Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
21
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:50:57 -
[1] - Quote
Hello fellow eve players.
This issue has been discussed before, e.g. here (https://forums.eveonline.com/default.as ... s&t=356752 ), but as it is quickly becoming the flavor of the month no-effort tactic to nuke small gangs effortlessly, I'm starting another thread in the hope that it gains traction.
TL:DR - fighter assist is OP vs subcaps, especially when using supers.
How to win EVE for very little effort and risk: Have a supercarrier online, and sitting either at the edge of a pos field or next to an offline tower with the tower management dialog box open, password typed in, and therefore one click away from force field up.
Fit it with with drone control units, four damage mods, and add as many tracking and speed mods as you can cram. Yes, it's a horribly vulnerable fit, which is why you are POS tanking. Don't worry about PL or BL dropping on you, you are Phoebe-tanking them.
Now, suppose a roaming gang comes into your system, here's what you do: Pick two pilots (inties/AFs with scram+web can be hilarious, but any good combat ship will do). Have the supercarrier pilot assign 5 fighters to each. Yell "go get'em, fleet!" on coms. (Optional: go afk for a bit.) Check your killboard.
If you followed the previous steps correctly, chances are you will slaughter them. At the very least, the end result will be MUCH more favourable than if you hadn't.
Why?
Because each of your two friends, who is probably in a faction cuiser or some interceptor, is now helped by 5 (five) little dudes whose stats, if their name is Einherji, are the following: the raw hp of a battlecruiser, 6km/s speed, tracking like a Null Talos and 445 dps each, or 2,223dps for the group. A Nyx with no drone modules whatsoever will still field 2 sets of fighters, each going at over 3,000 mps, dishing out 1,250 dps (5x250).
In other words, that super contributes between 2,500 and 4,445 dps to the fight without even being on grid.
You can do the same trick with a regular carrier, though you'll only have about half that dps.
Where are we in the risk vs reward equation? If using a super, we have a behemoth that has millions of ehp, is immune to ewar, is sitting seconds away from being covered by a POS (and the other side has to find the right POS, first!). Even if the player is afk, he will still be able to two-shot most subcaps and one-shot interceptors.
Risk: low. Effort: low. Reward: high.
Houston, do we have a problem? |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
21
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:51:04 -
[2] - Quote
reserving |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
21
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:51:50 -
[3] - Quote
reserving |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1020
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 14:54:43 -
[4] - Quote
indeed a broken mechanic
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
|
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
21
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 15:04:11 -
[5] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:indeed a broken mechanic, fighters shouldn't be able too warp, and drone assist should be removed also
Actually I disagree - I see nothing wrong with fighters that are assigned, by the carrier, to a target that is on grid with said carrier then chasing that target into warp and killing it off grid. It's the actual ability to initiate an attack from off grid which I think is broken. |
Abrazzar
Vardaugas Family
5384
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 15:08:07 -
[6] - Quote
Why not just re-invent capital warfare and deny capital ships damage application to sub-caps?
Sovereignty and Population
New Mining Mechanics
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
866
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 15:29:02 -
[7] - Quote
One of my biggest issue with this is that its possible to do it with (almost) immunity on the (super)carrier part due to the use of certain mechanics.
I'm not personally against the features of being able to assign fighters off grid and them having warp drives, etc. (in fact in the right scenario(s) I quite like it) but the ability of 1-2 pilots almost AFK to project the abilities of a heavy fleet and the disproportionate impact that has on casual roaming seems a bit out of balance. (At least with hotdrops you need pilots not afk and gives rise to the possibilities of counter dropping, etc. etc.). |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
548
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 15:37:18 -
[8] - Quote
You could just make force fields bump anything out as they come up "as they cannot establish friend or foe until they are fully online" |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
667
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 15:53:05 -
[9] - Quote
At first look, it sounds like a terrible mechanic. It is one of those things that has technically always been possible, but gradual buffs have made it more and more viable. Still, the ship is vulnerable to a well-prepared gang. A good bump and you have a dead super.
Capitals and Supercapitals can still move post Phoebe. You just have to plan and preposition them. In this case the defender is clearly preparing his active defense as well as he can. The attacker should also have to put in some effort. Bring a prober. Have plenty of dictors. Forward stage your own capital and Supercapital assets.
Still, I think I would be okay with: fighters cannot be assigned within 50 km of a tower. If they want to assign from a safe spot while aligned, that's relatively safe, but still vulnerable.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
110
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 15:53:45 -
[10] - Quote
Yesterday night I jumped into what turned out to be a highly active ratting systems.
Dead-end system, with around 30 pilots in local and as many large t2 bubbles on the gate. As I decloaked, so did a Falcon and only few seconds later 5 fighters on top of him, seemingly out of nowhere. Needless to say, I didn't make it out of the bubbles before being jammed lol ... I was just lucky to be able to drive him off with sentries thanks to my overpowered ishtar :> |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
866
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 16:20:30 -
[11] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:At first look, it sounds like a terrible mechanic. It is one of those things that has technically always been possible, but gradual buffs have made it more and more viable. Still, the ship is vulnerable to a well-prepared gang. A good bump and you have a dead super.
Capitals and Supercapitals can still move post Phoebe. You just have to plan and preposition them. In this case the defender is clearly preparing his active defense as well as he can. The attacker should also have to put in some effort. Bring a prober. Have plenty of dictors. Forward stage your own capital and Supercapital assets.
Still, I think I would be okay with: fighters cannot be assigned within 50 km of a tower. If they want to assign from a safe spot while aligned, that's relatively safe, but still vulnerable.
Chances of taking the fight to their super/carrier is pretty close to nil - they'd have to be careless and leave the FF down and no defences online so you could log off your own capitals on the tower to stage a trap and any sign of scouting = they move to another system and you have to start planning all over again - a lot of them don't even do it out of any one system for any length of time to minimise the chances of ever being caught to being careless.
Something I didn't realise is they don't sit on the edge of the FF to do this and even if they did the chances of stopping a super getting back into FF in that situation is incredibly slim. |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
605
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 16:23:29 -
[12] - Quote
All I see is you engaging in a blatant gank attempt while roaming for free and stupid targets (null ratters) which then went horribly wrong. Why wouldn't people be allowed to defend against multiple HACs, dictor and assorted tackle with ships which are available in-system, especially when the system is a dead-end and allows for effective defense? |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1021
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 16:31:51 -
[13] - Quote
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:Harvey James wrote:indeed a broken mechanic, fighters shouldn't be able too warp, and drone assist should be removed also Actually I disagree - I see nothing wrong with fighters that are assigned, by the carrier, to a target that is on grid with said carrier then chasing that target into warp and killing it off grid. It's the actual ability to initiate an attack from off grid which I think is broken.
not really these are essentially big drones, not small frigates that can warp around all it wants with the cap to do so
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
866
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 16:32:17 -
[14] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:All I see is you engaging in a blatant gank attempt while roaming for free and stupid targets (null ratters) which then went horribly wrong. Why wouldn't people be allowed to defend against multiple HACs, dictor and assorted tackle with ships which are available in-system, especially when the system is a dead-end and allows for effective defense?
I somewhat agree with your viewpoint (ganking ratters personally bores the **** out of me) and I've always been the opinion that holding sov (or renting from) should give some level of home field advantage, but defence should be some kind of home defence fleet putting assets into the fight not a mechanic that isn't that far removed from AoE Doomsdaying through a cyno - a few incidental ships on grid projecting the force from bigger ships that are essentially for all intents and purposes safe. |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1798
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:12:19 -
[15] - Quote
If you were to remove assist, would you want to remove fighters following targets in warp as well? Just curious |
Adrie Atticus
Shadows of Rebellion The Bastion
606
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:13:31 -
[16] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:All I see is you engaging in a blatant gank attempt while roaming for free and stupid targets (null ratters) which then went horribly wrong. Why wouldn't people be allowed to defend against multiple HACs, dictor and assorted tackle with ships which are available in-system, especially when the system is a dead-end and allows for effective defense? I somewhat agree with your viewpoint (ganking ratters personally bores the **** out of me) and I've always been the opinion that holding sov (or renting from) should give some level of home field advantage, but defence should be some kind of home defence fleet putting assets into the fight not a mechanic that isn't that far removed from AoE Doomsdaying through a cyno - a few incidental ships on grid projecting the force from bigger ships that are essentially for all intents and purposes safe. EDIT: Couldn't be more wrong though if you think its just about roaming for free and stupid targets.
But they did put 200M of assets on the field + ships to utilize them. The defenders also popped the webbing ship first so there is a higher chance for the fighters/FB's to be popped.
I think this usage is not overpowered or breaking any of current mechanics. |
Walextheone
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
87
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:16:15 -
[17] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:All I see is you engaging in a blatant gank attempt while roaming for free and stupid targets (null ratters) which then went horribly wrong. Why wouldn't people be allowed to defend against multiple HACs, dictor and assorted tackle with ships which are available in-system, especially when the system is a dead-end and allows for effective defense?
Naaaaah. The problem is that it's totally risk free and there is no counter. That's the broken mechanics. Normally we and others just adopts to different circumstances but in this situation there is nothing to do.
With 37k possible alpha hacs can't survive more than a few seconds. Bringing more than 6 scimis just too survive is not a viable option. |
IIFraII
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
23
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:24:36 -
[18] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:
But they did put 200M of assets on the field + ships to utilize them. The defenders also popped the webbing ship first so there is a higher chance for the fighters/FB's to be popped.
I think this usage is not overpowered or breaking any of current mechanics.
Funny how this exact argument is answered to in the second post.
Is there a module that costs 200 mil and gives your ship +1200 dps? No why? It would be overpowered
|
IIFraII
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
23
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:26:34 -
[19] - Quote
doublepost |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
25
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:45:01 -
[20] - Quote
Gonna try and answer everyone regularly...
Quote:Why not just re-invent capital warfare and deny capital ships damage application to sub-caps?Bear
Sorry no, this idea is bad,
Quote:Still, I think I would be okay with: fighters cannot be assigned within 50 km of a tower. If they want to assign from a safe spot while aligned, that's relatively safe, but still vulnerable.
Could also work fine yes
Adrie Atticus wrote:All I see is you engaging in a blatant gank attempt while roaming for free and stupid targets (null ratters) which then went horribly wrong. Why wouldn't people be allowed to defend against multiple HACs, dictor and assorted tackle with ships which are available in-system, especially when the system is a dead-end and allows for effective defense?
People should totally be allowed to defend with these ships. What they should not be allowed to do is defend with these ships, whilst those ships are in total safety. If they want to defend with them, they should have to risk them, and currently they don't.
Rowells wrote:If you were to remove assist, would you want to remove fighters following targets in warp as well? Just curious
No, that's fine. Also, I said no to this in like two places already :P
Adrie Atticus wrote:But they did put 200M of assets on the field + ships to utilize them. The defenders also popped the webbing ship first so there is a higher chance for the fighters/FB's to be popped.
I think this usage is not overpowered or breaking any of current mechanics.
This is answered in post 2 - show me the module that gives my frigate 1200 extra dps and i will gladly pay 200mil for it - 200mil is pocket change to most people. Risking the cost of the fighters is completely insignificant weighed against their benefit. If you want to put a Nyx' worth of DPS on grid, you should have to risk a Nyx. |
|
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
715
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:46:43 -
[21] - Quote
Walextheone wrote:Naaaaah. The problem is that it's totally risk free and there is no counter. That's the broken mechanics. Normally we and others just adopts to different circumstances but in this situation there is nothing to do.
With 37k possible alpha hacs can't survive more than a few seconds. Bringing more than 6 scimis just too survive is not a viable option. Found the problem, its operator error. It cannot HTFU and adapt, will only fly a HAC or cruiser, won't bother to field something with the words "capital" "carrier" "titan" "dread" or basicly anything that has a really really thick tank that is getting killed by....seems the operator is blaming the other user of "fighters and bombers" as it that's is broken who seems to have HTFU and adapted a rather nifty way to use from a POS. The first operator can do nothing but whine about it, but should maybe just blob the **** out of the gate with a capital fleet and let a cloaky go find that annoying POS tanking super carrier .
That's how I would deal with the problem, blob the gate with a capital fleet and cause a distraction with someone else scouting out for the super...if you cannot field capitals, the other side is crushing your HAC/BS/whatever....seems they planned accordingly, capitals have two advantages (thick tanks with high damage) with two costs (high price, long train). If you keep dying to a single tactic and you keep using the same tactic, the enemy is being very diligent with keeping you out of their systems....yeah, you deserve to lose and should just uninstall, try kicking the front door in cause I bet their gate guard with assigned fighters wouldn't survive a small carrier gang and a POS bashing dread team. Otherwise, go roam lowsec where they cannot bubble gates and you can run from them. |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
25
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:54:26 -
[22] - Quote
Aqriue wrote:Walextheone wrote:Naaaaah. The problem is that it's totally risk free and there is no counter. That's the broken mechanics. Normally we and others just adopts to different circumstances but in this situation there is nothing to do.
With 37k possible alpha hacs can't survive more than a few seconds. Bringing more than 6 scimis just too survive is not a viable option. Found the problem, its operator error. It cannot HTFU and adapt, will only fly a HAC or cruiser, won't bother to field something with the words "capital" "carrier" "titan" "dread" or basicly anything that has a really really thick tank that is getting killed by....seems the operator is blaming the other user of "fighters and bombers" as it that's is broken who seems to have HTFU and adapted a rather nifty way to use from a POS. The first operator can do nothing but whine about it, but should maybe just blob the **** out of the gate with a capital fleet and let a cloaky go find that annoying POS tanking super carrier . That's how I would deal with the problem, blob the gate with a capital fleet and cause a distraction with someone else scouting out for the super...if you cannot field capitals, the other side is crushing your HAC/BS/whatever....seems they planned accordingly, capitals have two advantages (thick tanks with high damage) with two costs (high price, long train). If you keep dying to a single tactic and you keep using the same tactic, the enemy is being very diligent with keeping you out of their systems....yeah, you deserve to lose and should just uninstall, try kicking the front door in cause I bet their gate guard with assigned fighters wouldn't survive a small carrier gang and a POS bashing dread team. Otherwise, go roam lowsec where they cannot bubble gates and you can run from them.
You don't get it; we could bring caps, and then they just turn the force field on and log off. Don't even have to motor back into the shield, they're already in there. At no point are we actually going to be able to kill the super next to the tower, it's basically 0 risk.
Nor does this address the game design 'problem' in the first place. "HURR HURR U CAN JST DROP SOME DREADS" doesn't solve any problems. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
866
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:56:54 -
[23] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote: But they did put 200M of assets on the field + ships to utilize them. The defenders also popped the webbing ship first so there is a higher chance for the fighters/FB's to be popped.
I think this usage is not overpowered or breaking any of current mechanics.
I'm not really concerned about the ISK side of it - the main source of their force is being projected by something that realistically is almost if not entirely untouchable. |
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
4191
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:57:43 -
[24] - Quote
1.) Your method to assign fighters requires a lot of work to setup right. The tower needs to be ONLINE, but with a password no longer entered into the tower. Once the PWD is entered, you have to unanchor the tower, haul it to a station, repackage it, then bring it out and anchor again. For a medium tower, this is going to be 30 minutes to unanchor, time to go get a new tower, 15 minutes to anchor a new one, 15 minutes to online. Essentially, every time you get that super to turn on the forcefield, you cost them an hour+ to reset their setup.
2.) The method to "online a tower's shields" for defense has a MAJOR flaw. If anyone puts a ship between the capital and the tower, the capital is in for one nasty motherfucking bump if they online that tower.
3.) Many pilots simply put a carrier at the edge of the POS shields and launch fighters from that "protected" location. This regularly results in the death of those carriers!
4.) Other thoughts: Fighters are slow, and can be kited in a fast cruiser hull. Fighters can be destroyed, and are worth almost as much as an AF. You can destroy the AF or whatever ship that has the fighters assigned to them, and then the fighters will stop attacking you. A single subcap can only control five fighters, which limits how much dps they really assign to you.
Here's the TL;DR; --- A carrier assigning fighters is not in a risk free situation. Even the method you proposed takes time to setup and can be FUBAR'd by an opponent that knows what they are doing. Furthermore, the benefit assigned fighters provide is properly limited by the number of drones a ship may control, by the drone AI, and by the capabilities of your combat ship/pilot.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
866
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 17:58:31 -
[25] - Quote
Aqriue wrote:Found the problem, its operator error. It cannot HTFU and adapt, will only fly a HAC or cruiser, won't bother to field something with the words "capital" "carrier" "titan" "dread" or basicly anything that has a really really thick tank that is getting killed by....seems the operator is blaming the other user of "fighters and bombers" as it that's is broken who seems to have HTFU and adapted a rather nifty way to use from a POS. The first operator can do nothing but whine about it, but should maybe just blob the **** out of the gate with a capital fleet and let a cloaky go find that annoying POS tanking super carrier . That's how I would deal with the problem, blob the gate with a capital fleet and cause a distraction with someone else scouting out for the super...if you cannot field capitals, the other side is crushing your HAC/BS/whatever....seems they planned accordingly, capitals have two advantages (thick tanks with high damage) with two costs (high price, long train). If you keep dying to a single tactic and you keep using the same tactic, the enemy is being very diligent with keeping you out of their systems....yeah, you deserve to lose and should just uninstall, try kicking the front door in cause I bet their gate guard with assigned fighters wouldn't survive a small carrier gang and a POS bashing dread team. Otherwise, go roam lowsec where they cannot bubble gates and you can run from them.
I'd have absolutely no problem bringing a super or carrier to balance out theirs if I had the same level of safety ;)
Gizznitt Malikite wrote: 1.) Your method to assign fighters requires a lot of work to setup right. The tower needs to be ONLINE, but with a password no longer entered into the tower. Once the PWD is entered, you have to unanchor the tower, haul it to a station, repackage it, then bring it out and anchor again. For a medium tower, this is going to be 30 minutes to unanchor, time to go get a new tower, 15 minutes to anchor a new one, 15 minutes to online. Essentially, every time you get that super to turn on the forcefield, you cost them an hour+ to reset their setup.
2.) The method to "online a tower's shields" for defense has a MAJOR flaw. If anyone puts a ship between the capital and the tower, the capital is in for one nasty motherfucking bump if they online that tower.
3.) Many pilots simply put a carrier at the edge of the POS shields and launch fighters from that "protected" location. This regularly results in the death of those carriers!
4.) Other thoughts: Fighters are slow, and can be kited in a fast cruiser hull. Fighters can be destroyed, and are worth almost as much as an AF. You can destroy the AF or whatever ship that has the fighters assigned to them, and then the fighters will stop attacking you. A single subcap can only control five fighters, which limits how much dps they really assign to you.
Here's the TL;DR; --- A carrier assigning fighters is not in a risk free situation. Even the method you proposed takes time to setup and can be FUBAR'd by an opponent that knows what they are doing. Furthermore, the benefit assigned fighters provide is properly limited by the number of drones a ship may control, by the drone AI, and by the capabilities of your combat ship/pilot.
If you can get a ship between the super/carrier and the tower sure - which is almost impossible as they will up FF at the first sign of a threat and move around (change system and/or POS) to minimise the risk of login traps, etc.
With the setups they are typically using the fighters aren't slow at all - IIRC typically doing 4-5km/s, if you could get on top of the carrier or super they'd melt with most of their slots dedicated to drone tracking and mwd speed. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
248
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 18:22:52 -
[26] - Quote
Walextheone wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:All I see is you engaging in a blatant gank attempt while roaming for free and stupid targets (null ratters) which then went horribly wrong. Why wouldn't people be allowed to defend against multiple HACs, dictor and assorted tackle with ships which are available in-system, especially when the system is a dead-end and allows for effective defense? Naaaaah. The problem is that it's totally risk free and there is no counter. That's the broken mechanics. Normally we and others just adopts to different circumstances but in this situation there is nothing to do. With 37k possible alpha hacs can't survive more than a few seconds. Bringing more than 6 scimis just too survive is not a viable option. Even with tracking mods fighters can't hit frigates successfully a few AFs can defend a fleet from fighters and 200mil is not a small amount nor is it risk free as for a set of mistaken that can get you over 1200 dps for under 200mil look to polarized weapons.
Off grid assist is not a broken mechanic and it does have counters you just need to be prepared. With that said forcing the carrier to be further off the tower would be a good idea shop it couldn't sit within FF range as well as proximity to stations |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
25
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 18:30:52 -
[27] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Walextheone wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:All I see is you engaging in a blatant gank attempt while roaming for free and stupid targets (null ratters) which then went horribly wrong. Why wouldn't people be allowed to defend against multiple HACs, dictor and assorted tackle with ships which are available in-system, especially when the system is a dead-end and allows for effective defense? Naaaaah. The problem is that it's totally risk free and there is no counter. That's the broken mechanics. Normally we and others just adopts to different circumstances but in this situation there is nothing to do. With 37k possible alpha hacs can't survive more than a few seconds. Bringing more than 6 scimis just too survive is not a viable option. Even with tracking mods fighters can't hit frigates successfully a few AFs can defend a fleet from fighters and 200mil is not a small amount nor is it risk free as for a set of mistaken that can get you over 1200 dps for under 200mil look to polarized weapons. Off grid assist is not a broken mechanic and it does have counters you just need to be prepared. With that said forcing the carrier to be further off the tower would be a good idea shop it couldn't sit within FF range as well as proximity to stations
200mil is definitely a small amount, certainly to gain 2000 DPS and it is more or less risk free - at least in the circumstances we're talking about here. With a few tracking mods, Einherji's tracking is 0.0016575 compared to 0.0001985 for a Null Talos - they sure as hell can hit Frigates.
EDIT: A Thorax with Electron Blasters and CN Antimatter has 0.001976 tracking - so the Einherji are not much worse than that. |
Walextheone
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
88
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 18:45:33 -
[28] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Walextheone wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:All I see is you engaging in a blatant gank attempt while roaming for free and stupid targets (null ratters) which then went horribly wrong. Why wouldn't people be allowed to defend against multiple HACs, dictor and assorted tackle with ships which are available in-system, especially when the system is a dead-end and allows for effective defense? Naaaaah. The problem is that it's totally risk free and there is no counter. That's the broken mechanics. Normally we and others just adopts to different circumstances but in this situation there is nothing to do. With 37k possible alpha hacs can't survive more than a few seconds. Bringing more than 6 scimis just too survive is not a viable option. Even with tracking mods fighters can't hit frigates successfully a few AFs can defend a fleet from fighters and 200mil is not a small amount nor is it risk free as for a set of mistaken that can get you over 1200 dps for under 200mil look to polarized weapons. Off grid assist is not a broken mechanic and it does have counters you just need to be prepared. With that said forcing the carrier to be further off the tower would be a good idea shop it couldn't sit within FF range as well as proximity to stations
THAT'S BULL! The fighters can easily kill interceptors / frigates. We see it on killboard from all roaming gangs, every day. 3 drone navs and they go 4800m/s.
They just follow a ship with full speed and it will shoot in a straight line. They don't even need to track |
Alundil
Isogen 5
782
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 18:49:35 -
[29] - Quote
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Walextheone wrote:Adrie Atticus wrote:All I see is you engaging in a blatant gank attempt while roaming for free and stupid targets (null ratters) which then went horribly wrong. Why wouldn't people be allowed to defend against multiple HACs, dictor and assorted tackle with ships which are available in-system, especially when the system is a dead-end and allows for effective defense? Naaaaah. The problem is that it's totally risk free and there is no counter. That's the broken mechanics. Normally we and others just adopts to different circumstances but in this situation there is nothing to do. With 37k possible alpha hacs can't survive more than a few seconds. Bringing more than 6 scimis just too survive is not a viable option. Even with tracking mods fighters can't hit frigates successfully a few AFs can defend a fleet from fighters and 200mil is not a small amount nor is it risk free as for a set of mistaken that can get you over 1200 dps for under 200mil look to polarized weapons. Off grid assist is not a broken mechanic and it does have counters you just need to be prepared. With that said forcing the carrier to be further off the tower would be a good idea shop it couldn't sit within FF range as well as proximity to stations 200mil is definitely a small amount, certainly to gain 2000 DPS and it is more or less risk free - at least in the circumstances we're talking about here. With a few tracking mods, Einherji's tracking is 0.0016575 compared to 0.0001985 for a Null Talos - they sure as hell can hit Frigates. EDIT: A Thorax with Electron Blasters and CN Antimatter has 0.001976 tracking - so the Einherji are not much worse than that. Can confirm. Fighters have little problem applying damage to frigates. And they are fast enough to catch or pace anything but the fastest of frigate/destroyer hulls..
I'm right behind you
|
Tappits
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
70
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 18:53:22 -
[30] - Quote
+1
Its quite a broken mechanic and should be removed. Could prob remove all Drone assist from the game. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |