Fighters changes got changed for what ?

Carriers and not Supers

Carriers and Supers ?

CCP Please clear up the confusion ...... in one statment you said the changes to the fighters for carriers is wrong but haven't
cleared up anything ?

To defend my point 3, The idea is if the average mom pilot has carrier 5, then 20 drones is all they can field w/o using the drone control units. This allows the mom pilot to field 20 of each while having 5 extra for back up.

Most people can agree that getting your drones shot down by rats or smartbombed is annoying as hell.

Now I like to ask the thoughts of the 2 drone bays.

A fighter bay and a drone bay as i also stated in point 3. If you have two seperate bays this will really limit how many drones moms can put out and allow them to assist in pos take downs with sentries, and help defense against sub caps.

This will retain some versatility of moms but not make them op. Instead of cutting the balls off nerf it will just be more of a kick in the balls.

new feedback

1. Please let dreads keep their drone bay - but have the siege module make it so dreads cannot use drones while in siege mode - similar to carriers triage mode.

2. Hel is getting hit the worst and will have the lowest EHP of all the mom's please leave their hp alone and maybe look into changing the bonus from logi to something like drone rof.

3. Drone bay sizes should be able to take a full compliment of fighters and fighter bombers. 25 f / 25 FB. This will leave some versatility to moms to either assign fighters to sub caps to help them out or have a full wing of bombers for capital / sov fights.

3.a. To appease the super cap whiners that have no friends to back them up in a fleet fight.
MAKE 2 drone bays. One for fighters and fighter bombers, And another one for regular drones. large enough to accomodate, 25 light, 25 medium, 25 heavy, 25 sentry, and 25 ewar.
Now to the whiney super cap pilots --- THIS IS MEETING THE ISSUE HALF WAY, It gives you reasonable defense against subs but its not op where you can constantly throw drones out.

4. AS an added bonus to help supers carriers and others, MAYBE offer a bonus to smartbomb range or neut range.

5. Look into dread / titan tracking of turrets,

6. You should explain more in depth about hybrid changes to quell the fear about the changes it is going to receive, you already broke its poor little legs.

7. If regular carriers are going to be support ships to the supers, make sure they get some good bonuses to help defend against sub caps,
7a - small hp buff
7b - better tracking for all drones
7c - speed bonus drones ETC

8. A note to the community - THESE ARE PLANNED CHANGES AND ARE NOT YET IN STONE! Get on the test server and try it out and offer constructive help not whining and rage quitting.

9. To most of you bitter vets - We were all around before super caps existed, we were all around fighting for sov long before tons and tons of moms were fielded. MAKE UP TACTICS, Send in the subs first to distract their subs then send in the dreads and supers to take out their capitals.

Can someone explain why, exactly, it makes sense for fighters to have a hard time shooting subcaps? Theyre *fighters*, right? With a pilot inside. It would be like a Viper Mk.2 having a hard time shooting something the size of Colonial One, as far as cruisers go, a heavy raider to relate to frigates, or a frakin Basestar to relate to battleships. Making them only effective against capitals is like saying Vipers are only effective against Hiveships, Resurection hubs, or colony ships. Or a more real world example, F-16s are only effective against.... What? Something the size of an Independence Day city destroyer? (there is no real world exame for this size difference)

Tell you what. I will support the supercapital nerf if CCP provided all Dreads, Carriers, Supercarriers and Titans the following:

A rapid fire 1000 dps point defense system capable of hitting out to around 20 km.




Edit: this is pretty much a troll. However it would be the reality of a Specific Roles for ships based gameplay. Modern day super aircraft carriers have point defense systems that are well capable of defending them against smaller ships and fast moving aircraft while their primary role is to launch fighters and fighter bombers to provide air superiority and heavily damage enemy ships or positions.

The aggressed logging changes makes me hesitate. The simplicy of it is good, but the implications are bad. The 15 min timer was introduced because CCP acknowledged that computer problems happen and you are sometimes unintentionally disconnected in battle. The 15 min timer was there to ensure you'd die if you were going to die. Supercaps have such large EHP that they broke this rule. Now there is the expectation that supers who would not normally have died will die as a result (i.e. a super is aggressed attacking a tower in an empty system, he DCs and warps off aggressed. A lone helios comes in, scans him down, and keeps him aggressed for 4hrs until his friends get home from work to come kill it). This breaks the intention of the original rule in the opposite direction.

The proposed halfway point on this much more closely mimics the original spirit of the rule:

Standard 15 min aggression logoff timers for all ships (can make it 30 for supers if you want), and then only give the infinitely repeating aggression that holds the ship in game if the ship is super-pointed or bubbled. If a super isn't pointed or held down within 15-30 minutes after logging, there is no reasonable assumption that the ship would have normally died otherwise.

If you mean the changes to the fighters' signature resolution, it has been decided not to go ahead with them. Please have a look at this post for more information.

This is a great point

There has been a lot of talk in here one way or the other. I am not hung up on one exact change, rather an overall thought process about the role of caps in Eve.

- Capital class ships should be weak against BCs and below.

- They should require sub-capital support fleets

- Fighters should not be a valid defense tool against cruisers and below

The reason capitals dominate warfare is because they can kill every class ship in the game single-handed. This has got to end before sub-caps will ever play a viable role in large scale fleet engagements.

MJ

Yeah no the opposite, because the person you're replying to doesn't understand the change.

The proposed halfway point on this much more closely mimics the original spirit of the rule:

Standard 15 min aggression logoff timers for all ships (can make it 30 for supers if you want), and then only give the infinitely repeating aggression that holds the ship in game if the ship is super-pointed or bubbled. If a super isn't pointed or held down within 15-30 minutes after logging, there is no reasonable assumption that the ship would have normally died otherwise.

@ the morsus mihi person a few pages back.


Calm down, read it carefully. My compromises on the motherhips are reasonable. If you split up the drone bays for carriers and motherships to where you have a drone bay and a fighter bay. YOU LIMIT what they are capable of. Limiting the sizes limit the effectiveness.

@ the morsus mihi person a few pages back.


Calm down, read it carefully. My compromises on the motherhips are reasonable. If you split up the drone bays for carriers and motherships to where you have a drone bay and a fighter bay. YOU LIMIT what they are capable of. Limiting the sizes limit the effectiveness.

CCP could you enlighten us on if you plan to adjust the BPO requirements for dreads and titans to reflect their lack of drone bays? Last time I logged into the test server the BPOs were still requiring Capital Drone Bays in the build requirements.

Actually, you can still kill supers w/o super point or bubble, see neuts + bumps. Does not happen often, but it is doable.

Obsidian you want to keep supers a swiss army knife by giving them normal drones to deal with ANY situation which isnt balanced.

Bad example buddy (Bismarck was a battleship not a Carrier - or super carrier for that matter, it was a faction BS ) ... you do realise that he was always in fleet with a HAC (Prinz Eugen) just to be heavily damaged by a Carrier (HMS Ark Royal) later the final blow was made by BS'es ...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_battleship_Bismarck

Obsidian you want to keep supers a swiss army knife by giving them normal drones to deal with ANY situation which isnt balanced.

There isnt anything wrong with the new logoff mechanics if you die because you logged off with aggression and didnt relog to deal with the aggression you deserve to die if someone finds you.Only bad thing with this is if your internet goes down that would be frustrating,but i wouldnt fly a super unless i could afford to lose it.

This is a great point

A 20bil isk ship should be able to deal with any situation, even if its to a limited degree.