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. |
|
Walextheone
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
88
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 18:53:57 -
[31] - Quote
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.
1. We see it all over nullsec at bigger ratting systems and through alert channels carrier / super carrier pilots can easily set it up in time. With or without FF.
4. No no no. Everyone uses Drone navs theese days so fighters go about 4800m/s.
|
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
73
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 20:43:45 -
[32] - Quote
The problem in my eyes is, that is killing the really small gang pvp alltogether. As a solo vagabond cant escape fighters assigned from a nyx in a correct fit, with a inty holding point on you is broken.
I DO think, that assigning should NOT be taken away. It's a unique feature that can give you some extra something in certain scenarios. However, that should not be allowed within x kilometers from pos shields, stargate or a station.
IF we introduce the limit to for example 50km, the assigning must be done in a safespot while aligned. You still are very safe, but not invulnerable. Smuggling a cloaky dictor to the safepos would solve the problem.
However even that safespot mechanic would not do **** to real small gang pvp.
How about this:
you can fit a midslot "siege" module to a carrier. You then have the same disadvantages you have on triage/siege, but no other bonuses, than give 200% bonus to drone DPS or something like that. In those situations the (super)carrier would be really voulnerable. Would also quicken the big 0.0 blobfights, as supers would do double dps, if you are willing to risk to stay at the "siege" for that 5 minutes.
I dont know wether this would brake the carriers in other scenarios completely, but I think it would be fair fix for this certain problem.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
119
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 21:33:36 -
[33] - Quote
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.
please contract me the cruiser hull that can pull 5.1km/sec and still be useful for other things. the 1200 dps is for 5 fighters.
|
James Arget
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
395
|
Posted - 2014.12.04 23:17:00 -
[34] - Quote
It's a solid complaint. Fighters were buffed, fighter affecting mods were buffed, fighter mechanics were not changed. I have no issue with fighting against fighters. I have no issue fighting against a carrier. I do have an issue where I have to defang a POS in order to kill that carrier. A single warp disruption battery has more EHP than the carrier it's shielding. With link ships it's an option to make bombing runs or boomerang ABC hits against them, not quite the case with carriers.
I won't hurf that it's "grrr zero risk", but it does provide a way to massively affect the battlefield with a minimum of effort. Some things have changed, and other things need to change to match.
CSM 8 Representative
http://csm8.org
|
Lucian Thorundan
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
8
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 01:02:08 -
[35] - Quote
So far i have seen two ideas i really like
1. Making the force field eject anything when first coming up as it cant distinguish between friend or foe. I think this would go a long way to preventing this particular trick and is not "game breaking" in any other way
2. Making fighters only able to aggress things that are on grid with the carrier. I'm happy for them to continue to chase something into warp, but you should have to be on grid to get them to start in the first place.
I'm ok with drone assist, but i dont think you should be able to assign a capital weapons platform to an interceptor. Maybe give all ships an "assist" bandwidth and limit it that way?
I agree the fighter assigning is completely broken, it is completely feasible (and i have had it done to me personally) to simply drop a few capitals on a gang coming in, if you choose to do that and smash that small gang thats fine, you commit your expensive ship to that and should be entitled to a power advantage, but its a risk that you take by doing so.
Being able to do the equiv. action from off grid is just crazy. |
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
250
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 09:03:36 -
[36] - Quote
As others have said, being able to project damage like this with no feasible way for a small gang to counter is really spoiling NS roaming for smaller gangs. The dps figures Nors has given in the OP are just from a single capital, there is no reason there couldn't be a few of them within the same POS...
Now I appreciate the counter that the defenders should have the upper hand over a roaming gang that hasn't prepared but I think this is taking it a little too far. Stopping this tactic being usable within an offlined pos shield radius would clear this issue without really having any other side effects that I see. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
169
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 09:22:42 -
[37] - Quote
Problem with what you are all forgetting is that it only takes one cloaky to have a good warpin and bump off the poss, or stay between the super and the pos and keep him tackled, even a starburst then doesn't free you. There is little risk if you do it for a limited time and not verry often, but if you do this alot, people will notice, and will setup traps for you. And even a small group can kill a single (super)carrier if it finds this tactic used often.
Secondly besides the still available risk, your also completly ignoreing the time and effort it takes to actually get these ships, all for a primarily defensive tactic. Removeing this tactic will ONLY benefit offensive fleets and will reduce the chance of a smaller group to protect against a bigger group.
If your so blindly running in the same tactic of theirs more then once, you deserve to lose your fleet anyways. Use scouts or baits and perhaps a interceptor with a cyno to drop ontop of the (super)carrier. Theres enough possible ways to make it a verry bad day for the player(s) who use these tactics if you know they use them. Use them instead of shooting OP to a mechanic you clearly only see in a one sided way |
Necharo Rackham
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
45
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 09:43:13 -
[38] - Quote
James Arget wrote:It's a solid complaint. Fighters were buffed, fighter affecting mods were buffed, fighter mechanics were not changed. I have no issue with fighting against fighters.
An alternative solution would be to buff Fighters/Fighter Bombers somewhat, and then stop the drone modules from affecting them.
|
Sarah Nahrnid
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda
33
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 10:07:18 -
[39] - Quote
You're all cry babies, seriously HTFU!
You want to deal with fighter assign? Kill the carrier. It aint hard.
If I were to assign fighters from my Archon from a pos shield, it takes me 90s to do a 180 degree turn, then I have to motor back in (pro tip, webs and scrams makes this markedly harder for the carrier) and no, you don't need caps to kill caps either. CCP made sure scrubcaps can kill capitals. Secondly, if you fit it (Archon) for Max DDAs and Drone Nav comps/Omnis, it suddenly has zero tank (well negligible at best).
All I see here are people trying to gain easy kills, failing because people out smarted them and decided to whine on forums rather then find a decent way to fight.
Fun fact: Last time I heard of a Super assigning fighters, NC cyno'd in and volleyed it with Doomsdays.
|
IIFraII
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
23
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 10:37:17 -
[40] - Quote
Sarah Nahrnid wrote:You're all cry babies, seriously HTFU!
You want to deal with fighter assign? Kill the carrier. It aint hard.
If I were to assign fighters from my Archon from a pos shield, it takes me 90s to do a 180 degree turn, then I have to motor back in (pro tip, webs and scrams makes this markedly harder for the carrier) and no, you don't need caps to kill caps either. CCP made sure scrubcaps can kill capitals. Secondly, if you fit it (Archon) for Max DDAs and Drone Nav comps/Omnis, it suddenly has zero tank (well negligible at best).
All I see here are people trying to gain easy kills, failing because people out smarted them and decided to whine on forums rather then find a decent way to fight.
Fun fact: Last time I heard of a Super assigning fighters, NC cyno'd in and volleyed it with Doomsdays.
So to counter an assigning carrier i need a fleet capable of killing it in 90 secs To counter a super enough Titans to volley it with doomsdays.
You then agree with the OP when he says this tactic nukes SMALL GANG pvp. Good good |
|
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
30
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 10:43:58 -
[41] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Problem with what you are all forgetting is that it only takes one cloaky to have a good warpin and bump off the poss, or stay between the super and the pos and keep him tackled, even a starburst then doesn't free you. There is little risk if you do it for a limited time and not verry often, but if you do this alot, people will notice, and will setup traps for you. And even a small group can kill a single (super)carrier if it finds this tactic used often.
If you're tackled next to a POS with the shield offline, and you turn the shield on, what happens?
Kesthely wrote:Secondly besides the still available risk, your also completly ignoreing the time and effort it takes to actually get these ships, all for a primarily defensive tactic.
It's barely any time and effort at all for the size of the advantage it gives.
Kesthely wrote:Removeing this tactic will ONLY benefit offensive fleets and will reduce the chance of a smaller group to protect against a bigger group.
Of course it benefits offensive fleets, but that's the point. That this change would nerf an inherently defensive tactic is not remotely an argument against it, because the point is that that tactic is unreasonably strong. The numbers point does not, IMO, reflect reality. We regularly roam with less than 10 players, and meet these tactics in systems with 50 in local.
Kesthely wrote:If your so blindly running in the same tactic of theirs more then once, you deserve to lose your fleet anyways. Use scouts or baits and perhaps a interceptor with a cyno to drop ontop of the (super)carrier. Theres enough possible ways to make it a verry bad day for the player(s) who use these tactics if you know they use them. Use them instead of shooting OP to a mechanic you clearly only see in a one sided way
We don't actually die to it that often, because ofc we do have scouts. The problem is that it means we just decide not to bother engaging because we know we'll get kerbstomped.
Sarah Nahrnid wrote: You want to deal with fighter assign? Kill the carrier. It aint hard.
If I were to assign fighters from my Archon from a pos shield, it takes me 90s to do a 180 degree turn, then I have to motor back in (pro tip, webs and scrams makes this markedly harder for the carrier) and no, you don't need caps to kill caps either.
Killing the carrier isn't hard - getting in a position where you can actually attack it at all certainly is. Firstly, people set these things up well before a gang is actually in system, they just have it ready when they need it, so the time it takes to turn and be back at the edge of the shield is not relevant. Secondly, they often simply sit next to the POS and online the shield when they need it, no need to burn anywhere at all.
To the rest of your 'points' - we're more than happy to die in a fire when roaming, and what we want are fights with home defence fleets, not ganks. If someone brings a fleet and outplays us and wipes us out, then that's good on them, they'll get a lot of Bravos. What we object to is defensive tactics that involve practically no risk on the part of the defender, and that have basically no practicable counter. |
Sarah Nahrnid
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda
33
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 11:33:25 -
[42] - Quote
...
Sarah Nahrnid wrote: You want to deal with fighter assign? Kill the carrier. It aint hard.
If I were to assign fighters from my Archon from a pos shield, it takes me 90s to do a 180 degree turn, then I have to motor back in (pro tip, webs and scrams makes this markedly harder for the carrier) and no, you don't need caps to kill caps either.
Killing the carrier isn't hard - getting in a position where you can actually attack it at all certainly is. Firstly, people set these things up well before a gang is actually in system, they just have it ready when they need it, so the time it takes to turn and be back at the edge of the shield is not relevant. Secondly, they often simply sit next to the POS and online the shield when they need it, no need to burn anywhere at all.
To the rest of your 'points' - we're more than happy to die in a fire when roaming, and what we want are fights with home defence fleets, not ganks. If someone brings a fleet and outplays us and wipes us out, then that's good on them, they'll get a lot of Bravos. What we object to is defensive tactics that involve practically no risk on the part of the defender, and that have basically no practicable counter.[/quote]
Ok, how about this friend, I know this is kinda out there but run with me on this
Scram + web the fighters then kill them. A shocking tactic albiet a game changer, I know. Smart bombs also work well too.
But, you're the exact same person I'm talking about. Instead of coming up with something (taloses come to mind), you run to the forums and expect CCP to nerf everything so you can win.
Apparently gone are the days of people actually thinking outside of the box.
It's no ones fault but your own, that pathetic small gang can't come up with something to kill a capital (Pro tip: You can kill fighters, shocking I know)
TL;DR it destroys nothing. Shoot the fighters down or kill the carrier, hell, do both! Remember, they're just drones like any other. They CAN be shot and killed, easily. |
Necharo Rackham
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
45
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 11:50:58 -
[43] - Quote
Sarah Nahrnid wrote:You're all cry babies, seriously HTFU!
You want to deal with fighter assign? Kill the carrier. It aint hard.
If I were to assign fighters from my Archon from a pos shield, it takes me 90s to do a 180 degree turn, then I have to motor back in (pro tip, webs and scrams makes this markedly harder for the carrier)
They don't assign fighters from outside the POS shield. They assign the fighters from next to tower - with the pos password dialogue open, that's exactly one tick to put the pos field up (and no - you don't have to unanchor and repackage the tower before setting it up).
We don't have any issue with taking fights with carriers on grid. We do that all the time.
There's also the wider issue, of whether Fighters should be able to track inties.
|
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
303
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 11:51:16 -
[44] - Quote
Why not warp the carrier to grid then? Oh right, it might die, and we can't have risk in my EVE. Only for others.
|
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
30
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 12:07:56 -
[45] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:Why not warp the carrier to grid then? Oh right, it might die, and we can't have risk in my EVE. Only for others.
This is exactly the problem.
Quote:Ok, how about this friend, I know this is kinda out there but run with me on this Big smile
Scram + web the fighters then kill them. A shocking tactic albiet a game changer, I know. Smart bombs also work well too.
Given their cruiser sized EHP, interceptor speed and frigate sig this is easier said than done. It also missed the point - why should I have to fight the fighters when the ship that launched them is sitting perfectly safe next to the POS?
If the carrier was on grid and at risk, I would have no complaint about the fighters whatsoever.
As a more general note to people saying "You can counter this with X". We're well aware that the ships are not invulnerable and this tactic can be beaten, but again that's not the point. Consider a hypothetical ship that can project 1500 dps out to 40km with Talos tracking and a HACs speed and tank. Clearly monstrously OP and the fact that they can still be killed would not be a valid argument against nerfing it - the same applies here. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
552
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 12:46:21 -
[46] - Quote
The simplest test of balance and indeed, EVE in general is this:
Check the risk vs reward skew.
Reward: Huge Risk: LOL
Failing that - common sense: CCP and most of us are against off grid boosts, how on earth you can claim off grid DPS is somehow ok is utterly mind blowing.
This is right up there with cloaked ships being able to lock and fire cloaked! |
S'ti Ca'zz
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 13:08:11 -
[47] - Quote
+1 Nors
something MUST be done to stop this crap
the speed at which assigned fighter kill subcaps without ANY risk is INSANE!
if I check the KB of the last time we got 'fighter asigned raped' nearly all the top DPS on ALL ships that died came from the assigned fighters...
The fight lasted less then 3 minutes...
They didn't even need to use those fighters! we would have lost nontheless yet it would at lest have been a decent scrap, one which I'd have been perfectly fine in losing...
It just felt so OP and wrong and IMHO something has to be done to stop this lamo risk-avoiding Cheese |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
552
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 13:11:51 -
[48] - Quote
You could also make the carrier broadcast a beacon a-la a cyno so people can instantly warp to it.
>insert fluff reason here |
Leyete Wulf
Dark Fusion Industries Limitless Redux
76
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 13:56:18 -
[49] - Quote
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote: If you want to put a Nyx' worth of DPS on grid, you should have to risk a Nyx.
This
CCP devs have said time and time again that the main balancing point in EVE should be risk vs reward. The problem here isn't the carriers/supers its the 'POS tanking'. It's a mechanic which is being used in a way that negates risk without negating reward. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
119
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 15:02:10 -
[50] - Quote
Sarah Nahrnid wrote:Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:Kesthely wrote:Problem with what you are all forgetting is that it only takes one cloaky to have a good warpin and bump off the poss, or stay between the super and the pos and keep him tackled, even a starburst then doesn't free you. There is little risk if you do it for a limited time and not verry often, but if you do this alot, people will notice, and will setup traps for you. And even a small group can kill a single (super)carrier if it finds this tactic used often. ... Sarah Nahrnid wrote: You want to deal with fighter assign? Kill the carrier. It aint hard.
If I were to assign fighters from my Archon from a pos shield, it takes me 90s to do a 180 degree turn, then I have to motor back in (pro tip, webs and scrams makes this markedly harder for the carrier) and no, you don't need caps to kill caps either.
Killing the carrier isn't hard - getting in a position where you can actually attack it at all certainly is. Firstly, people set these things up well before a gang is actually in system, they just have it ready when they need it, so the time it takes to turn and be back at the edge of the shield is not relevant. Secondly, they often simply sit next to the POS and online the shield when they need it, no need to burn anywhere at all. To the rest of your 'points' - we're more than happy to die in a fire when roaming, and what we want are fights with home defence fleets, not ganks. If someone brings a fleet and outplays us and wipes us out, then that's good on them, they'll get a lot of Bravos. What we object to is defensive tactics that involve practically no risk on the part of the defender, and that have basically no practicable counter. Ok, how about this friend, I know this is kinda out there but run with me on this Scram + web the fighters then kill them. A shocking tactic albiet a game changer, I know. Smart bombs also work well too. But, you're the exact same person I'm talking about. Instead of coming up with something (taloses come to mind for ganking caps), you run to the forums and expect CCP to nerf everything so you can win. Apparently gone are the days of people actually thinking outside of the box. It's no ones fault but your own, that pathetic small gang can't come up with something to kill a capital (Pro tip: You can kill fighters, as stated above) TL;DR it destroys nothing. Shoot the fighters down or kill the carrier, hell, do both! Remember, they're just drones like any other. They CAN be shot and killed, easily.
last time I checked fighters ignored scrams for warping aka they can always warp.(this might be changed now)
Show me the interceptor or the cruiser that smartbombs and wins against a 10k hp before bonuses or resists. Also each fighter is only ~200dps so you have to kill all of them and hope the carrier/super doesn't just assign more |
|
Sarah Nahrnid
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda
33
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 15:17:34 -
[51] - Quote
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:King Fu Hostile wrote:Why not warp the carrier to grid then? Oh right, it might die, and we can't have risk in my EVE. Only for others.
This is exactly the problem. Quote:Ok, how about this friend, I know this is kinda out there but run with me on this Big smile
Scram + web the fighters then kill them. A shocking tactic albiet a game changer, I know. Smart bombs also work well too.
Given their cruiser sized EHP, interceptor speed and frigate sig this is easier said than done. It also missed the point - why should I have to fight the fighters when the ship that launched them is sitting perfectly safe next to the POS? If the carrier was on grid and at risk, I would have no complaint about the fighters whatsoever. As a more general note to people saying "You can counter this with X". We're well aware that the ships are not invulnerable and this tactic can be beaten, but again that's not the point. Consider a hypothetical ship that can project 1500 dps out to 40km with Talos tracking and a HACs speed and tank. Clearly monstrously OP and the fact that they can still be killed would not be a valid argument against nerfing it - the same applies here.
Yeah they do have Cruiser sized EHP, lets not forget that fighters are 5k m3 each. A carrier (thanny excluded IIRC) can only carry 1.5 flights of fighters. But for a carrier to be able to do what you're saing, they're fitting for exactly that purpose. Not over powered, you're being outsmarted.
Your arguement is flawed and here's why:
Person A knows you come into that system to farm this person/corp/alliance/whatever for kills. They want to kill you so they use something shiny (X ship for this purpose) Then put their carrier next to a pos then assists fighters to X ship (as you said above) Trap is set. You being foolish, fell for this hook line and sinker, multiple times apparently and dare I say, never thought of using standard ewar (webs, points, tracking disruption, target painting) on drone You and your buddies got killed
This happens more than once and rather than coming up with something effective you decided to come here and sook.
Claiming this trap is Over-powered, you can't beat something, you're too unoriginal to realise you were being baited into a trap consistently, when you likely already had ALL the best ways to counter this.
So back to my point last post and the post before, KILL THE FIGHTERS. Web and Scram them. They will die.
This is apparently a concept that's foreign to you. Drones can be targetted and killed, fighters with their cruiser sized EHP die pretty damn easily from a little focussed fire. An unmanned pos can destroy fighters, I know, I've lost some recently.
|
Sarah Nahrnid
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda
33
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 15:18:53 -
[52] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Sarah Nahrnid wrote:Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:Kesthely wrote:Problem with what you are all forgetting is that it only takes one cloaky to have a good warpin and bump off the poss, or stay between the super and the pos and keep him tackled, even a starburst then doesn't free you. There is little risk if you do it for a limited time and not verry often, but if you do this alot, people will notice, and will setup traps for you. And even a small group can kill a single (super)carrier if it finds this tactic used often. ... Sarah Nahrnid wrote: You want to deal with fighter assign? Kill the carrier. It aint hard.
If I were to assign fighters from my Archon from a pos shield, it takes me 90s to do a 180 degree turn, then I have to motor back in (pro tip, webs and scrams makes this markedly harder for the carrier) and no, you don't need caps to kill caps either.
Killing the carrier isn't hard - getting in a position where you can actually attack it at all certainly is. Firstly, people set these things up well before a gang is actually in system, they just have it ready when they need it, so the time it takes to turn and be back at the edge of the shield is not relevant. Secondly, they often simply sit next to the POS and online the shield when they need it, no need to burn anywhere at all. To the rest of your 'points' - we're more than happy to die in a fire when roaming, and what we want are fights with home defence fleets, not ganks. If someone brings a fleet and outplays us and wipes us out, then that's good on them, they'll get a lot of Bravos. What we object to is defensive tactics that involve practically no risk on the part of the defender, and that have basically no practicable counter. Ok, how about this friend, I know this is kinda out there but run with me on this Scram + web the fighters then kill them. A shocking tactic albiet a game changer, I know. Smart bombs also work well too. But, you're the exact same person I'm talking about. Instead of coming up with something (taloses come to mind for ganking caps), you run to the forums and expect CCP to nerf everything so you can win. Apparently gone are the days of people actually thinking outside of the box. It's no ones fault but your own, that pathetic small gang can't come up with something to kill a capital (Pro tip: You can kill fighters, as stated above) TL;DR it destroys nothing. Shoot the fighters down or kill the carrier, hell, do both! Remember, they're just drones like any other. They CAN be shot and killed, easily. last time I checked fighters ignored scrams for warping aka they can always warp.(this might be changed now) Show me the interceptor or the cruiser that smartbombs and wins against a 10k hp before bonuses or resists. Also each fighter is only ~200dps so you have to kill all of them and hope the carrier/super doesn't just assign more
Scrams DO affect fighters. Let them assign more, their drone bay is not unlimited and you're causing them a headache to get more. You win the ISK war and farm their tears because it's a **** around getting fighters brought anywhere from empire.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
119
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 16:16:58 -
[53] - Quote
Sarah Nahrnid wrote:
Scrams DO affect fighters. Let them assign more, their drone bay is not unlimited and you're causing them a headache to get more. You win the ISK war and farm their tears because it's a **** around getting fighters brought anywhere from empire.
fighters don't give kill mails so the actual record of the fight will more than likely be for the team with fighters and the other 4 with 1000 dps that can hit frigs will destroy you.
Is that scrams stop there MWD or there warping off? |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
866
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 16:26:21 -
[54] - Quote
Sarah Nahrnid wrote: Scrams DO affect fighters. Let them assign more, their drone bay is not unlimited and you're causing them a headache to get more. You win the ISK war and farm their tears because it's a **** around getting fighters brought anywhere from empire.
Fighter replenishment is hardly a big issue (if it is you really need to give your industrialists a good kicking) - they are pretty basic to make, relatively small volume to shift if you used compressed stuff and make them out in null and sitting at the POS they can effortlessly resupply.
There is little useful that can be done by a small roaming gang scramming fighters they have the EHP and DPS to win a war of attrition and will mostly be alphaing through lower tanked stuff. |
Klarion Sythis
Lazerhawks
316
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 16:58:21 -
[55] - Quote
It seems to me like a lot of people are talking out of their asses in this thread. A lot of people obviously haven't faced what we're talking about here recently or they say "lol just blob it". While blobbing is certainly effective, it still doesn't change the fact that 2 interceptors shouldn't be able wreck a small gang.
Fighters from a typical ratting carrier, while dangerous with the right mods, can be dealt with pretty easily and we do it all the time and take down groups of carriers in the process. Fighters from a purpose built super carrier get to the point that they can alpha down most roaming ships and chase down interceptors easily. There are systems that are becoming known because they're cyno jammed, bubbled to hell, and have a Revenant in that dead end system that's fit something like this. They use it for ratting support, then just ship to an interceptor and use it for pvp support if someone comes in system.
Might I call your attention to the system of 4DH-ST? Feel free to take your blob there.
The problem here isn't that super carriers can be fit to blast subcaps to great effect, it's that you aren't really risking it when you do so. If they warp that Revenant in and start tearing apart my gang with it, GG, that's what a 100+ billion isk investment gets you in my opinion. Do that from the safety of a POS in a cyno jammed and heavily bubbled system, then it's basically risk free and reminiscent of the kind of area denial AoE doomsdays created. Small gangs just don't go into those systems anymore.
Here's a video of someone assigning fighters specifically to make fun of how broken it is.
If you want to bring that kind of firepower to bear, you need to put your ship on grid to do it. The changes to drone mods affecting fighters is what made this an unbalanced problem. There are almost always unintended consequences when making tweaks and this is one of them. It needs to be adjusted accordingly. |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
30
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 17:27:00 -
[56] - Quote
Sarah Nahrnid wrote:Yeah they do have Cruiser sized EHP, lets not forget that fighters are 5k m3 each. A carrier (thanny excluded IIRC) can only carry 1.5 flights of fighters. But for a carrier to be able to do what you're saing, they're fitting for exactly that purpose. Not over powered, you're being outsmarted.
You're still missing the point. The fighters are not overpowered. Carriers and supers are not necessarily overpowered. What is overpowered is the ability for those ships to project their DPS offgrid, whilst remaining almost completely safe themselves.
Sarah Nahrnid wrote:Your arguement is flawed and here's why:
Person A knows you come into that system to farm this person/corp/alliance/whatever for kills. They want to kill you so they use something shiny (X ship for this purpose) Then put their carrier next to a pos then assists fighters to X ship (as you said above) Trap is set. You being foolish, fell for this hook line and sinker, multiple times apparently and dare I say, never thought of using standard ewar (webs, points, tracking disruption, target painting) on drone You and your buddies got killed
This happens more than once and rather than coming up with something effective you decided to come here and sook.
Claiming this trap is Over-powered, you can't beat something, you're too unoriginal to realise you were being baited into a trap consistently, when you likely already had ALL the best ways to counter this.
None of this is remotely a counter to my argument - you're basically just calling me stupid for dying to something that's ridiculous and overpowered.
Sarah Nahrnid wrote:So back to my point last post and the post before, KILL THE FIGHTERS. Web and Scram them. They will die.
This is apparently a concept that's foreign to you. Drones can be targetted and killed, fighters with their cruiser sized EHP die pretty damn easily from a little focussed fire. An unmanned pos can destroy fighters, I know, I've lost some recently.
This has already been pretty comprehensively addressed.
Thanks all for the input - keeping this discussion alive is the best way to get CCP to do something about it.
|
DaeHan Minhyok
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
35
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 17:56:44 -
[57] - Quote
So here's a few things you missed.
1) when a carrier enters pos shields it loses connection with its drones, if the fighters/bombers are in warp the carrier will lose connection and the drones will need to be scanned down, super annoying, no punn intended.
2) and more importantly, the stats of the fighters/bombers are based off the ship assisted to, not the carrier. Therefore your friends will need their own damage mods and fighters/bombers skills trained. So while the nyx or other carrier can do the quoted 1200dps per 5 drones the assistees dont.
Also, try flying caps before you suggest changes, you'll find reality differs from EFT.
|
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2028
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 18:01:13 -
[58] - Quote
I have an idea for a fix: make fighters and fighter bombers only usable with a drone siege module running. This would anchor the carrier in place for the duration of the module while costing fuel to run the module, and a high slot. You could fit both a triage module and a drone siege module, but you could only run one of the two at a time.
Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance)
"What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
866
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 18:15:07 -
[59] - Quote
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:So here's a few things you missed.
1) when a carrier enters pos shields it loses connection with its drones, if the fighters/bombers are in warp the carrier will lose connection and the drones will need to be scanned down, super annoying, no punn intended.
2) and more importantly, the stats of the fighters/bombers are based off the ship assisted to, not the carrier. Therefore your friends will need their own damage mods and fighters/bombers skills trained. So while the nyx or other carrier can do the quoted 1200dps per 5 drones the assistees dont.
Also, try flying caps before you suggest changes, you'll find reality differs from EFT.
Neither of which is true - though the first one is a bit more complicated as sometimes they won't return but generally they will warp to the edge of the FF and slowboat back to the carrier when the cause of loss of drone functionality is a forcefield it doesn't work the same as other loss of connection (usually).
EDIT: There are a skill the assignee needs trained but assigned fighters still inherit the stat bonuses from mods on the original carrier - fairly easy to see as they will be doing 4-5km/s when assigned to a ship with no drone mods and a pilot with only basic drone skills.
Maybe try flying caps ;) |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
119
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 18:22:49 -
[60] - Quote
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:So here's a few things you missed.
1) when a carrier enters pos shields it loses connection with its drones, if the fighters/bombers are in warp the carrier will lose connection and the drones will need to be scanned down, super annoying, no punn intended.
2) and more importantly, the stats of the fighters/bombers are based off the ship assisted to, not the carrier. Therefore your friends will need their own damage mods and fighters/bombers skills trained. So while the nyx or other carrier can do the quoted 1200dps per 5 drones the assistees dont.
Also, try flying caps before you suggest changes, you'll find reality differs from EFT.
only stats that matter on the assigned ship is drone 5 all others come from the assigner |
|
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
112
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 18:36:53 -
[61] - Quote
In many ways assigning fighters offgrid is very similar to offgrid boosting. CCP has already confirmed to kill the later in some future release, so it stands to reason that the former too will be removed. I hope the CSM make CCP aware of the unbalance caused by this feature.
All the carebears can cry me a river |
DaeHan Minhyok
Multiplex Gaming The Bastion
35
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 18:39:51 -
[62] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:DaeHan Minhyok wrote:So here's a few things you missed.
1) when a carrier enters pos shields it loses connection with its drones, if the fighters/bombers are in warp the carrier will lose connection and the drones will need to be scanned down, super annoying, no punn intended.
2) and more importantly, the stats of the fighters/bombers are based off the ship assisted to, not the carrier. Therefore your friends will need their own damage mods and fighters/bombers skills trained. So while the nyx or other carrier can do the quoted 1200dps per 5 drones the assistees dont.
Also, try flying caps before you suggest changes, you'll find reality differs from EFT.
only stats that matter on the assigned ship is drone 5 all others come from the assigner Guess they must ofchanged that brcause it used to be that way |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
989
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 18:40:25 -
[63] - Quote
Ab'del Abu wrote:In many ways assigning fighters offgrid is very similar to offgrid boosting. CCP has already confirmed to kill the later in some future release, so it stands to reason that the former too will be removed. I hope the CSM make CCP aware of the unbalance caused by this feature. All the carebears can cry me a river
the csm is aware of this and its been pointed out to ccp as well for them to have a look at.
Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
|
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
31
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 18:46:29 -
[64] - Quote
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:So here's a few things you missed.
1) when a carrier enters pos shields it loses connection with its drones, if the fighters/bombers are in warp the carrier will lose connection and the drones will need to be scanned down, super annoying, no punn intended.
2) and more importantly, the stats of the fighters/bombers are based off the ship assisted to, not the carrier. Therefore your friends will need their own damage mods and fighters/bombers skills trained. So while the nyx or other carrier can do the quoted 1200dps per 5 drones the assistees dont.
Also, try flying caps before you suggest changes, you'll find reality differs from EFT.
1) Is not really that important; as we've said even the total loss of the fighters is insignificant compared to the advantage this method gains. I'm also pretty sure it's not true.
2) Think this isn't true too - fighters are bonused and skilled by the assigning char, not the one they're assissting. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2029
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 18:59:03 -
[65] - Quote
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:Lady Rift wrote:only stats that matter on the assigned ship is drone 5 all others come from the assigner Guess they must ofchanged that brcause it used to be that way It should be that way. Why is it not that way?
Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. (had this sig BEFORE Odyssey BC rebalance)
"What if [climate change is] a big hoax and we create a better world for nothing?" -comic on Greenmonk
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
867
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 19:04:21 -
[66] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:DaeHan Minhyok wrote:Lady Rift wrote:only stats that matter on the assigned ship is drone 5 all others come from the assigner Guess they must ofchanged that brcause it used to be that way It should be that way. Why is it not that way?
Or just make it so you can only assign fighters to other capitals or command platforms - commandships, rorqual, orca, etc.
|
Vadeim Rizen
Doughboys Snuffed Out
95
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 19:09:17 -
[67] - Quote
This "tactic" lame as it may be IS balanced. Take the fight in a different system. It's no different than rushing into a fight and seeing 5 friends warp in for assistance. If you take the fight without looking around system then you open yourself up to the attack. If you suspect someone is doing that, don't take the fight in said system.
I've never used the tactic as it is quite petty, but is not over-powered as it is so easily countered. |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
31
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 19:21:58 -
[68] - Quote
Vadeim Rizen wrote:This "tactic" lame as it may be IS balanced. Take the fight in a different system. It's no different than rushing into a fight and seeing 5 friends warp in for assistance. If you take the fight without looking around system then you open yourself up to the attack. If you suspect someone is doing that, don't take the fight in said system.
I've never used the tactic as it is quite petty, but is not over-powered as it is so easily countered.
It's not balanced if you have to never engage it. Why should a ship be able to lock a small fleet out of a system without ever having to leave the safety of its POS? |
Gorski Car
441
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 19:33:56 -
[69] - Quote
There are many things in eve thats "not fair" and there are many things that make it impossible to engage a gang... with that said skynet carriers is nothing I support.
Collect this post
|
Les Routiers
Les Trous Du Culte SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 19:36:43 -
[70] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Fighter replenishment is hardly a big issue (if it is you really need to give your industrialists a good kicking) - they are pretty basic to make, relatively small volume to shift if you used compressed stuff and make them out in null and sitting at the POS they can effortlessly resupply.
As a primarily manufacturing character, I can confirm that manufacturing fighters isn't hard at all, building a stockpile of the things is trivial.
If the carrier wants to field more, how about putting spare fighters in a SMA anchored in the POS the carrier is sheltering in, and then refitting the carrier off that SMA for on-the-fly fighter replenishment? |
|
Ziirn
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
40
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 20:35:18 -
[71] - Quote
Broken thing is broken |
Eessi
Murderous Inc
22
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 20:40:22 -
[72] - Quote
Confirming that delegated fighters are ridiculously op.
Please remove fighter delegation from the game ccp. Let's have carriers and supers be on grid to enjoy the damage and attack and follow abilities of fighters.
|
Calexis Atredies
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
7
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 20:57:35 -
[73] - Quote
When we send out 10 pilots to Nullsec to engage in small scale skirmishes escalating to capitals and super capitals is not a viable option to fix the 'small scale PVP is broken by assisted fighters' argument. Do you not understand that by escalating a fight its now not small scale? Or are you simply saying that being able to engage in skirmish warfare has no place in this game other than for escalating fights?
Footwork has several pilots who exclusively pilot interceptors to gain initial tackle, most of their recent deaths are from fighter volleys. Many times they are dead before the rest of the fleet even lands =/
If you want to kill us please at least have the common decency to come to the fight... |
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
76
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 22:13:58 -
[74] - Quote
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:So here's a few things you missed.
1) when a carrier enters pos shields it loses connection with its drones, if the fighters/bombers are in warp the carrier will lose connection and the drones will need to be scanned down, super annoying, no punn intended.
2) and more importantly, the stats of the fighters/bombers are based off the ship assisted to, not the carrier. Therefore your friends will need their own damage mods and fighters/bombers skills trained. So while the nyx or other carrier can do the quoted 1200dps per 5 drones the assistees dont.
Also, try flying caps before you suggest changes, you'll find reality differs from EFT.
The number 2 is highly different than my tests on SISI few months back, when I first wrote a thread of this matter. |
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
76
|
Posted - 2014.12.05 22:21:35 -
[75] - Quote
The biggest problem I have with the assigning fighters is:
It allows the defender to get "free kills". It involves no amount of pvp at all. Just sit on gate with a ceptor alt, while your nyx or carrier is at pos assigning fighters. Whoever enters system gets pretty hard ******.
I have even seen heavy ratting systems, where the residents have turns on gate in a ceptor while others keep ratting undisturbed by any roaming gang entering.
Everyone here, who keep telling the mechanic is OK, are saying that just to be able to rat in peace with no disturbances whatsoever and get free kills. |
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 02:22:02 -
[76] - Quote
Ugly Eric wrote:The biggest problem I have with the assigning fighters is:
It allows the defender to get "free kills". It involves no amount of pvp at all. Just sit on gate with a ceptor alt, while your nyx or carrier is at pos assigning fighters. Whoever enters system gets pretty hard ******.
I have even seen heavy ratting systems, where the residents have turns on gate in a ceptor while others keep ratting undisturbed by any roaming gang entering.
Everyone here, who keep telling the mechanic is OK, are saying that just to be able to rat in peace with no disturbances whatsoever and get free kills.
It's not as risk or work free as people here would have you believe, nor does is grant users immunity while ratting in null systems. The truth is that using booster and carrier alts to bolster a combat pilot creates an attention deficit, particularly when you've been engaged, that can be easily exploited to destroy a players attendant alts. People do lose carriers this way, even supers. A guy in BNI lost a nyx doing exactly this a couple of months ago.
Fighters are powerful, and they do apply damage to subcaps better than ever, but the ships that they're assigned to are easily destroyed, and their DPS can be outrepped by cruiser logi. They're not free kills either. There's plenty of preparation involved in setting up a pos, training or buying a carrier alt, building or buying a carrier, having a paying for an extra account, and being able to manage those separate clients silmultaneously.
It's one of a few home field advantages that players can use to leverage their in system assets against a numerically superior force and I think that because of this, that fighter assist mechanics should remain in game. The vibe I get from this thread, and others, particularly concerning boosts, is that players here are upset that pilots who take the time to prepare and invest in tools to make themselves more powerful, can beat beat players that don't.
You want to roam without support, logi, boosts, or intel? Fine, but don't expect to hop in every system and devastate mining ops and ratters or local residents that might be waiting for you with better prepared defenses.
|
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
120
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 02:37:33 -
[77] - Quote
Bullet Therapist wrote:Ugly Eric wrote:The biggest problem I have with the assigning fighters is:
It allows the defender to get "free kills". It involves no amount of pvp at all. Just sit on gate with a ceptor alt, while your nyx or carrier is at pos assigning fighters. Whoever enters system gets pretty hard ******.
I have even seen heavy ratting systems, where the residents have turns on gate in a ceptor while others keep ratting undisturbed by any roaming gang entering.
Everyone here, who keep telling the mechanic is OK, are saying that just to be able to rat in peace with no disturbances whatsoever and get free kills. It's not as risk or work free as people here would have you believe, nor does is grant users immunity while ratting in null systems. The truth is that using booster and carrier alts to bolster a combat pilot creates an attention deficit, particularly when you've been engaged, that can be easily exploited to destroy a players attendant alts. People do lose carriers this way, even supers. A guy in BNI lost a nyx doing exactly this a couple of months ago. Fighters are powerful, and they do apply damage to subcaps better than ever, but the ships that they're assigned to are easily destroyed, and their DPS can be outrepped by cruiser logi. They're not free kills either. There's plenty of preparation involved in setting up a pos, training or buying a carrier alt, building or buying a carrier, having a paying for an extra account, and being able to manage those separate clients silmultaneously. It's one of a few home field advantages that players can use to leverage their in system assets against a numerically superior force and I think that because of this, that fighter assist mechanics should remain in game. The vibe I get from this thread, and others, particularly concerning boosts, is that players here are upset that pilots who take the time to prepare and invest in tools to make themselves more powerful can beat beat players that don't. You want to roam without support, logi, boosts, or intel? Fine, but don't expect to hop in every system and devastate mining ops and ratters or local residents that might be waiting for you with better prepared defenses.
You just justified the reason this should be allowed is because anchoring a POS is "hard" and having an alt takes time. No one is complaining about boost its the fact that you need to scanning the whole system of every system before you engage anything unless you out number them significantly. See a small gate camp of 2 frigs and a cruiser? well better scan the entire system before your small gang engages. Once assigned that 2nd account doesn't require any attention. There have been videos posted in this thread that shows the problem. |
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
207
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 03:15:12 -
[78] - Quote
Lady Rift wrote:Bullet Therapist wrote:Ugly Eric wrote:The biggest problem I have with the assigning fighters is:
It allows the defender to get "free kills". It involves no amount of pvp at all. Just sit on gate with a ceptor alt, while your nyx or carrier is at pos assigning fighters. Whoever enters system gets pretty hard ******.
I have even seen heavy ratting systems, where the residents have turns on gate in a ceptor while others keep ratting undisturbed by any roaming gang entering.
Everyone here, who keep telling the mechanic is OK, are saying that just to be able to rat in peace with no disturbances whatsoever and get free kills. It's not as risk or work free as people here would have you believe, nor does is grant users immunity while ratting in null systems. The truth is that using booster and carrier alts to bolster a combat pilot creates an attention deficit, particularly when you've been engaged, that can be easily exploited to destroy a players attendant alts. People do lose carriers this way, even supers. A guy in BNI lost a nyx doing exactly this a couple of months ago. Fighters are powerful, and they do apply damage to subcaps better than ever, but the ships that they're assigned to are easily destroyed, and their DPS can be outrepped by cruiser logi. They're not free kills either. There's plenty of preparation involved in setting up a pos, training or buying a carrier alt, building or buying a carrier, having a paying for an extra account, and being able to manage those separate clients silmultaneously. It's one of a few home field advantages that players can use to leverage their in system assets against a numerically superior force and I think that because of this, that fighter assist mechanics should remain in game. The vibe I get from this thread, and others, particularly concerning boosts, is that players here are upset that pilots who take the time to prepare and invest in tools to make themselves more powerful can beat beat players that don't. You want to roam without support, logi, boosts, or intel? Fine, but don't expect to hop in every system and devastate mining ops and ratters or local residents that might be waiting for you with better prepared defenses. You just justified the reason this should be allowed is because anchoring a POS is "hard" and having an alt takes time. No one is complaining about boost its the fact that you need to scanning the whole system of every system before you engage anything unless you out number them significantly. See a small gate camp of 2 frigs and a cruiser? well better scan the entire system before your small gang engages. Once assigned that 2nd account doesn't require any attention. There have been videos posted in this thread that shows the problem.
No, the justification is that this tactic allows a well prepared player to defeat unprepared players. Moreover, I'm not trying to defend the onlining of POS to protect carriers, just the fighter assist mechanic, which by itself I think is fine. Personally I think that there should be a delay between the time a POS password is set and when its shield comes online.
Fighters also take a considerable amount of time to arrive on grid, more than enough for players to see them incoming on dscan, and decide to disengage if they think it's something they can't handle. |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
36
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 09:19:29 -
[79] - Quote
Bullet Therapist wrote:
It's not as risk or work free as people here would have you believe, nor does is grant users immunity while ratting in null systems. The truth is that using booster and carrier alts to bolster a combat pilot creates an attention deficit, particularly when you've been engaged, that can be easily exploited to destroy a players attendant alts. People do lose carriers this way, even supers. A guy in BNI lost a nyx doing exactly this a couple of months ago.
Fighters are powerful, and they do apply damage to subcaps better than ever, but the ships that they're assigned to are easily destroyed, and their DPS can be outrepped by cruiser logi. They're not free kills either. There's plenty of preparation involved in setting up a pos, training or buying a carrier alt, building or buying a carrier, having a paying for an extra account, and being able to manage those separate clients silmultaneously.
None of this is an argument against nerfing it. People do die doing it, but people also die in ships that are silly OP. That shouldn't stop them from being rebalanced.
Bullet Therapist wrote:It's one of a few home field advantages that players can use to leverage their in system assets against a numerically superior force and I think that because of this, that fighter assist mechanics should remain in game. The vibe I get from this thread, and others, particularly concerning boosts, is that players here are upset that pilots who take the time to prepare and invest in tools to make themselves more powerful can beat beat players that don't.
Clearly you're terrible at picking up on vibes.
Bullet Therapist wrote:You want to roam without support, logi, boosts, or intel? Fine, but don't expect to hop in every system and devastate mining ops and ratters or local residents that might be waiting for you with better prepared defenses.
We don't expect to automatically beat a defending force. What we want is for that defending force to actually have to itself to drive us away.
Bullet Therapist wrote:Fighters also take a considerable amount of time to arrive on grid, more than enough for players to see them incoming on dscan, and decide to disengage if they think it's something they can't handle.
In our experience the fighters are generally already on grid at the gate when we arrive. Also; you're missing the point. Why should we have to disengage? Why is it reasonable that a ship can drive us off without ever having to put itself in substantial risk? |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
36
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 09:54:16 -
[80] - Quote
Bullet Therapist wrote:
It's not as risk or work free as people here would have you believe, nor does is grant users immunity while ratting in null systems. The truth is that using booster and carrier alts to bolster a combat pilot creates an attention deficit, particularly when you've been engaged, that can be easily exploited to destroy a players attendant alts. People do lose carriers this way, even supers. A guy in BNI lost a nyx doing exactly this a couple of months ago.
Fighters are powerful, and they do apply damage to subcaps better than ever, but the ships that they're assigned to are easily destroyed, and their DPS can be outrepped by cruiser logi. They're not free kills either. There's plenty of preparation involved in setting up a pos, training or buying a carrier alt, building or buying a carrier, having a paying for an extra account, and being able to manage those separate clients silmultaneously.
None of this is an argument against nerfing it. People do die doing it, but people also die in ships that are silly OP. That shouldn't stop them from being rebalanced.
Bullet Therapist wrote:It's one of a few home field advantages that players can use to leverage their in system assets against a numerically superior force and I think that because of this, that fighter assist mechanics should remain in game. The vibe I get from this thread, and others, particularly concerning boosts, is that players here are upset that pilots who take the time to prepare and invest in tools to make themselves more powerful can beat beat players that don't.
Clearly you're terrible at picking up on vibes.
Bullet Therapist wrote:You want to roam without support, logi, boosts, or intel? Fine, but don't expect to hop in every system and devastate mining ops and ratters or local residents that might be waiting for you with better prepared defenses.
We don't expect to automatically beat a defending force. What we want is for that defending force to actually have to risk itself to drive us away.
Bullet Therapist wrote:Fighters also take a considerable amount of time to arrive on grid, more than enough for players to see them incoming on dscan, and decide to disengage if they think it's something they can't handle.
In our experience the fighters are generally already on grid at the gate when we arrive. Also; you're missing the point. Why should we have to disengage? Why is it reasonable that a ship can drive us off without ever having to put itself in substantial risk? |
|
Viribus
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
345
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 09:56:59 -
[81] - Quote
only on eve-o will you find people who think it's perfectly okay for an interceptor to do 1000+ DPS with the incredible risk of a carrier 500m outside a forcefield (lol)
watch me be a scurb and get owned
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
248
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 13:26:02 -
[82] - Quote
after sitting by and watching the thread grow I still feel that killing the delegate control mechanic is not the right way to go about this but it does need to be removed within xkm of a tower/station to prevent what is currently causing it to be over powered.
The delegation isn't much of a problem and can be countered and those advocating to remove it completely either don't understand it or don't care about it. but the ability of a carrier to do this with little to no risk is unbalanced and needs to be fixed
would also like to clear up a post a while back about re-entering a POS shield with fighters out you don't lose them they simply return to drone bay |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
668
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 15:41:48 -
[83] - Quote
I'm willing to bet that most of those concerned about removing fighter delegation are mostly concerned about PVE, but just won't admit it.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1022
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 16:21:00 -
[84] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:I'm willing to bet that most of those concerned about removing fighter delegation are mostly concerned about PVE, but just won't admit it.
just as drone assist still exists .. incursions.
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
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
557
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 16:23:51 -
[85] - Quote
Viribus wrote:only on eve-o will you find people who think it's perfectly okay for an interceptor to do 1000+ DPS with the incredible risk of a carrier 500m outside a forcefield (lol)
And the same people who claim high sec is too safe, whilst doing this to assure literally 100% ratter safety. It's a miracle the universe doesn't collapse in on itself at the irony. |
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
208
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 18:19:06 -
[86] - Quote
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote: We don't expect to automatically beat a defending force. What we want is for that defending force to actually have to risk itself to drive us away.
Also; you're missing the point. Why should we have to disengage? Why is it reasonable that a ship can drive us off without ever having to put itself in substantial risk?
And you've missed my point.
So you lost a huginn to fighters after a night of strolling through catch in a mixed gang with ishtars and an orthrus and you come to whine about how fighter mechanics ruined your party? Tower mechanics are a joke, and should never have been what they are right now, I'll give you that. But the attitude is that someone should be able to moonwalk into a system, where, as you've admitted, the fighters are sitting on grid, without +1ing your scouts and expect to have a fair fight against entrenched defenders?
Even with crappy tower mechanics, carriers are still at risk, and even with fighters on grid, the ships that they're assigned to are not invincible. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
870
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 18:38:32 -
[87] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:after sitting by and watching the thread grow I still feel that killing the delegate control mechanic is not the right way to go about this but it does need to be removed within xkm of a tower/station to prevent what is currently causing it to be over powered.
The delegation isn't much of a problem and can be countered and those advocating to remove it completely either don't understand it or don't care about it. but the ability of a carrier to do this with little to no risk is unbalanced and needs to be fixed
would also like to clear up a post a while back about re-entering a POS shield with fighters out you don't lose them they simply return to drone bay
I don't personally think it needs killing delegation as a knee jerk fix (that might be having a couple of characters with gal carrier V, fighters V, adi V, etc. talking). I do think that the fact they can project that level of force into a PVP situation while for all realistic intents and purposes pretty much as safe as if they were docked up is out of whack.
Bullet Therapist wrote:And you've missed my point. So you lost a huginn to fighters after a night of strolling through catch in a mixed gang with ishtars and an orthrus and you come to whine about how fighter mechanics ruined your party? Tower mechanics are a joke, and should never have been what they are right now, I'll give you that. But the attitude is that someone should be able to moonwalk into a system, where, as you've admitted, the fighters are sitting on grid, without +1ing your scouts and expect to have a fair fight against entrenched defenders? Even with crappy tower mechanics, carriers are still at risk, and even with fighters on grid, the ships that they're assigned to are not invincible.
The situation your referring to I think is more or less the straw that broke the camels back so to speak its been an ongoing irritation for awhile that even if everyone shipped up and went to engage you'd have nothing to show for it while it not infrequently kills casual roaming in situations far less black and white than the one alluded to. |
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
208
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 20:02:03 -
[88] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:after sitting by and watching the thread grow I still feel that killing the delegate control mechanic is not the right way to go about this but it does need to be removed within xkm of a tower/station to prevent what is currently causing it to be over powered.
The delegation isn't much of a problem and can be countered and those advocating to remove it completely either don't understand it or don't care about it. but the ability of a carrier to do this with little to no risk is unbalanced and needs to be fixed
would also like to clear up a post a while back about re-entering a POS shield with fighters out you don't lose them they simply return to drone bay I don't personally think it needs killing delegation as a knee jerk fix (that might be having a couple of characters with gal carrier V, fighters V, adi V, etc. talking). I do think that the fact they can project that level of force into a PVP situation while for all realistic intents and purposes pretty much as safe as if they were docked up is out of whack. Bullet Therapist wrote:And you've missed my point. So you lost a huginn to fighters after a night of strolling through catch in a mixed gang with ishtars and an orthrus and you come to whine about how fighter mechanics ruined your party? Tower mechanics are a joke, and should never have been what they are right now, I'll give you that. But the attitude is that someone should be able to moonwalk into a system, where, as you've admitted, the fighters are sitting on grid, without +1ing your scouts and expect to have a fair fight against entrenched defenders? Even with crappy tower mechanics, carriers are still at risk, and even with fighters on grid, the ships that they're assigned to are not invincible. The situation your referring to I think is more or less the straw that broke the camels back so to speak its been an ongoing irritation for awhile that even if everyone shipped up and went to engage you'd have nothing to show for it while it not infrequently kills casual roaming in situations far less black and white than the one alluded to.
I don't see a problem with it being used to counter casual roaming. A more serious fleet comp will defeat a few ships augmented with fighter assist and a serious FC will see it as an opportunity to destroy a carrier.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
871
|
Posted - 2014.12.06 20:33:40 -
[89] - Quote
Bullet Therapist wrote: I don't see a problem with it being used to counter casual roaming. A more serious fleet comp will defeat a few ships augmented with fighter assist and a serious FC will see it as an opportunity to destroy a carrier.
Most of the time they will see a more serious comp coming and will be nowhere to be seen when you jump in or don't commit - usually flying interceptors, etc.
Realistically in most cases there isn't an opportunity to destroy a carrier - I don't think most people posting in this thread (and I'll admit I didn't realise quite fully at first what some of them are doing) realise exactly what mechanics are being used to protect the super/carriers, unless they majorly screw up generally they are almost as safe as if they were docked. |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
36
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 09:16:22 -
[90] - Quote
Bullet Therapist wrote:Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote: We don't expect to automatically beat a defending force. What we want is for that defending force to actually have to risk itself to drive us away.
Also; you're missing the point. Why should we have to disengage? Why is it reasonable that a ship can drive us off without ever having to put itself in substantial risk?
And you've missed my point. So you lost a huginn to fighters after a night of strolling through catch in a mixed gang with ishtars and an orthrus and you come to whine about how fighter mechanics ruined your party? Tower mechanics are a joke, and should never have been what they are right now, I'll give you that. But the attitude is that someone should be able to moonwalk into a system, where, as you've admitted, the fighters are sitting on grid, without +1ing your scouts and expect to have a fair fight against entrenched defenders? Even with crappy tower mechanics, carriers are still at risk, and even with fighters on grid, the ships that they're assigned to are not invincible.
As Rroff said; that particular incident was just the latest in a long line of them. We knew full well they had assigned fighters but took the fight anyway as we thought we'd probably be able to kill the assault frigates before the fighters killed us.
This fight is actually a prime example of what we're talking about anyway; the Vengenace and Ares died, the Scythe was driven off. At this point, since we were being fought by a Nyx, we really ought to have been able to start threatening that Nyx. Since he's in almost perfect safety at his POS though, we can't - and that's what aint right. He took part in that fight without ever putting himself in danger.
Quote:I don't see a problem with it being used to counter casual roaming. A more serious fleet comp will defeat a few ships augmented with fighter assist and a serious FC will see it as an opportunity to destroy a carrier.
But this is the problem; the techniques being used mean that we have no realistic oppurtunity at all to destroy that carrier. |
|
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
169
|
Posted - 2014.12.07 14:22:59 -
[91] - Quote
A simple way to "Fix" this would simply be not beeing able to go inside of a pos shield if you have an agression timer. They have fighters assigned to interceptors? have a cloaky cyno alt ready at the pos and sent in a bait ship to get the carrier agressed.
Though if they changed it this way, said people would be screaming of the op ness of an aligned carrier to a safespot, and burning there, or heavens forbid, carrier that constantly warps around!
Haveing the carrier "safe" also reduces the effectiveness of said carrier, a carrier on the field can remote rep / neut / ewar / go to triage if needed.
Put the same carrier pilot in a drone ship, and have sentries out on assist from 150 km away with a mjd and you have a similar situation. |
Zukan
DATASTORM Industries Overclockers Podpilot Services
4
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 09:59:14 -
[92] - Quote
I don't see what's wrong with this. I had to work hard to own my super, why shouldn't I be able to keep it safe? Also, how on earth am I supposed to take on a whole gang by myself if I can't do it this way? They might have a HIC, and keeping eyes on the next system, a Falcon alt, AND a cyno alt on standby is too much work. 2 alts should be plenty for solo PvP. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
560
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 10:02:26 -
[93] - Quote
Zukan wrote:I don't see what's wrong with this. I had to work hard to own my super, why shouldn't I be able to keep it safe? Also, how on earth am I supposed to take on a whole gang by myself if I can't do it this way? They might have a HIC, and keeping eyes on the next system, a Falcon alt, AND a cyno alt on standby is too much work. 2 alts should be plenty for solo PvP.
notsureifserious.jpg |
IIFraII
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
27
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 10:31:10 -
[94] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Zukan wrote:I don't see what's wrong with this. I had to work hard to own my super, why shouldn't I be able to keep it safe? Also, how on earth am I supposed to take on a whole gang by myself if I can't do it this way? They might have a HIC, and keeping eyes on the next system, a Falcon alt, AND a cyno alt on standby is too much work. 2 alts should be plenty for solo PvP. notsureifserious.jpg
definetelynotserious.jpg |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
120
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 13:37:29 -
[95] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:A simple way to "Fix" this would simply be not beeing able to go inside of a pos shield if you have an agression timer. They have fighters assigned to interceptors? have a cloaky cyno alt ready at the pos and sent in a bait ship to get the carrier agressed.
Though if they changed it this way, said people would be screaming of the op ness of an aligned carrier to a safespot, and burning there, or heavens forbid, carrier that constantly warps around!
Haveing the carrier "safe" also reduces the effectiveness of said carrier, a carrier on the field can remote rep / neut / ewar / go to triage if needed.
Put the same carrier pilot in a drone ship, and have sentries out on assist from 150 km away with a mjd and you have a similar situation.
except that a cyno cant be lit close to a POS. also this can be done on a second account that one doesn't have to worry about paying attention to |
Major Trant
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
1267
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 14:47:11 -
[96] - Quote
Interestingly I was roaming low in a Flycatcher only yesterday and encountered this tactic. I landed on a gate and found a Hyena 100 Kms off the gate, I burned towards him in the hope that he might be /afk. However, he quickly got moving and stayed at least 90K off me. He yellow boxed, then I heard the engagement alarm and then the damage started climbing. I switched to the drone tag and saw 5 Einherji on me. Thankfully I had an ASB and used a full set of Navy charges as I aligned out. But if he had been in say a Garmur, as I've witnessed before and kept a long point on me, I would never have got out.
The real issue in my opinion. Is that I wasn't flashy, neither was the Hyena. When the fighters aggressed, it was the carrier that got the suspect flag, not the Hyena, even though the Hyena had ordered the fighters in on me. The engagement took place in range of the gate guns but the gate guns did not fire, because the carrier wasn't on grid. If the Hyena had burned in close enough and I had fired on him, the gate guns would have shot me assuming the Hyena didn't aggress me with anything else.
Even more broken - if the Hyena had been sat on the gate when I landed, he could have called in the fighters to shoot me and if I had aggressed back, he could have jumped out immediately and left the gate guns to finish me off.
The most important fixes needed is that people who have drones assisting them should red box when they order the drones to attack. Secondly gate and dock guns should pop fighters and drones if their controlling ship goes suspect but is out of range. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
560
|
Posted - 2014.12.08 14:51:37 -
[97] - Quote
That actually sounds more buggy than anything else. |
Necharo Rackham
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
46
|
Posted - 2014.12.10 13:25:18 -
[98] - Quote
afkalt wrote:That actually sounds more buggy than anything else.
It appears to be fairly well known if so - as I've come across carriers making use of this fact on stations. There is also another possible bug, where fighters assigned to a carrier pick up two sets of bonuses - but will need to test this more to capture data on it. |
4Jane Ashpool
DATASTORM Industries Overclockers Podpilot Services
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 11:28:10 -
[99] - Quote
Bullet Therapist wrote: I don't see a problem with it being used to counter casual roaming. A more serious fleet comp will defeat a few ships augmented with fighter assist and a serious FC will see it as an opportunity to destroy a carrier.
Wow it's like you didn't even bother to read the OP. I'll put it in big letters for you: YOU CANNOT KILL A CARRIER INSIDE A POS FORCEFIELD (unless you can bump it out) |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
689
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 14:44:07 -
[100] - Quote
I think this discussion is getting mixed up, both intentionally and based on the title.
I think there are 2 issues:
POS immunity - be it shield hugging or one click from putting up a forcefield. It's a (my opinion here) lame risk averse mechanic that should be removed from the game.
Assigning fighters / drone assist - these are also 2 seperate things.
I think (my opinion again) that assigning fighters is a cool carrier super power and should continue to be allowed in game [getting rid of POS immunity would make this feature acceptable to most pvp pilots - they just want a reasonable chance to hurt back on the ship that's hurting them]
I think (my opinion again) that drone assist should just go away. It's a lazy farmer tool that eve wouldn't miss in the PVE world. It's a crappy mechanic in pvp that allows small quick locking ships rediculous dps - it doesn't add fun to the game it allows very large groups the ability to punish anyone on grid for not being there first. An interceptor should not be able to contol over 200 dps through any means - period.
To the OP and others contributing on this - it's easier to get positive game change with clear discussion on clear objectives. |
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.15 23:33:49 -
[101] - Quote
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:Risk: low. Effort: low. Reward: high.
Cloak mechanic?
Seriously tho, that super costs well over 20 bill after is all said and done. What did that fleet cost you? You are invading their system, they were prepared and brought their assets to bare against you. Or did you expect your couple hundred mill (IF THAT) in ships to be able to roll through their space unhindered? While the risk is low, it is hardly perfectly safe if the invading fleet is prepared, and the cost to them for being careless is far greater than you welping that fleet every day for the better half of a year.
Do not talk about something being too safe/OP/broken without first taking into account what it took (time/money/skills/effort) to achieve such power.
Removing all that from the equation would make pipe bombs appear to be OP vs all non BS fleets. Yet to effectively pull one off the people involved must coordinate their actions and be prepared ahead of time with all assets in position. Does it appear overpowered? Yes. Is it? No, just amazing preparation and execution of an effective tactic. Which is exactly what you are complaining about here.
TLDR - This is eve where information and preparation is everything. Do not expect everything to go your way on a random roam through null for "free" kills against pilots with a lot more SP and assets than you. |
Atomeon
The Scope Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 01:08:11 -
[102] - Quote
I think they should add some skill to be able control Assigned fighters and assisting drones.
If someone wants to assist drones to me i should have the skills Drones V and Drones interfacing V. If someone wants to assign Fighters to me i should have the skills Drones V and Fighters V.
Is anonther way to do that, some ppl mentioned the carrier should enter a "siege like" mode imobilissing the carrier for 5 mins. Unfortunetly they were looking to the wrong ship. The "siege like" module should be to the one now controls the fighters. The fighters should follow the ship but not engaging if the pilot do not use the "siege like" module. |
IIFraII
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
29
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 08:47:29 -
[103] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:Risk: low. Effort: low. Reward: high. Cloak mechanic? Seriously tho, that super costs well over 20 bill after is all said and done. What did that fleet cost you? You are invading their system, they were prepared and brought their assets to bare against you. Or did you expect your couple hundred mill (IF THAT) in ships to be able to roll through their space unhindered? While the risk is low, it is hardly perfectly safe if the invading fleet is prepared, and the cost to them for being careless is far greater than you welping that fleet every day for the better half of a year. Do not talk about something being too safe/OP/broken without first taking into account what it took (time/money/skills/effort) to achieve such power. Removing all that from the equation would make pipe bombs appear to be OP vs all non BS fleets. Yet to effectively pull one off the people involved must coordinate their actions and be prepared ahead of time with all assets in position. Does it appear overpowered? Yes. Is it? No, just amazing preparation and execution of an effective tactic. Which is exactly what you are complaining about here. TLDR - This is eve where information and preparation is everything. Do not expect everything to go your way on a random roam through null for "free" kills against pilots with a lot more SP and assets than you.
You are comparing this to pipebombing? Really? Pipebombing ships are VULNERABLE for crying out loud. A carriers/supers inches away from a pos shield are really really safe, more so in a phoebe eve. You say one has to take into account time, money, skills blablabla? 3 Minutes of slowboating towards the edge of the pos shield + log on time? wooooo, tiiiime. Skill? Push control+c keys before you are too far from the edge in a 90m/s ship? Impressive Money? Fighters cost 20 mil a piece, five of them cost less than an average roaming ship, for much better performance. Only thing to factor imo since the assigning ship is not an asset you are putting on the line. Effort? I don't even know what to say.
Remote dps is just something stupid, period. It being so safe, it is even more stupid. I'd just like to know what ccp guys think about this. |
4Jane Ashpool
DATASTORM Industries Overclockers Podpilot Services
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 09:30:23 -
[104] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I think (my opinion again) that drone assist should just go away. It's a lazy farmer tool that eve wouldn't miss in the PVE world. It's a crappy mechanic in pvp that allows small quick locking ships rediculous dps - it doesn't add fun to the game it allows very large groups the ability to punish anyone on grid for not being there first. An interceptor should not be able to contol over 200 dps through any means - period.
Yeah, easily controlled alpha strikes make for some boring gameplay. Effective, yes, but boring. Imo they should take it even further - something like having the damage apply from guns at the end of the cycle rather than the start so different weapons are difficult to organise into an effective alpha strike within a server tick or two. I haven't thought this through properly so no doubt there's flaws though. Also I've gone even further off topic here so I'll htfu
|
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
45
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 16:05:17 -
[105] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:Risk: low. Effort: low. Reward: high. Cloak mechanic?
See every afk cloaking thread ever for retort.
Nasar Vyron wrote:Seriously tho, that super costs well over 20 bill after is all said and done. What did that fleet cost you? You are invading their system, they were prepared and brought their assets to bare against you. Or did you expect your couple hundred mill (IF THAT) in ships to be able to roll through their space unhindered? While the risk is low, it is hardly perfectly safe if the invading fleet is prepared, and the cost to them for being careless is far greater than you welping that fleet every day for the better half of a year.
Couple hundred mill each - our fleets generally cost between 1 and 5 bil total. ISK is not a balancing factor though, so this argument is irrelevant.
Nasar Vyron wrote:Do not talk about something being too safe/OP/broken without first taking into account what it took (time/money/skills/effort) to achieve such power.
Again, this is not a balancing factor. The fact that the ship costs a lot is irrelevant, and isn't an argument against the mechanic of risk free DPS being unbalanced.
Nasar Vyron wrote:Removing all that from the equation would make pipe bombs appear to be OP vs all non BS fleets. Yet to effectively pull one off the people involved must coordinate their actions and be prepared ahead of time with all assets in position. Does it appear overpowered? Yes. Is it? No, just amazing preparation and execution of an effective tactic. Which is exactly what you are complaining about here.
These are completely different scenarios - a pipebombing ship is absolutely at risk, the carriers and supers we're talking about here are not.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
873
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 16:39:37 -
[106] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:
TLDR - This is eve where information and preparation is everything. Do not expect everything to go your way on a random roam through null for "free" kills against pilots with a lot more SP and assets than you.
None of the regular roamer/pvpers in TRECI expect to waltz in with 20m ships and take "free" kills on a capital fleet - a large part of why this thread even exists is that even reshipping to something appropriate (which from my experience they are very willing to do) would yield little results because the assets being used against them are either sitting inches from a FF or more usually these days beside the control tower of a POS with the FF down so that they can put the FF online without even having to move if they come under any threat while being able to project significant levels of power onto the battlefield.
|
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 20:21:31 -
[107] - Quote
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote: Couple hundred mill each - our fleets generally cost between 1 and 5 bil total. ISK is not a balancing factor though, so this argument is irrelevant.
Explain to me why it shouldn't please? Why should 5 bill even in ships be able to easily take out my 20+ bill super and few support ships when I am prepared for you coming into my system and you were not ready to face me? Had you came in and camped/scouted my system ahead of time you could have located which moon(s) I go between. If you found that you did not have the man power or assets to take me on you could have taken a different route and avoided the fight altogether.
Again, you were in our sov. I have the homefield advantage. You want to meet me on my turf, come prepared and don't think your little roams will ever stand a chance so ill prepared.
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:Again, this is not a balancing factor. The fact that the ship costs a lot is irrelevant, and isn't an argument against the mechanic of risk free DPS being unbalanced.[/quote To which again I say why not? A lesser skilled player should be able to take on a much higher skilled player if their actions are properly planned and executed. My assets are worth more, I put far more time into obtaining my ships and skills than them. My well established intel network allowed me to predict their movements and prepare my attack.
So I ask AGAIN why should we be on equal footing when he stumbled into my domain? You speak like a child who thinks he can take on his elders who have far more experience.
[quote=Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron]These are completely different scenarios - a pipebombing ship is absolutely at risk, the carriers and supers we're talking about here are not. These are not absolutely different. You complain about the super being safe, yet what about the titan that bridged in that pipebomb fleet? He is in a completely other system well within his POS shield. The fleet is at risk, yet so is the ship commanding the fighters. The difference is the super is actually in system, and outside of the POS. That pipebomb is far more devastating than a few fighters even from a Nyx. You fail to see outside of your own box to the larger picture. Nobody complains about pipe bombs because it is typically only null fleets that are hit by them and we take them in stride. Null players have learned to laugh at their helplessness and congratulate their killers for a well executed play. We do not curse them as you people here are doing about a player assigning fighters to his friends to take our your roam. Come prepared, paint and kill the fighters, or bring a fast ship to tackle commanding ship and kill him.
The day CCP takes the advantage out of the hands of the sov holder or defender is the day this game dies. There will be no advantage to sov or owning space at all when the attacker holds no longer requires intel or effort to launch their attack.
The changes you all suggest have far further consequences than simply allowing your puny roams to go about picking off free kills unhindered in other player's space. Until you understand this I suggest you put more time within null space and sov warfare under your belt before you bring up your humorous grievances. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
571
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 20:35:42 -
[108] - Quote
You people defending this are the Veers Belvar of nullsec, you know that? |
IIFraII
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
31
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 20:43:14 -
[109] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote: Explain to me why it shouldn't please? Why should 5 bill even in ships be able to easily take out my 20+ bill super and few support ships
One of the points is exactly that no one can possibly kill you much loved Nyx If it was where it can be harmed, it would still take many batphones and you to be reckless and/or without help
Nasar Vyron wrote: To which again I say why not? A lesser skilled player should be able to take on a much higher skilled player if their actions are properly planned and executed. My assets are worth more, I put far more time into obtaining my ships and skills than them. My well established intel network allowed me to predict their movements and prepare my attack.
So I ask AGAIN why should we be on equal footing when he stumbled into my domain? You speak like a child who thinks he can take on his elders who have far more experience.
You already have many many advantages: your intel network, jumpbridges, a lot of ppl living a couple jumps away, your poses and stations with their supplies of ships and mods to best counter whatever comes looking for a fight, or straight up hiding. YOUR SUPERCAPITALS which as it stands you dont even need to put in harms way. That's quite a few homeground advantages i think.
Nasar Vyron wrote: These are not absolutely different. You complain about the super being safe, yet what about the titan that bridged in that pipebomb fleet? He is in a completely other system well within his POS shield. The fleet is at risk, yet so is the ship commanding the fighters. The difference is the super is actually in system, and outside of the POS. That pipebomb is far more devastating than a few fighters even from a Nyx. You fail to see outside of your own box to the larger picture. Nobody complains about pipe bombs because it is typically only null fleets that are hit by them and we take them in stride. Null players have learned to laugh at their helplessness and congratulate their killers for a well executed play. We do not curse them as you people here are doing about a player assigning fighters to his friends to take our your roam. Come prepared, paint and kill the fighters, or bring a fast ship to tackle commanding ship and kill him.
The day CCP takes the advantage out of the hands of the sov holder or defender is the day this game dies. There will be no advantage to sov or owning space at all when the attacker holds no longer requires intel or effort to launch their attack.
The changes you all suggest have far further consequences than simply allowing your puny roams to go about picking off free kills unhindered in other player's space. Until you understand this I suggest you put more time within null space and sov warfare under your belt before you bring up your humorous grievances.
Titans don't project their dps through cyno portals. Has their fleet teleport ability generated a tactic which was unforeseen by ccp and therefore not balanced? Maybe.
Please not compare a tactic that actually takes skill to pull off with your monkey proof assign fighters though. They are not on the same level really.
Also, how many times one have to answer to the "do x,y,z to counter this tactic" argument? Just admit you don't know what people mean for "balance issue" mkay? =) |
Bjugiz
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 20:45:46 -
[110] - Quote
https://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=26463349 https://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=26463417 https://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=26463431 https://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=26463571 https://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=26464281 https://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=26464254 https://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=26464360
Come to my turf more :)
|
|
Foxicity
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
40
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 20:46:05 -
[111] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote: Human, you can change nothing. Your roam has the attention of those infinitely your greater. That which you know as Supercarriers are your salvation through destruction.
Figured I'd summarize it for those just catching up.
5B of ships shouldn't be able to kill a 20B ship? You'd get along great with the captain of the Bismarck. |
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
220
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 20:59:38 -
[112] - Quote
4Jane Ashpool wrote:Bullet Therapist wrote: I don't see a problem with it being used to counter casual roaming. A more serious fleet comp will defeat a few ships augmented with fighter assist and a serious FC will see it as an opportunity to destroy a carrier.
Wow it's like you didn't even bother to read the OP. I'll put it in big letters for you: YOU CANNOT KILL A CARRIER INSIDE A POS FORCEFIELD (unless you can bump it out)
I'll put it in big letters too: WOW, ITS LIKE YOU DIDN'T BOTHER TO READ ANYTHING I WROTE. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 21:38:46 -
[113] - Quote
IIFraII wrote:Also, how many times one have to answer to the "do x,y,z to counter this tactic" argument? Just admit you don't know what people mean for "balance issue" mkay? =)
Foxicity wrote:Figured I'd summarize it for those just catching up.
5B of ships shouldn't be able to kill a 20B ship? You'd get along great with the captain of the Bismarck.
Remember my comment about a child talking to his elders? I never said they shouldn't at all. I said they should prepare for what they are to face. I am under, and never should be, under and requirement to face you head to head in battle when my ship by design is meant to project it's power within a system. You want your 5 billion to take out my 20+? Work for it.
You have little to no actual null experience. You have not put in the time and effort of the group of players who inhabit this space. It appears over powered because you do not understand it. A Nyx who is fit for taking out your fleet will tank exactly zero DDs before he pops as he is full gank, possibly a second if he made use of a DC.
You are missing my point, it's the same argument used in favor of cloaky camping. USE ANOTHER SYSTEM! TAKE A DIFFERENT ROUTE! Use a scout and gather intel, if you go in and see a super on scan assume he's going to use it against you and make a decision. Face him head on, or go around and avoid the fight.
. . .
Rather than ranting further I'll just enlighten you on the nature of capital and super capital warfare. Many things appear imbalanced because there is no proper way to balance them without hurting another aspect of their gameplay. I'll start with the lower tier of capitals. Carriers are drone fighting platforms and fill the role of fleet assistance. This includes offensive assistance not just defensive. Dreads are mobile dps platforms, their job is to knock out other capitals and structures quickly. Supers are an upgraded version of their lower tier brethren and give up their ability to enter triage in exchange for more health and greater firepower. While still maintaining the role of fleet assistance. Titans are the behemoths of firepower. They bring more dps than a dread without the need to siege, and a shiny button that makes other caps disappear off field. In other words think of them like the next tier of dreads similar to supers are to carriers.
So just looking at the carrier and super carrier tiers you can see they are fleet assistance capitals. They are meant to assist their fleet on and off field by making a decision of projecting their firepower or entering triage. They have to make a choice at this tier of capital, they cannot do both.
If you look at each step up in ships, each is an improvement upon it's predecessor. A titan doesn't have to enter siege to have greater firepower than a dread, but at the same time it lacks the self rep abilities and must rely on a fleet to do that for him. The super is no different. It has greater firepower, but has lost it's ability to triage and fill the same role as it's carrier counterpart. It has instead become a mobile dps platform but without the ability to knock out other caps instantly like a titan.
Players must be rewarded for their time invested in training their characters, as well as isk invested in their assets. If a super must now be on field to assign fighters why not just use 4 carriers worth of fighters instead? You'll find it costs less than half as much to accomplish this and less training as well. Add to this the ability to use sub-fighter level of drones to more easily handle sub-capitals without having to sacrifice your tank to do so. See SlowCat fleets.
Trade offs must be made at every level of play. A battlecruiser is superior to a cruiser yet is slower and has a larger sig. A single cruiser can, tho not easily, take out a battlecruiser if prepared for the fight. A battleship will volley the cruiser if prepared, but will lose to the battlecruiser if too much tank was sacrificed to accomplish this. A capital set up to kill subcapitals will die very quickly to other capitals for the exact same reasons.
-- A lot of you in this thread have locked your sights on the super as the source of the imbalance due to fighter assign. Rather than accepting that what you have done is stumbled into a situation you were ill prepared for. It's like a child throwing a tantrum because of things not going their way because of mechanics they barely grasp.
If you want to put blame on any form of imbalance may I suggest you all turn your attention to the POS shield mechanics which are what allow this "perfect safety" you all seem to believe exists within this game. I give you this suggestion: *** Ships which are locked going into a POS shield do not receive the damage/lock immunity similar to not being able to cloak while targeted.*** This removes POS shield games and can somehow be extended to station undock/dock mechanics. This is the true imbalance, so please. If you're going to focus your anger, please put it in the right place. |
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
2
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 21:39:31 -
[114] - Quote
double post sorry please delete |
Foxicity
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
40
|
Posted - 2014.12.16 22:01:24 -
[115] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote: sic. I suggest removing POS shield games and somehow extending that to station docking mechanics. This is the true imbalance.
Could have saved us the 10 pages of utterly-condescending narrative. |
4Jane Ashpool
DATASTORM Industries Overclockers Podpilot Services
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 10:08:59 -
[116] - Quote
Foxicity wrote:Nasar Vyron wrote: sic. I suggest removing POS shield games and somehow extending that to station docking mechanics. This is the true imbalance.
Could have saved us the 10 pages of Super owners whinging about having to risk their ships to PvP
^ fixed
|
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
50
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 12:44:46 -
[117] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote: Explain to me why it shouldn't please? Why should 5 bill even in ships be able to easily take out my 20+ bill super and few support ships when I am prepared for you coming into my system and you were not ready to face me? Had you came in and camped/scouted my system ahead of time you could have located which moon(s) I go between. If you found that you did not have the man power or assets to take me on you could have taken a different route and avoided the fight altogether.
Go ahead and find a quote of me saying I want to easily take out your super. You won't, because I've never said that. All I want is for your Super to be at least at risk of attack when I'm fighting it, which currently it is not.
I would never, frankly, expect any of TRECI's fleets to kill a super, but it should at least be in sufficient danger that maybe we have time to tackle it and batphone someone bigger.
Nasar Vyron wrote: To which again I say why not? A lesser skilled player should be able to take on a much higher skilled player if their actions are properly planned and executed. My assets are worth more, I put far more time into obtaining my ships and skills than them. My well established intel network allowed me to predict their movements and prepare my attack.
So I ask AGAIN why should we be on equal footing when he stumbled into my domain? You speak like a child who thinks he can take on his elders who have far more experience.
I don't think you understand what we're asking for. We're not asking to be on equal footing - at the end of the day you're in a super, and I (and to my knowledge, everyone who agrees that this is a problem) have no expectation that our <10 man HAC roams will ever be able to actually kill your ship. The point is that we're no threat to it at all. Of course we can't kill it, but if it's fighting us then we ought to be able to at least tackle it and hopefully be able to batphone for help.
So; we're not asking for a few HACs to be able to kill supers. Please get that through your skull.
Nasar Vyron wrote: Come prepared, paint and kill the fighters, or bring a fast ship to tackle commanding ship and kill him.
This is literally the whole problem. Right now, that commanding ship is safe at his POS, and we CAN'T tackle him.
Nasar Vyron wrote:The day CCP takes the advantage out of the hands of the sov holder or defender is the day this game dies. There will be no advantage to sov or owning space at all when the attacker holds no longer requires intel or effort to launch their attack.
The advantage has nothing to do with sov. You could easily use the same tactic in NPC nullsec, or in lowsec,or in wormholes. There is basically no mechanical relation to sovereignty and the use of supers like this.
Your second post was more or less condescending nonesense so the only bit I'll respond to is this:
Nasar Vyron wrote:A lot of you in this thread have locked your sights on the super as the source of the imbalance due to fighter assign. Rather than accepting that what you have done is stumbled into a situation you were ill prepared for. It's like a child throwing a tantrum because of things not going their way because of mechanics they barely grasp.
If you want to put blame on any form of imbalance may I suggest you all turn your attention to the POS shield mechanics which are what allow this "perfect safety" you all seem to believe exists within this game.
It's like you're not even freaking reading! Let me lay this out for you clear as day.
A Super that's on grid with a gate and ownzones my fleet when we jump in to it is 100% balanced, and neither I nor anybody I know has any problem with that whatsoever.
That exact same super that's sat next to a POS with the force field 1 click away from activation (and thus basically totally safe), but has assigned his fighters to some dual 1600mm plated Mallers who are sat on the gate, and whom then ownzown my fleet is absolutely NOT balanced, and needs fixing, somehow.
|
4Jane Ashpool
DATASTORM Industries Overclockers Podpilot Services
0
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 13:32:00 -
[118] - Quote
Wow, there are some whiny, bitter sov holders in this thread, considering what you're doing is borderline exploit-territory - mis-using a design flaw to your advantage. If CCP wanted that sort of functionality, why do aggro timers exist to prevent the exact same thing being done on stations and gates? |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries Chelonaphobia
701
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 14:15:12 -
[119] - Quote
So do you pos hugging super pilots have some sort of elite private chat channel where you all pat each other on the back for your pvp exploits?? What's the chatter in there like?
"Dude, it was awesome.... I just alpha'd some ships on some gate in some bubbles.... once the kb loads I'll let you know what I got"
"Bro! I just killed my 200th enyo on the L-AME gate! Another .006 points to my kb efficiency"
All the mechanics opinions asside.... How can you guys do that for more than like 5 minutes w/out getting bored. Did you really put in all the time, effort and isk of getting into a super just to hug a tower/pos shield and assign some fighters? It's more than the mechanics I don't get. |
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
169
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 15:16:20 -
[120] - Quote
i don't know if this suggestion was made earlier (not going to dig trough 6 pages) but limiting the range seems a good fix to me, as fighters get all the benefits from drone mods and skills (range excluded) it could be an idea to implement just that.
so say a 500% bonus on drone range would be perfect with maxed skills (drone avionics and advanced drone avionics) you get 300 Km range on drones and fighters, which can be enhanced with drone control range augmentor rigs and or drone link augmentor modules this way you can control drones on a big range on grid but not everything on grid unless you use rigs and or high slots. i think having more range with normal drones as well is a nice but not OP thing.
this way you cant sit near pos shields and assist without any danger.
[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
|
|
ChromeStriker
0ne Percent. Odin's Call
794
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 15:30:14 -
[121] - Quote
We got a pair of billion isk proteus the other night... same ehp as the carrier, each with full fighter support....
I like this feature and fully endorse it!
No Worries
|
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
1107
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 15:44:04 -
[122] - Quote
Ellendras Silver wrote:i don't know if this suggestion was made earlier (not going to dig trough 6 pages) but limiting the range seems a good fix to me, as fighters get all the benefits from drone mods and skills (range excluded) it could be an idea to implement just that.
so say a 500% bonus on drone range would be perfect with maxed skills (drone avionics and advanced drone avionics) you get 300 Km range on drones and fighters, which can be enhanced with drone control range augmentor rigs and or drone link augmentor modules this way you can control drones on a big range on grid but not everything on grid unless you use rigs and or high slots. i think having more range with normal drones as well is a nice but not OP thing.
this way you cant sit near pos shields and assist without any danger.
Or you could say you just have to be on grid to assign stuff. problem instantly solved
Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
|
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
51
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 18:13:05 -
[123] - Quote
4Jane Ashpool wrote:Wow, there are some whiny, bitter sov holders in this thread, considering what you're doing is borderline exploit-territory - mis-using a design flaw to your advantage. If CCP wanted that sort of functionality, why do aggro timers exist to prevent the exact same thing being done on stations and gates? Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:A Super that's on grid with a gate and ownzones my fleet when we jump in to it is 100% balanced, and neither I nor anybody I know has any problem with that whatsoever. Well, except for the separate balance issue of fighters being able to instapop interceptors.
Yeeeeeaaaahhh that is a tad incongruous but my understanding is that they have to utterly gimp their fit to do that, so it's only really something that's workable in combination with the POS tanking. I could be wrong though.
corbexx wrote:Or you could say you just have to be on grid to assign stuff. problem instantly solved
Absolutely my preferred solution. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
873
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 18:45:04 -
[124] - Quote
^^ Yeah a fit that can insta blap frigs would severely gimp it on grid. |
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
169
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 19:35:53 -
[125] - Quote
corbexx wrote:Ellendras Silver wrote:i don't know if this suggestion was made earlier (not going to dig trough 6 pages) but limiting the range seems a good fix to me, as fighters get all the benefits from drone mods and skills (range excluded) it could be an idea to implement just that.
so say a 500% bonus on drone range would be perfect with maxed skills (drone avionics and advanced drone avionics) you get 300 Km range on drones and fighters, which can be enhanced with drone control range augmentor rigs and or drone link augmentor modules this way you can control drones on a big range on grid but not everything on grid unless you use rigs and or high slots. i think having more range with normal drones as well is a nice but not OP thing.
this way you cant sit near pos shields and assist without any danger. Or you could say you just have to be on grid to assign stuff. problem instantly solved
no because then the carrier loses too much ground as a support vessel. i think that my suggestion is fair afterall it is a carrier it should be able to give good support (also with normal drones) but i agree it should be limited too on grid but with extended range (within the grid)
[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
|
Ellendras Silver
CrashCat Corporation
169
|
Posted - 2014.12.17 19:37:37 -
[126] - Quote
ChromeStriker wrote:We got a pair of billion isk proteus the other night... same ehp as the carrier, each with full fighter support....
I like this feature and fully endorse it!
that's nice but how will you feel about it after they fix T3 cruisers because the insane tank will disappear
[u]Carpe noctem[/u]
|
IIFraII
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
31
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 11:47:25 -
[127] - Quote
For those who though this is something used on a small scale only, heres something for you: http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=26218828&nolimit
Also, ppl seem to be using this to nuke structures more quickly.
Bottom line is: this is affecting the game on all levels. |
colera deldios
276
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 13:09:55 -
[128] - Quote
What I'm hearing is. Ooo noooo we brought 30 people with logistics, we don't want to PVP we just wan't easy kills/ganks. It's a perfectly valid mechanic I used it and it's not always effective Fighters die super fast and not to mention you risk a carrier/super getting dropped on which after you do it first time next time people will be ready for you and will go for your Nyx rather than your puny Slepnir.
It's a valid tactic to even out the odds. How about you stop sucking at PVP/Hunting and instead of asking for easy kills/ganks you put some work into a trap and next time you run into this guy you drop on him or you know just kill the Fighter which most ships can just instashot off the field. |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
59
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 13:14:35 -
[129] - Quote
colera deldios wrote:What I'm hearing is. Ooo noooo we brought 30 people with logistics
If TRECI has ever fielded a 30 man fleet I'll eat my hat. EDIT: OK maybe we have in wormholes somewhere. Our nullsec roams barely ever exceed 10men, no logistics. Much more commonly it's 6-8.
colera deldios wrote:we don't want to PVP we just wan't easy kills/ganks. It's a perfectly valid mechanic I used it and it's not always effective Fighters die super fast and not to mention you risk a carrier/super getting dropped on which after you do it first time next time people will be ready for you and will go for your Nyx rather than your puny Slepnir.
It's a valid tactic to even out the odds. How about you stop sucking at PVP/Hunting and instead of asking for easy kills/ganks you put some work into a trap and next time you run into this guy you drop on him or you know just kill the Fighter which most ships can just instashot off the field.
Fighters have like cruiser + levels of EHP, they are actually not that easy to kill, particularly when their 2000 DPS is dunking your fleet. \Read the rest of the thread for more detailed rebuttals to your "kill fighters" or "lol u nub just kill teh super" thingies, they have both been addressed in detail. |
colera deldios
276
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 15:02:48 -
[130] - Quote
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:colera deldios wrote:What I'm hearing is. Ooo noooo we brought 30 people with logistics If TRECI has ever fielded a 30 man fleet I'll eat my hat. EDIT: OK maybe we have in wormholes somewhere. Our nullsec roams barely ever exceed 10men, no logistics. Much more commonly it's 6-8. colera deldios wrote:we don't want to PVP we just wan't easy kills/ganks. It's a perfectly valid mechanic I used it and it's not always effective Fighters die super fast and not to mention you risk a carrier/super getting dropped on which after you do it first time next time people will be ready for you and will go for your Nyx rather than your puny Slepnir.
It's a valid tactic to even out the odds. How about you stop sucking at PVP/Hunting and instead of asking for easy kills/ganks you put some work into a trap and next time you run into this guy you drop on him or you know just kill the Fighter which most ships can just instashot off the field. Fighters have like cruiser + levels of EHP, they are actually not that easy to kill, particularly when their 2000 DPS is dunking your fleet. \Read the rest of the thread for more detailed rebuttals to your "kill fighters" or "lol u nub just kill teh super" thingies, they have both been addressed in detail.
You can blap them off the field, you can easily out run them they MWD to their target then they drop out of MWD and orbit at something like 300ms, their optimal range is something like 3k. They are one crappy cruiser when Ishtar or Caracal can blap them off the field in 2-3 shots while outruning them.
|
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
880
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:24:26 -
[131] - Quote
colera deldios wrote:and not to mention you risk a carrier/super getting dropped on which after you do it first time next time people will be ready for you and will go for your Nyx rather than your puny Slepnir.
It's a valid tactic to even out the odds. How about you stop sucking at PVP/Hunting and instead of asking for easy kills/ganks you put some work into a trap and next time you run into this guy you drop on him or you know just kill the Fighter which most ships can just instashot off the field.
Thats the thing - most of the time the super isn't at any realistic risk even if someone comes back next time to go for it - which is the crux of the complaints here. Fighter assignment is symptomatic rather than the problem itself.
Your posts appear to be showing a certain level of outdated knowledge of how this is being used - given the way the super/carrier is fit they can easily keep up with a fast cruiser (an ishtar doesn't have a hope of outrunning them in any way that is going to help it live long enough to kill any even assuming its left to run) and have enough optimal range that they can blap a MWD bloomed target as it moves away from them and transversal falls as they drop out of MWD and with 2-3 carriers worth they can even alpha tankier stuff - watch the video posted earlier on - and that is just a demonstration with a setup that is far from the max capabilities.
If you have say 10 fighters on you that is ~180K EHP worth of fighters in total and you'd have to kill or outrun a few before dps drops off significantly while they are usually assigned to a ship designed to counter that. |
colera deldios
276
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:38:24 -
[132] - Quote
Rroff wrote:colera deldios wrote:and not to mention you risk a carrier/super getting dropped on which after you do it first time next time people will be ready for you and will go for your Nyx rather than your puny Slepnir.
It's a valid tactic to even out the odds. How about you stop sucking at PVP/Hunting and instead of asking for easy kills/ganks you put some work into a trap and next time you run into this guy you drop on him or you know just kill the Fighter which most ships can just instashot off the field. Thats the thing - most of the time the super isn't at any realistic risk even if someone comes back next time to go for it - which is the crux of the complaints here. Your posts appear to be showing a certain level of outdated knowledge of how this is being used - given the way the super/carrier is fit they can easily keep up with a fast cruiser and have enough optimal range that they can blap a MWD bloomed target as it moves away from them and transversal falls as they drop out of MWD and with 2-3 carriers worth they can even alpha tankier stuff - watch the video posted earlier on - and that is just a demonstration with a setup that is far from the max capabilities.
What I'm hearing is you wan't an already weak ship and a very expansive one at that. That alrady needs to be outside the POS to now be on grid do assign fighters this makes no sense someone paid some 30b for that ship I'm not saying that should buy him easy kills and god like power which it does not he can assign 10 fighters 15 at most but no sane person will risk his high slots for DCU II which don't even make sense to carry on a super carrier.
The point is it's very easy to outrun Fighters regardles of it's bonuses and it's even easier to shoot them off the field.
One of the easiest things to do si have people starburst and whoever has fighters on them just warp off fighters will follow him he can warp back to the field which will bug the fighters and player will have to recall them.
If you are smart this should never happen to you twice and if it does than it's your own fault for being stupid. Because first time it happens you get the name you get the pos and next time you warp a machariel on top of it and light a cyno for your friends.
And regardless if you are 0.0/WH/LS entity it will be pretty damn easy to kill it Lazerhawks, Shadow Cartel, BL, PL, NC even HK i think killed a Nyx.. all have demonstrated that it's pretty easy to kill suppers doing this I my self assigned fighters few times and stopped aftter I alsmost died dropping same people twice in ~3 weeks span. Also it's pretty easy to defang 10 supers let alone 1. Go learn to PVP/Hunt/Hot drop and this should not be a problem.
BUT: I agree that it's bit to much DPS coming out of these. They should make it so that only ships bonuses transfer to drones when you assign them not the module bonus as well (tracking enhancer, link, damage amp, nav..) |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
880
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 16:46:02 -
[133] - Quote
colera deldios wrote: What I'm hearing is you wan't an already weak ship and a very expansive one at that. That alrady needs to be outside the POS to now be on grid do assign fighters this makes no sense someone paid some 30b for that ship I'm not saying that should buy him easy kills and god like power which it does not he can assign 10 fighters 15 at most but no sane person will risk his high slots for DCU II which don't even make sense to carry on a super carrier.
The point is it's very easy to outrun Fighters regardles of it's bonuses and it's even easier to shoot them off the field.
One of the easiest things to do si have people starburst and whoever has fighters on them just warp off fighters will follow him he can warp back to the field which will bug the fighters and player will have to recall them.
If you are smart this should never happen to you twice and if it does than it's your own fault for being stupid. Because first time it happens you get the name you get the pos and next time you warp a machariel on top of it and light a cyno for your friends.
And regardless if you are 0.0/WH/LS entity it will be pretty damn easy to kill it Lazerhawks, Shadow Cartel, BL, PL, NC even HK i think killed a Nyx.. all have demonstrated that it's pretty easy to kill suppers doing this I my self assigned fighters few times and stopped aftter I alsmost died dropping same people twice in ~3 weeks span. Also it's pretty easy to defang 10 supers let alone 1. Go learn to PVP/Hunt/Hot drop and this should not be a problem.
BUT: I agree that it's bit to much DPS coming out of these. They should make it so that only ships bonuses transfer to drones when you assign them not the module bonus as well (tracking enhancer, link, damage amp, nav..)
No offence but you might want to stop posting - you reference at least a dozen outdated mechanics there i.e. cyno on POS just as one example and with the way they are using the carriers lately even if you could cyno on the POS you have to be beyond lucky to have someone land in a position to bump that super out as the FF came up.
|
colera deldios
276
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 17:10:28 -
[134] - Quote
Rroff wrote:
No offence but you might want to stop posting :insert tongue in cheek smiley: - you reference at least a dozen outdated mechanics there i.e. cyno on POS just as one example and with the way they are using the carriers lately even if you could cyno on the POS you have to be beyond lucky to have someone land in a position to bump that super out as the FF came up. They don't generally tend to do it from the same POS or even the same system that often (partly due to having to reset the FF) and partly to avoid being caught.
(As a side note we've killed a nyx before - wasn't there myself sadly - infact if I do say so one of the better super kills IMO as it was a good fight from both sides and not a gank on a defenceless super - well until BL turned up to dunk it that is).
EDIT: PS I've a couple of gal carrier V, fighters V, DCU V, etc. chars myself and have done this before (albeit not sitting beside a control tower waiting to online the FF if I came under threat) and would do it again probably but that doesn't change that its lame especially when done in such a way your almost if not immune to harm coming to your capital.
Where did I even mention POS. I'm sure that I'm familiar with capitals & using assisted fighters much more than you are. Because so far only thing you have proved is that you are incompetent and judging by your KB I can see why.
The fact that you think that you need to cyno something on top of the super to bump it off the pos means you know jack ****. No wonder you are not competent enough to create a bookmark on top of a super on the edge of the pos with a cloacky and warp a machariel down to it.
In anycase it does not matter because looking at your KB it seems only PVP you enjoy is the one pre-calculated.. So ganks, you can't PVP or plan a hot drop so you are asking CCP to help you out. Checks out perfectly.
Like the people crying to CCP to nerf cloacky camping & local. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
880
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 17:18:38 -
[135] - Quote
colera deldios wrote:
Where did I even mention POS. I'm sure that I'm familiar with capitals & using assisted fighters much more than you are. Because so far only thing you have proved is that you are incompetent and judging by your KB I can see why.
The fact that you think that you need to cyno something on top of the super to bump it off the pos means you know jack ****. No wonder you are not competent enough to create a bookmark on top of a super on the edge of the pos with a cloacky and warp a machariel down to it.
In anycase it does not matter because looking at your KB it seems only PVP you enjoy is the one pre-calculated.. So ganks, you can't PVP or plan a hot drop so you are asking CCP to help you out. Checks out perfectly.
Like the people crying to CCP to nerf cloacky camping & local.
Apparently not - a common practise at the moment is to sit by a control tower with the FF down and fighters assigned so that they can hit enter on the FF password dialog and be safe at the slightest sign of trouble which mean you need to get a ship in a position to bump them out (which potentially is considered an exploit at the moment anyhow). |
Idriane
Chaotic Tranquility Warp to Cyno.
3
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 17:22:36 -
[136] - Quote
Maby im just in a bad location but when i use my carrier to assist fighters my cap is anything but safe... 3 or 4 groups with i range of me could kill me easy if i mess up st all.....
|
colera deldios
278
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 17:44:32 -
[137] - Quote
Rroff wrote:colera deldios wrote:
Where did I even mention POS. I'm sure that I'm familiar with capitals & using assisted fighters much more than you are. Because so far only thing you have proved is that you are incompetent and judging by your KB I can see why.
The fact that you think that you need to cyno something on top of the super to bump it off the pos means you know jack ****. No wonder you are not competent enough to create a bookmark on top of a super on the edge of the pos with a cloacky and warp a machariel down to it.
In anycase it does not matter because looking at your KB it seems only PVP you enjoy is the one pre-calculated.. So ganks, you can't PVP or plan a hot drop so you are asking CCP to help you out. Checks out perfectly.
Like the people crying to CCP to nerf cloacky camping & local.
Apparently not - a common practise at the moment is to sit by a control tower with the FF down and fighters assigned so that they can hit enter on the FF password dialog and be safe at the slightest sign of trouble which mean you need to get a ship in a position to bump them out (which potentially is considered an exploit at the moment anyhow).
Where is that a common practice you mean because you saw brawe/test do it when they have 500 people around ? Because noone else is that stupid. Think you need to learn how to bowl using a cloacky ship and a 100Nomen or Mach or Orthus. Doing that is a death drap and no super alone or lone carrier will do that. Not even as par of a small group.
I have seen some pretty stupid people around EVE but I doub't anyone is that stupid. |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
1137
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 18:30:00 -
[138] - Quote
colera deldios wrote: BUT: I agree that it's bit to much DPS coming out of these. They should make it so that only ships bonuses transfer to drones when you assign them not the module bonus as well (tracking enhancer, link, damage amp, nav..)
Leaving out anything to do with pos's, the fact you even say that suggests its op as hell (potentially broke) and should be toned down.
Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
597
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 19:01:58 -
[139] - Quote
The DPS would be A-OK if these things were at risk at a level suitable for the reward being reaped.
The fundamental argument about it being "balanced" is a) their cost and b) relying on massive pilot stupidity to even stand a chance to lose it. Those two are usually the last straws grasped at by employers of hideously overpowered junk. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
880
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 19:25:36 -
[140] - Quote
colera deldios wrote:
Where is that a common practice you mean because you saw brawe/test do it when they have 500 people around ? Because noone else is that stupid. Think you need to learn how to bowl using a cloacky ship and a 100Nomen or Mach or Orthus. Doing that is a death drap and no super alone or lone carrier will do that. Not even as par of a small group.
I have seen some pretty stupid people around EVE but I doub't anyone is that stupid.
Bring cloaky in = they go on higher alert.
Bring machariel or something in and it gets tackled on gate by ceptor, rapier/huginn, etc. with assigned fighters.
Not saying there aren't ways around it potentially - especially if you live in an area or are there regularly and know someone doing it regularly but for the most part unless they get sloppy they are pretty much as safe as if they were docked in a station (not quite but close).
It seems to me like your ~2 months behind the curve as some things have changed in recent patches and/or the way people have been doing things has changed since those patches but most of your posts appear (atleast how I'm reading them) to be based around how things were before those patches. |
|
colera deldios
278
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 19:30:03 -
[141] - Quote
corbexx wrote:colera deldios wrote: BUT: I agree that it's bit to much DPS coming out of these. They should make it so that only ships bonuses transfer to drones when you assign them not the module bonus as well (tracking enhancer, link, damage amp, nav..)
Leaving out anything to do with pos's, the fact you even say that suggests its op as hell (potentially broke) and should be toned down.
I don't think they are OP not by a long shot in fact unless used in this niche scenario they are pretty weak. If you take away the DPS, tracking or speed from them than you really put the ship into most useless husk. Even if you have a 10-15 supers on field + Triage and a support fleet the DPS from supers can be whiped off the field in matter of minutes you Lazerhawks friends demonstrated that very well when they killed 2/10 of our supers.
They are OP in this single isolated scenario when assigning fighters from a safe location to subcaps. Titans & Supers have already been nerfed so much it's an insult to players who own them especially now with force projection changes in flace.
You also need to consider something fundamental about eve.. griefing for tears. If someone put 30-35b out and risks loosing it (and you are every time you are outside shields and with awoxers/spies even inside poses) than that person should get something in return for that risk and investment both SP & ISK tho it should not be a godlike feature.
The tactic is valid it allows those with less numbers or a solo person to fight againt bigger odds. However I do stand by the statement that the damage output combined with bonuses of drone mods transfering with assigned drones make them very OP in this scenario.
It would make sense for Fighters to recieve the host ships bonus for them when assigned but not the modules fitted to the host ship. This would mean that to compensate for tracking/speed loss people who have them assigned would have to rely on their skills to web/paint/scram their targets.
In any case this is such a small issue it's eclipsed by far by other things that do in fact give a massive advantage.
Tho I agree about the stats when assigned. I stil think this is one of the smallest of problems, first I have been on the giving end and recieveing end in this scenario. I have almost lost my super and I have gotten some succesful kills.
- It's incredibly easy to kill assigned fighters
- It's even easier to remove them off the field by pulling them off
- It's even easier to outrun them
- When fighting a gang using these you can chose one of the 3 above or you know simply jump into the next or previous system and fight them there where they can't use fighters anymore.
All I see is incompetent people who are not interested in quality PVP or PVP at all for that matter, but rather in safe and calculated ganks with minimal risk or skill investment asking CCP to do the work for them instead of dealing with the situation them selves as wast majority has done.
This issue is on par with people crying about cloacky campers as well as with people crying about there being a local chat or not-delayed local chat in 0.0. Their message is pretty simple: we are to incompetent to learn or invest into building a trap so we wan't CCP to nerf things which in reality are pretty balanced.
And yet theres people out there getting super & titan kills playing WTB forum or tracking a know target for some time. There's people who learned how to use a dscan and get 2-3 carrier kills each day even with the insane amount of intel out there.
If you look at any even somewhat competent alliance none of them have ever had a problem getting a fight or getting a carrier kill in 0.0 because of the local or executing a trap for a super or a titan. It's plain incompetence crying out for CCP to make it easier for them.
|
colera deldios
278
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 19:33:30 -
[142] - Quote
Rroff wrote:
Bring cloaky in = they go on higher alert.
Bring machariel or something in and it gets tackled on gate by ceptor, rapier/huginn, etc. with assigned fighters.
Not saying there aren't ways around it potentially - especially if you live in an area or are there regularly and know someone doing it regularly but for the most part unless they get sloppy they are pretty much as safe as if they were docked in a station (not quite but close).
It seems to me like your ~2 months behind the curve as some things have changed in recent patches and/or the way people have been doing things has changed since those patches but most of your posts appear (atleast how I'm reading them) to be based around how things were before those patches.
No one but you your self can help your self get better. When you have a fleet of 6-10 people jump in especially with a suprise element as is with WH entities no one will notice or care about the lone bomber and you don't need a machariel at all, 100Mn Nomen, Orthus, 100Mn Thorax...
I mean you only have to open Zkillboard and you will find a crap ton of people perfectly executing traps. Small enetities traping larger while bathphoning for help. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
880
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 19:40:29 -
[143] - Quote
colera deldios wrote:
- It's incredibly easy to kill assigned fighters
- It's even easier to remove them off the field by pulling them off
- It's even easier to outrun them
- When fighting a gang using these you can chose one of the 3 above or you know simply jump into the next or previous system and fight them there where they can't use fighters anymore.
^^ All ignoring that the fighters aren't there on there own but usually accompanied by something like a ceptor, recon, etc. so the person they are set on can't just warp off to pull them away from the gang, can't outrun them and can't kill them quick enough to win the war of attrition. |
IIFraII
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
32
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 19:40:48 -
[144] - Quote
Colera dude, check your facts, seriously. The golden era when tier3 bc's outrun fighters while blapping them is long gone. Now they do 2500ms when they come out of the factory, before skills are applied.
But enough of this. You fail to properly make a counterargument. Example: back when hurricanes where basically outdating all cuisers and battlecruisers, maybe except for drake, and for cost effectiveness even battleships, did the possibility of countering them by, say, drop n+1 battleships on top of them, remove the unbalance factor? No.
In an era when even post nerf off-grid links are frowned upon by most, all your arguments do not prove that what basically are off-grid dps links should stay in the game.
|
Syrias Bizniz
Krautfleet Warp to Cyno.
392
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 20:18:50 -
[145] - Quote
Haven't tried this yet, of course, but as you said most people utilize the Minnie Fighters for this. Even if they'd switch, what i am going to propose as a counter is ~70 seconds away from adapting to a new situation.
Blackbirds, exactly ONE per hostile ship with fighters assigned. Now, don't get me wrong. I know if you jam the ships the fighters will **** you.
That is why you will jam the fighters. 18 sensor strength per fighter, that's less than some ships that get perma jammed by 5x EC300. The tricky part for the Fighter-Assisted dudes is to ACTUALLY REALIZE THIS. This will not only dwindle their dps, this will also cause them to waste crucial seconds of their timespan they have before something else you brought with you will catch them and insert various different-shaped things into their scrotums at high velocity.
|
colera deldios
278
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:01:24 -
[146] - Quote
IIFraII wrote:Colera dude, check your facts, seriously. The golden era when tier3 bc's outrun fighters while blapping them is long gone. Now they do 2500ms when they come out of the factory, before skills are applied.
But enough of this. You fail to properly make a counterargument. Example: back when hurricanes where basically outdating all cuisers and battlecruisers, maybe except for drake, and for cost effectiveness even battleships, did the possibility of countering them by, say, drop n+1 battleships on top of them, remove the unbalance factor? No.
In an era when even post nerf off-grid links are frowned upon by most, all your arguments do not prove that what basically are off-grid dps links should stay in the game.
What you miss is that they MWD to you drop out of MWD lock you and then shoot you by that time you are already out of range of their optimal. I fly a navy brutix which is slow as a brick https://zkillboard.com/kill/43327837/
It easily outruns Fighters from a Nyx. 100mn setups are even better any kiting setup. I always try to view things from both sides perspectives. I agree that it would make sense only ships bonused to apply to assigned drones and not the bonus from active & passive modules while assisted this would nerf their tracking, speed and dps but would still be potent if you got web/scramed.
|
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
61
|
Posted - 2014.12.23 22:54:05 -
[147] - Quote
colera deldios wrote:They are OP in this single isolated scenario when assigning fighters from a safe location to subcaps.
Friend, this is really all that were contending. Given that you're happy to admit the tactic is OP, I think youre taking a needlessly childish attitude to this discussion. Calling us bads isn't going to change the veracity of our arguments, and everyone worth caring about knows that what KICK is about is quality PvP. |
Sean Parisi
Fugutive Task Force A T O N E M E N T
584
|
Posted - 2014.12.26 14:38:09 -
[148] - Quote
Somehow I get the feeling most the people who are defending this are ratters who have finally drawn blood through a broken op and riskless mechanic. Kill the drones? Had a fleet of cruisers flying through Lowsec Blackrise and almost got alphaed from the first volley
How about risking your ship like the rest of us. It can sure as hell bring 20 bil worth of awesome. But not when you can flick a pos bubble and laugh.
I get it. You rat all day, you want to feel powerful. Having your super risklessly destroy everything reminds you of bashing people in World of Warcraft 89 levels lower then you. But I bet if they nerfed this tactic and you brought your carrier on grid . These people who need to "htfu" as you say.. they would destroy your precious ship. |
4Jane Ashpool
DATASTORM Industries Overclockers Podpilot Services
1
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 09:11:02 -
[149] - Quote
colera deldios wrote: I don't think they are OP not by a long shot in fact unless used in this niche scenario they are pretty weak. If you take away the DPS, tracking or speed from them than you really put the ship into most useless husk. Even if you have a 10-15 supers on field + Triage and a support fleet the DPS from supers can be whiped off the field in matter of minutes you Lazerhawks friends demonstrated that very well when they killed 2/10 of our supers.
They are OP in this single isolated scenario when assigning fighters from a safe location to subcaps. Titans & Supers have already been nerfed so much it's an insult to players who own them especially now with force projection changes in flace.
So you're basically saying that you agree with the OP but you disagree with something that the OP never brought up? Why did it take you two pages of ****posting to arrive at that conclusion?
colera deldios wrote: (snip, some crap about a battlecruiser outrunning fighter from a max dps/dcu super/carrier)
Oh, that didn't last long, back to your old ****posting ways :( |
General Guardian
The Guardian Knights AXIOS.
119
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 11:05:57 -
[150] - Quote
Oh, was just browsing and wanted to add my input.
https://zkillboard.com/kill/43482414/
There's nothing wrong with this mechanic because dual tanked domis are actually better off in Eve "Heaven" |
|
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
67
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 11:20:41 -
[151] - Quote
General Guardian wrote:Oh, was just browsing and wanted to add my input. https://zkillboard.com/kill/43482414/ There's nothing wrong with this mechanic because dual tanked domis are actually better off in Eve "Heaven"
Triple tanked indeed! I will happily agree that in this one case those fighters done good :P |
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
5
|
Posted - 2014.12.30 15:21:17 -
[152] - Quote
Cant agree more with the op, fighters need to get a nerf, super cap has never been intended to be sub cap killers.
https://beta.eve-kill.net/kill/40820639/
Jumped in by- with 6 ppl (dead end) abaddon on gate, we engage this, loki uncloak our inty get one shooted by fighters, we w/o, onyx land drop his bubble with a carrier to remote.
During this time we had fighters behind us, tried to kill one of them :
[ 2014.08.22 23:18:55 ] (combat)3259 Shtornald Templar Wrecks
While i was at full speed without MWD, without being web nor paint.
As we couldnt DC, we had to try to gtfo, try to burn through the onyx's bubble = death.
So what are we supposed to do in front of this ?
Try to catch those nyx which are stick to their FF ? Srly...
Kill those fighters which are destroying ya if they land on you ?
Definetly over-powered, and hope that CCP will bring an answer to this tard situation where we can't roam in some systems because of this sh... |
Zen Guerrilla
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
310
|
Posted - 2015.01.04 19:01:39 -
[153] - Quote
You wanna assign fighters? Put that capital on the field. Simple as that.
Risk vs. reward.
pew pew
|
Captain Trololol
High Flyers The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 15:44:17 -
[154] - Quote
why would CCP even think of nerfing fighters? these wormhole noobs complaining and it will only lead to fighters becoming un-useable again like they where for so long. CCP should be nerfing the ishtar not fighters csm is a joke for even bringing this up |
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 15:50:58 -
[155] - Quote
From what I can tell, it's only the guys who don't have much success in killing supers who are giving up the tears here.
If you want to come roaming into our Sov (or anyone's sov) space, you better be prepared to pay the price. We have invested gargantuan amounts of time and isk into these ventures, and because you lowsec roamers and hisec scrubs want to come get super kills we should have no defense against you? Get real.
Fighters ARE frigate sized. They should be able to facerape subcapitals with huge ass sausages for reasons.
It's not a broken mechanic, Works As Intended(tm)
Now put down the bong and get back to real life.
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Penna Bianca
High Flyers The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 15:52:15 -
[156] - Quote
Zen Guerrilla wrote:You wanna assign fighters? Put that capital on the field. Simple as that.
Risk vs. reward.
This makes no sense why even have an Assist feature then ? If you are on field against a know gang with nothing in range to drop you being on field changes nothing... If you are on field you have 250km range and more fighters will still engage even if you drift out of host ships lock range.
Supers are already only viable in very high TIDI were subcaps have harder time to kill them off the field. In small groups or alone they are pretty much useless since it's pretty easy to defang them and then it's just a matter of bumping them apart and slowly killing them one by one. Go ask Lazerhawks how they did it.
Titans have already been nerfed to uselessnes outside of a very narow scope of scenarios as were supers to a point they are nothing more than a gloryfied ratting carrier and even that is now pretty crap. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
640
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 16:04:30 -
[157] - Quote
Remind me one more time why OGB are unacceptable, crappy mechanics and getting written out ASAP but off grid DPS is somehow "ok"? |
Shadey DarkPaw
High Flyers The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 16:17:15 -
[158] - Quote
fighters assigning is working as intended people are complaining that they are op they really are not simple to counter if you have half a brain just web a fighter burn away and apply dps to the fighter. these threads made by incompetent people will just make CCP nerf fighters till they become useless |
Mister Pirate
HIFI INDUSTRIAL The Kadeshi
4
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 16:20:55 -
[159] - Quote
people like me need fighters to defend mining barges with the changes that are on sisi i wont be able to kill the frigs before they scram me |
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 16:22:09 -
[160] - Quote
...just be happy we can only assign 5 of the (up to) 15 fighters that supers can deploy (with appropriate skills and modules).
again...
Works As Intended(tm)
#leavefightersalone
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
|
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
13
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 16:22:26 -
[161] - Quote
So many non-factors are posting here... i love it. |
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 16:25:32 -
[162] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:So many non factors are posting here... i love it.
Non factors?
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 16:29:07 -
[163] - Quote
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:Vadeim Rizen wrote:This "tactic" lame as it may be IS balanced. Take the fight in a different system. It's no different than rushing into a fight and seeing 5 friends warp in for assistance. If you take the fight without looking around system then you open yourself up to the attack. If you suspect someone is doing that, don't take the fight in said system.
I've never used the tactic as it is quite petty, but is not over-powered as it is so easily countered. It's not balanced if you have to never engage it. Why should a ship be able to lock a small fleet out of a system without ever having to leave the safety of its POS?
As the super, or carrier for that matter, I have no direct interaction with anything off grid. Only the on grid ship has any interaction.
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
13
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 16:34:55 -
[164] - Quote
Panther X wrote:Daide Vondrichnov wrote:So many non factors are posting here... i love it. Non factors?
Useless people, ppl that dont count, that are not revelant.
Coz that's what you are right now, Denying obvious facts just to keep alive your "I WIN" button. |
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 16:39:22 -
[165] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:
Definetly over-powered, and hope that CCP will bring an answer to this tard situation where we can't roam in some systems because of this sh...
It's kind of funny to hear you say that. Do you think that you would have won if the two nyx's dropped on grid with you in that Onyx bubble of death?
So you can't roam in NA.'s space because your skerred of nyx drops?
Kinda sounds like you need to up your game a bit. Take some examples from other groups like Lazerhawks. Those guys aren't skerred of nuthin. I respect them for that.
But for you crying because you "can't roam...because of this sh..." and that's an exact quote mind you, that's just delicious delicious tears from someone who really should just go back to ninja salvaging and can flipping newbs in hisec.
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 16:41:38 -
[166] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:Panther X wrote:Daide Vondrichnov wrote:So many non factors are posting here... i love it. Non factors? Useless people, ppl that dont count, that are not revelant. Coz that's what you are right now, Denying obvious facts just to keep alive your "I WIN" button.
Youmadbro?
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
14
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 17:00:10 -
[167] - Quote
Panther X wrote:
It's kind of funny to hear you say that. Do you think that you would have won if the two nyx's dropped on grid with you in that Onyx bubble of death?
So you can't roam in NA.'s space because your skerred of nyx drops?
Kinda sounds like you need to up your game a bit. Take some examples from other groups like Lazerhawks. Those guys aren't skerred of nuthin. I respect them for that.
But for you crying because you "can't roam...because of this sh..." and that's an exact quote mind you, that's just delicious delicious tears from someone who really should just go back to ninja salvaging and can flipping newbs in hisec.
Roaming in some systems ? Yes that's a fact.
Then someone like you talking about roam is funny, while you are just x'ing up for blob fleet is also funny but meh, i'm not allowed to troll ya here.
Then talking about Lazerhawks, (they must be proud btw), if you are talking about how they dunked you supers (Srly...), they would have never tried that if it wasnt sure that PL was ready to back up them.
If you talk about this one https://beta.eve-kill.net/br/373/ you would notice than he was tackled in anom, without any subcap back up, then yes it's a situation what you can handle, and even without subcap they were able to lose some ishtars... (Gz to them anyway), Then if those "honest anom-farmers" would have bring subcaps with their carriers as back up, LZX would have call back up for more ppl in other WH corps.
(See i dont hate you, i'm even learning you how this game works)
Panther X wrote:Daide Vondrichnov wrote:Panther X wrote:Daide Vondrichnov wrote:So many non factors are posting here... i love it. Non factors? Useless people, ppl that dont count, that are not revelant. Coz that's what you are right now, Denying obvious facts just to keep alive your "I WIN" button. Youmadbro?
You're calling me mad when you are bringing alliance mates in this thread, to have more props to your idea ?
C'mon |
Guntact
Guntact Professionals
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 17:04:09 -
[168] - Quote
At first I had an eloquent reponse to this OP; however, I decided not to dignify the utter uselessness of this post by responding with any other coherent thought except to say, "NO".
Leave my fighters alone and give me sentries back! |
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
14
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 17:06:18 -
[169] - Quote
Guntact wrote:At first I had an eloquent reponse to this OP; however, I decided not to dignify the utter uselessness of this post by responding with any other coherent thought except to say, "NO".
Leave my fighters alone and give me sentries back!
Supers are not supposed to be able to kill subcaps that easily, that's why they have been nerfed. But CCP didnt seen that those supers, post-drone change, would get fighters with 0.5 rad/s tracking. |
corbexx
eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred
1146
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 17:08:28 -
[170] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:Guntact wrote:At first I had an eloquent reponse to this OP; however, I decided not to dignify the utter uselessness of this post by responding with any other coherent thought except to say, "NO".
Leave my fighters alone and give me sentries back! Supers are not supposed to be able to kill subcaps that easily, that's why they have been nerfed. But CCP didnt seen that those supers, post-drone change, would get fighters with 0.5 rad/s tracking.
You'll get them higher than 0.5, more like 0.737rad/s which is pretty crazy
Corbexx for CSM X - Wormholes still deserve better
|
|
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 17:16:30 -
[171] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:
You're calling me mad when you are bringing alliance mates in this thread, to have more props to your idea ?
C'mon
Well when an idea is a bad one, which this is, we can't just sit idly by while others make our decisions for us. And for the record, yes, I will make sure that my alliance can express our opinion as well. What's wrong with that? Sheesh.
I don't always fly in roams, but when I do..
It's always funny to hear the word BLOB tossed around like it's a curse or verbotten to fly in a big group.
Is it a blob when there are 27 of you dropping on 1 of them? No, that's a target of opportunity. Is it a target of opportunity when you get blobbed solo by 27 guys? Yeah sure, why not?
That's not an argument, that's an opinion, and just like any opinion, they are like butts. They usually stink and are full of crap.
So if you want to call us a blob because we fly in big groups think about where we live. We live outside of Russian lowsec and Fountain. In between Lowsechnaya and Goons. If you don't fly at least 100+ in a fleet, there's 125 somewhere else looking for you.
So come on now, don't resort to trolling your way versus ours. The changes you are proposing to supers have nothing at all to do with anything other than the fact that you are scared to roam in someone's space who owns them cause you don't like getting pwned by power blocks who can afford them and aren't afraid to use them.
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
15
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 17:19:02 -
[172] - Quote
Panther X wrote:aren't afraid to use them.
You made my day... |
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 17:21:20 -
[173] - Quote
corbexx wrote:Daide Vondrichnov wrote:Guntact wrote:At first I had an eloquent reponse to this OP; however, I decided not to dignify the utter uselessness of this post by responding with any other coherent thought except to say, "NO".
Leave my fighters alone and give me sentries back! Supers are not supposed to be able to kill subcaps that easily, that's why they have been nerfed. But CCP didnt seen that those supers, post-drone change, would get fighters with 0.5 rad/s tracking. You'll get them higher than 0.5, more like 0.737rad/s which is pretty crazy
That it is. But that also comes at price, losing tank. Also remember that the fighter is by all intensive purposes, a frigate sized drone. Why should it not be able to attack subcapital ships? That's what frigates do. I think here is where the whole crux of the argument falls apart.
Why can a piloted frigate sized ship NOT attack other subcapital ships?
If you do not answer that question, then you cannot expect the mechanic to change.
If you want supers to only be able to attack capital class ships them nerf them out of existence like titans have been and make them only carry fighter bombers. Delete fighters altogether. Then we can go back to Ishtars online.
That's the point no one has addressed isnt it?
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Guntact
Guntact Professionals
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 17:25:04 -
[174] - Quote
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote: ... 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 ...
Ok, the OP in itself is bunk, but an underlying point is well taken...the tower mechanic does need attention. Simply clicking a button to get safe in the FF is ridonkulous!
Leave my fighters alone and give me sentries! |
Penna Bianca
High Flyers The Kadeshi
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 17:25:35 -
[175] - Quote
corbexx wrote:Daide Vondrichnov wrote:Guntact wrote:At first I had an eloquent reponse to this OP; however, I decided not to dignify the utter uselessness of this post by responding with any other coherent thought except to say, "NO".
Leave my fighters alone and give me sentries back! Supers are not supposed to be able to kill subcaps that easily, that's why they have been nerfed. But CCP didnt seen that those supers, post-drone change, would get fighters with 0.5 rad/s tracking. You'll get them higher than 0.5, more like 0.737rad/s which is pretty crazy
You can only do that with Einherji and you need 3x Faction TE + 3x Faction Omnilinks + TS. But than anything < BS hull with mwd or oversized ab can outrun your fighters. Also what happened to simply jumping out to another system or setting up a trap or getting an awoxer, seems to work for most people capable of thinking like a normal person?
It seems like what you want is that people who invested time and isk and sp into supers to have nothing left which is not ok by any account. To me what it looks like is that you want easy kills ie. Ganks which is not suprising since that's what WH enviroment is basically less PVP and more of Gank.
I'm not a biggest fan of supers but I think that we have already nerfed them to the point of uselessnes. As someone who is representing players you should try and take a look at the subject from the perspective of both sides instead of pushing for something soley because you dislike it.
|
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 17:37:45 -
[176] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:Panther X wrote:aren't afraid to use them.
You made my day...
I live to make people's day. You should see my memes.
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 17:51:47 -
[177] - Quote
Look at it this way.
Fighters do **** bugger all damage against deployables, capital ships and structures. Might as well use sentries. Only fighter bombers have real applied damage against those.
So; if fighters are not designed to attack those larger items, then they are doing exactly what they are designed for; attacking subcapitals.
Why shouldn't supers have fighters to defend themselves against subcapital ships (or to attack unsuspecting roamers)? Assigning only half at best the amount of their complement of drones (piloted ones at that) to in system fleet members is a tactic that works as designed. You can't assign fighter bombers.
If that mechanic is changed, then supers become, like titans, lawn ornaments only for the stupid rich and the crazy brave.
If you want to change something, then change Ishtars. They have really become the flavour of the month for fleet battles. Personally I hate them. But what else is there since jump range was nerfed?
Leave supers alone, CCP, you've already killed Supercapital force projection. Now let us keep our shinies at home, and blap these lowsec stains who come looking for easy kills
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Onteros
High Flyers The Kadeshi
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 17:53:46 -
[178] - Quote
idk what you all are crying about fighters and figterbombers are fine as is and is working as intended
it will just turn into a floating taxi again with no purpose again like it was a while back same like the titan was turned into a mobile jumpbridge therby turning it into a underused ship that seems to go against what the rebalancing of ships is all about ie getting people to USE THE SHIPS CCP PUT INTO THE GAME
Some points
if your worried about them scary fighters following you around in system easy burn back to gate and jump out and jump back into system wow them drones arnt following me around anymore wow magic wow man as crazy as that sounds it works yeah
if your worried about it being assisted to a cepter gues what that cepter only has max 2 points burn away and warp off man wow that works aswel if you cant do that you deserve to die because you are
A: BAD AT PVP B:TERRIBLY BAD AT PVP C:ALL OF THE ABOVE
ishtars is a problem. CCP should nerf em and nerf em hard let em use light and medium drones only.... did i just pick on one of the truely OP ships 9/10 of you guys fly oops my bad :)
**** seeing blob warfare seems something you guys always complain about as OP let em nerf that too yeah let fleets consist of only 3 squad members yeah because we cant think of better ways to fight
asking CCP to line your sandbox with bubblewrap isnt gonna make you any better at pvp ok fine it might save you from loseing some braincells from thinking to mutch but its just gonna chase more people away from the game wicth = less of the autistic ****** fights you want
point im getting at is eve is hard its supose to be that way if its to hard for you go play wow
enjoy your day |
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
15
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 17:53:57 -
[179] - Quote
Panther X wrote:blap these lowsec stains who come looking for easy kills
We're roaming to find ppl to fight, not our fault if you are easy to kill... |
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 17:59:14 -
[180] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:Panther X wrote:blap these lowsec stains who come looking for easy kills We're roaming to find ppl to fight, not our fault if you are easy to kill...
The Troll is strong with this one.
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
|
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
17
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 18:14:04 -
[181] - Quote
Don't talk about pvping while you're only able to push F1, The only kills in the past month where you were less than 15 on a kills are pod or shuttle... Non-factors gonna hate.
Then if you want to talk with us, about how things are, try to be relevant, thx. |
Onteros
High Flyers The Kadeshi
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 18:17:38 -
[182] - Quote
yeah well seeing that i can only have one toon for only this single account ccp alows me to have then yeah you got me there mate |
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
17
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 18:24:33 -
[183] - Quote
Onteros wrote:yeah well seeing that i can only have one toon for only this single account ccp alows me to have then yeah you got me there mate
So talk with your main. |
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
643
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 18:26:41 -
[184] - Quote
Penna Bianca wrote:corbexx wrote:Daide Vondrichnov wrote:Guntact wrote:At first I had an eloquent reponse to this OP; however, I decided not to dignify the utter uselessness of this post by responding with any other coherent thought except to say, "NO".
Leave my fighters alone and give me sentries back! Supers are not supposed to be able to kill subcaps that easily, that's why they have been nerfed. But CCP didnt seen that those supers, post-drone change, would get fighters with 0.5 rad/s tracking. You'll get them higher than 0.5, more like 0.737rad/s which is pretty crazy You can only do that with Einherji and you need 3x Faction TE + 3x Faction Omnilinks + TS. But than anything < BS hull with mwd or oversized ab can outrun your fighters. Also what happened to simply jumping out to another system or setting up a trap or getting an awoxer, seems to work for most people capable of thinking like a normal person? It seems like what you want is that people who invested time and isk and sp into supers to have nothing left which is not ok by any account. To me what it looks like is that you want easy kills ie. Ganks which is not suprising since that's what WH enviroment is basically less PVP and more of Gank. I'm not a biggest fan of supers but I think that we have already nerfed them to the point of uselessnes. As someone who is representing players you should try and take a look at the subject from the perspective of both sides instead of pushing for something soley because you dislike it.
Do you really think the risk presented by sitting under a one click away infini-tank are enough for the reward of fully off grid high DPS?
What I want is for people's reward to align to the risk. I don't think that is so much to ask. |
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 18:32:48 -
[185] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:Don't talk about pvping while you're only able to push F1, The only kills in the past month where you were less than 15 on a kills are pod or shuttle... Non-factors gonna hate. Then if you want to talk with us, about how things are, try to be relevant, thx.
Your guys just sit in Catch and blap BNI. How is that any better?
Really a forum admin should lock this guy before he starts going "I know you are but what am I?"
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
17
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 18:35:42 -
[186] - Quote
Panther X wrote:Daide Vondrichnov wrote:Don't talk about pvping while you're only able to push F1, The only kills in the past month where you were less than 15 on a kills are pod or shuttle... Non-factors gonna hate. Then if you want to talk with us, about how things are, try to be relevant, thx. Your guys just sit in Catch and blap BNI. How is that any better? Really a forum admin should lock this guy before he starts going "I know you are but what am I?"
Yep some of my corp mate are roaming in catch, and BRAVE are fighting us, props to them, that's better than sitting at the undock with a carrier. |
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
4046
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 18:39:08 -
[187] - Quote
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:TL:DR - fighter assist is OP vs subcaps, especially when using supers. You make a good argument. Instead of nerfing the scan resolution of Fighters and Fighter Bombers (apparently on SiSi), why not just eliminate drone assist altogether as has been suggested?
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
17
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 18:41:54 -
[188] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:TL:DR - fighter assist is OP vs subcaps, especially when using supers. You make a good argument. Instead of nerfing the scan resolution of Fighters and Fighter Bombers (apparently on SiSi), why not just eliminate drone assist altogether as has been suggested?
Removing Fighters assist would be an idea. |
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
28
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 18:43:53 -
[189] - Quote
This thread has gotten way off track and should be edited by Forum Admin.
The topic is Fighters and Off Grid Assist.
Now for something completely on topic plz.
The main points are that some people think that fighters are OP and need to be nerfed. The real question though should be what fighters are designed for, and should assist be allowed?
On one side we have the argument that fighters shouldn't be allowed to assist off grid, and it's a valid argument, since CCP is looking into killing off grid boosts. But don't let that distract you from the point that off grid activities are still necessary; Rorqual boosts, scanning, ping etc. But i digress.
The other side is that fighters, being frigate sized piloted drones should have offensive power against subcapital ships. The fighters themselves are subcapital ships. If they are removed from the supercapital equation, then they become like titans, irrelevant completely. Carriers will have their main DPS removed, and be relegated back to sentry boats.
Capital force projection has already taken a massive nerf in the jump drive changes. By neutering them completely it will remove them from the game as relevant operational ships.
But that's the argument.
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
18
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 18:50:30 -
[190] - Quote
Panther X wrote:This thread has gotten way off track and should be edited by Forum Admin.
The topic is Fighters and Off Grid Assist.
Now for something completely on topic plz.
The main points are that some people think that fighters are OP and need to be nerfed. The real question though should be what fighters are designed for, and should assist be allowed?
On one side we have the argument that fighters shouldn't be allowed to assist off grid, and it's a valid argument, since CCP is looking into killing off grid boosts. But don't let that distract you from the point that off grid activities are still necessary; Rorqual boosts, scanning, ping etc. But i digress.
The other side is that fighters, being frigate sized piloted drones should have offensive power against subcapital ships. The fighters themselves are subcapital ships. If they are removed from the supercapital equation, then they become like titans, irrelevant completely. Carriers will have their main DPS removed, and be relegated back to sentry boats.
Capital force projection has already taken a massive nerf in the jump drive changes. By neutering them completely it will remove them from the game as relevant operational ships.
But that's the argument.
Well removing Fighter assist will change nothing... You'll just have to stop hugging a forcefield and warp on the grid, is that a real problem ? Not for ya i guess, you're not afraid to commit super anyway.
And, ppl keep saying that super would be useless with the last patch but, look at it, yesterday PL moved dozens of supers to "fight".
Did the nerf that we are talking about here would have change anything ? No
Would they stop to use their super if you are nerfing their fighters assist ? No
Be relevant. |
|
IIFraII
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
32
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 07:57:28 -
[191] - Quote
Panther X wrote:
On one side we have the argument that fighters shouldn't be allowed to assist off grid, and it's a valid argument, since CCP is looking into killing off grid boosts. But don't let that distract you from the point that off grid activities are still necessary; Rorqual boosts, scanning, ping etc. But i digress.
So you agree that 1/2k dps assigned to a ship from off grid is complete bs, or not?
Panther X wrote: The other side is that fighters, being frigate sized piloted drones should have offensive power against subcapital ships. The fighters themselves are subcapital ships. If they are removed from the supercapital equation, then they become like titans, irrelevant completely. Carriers will have their main DPS removed, and be relegated back to sentry boats.
Capital force projection has already taken a massive nerf in the jump drive changes. By neutering them completely it will remove them from the game as relevant operational ships.
But that's the argument.
You are missing the middleground between fighters being rotflstomp-subcapitals capital weapons, and them being useless. This middleground is: them being good but with support needed to apply their damage.
I don't see why this is valid for capital gunships but shouldn't be for droneships.
|
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
72
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 08:15:03 -
[192] - Quote
Captain Trololol wrote:why would CCP even think of nerfing fighters? these wormhole noobs complaining and it will only lead to fighters becoming un-useable again like they where for so long. CCP should be nerfing the ishtar not fighters csm is a joke for even bringing this up
Nerf ishtars yes, but fighter assist too.
Quote:If you want to come roaming into our Sov (or anyone's sov) space, you better be prepared to pay the price. We have invested gargantuan amounts of time and isk into these ventures, and because you lowsec roamers and hisec scrubs want to come get super kills we should have no defense against you? Get real.
Please read the thread - arguments like this have been dealt with already.
Panther X wrote: As the super, or carrier for that matter, I have no direct interaction with anything off grid. Only the on grid ship has any interaction.
Exactly - this is completely wrong. If you, as a super pilot, want to affect a grid with your DPS then you should have to risk your ship by being on that grid.
Panther X wrote: That it is. But that also comes at price, losing tank.
The thing is, that loss in tank is completely irrelevant in the situations we're talking about, because the supers in question are POS tanking, which means they never even get shot at.
Let me make this clear: I have NO problem with on-grid supers roflpwning my fleet - if you use them that way it's totally fine. I only have a problem with totally safe max speed/dps/tracking supers POS tanking and assigning fighters to gatecamps. As you happily admit that that is BS here Panther X:
Quote:On one side we have the argument that fighters shouldn't be allowed to assist off grid, and it's a valid argument, since CCP is looking into killing off grid boosts
You are effectively shitting up the thread yourself by arguing against nerfs that the thread isn't proposing. And then hilariously telling other people off for doing that.
TL;DR; Not asking for fighters to be nerfed. Asking for the ability of supers to project DPS off grid in almost perfect safety to be nerfed. If you're going to argue against that then by all means lets hear what you want to say. If you want to argue against a fighter nerf i'm not even proposing, please start your own damn thread. |
Zukan
DATASTORM Industries Overclockers Podpilot Services
5
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 09:29:12 -
[193] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:Panther X wrote:aren't afraid to use them.
You made my day...
Me too, that was pretty funny! |
Lugh Crow-Slave
417
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 09:38:05 -
[194] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:
Removing Fighters assist would be an idea.
yes some people are abusing the system so rather than fixing it lets just remove it |
Hicksimus
Volatile Instability Resonance.
511
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 11:29:26 -
[195] - Quote
Capital ships are already VERY blob oriented, removing the feature that makes them appeal to the small guys is NOT a healthy change. Yeah, I've used my Archon a few times lately and fair enough call bias but my Talos costs half my flight of fighters, applies DPS to subcaps better and has more overall DPS than the 5 I'm delegating to my alt.....almost as much raw DPS as 10 fighters.
Edit: Also worth mention is that I have a 2400m/s VNI with 850DPS and 40k ehp that can assist from on grid and not fear capture by the types of ships I'm fighting. I fail to see the problem with my carrier.
Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you?
Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.
|
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
22
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 11:51:53 -
[196] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Daide Vondrichnov wrote:
Removing Fighters assist would be an idea.
yes some people are abusing the system so rather than fixing it lets just remove it
So give us ideas abouut how it should.be fix. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
418
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 11:53:15 -
[197] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote: So give us ideas abouut how it should.be fix.
similar to what has already been posted many times in this thread and the ones b4 it
just make it so a carrier can't delegate control X distance from a POS or station |
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
22
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 12:00:39 -
[198] - Quote
Hicksimus wrote:Capital ships are already VERY blob oriented, removing the feature that makes them appeal to the small guys is NOT a healthy change. Yeah, I've used my Archon a few times lately and fair enough call bias but my Talos costs half my flight of fighters, applies DPS to subcaps better and has more overall DPS than the 5 I'm delegating to my alt.....almost as much raw DPS as 10 fighters.
Edit: Also worth mention is that I have a 2400m/s VNI with 850DPS and 40k ehp that can assist from on grid and not fear capture by the types of ships I'm fighting. I fail to see the problem with my carrier.
Carriers's fighters dps are "fine", super's aren't, but throwing fighters without risks is already a broken mechanic so... |
Lugh Crow-Slave
418
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 12:09:34 -
[199] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:
Carriers's fighters dps are "fine", super's aren't, but throwing fighters without risks is already a broken mechanic so...
there is no case where you can do this with out risk. thats not me saying i don't think there is a problem just not as big of one as people seem to think |
Penna Bianca
High Flyers The Kadeshi
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 12:50:45 -
[200] - Quote
Daide Vondrichnov wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Daide Vondrichnov wrote:
Removing Fighters assist would be an idea.
yes some people are abusing the system so rather than fixing it lets just remove it So give us ideas abouut how it should.be fix.
The only rational fix and even that is pretty crippling has been posted by colera deldios. Simply have assigned fighters only have base stats instead and not get bonuses from active modules while assigned meaning no boosts in dps or tracking or speed from the mods only what the hull gives..
But this suggestion to nerf fighter assist is pretty stupid and on the same level as people crying about there being a local in 0.0 and people crying about cloacky campers. All of you are simply incompetent fail people who refuse to adapt to the situation and instead cry and cry to CCP for nerfs.
People cry about cloacky campers rather than setting suprise fleet and bait them into a trap it's much easier to ***** on the forums. Competent people are never cloacky camped because camper will come once drop on them and loose their entire Blops fleet. Same goes for people crying they can't get PVP because 0.0 has local basically what they are saying is they are so fail that they do not want to PVP but want easy ganks so they want CCP to remove local to get easy ganks but they don't want to move to WH space because they are to inompetent and if they did they would have to PVP which they suck at.
People have demonstrated that with super good intel channels, alt eyes as well as bubbles and JB/Beacons it is incredibly easy like super easy to catch carrier and super carrier pilots if you have a least bit of skill.
And it's the same story here. Super carriers are only good in heavy TIDI in large groups in small groups against subcapitals they are pretty much fail/weak defang them and bump them and they are dead. Solo they are not even viable it used to be you could do driveby with super carriers now you can't even do that.
People have invested so much time, isk and sp to get these ships and now you incompetent shitlords come crying to have these ships nerfed even more when really they are in desperate need of a buff.
Fighter is a size of a Frigate so it makes sense it tracks well, only a supers fighters deal the damage you speak off and to get that you need to risk your super outside of a pos. You have to put 20b at risk to a competent person you can do this once sure you will catch him once and never again because next time he will have a trap ready for you.
And considering how super easy it is to spring such a trap and bump the super off the pos or get an awoxer into his alliance come back and bump him off there's multiple scenarios you can take.
In addition you mention this is a problem on a large scale. It's not I can think of 2 times in one year that we had massive number of people assign fighters from pos and since you could assist fighters from carriers I maybe once ran into someone having assigned fighters and I PVP all across EVE.
The message you convey is that you are to incompetent to PVP or think or you know just jump out of the system and fight the enemy on the other side where they have no fighters. From most of your killboards it's evident that you people are not interested in PVP but in easy risk calculated ganks. |
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 13:02:31 -
[201] - Quote
I suppose for any off-grid support issues to be fixed CCP will have to redefine the grid itself since the grid is of fixed size but can be extended via adding additional grids. That or simply apply control/assignment range to a fixed distance from the ship. That could also apply to boosting ships.
CCP could also ensure a force field for a POS goes up with the on lining of the POS. If a password is not supplied, some hilarity could be had with applying a default of 1234. ;)
Of course, that may ultimately be part of changing how POSes operate in the near future anyways. Imagine a POS without a force field.
Before you continue hounding CCP regarding assignment of fighters, do recall they are lowering the scan resolution for fighters and bombers. Read: longer lock periods - especially noticeable against small craft. |
Penna Bianca
High Flyers The Kadeshi
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 13:10:51 -
[202] - Quote
Petrified wrote:I suppose for any off-grid support issues to be fixed CCP will have to redefine the grid itself since the grid is of fixed size but can be extended via adding additional grids. That or simply apply control/assignment range to a fixed distance from the ship. That could also apply to boosting ships.
CCP could also ensure a force field for a POS goes up with the on lining of the POS. If a password is not supplied, some hilarity could be had with applying a default of 1234. ;)
Of course, that may ultimately be part of changing how POSes operate in the near future anyways. Imagine a POS without a force field.
Before you continue hounding CCP regarding assignment of fighters, do recall they are lowering the scan resolution for fighters and bombers. Read: longer lock periods - especially noticeable against small craft.
A simple session timer for onlining the pos will fix that. Want to be stupid and take down pos shield just to raise it up than add timer something like 3-5min. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 13:36:47 -
[203] - Quote
Penna Bianca wrote:Petrified wrote:I suppose for any off-grid support issues to be fixed CCP will have to redefine the grid itself since the grid is of fixed size but can be extended via adding additional grids. That or simply apply control/assignment range to a fixed distance from the ship. That could also apply to boosting ships.
CCP could also ensure a force field for a POS goes up with the on lining of the POS. If a password is not supplied, some hilarity could be had with applying a default of 1234. ;)
Of course, that may ultimately be part of changing how POSes operate in the near future anyways. Imagine a POS without a force field.
Before you continue hounding CCP regarding assignment of fighters, do recall they are lowering the scan resolution for fighters and bombers. Read: longer lock periods - especially noticeable against small craft. A simple session timer for onlining the pos will fix that. Want to be stupid and take down pos shield just to raise it up than add timer something like 3-5min.
Actually, If the POS is already online, it has gone through the onlining process. But the force field will automatically come back up even if you offline then online the POS. From memory I think you have to take the POS down first then go through the anchoring process again before you can get away with an onlined POS having no shield.
It means that, unless your opponent has several POSes just sitting there anchored, onlined, and never having the POS shield up, their strat works that initial time you warp to their POS and you have exhausted their ability to 'safely' assist another player.
Things like this are what make EVE so interesting: you don't know what you might be facing. You can fit for one set of circumstances and then find yourself prodded because of another set that intrudes on you.
Quite frankly I think the assignment of fighters/bombers is simply one of those extensions and seeing it removed would a further smothering and homogenizing of the game. |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
74
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 13:45:17 -
[204] - Quote
Penna,
First, please, chill the **** out. Stop calling us bads, shitlords, gankers and all that crap. We're just raising something that we think is a problem with the game, and frankly I did it pretty maturely. If you can't discuss it like an adult you're in the wrong game.
Next, re this:
Quote:In addition you mention this is a problem on a large scale. It's not I can think of 2 times in one year that we had massive number of people assign fighters from pos and since you could assist fighters from carriers I maybe once ran into someone having assigned fighters and I PVP all across EVE.
This is a problem people encounter daily. It will of course depend on your style of PvP whether you are affected by it; it's us small gang and solo pilots that bear the brunt. Don't believe me? Go check some killboards. From the amount of you in this thread opposing it, I'm guessing if I look up Kadeshi on eve-kill, Einherji is gonna be pretty high on the list of weapon systems used.
All the rest of your points, about the time it takes to get a super, about bumping them of the POS and simply leaving system have been addressed in the thread already. Although I will say that this:
Quote:The only rational fix and even that is pretty crippling has been posted by colera deldios. Simply have assigned fighters only have base stats instead and not get bonuses from active modules while assigned meaning no boosts in dps or tracking or speed from the mods only what the hull gives..
Would also be acceptable to me. I don't think Fighters should be able to be assigned off grid, but given that before those modules affected them they were defanged to the point that this wasn't a problem I'd be happy to go back to that situation instead. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
885
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 13:48:39 -
[205] - Quote
Petrified wrote: Actually, If the POS is already online, it has gone through the onlining process. But the force field will automatically come back up even if you offline then online the POS. From memory I think you have to take the POS down first then go through the anchoring process again before you can get away with an onlined POS having no shield.
It means that, unless your opponent has several POSes just sitting there anchored, onlined, and never having the POS shield up, their strat works that initial time you warp to their POS and you have exhausted their ability to 'safely' assist another player.
Things like this are what make EVE so interesting: you don't know what you might be facing. You can fit for one set of circumstances and then find yourself prodded because of another set that intrudes on you.
Quite frankly I think the assignment of fighters/bombers is simply one of those extensions and seeing it removed would a further smothering and homogenizing of the game.
You can also do *things* with fuel - though the setup time after a reset isn't insignificant but most of the people doing this have a few POSes scattered around a region/system and bounce between them anyway so as to minimise the risk of ever being caught or ambushed (which is pretty much non-existent unless they screw up badly or get lazy).
Warping to their POS is easier said than done - though you do have a chance with a covert ops or similar but generally they'll see that and adjust for it, sure once you've got a cloaky bouncing around the system they are more likely not to engage your other ships with fighters and safe up the super/carriers but that is easier to write on a forum than do in day to day roaming.
Most of the other things about jumping back out again, warping off, outrunning fighters, etc. just shows plain ignorance of what is being done or an attempt to shift focus from the issue.
The fighters themselves aren't the problem (though some people don't like them and/or crying about them) the problem is that people are able to contribute significant capabilities to the field without realistically putting themselves in harms way at all. Just having a few minutes delay on the FF coming up while not ideal from knock on effect perspective would resolve most of that issue - sitting on the edge of the FF isn't much better but atleast there is a realistic albeit slim chance of catching carriers that way, though most supers would get back inside the FF easily before stuff that could bump or web them could turn up. |
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
22
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 13:50:31 -
[206] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Daide Vondrichnov wrote:
Carriers's fighters dps are "fine", super's aren't, but throwing fighters without risks is already a broken mechanic so...
there is no case where you can do this with out risk. thats not me saying i don't think there is a problem just not as big of one as people seem to think
Well the main fact is that those carriers / supers are assining their drones at the edge of a forcefield, it means that you'll never be able to catch them.
So yeah there is no risks. |
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 14:10:26 -
[207] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Petrified wrote: Actually, If the POS is already online, it has gone through the onlining process. But the force field will automatically come back up even if you offline then online the POS. From memory I think you have to take the POS down first then go through the anchoring process again before you can get away with an onlined POS having no shield.
It means that, unless your opponent has several POSes just sitting there anchored, onlined, and never having the POS shield up, their strat works that initial time you warp to their POS and you have exhausted their ability to 'safely' assist another player.
Things like this are what make EVE so interesting: you don't know what you might be facing. You can fit for one set of circumstances and then find yourself prodded because of another set that intrudes on you.
Quite frankly I think the assignment of fighters/bombers is simply one of those extensions and seeing it removed would a further smothering and homogenizing of the game.
You can also do *things* with fuel - though the setup time after a reset isn't insignificant but most of the people doing this have a few POSes scattered around a region/system and bounce between them anyway so as to minimise the risk of ever being caught or ambushed (which is pretty much non-existent unless they screw up badly or get lazy). Warping to their POS is easier said than done - though you do have a chance with a covert ops or similar but generally they'll see that and adjust for it, sure once you've got a cloaky bouncing around the system they are more likely not to engage your other ships with fighters and safe up the super/carriers but that is easier to write on a forum than do in day to day roaming. Most of the other things about jumping back out again, warping off, outrunning fighters, etc. just shows plain ignorance of what is being done or an attempt to shift focus from the issue. The fighters themselves aren't the problem (though some people don't like them and/or crying about them) the problem is that people are able to contribute significant capabilities to the field without realistically putting themselves in harms way at all. Just having a few minutes delay on the FF coming up while not ideal from knock on effect perspective would resolve most of that issue - sitting on the edge of the FF isn't much better but atleast there is a realistic albeit slim chance of catching carriers that way, though most supers would get back inside the FF easily before stuff that could bump or web them could turn up.
Editing on an iPad can be annoying....
Nothing should ever be risk free. I agree there. But perhaps the issue is not so much in drone assignment than in POS FF mechanics. Perhaps that is what needs to be changed - I've always found the force field mechanic annoying given its lack of use on Stations.
In the end, if you are trailing a fleet designed to address carriers/suppers then once the issue with POS FF is addressed your only limitation is finding that carrier.
Think of it this way: your issue is similar to hobo jamming. The fix was not overly complicated and did little to impact dictors - the warp probe dies when they dock. CCP just really needs to fix the POS to prevent the equivalent of hobo jamming via carrier and FF. It would also fix boosting of any kind from a POS (rorqual pilots won't like it). Essentially you have to dock at a POS to have the benefit of it's shields and any aggression timer will prevent you from so doing. |
Lady Rift
What Shall We Call It
156
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 14:47:45 -
[208] - Quote
Petrified wrote:Rroff wrote:Petrified wrote: Actually, If the POS is already online, it has gone through the onlining process. But the force field will automatically come back up even if you offline then online the POS. From memory I think you have to take the POS down first then go through the anchoring process again before you can get away with an onlined POS having no shield.
It means that, unless your opponent has several POSes just sitting there anchored, onlined, and never having the POS shield up, their strat works that initial time you warp to their POS and you have exhausted their ability to 'safely' assist another player.
Things like this are what make EVE so interesting: you don't know what you might be facing. You can fit for one set of circumstances and then find yourself prodded because of another set that intrudes on you.
Quite frankly I think the assignment of fighters/bombers is simply one of those extensions and seeing it removed would a further smothering and homogenizing of the game.
You can also do *things* with fuel - though the setup time after a reset isn't insignificant but most of the people doing this have a few POSes scattered around a region/system and bounce between them anyway so as to minimise the risk of ever being caught or ambushed (which is pretty much non-existent unless they screw up badly or get lazy). Warping to their POS is easier said than done - though you do have a chance with a covert ops or similar but generally they'll see that and adjust for it, sure once you've got a cloaky bouncing around the system they are more likely not to engage your other ships with fighters and safe up the super/carriers but that is easier to write on a forum than do in day to day roaming. Most of the other things about jumping back out again, warping off, outrunning fighters, etc. just shows plain ignorance of what is being done or an attempt to shift focus from the issue. The fighters themselves aren't the problem (though some people don't like them and/or crying about them) the problem is that people are able to contribute significant capabilities to the field without realistically putting themselves in harms way at all. Just having a few minutes delay on the FF coming up while not ideal from knock on effect perspective would resolve most of that issue - sitting on the edge of the FF isn't much better but atleast there is a realistic albeit slim chance of catching carriers that way, though most supers would get back inside the FF easily before stuff that could bump or web them could turn up. Editing on an iPad can be annoying.... Nothing should ever be risk free. I agree there. But perhaps the issue is not so much in drone assignment than in POS FF mechanics. Perhaps that is what needs to be changed - I've always found the force field mechanic annoying given its lack of use on Stations. In the end, if you are trailing a fleet designed to address carriers/suppers then once the issue with POS FF is addressed your only limitation is finding that carrier. Think of it this way: your issue is similar to hobo jamming. The fix was not overly complicated and did little to impact dictors - the warp probe dies when they dock. CCP just really needs to fix the POS to prevent the equivalent of hobo jamming via carrier and FF. It would also fix boosting of any kind from a POS (rorqual pilots won't like it). Essentially you have to dock at a POS to have the benefit of it's shields and any aggression timer will prevent you from so doing.
The issue there is POS's have needed a change and CCP has admitted they do for years now and nothing has changed. It easier to go about it a different way than ask for POS's to be changed Those poor mechanics and functions will out live the game.
|
Tung Yoggi
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
50
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 16:01:58 -
[209] - Quote
I'm a forum fighter and i've been assigned to Daide to add some dps to his claim. Sadly my scan res has been nerfed very recently and can't lock HiFi posters fast enough; knowing them a wee bit, they are either docked or will form up 35 posters and then accuse you of running away from a perfectly decent forum fight. |
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
22
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 16:05:10 -
[210] - Quote
Tung Yoggi wrote:I'm a forum fighter and i've been assigned to Daide to add some dps to his claim. Sadly my scan res has been nerfed very recently and can't lock HiFi posters fast enough; knowing them a wee bit, they are either docked or will form up 35 posters and then accuse you of running away from a perfectly decent forum fight.
CSM Corbexx is already doomsdaying in island, i guess that our job is over. |
|
Korenchkin
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 16:07:37 -
[211] - Quote
Hicksimus wrote:Capital ships are already VERY blob oriented, removing the feature that makes them appeal to the small guys is NOT a healthy change. Yeah, I've used my Archon a few times lately and fair enough call bias but my Talos costs half my flight of fighters, applies DPS to subcaps better and has more overall DPS than the 5 I'm delegating to my alt.....almost as much raw DPS as 10 fighters.
Edit: Also worth mention is that I have a 2400m/s VNI with 850DPS and 40k ehp that can assist from on grid and not fear capture by the types of ships I'm fighting. I fail to see the problem with my carrier.
That's fine, that's using a carrier as it's intended. I don't think people are really up in arms about that, in fact quite the opposite for us. We've had pvp fit carriers enter engagements in null before, either on the wormhole or further away. They usually make for great fights, whether we've won, lost or it just got to be a standoff. We even had a great fight when mutliple carriers AND a Nyx got dumped on our small gang and stood our ground: http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/1kra05/br_when_a_solo_caracal_roam_turns_into_a_nyx_gank/ (granted, we called for help when they brought more capitals than we had cruisers on field)
It's when you start gank fitting it with a paper tank and parking it so you can use a "lol, nope" insta-forcefield-invulnerability-I-win button that it starts to smell a bit..... exploity. I imagine if something similar happened in an online FPS, say, camping in a closet with a sniper rifle able to shoot all the way across the level without needing line of sight, and you could make yourself invulnerable simply by shutting the closet door, it would get patched out prettty fast. |
Ikslagor
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
0
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 16:17:02 -
[212] - Quote
How is this even still a discussion? You want to apply your DPS, you should be on grid with the target. Period. End of Story. |
Daide Vondrichnov
SnaiLs aNd FroGs
22
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 16:20:39 -
[213] - Quote
Ikslagor wrote:How is this even still a discussion? You want to apply your DPS, you should be on grid with the target. Period. End of Story.
They dont want to let their "I win" button go away so they're bitching and we're trolling them, pretty fun when u're probing you should try. |
Samuel Wess
Torin Industries Happy Cartel
81
|
Posted - 2015.01.17 22:35:31 -
[214] - Quote
It's same as offgrid boosting, people will just stop using those accounts if the feature will be removed, cause nobody will bring a solo super on the gate into a small gang.
Walk into the club like "What up? I got a big cockpit!"
|
Jolly Archer
The Bremen Town Musicians Flex Point
1
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 14:52:18 -
[215] - Quote
Nerf assist fighters |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
890
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 15:44:02 -
[216] - Quote
Jolly Archer wrote:Nerf assist fighters
As far as fighters go just give em titan style sig scaling on weapons so they can't out damage the appropriate sized drones easily when used against sub battleship sized ships. (Sure they are frigate/cruiser sized vessels but they don't have a pod pilot at the helm directing gunnery ;)).
The main issue isn't fighters themselves its more the fact that someone can PVP ongrid in this manner while the investment that is putting the significant resources into the fight is pretty much immune to repercussion for all realistic intents and purposes. |
Ghaustyl Kathix
Rising Thunder
50
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 16:02:12 -
[217] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:But they did put 200M of assets on the field That amount of money is basically a HAC, and is quite a lot more effective than a single HAC.
Regarding similarities to an off-grid booster, that doesn't really compare. My corp's has occasionally used a properly-tanked booster for small-gang roams (and is usually on-grid for fights on gates). It's usually the tankiest thing in the fleet and doesn't attract as much attention as a capital would. If off-grid boosts were removed, then people would just properly tank their boosters and put them on-grid. |
Suitonia
Genos Occidere The Camel Empire
431
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 22:14:59 -
[218] - Quote
Against an attentive Carrier/Super pilot you can't kill fighters anyway, they disappear even if you have fighters tackled/scrammed. The super just recalls them and reassigns them, doing so costs 15 seconds of DPS~ roughly from that fighter (around 225 DPS) but saves the 20 million isk investment, the best way to think of each fighter is a max gank Taranis with no tackle, that has infinite warp strength and 10x the EHP. For 20 million isk I would love a Taranis that goes twice as fast, can't be tackled with 3x large shield extenders worth of extra HP.
There aren't many small roaming gangs that have the ships with the potential to alpha a 6km/s Einherji with 100m sig (Which is about as hard to hit as most Interceptors in the game), while also not getting one-shot by said Einherjis. You can track them when they are shooting some guy, but good luck having any ship in your small gang tank 3k DPS and 11.6k Alpha. they one-shot almost every single frigate/destroyer hull in the game, and gank-fit cruisers/attack BCs, while being fast enough to catch them, and able to track them, you require about 3-4 Scimitars to perma tank fighters (If you can survive the alpha). This is a stock T2 fit Thanatos we are talking about which costs only 800 million isk after insurance, including the fighters, should you, in the incredibly unlikely case, lose it. The reality is that a Skynet Thanatos actually costs about the same as a Tech 3 OGB booster alt does. While being significantly safer than one.
Here is a p. Cheap (for a super) Skynet Nyx Which gives over 2k DPS to up to 3 ships, which normally are dirt cheap disposable Stiletto/Hyena/Atron etc. Nyx Einherjis have the same effective hitpoints of a tanked battlecruiser, while being harder to hit than an interceptor until they're on a target, they can alpha almost every single nano Cruiser and below in the game, and 2 shot HACs and Recons, with almost 25k Alpha.
The risk of these ships dying is incredibly low. A properly fit POS hugging Skynet Carrier sits on the edge of the POS Force Field with a good bookmark, You have Agility rigs and MWD on, If anything comes in to tackle you, you reapproach the POS shields, and with a good bookmark you only have to clear about 40m or so, which takes about 4-5 seconds for a Thanatos in a gang. I have been part of a group who did this extensively in lowsec, and even had titans dropped on the Carriers multiple times, the Thanatos made it back into the forcefield and survived, the chance of anything realistically stopping you and killing you is incredibly low, even a Triple Web, Triple scan res rigged, triple signal amplifier Daredevil landing on your carrier and webbing you within 1-2 sec is not enough to stop you because of the Carriers high mass will allow you to slowboat into the POS, and again, carriers that the group I have been a part of have easily survived in this scenario with Cyno web daredevil which dropped 4 dreads (The daredevil died in about 10 seconds to the POS guns).
In null-sec this is even safer because you can cynojam the system, (I have seen multiple supers in dead-end ratting pockets in Delve/Querious/Esotoria) assigning fighters in this manner. A properly fit tower will shred almost any gang without capitals. Especially if they don't have 20 logis and <100 dudes which is normally what is required to take down a tower like this.
I would again, like to iterate, that even if you go through incredibly high effort, high risk (You are risking your own capitals to be esclated on at a hostile tower) for most likely little to no reward (The lowsec group I run with have never lost a Thanatos even though we have had it dropped on about 5 times, twice with titans). Then the cost of the Thanatos pilot after insurance is 800 million isk, which is equilvilant to a Faction Ratting Battleship, an Off-grid booster including mindlink, most semi-pimped T3 Cruisers, or a single Plex. And it only leaves about 400 million isk in the best case (Fighters+DCUs drop) for the enemy.
I think the fighter assist mechanic has to go because it's too easy to exploit it. Even if you add POS restrictions, it's possible to make this Thanatos Unprobable, just swap MWD for 1 ECCM, roll with HG Spurs, An unprobable Tengu with RECCM and Xinstinct booster. this adds an extra ship into the mix, and about another 1.2b of cost (Tengu + HG Spurs), but requires anyone to find you to need full set of MG Virtues on maxed T3/Covert Ops, which almost the entirety of small gangs don't have at their disposal, and would probably only bring if they can be assed to kill you if you used this unprobable trick many times and had you on their radar, the enemy needs to spend more on implants than for your loss in the worst case, and they must risk those implants, especially in 0.0, and still have the right gang/ships to kill the Thanatos.
You can also exploit this in another cheaper way, although it requires more effort. By probing a Signature, or easier, a mission (although this is limited to lowsec and NPC 0.0 constellations), burning in a 10mn MWD Confessor or a fast interceptor to the edge of the deadspace, about 15,000-20,000 off. You can test by just having gang mate/alt inside the plex/mission cloaked try to warp to you, if they get message about not being able to warp then you are not far enough, check this at 15,000km every 500km or so, once you are able to be warped too, bookmark the spot and burn back towards the mission, checking until you have a bookmark about 3-4km off the edge off the deadspace area, then, you bring your carrier alt into the bookmark, and slowboat it towards the mission/plex area, once inside, just do preliminary check to make sure if a gangmate trys to warp to it they land in the plex, then you're good to go. Even if a Snaked Linked 10mn Confessor/Malediction or something finds your mission/plex it takes them over 20 mins
Contributer to Eve is Easy:-á
https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos
Check out my PvP Rifter guide for new players;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YReUNRTGcXo
|
Suitonia
Genos Occidere The Camel Empire
431
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 22:30:04 -
[219] - Quote
Also more risk free tactics, slowly edge your way out of a POS shield in your Thanatos, assign your fighters, then warp to friendly POS that is a long warp away, assisted fighters will continue to perform even while your carrier is in-warp and invulnerable! a 50 au warp will take around 60 seconds in a Thanatos allowing your fighters to continue to assist your gang while you are invulnerable in your warp tunnel landing in a Friendly POS, where you can then eek your way out, recall, reassign, then warp back to the friendly POS you started from, with your fighters fighting, and again, completely invulnerable and risk free!
I think I've provided enough evidence why fighter assign has to go and completely breaks Risk:Effort:Reward
Make it on-grid only, still allow fighters to follow into warp. Fixed.
Contributer to Eve is Easy:-á
https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos
Check out my PvP Rifter guide for new players;
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YReUNRTGcXo
|
afkalt
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
677
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 22:55:40 -
[220] - Quote
Excellent posts above. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
890
|
Posted - 2015.01.18 23:17:00 -
[221] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:Also more risk free tactics, slowly edge your way out of a POS shield in your Thanatos, assign your fighters, then warp to friendly POS that is a long warp away, assisted fighters will continue to perform even while your carrier is in-warp and invulnerable! a 50 au warp will take around 60 seconds in a Thanatos allowing your fighters to continue to assist your gang while you are invulnerable in your warp tunnel landing in a Friendly POS, where you can then eek your way out, recall, reassign, then warp back to the friendly POS you started from, with your fighters fighting, and again, completely invulnerable and risk free!
I think I've provided enough evidence why fighter assign has to go and completely breaks Risk:Effort:Reward
Make it on-grid only, still allow fighters to follow into warp. Fixed.
Its not just about FF hugging or there would probably be less complaints about it - supers aside even with FF hugging there is a chance to catch a carrier, there are other techniques (some mentioned earlier in the thread) people are using which mean they are realistically pretty much immune unless they get really sloppy/epically screw up.
As per your longer post though just changing fighters to have sig damage scaling so they can't (short of some silly levels of webbing and painting) alpha away frigs, etc. with ease would make a massive difference. |
Dmitry Kuvora
WAR TEAM Flex Point
7
|
Posted - 2015.01.20 01:23:46 -
[222] - Quote
i'm a bit disappointed that CCP Rise was just blobed on o7 stream but not get raped by solo nano noobship with high grade snake + offgrid links +assisted nyx fighters |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
90
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 21:48:29 -
[223] - Quote
Looks like CCP agreed. |
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
674
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:10:23 -
[224] - Quote
Dmitry Kuvora wrote:i'm a bit disappointed that CCP Rise was just blobed on o7 stream but not get raped by solo nano noobship with high grade snake + offgrid links +assisted nyx fighters
He dishonorably hid inside the medium plex. He was brought to justice by ECM wisdom however.
RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
|
Ereilian
Mythic Inc Gentlemen's.Parlor
70
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:10:27 -
[225] - Quote
Another Low hanging Fruit brought to you by your CCP Nerf Overlords. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1116
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:19:50 -
[226] - Quote
Real sad that fighter warping had to go along with fighter assist.
+1 on removing assists, -1 on removing fighters warping when the carrier warps. |
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
92
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:25:07 -
[227] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Real sad that fighter warping had to go along with fighter assist.
+1 on removing assists, -1 on removing fighters warping when the carrier warps.
Yeah removing the warp entirely is not the direction I expected them to go, but meh. Without the assist its probably more hindrance than help to carrier pilots really, as if they forget about it then fighters chasing a warping ship means large periods where yhe carrier is doing no dps.
So, probably the right move. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1116
|
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:28:11 -
[228] - Quote
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:Anhenka wrote:Real sad that fighter warping had to go along with fighter assist.
+1 on removing assists, -1 on removing fighters warping when the carrier warps. Yeah removing the warp entirely is not the direction I expected them to go, but meh. Without the assist its probably more hindrance than help to carrier pilots really, as if they forget about it then fighters chasing a warping ship means large periods where yhe carrier is doing no dps. So, probably the right move.
Not if you also use a carrier for ratting, and warp to the next site without recalling fighters that are 125Km away. Really puts a cramp on things if I need to wait several minutes between each sites to retrieve all my fighters.
Yes I know this is completely shallow, but it's a rather annoying hit for reasons that it's difficult to understand.
Although I'd be fine with it if they could always follow their host ship in warp, but not pursue enemies to an unknown location. But if I can have someone warp to me in a fleet, I would think that my fighters could always return to the parent ship. |
Xiaosong Chen
Different Reality
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 02:02:55 -
[229] - Quote
As someone who is used to perversions like Ratting Supers i can totally get behind thoose changes. Its just totally ******** being able to do the DPS of an Super without putting said ship on grid, where it can realistically get tackled. To be honnest, that fighters wont follow you into warp anymore is probably a bit overkill, but it solves the risk free ratting with aligned carriers/supers, where you basically cant get cought. So its just risk vs reward, as it should be. And not making 150-300 mil per h without any real risk. (and it still wont be realy risky, if you have scouts and/or leave your fighters behind, but as fighters costs money, there certainly will be people getting cought, couse they didnt want to leave them behind^^) |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
278
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 03:16:39 -
[230] - Quote
Clearly Skynet is a risk free use of fighters and needs to be nerfed (as announced in the o7 Show today).
However, a uncomfortable development question comes up I believe: (as posed in Slack #csm)
"But what is unclear to me is why the addition to removing warp from fighters if they are already not going to be able to be assigned?"
If there is a clear reason CCP has for removing warp entirely from fighters, then please just be upfront and clear about it; otherwise, the perception is left of lazy fixes that simply relegate an iconic piece of EVE Online into obsolescence.
My thought is that the ability for fighters to warp after targets should remain - but an exception should be added that if a Carrier warps off grid, or enters warp at all, the fighters become "Abandoned"; and upon re-connection will auto return to the Carrier in the same system.
This will prevent Carrier groups warping in at a tactical on grid, dropping fighters and then leaving grid to Skynet at a POS (where anyone to think to do so).
That's my input, as I think CCP's announced nerf that also removes warp from fighters and turns them into giant lumbering drones is a over-reaching and misguided attempt to fix Skynet (which needs to be dealt with); but this is too broad, without clear enumeration by CCP as why this extra step is needed.
CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
|
|
Ramases Purvanen
EVEL Tendancies The Methodical Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 06:01:07 -
[231] - Quote
leave the assist fighters/bombers alone at least or have the ability to still be able to assign them to other capital ships and not subcaps.
this would solve the problem of people using them as extra dps on gate camps!
|
Ramases Purvanen
EVEL Tendancies The Methodical Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 06:03:00 -
[232] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Clearly Skynet is a risk free use of fighters and needs to be nerfed (as announced in the o7 Show today).
However, a uncomfortable development question comes up I believe: (as posed in Slack #csm)
"But what is unclear to me is why the addition to removing warp from fighters if they are already not going to be able to be assigned?"
If there is a clear reason CCP has for removing warp entirely from fighters, then please just be upfront and clear about it; otherwise, the perception is left of lazy fixes that simply relegate an iconic piece of EVE Online into obsolescence.
My thought is that the ability for fighters to warp after targets should remain - but an exception should be added that if a Carrier warps off grid, or enters warp at all, the fighters become "Abandoned"; and upon re-connection will auto return to the Carrier in the same system.
This will prevent Carrier groups warping in at a tactical on grid, dropping fighters and then leaving grid to Skynet at a POS (were anyone to think to do so).
That's my input, as I think CCP's announced nerf that also removes warp from fighters and turns them into giant lumbering drones is a over-reaching and misguided attempt to fix Skynet (which needs to be dealt with); but this is too broad, without clear enumeration by CCP as why this extra step is needed.
I agree with this, if the carrier goes into warp then the drones disconnect and wont reconnect until the carrier is out of warp. Also if the carrier is in a POS the fighters/bombers also become abandoned..
|
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
93
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:26:02 -
[233] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:Anhenka wrote:Real sad that fighter warping had to go along with fighter assist.
+1 on removing assists, -1 on removing fighters warping when the carrier warps. Yeah removing the warp entirely is not the direction I expected them to go, but meh. Without the assist its probably more hindrance than help to carrier pilots really, as if they forget about it then fighters chasing a warping ship means large periods where yhe carrier is doing no dps. So, probably the right move. Not if you also use a carrier for ratting, and warp to the next site without recalling fighters that are 125Km away. Really puts a cramp on things if I need to wait several minutes between each sites to retrieve all my fighters. Yes I know this is completely shallow, but it's a rather annoying hit for reasons that it's difficult to understand. Although I'd be fine with it if they could always follow their host ship in warp, but not pursue enemies to an unknown location. But if I can have someone warp to me in a fleet, I would think that my fighters could always return to the parent ship.
bwaaaah. I don't know - I don't really see why they should be treated differently from normal drones, so althought I wasn't advocating they be nerfed like that I'm also not upset that it's happened. They ought really to be treated simply as Capital sized versions of drones, and no other drone ship has the luxury of recalling its drones from off grid just because they had to leave. Imagine if Ishtars could get their Geckos back after being forced to leave grid.
|
Buzz Kill
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:17:21 -
[234] - Quote
Removing Assign fighters from carriers is a big mistake
you should drop the max assigned to 5 per ship instead of 50 if you really do remove the assign function from carriers you will need to quickly find a new useful way to use carriers as you have totally removed the whole reason I had to own a carrier.
they dont qualify for the 90% jump fatigue reduction that JF enjoy but you reduce carriers combat usefulness making them more and more a transport ship.
What is wrong with assigning fighters and doing some ratting? NOTHING Thats what
why break ratting.
I have recently been involved in a fight where the enemy had fighters assigned we still over came their numbers and made kills, telling 40 people to target fighters was a easy way to get the fighters to run to safety. as an added bonus we killed some of their expensive fighters worth more than some of their ships.
|
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
94
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 17:03:41 -
[235] - Quote
Buzz Kill wrote:Removing Assign fighters from carriers is a big mistake
you should drop the max assigned to 5 per ship instead of 50 you could add requirement of 25 bandwith per fighter if you really do remove the assign function from carriers you will need to quickly find a new useful way to use carriers as you have totally removed the whole reason I had to own a carrier.
they dont qualify for the 90% jump fatigue reduction that JF enjoy but you reduce carriers combat usefulness making them more and more a transport ship.
What is wrong with assigning fighters and doing some ratting? NOTHING Thats what
why break ratting.
I have recently been involved in a fight where the enemy had fighters assigned we still over came their numbers and made kills, telling 40 people to target fighters was a easy way to get the fighters to run to safety. as an added bonus we killed some of their expensive fighters worth more than some of their ships.
I disagree that there's nothing wrong with assigning fighters and ratting. You shouldn't be able to rat with your carrier without risking it in the site.
|
Jolly Archer
The Bremen Town Musicians Flex Point
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:04:04 -
[236] - Quote
Jolly Archer wrote:Nerf assist fighters
Thanks |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |