage-post objections and reverse course on something they already believe will be a good change.
- While I think pretty much everyone with any interest in Carriers supports this idea I don't think it needs to happen before this change goes in. The current Fighter survivability is based on the current information level, so the information this change is based on is valid regardless of any changes to the UI. Also a change like that is likely non-trivial or it would be out already.
- By that logic why should it be easier to lock down a regular Battleship than a Carrier or Dominix? Ignoring that ECM as a whole isn't a great mechanic I don't think this is much of an argument. Different things have different counters, making ECM affect a squad of 9 Fighters individually would just swing it from a reasonably effective counter to completely ineffective and worthless.
|
Tydorus Adoudel
Ascendance Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 00:18:13 -
[227] - Quote
Honestly you guys just ****** me over. I do not multi box I only have one account and I carrier rat. I just started carrier ratting and now I am going to lose my fighters and not make isk. Why not raise the Hp for fighters if They are going to be easier to kill or make it to where the ratts do not aggro fighters as much. I really do not understand this and its a **** idea. |
Oracle of Machina
Pandemic Horde Inc. Pandemic Horde
38
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 00:38:48 -
[228] - Quote
I love how two weeks later, the "Reserved for answers" section contains exactly zero answers or explanations.
Great change, CCP! Make carriers useless again! |
Aernir Ridley
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
7
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 02:25:46 -
[229] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: FIGHTERS We'd like to increase the potential counter-play options vs fighters. We're going to do this by increasing their signature radius which makes them a little easier to hit. They are currently around the small-medium drone range. This will put them in the same size category as heavy drones. [/list]
Would you be willing to take a look at the hard ECM counter to fighters at the moment? As is, a single griffin is basically a hard counter a single carrier. Would you consider buffing the sensor strength of fighters in some way as a way to balance this out if you're going to make larger ships able to hit them?
"For most people, the sky's the limit... For those who love aviation, the sky, is home."
-Cheers! :D
|
Cade Windstalker
1009
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 02:53:01 -
[230] - Quote
Aernir Ridley wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote: FIGHTERS We'd like to increase the potential counter-play options vs fighters. We're going to do this by increasing their signature radius which makes them a little easier to hit. They are currently around the small-medium drone range. This will put them in the same size category as heavy drones.
Would you be willing to take a look at the hard ECM counter to fighters at the moment? As is, a single griffin is basically a hard counter a single carrier. Would you consider buffing the sensor strength of fighters in some way as a way to balance this out if you're going to make larger ships able to hit them?
The flip side of this is that if that Griffin is even a tiny big slow on his locks he just disappears off grid in a puff of missiles, and he can be easily killed by any kind of support fleet.
While I'm certainly not a fan of ECM as it currently stands I don't think ECM as Fighter counterplay is inherently broken. It's not really out of line with how ECM works with other ships, except that it basically takes one ECM ship and a lot of micro to tie down one Carrier, where as a single ECM ship can normally tie down multiple sub-caps. |
|
Aegon Cadelanne
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 02:53:46 -
[231] - Quote
Tabyll Altol wrote:So much tears from the PVE 0.0 Carebears.
I ratted about 40 hours in a niddy. My drones had around 5-6 times the aggro and i managed to lose only 1 fighter.
If this is 100% for some guys or way to much. No it isn-¦t stop crying. Carrier ratting was/is way to safe for the ticks.
This is a start.
+1
soooo null space is safe huh? |
Kagi Anzomi
CK-0FF Reverberation Project
19
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 02:55:55 -
[232] - Quote
Oracle of Machina wrote:I love how two weeks later, the "Reserved for answers" section contains exactly zero answers or explanations.
Great change, CCP! Make carriers useless again! There really haven't been many questions asked. This thread is 85% "no, please don't do this" and 15% "yay, now nerf carrier damage so they can't kill cruisers" with approximately 0% questions. |
Moxy Algaert
Raised By Wolves Inc Blades of Grass
7
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 05:05:40 -
[233] - Quote
Mousing over squadrons to see damage % is beyond annoying. Fighter damage needs to be indicated in some heads-up display (like drones). |
Kagi Anzomi
CK-0FF Reverberation Project
20
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 08:19:50 -
[234] - Quote
Moxy Algaert wrote:Mousing over squadrons to see damage % is beyond annoying. Fighter damage needs to be indicated in some heads-up display (like drones). Indeed. Let me just point over to this little mockup I made nearly a year ago. The top is what we have now. Not much useful information, is there? The next three rows are very simple changes that would make a world of difference for all of us carrier pilots who don't like keeping our cursors over fighter squads at all times. |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
92
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 09:13:15 -
[235] - Quote
If it hasn't been obvious before - this is why!
From the Economic Report
The massive increase is almost entirely due to Carrier/Super-ratting.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Lugia3
The Pinecone Squad United Federation of Conifers
1525
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 12:27:15 -
[236] - Quote
Wow this thread is delicious.
"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
|
comander klieve
DeadMan's Squad Test Alliance Please Ignore
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 12:40:37 -
[237] - Quote
I think if you are going to increase the sig of fighters you should give a slight buff to fighter resists (or add a skill that can effect this?).
But as much as I am gonna be pissed the sig of a fighter being less then a heavy drone was kinda dumb in the first palce |
Captain Awkward
Republic University Minmatar Republic
136
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 13:22:18 -
[238] - 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.
If carriers need to be nerfed then they need to be nerfed. But making NPCs volly 10m fighers of the field is a realy stupid way to nerf carrier income. There are so many ways they could have nerfed carrier ratting without making it feel so dumb and punishing. |
Le Prospecteur
El Ultimo Hombre Goonswarm Federation
8
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 13:24:24 -
[239] - Quote
Captain Awkward 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. If carriers need to be nerfed then they need to be nerfed. But making NPCs volly 10m fighers of the field is a realy stupid way to nerf carrier income. There are so many ways thay could have nerfed carrier ratting without making it feel so dumb and punishing.
Particularly when the BS bounty is around 1mil..
It's beyond ridiculous |
Gosch Ti
Strong Arms Inc. Integritas Constans
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.07 13:52:22 -
[240] - Quote
Fighter aggro was fine before.
This just smells like a nerf to carrier ratting to close the faucet.
Just the next step to interceptors online. |
|
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" |
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3173
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 18:31:59 -
[271] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: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"
An equally "EVE" answer to this will be "Just boost your drones with a boosting alt".
Aaaah EVE player base... |
Cade Windstalker
1025
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 19:11:36 -
[272] - 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.
You won't hear me disagreeing
Axhind wrote: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.
There are already income sources that require less attention and effort, but they generally pay less (Level 4 missions anyone?).
Also if the spike in bounty payouts since Citadel is any indication people actually like the more micro intensive Carrier setup. The main complaints seem to be failings in the control scheme, mainly hotkeys, not that Carriers are suddenly too hard to pilot.
Axhind wrote: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.
You don't need split second timing, you just need to lock up a static structure and have them orbit that between waves or targets. If you're really lazy you could probably just fit optimal range scripts and have them orbit one thing statically all the time.
See this video for evidence and a demonstration. |
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
32
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 19:39:31 -
[273] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Questions & Answers
Q:Regarding the increased fighter signature & bug fix, have you thought about the impact to PvE? A: Yes, and run many test :) We believe that carrier ratting will continue to be viable after this change. Balanced carrier ratting is part of the goal of this change, and we'll be watching the results of this change closely, ready to iterate as needed.
Q:Could the fighter UI show the HP of the damaged fighter? A: This won't be coming in March, but it is something we're looking into! :)
Q:Its annoying when fighters stop after killing a target! A: We recognise that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future.
Step 1 : Change the behaviour of fighter when they kill a npc. Step 2: Change the fact sometimes you're fighter pilot don't want to move during 10 secondes with error message.
Step3 : Now you can make you're change.
But make step before 2 other, you will just make carrier useless in pve. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
127
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 21:42:30 -
[274] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:You don't need split second timing, you just need to lock up a static structure and have them orbit that between waves or targets. If you're really lazy you could probably just fit optimal range scripts and have them orbit one thing statically all the time. please STFU, you're being an idiot with zero fighter mechanics knowledge again.
CCP Larrikin wrote:Questions & Answers
Q:Regarding the increased fighter signature & bug fix, have you thought about the impact to PvE? A: Yes, and run many test :) We believe that carrier ratting will continue to be viable after this change. Balanced carrier ratting is part of the goal of this change, and we'll be watching the results of this change closely, ready to iterate as needed.
Q:Could the fighter UI show the HP of the damaged fighter? A: This won't be coming in March, but it is something we're looking into! :)
Q:Its annoying when fighters stop after killing a target! A: We recognise that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future.
So you admit you just wanted to remove carrier ratting, as expected of CCPL, being the two faced spineless people who are too afraid to even state WE'RE REMOVING CARRIERS FROM SITES in our faces, pretending like this change does anything at all to pvp instead. What a cowards!
Well, everyone is selling their carriers atm, so I wonder if there'd be anything to monitor.
The rest 2 questions address the actual bugs in need of fixing instead of non-existent npc aggro, and the response is "we'll look at it after walking in stations".
CCPL being CCPL.
WTS Thanatos, Chimera, Nidhoggur, eve online account. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3177
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 21:47:28 -
[275] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:
WTS Thanatos, Chimera, Nidhoggur, eve online account.
Hey CCP, can you ban this guy ASAP since he's obviously willing to engage in RMT to sell his account. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
127
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 22:00:15 -
[276] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Orca Platypus wrote:
WTS Thanatos, Chimera, Nidhoggur, eve online account.
Hey CCP, can you ban this guy ASAP since he's obviously willing to engage in RMT to sell his account.
You guys still get paplinks for agenda tears on forums, even after all that happened? |
Cade Windstalker
1025
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 22:40:50 -
[277] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:please STFU, you're being an idiot with zero fighter mechanics knowledge again.
Aaaaand you're lashing out with personal attacks again instead of presenting any kind of coherent discussion.
Also that is literally what that video I linked demonstrated the pilot doing. Or are you just insulting me because this sort of thing doesn't work too well with multi-boxing?
Orca Platypus wrote:So you admit you just wanted to remove carrier ratting, as expected of CCPL, being the two faced spineless people who are too afraid to even state WE'RE REMOVING CARRIERS FROM SITES in our faces, pretending like this change does anything at all to pvp instead. What a cowards!
Well, everyone is selling their carriers atm, so I wonder if there'd be anything to monitor.
The rest 2 questions address the actual bugs in need of fixing instead of non-existent npc aggro, and the response is "we'll look at it after walking in stations".
CCPL being CCPL.
WTS Thanatos, Chimera, Nidhoggur, eve online account.
That is literally not what he said...
Carrier ratting is still perfectly viable, you can get on Sisi right now and test it out for yourself.
If you're gonna rage quit anyways though can I has your stuffs? |
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
41
|
Posted - 2017.03.08 23:19:41 -
[278] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Orca Platypus wrote:So you admit you just wanted to remove carrier ratting, as expected of CCPL, being the two faced spineless people who are too afraid to even state WE'RE REMOVING CARRIERS FROM SITES in our faces, pretending like this change does anything at all to pvp instead. What a cowards!
Well, everyone is selling their carriers atm, so I wonder if there'd be anything to monitor.
The rest 2 questions address the actual bugs in need of fixing instead of non-existent npc aggro, and the response is "we'll look at it after walking in stations".
CCPL being CCPL.
WTS Thanatos, Chimera, Nidhoggur, eve online account. That is literally not what he said... Carrier ratting is still perfectly viable, you can get on Sisi right now and test it out for yourself. If you're gonna rage quit anyways though can I has your stuffs?
If you re-read, that was a response to what CCP said, not you. |
Gadzooki
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 00:01:16 -
[279] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Orca Platypus wrote:please STFU, you're being an idiot with zero fighter mechanics knowledge again. Aaaaand you're lashing out with personal attacks again instead of presenting any kind of coherent discussion. Also that is literally what that video I linked demonstrated the pilot doing. Or are you just insulting me because this sort of thing doesn't work too well with multi-boxing?
Im a complete noob and even I can tell you have zero carrier experience. So my question is why do you feel the need to weigh in>?
|
Lessilera Andrard
Les chevaliers de l'ordre Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 02:24:39 -
[280] - Quote
Blah blah blah...
Just introduce FLAK canons... dedicated to destroy fighters & drones.
- Add a possibility of gameplay. - Add variety to gangs - Can hit multiple fighters in a squad - Doesn't need to lock (like autotargeting missile), so it avoid exploit of using it on other things than drones/fighters.
On the other hand, reduce fighters volume & cost by the same amount so carriers can carry more and feel like a real hive.
And for the ISK making problems in eve economics and money problem for CCP, just release skins. |
|
Ormarr Kai
Ice Fire Warriors
32
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 03:09:10 -
[281] - Quote
Rip carriers... It was fun while it lasted |
Aegon Cadelanne
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 03:15:28 -
[282] - 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"?
Doesn't the point of having to multibox offset the benefits of AFK in a way? I mean, carrier ratting still earn the same as if not more than 2 ishtars with maxed out drone skills. And that's with only 1 account. 1B plex or 15$. Then you have supers which blow away both with ease in the isk printing department. And who the **** does complete AFK in null? That's the best way to lose a ship. I don't need to be a 10 year vet to know that. I'm always staring at my monitor even during hours of ratting in a VNI. |
Zazz Blammy Matazz
The Institution. Did he say Jump
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 03:18:15 -
[283] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Zazz Blammy Matazz wrote:I'm not saying do away with the penalty, just either shorten the penalty or lengthen the effect
Which is what they're doing now. Given the tweaks they've been making to caps fairly regularly since Citadel dropped I'd be very surprised if this is the last change they make to the class as a whole. If they don't see any changes to Burst Projector use after this then they'll probably tweak things again since this suggests that they want to differentiate Supers from "Carriers but bigger and better" in a meaningful way and are trying to use the BPs to do that to an extent. xOmGx wrote:CCP nerfs everything people like Nah, it only seems that way because people like and gravitate towards OP things. Those things are then fun for the players using them and less fun for everyone who isn't. Then the thing gets nerfed, the people who didn't like it just silently nod and breath a sigh of relief, and people using the OP thing get pissed. This holds for every game, not just Eve. Trevize Demerzel wrote:Few things
#1 - I don't understand the point of these Dev posts. All they do is anger the player base and CCP does the change anyway ignoring pages of feedback.
#2 - before this change goes live I believe they must first fix/change he ui so players can easily see the % health of each fighter.
#3 - for ewar each fighter must be treated as an individual. Why should it be easier to lock down a [super]carrier then a drone boat Dominix.
- Two things here. One, if CCP doesn't make these announcement posts people get even more pissed. Two, CCP listens but "OMG no nerfs! Nerfs bad!!!" isn't much of an argument. People get pissed whenever CCP changes anything, or refuses to change anything, or pretty much does or doesn't do anything. If people not yelling in a thread was a criteria for game balance CCP would never change anything. These posts exist primarily for people to point out issues or things CCP might have missed and for CCP to provide explanations and feedback to the playerbase, not for CCP to bow to a few dozen player's rage-post objections and reverse course on something they already believe will be a good change.
- While I think pretty much everyone with any interest in Carriers supports this idea I don't think it needs to happen before this change goes in. The current Fighter survivability is based on the current information level, so the information this change is based on is valid regardless of any changes to the UI. Also a change like that is likely non-trivial or it would be out already.
- By that logic why should it be easier to lock down a regular Battleship than a Carrier or Dominix? Ignoring that ECM as a whole isn't a great mechanic I don't think this is much of an argument. Different things have different counters, making ECM affect a squad of 9 Fighters individually would just swing it from a reasonably effective counter to completely ineffective and worthless.
I understand that is what they are doing, I'm just saying IMO the initial bump on this balance pass should have been a tad more. I'd be perfectly content if each of the added duration bumps was an addition 20 seconds to the proposed bump.
|
evolution666
Australian Belt Strippers Apocalypse Now.
4
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 05:08:19 -
[284] - Quote
Dear CCP. Eat a bag of dicks. Cheers! |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
128
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 08:53:21 -
[285] - Quote
Aegon Cadelanne wrote:Doesn't the point of having to multibox offset the benefits of AFK in a way? I mean, carrier ratting still earn the same as if not more than 2 ishtars with maxed out drone skills. And that's with only 1 account. 1B plex or 15$. Then you have supers which blow away both with ease in the isk printing department. And who the **** does complete AFK in null? That's the best way to lose a ship. I don't need to be a 10 year vet to know that. I'm always staring at my monitor even during hours of ratting in a VNI.
Technically carrier is about 3 afktars in income per hour. But me personally, I can't run carrier for more than 1 hour per session before taking a long break, because I get tired, and I don't have time for more than one, rarely two, sessions each day.
Afktar you can run as much as your paranoia allows you to. So having it out for 3 hours makes it even with carrier. Thus the strategy in this post-carrier world would be running afktars with all my accounts while reading a book, with local showing at the side of my screen. So it won't really change the faucet (or even increase it, as running multiple afktars can be done way longer than running a carrier), just makes me bitter af at all the wasted SP and investment into carriers.
P.S. CCPL look at what you've done, I'm agreeing with Karmafleet!!! For me, Karmafleet, and NC. grunts to agree, the truth must be no less than universal. |
O2 jayjay
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
52
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 13:02:24 -
[286] - Quote
100m for fighters? Lol why? Well are you going to increase a T3 destroyer sig? I dont get why you people make these random changes. It wasnt that long ago eve only had 13000-20000 active subs. Due to Really bad nerfs that the player base was against. Let thing be and prosper by not pissing us off. Maybe we can hit 100k online one day.
Lastly for the rorq change. Makes sense a HS incursion runner can make 34mil every 9 mins in a bil isk ship with very little risk involved. But shame on the null guy for spending 9 bil in a rorq and having other players on standbyi in multi bil isk ships to save him. Not one does he have to worry about hotdrops, the XL WH that housing 100man t3 crusier gang with logi just randomly spawned in his system. Now he is getting neefed to making what HS incursion runners make. Risk vs Reward factor makes sense........Not. |
Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
189
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 15:30:04 -
[287] - Quote
O2 jayjay wrote:Lastly for the rorq change. Makes sense a HS incursion runner can make 34mil every 9 mins in a bil isk ship with very little risk involved. But shame on the null guy for spending 9 bil in a rorq and having other players on standbyi in multi bil isk ships to save him. Not one does he have to worry about hotdrops, the XL WH that housing 100man t3 crusier gang with logi just randomly spawned in his system. Now he is getting neefed to making what HS incursion runners make. Risk vs Reward factor makes sense........Not.
I don't really have a dog in the fighter/rorq nerf fight, BUT I've been saying the same thing about incursions for years. Incursion income is the ISK-income benchmark for "endgame" players, and it drives me batshit crazy that a WoW-like PvE-raid mechanic just happens to be one of the easiest sources of "big" ISK in the game, AND you can do it basically risk-free in highsec.
Incursion income either needs to be nerfed or moved to low/null because L5s, 5+/10s, Rorq mining, etc, also are restricted to low/null. C'mon CCP, this is a no-brainer. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
128
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 15:45:18 -
[288] - Quote
Magosian wrote:I don't really have a dog in the fighter/rorq nerf fight, BUT I've been saying the same thing about incursions for years. Incursion income is the ISK-income benchmark for "endgame" players, and it drives me batshit crazy that a WoW-like PvE-raid mechanic just happens to be one of the easiest sources of "big" ISK in the game, AND you can do it basically risk-free in highsec.
Incursion income either needs to be nerfed or moved to low/null because L5s, 5+/10s, Rorq mining, etc, also are restricted to low/null. C'mon CCP, this is a no-brainer.
Goons were pinged to whine NERF HISEC on forums back in 2013, when hisec was perceived by CFC as the biggest enemy, and some still think that ping is actual. They were given examples where to cry about incursions, missions blitzing, mining lowsec ore in anoms, etc.
The result is well-known, CFCSM stuffed that in CCP face, and hisec was nerfed to the ground. But they still cry about it, habits are hard to break.
low/null incursions income is already better, 2013 called, they want their nerf hisec tears back. |
MidnightWyvern
Night Theifs Curatores Veritatis Alliance
360
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 15:56:23 -
[289] - Quote
Well, after skilling into Falcons not long after those got the nerf bat, now I got into my first Carrier to try and increase my ISK income just in time for the NPCs that already aggro my Fighters constantly to now be doing so even more often.
I kind of feel like I just wasted 1.5 billion ISK on something that before now I was really looking forward to and was enjoying using.
Rattati Senpai noticed us! See you in the next FPS!
Alts: Saray Wyvern, Mobius Wyvern (Dust 514)
|
Cade Windstalker
1028
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 16:25:10 -
[290] - Quote
Juvir wrote:If you re-read, that was a response to what CCP said, not you.
Yes? And?
Doesn't make him any less wrong.
Zazz Blammy Matazz wrote:I understand that is what they are doing, I'm just saying IMO the initial bump on this balance pass should have been a tad more. I'd be perfectly content if each of the added duration bumps was an addition 20 seconds to the proposed bump.
Personally, just eyeballing things, I agree, but I'll fully admit I don't have enough experience with Burst Projectors to fully judge the potential impact of this and given how much they're used right now I doubt anyone can say for sure where the point of OP-ness is. I'd rather CCP take things incrementally rather than over-buff things and end up with a mess they have to try and quickly fix before it gets out of hand.
See -> Rorquals.
O2 jayjay wrote:100m for fighters? Lol why? Well are you going to increase a T3 destroyer sig? I dont get why you people make these random changes. It wasnt that long ago eve only had 13000-20000 active subs. Due to Really bad nerfs that the player base was against. Let thing be and prosper by not pissing us off. Maybe we can hit 100k online one day.
Lastly for the rorq change. Makes sense a HS incursion runner can make 34mil every 9 mins in a bil isk ship with very little risk involved. But shame on the null guy for spending 9 bil in a rorq and having other players on standbyi in multi bil isk ships to save him. Not one does he have to worry about hotdrops, the XL WH that housing 100man t3 crusier gang with logi just randomly spawned in his system. Now he is getting neefed to making what HS incursion runners make. Risk vs Reward factor makes sense........Not.
Um... Eve hasn't had 20,000 subs since like early 2004. I think you may be confusing subs with average PCU, and even that hasn't been that low on average since about 2006.
Also those incursion numbers are, um, ridiculous. No one runs sustained numbers like that, and certainly not with 1b fits. Carrier ratting in null makes almost twice the sustained ISK of Incursions and requires nothing more than yourself and a system to fly in. No waiting for fleets and less overall risk of losing your ship due to someone else's screwup.
Magosian wrote:I don't really have a dog in the fighter/rorq nerf fight, BUT I've been saying the same thing about incursions for years. Incursion income is the ISK-income benchmark for "endgame" players, and it drives me batshit crazy that a WoW-like PvE-raid mechanic just happens to be one of the easiest sources of "big" ISK in the game, AND you can do it basically risk-free in highsec.
Incursion income either needs to be nerfed or moved to low/null because L5s, 5+/10s, Rorq mining, etc, also are restricted to low/null. C'mon CCP, this is a no-brainer.
High Sec incursions also require a ton of logistics to keep running, lose way more ships than most people realize, and still get solidly beat out by basically everything Null offers in terms of solo income.
Has it occurred to you that maybe the reason CCP hasn't nerfed incursions, at least since that one initial big tweak they did, is because they're actually pretty happy with the trade off in risk, reward, and organization required for them relative to solo ratting in a Carrier in null?
If this was truly a no-brainer then CCP would have done something by now, the fact that they haven't suggests that your assumptions might just be bad. |
|
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
33
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 17:22:37 -
[291] - Quote
This post need an answer of a dev. (i don't care of player answer).
1)When you give a lot of order you're squad stop : actually not a big deal, sometimes lost 1 fighter (1 for maybe 50 ano). After update maybe if it's 1 per anomaly it will be a big problem. 2) If you're connection have some latency (like ping to 2000 -3000 ms) and go back to normal , or a avearage ping of 500 ms ... You will loose fighter. Ping could come from player... and you're infrastructure => >Actually you do'nt loose fighter or mayber one for X anomaly. 3)if you don't play with keyboard shortcut for medical reason for exemple ... you can't use you're carrier anymore with a normal mouse. Or if you play on trackpad same problem. Actuallly you can , after you will loose free fighter.
So let me be clear : 1) Beug issue to solve, tou're problem we can write to support for each time it will happen. 2) Same as 1, unless you can proof it's the player connexion who lag (not the FAI, THE PLAYER connexion), beacause yes in some country when the player have sign to you're game he agree CGU... and law of his country. You could have legal issue, so prepare to reimburse. 3) Legal issue if you want more detail and you are CCP employee pm me.
So i repeat before change fighter, solve problem 1, after make fighter auto orbit when they kill, and after make you're actual change.
Thank. |
Cade Windstalker
1028
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 18:20:30 -
[292] - Quote
Dictateur Imperator wrote:This post need an answer of a dev. (i don't care of player answer).
1)When you give a lot of order you're squad stop : actually not a big deal, sometimes lost 1 fighter (1 for maybe 50 ano). After update maybe if it's 1 per anomaly it will be a big problem. 2) If you're connection have some latency (like ping to 2000 -3000 ms) and go back to normal , or a avearage ping of 500 ms ... You will loose fighter. Ping could come from player... and you're infrastructure => >Actually you do'nt loose fighter or mayber one for X anomaly. 3)if you don't play with keyboard shortcut for medical reason for exemple ... you can't use you're carrier anymore with a normal mouse. Or if you play on trackpad same problem. Actuallly you can , after you will loose free fighter.
So let me be clear : 1) Beug issue to solve, tou're problem we can write to support for each time it will happen. 2) Same as 1, unless you can proof it's the player connexion who lag (not the FAI, THE PLAYER connexion), beacause yes in some country when the player have sign to you're game he agree CGU... and law of his country. You could have legal issue, so prepare to reimburse. 3) Legal issue if you want more detail and you are CCP employee pm me.
So i repeat before change fighter, solve problem 1, after make fighter auto orbit when they kill, and after make you're actual change.
Thank.
So, I know you really don't care if another player answers, but you included the words "legal" in there so you're basically guaranteed not to get a dev response so...
Regarding number 1, there's a Fighter tweaks thread over in the Test Server forum right over here that notes a change to the APM restrictions:
CCP Lebowski wrote:Relaxed the throttling on giving orders to Fighter Squadrons. This should result in less occurrences of busy squadrons during high APM usage.
Regarding number 2...
It's not CCP's responsibility to prove that it's your stuff that messed up. They only have to prove to their own internal satisfaction that it's not their stuff that messed up, beyond that the burden of proof is on you. Also there's a chain of other entities along your connection to CCP any one of whom could be responsible for lag on your connection.
And regarding number 3, that's unfortunate but while I bet CCP would be happy to have your feedback or better understand your experience I doubt they'll promise anything or hold back a change on the basis of a single edge-case user. |
Magosian
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
191
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 21:26:56 -
[293] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:Goons were pinged to whine NERF HISEC on forums back in 2013, when hisec was perceived by CFC as the biggest enemy, and some still think that ping is actual. They were given examples where to cry about incursions, missions blitzing, mining lowsec ore in anoms, etc.
The result is well-known, CFCSM stuffed that in CCP face, and hisec was nerfed to the ground. But they still cry about it, habits are hard to break.
low/null incursions income is already better, 2013 called, they want their nerf hisec tears back. I don't know what you're saying, unless you're suggesting that highsec incursion running is fine where it is. I don't happen to think so, and I don't see how goons whining about it a few years ago is relevant.
Nerfed how?
As it stands, players still get 150mil/hour in highsec incursions and should not be possible. Goons bitching about it doesn't mean squat.
I suppose it's moot; this thread really isn't about incursions, but i do find it humorous that null rorq mining is being compared to it. If that doesn't tell you anything, nothing I have to add will either. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
128
|
Posted - 2017.03.09 23:46:48 -
[294] - Quote
Magosian wrote:I don't know what you're saying, unless you're suggesting that highsec incursion running is fine where it is. I don't happen to think so, and I don't see how goons whining about it a few years ago is relevant.
Nerfed how?
As it stands, players still get 150mil/hour in highsec incursions and should not be possible. Goons bitching about it doesn't mean squat.
I suppose it's moot; this thread really isn't about incursions, but i do find it humorous that null rorq mining is being compared to it. If that doesn't tell you anything, nothing I have to add will either.
Hisec incursion running is fine where it is. It is a highly active form of PvE which requires your focus, meaning you can't do it long, it is competitive, it is time-limited, it is risky, it is a major hassle, it is logistically challenging to do every week, and it's NOT top income in eve PvE despite all the factors involved.
And you could get 150mil/hour in a carrier, technically you still can - until this change lands and carriers are done and gone. In a much safer environment of nullsec - risk to incursion ships in hisec is much higher.
Rorqual mining depends on supply and demand, rorquals mine more - more supply - less income. I mean, look at mineral prices, low ends lost 33% (and more) of their value since the rorqual rebalance, that nerfed them almost as hard as CCPL did, and removal of carriers will devalue minerals even further. Thus despite I agree that the taken approach to balancing is wrong and will remove any credibility in future reworks and buffs, I could totally see it coming and didn't invest in a rorqual - it was all too good to be true.
Carrier nerf I didn't see coming, I waited till the first tweak, and stepped onto injectors only after months passed and things seemed stabled enough... and got rekt by CFCSM of CCPL new campaing to NERF NULLSEC FOR THE SMALL GUY after seeing the remarkable success in depopulating hisec as the result of NERF HISEC campaign. |
Logan Jakal
Blue Sun. DARKNESS.
12
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 11:19:22 -
[295] - Quote
Yeah, because fighters having the radius of a cruiser is totally legit. |
LECSA 1
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 11:44:59 -
[296] - Quote
Say bye to carriers . |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
129
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 13:34:49 -
[297] - Quote
So what was the fuking point of collecting feedback (which was fairly unanimous, a pair of trolls aside), if this change still goes in as it is? |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3179
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 13:46:39 -
[298] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:So what was the fuking point of collecting feedback (which was fairly unanimous, a pair of trolls aside), if this change still goes in as it is?
Why do you care since you won't be able to use your carrier with your walls of bubbles being nerfed? |
M3tamorph
Zonk Squad Badfellas Inc.
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 14:04:38 -
[299] - Quote
First NERF... then fix the problems with the way fighters work and fix UI for displaying properly damage, etc... Good call CCP. |
O2 jayjay
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
56
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:15:59 -
[300] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Juvir wrote:If you re-read, that was a response to what CCP said, not you. [quote=O2 jayjay]100m for fighters? Lol why? Well are you going to increase a T3 destroyer sig? I dont get why you people make these random changes. It wasnt that long ago eve only had 13000-20000 active subs. Due to Really bad nerfs that the player base was against. Let thing be and prosper by not pissing us off. Maybe we can hit 100k online one day. Lastly for the rorq change. Makes sense a HS incursion runner can make 34mil every 9 mins in a bil isk ship with very little risk involved. But shame on the null guy for spending 9 bil in a rorq and having other players on standbyi in multi bil isk ships to save him. Not one does he have to worry about hotdrops, the XL WH that housing 100man t3 crusier gang with logi just randomly spawned in his system. Now he is getting neefed to making what HS incursion runners make. Risk vs Reward factor makes sense........Not.
Um... Eve hasn't had 20,000 subs since like early 2004. I think you may be confusing subs with average PCU, and even that hasn't been that low on average since about 2006.
Also those incursion numbers are, um, ridiculous. No one runs sustained numbers like that, and certainly not with 1b fits. Carrier ratting in null makes almost twice the sustained ISK of Incursions and requires nothing more than yourself and a system to fly in. No waiting for fleets and less overall risk of losing your ship due to someone else's screwup.
http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility |
|
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
42
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:23:20 -
[301] - Quote
O2 jayjay wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Juvir wrote:If you re-read, that was a response to what CCP said, not you. [quote=O2 jayjay]100m for fighters? Lol why? Well are you going to increase a T3 destroyer sig? I dont get why you people make these random changes. It wasnt that long ago eve only had 13000-20000 active subs. Due to Really bad nerfs that the player base was against. Let thing be and prosper by not pissing us off. Maybe we can hit 100k online one day. Lastly for the rorq change. Makes sense a HS incursion runner can make 34mil every 9 mins in a bil isk ship with very little risk involved. But shame on the null guy for spending 9 bil in a rorq and having other players on standbyi in multi bil isk ships to save him. Not one does he have to worry about hotdrops, the XL WH that housing 100man t3 crusier gang with logi just randomly spawned in his system. Now he is getting neefed to making what HS incursion runners make. Risk vs Reward factor makes sense........Not. Um... Eve hasn't had 20,000 subs since like early 2004. I think you may be confusing subs with average PCU, and even that hasn't been that low on average since about 2006. Also those incursion numbers are, um, ridiculous. No one runs sustained numbers like that, and certainly not with 1b fits. Carrier ratting in null makes almost twice the sustained ISK of Incursions and requires nothing more than yourself and a system to fly in. No waiting for fleets and less overall risk of losing your ship due to someone else's screwup. http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility
Early 2004 is incorrect if you look at the graph there... peak PCU was just barely 12k as it rolled into 2005 according to that link. It has breached 60k multiple times between 2010-2014, and has only broken 50k once since then.
|
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
42
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:30:57 -
[302] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Orca Platypus wrote:So what was the fuking point of collecting feedback (which was fairly unanimous, a pair of trolls aside), if this change still goes in as it is? Why do you care since you won't be able to use your carrier with your walls of bubbles being nerfed?
Don't need walls of bubbles to carrier rat safely, just a good intel network. |
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
42
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:33:17 -
[303] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Juvir wrote:If you re-read, that was a response to what CCP said, not you. Yes? And? Doesn't make him any less wrong.
It not only makes him less wrong, it makes you more wrong. You responded to what he said as if it was directed AT you, and it was unrelated to you entirely. It shows you're not reading to understand what a person is saying, but to react. Try slowing down and reading what is actually being said, instead of skimming and flaming. |
Jason Richter
S0utherN Comfort Test Alliance Please Ignore
7
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:49:55 -
[304] - Quote
Considering in Sanctums I've had issues with 3-4 LR FB's getting volleyed off field before their MJD could spool up, this change will be an undesired one. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3180
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 15:53:04 -
[305] - Quote
Juvir wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Orca Platypus wrote:So what was the fuking point of collecting feedback (which was fairly unanimous, a pair of trolls aside), if this change still goes in as it is? Why do you care since you won't be able to use your carrier with your walls of bubbles being nerfed? Don't need walls of bubbles to carrier rat safely, just a good intel network.
There is a reason why I said that to this player. |
Vinch Vondrichnov
Drama Sutra Incorporated.
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:04:32 -
[306] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:So what was the fuking point of collecting feedback (which was fairly unanimous, a pair of trolls aside), if this change still goes in as it is?
Mongs don't matter
Logan Jakal wrote:Yeah, because fighters having the radius of a cruiser is totally legit.
Because fighters having a smaller sig than heavy drones was totally legit ? Learn how this game works, thanks. |
Logan Jakal
Blue Sun. DARKNESS.
14
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:12:42 -
[307] - Quote
Juvir wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Orca Platypus wrote:So what was the fuking point of collecting feedback (which was fairly unanimous, a pair of trolls aside), if this change still goes in as it is? Why do you care since you won't be able to use your carrier with your walls of bubbles being nerfed? Don't need walls of bubbles to carrier rat safely, just a good intel network.
Actually, the only thing you need to Carrier rat safely is not being ******** AF. |
Logan Jakal
Blue Sun. DARKNESS.
14
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:15:09 -
[308] - Quote
Vinch Vondrichnov wrote:Logan Jakal wrote:Yeah, because fighters having the radius of a cruiser is totally legit. Because fighters having a smaller sig than heavy drones was totally legit ? Learn how this game works, thanks.
Seems legit coming from a high-sec scrub.
|
Vinch Vondrichnov
Drama Sutra Incorporated.
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:18:58 -
[309] - Quote
Logan Jakal wrote:Vinch Vondrichnov wrote:Logan Jakal wrote:Yeah, because fighters having the radius of a cruiser is totally legit. Because fighters having a smaller sig than heavy drones was totally legit ? Learn how this game works, thanks. Seems legit coming from a high-sec scrub.
You'r a piece **** inside a trash corp being itself inside of one of the most shittiest ally, check your smack privilege mate.
nvm, u'r flying in inties fleets, u'r elite. |
Logan Jakal
Blue Sun. DARKNESS.
15
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:56:44 -
[310] - Quote
Vinch Vondrichnov wrote:Logan Jakal wrote:Vinch Vondrichnov wrote:Logan Jakal wrote:Yeah, because fighters having the radius of a cruiser is totally legit. Because fighters having a smaller sig than heavy drones was totally legit ? Learn how this game works, thanks. Seems legit coming from a high-sec scrub. You'r a piece **** inside a trash corp being itself inside of one of the most shittiest ally, check your smack privilege mate. nvm, u'r flying in inties fleets, u'r elite.
lol yeah I fly inties
https://puu.sh/uCSzU/4b88a30e12.jpg |
|
Vinch Vondrichnov
Drama Sutra Incorporated.
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:59:23 -
[311] - Quote
Logan Jakal wrote:Vinch Vondrichnov wrote:Logan Jakal wrote:Vinch Vondrichnov wrote:Logan Jakal wrote:Yeah, because fighters having the radius of a cruiser is totally legit. Because fighters having a smaller sig than heavy drones was totally legit ? Learn how this game works, thanks. Seems legit coming from a high-sec scrub. You'r a piece **** inside a trash corp being itself inside of one of the most shittiest ally, check your smack privilege mate. nvm, u'r flying in inties fleets, u'r elite. lol yeah I fly inties https://puu.sh/uCSzU/4b88a30e12.jpg
Gz on being a glorified F1 pusher, now gtfo and learn to play this game. |
Sandra Isu
Space Cavalry Regiment
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:59:37 -
[312] - Quote
I'm sad because another nerf comming to carriers to the point of considering giving up the game for now. But not because nerf itself but because of how it was done. No UI improvement so we can see how much hp fighter has, no fix for npc aggro so they won't jump one squadron at once instead of spreading it to all of them. Bad fighter mechanics like no assist/guard, standing still after attack, no auto aggro etc. This is not how things should be done.
And funniest thing is that because my carrier loses too many fighters on sisi (lost two on last haven wave and having 3x drone hp rigs didnt helped) I was thinking that maybe I will take him for some pvp since I no longer need it. But guess what. I remembered why I was not getting it for pvp earlier - because he had to poor dps against smaller ships and it was too easy to kill/counter fighters ... So what should I do with it now?
And if you think that I am overreacting, then I have to tell you that when I lost internet connection and relogged fast I lost already 6 t2 fighters and it hurts. I don't even want to know how many I will lose next time after this change.
Btw is there any chance to have capital and fighter skills refunded? Because as I understand this change is not going to be postponed. |
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
42
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 16:59:38 -
[313] - Quote
Vinch Vondrichnov wrote:Orca Platypus wrote:So what was the fuking point of collecting feedback (which was fairly unanimous, a pair of trolls aside), if this change still goes in as it is? Mongs don't matter Logan Jakal wrote:Yeah, because fighters having the radius of a cruiser is totally legit. Because fighters having a smaller sig than heavy drones was totally legit ? Learn how this game works, thanks.
Because not having the resists or 3 layers of HP of a heavy drone is totally legit. EHP on a heavy drone > a fighter, and it costs much less. Doesn't matter if it's T1 or T2. Play the game, thanks. |
Logan Jakal
Blue Sun. DARKNESS.
15
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:01:09 -
[314] - Quote
Vinch Vondrichnov wrote:[Gz on being a glorified F1 pusher, now gtfo and learn to play this game.
Jesus christ, even Liberals are not as salty as you lol |
Vinch Vondrichnov
Drama Sutra Incorporated.
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:05:46 -
[315] - Quote
Logan Jakal wrote:Vinch Vondrichnov wrote:[Gz on being a glorified F1 pusher, now gtfo and learn to play this game. Jesus christ, even Liberals are not as salty as you lol
You'r the one whining because of a fighter sig increase, get real. |
Logan Jakal
Blue Sun. DARKNESS.
15
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:06:31 -
[316] - Quote
Vinch Vondrichnov wrote:Logan Jakal wrote:Vinch Vondrichnov wrote:[Gz on being a glorified F1 pusher, now gtfo and learn to play this game. Jesus christ, even Liberals are not as salty as you lol You'r the one whining because of a fighter sig increase, get real.
I didn't whine, I just pointed something that is totally stupid, and you acted like a crazy sas. Take a chill pill. |
Cade Windstalker
1057
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:12:20 -
[317] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:So what was the ****ing point of collecting feedback (which was fairly unanimous, a pair of trolls aside), if this change still goes in as it is?
Lets see, where to start with this one...
First off, a few dozen people on the forums is hardly any kind of unanimous feedback. If you look back through the older threads the feedback is almost always majority negative against whatever change is being made.
The Marauders thread is a pretty good example of this, because it got a huge amount of attention and CCP actually changed their plan based on the huge amount of negative feedback they were receiving. Then they got even *more* negative feedback from people who liked their first plan more, so they swapped back to a slightly tweaked version of V1 of the Marauder rework. Taking the contents of one of these threads as 'proof' of anything is ridiculous.
Beyond that the arguments against this change, and most changes really, have amounted to 'OMG no nerf, this is terrible and unjustified and shouldn't be done! No!' which is... not a counter argument, or even an argument really, it's just emotional feedback. Of course people don't like it when things are nerfed, that's a given. If you or anyone else wants to change CCP's mind or direction with this or any other change they need to present a reasoned and well supported argument.
So far you and most of the rest of the people in this thread A. haven't actually done any testing and B. haven't provided any kind of actual proof, you're just making a bunch of assumption, taking it as given that those assumptions are correct, and then arguing from there. That's not going to convince anyone who isn't already on your side.
I once again invite anyone and everyone interested in changing CCP's mind to take a look at this awesome post by CCP Greyscale on what makes a good argument.
Juvir wrote:It not only makes him less wrong, it makes you more wrong. You responded to what he said as if it was directed AT you, and it was unrelated to you entirely. It shows you're not reading to understand what a person is saying, but to react. Try slowing down and reading what is actually being said, instead of skimming and flaming.
While I don't agree entirely with everything he is saying due to the way he is saying it, it doesn't help to provoke a person either. The idea here is for feedback, and rage posts are generally ignored by CCP anyway. There's no need to stoke the fire and make matters worse.
Um... no, I didn't? I responded to what he said, to CCP Larrikin, as if he said it to CCP Larrikin.
"That is literally not what he said... Lol" <- emphasis mine
Also when I said he was wrong I was referring to factually wrong. What he said was, quite blatantly, factually incorrect hyperbole.
As to the rest of it, yes I was being a bit of an ***. I shouldn't have responded to him. Fair cop on that.
Juvir wrote:Because not having the resists or 3 layers of HP of a heavy drone is totally legit. EHP on a heavy drone > a fighter, and it costs much less. Doesn't matter if it's T1 or T2. Play the game, thanks.
Yes, but functionally Fighters are much faster and harder to apply damage to than a Heavy Drone, so while Heavy Drones have more EHP Fighters still generally tank better. |
Vinch Vondrichnov
Drama Sutra Incorporated.
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 17:15:47 -
[318] - Quote
Sandra Isu wrote:I'm sad because another nerf comming to carriers to the point of considering giving up the game for now.
Good, i'm looking for a carrier pilot.
Sandra Isu wrote: And if you think that I am overreacting, then I have to tell you that when I lost internet connection and relogged fast I lost already 6 t2 fighters and it hurts. I don't even want to know how many I will lose next time after this change.
Don't lose internet connection ?
Sandra Isu wrote: Btw is there any chance to have capital and fighter skills refunded? Because as I understand this change is not going to be postponed.
See above. |
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
42
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 18:30:14 -
[319] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Juvir wrote:Because not having the resists or 3 layers of HP of a heavy drone is totally legit. EHP on a heavy drone > a fighter, and it costs much less. Doesn't matter if it's T1 or T2. Play the game, thanks. Yes, but functionally Fighters are much faster and harder to apply damage to than a Heavy Drone, so while Heavy Drones have more EHP Fighters still generally tank better. That said, I am wondering if this isn't going to end up being a bit much. An EHP boost might be a good next step and at this point I'm half expecting it with the next round of Carrier tweaks, assuming we get one.
A lot of people are asking that very thing actually. Put out an EHP increase for fighters, better resists, "something" with this change. Rather than the hard bat then fixes, why not balance it before release? |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3180
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 18:39:33 -
[320] - Quote
Juvir wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Juvir wrote:Because not having the resists or 3 layers of HP of a heavy drone is totally legit. EHP on a heavy drone > a fighter, and it costs much less. Doesn't matter if it's T1 or T2. Play the game, thanks. Yes, but functionally Fighters are much faster and harder to apply damage to than a Heavy Drone, so while Heavy Drones have more EHP Fighters still generally tank better. That said, I am wondering if this isn't going to end up being a bit much. An EHP boost might be a good next step and at this point I'm half expecting it with the next round of Carrier tweaks, assuming we get one. A lot of people are asking that very thing actually. Put out an EHP increase for fighters, better resists, "something" with this change. Rather than the hard bat then fixes, why not balance it before release?
Just making them move after they kill something would solve most of it. They get wrecked when they come to a dead stop but people doing testing reported that if you keep them moving, the damage can be managed. Something along the line of auto-orbiting the wreck they just created would probably work.
|
|
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
42
|
Posted - 2017.03.10 19:00:56 -
[321] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Juvir wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Juvir wrote:Because not having the resists or 3 layers of HP of a heavy drone is totally legit. EHP on a heavy drone > a fighter, and it costs much less. Doesn't matter if it's T1 or T2. Play the game, thanks. Yes, but functionally Fighters are much faster and harder to apply damage to than a Heavy Drone, so while Heavy Drones have more EHP Fighters still generally tank better. That said, I am wondering if this isn't going to end up being a bit much. An EHP boost might be a good next step and at this point I'm half expecting it with the next round of Carrier tweaks, assuming we get one. A lot of people are asking that very thing actually. Put out an EHP increase for fighters, better resists, "something" with this change. Rather than the hard bat then fixes, why not balance it before release? Just making them move after they kill something would solve most of it. They get wrecked when they come to a dead stop but people doing testing reported that if you keep them moving, the damage can be managed. Something along the line of auto-orbiting the wreck they just created would probably work.
Agreed, fixing the broken mechanic at the same time would also work. Without any other changes, this current list as it stands just sucks. |
Father Manlove
Sheep Can Hear A Zipper From A Mile Away
10
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 04:08:41 -
[322] - Quote
Why even bother posting this thread when you obviously don't want any feedback and are gonna push it out after 2 weeks anyway? Seems like a waste of everyone's time. |
Syco Saisima
Vector Galactic Shadow Cartel
25
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 06:43:24 -
[323] - Quote
I usually try and come up with a paragraph or two on WHY i think something is bad. However i don't need to for this Fighter nerf as it is already blatantly obvious why it's bad if you actually carrier rat or do LvL 5 missions. Especially in Level 5 missions there is now NO WAY to mitigate damage and NOT lose 2-3 fighters in a mission MINIMUM. It is a bad and unwanted update by the people who actually pay your bills. Stop smoking crack and stop changing things that aren't broken. |
Archival1
Path of Now and Forever
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 08:00:02 -
[324] - Quote
Why not wait untill you change how fighters behave before putting in a patch that (in PvE) completely screws them up primarily because of the way the fighters currently behave. You have identified an issue, that they stop moving when they finish killing something, so why would you make a change that exploits that issue? Fighters stopping in a PvE site as they kill something is the primary reason me and everyone I know lose fighters, because they stop moving then get 1 volley'd by the whole site, increasing the sig radius just means they will get 1 shot even more often when this happens. |
GothicNightmare
Amazing Super Slackers Army of New Eden
8
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 09:26:18 -
[325] - Quote
I've read a lot of posts on this topic and I'm in agreement with most of them... this nerf is really really bad... Having an active cloaky camper in my system for a few days gave me ample time to watch some good youtube videos people have posted for pvp, and there seems to be a very common reaccurance on their videos... t he death speed of the fighters. Mainly the Sirens go first, and they pop like grapes. I've watched a few where they launch the fighters after repair/reload and the instant they come out frigs/cepters are already railing them before they've even pushed F1 to engage something and by the time they get on target a few fighters have already become space dust. In pvp all it takes is designating 1 person to watch for fighter launches and having them call it when they see it and that's pretty much it. Yes, fighters do heaps of damage, yes, fighters are pretty quick, but when that mwd comes on their sig blooms to hell and back and just makes them splat faster. As mentioned before any sort of ewar on them splatters them rapidly too... If you want to make them squishier... bring back the damage output pre-nerf right after the fighter squadron changes were implemented in game.
Now for PvE... I'm a carrier ratter myself and am one that has enjoyed rolling around in the isky goodness that is dead npc's. I'm also one that isn't able to financially sub outside of game so I am forced to rat to buy plexes, and at their ever increasing cost (yes i know they recently lowered a bit) it's a task all in itself to play the game to be able to play the game. At the current cost of fighters, if you bloom the sig to sizes somewhere between frigate and cruiser, the rat aggro on the fighters will add up fast. Example: 1 rock haven can yield 30mil if the spawns are all maxed sized (no faction no dread). If you lose 2 or 3 fighters at 13mil a pop, that haven only served to buy you another few fighters. Someone like myself (and I know quite a few others) will be quickly found to not playing anymore as that precious plex isk went entirely to fighter replacement.
I saw the comment about learning to work with/around the changes and adapt. Yes, this can be done, we can all rat in subcaps and get significantly smaller bounty ticks, we can all pvp in caracals and rifters so very little isk is ever spent... but this is taking the invested skillpoints (as has been mentioned by several) and putting a lot of people who like battleship class or larger ships (myself as one) and just putting it obsolete. After the T1 cruiser 'balances' were introduced making them a fair bit stronger than before people stopped using T2 ships. When T3Ds came out people went even cheaper pvp with those, and all these ships basically severely outclassed upper level ships causing them to fade out. Only time you see battleships anymore is in massive groups, only time you see battlecruisers anymore is 20+ with 3-6 logi (I'm probably exaggerating here but you see my point) Yes we adapt, but we adapt down into levels where we don't find it fun for us or our playstyles, we are forced into someone elses play style and just makes it dull for those who don't fancy the interceptor kite fleets or 0 f*cks given carcal blobs. If you spent all that time training up into a vessel that large, it just feels like the fun is sapped out when you're spent time in it is now solely gone into it's maintenance rather than it's fun or functionality.
I'm on board with the fighters don't need to sit idle after a target has been destroyed. If your rocket volleys are on cooldown and so are the gun cycles, they just sit there and take it in the face until the guns are free to activate on a new target... making them move would be nice. Decrease the size of support fighters if you insist on making them even easier to kill, knowing the 1 useful support fighter you have is going to constantly be wasted would be nice to carry a few extras. Seriously rethink the sig change, even if you increase the sig radius of all the fighters, don't increase it so much, you're rendering them dead before they've even locked a target. If you insist they have to be easier to hit, at least give them a fighting chance with some more EHP since as it stands the only ehp bonuses are from rigs or thanatos/nyx, and I don't think everyone wants to be forced to train those just to make their drones live 1 second longer. maybe even give the ship's bonuses to the fighters, since amarr and caldari don't get damage buffs like minmatar and gallente do, why not pass down the ship bonuses like the amarr pass down armor resists, caldari pass down shield resists, all supers pass down the ewar resistance so their fighters/bombers stand a bit of a chance.
CCP you always talk about risk vs. reward and/or balancing... take a good hard look at this proposed change, there is no reward. You're always looking for the give and take, well with this it's all take with no give. If you must nerf the hell out of the fighters, give something back to balance the reasoning. |
Jan Aubaris
BAND of MAGNUS CeskoSlovenska Aliance
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 11:45:30 -
[326] - Quote
I have a dream, to build my own thanatos, from resources that I will mine in our home WH, and with mine beautiful thany, build with my own hands a I could sometimes run some anoms in our static. We lived in nice C6->C5, I start mining, few months later we were evicted. OK. New WH, C6->C5, I start mining again, the ore is stacking up, I was happy. Then nerf comes, it was unpleasant, but OK, I could live with that. My mining goes well, I have enough Arkonor, Bistot, Crokite, so I ask my corpmates to reproces them into minerals and slowly start looking for BPCs. After some time, the ccp had great idea to push peaple living in WHs out of their home WH and anomalies stop showing up in holes where somebody lives. This slowly turns C6s and C5s into nearly wasteland, so we were bored from unsufficient PvP, our home C6 run out of anomalies and our C5static simply doesnt have enough ISKs for all of us. The decision was made and we moved to C6->C6. C6 anomaly is harder than C5, but I still had a chance with more expensive fit. My mining operations goes well and after several months I have enough Dark Ochre and Gneiss, so next reprocessing round for those two and compresing mined Scordite and Veldspar, half m3 of required ore was behind me, so I`m buying BPCs for thany and fighters. Then new mechanics was introduced, which freeze my smile and I start to doubt if this is worth of my work. But I slowly continue in mining, because hey, it wil be my thany, made by myself and I already have more than half required materials and it still should be doable. Then because of some consecutive events and decisions and because we were hungry for PvP, we decide to move to C4 with C6, C4 static and I stopped mining, I dont want my beautiful thany stuck in one place. But I still had hope, that we could move someday into C6/C5 and I still have that hope. But with this change, I dont believe I have chance to make some anomalies profitable. I know you have in your citadel trailer mention about wrecking their dreams, but I thought it was aimed to players, not developers... |
Sandra Isu
Space Cavalry Regiment
4
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 11:46:10 -
[327] - Quote
You can make fighters move while waiting for weapons to exit cooldown by clicking orbit on anything, even next target but it is even more clicking that is already too much on a carrier. The problem is that moving now don't help much anyway.
I have simple solution how to fix current fighter mechanic. All actions done to fighters should be divided by fighter amount. If you web squadron, it shoudl be effective 1/x where x is the current amount of fighters. The same should be with all ewar and even damage done to compensate that only one fighter in the squadron is taking damage. Then you can raise sig as it is needed to be. |
ApolloF117 HUN
Angels and Demons Inc. Mordus Angels
51
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 11:54:16 -
[328] - Quote
so why does a fighter that is 38m long have 100m sig radios while a 280m long destroyer has 60m? |
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
37
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 13:00:53 -
[329] - Quote
In fact "solution" is to order to you're fighter to orbit an item when they end to kill.
Problem : BAd connexion with a suddently ping => bye to you're fighter. You can't play with you're 2 hand? You will have not time to make they orbit and fire before loose one.
It"s not a problem of the nerf, it become a problem of game accessibility.
So true question is : Why CCP decide to take sanction against player with the badest connexion ? Why CCP decide to destroy content ?(less carrier in space, less people who farm, less newbro who salvage, less target for roammer ... less content). Why CCP decide to make decision to take sanction against people who can't use 2 hand to play?
CCP don't reed here, maybe after update contact press of you're country and explain to they a game company take sanction against people in fonction of they're connexion/health... And see how many time before CCP decide to answer by allow to fighter to orbit wreck when they kill and not to stop.
|
AgentMaster
Platinum Octopus Infernal Octopus
5
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 15:35:19 -
[330] - Quote
Why CCP lure us that this is a discussion? They just declare what they mind and what will do. Never change that no matter how many pages we will write. Not shure that they even read it,,,
Blessed is the man who has nothing to say and remain silent yet!!
|
|
Cade Windstalker
1071
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 16:52:25 -
[331] - Quote
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:so why does a fighter that is 38m long have 100m sig radios while a 280m long destroyer has 60m?
In game and lore terms signature radius is a measure primarily of how easy something is to lock onto and hit cleanly. Hence why Target Painters increase sig while Command Bursts can decrease it. Neither is changing the physical size of the ship, they're just changing how the ship appears to guns and sensors. |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
92
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 19:25:39 -
[332] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:ApolloF117 HUN wrote:so why does a fighter that is 38m long have 100m sig radios while a 280m long destroyer has 60m? In game and lore terms signature radius is a measure primarily of how easy something is to lock onto and hit cleanly. Hence why Target Painters increase sig while Command Bursts can decrease it. Neither is changing the physical size of the ship, they're just changing how the ship appears to guns and sensors.
Forget game and lore - the F-22 Raptor has something like the RCS (Radar Cross Section) of a sparrow.
Queue quotes of falling sparrows and think Stealth!
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Krieg Austern
35
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 20:55:50 -
[333] - Quote
Why even bother asking for feedback if you are going to just implement game changing features? This is a serious question.
You posted your proposal, asking for feedback. The feedback was, in the majority, negative. You did not make any responses to a lot of valid comments, just let people talk among themselves, and then make the changes regardless.
I generally don't have issues with most of the updates to the game, and I like the fact that the game does change & evolve over time - but asking for feedback, and then not getting involved in the discussion and making the changes is a waste of discussion. |
Cade Windstalker
1072
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 21:57:27 -
[334] - Quote
Krieg Austern wrote:Why even bother asking for feedback if you are going to just implement game changing features? This is a serious question.
You posted your proposal, asking for feedback. The feedback was, in the majority, negative. You did not make any responses to a lot of valid comments, just let people talk among themselves, and then make the changes regardless.
I generally don't have issues with most of the updates to the game, and I like the fact that the game does change & evolve over time - but asking for feedback, and then not getting involved in the discussion and making the changes is a waste of discussion.
In my experience CCP don't generally change course when they go "we're going to make this change" and people just respond with "But it's going to nerf/affect X, Y, and Z!" unless CCP didn't already realize one or more of those things being brought up. About the best you're going to get in response to something like that is the first reply in the Q&A in this thread, if that.
These feedback threads are for bringing up things CCP might not have noticed or thought of, and to give a heads up on upcoming changes well in advance of their release. Unless there's a torrent of negative feedback just people posting about how they don't like the change isn't going to do much, and I'm not sure why you would expect it to.
Of course feedback is negative, it's negative every time CCP nerfs something. Every time they buff something it's a bit more positive but, depending on what's being changed, it's often still majority negative. Negative feedback isn't gonna do much unless it's *good* feedback.
The one thing I've seen here that I suspect CCP may not have factored into these changes is the impact on Level 5 mission running in Carriers since it's a more niche activity compared to site running in Null and those sites contain more EWar and a lot more smaller ships compared to Null Sites. No one's posted much in the way of test results for these though, so there's not a lot of evidence of the impact one way or the other at present. |
Krieg Austern
36
|
Posted - 2017.03.11 22:47:44 -
[335] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: In my experience CCP don't generally change course when they go "we're going to make this change" and people just respond with "But it's going to nerf/affect X, Y, and Z!" unless CCP didn't already realize one or more of those things being brought up. About the best you're going to get in response to something like that is the first reply in the Q&A in this thread, if that.
These feedback threads are for bringing up things CCP might not have noticed or thought of, and to give a heads up on upcoming changes well in advance of their release. Unless there's a torrent of negative feedback just people posting about how they don't like the change isn't going to do much, and I'm not sure why you would expect it to.
There has been a lot of constructive feedback in this thread, it's not all people flinging their poo at the walls. I'm a beginner carrier pilot and this change is making me regret wasting all that time and ISK.
My question stands - why ask for feedback if you are not actually going to pay attention to it. And feedback was explicitly asked for by the first sentence in the original post.
Of course there was feedback saying carriers should be nerfed - by people who don't fly carriers. Actual carrier pilots who use them constantly have not had anything positive to say about these changes.
Not to mention that while they are happy to wave the nerf bat with abandon, small things like making fighters actually DO SOMETHING while idle and not stand still to get shot into oblivion is "We recognise that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future.". How about when doing a big game changing update that effects an entire tier of ships, don't just nerf wholesale, but also make some logical changes that offset the nerfs.
Honestly it just defies logic, that after asking for feedback, not responding to any of it, we also get answers like the above, that fundamental issues that don't make any sense (why would a sentient fighter just stand still) are something they would "like to iterate on". Then do it.
I understand the need for balancing the game constantly, but it all seems to be going from massive buff to massive nerf, rather than incremental steps. All the while, much more important issues remain in the game.
Don't get me wrong, I love the game, and I see changes as a good thing on the whole, but I think CCP needs to either be more involved with the community, or just stop asking for feedback if they are not actually going to address any, since all it does is cause people to get angry and wastes their time formulating replies and coming up with potentially good solutions. |
Cade Windstalker
1075
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 03:11:22 -
[336] - Quote
Krieg Austern wrote:There has been a lot of constructive feedback in this thread, it's not all people flinging their poo at the walls. I'm a beginner carrier pilot and this change is making me regret wasting all that time and ISK.
My question stands - why ask for feedback if you are not actually going to pay attention to it. And feedback was explicitly asked for by the first sentence in the original post.
Of course there was feedback saying carriers should be nerfed - by people who don't fly carriers. Actual carrier pilots who use them constantly have not had anything positive to say about these changes.
Not to mention that while they are happy to wave the nerf bat with abandon, small things like making fighters actually DO SOMETHING while idle and not stand still to get shot into oblivion is "We recognise that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future.". How about when doing a big game changing update that effects an entire tier of ships, don't just nerf wholesale, but also make some logical changes that offset the nerfs.
Honestly it just defies logic, that after asking for feedback, not responding to any of it, we also get answers like the above, that fundamental issues that don't make any sense (why would a sentient fighter just stand still) are something they would "like to iterate on". Then do it.
I understand the need for balancing the game constantly, but it all seems to be going from massive buff to massive nerf, rather than incremental steps. All the while, much more important issues remain in the game.
Don't get me wrong, I love the game, and I see changes as a good thing on the whole, but I think CCP needs to either be more involved with the community, or just stop asking for feedback if they are not actually going to address any, since all it does is cause people to get angry and wastes their time formulating replies and coming up with potentially good solutions.
The feedback of people who fly Carriers isn't the only thing that matters when changing them though, and that goes for any ship. If everyone in Eve, or any other game, had their way then their class/ship/favorite thing would be at least a little OP, because powerful things are inherently fun for the people using them. OP things aren't a ton of fun to fight against though. So while CCP would almost certainly reverse course if someone brought up a significant issue with these changes, like proof that this would physically stop Carriers from being able to rat effectively at all for example, having Carrier players just speaking up and saying they don't like the changes... isn't gonna do much unless it's a big enough outcry.
Yes, there's been some constructive feedback here, but most of that either falls into a bucket they've answered (yes this is going to affect Carrier ratting) or one that's blatantly obvious (yes, it's going to make Fighters easier to kill).
As for the idea that iteration on Fighter behavior has to come along with these changes, that's not how CCP or any other game dev I'm aware of does things. If there's an outstanding balance issue of some kind that gets priority, regardless of if there's a related QoL change coming down the pipe as well. QoL things just don't have that kind of priority unless there's a hard dependency, generally in code. With these changes Fighters are still usable, people have posted videos doing various PvE sites, the trick is just to orbit the fighters on something else before the current target dies.
As for the specific issue with Fighters standing still, I suspect that this is a little more involved of a change than you're expecting it to be. Fighters are probably running on the same old code the drones are, and drones have always stopped when they no longer have a command. Changing that will, at least potentially, be a significant back-end code change. If it's not hopefully we'll get it pretty soon, and with any luck it'll apply to drones as well.
As for feedback and responses and what-not, my general assumption is that CCP will respond to things that they find worth responding to. Either questions that get asked repeatedly or are non-obvious, or things people bring up that they didn't catch and change their announced plans. Other than that, devs are busy and can't spend all day on the forums. If it were up to me I'd have a dedicated Community guy for monitoring these threads and responding with at least some basic answers. It's not up to me though, and I'm not actually aware of any company that does this. Blizzard comes close with how their CMs basically play buffer for their devs, but their Community department is also bigger than many studios so... yeah. Blizzard is the exception once again.
I certainly wouldn't spend much if any time fleshing out some suggestion for CCP to do instead of what they've already put time and effort into. The devs certainly have no obligation to use a player suggestion, or to spend time explaining why they're not.
I wouldn't say this change is enough that you should be regretting training into Carriers. They're still some of the best solo ISK you can make in the game, and they're still quite powerful against sub-caps so long as they're supported correctly. |
Sandra Isu
Space Cavalry Regiment
4
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 08:13:49 -
[337] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: As for the specific issue with Fighters standing still, I suspect that this is a little more involved of a change than you're expecting it to be (...)
This is what you probably didn't understand from the discussion. First you fix bugs and then you can nerf ... erm balance stuff if needed. And carriers were not OP by any means to justify that nerf before fixes. People are rightfully angry because carriers are not like rest of the ships, where you can just sell it and fly other one. One invested millions of sp to master it, bought very expensive bpo's to be able to produce them and there is little to no point to fly other capitals. What to do with this skills now? I don't want to sell this character or shuffle sp to do something else. I want to fly carrier like I did before.
|
firkinballbag
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 09:14:35 -
[338] - Quote
like i said before "if its not broke" FIX IT CCP do not actually give a rats _ _ s about any discussion as they have already made their mind up Nerf this Nerf that.
heh heres an idea lets get all the coders together and see how we can KILL eve.nope dont need to do that we already on the right track.cos how i see it its getting close to being a better game if you only have alpha clones.
whoop whoop no need to plex accounts. no more purchases. no more revenue for ccp. no more game.
MISSION ACCOMPLISHED. |
Zenra Va'Kur
The Final Resistance ChaosTheory.
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 09:20:34 -
[339] - Quote
CCP removes off grid boosts, and changes the mining barge and exhumers. Ruins my isk per hour ratio.
Finally train into a carrier and move past now pointless slow mining. CCP changes the way fighters work and how rats aggress them. Ruin my isk per hour ratio.
Isk slowly drains away. Forcing me to stop fleeting up, and in the end stop playing all together.
Good work. |
firkinballbag
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 09:29:54 -
[340] - Quote
more to the point i was led to believe this was and is a player run game.
does that mean its player run but only if you run with what CCP wants? does this mean we have no say in what is implemented? does this mean if we dont like something we have to lump it? does this mean CCP has lied to everyone past present and future about this game?
i think we all know the answer to these questions!!!! |
|
elitatwo
Dicker Quick and Hyde Defense Attorneys O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1626
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 09:37:40 -
[341] - Quote
Archival1 wrote:Why not wait untill you change how fighters behave before putting in a patch that (in PvE) completely screws them up primarily because of the way the fighters currently behave. You have identified an issue, that they stop moving when they finish killing something, so why would you make a change that exploits that issue? Fighters stopping in a PvE site as they kill something is the primary reason me and everyone I know lose fighters, because they stop moving then get 1 volley'd by the whole site, increasing the sig radius just means they will get 1 shot even more often when this happens.
Yeay carrier ratting tears, best tears!
Kudos CCP, carry on!
Eve Minions is recruiting.
This is the law of ship progression!
Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
|
Krieg Austern
40
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 13:25:18 -
[342] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:I certainly wouldn't spend much if any time fleshing out some suggestion for CCP to do instead of what they've already put time and effort into. The devs certainly have no obligation to use a player suggestion, or to spend time explaining why they're not.
You continue to ignore the relevant point here - why bother asking for player feedback if you are not going to listen anyway, and not even say "thanks for your feedback, we have looked at it, but still think our way is better". At least then people know that there is no point in further discussion.
I agree they have no obligation to use it, but then they should not pretend that they actually care/want about feedback. Asking for feedback implies that you are interested, and if people put their time in to give it, at least respond in some way.
You cannot please everyone all the time, no one is naive to believe that, especially in a sandbox like this. But community service is not difficult, especially in a game that lives or dies by its community. |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
130
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 17:35:57 -
[343] - Quote
Krieg Austern wrote:You continue to ignore the relevant point here - why bother asking for player feedback if you are not going to listen anyway, and not even say "thanks for your feedback, we have looked at it, but still think our way is better". At least then people know that there is no point in further discussion.
I agree they have no obligation to use it, but then they should not pretend that they actually care/want about feedback. Asking for feedback implies that you are interested, and if people put their time in to give it, at least respond in some way.
You cannot please everyone all the time, no one is naive to believe that, especially in a sandbox like this. But community service is not difficult, especially in a game that lives or dies by its community.
The guy is a goon poster on paplinks in disguise. Stop arguing with him, he obviously never flew or targeted a carrier and still going with stupidity after my numerous attempts to educate him on fighter mechanics in this thread. |
Cade Windstalker
1076
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 18:50:33 -
[344] - Quote
Sandra Isu wrote:This is what you probably didn't understand from the discussion. First you fix bugs and then you can nerf ... erm balance stuff if needed. And carriers were not OP by any means to justify that nerf before fixes. People are rightfully angry because carriers are not like rest of the ships, where you can just sell it and fly other one. One invested millions of sp to master it, bought very expensive bpo's to be able to produce them and there is little to no point to fly other capitals. What to do with this skills now? I don't want to sell this character or shuffle sp to do something else. I want to fly carrier like I did before.
I understand what is being said. I'm trying to explain that from a design perspective the current behavior of Fighters isn't a bug, it's just the way Fighters behave. Thus from CCP's perspective this change is independent of any changes to Fighter behavior. This change is a result of conditions in the game right now, as they are and an adjustment CCP wants to see to those conditions.
You're also operating under the assumption that what CCP says when they talk about changes to Fighter behavior is what you want those changes to be. It's possible that CCP might not even change fighter behavior so they auto-orbit or keep moving after a command expires, they might just make it possible to queue commands better or something of the sort if they want to limit how little attention someone can safely pay to their Fighters.
Krieg Austern wrote:You continue to ignore the relevant point here - why bother asking for player feedback if you are not going to listen anyway, and not even say "thanks for your feedback, we have looked at it, but still think our way is better". At least then people know that there is no point in further discussion.
I agree they have no obligation to use it, but then they should not pretend that they actually care/want about feedback. Asking for feedback implies that you are interested, and if people put their time in to give it, at least respond in some way.
You cannot please everyone all the time, no one is naive to believe that, especially in a sandbox like this. But community service is not difficult, especially in a game that lives or dies by its community.
This is a bit of a catch-22 for the devs. Every dev I've talked to, at least at a company that does player feedback on upcoming changes, does actually care about the feedback they get. The problem is that it takes a fair amount of time to respond to stuff, and it's a bit of a tossup whether or not a response helps a thread or just makes it spiral off into more arguments and nitpicking. In this way community service *is* difficult and very time consuming. Remember the balance people aren't just working on the ideas posted here while these ideas are up, they're doing a lot of other stuff behind the scenes, not just watching the forums refresh.
Different devs at CCP have different approaches from what I've seen, but I doubt any of them have the time to address each point brought up in a thread, and a blanket statement saying "we've considered the points in this thread and are going ahead anyway" would A. **** people off more and B. stifle any hope of further productive discussion.
That's why I said it'd be nice if there was a CM guy, or even two, dedicated to acting as a go-between for these forums and the relevant devs. Hopefully the time expense on the devs would be comparable to what it is at present, and the CM who could dedicate his entire time to managing and interacting with these threads would be able to alleviate some of these concerns.
Again, I want to stress that personally I don't think you're wrong here, what you want is just running into the realities of development and community management and right now those are winning, because the alternative costs a fair amount of money. |
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
43
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 21:23:52 -
[345] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:
As for the specific issue with Fighters standing still, I suspect that this is a little more involved of a change than you're expecting it to be. Fighters are probably running on the same old code the drones are, and drones have always stopped when they no longer have a command. Changing that will, at least potentially, be a significant back-end code change. If it's not hopefully we'll get it pretty soon, and with any luck it'll apply to drones as well.
Just to touch on this, it wouldn't be that big of a fix actually. Actual SHIP mechanics have you continue to fly in the direction you're going when an orbit target is lost. This wouldn't take more than a code copy to fix the broken mechanic. Even THIS would be more desirable than standing still, even if it spreads the squadrons apart. |
Cade Windstalker
1077
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 23:21:27 -
[346] - Quote
Juvir wrote:Just to touch on this, it wouldn't be that big of a fix actually. Actual SHIP mechanics have you continue to fly in the direction you're going when an orbit target is lost. This wouldn't take more than a code copy to fix the broken mechanic. Even THIS would be more desirable than standing still, even if it spreads the squadrons apart.
That assumes that ships and drones are treated the same on the back end. I honestly don't know whether they are or not, or whether the client actually handles keeping your ship going after you stop orbiting. I'd kind of like to think you're right, but with how old the drone code is and how janky code tends to get the older it is I'm not willing to make any assumptions. Just got done being bitten in the ass by something like this at work
I think it's also possible CCP may want to change something other than having Fighters/Drones keep moving when they lose a target. Right now we're assuming they'll just have them keep orbiting/moving, but CCP may want to keep the stopping behavior to discourage AFK playstyles and just make it easier to actively keep Fighters moving between targets, though this is also just speculation on my part.
Definitely agreed though that whatever they do I hope it's a high priority for them. I am generally not a fan of "Player VS UI" and this definitely qualifies. |
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
43
|
Posted - 2017.03.12 23:34:50 -
[347] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Juvir wrote:Just to touch on this, it wouldn't be that big of a fix actually. Actual SHIP mechanics have you continue to fly in the direction you're going when an orbit target is lost. This wouldn't take more than a code copy to fix the broken mechanic. Even THIS would be more desirable than standing still, even if it spreads the squadrons apart. That assumes that ships and drones are treated the same on the back end. I honestly don't know whether they are or not, or whether the client actually handles keeping your ship going after you stop orbiting. I'd kind of like to think you're right, but with how old the drone code is and how janky code tends to get the older it is I'm not willing to make any assumptions. Just got done being bitten in the ass by something like this at work I think it's also possible CCP may want to change something other than having Fighters/Drones keep moving when they lose a target. Right now we're assuming they'll just have them keep orbiting/moving, but CCP may want to keep the stopping behavior to discourage AFK playstyles and just make it easier to actively keep Fighters moving between targets, though this is also just speculation on my part. Definitely agreed though that whatever they do I hope it's a high priority for them. I am generally not a fan of "Player VS UI" and this definitely qualifies.
I don't want the AFK style either, which is why i have been against the idea of fighters auto-aggressing like drones. That being said, with the differences that "are" present between fighters and drones behaviourly, I think it would be relatively safe to assume they don't work off of the same code lines. |
Cade Windstalker
1079
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 01:29:43 -
[348] - Quote
Juvir wrote:I don't want the AFK style either, which is why i have been against the idea of fighters auto-aggressing like drones. That being said, with the differences that "are" present between fighters and drones behaviourly, I think it would be relatively safe to assume they don't work off of the same code lines.
There's definitely some different code there, yeah. I dunno, the similar general behavior makes me wonder if they're not running on the same base framework though.
Like I said, this is just me speculating, I try not to assume that something will be easy, I just hope it will be. |
Aegon Cadelanne
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 08:24:04 -
[349] - Quote
elitatwo wrote:Archival1 wrote:Why not wait untill you change how fighters behave before putting in a patch that (in PvE) completely screws them up primarily because of the way the fighters currently behave. You have identified an issue, that they stop moving when they finish killing something, so why would you make a change that exploits that issue? Fighters stopping in a PvE site as they kill something is the primary reason me and everyone I know lose fighters, because they stop moving then get 1 volley'd by the whole site, increasing the sig radius just means they will get 1 shot even more often when this happens. Yeay carrier ratting tears, best tears! Kudos CCP, carry on!
Someone too jealous of carrier ratters? |
Sandra Isu
Space Cavalry Regiment
7
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 13:39:30 -
[350] - Quote
Where did you guys got that drones stop moving after killing target? Because as far as my drones behave, they just slowly return to my ship in orfer to orbit it. And this should be default behaviour for fighters also. They should act excactly like drones in every way except mechanics that are fighters specific and have separate commands. So if you would like to have fighters stand in place after kill there should be separate command for this. It would be less confusing. |
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3189
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 15:01:20 -
[351] - Quote
Sandra Isu wrote:Where did you guys got that drones stop moving after killing target? Because as far as my drones behave, they just slowly return to my ship in orfer to orbit it. And this should be default behaviour for fighters also. They should act excactly like drones in every way except mechanics that are fighters specific and have separate commands. So if you would like to have fighters stand in place after kill there should be separate command for this. It would be less confusing.
Drone stop until they get a new command. Take something like a Gila and kill Frigate rat. It's where it usually is the most visible for me. Every kill will leave the drone standing until the next tick where either the AI will auto-engage something else or it get whatever order you sent them. Fighter do not have the auto-engage feature so they have to wait until your order comes in. Problem is, the order don't always process for fighter. CCP is supposed to be changing a throttling that was applied to fighter commands to ease up the delay between sending a command and having it acknowledged by the fighters and executing it.
Why was there a throttling in place is anybody's guess but I would assume it was in case of high server load situation like large fleet fights. |
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
43
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 15:34:25 -
[352] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Sandra Isu wrote:Where did you guys got that drones stop moving after killing target? Because as far as my drones behave, they just slowly return to my ship in orfer to orbit it. And this should be default behaviour for fighters also. They should act excactly like drones in every way except mechanics that are fighters specific and have separate commands. So if you would like to have fighters stand in place after kill there should be separate command for this. It would be less confusing. Drone stop until they get a new command. Take something like a Gila and kill Frigate rat. It's where it usually is the most visible for me. Every kill will leave the drone standing until the next tick where either the AI will auto-engage something else or it get whatever order you sent them. Fighter do not have the auto-engage feature so they have to wait until your order comes in. Problem is, the order don't always process for fighter. CCP is supposed to be changing a throttling that was applied to fighter commands to ease up the delay between sending a command and having it acknowledged by the fighters and executing it. Why was there a throttling in place is anybody's guess but I would assume it was in case of high server load situation like large fleet fights.
Exactly as he said, they either wait for a new command, or they auto-aggress the next target. Fighters don't have an auto-aggress feature, so they sit perfectly still while taking fire. Still doesn't make sense to me considering they are piloted by people. Everyone knows a target that sits still, is a dead target. |
kuldar skjiem
Viziam Amarr Empire
16
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 15:47:22 -
[353] - Quote
can u ccp instead of nerfing figters and make them even more killable just increase their stats instead?? fighters are too easy to jam ....
also u should make squadron of sentry fighters to carriers and suppers ,,,ive never luved the fighters anyway,and never will,,its takes so long time to them to get to the target +they die before they actually get to the target..... |
Lothar Mandrake
Test Corporation - Please Ignore
45
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 16:47:04 -
[354] - Quote
Xanuth wrote:Do any of you Devs even play, or understand how fighters currently operate in both PvE and PvP?
I mean seriously, wtf are you thinking with these changes? Do you want everyone to stop using carriers totally? Fighters are already easily countered by ECM/Webs and destroyer/frigates/SS and your plan is to make them even worse vs. cruisers/BCs and Rats?
Is your intent to revert them back to pre-carrier changes where no one even undocks them and we either go sub-cap or super blob? I am literally lost as to what went through your minds when proposing the aggro and sig radius changes...
CCP said the Chimera used to be a Water Freighter. Maybe they are screwing us back into using it for that purpose again. Sure can't fight with it now.
-
|
Que Ess
New Eden's Best. The Eclipse.
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 16:47:20 -
[355] - Quote
Horrible fighter changes.
Time to sell my cap, even less incentive to use it.
Scanning this thread in some detail, I saw literally 2 people supporting the changes. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3190
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 16:59:41 -
[356] - Quote
Juvir wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:
As for the specific issue with Fighters standing still, I suspect that this is a little more involved of a change than you're expecting it to be. Fighters are probably running on the same old code the drones are, and drones have always stopped when they no longer have a command. Changing that will, at least potentially, be a significant back-end code change. If it's not hopefully we'll get it pretty soon, and with any luck it'll apply to drones as well.
Just to touch on this, it wouldn't be that big of a fix actually. Actual SHIP mechanics have you continue to fly in the direction you're going when an orbit target is lost. This wouldn't take more than a code copy to fix the broken mechanic. Even THIS would be more desirable than standing still, even if it spreads the squadrons apart.
To add up on that, the reason why drones and fighters don't continue after killing a target might have to do with the fact they never fly just in a direction. They always have a goal. You will never see a drone flying toward nothing. They always fly to reach a player defined point in space. The action "fly in a straight line" probably don't even exist in the drone and fighters code abse as opposed to player ships. What the impact of "just continue in current direction" would have is unknown to us. That's why I'm favoring a "orbit the wreck you just created" approach since it use a command drones already "know". |
Trevize Demerzel
83
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 17:11:14 -
[357] - Quote
I just think CCP is being pre-mature with the change.
I'd be "more" ok with the change if it included:
#1 - Fighters continuing to MOVE after they kill a target #2 - reasonable resists and HP for fighters. (they are far to squishy at present) #3 - Much better ECM resists! 1 solo ship jamming out 27 to 39 fighters.... seriously? #4 - updated UI to see in real time the health the damaged fighter in the middle of fighter ui circle thing.
This is a knee jerk nerf without a proper fix apparently. Not sure what the "actual" issue here that CCP is trying to solve. ISK made by carriers? I don't buy it.. The isk made is justified by the train time required and the expense of the ship (rvr). Similar isk can be made in incursions in far cheaper ships and far less SP. Carriers/fighters are already extremely easy to ECM leaving carrier pilots easy prey. Is it just that there are solo carrier/capital pilots and it's a nerf to that? I thought this was a sandbox game. Let the players decide how to have fun with the ships?!
Anyway.. My take and opinion for CCP. Do 1-4 above and then implement this nerf.
-
|
Terminal Insanity
Mosquito squadron The-Culture
1010
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 18:10:51 -
[358] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Questions & Answers
Q:Regarding the increased fighter signature & bug fix, have you thought about the impact to PvE? A: Yes, and run many test :) We believe that carrier ratting will continue to be viable after this change. Balanced carrier ratting is part of the goal of this change, and we'll be watching the results of this change closely, ready to iterate as needed.
Q:Could the fighter UI show the HP of the damaged fighter? A: This won't be coming in March, but it is something we're looking into! :)
Q:Its annoying when fighters stop after killing a target! A: We recognise that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future.
so you know the result is every carrier ratter needs to do 3x more work for the same reward, while still losing expensive fighters if they happen to look away even for half a second. You understand the result is going to just be more rorqual miners because carrier ratting is just too ******?
And you acknowledge the problem of fighter behavior not being "ideal" in combination with the other changes. You know currently fighters come to a complete stop and, with the new signature, the rats will alpha them out of the sky very quickly.
But you're going to rush the change ahead anyway, because apparently the fighter sig "problem", that apparently nobody else was aware of, is far more problematic than what is going to result in the changes? Can we just admit we really hate carrier ratters and want to make their job so painful they stop doing it?
"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP
|
Cade Windstalker
1083
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 19:11:12 -
[359] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:To add up on that, the reason why drones and fighters don't continue after killing a target might have to do with the fact they never fly just in a direction. They always have a goal. You will never see a drone flying toward nothing. They always fly to reach a player defined point in space. The action "fly in a straight line" probably don't even exist in the drone and fighters code abse as opposed to player ships. What the impact of "just continue in current direction" would have is unknown to us. That's why I'm favoring a "orbit the wreck you just created" approach since it use a command drones already "know".
I'm personally hoping for CCP combining the "approach a point in space" feature with orbiting to orbit the last position of your last target, since Fighters may be used to kill something that doesn't leave a wreck. |
GothicNightmare
Amazing Super Slackers Army of New Eden
11
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 19:21:17 -
[360] - Quote
I'd like to propose another idea to fighters standing still after target kill...
When you have several targets locked in any other ship, when one dies your guns will point to the next locked target or locked/selected target, I know this plays absolutely no impact on the weapons hitting or anything, but what if your next locked target or selected target the fighters slowboat towards them, if no target start coming back to your ship... even if they moved at half normal cruise speed would be more ideal than standing there picking their noses while NPC or Players ram guns up there and help them pick their brains too They would still have to activate weapons to lock the next target so you're really not breaking anything and at half speed unless acted on prop mod would at least keep them moving. Normal drones as it stands as soon as a target drops you can command them to immediatly engage a new target or they can auto aggro the next one attacking you until redirected... I see no reason fighters can't at least act like other weapon systems and 'point' to the next target |
|
Nevase Prometeus
Every Man for Himself Fidelas Constans
11
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 20:22:24 -
[361] - Quote
Don't fix thing what ain't broken.
Now I know why a lot of dictator hate ....... who diligent . because soon they had to fix thing that gonna broken . |
C0ATL
Renegade Stars The Eclipse.
26
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 20:41:57 -
[362] - Quote
Love it... just love it how CCP will shaft a good portion of their player base without having played the game... without people having complained about a problem... without asking us what we think about it beforehand.
I think I posted the forums 3-4 times in my several years of playing this game, cause that is how many times CCP has ****** my playstyle over completely. Maybe I am one of the lucky ones cause I mostly agree with their changes... but just when I start believing in their logic again and think that they have a head on their shoulders, they smack those beliefs right out of me with another move like this.
CCP... perhaps the overwhelming amount of negative feedback that you received when posting these changes should raise a small alarm in your plans of deploying this patch.
I am not speaking just for the carriers which are getting nerfed to uselessness despite them being the weakest balanced caps by comparison to their peers (dreads/supercarrier/titans - all of these performing either brilliantly in their role or at the very least, still 'good').
I am also referring to other chances in the patch such as the chimera re-design. Do not get me wrong on this... when I first looked at the concept art for how this beautiful ship will look in the future I was blown away. Let me remind you, CCP, of what you said you would change it to: [url]http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67023/1/Chimera_redesign.jpg[/url]. From all of those details that give it debth, scale, majesty and a true feeling that you are commanding a 3km long ship, what was delivered? NOTHING. Just a simple, static hull. No small heat vents when the ship is taking damage to shields/entering warp... no small maintenance drones buzzing around it to give it scale... no point defense weapons to bring it closer to a realistic design. Yes.. I am not talking out of my ass. All of these were in the concept and more and all we got was a damn 3km long shoe box. Shame on you CCP.
Perhaps you do intend to give it those details, later on, but until then it is **** and you should keep it shelved, just like with the changes for fighters, until they get major problems fixed, such as not stopping after they destroy something. |
noone kun
Hisp Eto Corporation
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.13 21:19:51 -
[363] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:CCP may want to keep the stopping behavior to discourage AFK playstyles imo, no reason to discourage AFK playstyles if peolpe are payng for them.
Cade Windstalker wrote:and just make it easier to actively keep Fighters moving between targets, though this is also just speculation on my part.
naah, they just want our drones/fighters to get killed, so we must go and buy new ones.
|
Primary This Rifter
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
1221
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 01:49:31 -
[364] - Quote
CCP: "We want your feedback on this." Literally everyone: "This sucks. Don't do it." CCP: "How bout I do anyway."
Nice to see this pattern hasn't changed in my extended absence. |
PkControl
Cuervos Imperiales Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 03:01:55 -
[365] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Questions & Answers
Q:Regarding the increased fighter signature & bug fix, have you thought about the impact to PvE? A: Yes, and run many test :) We believe that carrier ratting will continue to be viable after this change. Balanced carrier ratting is part of the goal of this change, and we'll be watching the results of this change closely, ready to iterate as needed.
Q:Could the fighter UI show the HP of the damaged fighter? A: This won't be coming in March, but it is something we're looking into! :)
Q:Its annoying when fighters stop after killing a target! A: We recognise that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future.
You run many test? what? ACTUALLY, if your fighterts stop some moment, you lost it easy! in movement they receive damage! The fighters dont have any type of Defense in the shield or have defenses to another type of rats. and you put X3 the signature radius?
You dont make any test, you put numbers in the fighters whiout think and wait to see tomorrow what problems that changes cause... is very unfair to the people who cant pay the plexes in $$$, now you cant use heavy fighters whiout lost many of them each day. how i can get money if the rats quit me 30.000.000 each anomaly eh?!?!
Like another games since 2007, you only make changes if the problem affect your income, if that affect the users, you dont make any thing! like the Cloakies! since 2006 ALL EVE COMUNITY is pushing to solve the Cloakies, and you dont make nothing!
Thanks ccp, you like improve the game or get less clients?
|
Trevize Demerzel
85
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 03:23:04 -
[366] - Quote
These latest Rorq and Carrier threads are teaching me something...
As a paying customer of this "game"
I give feedback... It's ignored.
So I'm encouraged to give up on giving feedback.
hence...
I'm encouraged to not pay for this entertainment.. And move on.
That's how I'm feeling at present. On the eve of these changes and the silence on the part of CCP..
-
|
Xantia Naari
BRO GAMING Corporation FREE GATES COALITION
7
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 03:25:17 -
[367] - Quote
Q:Regarding the increased fighter signature & bug fix, have you thought about the impact to PvE? A: Yes, and run many test :) We believe that carrier ratting will continue to be viable after this change. Balanced carrier ratting is part of the goal of this change, and we'll be watching the results of this change closely, ready to iterate as needed.
Be prepared to unbreak this change.
There are two kinds of children that play in sandboxes. Those who build castles and those who kick them down. It's a symbiosis.
|
Minion Lee Cognatio
Foxy Knights Legio De Mortem
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 06:51:52 -
[368] - Quote
But i wanna build a Snowman
Ceo And Founder of Foxy Knights.
Non exieris, Ne ipsi Deo (Never Surrender, Not eve to God himself)
|
elitatwo
Dicker Quick and Hyde Defense Attorneys O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1633
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 08:13:32 -
[369] - Quote
PkControl wrote:...blah blah blahh goontears... blah goontear and more gonntears...
goon tears, best tears! yumm!!!!!1111eleven
Eve Minions is recruiting.
This is the law of ship progression!
Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
|
Xantia Naari
BRO GAMING Corporation FREE GATES COALITION
8
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 12:53:25 -
[370] - Quote
For the majority among those who PLEX their account, the only thing less likely to happen, when the carpet is removed under their feet, than quitting eve, is subscribing.
There are two kinds of children that play in sandboxes. Those who build castles and those who kick them down. It's a symbiosis.
|
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
131
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 13:17:10 -
[371] - Quote
Xantia Naari wrote:For the majority among those who PLEX their account, the only thing less likely to happen, when the carpet is removed under their feet, than quitting eve, is subscribing.
What should people using 6 month subscription plan do then? |
Soul Bulldozer
Fink Operations Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 13:47:02 -
[372] - Quote
Ty CCP, "the best update ever". Now i can sell carrier, and forget skills. Fighter weakening is sh*t. GL. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3191
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 14:19:18 -
[373] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:CCP: "We want your feedback on this." Literally everyone: "This sucks. Don't do it." CCP: "How bout I do anyway."
Nice to see this pattern hasn't changed in my extended absence.
What if the feedback people are giving is just confirming the result is what they actually intended with the change? Like if the change was targeted at making carrier ratter rethink what they do in game and making fighter easier to kill. Would they actually be listening to feedback and not have to change anything in their proposal?
I'm pretty sure they never ask for feedback in the form of we want/don't want this. It's more "CCP X will happen if you do Y" and right now, it seems X is what is intended. |
Cade Windstalker
1089
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 14:20:43 -
[374] - Quote
Xantia Naari wrote:Be prepared to unbreak this change.
Considering there's already video out of people running Havens without losing a single Fighter I'm betting not... |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3191
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 14:20:46 -
[375] - Quote
Xantia Naari wrote:For the majority among those who PLEX their account, the only thing less likely to happen, when the carpet is removed under their feet, than quitting eve, is subscribing.
So according to you, the majority will turn to other income sources or continue carrier ratting since there is only 1 option less likely than quitting so all others must be more likely. |
triggerhappyman
Imperial Steel
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 14:22:52 -
[376] - Quote
These fighter signature / argo changes... CCP are you drunk? Me reading the changes: https://d1sui4xqepm0ps.cloudfront.net/categories/wtf-face?image=cdn
Not sure how you think they need more NPC agro. Mine get shot at 99.9% of the time. If you think making the old targeting "rate" was a bug...I might as well scrap my carriers. As the moment I launch them they will just get blapped. And they are not what I'd call cheap...
And they are already laughably easy to kill before this "balance". If not you can just lock down with ECM or webs. If anything they need a slight HP boost. Fighters now have a sig nearing the size of cruisers. Like what?
The rest of the patch was good all and all but the fighter changes... please return them. :/ Also THANK YOU for not releasing that God awful new Chimera hull. Not that it would have really mattered much as I have no real intent to use mine after this post.
And yes "Caldari caps are bad" or whatever everyone else wants to say..I like mine for looks alone, bonus's be damned.
But hey let's all be honest you won't fix anything from feedback you "wanted". It's ok though you ran "many tests". -.- |
Anigmayus
The Flying Dead. Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 14:58:39 -
[377] - Quote
This is a bullshit.
CCP, are u out of your mind ?
If you are not playing your game just do not interfere and do not break the game for others.
Fighters have been significantly nerfed and once more. Thank's a lot.
I trained fighter to lvl V, light fighters and heavy fighters and many other skills for a normal carrier.
Now all these skills can be extracted.
Thank u so much, CCP |
MegaLuter
Horizon Eventus SOLAR FLEET
29
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 15:15:41 -
[378] - Quote
close the game. CCP
CCP did not think his head when nerf fighters. In pve they die like flies, but stand like elephants. Thank you -í-í-ù you know how to ****. |
Henry Plantgenet
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
186
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 15:21:48 -
[379] - Quote
Could someone show the difference in HP between fighters and heavy drones? Because just putting the signature in line might not be enough. If the HP is severely lacking compared to heavies then they need to be buffed. Especially considering fighters have only shields and no hull/armor and heavy drones have all 3. Take into account cost of making each and adjust things accordingly. |
PkControl
Cuervos Imperiales Goonswarm Federation
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 16:40:56 -
[380] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Questions & Answers
Q:Regarding the increased fighter signature & bug fix, have you thought about the impact to PvE? A: Yes, and run many test :) We believe that carrier ratting will continue to be viable after this change. Balanced carrier ratting is part of the goal of this change, and we'll be watching the results of this change closely, ready to iterate as needed.
Q:Could the fighter UI show the HP of the damaged fighter? A: This won't be coming in March, but it is something we're looking into! :)
Q:Its annoying when fighters stop after killing a target! A: We recognise that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future.
Crystal FightersCrystal FightersCrystal FightersCrystal Fighters Crystal FightersCrystal Fighters Crystal FightersCrystal Fighters
You dont Test any Sh##, Rly CCP BRAVO! you FU## the game to all SuperCarriers! EXELLENT! YOu can try make some money whiout recall the Fighters EVERY SINGLE MINUTE! And if you miss a second, YOU LOST 700.000.000 SHADOW! WOOOOW! EXELLENT MOVEMENT!
RLY CCP! you think or test this SH## in ANY MOMENT?!?!?!? You Take some moment to Test THIS CR##?!?!?!
I HAD ALL Fighters and Minmatar Carrier SKILLS AT 5! and i had FU#### Crystal Fighters! What happend in PVP EH?!?!? A t1 Frigate can kill any fighter now soo easy?!?!?! The Smartbombs FU## your Entire Fleet in 1 HIT??? WHAT THE HELL YOU THINK WHEN DOING THIS CR##?!?!?!
YOu not unbalance the game, you FU## the Game to all! |
|
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
37
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 17:02:24 -
[381] - Quote
Change of game accessibility. Time to attack CCP in justice. (i said game accessibility, now you must micro manage with youre 2 hand, to don't loose foghter, so people who can't are penalised... and it's was not the case whe i have register to the game).
Game accessibility change can not be cover per you're EULA, beacause law of a lot of country in the world manage this.
So plan to make CCP read feedback: - Support for each fighter lost due to "stop movement" beacasue they're own dev aprove it's not normal. - Attack in justice if you're law permit to attack for game accessibility change. -During fan fest all player must ask : Carrier Change ?Best Change?
If all player do this CCP will back to the old system in few hours.
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
131
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 17:19:18 -
[382] - Quote
Henry Plantgenet wrote:Could someone show the difference in HP between fighters and heavy drones? Dragonfly II at max skill Thanatos with 4xFSU II sits around 4000 ehp, 6.74 ehp/s regen, 1600m/s speed without navcomputer, 13mil ISK. Wasp II on max skill Dominix sits around 4800 unmodded ehp, 10.8 ehp/s regen, 1690m/s unmodded speed, 1.75mil ISK. Dragonfly II at max skill Thanatos with 0xFSU sits around 3400 ehp, 4.85 ehp/s regen, 1362m/s speed without navcomputer, still 13mil ISK.
BALANCE, MATES. BAAAAAAALANCE. *sheep*.
P.S. Wasp II can receive reps. Dragonfy II can... nothing much, really. |
xOmGx
Order of Order SOLAR FLEET
4
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 18:12:54 -
[383] - Quote
CCP plz delete Carriers ans SuperCarriers fromt this failgame finally plz
FiX at least Titan making it worth its HUGE pricetag.....
Thank you CCP for destroying the game -Killing motivation to train for Capitals of any kind -Killing motivation to field Capitals of any kind in territorial warfire
PS. dafug happenn to render???
make it go away.. it iz baaaaaad - my eyes are bleeeding >.< |
MegaLuter
Horizon Eventus SOLAR FLEET
30
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 19:27:06 -
[384] - Quote
Sitting in offline on NYX .I'm upset because I paid a subscription for a year. This Change was to be the last in my subscription. ANY F***G NPC on farm can kill fighter top ship EVE. CCP YOU ARE IDIOTS!!! |
xOmGx
Order of Order SOLAR FLEET
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 19:34:18 -
[385] - Quote
worst part that we (capital users) have spend well over a year of focused training to be able to use / fly these ships and have invested some considerable amount of time and resources in ships
and now they all become trash
Worst of all are SuperCarriers they are now useless junk
Supers are bad in general - No more Immune to EWAR, easy can be pointed by small roam of small ships and cant defend themselves
CCP MUST to refurbish money that are spend on subscription and or return all SP that is now locked in useless skills + return all ISK that is locked in useless ships
They are responsible for faulty product what we have now on the server is NOT what people have trained for |
Will Swiftsure
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 19:37:05 -
[386] - Quote
From the bright side, this might be a good change for industry people who build and sell fighters? |
xOmGx
Order of Order SOLAR FLEET
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 19:39:49 -
[387] - Quote
Will Swiftsure wrote:From the bright side, this might be a good change for industry people who build and sell fighters?
you talk like there were no fighter loss at all.... |
Cade Windstalker
1092
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 20:21:12 -
[388] - Quote
Seems like a lot of people in this thread might be helped out by this video on how not to lose Fighters with the new changes. |
Cpt Kupo
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
28
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 20:41:38 -
[389] - Quote
CCP Why do fighters stop moving after killing a target? Are fighter pilots that dumb? |
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
136
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 20:57:10 -
[390] - Quote
Will Swiftsure wrote:From the bright side, this might be a good change for industry people who build and sell fighters?
Nobody would lose fighters because nobody would use carriers. I mean, you go to a haven, you lose 2, congrats, it's worth 26mil and you just lost 26 mil worth of fighters doing it. In ISK/hour terms you've been beaten by alpha clone ratting in a venture in 1.0 hisec anom.
Everyone sells their carriers and their fighters, including extra fighters they had to recover from losses. Industry people suffer because supply lifts demand and cracks it's spine. |
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
136
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 20:59:39 -
[391] - Quote
Seems like average IQ of the whole forum can be improved if you would just shut the **** up with the nonsense video of how someone finally managed to not lose any fighters in a haven by imitating pulloff with orbit rock command, sheer luck, and ruined ISK/hour due to fighters being at 4 times faloff distance at the moment something is targeted.
All this in ezmode goonspace on NPC faction with no missiles, barely any webs, no target painters, no ecm, no tracking disruptors, and no OP tracking battlecruiers. |
Nisse
Boa Innovations Brothers of Tangra
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 21:48:06 -
[392] - Quote
Hopefully this will come across as measured feedback, I realise there's a fair bit of emotion in this thread!
I'm flying a Nidhoggur, T1 Templars, running Drone Hordes in a -1.0 system.
Pre-patch, if I didn't keep the fighters busy fighting, I would lose some, as they would sit there and take fire. I'm fine with that, it avoids AFK playstyles.
Post-patch, having run 4 hordes, I lose a fighter every single horde, even if I watch them like a hawk to move them between groups.
I therefore come to one of three conclusions:
1) Carrier ratting was viewed as too profitable, so the attrition of fighters is meant to lower that. I don't believe this is the case.
2) The aim is to change the meta to require Drone Durability rigs on carriers (I've not yet refitted the ship but may well try this). For most people this will result in a reduction in agility of carriers as most PvE setups run Low Friction Nozzles and Hyperspatials.
3) This is unintended behaviour brought about by the combination of a sig radius increase and AI aggression increase happening at the same time.
I believe (3) is reality in this situation, and if that's the case, I would suggest that fighter hitpoints need increasing. This would: - Keep them at risk of having greater applied damage from NPC's, presumably the aim of increasing their sig radius - Allow them to survive the additional sig and aggression related damage as per pre-patch - Whilst ensuring that AFK playstyles are discouraged through fighters having more, but not an abundance of, hitpoints
Hope that all makes sense :). |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
93
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 22:07:26 -
[393] - Quote
Nisse wrote:...............Hope that all makes sense :).
Perfectly.
The only thing you got wrong was your conclusion.
'1' is the absolutely correct answer - the last Economic Report showed the evidence.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Gadzooki
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 22:16:38 -
[394] - Quote
I hate to agree with a goon but here we are (grrr). This patch has nothing to do with 'balance', its meant to marginalize carrier ratting in an attempt to capitalize on more R/L currency in the form of subscriptions.
|
Primary This Rifter
Ministry of War Amarr Empire
1227
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 22:36:06 -
[395] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:CCP: "We want your feedback on this." Literally everyone: "This sucks. Don't do it." CCP: "How bout I do anyway."
Nice to see this pattern hasn't changed in my extended absence. What if the feedback people are giving is just confirming the result is what they actually intended with the change? Like if the change was targeted at making carrier ratter rethink what they do in game and making fighter easier to kill. Would they actually be listening to feedback and not have to change anything in their proposal? I'm pretty sure they never ask for feedback in the form of we want/don't want this. It's more "CCP X will happen if you do Y" and right now, it seems X is what is intended. No. |
AmarrianJustice
Shadow State Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 22:37:35 -
[396] - Quote
Moving us ever closer to pay for play only by souring the game gradually until it's completely unpalatable. I don't know why any of you are surprised by these changes. CCP is in it for the money. If any of you think they want only for your enjoyment of the game then you're naive. |
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
39
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 22:48:07 -
[397] - Quote
Orca Platypus wrote:Seems like average IQ of the whole forum can be improved if you would just shut the **** up with the nonsense video of how someone finally managed to not lose any fighters in a haven by imitating pulloff with orbit rock command, sheer luck, and ruined ISK/hour due to fighters being at 4 times faloff distance at the moment something is targeted. All this in ezmode goonspace on NPC faction with no missiles, barely any webs, no target painters, no ecm, no tracking disruptors, and no OP tracking battlecruiers.
You need to make a lot of micro management, problematic is : how make people with bad connexion or who can"t for some reason use keyboard and mouse in same time ? They can't farm. without heavy loss. |
Xantia Naari
BRO GAMING Corporation FREE GATES COALITION
8
|
Posted - 2017.03.14 23:06:25 -
[398] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Xantia Naari wrote:For the majority among those who PLEX their account, the only thing less likely to happen, when the carpet is removed under their feet, than quitting eve, is subscribing. So according to you, the majority will turn to other income sources or continue carrier ratting since there is only 1 option less likely than quitting so all others must be more likely.
That is exactly what I'm saying. I think incursions will have an increase for example
There are two kinds of children that play in sandboxes. Those who build castles and those who kick them down. It's a symbiosis.
|
Orca Platypus
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
140
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 01:10:39 -
[399] - Quote
Xantia Naari wrote:That is exactly what I'm saying. I think incursions will have an increase for example No. Too dangerous.
What I'm going to do until my subscription ticks out is to just run ISKtar on all alts using EULA gray area stream analysis software (since bubbles got removed from the game except the only CCP approved way of using them by sitting on them like mother hen for the entire 2 days of their lifetime, who needs a life anyway) on one of them to minimize intel damage, and a remote desktop area on my smartphone with drone recall and safeup commands tuned into one tap using accessibility feature.
Oh boy CCP, totally exciting gameplay. I will print more ISK than one carrier ever could anyway, and be safer at the same time. I didn't want to do it, cuz accessibility features and stream analysis are both grey area and could lead to pissing you off, but IF YOU DON'T CARE, THEN I DON'T CARE EITHER. |
ISD Chanisa Nemes
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
96
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 04:47:15 -
[400] - Quote
Deleted some off-topic posts
ISD Chanisa Nemes
Lieutenant
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
|
Zenra Va'Kur
The Final Resistance ChaosTheory.
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 08:32:05 -
[401] - Quote
AmarrianJustice wrote:Moving us ever closer to pay for play only by souring the game gradually until it's completely unpalatable. I don't know why any of you are surprised by these changes. CCP is in it for the money. If any of you think they want only for your enjoyment of the game then you're naive.
The reason changes like this irk players like myself so much is mainly due to the fact this game takes a large amount of time and investment, both mentally and financially. Lots of players pay for multiple subscriptions, or have spent on many occasions money on things like plex. I'd be willing to wager lots of people have put more money into this game then any other game they've played. I know I've put over $1000 dollars into this game in less then 2 years. That's more money then I've spent on all of the MMO's I've played in my lifetime combined. With a financial investment like that, to see a company flat out ignore player feedback when they ask for it and implement a change that is so clearly meant to do nothing but lesson the use of the ship, to induce more plex or subscription sales feels like a massive slap in the face.
The biggest issue with this change and the carrier changes in general are the amount of hotkeys I have to press and how often. I don't know who over at the company thought having me hold my arm over a keyboard and press a key every 2 to 3 seconds for an hour or 2 was a good idea needs to look at a medical book on the cause and issue revolving carpal tunnel syndrome. I'm more inclined to multi box ishtars or VNi's considering, it's now less risky in game, and doesn't actively force me into play styles that are a detriment to my long term health.
The fact I'm even considering multi-boxing instead of using the carrier to rat in, a ship I literally a month ago trained into shows just how bad they've screwed the carriers up. They've turned the ship into a giant hauler for anyone who doesn't want to tap their keyboard every 3 seconds for hours on end. |
Alexey Rumyancev
Facehoof Out of Sight.
4
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 08:50:04 -
[402] - Quote
Jeesh, thanks devs gotta go sell muh carrier and all |
Limur Deninard
D-Don Elemental Tide
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 09:53:56 -
[403] - Quote
I've stopped playing on my carrier pilot after lose Templar T2 from squad per one shot by 6 batteleships while fighters were tackled on Haven. T2 fighter price around 13 mil, Haven drops around 30 mil. No more matter to ratting with carrier and also no reason to get PvP because even T2 fighters don't have enough resits and DPS to save them in fight. |
clipper shore
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 13:31:27 -
[404] - Quote
so ccp here's the result of your changes
log into coms since the changes coms empty
before changes 10-15 people in coms
thanks ccp for killing the game |
It Maybeatrap
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 14:44:42 -
[405] - Quote
Hi, just chiming in that I dislike the new fighter changes.
From a super perspective - having to babysit fighters is annoying. Flying a 30bil ship just so I can spend 300% more effort and attention to get the same isk/hour as a few afking VNIs isn't rational.
You *can* avoid losing fighters but why should you? Sell it off, inject a few VNIs and afk rat for a fraction of the effort.
PS I've seen about 10x the amount of supers selling in alliance chat in last 24 hours than I've seen in a couple months, guess it's back to being risk averse drop boat...
From a carrier POV I don't even know why you'd fly one now, rattlesnake will give you roughly same isk/hour for half the effort |
Emma Ai
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 15:26:33 -
[406] - Quote
I dont understand what CCP wont... carriers wasnt super ship ... Pilot need spend a lot time for studing skills. For what ? Its easer to create 2 pilots with Gila/Ishtar and have same isks with ship 5-10 times chiper and 1-2 month pilot and almost AFK .... Why do i need a carrier now ? A heard about 5 mather for sale last 24h, and a lot carriers..... Do CCP want to teach pilots mining ? |
xOmGx
Order of Order SOLAR FLEET
8
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 16:09:46 -
[407] - Quote
Emma Ai wrote:]Do CCP want to teach pilots mining ? [/b]
No they hate mining as well - they nerfed Rorq badly
They want us to buy PLEX and sell it for isk
I am sure CCP buy PLEXes back for ISK undercover
I wanted to have a Supercarrier for a very very long time... now lol i do now want it anymore
CCP make everything to make people stop learning capitals
If CCP wont fix it i will demand that all capital related skills on one of my alts are converted in to free SP CCP is responsible for for changes that put over a year learning in to the trash and i want compensation |
Anna Aele
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 16:39:54 -
[408] - Quote
I'm a supercap pilot and here's a rundown of this change from a nyx bro point of view(all T2): PVP 1)Fighters were already easy to counter since they are EXTREMELY easily jammable. Theoretically one falcon with 5 profile jammers can 100%+ jam all 5 of your squads. Permanently. One falcon. Seriously? Heavy drones have more sensor points(3x times more even though fighters seem to get buffed by NSA which then gets closer to 2x difference). 2)It's kinda good(ish) to bring fighters' signatures in line with heavy drones. But heavy drones (t2 comparison) have almost 2x base speed even though they have a little less EHP considering resists. Also drones' signature doesn't get rekt by their mwd that much honestly. Let's not even compare them to the gecko. It is nearly as fat as a whole light SQUAD. 2.1)Fighters are kinda stupid and are standing still unless you command them not to. Drones can auto-aggro. 3)You are now bombing your own light fighters for up to 65% of their shield with T2 DDAs. No comments. 4)Now the cost. Did I really just buy a 20bil ship with 10bil fits and ~3bil fighters to not even be able to hit a target if enemy has 1 falcon\1 smart BS\bomber\etc.? Don't think so. Players had the option to permajam fighters already. Why should some plebs be able to nullify&kill a super (while not losing a single ship of their own) without specialised ships anyway? 5)Support fighters except for sirens are unusably awful. Have you actually seen any of them? I didn't. Because they are really really bad. Now you nerf damage ones that were decent. PVE 1)Due to citadel changes now carriers&supers require a decent amount of APM to kill NPCs(well, actually anything, really) efficiently. None of my previous PVE boats required that much APM as a nyx. 2)This gets worse considering the fact that a wave can now legitimately alpha off your light fighter even if it's moving. 2.1)This gets worse considering that you have to lock a structure to keep fighters moving to reduce the chance of them being alphad. 3)Gilas and Ishtars have the option to do anomalies almost completely afk due to auto-aggroing drones and can do that in large amounts (multibox) using assist. Carriers&supers can't. You can't really PVE efficiently and safely in more than one super unless you're a masochist\genius\starcraft pro. 4)Why should people get punished for purchasing an EXPENSIVE ship that requires decent APM and skill investment to get decent ticks? Gila&Ishtar&VNI are dirt cheap and can actually do anomalies afk as mentioned above and even if you lose one - in ~5 afk hours you earn enough money for another. Does that work for a super? No. TLDR: nerf is bad&unjustified. I can't see a legitimate logic reason for this change seriously except for CCP wants more account subs. Well, you just lost a few. I unsubbed. Eve is a game where you should overcome difficulties to become successful but not they ones that developers put in your way without any logical reason. Losing the ability to ride my super efficiently considering how much work&time I've put in it isn't legit anymore. PS but hey at least while I have my subs still up I am able to use projectors more effectively. YAY! |
Limur Deninard
D-Don Elemental Tide
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 16:58:11 -
[409] - Quote
You true, carriers like Dominx but with large shield at the moment. Buy the VNI or Rattlesnake and forget about carriers.
Anna Aele wrote:I'm a supercap pilot and here's a rundown of this change from a nyx bro point of view(all T2): PVP 1)Fighters were already easy to counter since they are EXTREMELY easily jammable. Theoretically one falcon with 5 profile jammers can 100%+ jam all 5 of your squads. Permanently. One falcon. Seriously? Heavy drones have more sensor points(3x times more even though fighters seem to get buffed by NSA which then gets closer to 2x difference). 2)It's kinda good(ish) to bring fighters' signatures in line with heavy drones. But heavy drones (t2 comparison) have almost 2x base speed even though they have a little less EHP considering resists. Also drones' signature doesn't get rekt by their mwd that much honestly. Let's not even compare them to the gecko. It is nearly as fat as a whole light SQUAD. 2.1)Fighters are kinda stupid and are standing still unless you command them not to. Drones can auto-aggro. 3)You are now bombing your own light fighters for up to 65% of their shield with T2 DDAs. No comments. 4)Now the cost. Did I really just buy a 20bil ship with 10bil fits and ~3bil fighters to not even be able to hit a target if enemy has 1 falcon\1 smart BS\bomber\etc.? Don't think so. Players had the option to permajam fighters already. Why should some plebs be able to nullify&kill a super (while not losing a single ship of their own) without specialised ships anyway? 5)Support fighters except for sirens are unusably awful. Have you actually seen any of them? I didn't. Because they are really really bad. Now you nerf damage ones that were decent. PVE 1)Due to citadel changes now carriers&supers require a decent amount of APM to kill NPCs(well, actually anything, really) efficiently. None of my previous PVE boats required that much APM as a nyx. 2)This gets worse considering the fact that a wave can now legitimately alpha off your light fighter even if it's moving. 2.1)This gets worse considering that you have to lock a structure to keep fighters moving to reduce the chance of them being alphad. 3)Gilas and Ishtars have the option to do anomalies almost completely afk due to auto-aggroing drones and can do that in large amounts (multibox) using assist. Carriers&supers can't. You can't really PVE efficiently and safely in more than one super unless you're a masochist\genius\starcraft pro. 4)Why should people get punished for purchasing an EXPENSIVE ship that requires decent APM and skill investment to get decent ticks? Gila&Ishtar&VNI are dirt cheap and can actually do anomalies afk as mentioned above and even if you lose one - in ~5 afk hours you earn enough money for another. Does that work for a super? No. TLDR: nerf is bad&unjustified. I can't see a legitimate logic reason for this change seriously except for CCP wants more account subs. Well, you just lost a few. I unsubbed. Eve is a game where you should overcome difficulties to become successful but not they ones that developers put in your way without any logical reason. Losing the ability to ride my super efficiently considering how much work&time I've put in it isn't legit anymore. PS but hey at least while I have my subs still up I am able to use projectors more effectively. YAY!
|
clipper shore
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 17:48:31 -
[410] - Quote
look guys from looking at whats happening in null sec at the moment where huge numbers are not even logging into the game i would say at the next investors meeting fozzie and larkin will have alot of explaing to do why huge numbers of players have stopped playing the game
me for 1 hhas been carrier ratting for years with the carrier changes it ment i could only use 1 to rat at a time big drop in my income
now i may loose money ratting in my carrier because of these changes sorry ccp but if you want to kill null sec you have done it
never heard so much rage about this patch i think there will be a long term efect to the player base the eve will never recover from |
|
clipper shore
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
15
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 17:55:30 -
[411] - Quote
the rage is because people spent real money in the game to train char's and now ccp make changes that makes that money spent pointless
ccp have efectivly stolen from those players and at the moment in my country there is a case to be had to sue ccp which is being investaged at the moment
|
Billy Antollarenti
Ascendance Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 17:55:43 -
[412] - Quote
First time in 4 years playing that I'm actually angry at CCP.
The impact on carrier ratting was obvious, predictable and predicted but all these predictions have been ignored by CCP. Nerf it if you must, but not by screwing over fighters.
I just ran 3 havens, lost 5 fighters, and I never take my eyes of the screen, never allow fighters to sit still. I lost 2 on the way TO the site, before they fired a shot. This means a trip in a DST to the market hub to buy more, which effectively halves my ratting income today.
Think I'll try an alpha clone for a bit |
Trevize Demerzel
89
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 18:01:43 -
[413] - Quote
It's even more "fun" when a Dread spawns. Can loose an entire wing before recalling. Killing a dread means loosing a bunch of fighters. I haven't yet seen a single good drop from a dread.. And I've killed lots of dreads... lots... With this big hit to risk vs reward could we at least put some decent loot on dreads?
-
|
xOmGx
Order of Order SOLAR FLEET
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 18:10:56 -
[414] - Quote
Trevize Demerzel wrote:It's even more "fun" when a Dread spawns. Can loose an entire wing before recalling. Killing a dread means loosing a bunch of fighters. I haven't yet seen a single good drop from a dread.. And I've killed lots of dreads... lots... With this big hit to risk vs reward could we at least put some decent loot on dreads?
never seen and or heard about any good drops from dread beside these parts
LOL now Carriers cant kill dreads GZ ccp "good job" |
clipper shore
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
16
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 19:03:06 -
[415] - Quote
its oficial there are a bunch of idiots working at ccp |
Astro Agnon
Natus Ex Igne Perfect Dark
10
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 19:20:34 -
[416] - Quote
Yesterday, I lost 10 fighters while at a Haven with my Thanny.
I do not fight semi-afk in any fashion. I am always at the controls.
Like others have posted, I lost 3 with seconds, one shot. When they started taking damage I would get them off the field, but when there at 10% damage, and litterly the next second at 90%, that fighter is toast.
I for one, do not mind things becoming balanced, but heck, let's not tip the scales to the other side!!!!!!
I got around 30 million for the site, replacing 10 fighters, 40 mill. Hmm................ |
d3vi0us sander
Over The Wormhole and Far Away Serrice Council.
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 19:53:32 -
[417] - Quote
Yup this nerf is just over the roof awful. in forsaken hub lost 3 fighters just in 2 waves. that is ridiculous. i can make more isk in a VNI with way shorter training and way less attention than i do in a carrier that i trained for a while to fly and fit. If this wont get fixed i concider finding new game to play. I havent had my carrier for even few months and boom all that waiting turned waste of time.
Anna Aele wrote:I'm a supercap pilot and here's a rundown of this change from a nyx bro point of view(all T2 all5 stats): PVP 1)Fighters were already easy to counter since they are EXTREMELY easily jammable. Theoretically one falcon with 5 profile jammers can 100%+ jam all 5 of your squads. Permanently. One falcon. Seriously? Heavy drones have more sensor points(3x times more even though fighters seem to get buffed by NSA which then gets closer to 2x difference). 2)It's kinda good(ish) to bring fighters' signatures in line with heavy drones. But heavy drones (t2 comparison) have almost 2x base speed even though they have a little less EHP considering resists. Also drones' signature doesn't get rekt by their mwd that much honestly. Let's not even compare them to the gecko. It is nearly as fat as a whole light SQUAD. 2.1)Fighters are kinda stupid and are standing still unless you command them not to. Drones can auto-aggro. 3)You are now bombing your own light fighters for up to 65% of their shield with T2 DDAs. No comments. 4)Now the cost. Did I really just buy a 20bil ship with 10bil fits and ~3bil fighters to not even be able to hit a target if enemy has 1 falcon\1 smart BS\bomber\etc.? Don't think so. Players had the option to permajam fighters already. Why should some plebs be able to nullify&kill a super (while not losing a single ship of their own) without specialised ships anyway? 5)Support fighters except for sirens are unusably awful. Have you actually seen any of them? I didn't. Because they are really really bad. Now you nerf damage ones that were decent along with already dead content wise support ones. PVE 1)Due to citadel changes now carriers&supers require a decent amount of APM to kill NPCs(well, actually anything, really) efficiently. None of my previous PVE boats required that much APM as a nyx. 2)This gets worse considering the fact that a wave can now legitimately alpha off your light fighter even if it's moving. 2.1)This gets worse considering that you have to lock a structure to keep fighters moving to reduce the chance of them being alphad. 3)Gilas and Ishtars have the option to do anomalies almost completely afk due to auto-aggroing drones and can do that in large amounts (multibox) using assist. Carriers&supers can't. You can't really PVE efficiently and safely in more than one super unless you're a masochist\genius\starcraft pro. 4)Why should people get punished for purchasing an EXPENSIVE ship that requires decent APM and skill investment to get decent ticks? Gila&Ishtar&VNI are dirt cheap and can actually do anomalies afk as mentioned above and even if you lose one - in ~5 afk hours you earn enough money for another. Does that work for a super? No. TLDR: nerf is bad&unjustified. I can't see a legitimate logical reason for this change except for CCP wants more account subs for afk dronboats and subcap accounts in general. Well, you just lost a few. I unsubbed. Eve is a game where you should overcome difficulties to become successful but not the ones that developers put in your way without any logical reason. Losing the ability to ride my super efficiently considering how much work&time I've put in it isn't legit anymore. PS but hey at least while I have my subs still up I am able to use projectors more effectively. YAY!
|
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks Requiem Eternal
45
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 20:10:48 -
[418] - Quote
xOmGx wrote:Trevize Demerzel wrote:It's even more "fun" when a Dread spawns. Can loose an entire wing before recalling. Killing a dread means loosing a bunch of fighters. I haven't yet seen a single good drop from a dread.. And I've killed lots of dreads... lots... With this big hit to risk vs reward could we at least put some decent loot on dreads? never seen and or heard about any good drops from dread beside these parts LOL now Carriers cant kill dreads GZ ccp "good job"
Only ever gotten one "good" drop off of a dread, and it was a BPC for a faction capital module (think it was a shield extender). Required the parts that drop off of NPC capitals to build it + the T1 variant. Carriers used to be called in to kill these NPC dreads, because with another dread it becomes a standstill. They tank each other and get nowhere. The NPC dreads already 1-2 shot VNIs and Isktars off the field, even if they're still speed/sig tanking.
Now dreads are killing fighters due to the changes? Well, I guess we weren't ever supposed to kill these, eh CCP? Just let them roam from site to site, belt to belt, killing anyone who is in system and in space doing anything meaningful. Because i'm sure not calling in a titan to deal with it, since that's the only option now.
I honestly think unless CCP has plans to change these back, or fix the other bugs with carriers/supers/fighters very soon, they should allow pilots to request skill refunds for their fighter skills. Carrier skill is still useful for FAX piloting, but the fighters are just garbage now. Could use those skills toward something useful, like a venture, since that's what they want us flying now. |
ValhallaCCB
Kenshin. DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 20:44:41 -
[419] - Quote
Seeing as this is the place to leave feedback I will put in my two cents. I have been using carrier ratting as my source of income to allow me to learn and grow as a PvP'er. However, after playing around with this new patch I have lost more fighters than I have for the past few months of ratting. It isn't at a balanced level in my opinion. Loosing a fighter here and there is within the normal range and is part of the ratting process. But going into each site and loosing 5-9 of them because figs, cruisers, and battle cruisers instantly swap then volley them isn't fun. At this point, I don't really see it as being a viable income source for me anymore due to the losses. However, as stated above this is just my experience with the new aggro. Maybe it could be lowered a little or change to make it not so instantaneous or more warning of an aggro swap.
Thanks for the consideration CCP. |
TekMek
Teneo Sententis Silent Infinity
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 21:41:53 -
[420] - Quote
Hy CCP :-)
first of all I want to thank you for the wonderful changes to fighter squadrons and the workaround for them.
And for the brilliant idea of giving the roqual a mining flagship role. I hated having it under a pos , but on the other hand I loved it to be of use in eve even while beeing at work.
I have some thoughts about capitals though. I think something in general is just going into a wrong direction. Why are capitals slowly moving to over expensive battleships with paper tank and damage nerfs ?
just consider. a single tengu does 1000 dps a single rattlesnake does 1500 dps
a fully equipped carrier does at maxed out skills around 3000 dps.
and it merely is bit of nothing. What could a carrier really be ? Base for fighters maybe letting him have a jump clone bay for example so that a carrier pilot could pilot a group of 5 to 10 corp mates into a new system just by clone jumping them there and letting them take there ships out of hangar (that would be a role that would fit for pvp)
and Dreadnoughts ? Where are these highly tanked stuff without the ability to stand their man ?
And why these over complicated siege, triage, bastion, industrial core calculations ?? Would it not make much more sense in giving them all a unique cycle time from 2,5 minutes to 0,5 minutes depending on skill level ? Why not thinking about the details and why different fuel for those all or fuel at all ?? could they not work as other modules simple and usable ?
Why must there be 10-15 minutes cycle time on a rorquals industrial core when it does not work in a pos ?? Thats killing that modules use for all could say its like grieving even.
Should there not be a real capital class ? Where a fleet shudders when getting capitals enter a battle instead of seeing them as valuable kill mail food ? Where has been the awe when this big clumpy things enter a battlefield ?
Yes of course. A fleet of 5 capitals could be a deadly threat if the where such nonbalanced as described and Yes of course there could be capital wars burning tons of ISK , of course .
But do we all really want that our tech III cruiser fleets with 1000 dps per tengu rule the places or that the Rattlesnakes are the highest goal for the ambigous ratter ?
Me I must say I hate it. I love the Raven and loved it all the time . but with his 1000 dps I early found out that a 1500 dps rattlesnake is much more effective to a anomaly then any other ship I had flown. But sorry I am getting off topic.
Back to the changes.. Good job with the scanners when offdocking the windows from the map there are only good points left. Looks good , makes scanning more understandable, gives the screen a good look. Nice.
Expanding the keyboard commands to fighters and to mining drones ... Good to give this a thought and very good that you implemented it Whoever remembered about doing this could be a nice thing and ease things a bit yeah ! Great !
Looking at the market, dont forget to get the industrial core alive please. It is unusable at the moment and the cost of burning strontium clathtrate down (which have made a price up from 400 to 9000+ isks should get a thought at too please).
Why not cutting down the cycle time and the use of all these modules to the bastion module ? Would make it much easier to use for all... Triage, Siege, Industrial core , bastion, why not releasing the "must burn something" mode and why not setting them all to a base of 2,5 minutes on skill level 1 and down to 0,5 minutes at skill level 5 ? Remember 30 seconds are still deadly if in a rorqual in an ice belt for example or when a big fleet comes into a system where a fleet of dreadnoughts are fighting some other capital fleets ??
What will happen if you cannot crack a capital with a fleet of smaller ships ?? Easy ... your foe will have to bring capitals to fight capitals. So whats the problem then ?
And what if you need big fleets to get small fleets of capitals down ?? Maybe make a balance in COST... Make a balance in ISK... It must not be perfect though, but a bit of thought about value and worth would be nice.
If you need 5 battleships worth 3 billion to get a carrier or dread thats worth 3 billions down .. that would be a balance.... or 10 cruisers or 90 frigates :-) ... There will be always ways to get a big ship down. Remember its slow and cannot turn around or warp out that fast.
I appreciate your work. These are just thoughts. No matter if someone really hears them and gets them up. I know .. many places where work wants to be done.
friendly greetings and fly smart o7 Tekmek |
|
Black Salt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.15 23:20:37 -
[421] - Quote
Firstly, I'd like to address your comments regarding "We have done lots of tests", I find this somewhat hard to believe unless you're using a PC which is directly interfaced into your test servers and isn't having to use any kind of internet.
Anyone with even a slightly slow connection will have latency issues when inputting commands for fighters making it near impossible to keep fighters moving 100% of the time, so I'd questions the validity of your testing methodology, however, I couldn't find any information on how you perform your test, so I can only assume this is an oversight or a deliberate lie, not a very good way to treat customers and is covered under the Consumer Protection Act within the UK if the latter is found to be true.
Moving away from this material, I would like to address the changes to fighters in general.
Fighters take an insurmountable amount of damage when volleyed by the PVE content in anomalies, a single volley from a carrier rat spawn, for example, is able to kill 3 fighters in a squadron, assuming it takes them a couple of seconds to get there, that is potentially 6 fighters lost. This reduces the DPS on a Carrier to the point of not being able to kill the Carrier Rat and makes the reward less than the losses you've just sustained, whilst annoying is not the end of the world.
What I feel is absolutely unacceptable is the loss of fighters against a battleship, frigate and cruiser "rats" while a Heavy Drone has far more hit points, far more regen, and actual resist to types of damage making heavy drones more effective in tanking than fighters are.
The only way I can see this being balanced is if you make the production of fighters instead of making a single fighter, make a full squadron worth per cycle, while perhaps doubling the required materials for the industry aspect of a single fighter for the entire squad.
This, in turn, alleviates build queues for players who spend 90% of their time making fighters, encourages them to buy the minerals needed which pushes up the mineral prices.
This, however, does not fix the issues with PVP but that's a different issue and I would leave that to someone with more experience in the field than myself to discuss/express.
Before I unsub and leave the game, I'm waiting to see if you rectify or readdress the balancing issues in some way however if this isn't rectified, I will not be renewing my sub for the game and will actively dissuade friends from playing the game if asked.
I'm sure you can appreciate the fiscal effect such actions can have against your company and your brand as CCP, aka "The Pirates of the Gaming Industry here to take your money, move goalposts and make changes based solely on greed without realising their players are not morons".
|
Gadzooki
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
7
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 02:34:43 -
[422] - Quote
Black Salt wrote:Firstly, I'd like to address your comments regarding "We have done lots of tests", I find this somewhat hard to believe unless you're using a PC which is directly interfaced into your test servers and isn't having to use any kind of internet.
Anyone with even a slightly slow connection will have latency issues when inputting commands for fighters making it near impossible to keep fighters moving 100% of the time, so I'd questions the validity of your testing methodology, however, I couldn't find any information on how you perform your test, so I can only assume this is an oversight or a deliberate lie, not a very good way to treat customers and is covered under the Consumer Protection Act within the UK if the latter is found to be true.
Moving away from this material, I would like to address the changes to fighters in general.
Fighters take an insurmountable amount of damage when volleyed by the PVE content in anomalies, a single volley from a carrier rat spawn, for example, is able to kill 3 fighters in a squadron, assuming it takes them a couple of seconds to get there, that is potentially 6 fighters lost. This reduces the DPS on a Carrier to the point of not being able to kill the Carrier Rat and makes the reward less than the losses you've just sustained, whilst annoying is not the end of the world.
What I feel is absolutely unacceptable is the loss of fighters against a battleship, frigate and cruiser "rats" while a Heavy Drone has far more hit points, far more regen, and actual resist to types of damage making heavy drones more effective in tanking than fighters are.
The only way I can see this being balanced is if you make the production of fighters instead of making a single fighter, make a full squadron worth per cycle, while perhaps doubling the required materials for the industry aspect of a single fighter for the entire squad.
This, in turn, alleviates build queues for players who spend 90% of their time making fighters, encourages them to buy the minerals needed which pushes up the mineral prices.
This, however, does not fix the issues with PVP but that's a different issue and I would leave that to someone with more experience in the field than myself to discuss/express.
Before I unsub and leave the game, I'm waiting to see if you rectify or readdress the balancing issues in some way however if this isn't rectified, I will not be renewing my sub for the game and will actively dissuade friends from playing the game if asked.
I'm sure you can appreciate the fiscal effect such actions can have against your company and your brand as CCP, aka "The Pirates of the Gaming Industry here to take your money, move goalposts and make changes based solely on greed without realising their players are not morons".
Ahh Black salt, the saltiest salt of all.
threaten legal action - check threaten to cancel account - check Offer up sound changes that will go unnoticed because of the tone of your first paragraph - check
Better check the salt levels in the ocean before we proceed
|
Xantia Naari
BRO GAMING Corporation FREE GATES COALITION
8
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 03:17:07 -
[423] - Quote
clipper shore wrote:look guys from looking at whats happening in null sec at the moment where huge numbers are not even logging into the game i would say at the next investors meeting fozzie and larkin will have alot of explaing to do why huge numbers of players have stopped playing the game
me for 1 hhas been carrier ratting for years with the carrier changes it ment i could only use 1 to rat at a time big drop in my income
now i may loose money ratting in my carrier because of these changes sorry ccp but if you want to kill null sec you have done it
never heard so much rage about this patch i think there will be a long term efect to the player base the eve will never recover from
I have changed my mind. I was under the impression that carrier ratting was going to be totally impossible, but after testing some fits on sisi I found that it IS possible not to lose a single fighter as long as you pay attention and work those hot keys. Carrier ratting was never ment to be an isk printing business you could do with more then one carrier at a time, while watching a mov+¬.. The quote above is a good example. All ways of making isk should involve actually playing the game. You need to work a little to earn your isk. So, you have a dream of flying a carrier and making some good profit doing so? That still exists! It's just that you can't do any PvP at the same time on a separate account. I'm only talking about the PvE part here but the changes nerfes the carrier ratting obuse rather then the entire prospect of carrier ratting at all. So for those who still feel bitter, I guess you'll have to find another way to pay for your 20 accounts, 20 titans or what ever you had in mind.
There are two kinds of children that play in sandboxes. Those who build castles and those who kick them down. It's a symbiosis.
|
Beast of Revelations
Hedion University Amarr Empire
139
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 04:23:01 -
[424] - Quote
TekMek wrote: I have some thoughts about capitals though. I think something in general is just going into a wrong direction. Why are capitals slowly moving to over expensive battleships with paper tank and damage nerfs ?
...
But do we all really want that our tech III cruiser fleets with 1000 dps per tengu rule the places
In a word - "yes." It has been heading down this path for a while. In fact it started with battleships. There are vermin out there who love to spout nonsense like "bigger isn't better!" and "there are no tiers in EVE!" and "blah blah!" and whatever else. It's people who think relatively small cheap ships should be the end-game, and there should not be much use for anything bigger than a cruiser. Basically "Eve Online" should be "Cruisers Online."
Again, just look at the battleship and what has happened to it. Now it's just a Level 4 mission running ship. In fact I see the "Cruisers Online" vermin tout that in forum posts as a "use" and "intention" of the battleship - to be a Level 4 mission runner. "Battleships have uses!" they say.
Maybe they'll start saying carriers have their uses too. Look at all the crap you can haul around in them. Plus clone bays I guess. So that's why you should buy one over a cruiser, LOL.
Well, that's what happens when the company decides to cater to the game-playing whims of what I consider to be... "misguided" people at best, and terms I will not utter at worst. |
Zenra Va'Kur
The Final Resistance ChaosTheory.
5
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 07:46:10 -
[425] - Quote
Xantia Naari wrote:clipper shore wrote:look guys from looking at whats happening in null sec at the moment where huge numbers are not even logging into the game i would say at the next investors meeting fozzie and larkin will have alot of explaing to do why huge numbers of players have stopped playing the game
me for 1 hhas been carrier ratting for years with the carrier changes it ment i could only use 1 to rat at a time big drop in my income
now i may loose money ratting in my carrier because of these changes sorry ccp but if you want to kill null sec you have done it
never heard so much rage about this patch i think there will be a long term efect to the player base the eve will never recover from I have changed my mind. I was under the impression that carrier ratting was going to be totally impossible, but after testing some fits on sisi I found that it IS possible not to lose a single fighter as long as you pay attention and work those hot keys. Carrier ratting was never ment to be an isk printing business you could do with more then one carrier at a time, while watching a mov+¬.. The quote above is a good example. All ways of making isk should involve actually playing the game. You need to work a little to earn your isk. So, you have a dream of flying a carrier and making some good profit doing so? That still exists! It's just that you can't do any PvP at the same time on a separate account. I'm only talking about the PvE part here but the changes nerfes the carrier ratting obuse rather then the entire prospect of carrier ratting at all. So for those who still feel bitter, I guess you'll have to find another way to pay for your 20 accounts, 20 titans or what ever you had in mind.
Plz can show me where you find these people not at their computers while ratting in a carrier? I've been playing eve for 2 years and I've never once seen someone ratting in one while being AFK. The issue with the argument that you should be playing the game while ratting or else it's printing isk, is complete malarkey in terms of the build of carriers before this patch and during this current patch. No one in the 100's of people I've met in this game that use carriers do that at least from what I've seen in my time in eve. Even if their multi-boxing, I see no issue with people carrier ratting and doing pvp, or pi or any other various things while doing ratting in their carrier or carriers. Their investment they should be able to do with it as they please.
If the isk earned from multi-boxing carriers is the issue, then why aren't other drone boats being forced to be just as micro managing? It's now cheaper, less risky, and far far less work to multi-box ishtars or even a VNI for god sake. Hell just 3 VNI's will make as much as my carrier (I'm low skill).
The sad part about this is, my carrier is now a hauler, as the sites are now like rolling the dice. I lose 6 to one haven, then 1 to another, then 2 to another. I also follow the general findings everyone has done videos on to stop fighter deaths and they still get volleyed off the field and mainly by only battleships, not the cruisers or frigs that I take out early. My Ishtar loses zero. And I can actually see the health of the drones being hit, so I have a chance at calling them back when they get smacked to hard.
I'd be nice to actually have someone give me a good reason why hitting hotkeys every 2 seconds for an hour or 2 is fun. It's nothing but tedious, and detrimental to the health of my arms and hands. I have enough issues with my arms due to computer use I do not need my hobby to also add on another few hours of repetitive key pressing so that I can make some pointless space ship money. The risk of carrier ratting is so not worth it when you add the amount of damage it will do, and the risk it brings in game financially. |
Trevize Demerzel
89
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 11:31:21 -
[426] - Quote
xOmGx wrote:Trevize Demerzel wrote:It's even more "fun" when a Dread spawns. Can loose an entire wing before recalling. Killing a dread means loosing a bunch of fighters. I haven't yet seen a single good drop from a dread.. And I've killed lots of dreads... lots... With this big hit to risk vs reward could we at least put some decent loot on dreads? never seen and or heard about any good drops from dread beside these parts LOL now Carriers cant kill dreads GZ ccp "good job"
Didn't say you couldn't kill it. I just said the fighter loss is greater then then value of the dread/salvage. So the risk/reward/ROI is total crap.
-
|
Hiemlynn
Angry Rock Killers Inc. Serrice Council.
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 12:30:01 -
[427] - Quote
Just thought I would throw my two pence in...
I have just ran multiple havens in my carrier this morning (first time after the patch) and I lost absolutely no fighters. The closest I came was when I miss-clicked on an orbit command and they sat still for 5 seconds and one fighter took damage up to 56%. |
Xantia Naari
BRO GAMING Corporation FREE GATES COALITION
8
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 12:36:19 -
[428] - Quote
Zenra Va'Kur wrote:
If the isk earned from multi-boxing carriers is the issue, then why aren't other drone boats being forced to be just as micro managing? It's now cheaper, less risky, and far far less work to multi-box ishtars or even a VNI for god sake. Hell just 3 VNI's will make as much as my carrier (I'm low skill).
The sad part about this is, my carrier is now a hauler, as the sites are now like rolling the dice. I lose 6 to one haven, then 1 to another, then 2 to another. I also follow the general findings everyone has done videos on to stop fighter deaths and they still get volleyed off the field and mainly by only battleships, not the cruisers or frigs that I take out early. My Ishtar loses zero. And I can actually see the health of the drones being hit, so I have a chance at calling them back when they get smacked to hard.
I'd be nice to actually have someone give me a good reason why hitting hotkeys every 2 seconds for an hour or 2 is fun. It's nothing but tedious, and detrimental to the health of my arms and hands. I have enough issues with my arms due to computer use I do not need my hobby to also add on another few hours of repetitive key pressing so that I can make some pointless space ship money. The risk of carrier ratting is so not worth it when you add the amount of damage it will do, and the risk it brings in game financially.
This must be one of the most pathetic arguments in the history of gaming entertainment. God forbid you try other games like Starcraft or CS that actually requires pushing keys many times a second. If you think pushing a key every 2 seconds is detrimental to your health, I strongly suggest you quit gaming all together and get your fat ass up and exercise it. Either that or retire to a old folks home and stick to playing bingo.
All players that quit EVE because their favorite exploit has been nerfed is good riddance.
There are two kinds of children that play in sandboxes. Those who build castles and those who kick them down. It's a symbiosis.
|
Martin Vanzyl
EVE University Ivy League
17
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 14:07:52 -
[429] - Quote
Somebody mentioned the latest economic report as a reason for the carrier fighter nerf, and I rarely pay attention to those economic reports, but my interest was peaked. Two clicks later and I'm staring at the Isk Sink and Faucet's graph and WTF?!https://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Feb_2017/9aaa_top.sinks.faucets.over.time.png
Something, starting in mid April 2016 has caused Bounty Payouts to absolutely shoot into the stratosphere! https://updates.eveonline.com/date/2016-04-27/
The Citadel/Caps expansion.
Between then and now Bounty Payout has gone from a level of 1Tril Isk to peaking in Mid February 2017 at 2.2 TRILLION ISK, whilst the Sinks barely changed at all.
Its NOT a good idea to just INJECT that amount of money into your economy to that extent that quickly. That leads to currency devaluation and money oversupply. Google a bit to see why that's BAD.
CCP can see what ship/activity is earning these the most, I assume. So if this is what they have to do to keep EVE's economy afloat... and by extension, the game going, which puts food on their tables, keeps the lights on, by all means.
|
Trevize Demerzel
89
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 15:15:59 -
[430] - Quote
So finally got some time to play with the Burst projector changes... Went off to an anom and tested the "Target Illumination Burst Projector".
I'm left with.... hmmm... what's the point? Granted this is PVE.... cause ya know, not like I'm going to play/test right off in a PVP battle. So I put the target burst right in the middle of the rats and all the rats kept chasing after my fighters and I noticed basically nothing in increased DPS from the fighters.
I'm left with, "is this thing even working, at all?"
Anyway.. I'll equip and test the others as I get time to do so. Leaving a big "meh" so what feeling at present tho.
-
|
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3200
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 16:44:00 -
[431] - Quote
Trevize Demerzel wrote:So finally got some time to play with the Burst projector changes... Went off to an anom and tested the "Target Illumination Burst Projector".
I'm left with.... hmmm... what's the point? Granted this is PVE.... cause ya know, not like I'm going to play/test right off in a PVP battle. So I put the target burst right in the middle of the rats and all the rats kept chasing after my fighters and I noticed basically nothing in increased DPS from the fighters.
I'm left with, "is this thing even working, at all?"
Anyway.. I'll equip and test the others as I get time to do so. Leaving a big "meh" so what feeling at present tho.
Blooming the sig of your target does not always help. If you are hitting a rat BS for full damage, making his sig as large as a Titan won't help. |
Beast of Revelations
Hedion University Amarr Empire
140
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 17:03:48 -
[432] - Quote
Martin Vanzyl wrote: Between then and now Bounty Payout has gone from a level of 1Tril Isk to peaking in Mid February 2017 at 2.2 TRILLION ISK, whilst the Sinks barely changed at all.
Its NOT a good idea to just INJECT that amount of money into your economy to that extent that quickly. That leads to currency devaluation and money oversupply. Google a bit to see why that's BAD.
CCP can see what ship/activity is earning these the most, I assume. So if this is what they have to do to keep EVE's economy afloat... and by extension, the game going, which puts food on their tables, keeps the lights on, by all means.
I would wager that most would agree that CCP should keep the economy in balance. This should not be done by handicapping and nerfing capital ships. There are a bazillion ways you can adjust the economy. Doing it by nerfing capital ships should not be one of them. |
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
39
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 17:08:22 -
[433] - Quote
Martin Vanzyl wrote:Somebody mentioned the latest economic report as a reason for the carrier fighter nerf, and I rarely pay attention to those economic reports, but my interest was peaked. Two clicks later and I'm staring at the Isk Sink and Faucet's graph and WTF?! https://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Feb_2017/9aaa_top.sinks.faucets.over.time.pngSomething, starting in mid April 2016 has caused Bounty Payouts to absolutely shoot into the stratosphere! https://updates.eveonline.com/date/2016-04-27/ The Citadel/Caps expansion. Between then and now Bounty Payout has gone from a level of 1Tril Isk to peaking in Mid February 2017 at 2.2 TRILLION ISK, whilst the Sinks barely changed at all. Its NOT a good idea to just INJECT that amount of money into your economy to that extent that quickly. That leads to currency devaluation and money oversupply. Google a bit to see why that's BAD. CCP can see what ship/activity is earning these the most, I assume. So if this is what they have to do to keep EVE's economy afloat... and by extension, the game going, which puts food on their tables, keeps the lights on, by all means.
And you know what ? With this expension the number of player in game have drastically augmented during the same period... |
Black Salt
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 17:25:39 -
[434] - Quote
Gadzooki wrote:
Ahh Black salt, the saltiest salt of all.
threaten legal action - check threaten to cancel account - check Offer up sound changes that will go unnoticed because of the tone of your first paragraph - check
Better check the salt levels in the ocean before we proceed
Perhaps I made this character for the specific reasons of being salty on forums ~
Or perhaps it's one lucky twist of fate!
And I don't make threats, simply made note of the fact that it may be a violation of existing consumer acts, and with respect to the account not being sub'd, it's not a threat if I've already cancelled it and started using my time on other games already.
And if people wish to ignore the sound suggestion to balance, then that's fine but anyone who is looking at forums for feedback should fully expect to get the following:
1) Salt 2) Trolls
and probably needs to be able to still read comments objectively.
P.S. I'd have described Black Salt as the Edgiest of Salts but |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3201
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 17:50:51 -
[435] - Quote
Black Salt wrote:Gadzooki wrote:
Ahh Black salt, the saltiest salt of all.
threaten legal action - check threaten to cancel account - check Offer up sound changes that will go unnoticed because of the tone of your first paragraph - check
Better check the salt levels in the ocean before we proceed
Perhaps I made this character for the specific reasons of being salty on forums ~ Or perhaps it's one lucky twist of fate! And I don't make threats, simply made note of the fact that it may be a violation of existing consumer acts, and with respect to the account not being sub'd, it's not a threat if I've already cancelled it and started using my time on other games already. And if people wish to ignore the sound suggestion to balance, then that's fine but anyone who is looking at forums for feedback should fully expect to get the following: 1) Salt 2) Trolls and probably needs to be able to still read comments objectively. P.S. I'd have described Black Salt as the Edgiest of Salts but
Do you really think you have any legal protection against CCP nerfing your pixel spaceship? If it was the case, every single MMO designer would be in court every single patches for having nerfed someone's pixels. Get real... |
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
39
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 19:58:12 -
[436] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Black Salt wrote:Gadzooki wrote:
Ahh Black salt, the saltiest salt of all.
threaten legal action - check threaten to cancel account - check Offer up sound changes that will go unnoticed because of the tone of your first paragraph - check
Better check the salt levels in the ocean before we proceed
Perhaps I made this character for the specific reasons of being salty on forums ~ Or perhaps it's one lucky twist of fate! And I don't make threats, simply made note of the fact that it may be a violation of existing consumer acts, and with respect to the account not being sub'd, it's not a threat if I've already cancelled it and started using my time on other games already. And if people wish to ignore the sound suggestion to balance, then that's fine but anyone who is looking at forums for feedback should fully expect to get the following: 1) Salt 2) Trolls and probably needs to be able to still read comments objectively. P.S. I'd have described Black Salt as the Edgiest of Salts but Do you really think you have any legal protection against CCP nerfing your pixel spaceship? If it was the case, every single MMO designer would be in court every single patches for having nerfed someone's pixels. Get real...
Not for nerfing, but to change accebility you can. You need to have a great apm ... when you have signe to the game need only medium. If you can"t use you're 2 hand to play with keyboard for any reason : It's a consumer act violation in a lot of country.
|
Cade Windstalker
1107
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 21:16:35 -
[437] - Quote
Dictateur Imperator wrote:Not for nerfing, but to change accebility you can. You need to have a great apm ... when you have signe to the game need only medium. If you can"t use you're 2 hand to play with keyboard for any reason : It's a consumer act violation in a lot of country.
Um... this is flatly false, even I know enough law to know that.
If you're disabled you have no reasonable expectation to be able to play a game at the same level as someone with two functioning hands and the same goes for any other disability. If we were to follow your issue here to its logical conclusion then FPS games would also need to accommodate one-handed players, blind players, and all sorts of other things that it's simply ridiculous to expect them to accommodate without dumbing down the game to the point of removing all challenge from it.
I'm all for more discussion on these changes, preferably with examples, but this line of argument is just ridiculous. |
Xantia Naari
BRO GAMING Corporation FREE GATES COALITION
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 21:50:48 -
[438] - Quote
Beast of Revelations wrote:Martin Vanzyl wrote: Between then and now Bounty Payout has gone from a level of 1Tril Isk to peaking in Mid February 2017 at 2.2 TRILLION ISK, whilst the Sinks barely changed at all.
Its NOT a good idea to just INJECT that amount of money into your economy to that extent that quickly. That leads to currency devaluation and money oversupply. Google a bit to see why that's BAD.
CCP can see what ship/activity is earning these the most, I assume. So if this is what they have to do to keep EVE's economy afloat... and by extension, the game going, which puts food on their tables, keeps the lights on, by all means.
I would wager that most would agree that CCP should keep the economy in balance. This should not be done by handicapping and nerfing capital ships. There are a bazillion ways you can adjust the economy. Doing it by nerfing capital ships should not be one of them.
Why shouldn't the biggest cause to the imbalance between isk faucet andisk sink be adjusted?
There are two kinds of children that play in sandboxes. Those who build castles and those who kick them down. It's a symbiosis.
|
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
39
|
Posted - 2017.03.16 22:44:22 -
[439] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Dictateur Imperator wrote:Not for nerfing, but to change accebility you can. You need to have a great apm ... when you have signe to the game need only medium. If you can"t use you're 2 hand to play with keyboard for any reason : It's a consumer act violation in a lot of country.
Um... this is flatly false, even I know enough law to know that. If you're disabled you have no reasonable expectation to be able to play a game at the same level as someone with two functioning hands and the same goes for any other disability. If we were to follow your issue here to its logical conclusion then FPS games would also need to accommodate one-handed players, blind players, and all sorts of other things that it's simply ridiculous to expect them to accommodate without dumbing down the game to the point of removing all challenge from it. I'm all for more discussion on these changes, preferably with examples, but this line of argument is just ridiculous.
When you sign a contract with a companie for a service, they can change some rules of the service if they 're eula said they can. BUT if the accesibility of the service change due to this it's against consumer act.
|
Zenra Va'Kur
The Final Resistance ChaosTheory.
5
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 01:13:10 -
[440] - Quote
Xantia Naari wrote:Zenra Va'Kur wrote:
If the isk earned from multi-boxing carriers is the issue, then why aren't other drone boats being forced to be just as micro managing? It's now cheaper, less risky, and far far less work to multi-box ishtars or even a VNI for god sake. Hell just 3 VNI's will make as much as my carrier (I'm low skill).
The sad part about this is, my carrier is now a hauler, as the sites are now like rolling the dice. I lose 6 to one haven, then 1 to another, then 2 to another. I also follow the general findings everyone has done videos on to stop fighter deaths and they still get volleyed off the field and mainly by only battleships, not the cruisers or frigs that I take out early. My Ishtar loses zero. And I can actually see the health of the drones being hit, so I have a chance at calling them back when they get smacked to hard.
I'd be nice to actually have someone give me a good reason why hitting hotkeys every 2 seconds for an hour or 2 is fun. It's nothing but tedious, and detrimental to the health of my arms and hands. I have enough issues with my arms due to computer use I do not need my hobby to also add on another few hours of repetitive key pressing so that I can make some pointless space ship money. The risk of carrier ratting is so not worth it when you add the amount of damage it will do, and the risk it brings in game financially.
This must be one of the most pathetic arguments in the history of gaming entertainment. God forbid you try other games like Starcraft or CS that actually requires pushing keys many times a second. If you think pushing a key every 2 seconds is detrimental to your health, I strongly suggest you quit gaming all together and get your fat ass up and exercise it. Either that or retire to a old folks home and stick to playing bingo. All players that quit EVE because their favorite exploit has been nerfed is good riddance.
First off trivializing a chronic problem that causes 100's of thousands world wide to go on disability, and costs millions in health care bills is far more pathetic then me offering arguments. Second off you make the assumption everyone uses hotkeys as a standard in games like starcraft and CS, or any games that offer them and a mouse option. I don't play the ones you listed but when I do play RTS games I don't use hotkeys do to my arm problems. Seems to me your ignorant of a whole range of mouse products meant to lesson the arm problem. I also don't use a keyboard in shooting games these days do to the effects it has on my arms, I find the controller feels a lot more lenient on the tension it causes. But go ahead and project your assumptions, ignorance and insult onto others, makes you look real mature.
You also never bothered even addressing my points so I'll go ahead and assume you have no arguments to offer. When you actually have articulated an argument instead of insults come back to me, till then I'll stick to my opinion of this change is unnecessary and makes the game less fun and far more tedious. |
|
Beast of Revelations
Hedion University Amarr Empire
140
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 02:20:19 -
[441] - Quote
Xantia Naari wrote:Beast of Revelations wrote: I would wager that most would agree that CCP should keep the economy in balance. This should not be done by handicapping and nerfing capital ships. There are a bazillion ways you can adjust the economy. Doing it by nerfing capital ships should not be one of them.
Why shouldn't the biggest cause to the imbalance between isk faucet andisk sink be adjusted?
Because it is stupid, dumb, and ill-conceived to view the problem of the economy as a problem of sig radius on fighters, that's why.
If carrier ratting anoms is too easy, and causes too much ISK to be made too easily, then adjust the fracking anom, adjust the fracking payouts, adjust the ability of a fracking carrier to even fit inside anoms. Adjust potentially a billion different things that would all be REASONABLE to adjust. But just make sure that you adjust the fracking ECONOMY, morons, not the hardware on a ship.
Now, if the hardware on a ship is the thing that is imbalanced, then by all means adjust it. For instance if carriers were OP against dreads, titans, and whatever else, and after investigation the problem was found to be the sig radius of the fighters, not carrier hit points, not the carrier being too cheap, not number of high slots or mid slots or low slots on the carrier, etc. So fine, adjust away. But to adjust sig radius on carrier fighters because of an economic imbalance? Height of moronic. |
ScorpionD III
Falcoes Peregrinos Pandemic Horde
8
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 03:04:14 -
[442] - Quote
Man, i don't have anything to post here, who has not ben told...
This is just ******* ridiculous...
An anomaly (Heaven) give something like 30m, and i lost easy, easy at least 3 or 4 fighter at the cost of 15m each...
Is just me or have something wrong?
I expected not only a roll back from this change, but the compensation for the lost fighters.
While that i will put some vni's and grab my popcorn to see some movies while i recover from my losses... sigh |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3209
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 04:10:47 -
[443] - Quote
Dictateur Imperator wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:Dictateur Imperator wrote:Not for nerfing, but to change accebility you can. You need to have a great apm ... when you have signe to the game need only medium. If you can"t use you're 2 hand to play with keyboard for any reason : It's a consumer act violation in a lot of country.
Um... this is flatly false, even I know enough law to know that. If you're disabled you have no reasonable expectation to be able to play a game at the same level as someone with two functioning hands and the same goes for any other disability. If we were to follow your issue here to its logical conclusion then FPS games would also need to accommodate one-handed players, blind players, and all sorts of other things that it's simply ridiculous to expect them to accommodate without dumbing down the game to the point of removing all challenge from it. I'm all for more discussion on these changes, preferably with examples, but this line of argument is just ridiculous. When you sign a contract with a companie for a service, they can change some rules of the service if they 're eula said they can. BUT if the accesibility of the service change due to this it's against consumer act.
CCP never said you are supposed to be able to efficiently fly a carrier/super while having hands issue for example. |
GothicNightmare
Amazing Super Slackers Army of New Eden
13
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 06:39:41 -
[444] - Quote
The Citadel/Caps expansion.
Between then and now Bounty Payout has gone from a level of 1Tril Isk to peaking in Mid February 2017 at 2.2 TRILLION ISK, whilst the Sinks barely changed at all.
Its NOT a good idea to just INJECT that amount of money into your economy to that extent that quickly. That leads to currency devaluation and money oversupply. Google a bit to see why that's BAD.
CCP can see what ship/activity is earning these the most, I assume. So if this is what they have to do to keep EVE's economy afloat... and by extension, the game going, which puts food on their tables, keeps the lights on, by all means.
[/quote]
yes it's true the isk gaining ability went way up, I noticed it too with super ratting, the bomber squadrons made the isk intake just go places. The problem is people are grinding isk and grinding isk, and then insisting on spending it on t1 cruisers or t1 destroyers/frigs or t3 destroyers... No one is spending isk on battleships and fitting them like the flying gods they should be or T2 battlecruisers or anything. People see battleships or battlecruisers now and they just grab a handful of frigates and kite and tickle them to death and then gripe that they are bored. I remember the days that you'd see intel flash about a 20-30 man HAC gang with 4-5 logi and people got twitchy, now it's all "30 interceptors" kek... who cares, let them zip on through and go away. The interest in committed heavy pvp sank when cheap throw away ships were just as good and a mere fraction of the cost, no one is spending on anything. So yes, they can see the isk influx, but they aren't looking into why it's not going back out. It seems the overall mentality is if it's not black ops/covert somethingorother or cheap frig/dessy/cruiser, then it's just not worth the isk or time. Fine example? When bouncers were nerfed into the ground, the Ishtar blobs vanished to the 4 winds, and even now it's all caracal blobs with rapid light (sometimes heavy) missiles... or some rando with a cyno, it's all become cheap and predictable. |
Beast of Revelations
Hedion University Amarr Empire
140
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 07:03:21 -
[445] - Quote
GothicNightmare wrote: yes it's true the isk gaining ability went way up, I noticed it too with super ratting, the bomber squadrons made the isk intake just go places. The problem is people are grinding isk and grinding isk, and then insisting on spending it on t1 cruisers or t1 destroyers/frigs or t3 destroyers... No one is spending isk on battleships and fitting them like the flying gods they should be or T2 battlecruisers or anything. People see battleships or battlecruisers now and they just grab a handful of frigates and kite and tickle them to death and then gripe that they are bored. I remember the days that you'd see intel flash about a 20-30 man HAC gang with 4-5 logi and people got twitchy, now it's all "30 interceptors" kek... who cares, let them zip on through and go away. The interest in committed heavy pvp sank when cheap throw away ships were just as good and a mere fraction of the cost, no one is spending on anything. So yes, they can see the isk influx, but they aren't looking into why it's not going back out. It seems the overall mentality is if it's not black ops/covert somethingorother or cheap frig/dessy/cruiser, then it's just not worth the isk or time. Fine example? When bouncers were nerfed into the ground, the Ishtar blobs vanished to the 4 winds, and even now it's all caracal blobs with rapid light (sometimes heavy) missiles... or some rando with a cyno, it's all become cheap and predictable.
The predictable and predicted outcome of the mentality of the vermin who love to scream "bigger is not better!" and who think a cheap frigate should be able to kill a battleship on equal grounds and footing, or even a capital. |
Joe Uta
Order of Order SOLAR FLEET
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 07:57:15 -
[446] - Quote
Have second window nidhoggur. Trying to handle Angel Heaven. 1st attempt: gate heaven, -2 fighters during final wave. 2st attempt: simple heaven, -3 fighters.. 3st attempt: gate heaven, -1 fighter during final wave.
Seen the video about orbitting structure or wreck between waves. Doesn`t work. When fighter kill his target hi is became static, not move. And npc shot him very well during his final weapon cycle(while hi is stand). That makes carrier ratting no more avaible for me...
RIP Nidhoggur.
P.S. sry for bad grammar. |
MegaLuter
Horizon Eventus SOLAR FLEET
32
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 08:31:36 -
[447] - Quote
CCP add to the section of fighters Shortcuts - return and orbit all/select fighter |
Xantia Naari
BRO GAMING Corporation FREE GATES COALITION
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 11:08:12 -
[448] - Quote
Joe Uta wrote:Have second window nidhoggur. Trying to handle Angel Heaven. 1st attempt: gate heaven, -2 fighters during final wave. 2st attempt: simple heaven, -3 fighters.. 3st attempt: gate heaven, -1 fighter during final wave.
Seen the video about orbitting structure or wreck between waves. Doesn`t work. When fighter kill his target hi is became static, not move. And npc shot him very well during his final weapon cycle(while hi is stand). That makes carrier ratting no more avaible for me...
RIP Nidhoggur.
P.S. sry for bad grammar.
Try fitting 2x capital drone durability rig tech II
There are two kinds of children that play in sandboxes. Those who build castles and those who kick them down. It's a symbiosis.
|
Xantia Naari
BRO GAMING Corporation FREE GATES COALITION
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 11:14:57 -
[449] - Quote
Beast of Revelations wrote:Xantia Naari wrote:Beast of Revelations wrote: I would wager that most would agree that CCP should keep the economy in balance. This should not be done by handicapping and nerfing capital ships. There are a bazillion ways you can adjust the economy. Doing it by nerfing capital ships should not be one of them.
Why shouldn't the biggest cause to the imbalance between isk faucet andisk sink be adjusted? Because it is stupid, dumb, and ill-conceived to view the problem of the economy as a problem of sig radius on fighters, that's why. If carrier ratting anoms is too easy, and causes too much ISK to be made too easily, then adjust the fracking anom, adjust the fracking payouts, adjust the ability of a fracking carrier to even fit inside anoms. Adjust potentially a billion different things that would all be REASONABLE to adjust. But just make sure that you adjust the fracking ECONOMY, morons, not the hardware on a ship. Now, if the hardware on a ship is the thing that is imbalanced, then by all means adjust it. For instance if carriers were OP against dreads, titans, and whatever else, and after investigation the problem was found to be the sig radius of the fighters, not carrier hit points, not the carrier being too cheap, not number of high slots or mid slots or low slots on the carrier, etc. So fine, adjust away. But to adjust sig radius on carrier fighters because of an economic imbalance? Height of moronic.
So you are saying, for example, it would be alot better if CCP removed the amount of anom spawns so that they become alot rarer then they are now?
There are two kinds of children that play in sandboxes. Those who build castles and those who kick them down. It's a symbiosis.
|
Beast of Revelations
Hedion University Amarr Empire
140
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 12:39:34 -
[450] - Quote
Xantia Naari wrote: So you are saying, for example, it would be alot better if CCP removed the amount of anom spawns so that they become alot rarer then they are now?
I'm not offering any particular or specific recommendation because I don't know enough about the issue, but yes, that's the KIND of thing that could be considered, if the issue is too much ISK being printed too easily by carriers.
Here's an idea. What about making it impossible for carriers to run the current spawns, but create an entirely new spawn that is more difficult than the current ones, potentially even containing capship rats, and let carriers run those instead? Wouldn't that be better than "duhhh... economy no good... NERF CARRIERS." If I could think of that off the top of my head in 5 seconds, why couldn't one of these genius developers?
If the issue is the economy, then there are a million things that could, and should be done, over "nerf carrier fighters and call it a day." I'm not sure if the issue is laziness to consider and do something about the real issue, or simple stupidity.
Again, this is all assuming what others have stated - that the issue they were trying to address was the economy, not something else. |
|
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
93
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 12:40:34 -
[451] - Quote
Waited until today....
8 Sanctums/Havens run - no changes to Carrier fit - switched to T1 fighters both to save on losses and have them weaker...
But none lost - and only had to recall a Squadron 3 times in total.
Other than that - it was, specifically carrier ratting that needed the nerf - I can't think of any other change they might have done that could target just that - especially when it targets multi-boxing specifically (for you have to pay more attention).
And CCP have also addressed many issues brought up by sub-cap pilots vs carriers in the same way.
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
39
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 17:54:10 -
[452] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:[quote=Dictateur Imperator]Not for nerfing, but to change accebility you can. You need to have a great apm ... when you have signe to the game need only medium. If you can"t use you're 2 hand to play with keyboard for any reason : It's a consumer act violation in a lot of country.
Um... this is flatly false, even I know enough law to know that.
If you're disabled you have no reasonable expectation to be able to play a game at the same level as someone with two functioning hands and the same goes for any other disability. If we were to follow your issue here to its logical conclusion then FPS games would also need to accommodate one-handed players, blind players, and all sorts of other things that it's simply ridiculous to expect them to accommodate without dumbing down the game to the point of removing all challenge from it.
I'm all for more discussion on these changes, preferably with examples, but this line of argument is just ridiculous.[/quote
If you sell a blind people comptaible game and change after ... you are against consumer act. Here it's same in fact. You muste never you're accessibility. And if you want you must paid the price .
|
Rando Mname
Carpatian-RO Fidelas Constans
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 18:16:38 -
[453] - Quote
ahmm. Tired of losing a fighter at every each last spawn in heaven, no matter what I do, mwd on, mwd off. If you're unlucky and get the big spawn, the cruisers destroy a fighter. Not nice. Fed up with this. -1 Eve player. P.S. at this hour there's just 30k+ players online. Compare it to the figures of last week's Friday night count. It may go down even more. Not cool. Very not cool. |
Pisyha
Random inactiva corporation
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 19:02:40 -
[454] - Quote
Rando Mname wrote:ahmm. Tired of losing a fighter at every each last spawn in heaven, no matter what I do
Have you tried holding down W and clicking on something near the next spawn, such as a gate, wreck, asteroid. It commands your fighters to orbit whatever you click on without locking it. Thus they have transversal up before they get aggro.
afaik with the tactical overlay turned on the navigation hotkeys Q W and E apply to fighters rather than your hull. |
Rando Mname
Carpatian-RO Fidelas Constans
6
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 19:15:12 -
[455] - Quote
`yeap. it's just that once the fighters destroy a target they just stop. they don't auto orbit like drones. that's bad. if they would always auto orbit then maybe that would change things a little bit. |
xOmGx
Order of Order SOLAR FLEET
12
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 19:48:45 -
[456] - Quote
Martin Vanzyl wrote:Somebody mentioned the latest economic report as a reason for the carrier fighter nerf, and I rarely pay attention to those economic reports, but my interest was peaked. Two clicks later and I'm staring at the Isk Sink and Faucet's graph and WTF?! https://cdn1.eveonline.com/community/MER/Feb_2017/9aaa_top.sinks.faucets.over.time.pngSomething, starting in mid April 2016 has caused Bounty Payouts to absolutely shoot into the stratosphere! https://updates.eveonline.com/date/2016-04-27/ The Citadel/Caps expansion. Between then and now Bounty Payout has gone from a level of 1Tril Isk to peaking in Mid February 2017 at 2.2 TRILLION ISK, whilst the Sinks barely changed at all. Its NOT a good idea to just INJECT that amount of money into your economy to that extent that quickly. That leads to currency devaluation and money oversupply. Google a bit to see why that's BAD. CCP can see what ship/activity is earning these the most, I assume. So if this is what they have to do to keep EVE's economy afloat... and by extension, the game going, which puts food on their tables, keeps the lights on, by all means.
LeL
There is no one major sink - destroyed Citadels / burned fuel / destroyed ships
ONE single Keepstar take out 300B out of the game
Look at killboard prior patch - every day ratting Super was killed, now calculate how many hours you need to spend to replace that loss
Calculate how many hours you need to replace carrier loss
And now CCP take from us ability to generate ISK that help us to replace our combat losses = less pvp = less fun = new MMO
oh CCP New Render Su.CK give us an option so we can choose |
Darkligh 81
Black Sea Technologies Rate My Ticks
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 20:06:59 -
[457] - Quote
Hi All
Telling your fighters to orbit does work. I have tested this in anoms today (Exactly the same as always ran them) I have run Havens others were loosing fighters in.
Tell the fighters to orbit your next target just before your fighters cycle the killing blow. When a new group spawns immediatley tell them to orbit your first target (or a target, doesn't matter) then lock the targets while they are on their way to the new spawn.
Don't wait for them to kill the target then tell them to orbit, or lock a target and then orbit, by then it's too late. Orbit first.
If you still struggle throw in a Capital drone durability rig or 2 for a bit of extra hp (also helps in case of a DC) Yes you warp slower than if you were running a max tick fit but you don't loose fighters.
I play with a very bad connection (1000ms-2000ms latency on a good day, lot's of dc's) and if I can keep my fighters alive you should be able to as well.
Hope that helps. |
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
39
|
Posted - 2017.03.17 20:39:36 -
[458] - Quote
Darkligh 81 wrote:Hi All
Telling your fighters to orbit does work. Exactly the same as I always ran them, I have run Havens/Sanctums today others were loosing fighters in.
Tell the fighters to orbit your next target just before your fighters cycle the killing blow. When a new group spawns immediatley tell them to orbit your first target (or a target, doesn't matter) then lock the targets while they are on their way to the new spawn.
Don't wait for them to kill the target then tell them to orbit, or lock a target and then orbit, by then it's too late. Orbit first.
If you still struggle throw in a Capital drone durability rig or 2 for a bit of extra hp (also helps in case of a DC) Yes you warp slower then if you were running a max tick fit but you don't loose fighters.
I play with a very bad connection ( around 1000ms-2000ms latency) and if I can keep my fighters alive you should be able to as well.
Hope that helps.
Same latency they have alpha my fighter (and i have drone durability rigs + thanatos perfect).
And when you play only with mouse: they kill fighter to.
CCP must correct beug before patch something. |
Limur Deninard
D-Don Elemental Tide
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 11:33:36 -
[459] - Quote
First fight carriers vs Cruisers after nerfed carriers. Carriers looks powerful carriers now. |
MegaLuter
Horizon Eventus SOLAR FLEET
32
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 12:36:37 -
[460] - Quote
My fighter its dead. NYX. Th CCP you best.... fuk eve dev |
|
Dragon Tatooo
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 14:31:34 -
[461] - Quote
-Ü-Ç-¦-¦-+-+-¦-é -¦-+-+-¦-¦-+ -ü-é-Ç-¦-¦-¦-é-î |
Limur Deninard
D-Don Elemental Tide
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 14:33:37 -
[462] - Quote
Dragon Tatooo wrote:-Ü-Ç-¦-¦-+-+-¦-é -¦-+-+-¦-¦-+ -ü-é-Ç-¦-¦-¦-é-î -Æ -+-¦-Ç-¦-â-Ä -+-ç-¦-Ç-¦-¦-î PvP -+ -¦-+-+-î-ê-+-¦ -¦-+-+ -+-+-ü-é-Ç-¦-¦-¦-+-+, -¦ -+-¦ -¦-Ç-¦-¦-ï.
In the first suffer PvP large fights than PvE pilots. |
Dragon Tatooo
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.18 21:27:50 -
[463] - Quote
Limur Deninard wrote:Dragon Tatooo wrote:-Ü-Ç-¦-¦-+-+-¦-é -¦-+-+-¦-¦-+ -ü-é-Ç-¦-¦-¦-é-î -Æ -+-¦-Ç-¦-â-Ä -+-ç-¦-Ç-¦-¦-î -+-+-ü-é-Ç-¦-¦-¦-+-+ -+-¦-ü-+-+-ü-+-¦-+-ï-¦ -¦-¦-¦-+-é-+-Ç-+-¦-¦-é-î-ü-Å -+ -¦-¦-+-¦-Ä-ë-+-¦ -+-+-¦-é-î -+-¦-¦-¦-é-+-â-Ä -¦-+-+-+-¦-â "win", -¦ -+-¦ -¦-Ç-¦-¦-ï. In the first suffer PvP large fights than PvE pilots. -ü-+-¦-¦-¦-¦ -+-+-+-Ç-¦-¦-+-+ |
Albert Madullier
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
62
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 09:13:29 -
[464] - Quote
Limur Deninard wrote:First fight carriers vs Cruisers after nerfed carriers. Carriers looks powerful carriers now.
more of a case that t3c's are op as **** for a cruiser hull |
elitatwo
Dicker Quick and Hyde Defense Attorneys O.U.Z.O. Alliance
1654
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 15:18:13 -
[465] - Quote
xOmGx wrote:[....There is no one major sink - destroyed Citadels / burned fuel / destroyed ships
ONE single Keepstar take out 300B out of the game...
Not an isk sink. Paying a NPC station to repair your damaged ship is an isk sink. A better LP store is an isk sink. Broker fees are a sink.
Ships, modules, citadels only sink minerals and salvage, not isk.
Eve Minions is recruiting.
This is the law of ship progression!
Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
|
Cade Windstalker
1129
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 17:15:09 -
[466] - Quote
Albert Madullier wrote:Limur Deninard wrote:First fight carriers vs Cruisers after nerfed carriers. Carriers looks powerful carriers now. that's more of a case that t3c's are op as **** for a cruiser hull
Both sides had plenty of T3s, from the look of things what decided that fight was the roughly 3:1 Logi advantage NC. had on top of having more T3s and generally better ships on average.
You know that thing people keep asking for where a smaller force beats a bigger one due to better strategy and ships? That's pretty much what seems to have happened there. The Carriers being there or not did not and should not have swung that fight on its own given the rest of the ships on each side. |
Yakos Otak
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 17:39:56 -
[467] - Quote
Now regarding the fighters.
Dear CCP. If I wanted to play starcraft with 500 apm or whatever starcraft player's apm is, I'd go and play starcraft.
Please make it less of a clickfest. Ideally carrier pve should be as much afk as possible, which in turn create more pvp opportunities and we all be much happier.
|
Cade Windstalker
1130
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 19:20:47 -
[468] - Quote
Yakos Otak wrote:Now regarding the fighters.
Dear CCP. If I wanted to play starcraft with 500 apm or whatever starcraft player's apm is, I'd go and play starcraft.
Please make it less of a clickfest. Ideally carrier pve should be as much afk as possible, which in turn create more pvp opportunities and we all be much happier.
I just really have to disagree with this.
Running a Carrier is not "a 500 APM clickfest" and it should not be "as AFK as possible". If you want to make money semi-AFK only clicking once ever 5 minutes then may I recommend an Ishtar, or better yet a market alt? |
ISD Decoy
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
1740
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 19:46:12 -
[469] - Quote
Quote:29. Please use the correct language when posting on the forums.
The default language for posting on the EVE Online forums is English. Please use English when posting as a courtesy to other forum users, unless the forum channel is specifically created for discussion in another language as part of our localized language specific sub-forums. I have removed a post and one quoting it.
ISD Decoy
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department
|
Yakos Otak
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.19 21:09:27 -
[470] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote: may I recommend an Ishtar, or better yet a market alt?
You Sir may recommend whatever you want. I am in turn feel that I may and can give my feedback to CCP on things I find important.
However. That's a good point on making alts. So here's another pros to making carriers afk again - as we know ratting in droneboats and rorq\hulk mining can scale pretty well with multiple characters. That is not the thing with carriers and supers. They don't scale at all. Making them afk or semi-afk can potentially result in people getting multiple carrier chars and thus paying more subs. Now we're talking about more subs and easy-to-catch afk ratters in expensive ships! DOUBLE WIN am I right?
Current clickfest on the other hand, and I now speaking for myself as a regular Joe in carrier, will result in me abandoning nullsec ratting which will in turn result in less pvp opportunities and eventually less subs because living in highsec is boring as hell (but at least not as annoying as clicking fighters every 5 seconds). |
|
Cade Windstalker
1130
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 02:44:57 -
[471] - Quote
Yakos Otak wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote: may I recommend an Ishtar, or better yet a market alt?
You Sir may recommend whatever you want. I am in turn feel that I may and can give my feedback to CCP on things I find important. However. That's a good point on making alts. So here's another pros to making carriers afk again - as we know ratting in droneboats and rorq\hulk mining can scale pretty well with multiple characters. That is not the thing with carriers and supers. They don't scale at all. Making them afk or semi-afk can potentially result in people getting multiple carrier chars and thus paying more subs. Now we're talking about more subs and easy-to-catch afk ratters in expensive ships! DOUBLE WIN am I right? Current clickfest on the other hand, and I now speaking for myself as a regular Joe in carrier, will result in me abandoning nullsec ratting which will in turn result in less pvp opportunities and eventually less subs because living in highsec is boring as hell (but at least not as annoying as clicking fighters every 5 seconds).
Multiboxing AFK-tars is only worthwhile if you're doing more with however many accounts, less ~1b per addition account for the cost of PLEX. So for an average player with only one or a few accounts they're better off just running the one Carrier for way larger ticks for whatever limited play time they have than running 3-4 AFK-tars unless they're running them enough every month to get that 1b plus whatever you could get from a Carrier running in that same time.
You're talking potentially maybe more subs at the expense of bad and engaging gameplay that's less satisfying to do. AFKing isn't gameplay, it's the antithesis of it. Plus it's aggravating if someone else is doing just as well or better AFK as you're doing active and at the keyboard, which pushes *everyone* towards AFKing, which believe it or not not a ton of people actually enjoy.
I get that maybe you don't enjoy current Carrier gameplay, but it sounds like the reason you don't enjoy it is because you're expected to be sat there actually doing something, not because it's significantly more micro than any other piece of PvE in the game currently that *isn't* AFK. |
March rabbit
Mosquito Squadron The-Culture
2106
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 09:54:59 -
[472] - Quote
Tested this new patch with my supercarrier.
Nothing really changed. And it was expected more or less having 1 Haven being done in 5:30. Most of the time NPC targeted my fighters but it is too fast for them to do any significant damage anyway.
So this change mainly targeted carrier pilots. And i'm still not convinced that they needed it
The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
|
Kadi Annages
University of Caille Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 12:10:17 -
[473] - Quote
So following yesterdays fight in CHAQ-2 I have to say that fighters (specifically heavy fighters) are just too easy to kill now. I think the Light Fighters are probably balanced appropriately, but the heavies should probably be given a bit more HP per fighter or maybe a higher base speed. We were burning through poor TC's Heavy Squadrons before they were even able to get in range to do damage.
So far the /r/eve focus has been on "nerf T3s" bit this seems like more of a red herring, the fact is that while the sig changes were definitely needed for fighters in general, heavy fighters now fall over as a result. |
Cade Windstalker
1131
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 14:50:03 -
[474] - Quote
March rabbit wrote:Tested this new patch with my supercarrier. Nothing really changed. And it was expected more or less having 1 Haven being done in 5:30. Most of the time NPC targeted my fighters but it is too fast for them to do any significant damage anyway. So this change mainly targeted carrier pilots. And i'm still not convinced that they needed it
Doesn't seem to have even affected Carriers much beyond multi-box/AFK capability. So far I've seen no change from people ratting Blood Raiders, Sansha, Guristas, Rogue Drones, and Serpentis. Haven't been able to find a video or person who does Angels though and there's been some concern raised over their TPs and Webs. If anyone has a video with the changes I'm curious if the concerns with Angels have been as overblown as those with other factions. |
Trevize Demerzel
89
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 15:41:24 -
[475] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:March rabbit wrote:Tested this new patch with my supercarrier. Nothing really changed. And it was expected more or less having 1 Haven being done in 5:30. Most of the time NPC targeted my fighters but it is too fast for them to do any significant damage anyway. So this change mainly targeted carrier pilots. And i'm still not convinced that they needed it Doesn't seem to have even affected Carriers much beyond multi-box/AFK capability. So far I've seen no change from people ratting Blood Raiders, Sansha, Guristas, Rogue Drones, and Serpentis. Haven't been able to find a video or person who does Angels though and there's been some concern raised over their TPs and Webs. If anyone has a video with the changes I'm curious if the concerns with Angels have been as overblown as those with other factions.
Angels are fine. If anything the patch made me more conscience of efficiency and my ticks have gone up.
It only made it a little hairy when swapping heavy fighter types to deal with a dread with both subcaps and a dread trying to alpha your fighters, but I've already adopted to that as well.
I'm finding this is mostly a nerf to PVP and heavy fighters. PVE is very much a keyboard/click fest, been playing a lot with the new fighter assignable hotkeys.
-
|
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
40
|
Posted - 2017.03.20 17:54:03 -
[476] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:March rabbit wrote:Tested this new patch with my supercarrier. Nothing really changed. And it was expected more or less having 1 Haven being done in 5:30. Most of the time NPC targeted my fighters but it is too fast for them to do any significant damage anyway. So this change mainly targeted carrier pilots. And i'm still not convinced that they needed it Doesn't seem to have even affected Carriers much beyond multi-box/AFK capability. So far I've seen no change from people ratting Blood Raiders, Sansha, Guristas, Rogue Drones, and Serpentis. Haven't been able to find a video or person who does Angels though and there's been some concern raised over their TPs and Webs. If anyone has a video with the changes I'm curious if the concerns with Angels have been as overblown as those with other factions.
I'm mono account, and i can't often use my 2 hand for some IRL problem. I'm affect. And before patch you can't afk carrier so stop think people want AFK. But befor epatch yes you can give order to you're fighter to attack nex target before they die, or you can have 1 000 ms ping without loose 2 fighter.
When we read you we understand : you don't hvae play carrier before update and not after. |
MegaLuter
Horizon Eventus SOLAR FLEET
32
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 02:43:43 -
[477] - Quote
Trevize Demerzel wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:March rabbit wrote:Tested this new patch with my supercarrier. Nothing really changed. And it was expected more or less having 1 Haven being done in 5:30. Most of the time NPC targeted my fighters but it is too fast for them to do any significant damage anyway. So this change mainly targeted carrier pilots. And i'm still not convinced that they needed it Doesn't seem to have even affected Carriers much beyond multi-box/AFK capability. So far I've seen no change from people ratting Blood Raiders, Sansha, Guristas, Rogue Drones, and Serpentis. Haven't been able to find a video or person who does Angels though and there's been some concern raised over their TPs and Webs. If anyone has a video with the changes I'm curious if the concerns with Angels have been as overblown as those with other factions. Angels are fine. If anything the patch made me more conscience of efficiency and my ticks have gone up. It only made it a little hairy when swapping heavy fighter types to deal with a dread with both subcaps and a dread trying to alpha your fighters, but I've already adopted to that as well. I'm finding this is mostly a nerf to PVP and heavy fighters. PVE is very much a keyboard/click fest, been playing a lot with the new fighter assignable hotkeys.
Angels not normal!!! |
Vladebor
The Raza. Red Dream Citizens
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 11:46:22 -
[478] - Quote
Best solution imo for capital ratting would be to simply add new anomaly type (or tweak sanctums) so they have less small ships and have more capital ships. It does not even need to be worth much more income per tick than havens now - just require less clicking overall because the way it is now is really too much. Many people are playing eve because it does not require so many clicking and running around like other games. Not to mention that would be fun to have more really big ship fights - I came to this game for this. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3242
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 14:56:42 -
[479] - Quote
Vladebor wrote:Best solution imo for capital ratting would be to simply add new anomaly type (or tweak sanctums) so they have less small ships and have more capital ships. It does not even need to be worth much more income per tick than havens now - just require less clicking overall because the way it is now is really too much. Many people are playing eve because it does not require so many clicking and running around like other games. Not to mention that would be fun to have more really big ship fights - I came to this game for this.
If it's too much clicking, you can always do something else than carrier/super ratting... |
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
40
|
Posted - 2017.03.21 22:11:59 -
[480] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Vladebor wrote:Best solution imo for capital ratting would be to simply add new anomaly type (or tweak sanctums) so they have less small ships and have more capital ships. It does not even need to be worth much more income per tick than havens now - just require less clicking overall because the way it is now is really too much. Many people are playing eve because it does not require so many clicking and running around like other games. Not to mention that would be fun to have more really big ship fights - I came to this game for this. If it's too much clicking, you can always do something else than carrier/super ratting...
Yes but if we want play game with you must do a lot of apm we don"t play to eve. We we have sign for play we have sign for an other accessibility of game. So if ccp want to change it they can ... they mist paid (and not only give back money of time who yu have on account). |
|
Xantia Naari
BRO GAMING Corporation FREE GATES COALITION
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 07:57:01 -
[481] - Quote
Prior to the patch I didn't carrier rat at all. I had just moved to null and was a bit worried that my skill investment regarding carriers would be a waste after the patch. My skills are low so I use t1 fighters, but after learning how to use the keys, I have not lost a single fighter.
Reading the last pages of comments I see the nerf hit those who multi box while carrier ratting and those who are too dumb to learn how the keys work. I guess Heavy fighters might need more HP but I have no first person experience about them.
So overall I'm happy. Exploit is nerfed and skill at playing the game is boosted. Two birds with one rock. Good job CCP!
There are two kinds of children that play in sandboxes. Those who build castles and those who kick them down. It's a symbiosis.
|
Yakos Otak
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 09:51:21 -
[482] - Quote
multiboxing carrier wasnt possible before the patch
Now its exacly one click more to kill each rat AND still at a greater risk of losing fighters.
Where the guy who designed this got the idea that forcing players to click every 3-5 seconds is "engaging gameplay" is beyond me. Maybe he played much Diablo lately an liked it.
|
Trevize Demerzel
89
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 10:48:29 -
[483] - Quote
Brings up a good point.
If the goal was to make carrier ratting more of a challenge it should be done with challenging content and not making the challenge more of a click fest. Making the user click faster isn't a "challenge". If the goal is to make carrier ratting more engaging then make some new ratting sites with harder things to kill. ie other caps.
And ya the heavy fighters could use more HP. In PVP they are way to easy to alpha off the field.
-
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3250
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 15:30:49 -
[484] - Quote
Trevize Demerzel wrote:Brings up a good point.
If the goal was to make carrier ratting more of a challenge it should be done with challenging content and not making the challenge more of a click fest. Making the user click faster isn't a "challenge". If the goal is to make carrier ratting more engaging then make some new ratting sites with harder things to kill. ie other caps.
And ya the heavy fighters could use more HP. In PVP they are way to easy to alpha off the field.
You expect people to run harder sites when the current ones exist? |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3250
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 15:33:56 -
[485] - Quote
Dictateur Imperator wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Vladebor wrote:Best solution imo for capital ratting would be to simply add new anomaly type (or tweak sanctums) so they have less small ships and have more capital ships. It does not even need to be worth much more income per tick than havens now - just require less clicking overall because the way it is now is really too much. Many people are playing eve because it does not require so many clicking and running around like other games. Not to mention that would be fun to have more really big ship fights - I came to this game for this. If it's too much clicking, you can always do something else than carrier/super ratting... Yes but if we want play game with you must do a lot of apm we don"t play to eve. We we have sign for play we have sign for an other accessibility of game. So if ccp want to change it they can ... they mist paid (and not only give back money of time who yu have on account).
What breach of contract have they done for you to think you should get reimbursement from them? |
Trevize Demerzel
89
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:47:32 -
[486] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Trevize Demerzel wrote:Brings up a good point.
If the goal was to make carrier ratting more of a challenge it should be done with challenging content and not making the challenge more of a click fest. Making the user click faster isn't a "challenge". If the goal is to make carrier ratting more engaging then make some new ratting sites with harder things to kill. ie other caps.
And ya the heavy fighters could use more HP. In PVP they are way to easy to alpha off the field.
You expect people to run harder sites when the current ones exist?
Sure! If the Fun / Risk / Reward balance is good. Most certainly.
-
|
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3251
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 16:51:32 -
[487] - Quote
Trevize Demerzel wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Trevize Demerzel wrote:Brings up a good point.
If the goal was to make carrier ratting more of a challenge it should be done with challenging content and not making the challenge more of a click fest. Making the user click faster isn't a "challenge". If the goal is to make carrier ratting more engaging then make some new ratting sites with harder things to kill. ie other caps.
And ya the heavy fighters could use more HP. In PVP they are way to easy to alpha off the field.
You expect people to run harder sites when the current ones exist? Sure! If the Fun / Risk / Reward balance is good. Most certainly.
So what you are asking for is "buff carrier/super rating" since those harder site would need to be more lucrative to get run. |
Cade Windstalker
1149
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 18:10:34 -
[488] - Quote
Trevize Demerzel wrote:Brings up a good point.
If the goal was to make carrier ratting more of a challenge it should be done with challenging content and not making the challenge more of a click fest. Making the user click faster isn't a "challenge". If the goal is to make carrier ratting more engaging then make some new ratting sites with harder things to kill. ie other caps.
And ya the heavy fighters could use more HP. In PVP they are way to easy to alpha off the field.
The current Carrier ratting isn't particularly more of a click fest than the old one, it adds about one click per ship kill more, which is telling your Fighters to orbit the next target before the last one died. That's something like a ~25% change, give or take. The main things that you need to do now are be paying attention and do a little advanced planning with your Fighters, having the next thing locked up and killing the smaller ships first.
Frostys Virpio wrote:Trevize Demerzel wrote:Sure! If the Fun / Risk / Reward balance is good. Most certainly.
So what you are asking for is "buff carrier/super rating" since those harder site would need to be more lucrative to get run.
Doesn't have to be Carrier/Super ratting, CCP have already said they want the end-game of Null PvE to be more group focused. Content that requires a group to be run is inherently harder to because you need to organize the group, and you need people you can rely on.
Case and point is Incursions. They make almost as much as a mediocre Carrier Ratting pilot per hour but you need to rely on 39 other pilots knowing what they're doing, especially the Logi, or you can quite easily lose your ship, and that's without factoring in player interference. Create something like that in Null but make it permanent local content instead of a roving spawn system and you could quite reasonably dial up the risk, rewards, and general difficulty of the PvE for pilots in Null without throwing the whole game's economy out of whack.
Besides it doesn't need to be a huge difference in payouts. Players will always gravitate towards the highest possible payout so long as the Risk/Reward balance isn't obviously out of whack. |
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
40
|
Posted - 2017.03.22 23:13:52 -
[489] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Dictateur Imperator wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Vladebor wrote:Best solution imo for capital ratting would be to simply add new anomaly type (or tweak sanctums) so they have less small ships and have more capital ships. It does not even need to be worth much more income per tick than havens now - just require less clicking overall because the way it is now is really too much. Many people are playing eve because it does not require so many clicking and running around like other games. Not to mention that would be fun to have more really big ship fights - I came to this game for this. If it's too much clicking, you can always do something else than carrier/super ratting... Yes but if we want play game with you must do a lot of apm we don"t play to eve. We we have sign for play we have sign for an other accessibility of game. So if ccp want to change it they can ... they mist paid (and not only give back money of time who yu have on account). What breach of contract have they done for you to think you should get reimbursement from them?
Not contract, but legal, change game accessibility is a breach in law in near all country. Exemple for you to understand better : sell car to people who don"t have leg ... and after 3 month said "finnally no we change you must have leg for this car". It 's a terrible exemple, but at basis this kind of law is for this thing. |
Dharkhen
Silversides Limited
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 01:33:29 -
[490] - Quote
Horrible changes to fighters. If fighters are going to be eaten up at this rate by NPC's they need to be priced as ammo. |
|
Zekias
Ouroboros Limited
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 03:01:55 -
[491] - Quote
One of the "many tests" must not have included NPCs that could web... |
erik destroyer
L.S.C CORPORATION Manifesto.
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 18:52:37 -
[492] - Quote
damn well geuss i will put my carrier i got not so long ago away...........
the fighters just sit in space while given commands and then owww wait here they come bang one down damn recall recall **** lost another............ well that was an full squad nice work ccp u defiantly f it up this time.
this patch is bad really bad i u should have only fixed the bug that would have been enough but no make the sinature radius cruiser lvl sweet see the fighters pop damn there goes my keyboard smashing it to make them react to the new hotkeys...... |
erik destroyer
L.S.C CORPORATION Manifesto.
9
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 18:55:33 -
[493] - Quote
Trevize Demerzel wrote:Cade Windstalker wrote:March rabbit wrote:Tested this new patch with my supercarrier. Nothing really changed. And it was expected more or less having 1 Haven being done in 5:30. Most of the time NPC targeted my fighters but it is too fast for them to do any significant damage anyway. So this change mainly targeted carrier pilots. And i'm still not convinced that they needed it Doesn't seem to have even affected Carriers much beyond multi-box/AFK capability. So far I've seen no change from people ratting Blood Raiders, Sansha, Guristas, Rogue Drones, and Serpentis. Haven't been able to find a video or person who does Angels though and there's been some concern raised over their TPs and Webs. If anyone has a video with the changes I'm curious if the concerns with Angels have been as overblown as those with other factions. Angels are fine. If anything the patch made me more conscience of efficiency and my ticks have gone up. It only made it a little hairy when swapping heavy fighter types to deal with a dread with both subcaps and a dread trying to alpha your fighters, but I've already adopted to that as well. I'm finding this is mostly a nerf to PVP and heavy fighters. PVE is very much a keyboard/click fest, been playing a lot with the new fighter assignable hotkeys.
the angels rip true ur fighters........... ive lost like 5 minimum per site. even while trying to use the new hotkeys they just react to slow the battleship is like yumm fresh meat..... |
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
40
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 22:35:02 -
[494] - Quote
Legal procedure is starting for the game accessibility change. Legal service of CCP have no less of 24h before end of legal delay to answer.... after they will receive letter in real life , new delay ... and finally go in justice. It will take time but i don't care. |
Miles Tullius Eldard
Viziam Amarr Empire
1
|
Posted - 2017.03.23 22:45:41 -
[495] - Quote
So CCP wants to reduce total income it looks like. Rorquals got nerfed, as they should be, Carriers got nerfed for no apparent reason. So now Incursions are now the best way to make isk? Seriously CCP you want highsec battleships to be the best moneymaker in the game? You want anyone with 6 injectors and a 1b isk to be able to immediately jump into 250m an hour (Better than carrier ratting, rorqual mining, and now supercarrier ratting) in reletive safety. Makes sense.
Because I totally trained a carrier account for three years to be bested by a subcap in highsec, that trained for 40 days.
Sources being TVP's minimum skills and fittings pages. https://wiki.thevalhallaproject.info/doku.php?id=guides:minimum_skill_requirements https://wiki.thevalhallaproject.info/doku.php?id=fittings:hq_doctrines_and_ship_fittings |
Vladimir Petrovski
Valkyrie Force Lord of Worlds Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.24 18:16:09 -
[496] - Quote
Although I can use T2 fighters, I refuse to use them ratting. Absolutely no point in losing a ~13mil fighter as opposed to a ~2-3mil fighter, especially with the new sig radius change. Before the change, fighters were not OP. We used them, and saw them countered properly.
- IF the goal is to make it so that non-tactical players (ie: point-and-click) do not become quite as butt-hurt, then you're heading in the right direction.
- IF your goal is to make the utilization of carriers in ratting less reasonable and more cost-prohibitive, then you're heading in the right direction.
- IF your goal is to make PVPing in a carrier, and thus the utilization of carriers, less appealing and more cost-prohibitive, since the ONLY offensive capability for a carrier are its fighters, and the only feasible defensive capability are its fighters then you're heading in the right direction. (Short-range modules such as webs, points, neuts aside mind you)
I took a break from this game for nearly three years, and it definitely appears that CCP still is not listening to the players. Yes, we need to have more content, more give-and-take, more challenge, but not at the expense of reasonability and proper give-and-take. |
Kravhan
Latent Solutions
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.25 01:51:28 -
[497] - Quote
I tried to run a C3 Unsecured Frontier Database in a Thanatos. Killed 2 Sleepers before aggro switched to fighters. Immediately recalled fighters and lost two fighters even though they were only 15km away. Rinse, repeat. Rinse, repeat. Bailed and returned with a Rattlesnake...
|
Problem Addict
2
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 16:29:32 -
[498] - Quote
OK really smart people. Tell your fighters to orbit the next target BEFORE your current target explodes.
They will still fire upon the current target until it explodes and will move onto the next designated "orbit" which you can then begin firing upon.
This will result in non-stop fightermovement and non-stop application of fighter DPS.
#getgood |
Lugia3
The Pinecone Squad United Federation of Conifers
1525
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 19:21:35 -
[499] - Quote
Hey would you look at that, the changes went through and carrier ratting is still the exact same as it used to be! How apocalyptic!
"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
|
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
40
|
Posted - 2017.03.26 19:25:24 -
[500] - Quote
Problem Addict wrote:OK really smart people. Tell your fighters to orbit the next target BEFORE your current target explodes.
They will still fire upon the current target until it explodes and will move onto the next designated "orbit" which you can then begin firing upon.
This will result in non-stop fightermovement and non-stop application of fighter DPS.
#getgood
You are really smart ... some people can't for RL reason. So be very smart and read all other people beofre post. |
|
Shoto Neto
Trident. Brothers in Arms Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 08:41:54 -
[501] - Quote
So let's talk about numbers in carrier ratting now. It was bad before, now its horrible.
An average gate haven has 50 rats. To kill them effectively and not lose fighters you need to repeat the following sequence for each rat:
1.Attack target - F1, will count it as click to simplify 2.Select next target - click 3.Orbit next target - click
That's the basic secuence. In addition you need to lock each rat with ctrl+click so 50 more clicks. Then you have the rockets and you need to shoot them all to be effective. Since shooting full salvo is a waste, you need to fire 1 or 2 rockets per BS rat. Thats 36 clicks.
Summing it up: 50 locking clicks, plus 3*50 basic sequence clicks, plus 36 rocket click gives us 236 clicks per haven. Average carrier does haven in 10 minutes or so. Now we divide 600 seconds by 236 clicks and it gives us one click each 2.5 seconds. EACH 2.5 SECONDS!!!
Numbers are pretty accurate from my experience as when I rat in carrier I have literally no time to chat.
In conclusion - CCPlease, clicking each 2.5 seconds is very, very bad gameplay, please fix it. Ideally, I would want to click things only when I need to shoot rockets, use mwd or making fighters shoot priority targets.
|
Emma Ai
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 11:51:09 -
[502] - Quote
Shoto Neto wrote:So let's talk about numbers in carrier ratting now. It was bad before, now its horrible.
... Now we divide 600 seconds by 236 clicks and it gives us one click each 2.5 seconds. EACH 2.5 SECONDS!!! ...
They think you are robot. Or dont think. Or think: Killing NPC its so exciting!
Yesterday NPC killed 2 fighters. I complited ~21 anomales. I tried to be attentive, and used "w". I always watch for figter`s shield but is was useless. It was tediously i didnt have time for chat, read some ingame information... It was horrible. TY CCP |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3256
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 14:14:28 -
[503] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:
So what you are asking for is "buff carrier/super rating" since those harder site would need to be more lucrative to get run.
Doesn't have to be Carrier/Super ratting, CCP have already said they want the end-game of Null PvE to be more group focused. Content that requires a group to be run is inherently harder to because you need to organize the group, and you need people you can rely on. Case and point is Incursions. They make almost as much as a mediocre Carrier Ratting pilot per hour but you need to rely on 39 other pilots knowing what they're doing, especially the Logi, or you can quite easily lose your ship, and that's without factoring in player interference. Create something like that in Null but make it permanent local content instead of a roving spawn system and you could quite reasonably dial up the risk, rewards, and general difficulty of the PvE for pilots in Null without throwing the whole game's economy out of whack. Besides it doesn't need to be a huge difference in payouts. Players will always gravitate towards the highest possible payout so long as the Risk/Reward balance isn't obviously out of whack.
I was looking from the point of view where he only wanted new sites for carrier/super ratting. He never mentioned it would require anything else like forming groups. I'm all for group ratting begin made a thing since right now, doing so is essentially a self nerf. |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
3256
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 14:18:40 -
[504] - Quote
Dictateur Imperator wrote:Legal procedure is starting for the game accessibility change. We will see.
Keep us posted on your legal battle about a single feature in a game no longer being as accessible as it used to be. I really want to hear about it. |
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
40
|
Posted - 2017.03.27 17:26:27 -
[505] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Dictateur Imperator wrote:Legal procedure is starting for the game accessibility change. We will see. Keep us posted on your legal battle about a single feature in a game no longer being as accessible as it used to be. I really want to hear about it.
In fact no the first time CCP have legal problem... but i, general they finish per negociate when they understand it's not a joke or a fake .
|
Mags Trigelian
Running with Dogs Stella Nova
0
|
Posted - 2017.03.28 22:08:56 -
[506] - Quote
Every haven I run I now lose a fighter. I am aware of using orbit to keep the fighters moving because they stop dead in space otherwise. No way to prevent the sudden bursts of damage, usually the problem is the last large wave but sometimes earlier smaller waves as well.
Escalations at least in angel space have disssapeared, haven't seen any pop up for about 30+ sites. Domination spawns commonly contain nothing of value. Dreads, see your fighters go pop, pop, pop, pop... so the dreads are still masters at tracking anything and everything.
So yeah, excellent patch. And it got worse since patchday.
I just read another post about capital drone durability rigs, will consider it :(
|
Affenmesserkampf Achsoo
more then SERI0US BUSINESS Das Fornax Protektorat
3
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 06:34:30 -
[507] - Quote
Try carrier ratting with 3 accounts absolutely stressful to play, no fun at all. and u will lose fighters. Expensive as they are its not a good deal to rat anymore with more than one account.
So paying for many years for 3 accounts. Two are now sitting on station.... maybe skill rorqual and adapt? better not it cant even warp away in danger xD.
hoping they fix this horribly mess with the fighters.... not only for pve even for pvp the squads melt away.... 3 support fighters to tackle a enemy? would be a shame if a whole squad cant survive long enough to kill a target.... |
Marcus Tedric
Zebra Corp Goonswarm Federation
100
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 10:01:49 -
[508] - Quote
Affenmesserkampf Achsoo wrote:Try carrier ratting with 3 accounts absolutely stressful to play, no fun at all. and u will lose fighters. Expensive as they are its not a good deal to rat anymore with more than one account.........
Yes - and I am afraid that this ^^ is exactly why the change(s) have happened.
Ratting with 3 x Ishtars mostly afk, or indeed 3 x Carriers before the changes to Fighters, doesn't break the isk faucet from ratting. But being able to run 3 x Carriers/Supers does - and that's why....
Don't soil your panties, you guys made a good point, we'll look at the numbers again. - CCP Ytterbium
|
Gadzooki
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
8
|
Posted - 2017.03.29 20:17:01 -
[509] - Quote
Problem Addict wrote:OK really smart people. Tell your fighters to orbit the next target BEFORE your current target explodes.
They will still fire upon the current target until it explodes and will move onto the next designated "orbit" which you can then begin firing upon.
This will result in non-stop fightermovement and non-stop application of fighter DPS.
#getgood
I invite you to come to Angel space and see what happens the instant a web lands on your fighter group. Its disengenius comments like yours that make CCP think they have achieved balance but really have killed an entire category of ships for many people.
Do yourself a favor and #getinformed before you talk about something you have no knowledge about. |
Slivo
Beehive Surveillance X877.
27
|
Posted - 2017.04.02 10:14:08 -
[510] - Quote
This is a nightmare in WH too. Sleepers focus and kill your fighters no matter if they are moving, orbitting or not. I loose 4 fighter each anomalie being active and the more careful I can be.
EveHQ Development Team
Follow us on EveHQ.co | Twitter | Facebook
|
|
Trevize Demerzel
89
|
Posted - 2017.04.10 15:03:32 -
[511] - Quote
NPC Dreads can alpha an entire squad off the field in seconds. Odd... as a PVP dread can't even track them well enough to hit them... How come an NPC dread can?
-
|
Destriouth Hollow
Star-Destroying-Warlords Kraftwerk.
92
|
Posted - 2017.04.13 19:54:23 -
[512] - Quote
Trevize Demerzel wrote:NPC Dreads can alpha an entire squad off the field in seconds. Odd... as a PVP dread can't even track them well enough to hit them... How come an NPC dread can?
Cause NPC Dreads are designed for anti-interceptor warfare. In order to make that happen they one-shot every frigate from 0 to 300km. And obviously since they are made to track frigates perfectly they can easily track your fighters. It's not that complicated to understand dude.
Especially since you can now almost track fighters with regular Dreads (: |
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
40
|
Posted - 2017.04.14 21:51:50 -
[513] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote: A: We recognise that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future.
So do it. |
Xantia Naari
BRO GAMING Corporation FREE GATES COALITION
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.15 09:10:21 -
[514] - Quote
Dictateur Imperator wrote:Legal procedure is starting for the game accessibility change. We will see.
HaHaHaHa ROFLMAO
There are two kinds of children that play in sandboxes. Those who build castles and those who kick them down. It's a symbiosis.
|
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
41
|
Posted - 2017.04.16 11:55:06 -
[515] - Quote
Xantia Naari wrote:Dictateur Imperator wrote:Legal procedure is starting for the game accessibility change. We will see. HaHaHaHa ROFLMAO
Take time beacause you must send first thing to compagnie, after "lettre de mise en garde" and when all legal time are pass, you can attack.
|
kev kammer
The Scope Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2017.04.23 11:38:13 -
[516] - Quote
Dam just spent a lot of isk and time training carriers to be used in big fleet battles, iv been doing a lot of testing on my alt at agro in havens and so on and I'm always loosing fighters even when I get them to orbit its tuff and they don't have webs. I suppose ill just train a nag or moros. LOL support fighters are a bit of a joke maybe if one drone did tracking and neuting, damping or neuting etc. never seen them ever been used yet. |
Chibi Chi
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2017.04.24 05:58:01 -
[517] - Quote
NPC does not aggro carrier at all. 100% of aggro goes to fighters. Lost 8 t2 fighters in last 40 minutes. Before, i lost maximum 1 fighter per 2 months. |
Xantia Naari
FREE GATES FREE GATES COALITION
9
|
Posted - 2017.04.28 22:30:45 -
[518] - Quote
I have hardly lost any fighters and I fly t1 fighters.
There are two kinds of children that play in sandboxes. Those who build castles and those who kick them down. It's a symbiosis.
|
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
43
|
Posted - 2017.05.01 13:45:43 -
[519] - Quote
CCP Larrikin wrote:Questions & Answers
Q:Its annoying when fighters stop after killing a target! A: We recognise that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future.
UP
P.S: in the next few day , CCP maybe you must survey you're real mail. |
Trevize Demerzel
89
|
Posted - 2017.05.01 13:54:13 -
[520] - Quote
Dictateur Imperator wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Questions & Answers
Q:Its annoying when fighters stop after killing a target! A: We recognize that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future. UP P.S: in the next few day , CCP maybe you must survey you're real mail.
Ya they had time to nerf but no time to improve...
The future is when? Same time as "soon(tm)".....
-
|
|
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
43
|
Posted - 2017.05.02 16:47:46 -
[521] - Quote
Trevize Demerzel wrote:Dictateur Imperator wrote:CCP Larrikin wrote:Questions & Answers
Q:Its annoying when fighters stop after killing a target! A: We recognize that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future. UP P.S: in the next few day , CCP maybe you must survey you're real mail. Ya they had time to nerf but no time to improve... The future is when? Same time as "soon(tm)".....
Maybe they will have time after legal action against they. |
Sitting Bull Lakota
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
312
|
Posted - 2017.05.05 20:06:45 -
[522] - Quote
Dictateur Imperator wrote: Maybe they will have time after legal action against they.
The Judge wrote:HTFU *bangs gavel* |
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
43
|
Posted - 2017.05.09 17:17:13 -
[523] - Quote
Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:Dictateur Imperator wrote: Maybe they will have time after legal action against they.
The Judge wrote:HTFU *bangs gavel*
If you think it's a joke, read ilsandic law section penal 240 to 250. |
James Zimmer
D3RP Clan Elemental Tide
95
|
Posted - 2017.05.09 22:13:14 -
[524] - Quote
I like the idea of fighter counterplay, because even moderately-sized massed carrier fleets are just ridiculously good against virtually all subcaps right now. However, I feel that this isn't really about counterplay; it's a straight up nerf. A raw sig radius increase basically makes the counter to fighters anything with medium guns. which is a large percentage of subcap fleets. I would rather see a reduction in EHP with the old sig. That way, destroyer and frigate support fleets would gain value in larger fights while carriers would remain very strong against unsupported cruisers and higher. It would reward more creative fleet design and gives a useful role to newbies in big fights. |
ApolloF117 HUN
Angels and Demons Inc. Mordus Angels
54
|
Posted - 2017.05.13 08:54:54 -
[525] - Quote
i don't think ccp even reading this forum after the first 2-3 page, they just simply posted the **** they wanted then pace out like everything is ok :) |
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
43
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 10:27:43 -
[526] - Quote
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:i don't think ccp even reading this forum after the first 2-3 page, they just simply posted the **** they wanted then pace out like everything is ok :)
I'm sure some people of support and not dev read it.... |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3919
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 13:22:03 -
[527] - Quote
Dictateur Imperator wrote:Sitting Bull Lakota wrote:Dictateur Imperator wrote: Maybe they will have time after legal action against they.
The Judge wrote:HTFU *bangs gavel* Law is same for all. Problem is not "carrier nerf" but game accessiblity. If you buy a car with special ammenagement for exemple : change speed upper, and accelration/break. beacause for X reason you want avoid to use you're leg (or you can't). You go to garage after 3 Month to a normal survey of you're car and you're selle said: "ok we have remove all option, now use you're leg". For the law it's a change of accessiblity. Same appear with game. Solve is easy : Make fighter orbit automatically after a kill. CCP have answer they want to do it: So do it fast to don't penalise people who can'"t push W in same time of mouse using (or don't want game don't make obligation to use mouse+keyboard same times before so...).
i'm confused what are we talking about? how does a car come into this? what law?
BLOPS Hauler
|
ApolloF117 HUN
Angels and Demons Inc. Mordus Angels
54
|
Posted - 2017.05.14 14:36:23 -
[528] - Quote
Dictateur Imperator wrote:ApolloF117 HUN wrote:i don't think ccp even reading this forum after the first 2-3 page, they just simply posted the **** they wanted then pace out like everything is ok :) I'm sure some people of support and not dev read it.... Yeah that's a problem, devs make the game changes not the support |
Lugh Crow-Slave
3919
|
Posted - 2017.05.15 02:09:31 -
[529] - Quote
ApolloF117 HUN wrote:Dictateur Imperator wrote:ApolloF117 HUN wrote:i don't think ccp even reading this forum after the first 2-3 page, they just simply posted the **** they wanted then pace out like everything is ok :) I'm sure some people of support and not dev read it.... Yeah that's a problem, devs make the game changes not the support
you want devs to see it go to reddit. What? did you think they would use their own forums over a third party? why would they do that
BLOPS Hauler
|
Dictateur Imperator
Ab origine fidelis Get Off My Lawn
43
|
Posted - 2017.05.18 15:03:05 -
[530] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:ApolloF117 HUN wrote:Dictateur Imperator wrote:ApolloF117 HUN wrote:i don't think ccp even reading this forum after the first 2-3 page, they just simply posted the **** they wanted then pace out like everything is ok :) I'm sure some people of support and not dev read it.... Yeah that's a problem, devs make the game changes not the support you want devs to see it go to reddit. What? did you think they would use their own forums over a third party? why would they do that
They don't use forum, only to make announcement or in game event. They have beug they really don't care unless they looze player or tacke a legal action in they're face. Mayve it's CCP Seagulls fault: want to launch more updtae, always more things, but to avoid very little extension "speed some change". And so we looze stability for the game.
Idea to Seagulls to make a lot of little extension is not bad, but sometimes you must said "ok no, we are not ready we will publish this in some days or next extention".
No auto orbit of fighter after kill is one of this problem they just forget beacause they have speed develop other thing in the same times to make more new ability in game.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: [one page] |