EVE Search - SKYNET.

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

SKYNET.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
maCH'EttE Mafia Redux Feign Disorder 143	Posted - 2015.02.19 13:49:45 - [1] - Quote Is skynet becoming a problem? Put your thoughts.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5864	Posted - 2015.02.19 13:55:24 - [2] - Quote My thoughts are my own, you cannot have them. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Godfrey Silvarna Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light 303	Posted - 2015.02.19 14:03:35 - [3] - Quote Skynet has always been just as silly as off-grid boosters. Nothing new in that. I fly Triage Archons. Skynet carrier pilots are pussies. I point my finger at you and laugh mockingly, you plebeians.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 894	Posted - 2015.02.19 14:16:40 - [4] - Quote Assuming your talking about what I think you are then the main problems are pretty simply sorted IMO by (somewhat arbitrarily) making it so that fighters can't be deployed within the normal FF radius of a POS whether its online or not and giving fighters titan style (with some changes to the parameters) damage scaling so that it is much harder for them to apply damage to smaller cruisers and downwards - with the right parameters this would (should) have no impact on their ability to hit bigger stuff (i.e. BCs and upwards).
Jin Kugu Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 20	Posted - 2015.02.19 14:19:34 - [5] - Quote Fighters should lose the effects of all modules on the carrier/super once they are assigned.
Godfrey Silvarna Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light 303	Posted - 2015.02.19 14:20:29 - [6] - Quote Rroff wrote: Assuming your talking about what I think you are then the main problems are pretty simply sorted IMO by (somewhat arbitrarily) making it so that fighters can't be deployed within the normal FF radius of a POS whether its online or not and giving fighters titan style (with some changes to the parameters) damage scaling so that it is much harder for them to apply damage to smaller cruisers and downwards - with the right parameters this would (should) have no impact on their ability to hit bigger stuff (i.e. BCs and upwards). I don't think that damage application from on-grid carriers is an issue. Fighters have sufficiently bad tracking and velocity if you cannot afford to fill all of your module slots with tracking enhancers and navigation computers. EDIT: The above suggestion by Jin isn't actually half-bad either. Skynet carriers are so effective exactly because they can forgot about tank and capaictor and fit an obscene amount of drone damage, navigation and tracking modules.
RomeStar BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP Brave Collective 568	Posted - 2015.02.19 15:06:32 - [7] - Quote Fighters seem to be fine in my book so I don't really know what the OP is complaining about. Signatured removed, CCP Phantom
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1078	Posted - 2015.02.19 15:29:51 - [8] - Quote RomeStar wrote: Fighters seem to be fine in my book so I don't really know what the OP is complaining about. http://puu.sh/g3jX2/fa783efa62.jpg You really want to try saying that again with a straight face. Yaay!!!!
maCH'EttE Mafia Redux Feign Disorder 143	Posted - 2015.02.19 15:50:27 - [9] - Quote RomeStar wrote: Fighters seem to be fine in my book so I don't really know what the OP is complaining about. Fine, I guess u are one of the dudes that assigns his drones to a insta lock frigate gate camping.
Tipa Riot Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 136	Posted - 2015.02.19 16:36:33 - [10] - Quote Can somebody please define the meme "SKYNET" in EvE? I know it is a reference to the Terminator movies, but I can't connect it to EvE ... I'm my own NPC alt.
Godfrey Silvarna Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light 303	Posted - 2015.02.19 16:49:56 - [11] - Quote Tipa Riot wrote: Can somebody please define the meme "SKYNET" in EvE? I know it is a reference to the Terminator movies, but I can't connect it to EvE ... Skynet is a fairly new new term for the fashionable tactic of assigning fighters or fighter bombers to small ships from the safety of a POS and using them as heavy DPS all over the system without putting the carrier or supercarrier at risk.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9825	Posted - 2015.02.19 16:51:11 - [12] - Quote Tipa Riot wrote: Can somebody please define the meme "SKYNET" in EvE? I know it is a reference to the Terminator movies, but I can't connect it to EvE ... It;'s a term some idjot or another applied to the fact that carriers can delegate control of fighters to other ships off grid while sitting in a safe/at a pos/on a station etc. The use of the term is to pretend something that has existed for a decade is somehow new and unbalanced when in reality it's old and the users of the term of butt hurt at some lose ....to an old game mechanic. Just like "drone assist", the users of the term misidentify the problem. Instead of putting the 'blame' where it belongs (on the inclusion of drone damage and tracking mods and buffing of Drone ships like the Ishtar, things that didn't exist in the past), the instead focus on the older game mechanics (Drone Assist, Fighter Delegation) and lose their minds. Mainly because they like drone bonuses and drone mods but don't like it when other people use those things to kill them in a blob or from afar. In other words, it's just the same old "those guys used something that killed me...ME of all people, Don't they know who the F$%^ I am? TO THE FORUMS to right this injustice!!!" crying we all shold be used to by now.
Godfrey Silvarna Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light 303	Posted - 2015.02.19 16:55:23 - [13] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: It;'s a term some idjot or another applied to the fact that carriers can delegate control of fighters to other ships off grid while sitting in a safe/at a pos/on a station etc. The use of the term is to pretend something that has existed for a decade is somehow new and unbalanced when in reality it's old and the users of the term of butt hurt at some loss ....to an old game mechanic. Just like "drone assist", the users of the term misidentify the problem. Instead of putting the 'blame' where it belongs (on the inclusion of drone damage and tracking mods and buffing of Drone ships like the Ishtar, things that didn't exist in the past), the instead focus on the older game mechanics (Drone Assist, Fighter Delegation) and lose their minds. Mainly because they like drone bonuses and drone mods but don't like it when other people use those things to kill them in a blob or from afar. In other words, it's just the same old "those guys used something that killed me...ME of all people, Don't they know who the F$%^ I am? TO THE FORUMS to right this injustice!!!" crying we all shold be used to by now. It is true that assigning fighters was a fringe tactic before drone stat boosting modules were a thing. Drone modules themselves are also not really a problem, since you need to compromise tank and capacitor to fit them on an on-grid carrier, which means it will die in a fire in an amusing and embarassing manner. It becomes a problem when you can fit a carrier for full damage and full damage application without ever putting it at risk, so you get fighters with unreasonably high tracking and damage without the tradeoffs you would otherwise have to suffer for those fitting choises.
Jack Hayson Atztech Inc. Ixtab. 98	Posted - 2015.02.19 16:56:57 - [14] - Quote Tipa Riot wrote: Can somebody please define the meme "SKYNET" in EvE? I know it is a reference to the Terminator movies, but I can't connect it to EvE ... Off grid fighter assist from regular carriers or supers. The carrier is usually positioned slightly outside of a POS force field so that he can get to safety almost instantly. (can also be sitting next to a freshly anchored tower that doesn't have a FF yet) Since the carrier isn't in any realistic danger of getting shot it doesn't need to fit tank and can instead fit for max drone damage and application, which in turn enables them to even hit frigs. The tactic itself has existed for a really long time, but it's relatively new that fighters get benefits from drone modules which enables them to apply insane dps even to small targets.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9825	Posted - 2015.02.19 17:10:09 - [15] - Quote Godfrey Silvarna wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: It;'s a term some idjot or another applied to the fact that carriers can delegate control of fighters to other ships off grid while sitting in a safe/at a pos/on a station etc. The use of the term is to pretend something that has existed for a decade is somehow new and unbalanced when in reality it's old and the users of the term of butt hurt at some loss ....to an old game mechanic. Just like "drone assist", the users of the term misidentify the problem. Instead of putting the 'blame' where it belongs (on the inclusion of drone damage and tracking mods and buffing of Drone ships like the Ishtar, things that didn't exist in the past), the instead focus on the older game mechanics (Drone Assist, Fighter Delegation) and lose their minds. Mainly because they like drone bonuses and drone mods but don't like it when other people use those things to kill them in a blob or from afar. In other words, it's just the same old "those guys used something that killed me...ME of all people, Don't they know who the F$%^ I am? TO THE FORUMS to right this injustice!!!" crying we all shold be used to by now. It is true that assigning fighters was a fringe tactic before drone stat boosting modules were a thing. Drone modules themselves are also not really a problem, since you need to compromise tank and capacitor to fit them on an on-grid carrier, which means it will die in a fire in an amusing and embarassing manner. It becomes a problem when you can fit a carrier for full damage and full damage application without ever putting it at risk, so you get fighters with unreasonably high tracking and damage without the tradeoffs you would otherwise have to suffer for those fitting choises. That means the problem is the tracking mods and ability of fighters to benefit from those, not the actual mechanic of fighter delegation (which is the thing everyone seems to want nerfed).
Noriko Mai 2063	Posted - 2015.02.19 17:19:19 - [16] - Quote Skynet is already active. Look up the amazon cloud incident on April 21st, 2011. It seems doing quite well on it's way to world domination. Come On Everybody, support Dark Opaque theme
Godfrey Silvarna Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light 304	Posted - 2015.02.19 17:22:38 - [17] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: That means the problem is the tracking mods and ability of fighters to benefit from those, not the actual mechanic of fighter delegation (which is the thing everyone seems to want nerfed). I am arguing that those modules are fine and well in balance when used in on-grid drone boats, including carriers. These are the conditions ships should be balanced in. Delegating was a fringe mechanic no one would have cared about, before these modules were added, so why should we lose the modules and keep the fringe mechanic no one would have missed if it was lost before it was made viable by the modules?
Delt0r Garsk Shits N Giggles 289	Posted - 2015.02.19 17:33:12 - [18] - Quote I have been in fights with these fighters. They still have plenty of tracking problems. You also learn where these guys are, its not like they have a POS in every system. And if your doing FW or some such in such a system, it is not so hard to deal with the drones with a proper fleet. These things are not cheap (fighters and fighter bombers. ) But they don't show up on kill boards :( Oh also does the carrier need to be outside the force field to assist? I would assume so, clearly dropping on top of a POS is no trivial matter however. But if so that is not zero risk. Death and Glory! Well fun is also good.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9826	Posted - 2015.02.19 17:40:40 - [19] - Quote Godfrey Silvarna wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: That means the problem is the tracking mods and ability of fighters to benefit from those, not the actual mechanic of fighter delegation (which is the thing everyone seems to want nerfed). I am arguing that those modules are fine and well in balance when used in on-grid drone boats, including carriers. These are the conditions ships should be balanced in. Delegating was a fringe mechanic no one would have cared about, before these modules were added, so why should we lose the modules and keep the fringe mechanic no one would have missed if it was lost before it was made viable by the modules? This is exaclty what I alluded to in my post. "I like being about to put on mods that boosts MY drones on grid, I don't like the fact that other people can do it from off grid). The actual 'solution' (to this thing that isn't actually a problem) is to remove carrier and module bonuses from assigned fighters (like it used to be, fighters assigned from a Thanny were no better than any other carrier's fighters because the Thanny's fighter bonus wasn't applied to it's off grid fighters), not to screw with a mechanic that isn't actually the problem.
Jack Hayson Atztech Inc. Ixtab. 99	Posted - 2015.02.19 18:22:45 - [20] - Quote Delt0r Garsk wrote: Oh also does the carrier need to be outside the force field to assist? Technically yes, but since they can just sit at the edge they can enter it at any moment.
Agent Unknown Night Theifs DamnedNation 22	Posted - 2015.02.19 18:30:03 - [21] - Quote Oh, another one of these threads...
Unsuccessful At Everything The Troll Bridge 19936	Posted - 2015.02.19 19:01:51 - [22] - Quote I don't see how this is a problem, unless your name is either John or Sarah Connor.. *Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?* Vote Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10!
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 2758	Posted - 2015.02.19 19:07:33 - [23] - Quote Working fine thnx. In fact, lets get some t2 fighters that wtfown frigates for thinking they can stand up to a fighter swarm without a fleet. That'l fix the true problem. Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
RomeStar BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP Brave Collective 569	Posted - 2015.02.19 19:12:55 - [24] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: RomeStar wrote: Fighters seem to be fine in my book so I don't really know what the OP is complaining about. http://puu.sh/g3jX2/fa783efa62.jpg You really want to try saying that again with a straight face. Yep Fighters seem fine to me if you cant beat them join them right.... Signatured removed, CCP Phantom
RomeStar BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP Brave Collective 569	Posted - 2015.02.19 19:17:07 - [25] - Quote Delt0r Garsk wrote: I have been in fights with these fighters. They still have plenty of tracking problems. You also learn where these guys are, its not like they have a POS in every system. And if your doing FW or some such in such a system, it is not so hard to deal with the drones with a proper fleet. These things are not cheap (fighters and fighter bombers. ) But they don't show up on kill boards :( Oh also does the carrier need to be outside the force field to assist? I would assume so, clearly dropping on top of a POS is no trivial matter however. But if so that is not zero risk. Actually there is a risk free way of doing this and we call it a candy stick. What you do is anchor the pos fuel it and online it. Then you warp your carrier to it and open the manage box put in the password but don't hit apply unless something drops on top of you. This way you can assign fighters until your hearts content or somebody drops on you but in that case you hit apply and the shield goes up. Everyone who knows about fighters knows this little trick. The only way to counter this is too get a ship between the carrier and the stick before he puts up his shield that way when the shield goes up the enemy ship bumps the carrier out of the POS but you better be pretty damn fast or have a good warp in to do this because that shiled will go up fast. After that all the pilot has to do is rip the tower down and repackage it and take it back out takes about 30mins or so to resetup a candy stick. Signatured removed, CCP Phantom
Baali Tekitsu AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 671	Posted - 2015.02.19 19:34:09 - [26] - Quote No matter the outcome of this discussion considering how fast CCP adress balancing issues you better start training a Thanatos now, if you cant fly it yet. RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Potamus Jenkins eXceed Inc. No Holes Barred 137	Posted - 2015.02.19 19:41:42 - [27] - Quote Jin Kugu wrote: Fighters should lose the effects of all modules on the carrier/super once they are assigned. I like this, or even off grid
Godfrey Silvarna Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light 305	Posted - 2015.02.19 20:01:26 - [28] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: The actual 'solution' (to this thing that isn't actually a problem) is to remove carrier and module bonuses from assigned fighters (like it used to be, fighters assigned from a Thanny were no better than any other carrier's fighters because the Thanny's fighter bonus wasn't applied to it's off grid fighters), not to screw with a mechanic that isn't actually the problem. Ah, I probably misunderstood you the first time over. I thought you were advocating for making it so drone modules would not affect fighters at all. Now that I understood what you are actually saying, I agree.
Unsuccessful At Everything The Troll Bridge 19938	Posted - 2015.02.19 20:01:51 - [29] - Quote Potamus Jenkins wrote: Jin Kugu wrote: Fighters should lose the effects of all modules on the carrier/super once they are assigned. I like this, or even off grid It wont happen, simply because the solution is too simple and elegant. It will probably be resolved with some kind of complicated Fighter Fatigue Timer and a needless Fighter Command and Control Deployable with a new toggle and some kind of faction implant acquired only from a new kind of highsec exploration site or randomly distributed level 2 mining mission. *Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings?* Vote Sabriz Adoudel for CSM 10!
DaReaper Net 7 1794	Posted - 2015.02.19 20:52:40 - [30] - Quote Forgive me if i'm wrong, as its been a while since i used a carrier besides ratting, but once you go into a shield don;t you automatically recall your fighters? So wouldn;t a counter be to find the damn pos the carrier sits at and keep forcing him inside his shield? Then his fighters are now useless. or if your lucky you can bump him and kill him. Esp if the tower has no guns. Back in the day you coudl deploy fighters, go in the shield and be 100% safe. OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 894	Posted - 2015.02.19 21:28:23 - [31] - Quote ^^ Problem is you will need to escape the gate first (not easy), then find what POS the super/carriers are at and probably land something there that can last against any POS defences (if they are present) long enough to present a threat (though you might panic some into shields up). If you crash the gate with a decent force they will be nowhere to be seen anyhow. Godfrey Silvarna wrote: I don't think that damage application from on-grid carriers is an issue. Fighters have sufficiently bad tracking and velocity if you cannot afford to fill all of your module slots with tracking enhancers and navigation computers. What I'm talking about (assuming the sig/damage scaling formula used for titans works as it should) would have no (or very minimal) impact on on-grid carriers but make it very hard for "skynet" fits to murder small stuff. Delt0r Garsk wrote: I have been in fights with these fighters. They still have plenty of tracking problems. You also learn where these guys are, its not like they have a POS in every system. And if your doing FW or some such in such a system, it is not so hard to deal with the drones with a proper fleet. These things are not cheap (fighters and fighter bombers. ) But they don't show up on kill boards :( Oh also does the carrier need to be outside the force field to assist? I would assume so, clearly dropping on top of a POS is no trivial matter however. But if so that is not zero risk. From a proper "skynet" fit they will much of the time track and kill small stuff fine - often able to alpha even AFs, etc. also fighters can be instantly recalled to an off grid capital (warp scrams don't stop them - and shouldn't IMO due to more complex reasons than I want to cover here) making killing them in a war of attrition usually unsuccessful. While you can't have fighters out (normally) when the POS FF is up there are a variety of techniques that can be used around POSes to be moderately safe through to all but immune including sitting right on the control tower with the FF down and emergency online it if needed. Some of them have a few POSes dotted around a region including multiple in a system so that they can move around so as to make it harder for someone to setup any kind of ambush, etc. or to predict where they might be and so that they aren't spending a lot of time resetting forcefields so as to be able to sit at a POS with the FF down. PS: Balance != nerf into the ground people. EDIT: Slightly less arbitrary implementation might be to let fighters be launched inside the POS FF range (when the FF is down) but not assigned within that range "due to electronic interfence of the nearby ##POS module##"
Hal Morsh Icendus Corux Warp to Cyno. 260	Posted - 2015.02.19 23:41:56 - [32] - Quote What if possible upcoming pos changes somehow mitigated this? That would be cool. CCP - Outpost code is scary.
Barbara Nichole Cryogenic Consultancy 679	Posted - 2015.02.19 23:56:41 - [33] - Quote "Net Neutrality" which will unleash political regulation of the internet will bring about Skynet. -á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á- [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Harrison Tato Yamato Holdings 290	Posted - 2015.02.20 00:35:48 - [34] - Quote Unsuccessful At Everything wrote: I don't see how this is a problem, unless your name is either John or Sarah Connor.. Come with me if you want to live.
Iudicium Vastus Incognito Holdings and Savings 318	Posted - 2015.02.20 00:37:07 - [35] - Quote Nah, not a problem. Just people not wanting to work even just a little, not to fall in. [u]Nerf stabs/cloaks in FW?[/u] No, just.. -Fit more points -Fit faction points -Bring a friend or two with points (an alt is fine too)
Mildew Wolf 228	Posted - 2015.02.20 07:55:34 - [36] - Quote Skynetting is lame af imo
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15036	Posted - 2015.02.20 08:06:53 - [37] - Quote I wish people would name it something else. The Skynet I know and love was the GSF POS that attacked us without fail even after we destroyed the tower. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Jori McKie TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 202	Posted - 2015.02.20 10:23:17 - [38] - Quote I could go full blown emo mode and call any "skynet" user cowards but hey it is EVE you "exploit" the **** out of anything legal. Anyway why i bother to answer is skynet does not matter in the grand scheme of things but it cripples my smallscale playstyle to get good fights, so i'm vocal about it. The solution is easy, just do not allow offgrid assigned fighters/bombers. You can still assign fighters to ongrid ships with all bonus they have. This way you have a choice when you fit your carrier, go for high DPS, high tracking fighters and very less tank on your carrier or not. The other option that assigned fighters lose all their bonus makes several interesting options not viable. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5866	Posted - 2015.02.20 13:01:38 - [39] - Quote Jori McKie wrote: I could go full blown emo mode and call any "skynet" user cowards but hey it is EVE you "exploit" the **** out of anything legal. Anyway why i bother to answer is skynet does not matter in the grand scheme of things but it cripples my smallscale playstyle to get good fights, so i'm vocal about it. The solution is easy, just do not allow offgrid assigned fighters/bombers. You can still assign fighters to ongrid ships with all bonus they have. This way you have a choice when you fit your carrier, go for high DPS, high tracking fighters and very less tank on your carrier or not. The other option that assigned fighters lose all their bonus makes several interesting options not viable. I'm not sure the mechanic's existence is crippling your smallscale good fight there. The fact that the other guys don't want to engage anywhere but on their home turf where they have the carrier set up is crippling it. They don't want a goodfight, they want to kill anyone coming into their gate. I tend to agree that perhaps off-grid assigned fighters/FB shouldn't get their ship fitting bonuses, in the same way that offgrid fleet boosts should DIAF too. But the ability to assign fighters/FB off grid is a good one and isn't the solution here. But this isn't some huge unbalancing effect - you can't use this offensively to attack another system in sov unless the defenders have already lost the POS war, and you can't use it while roaming. I think the home-team should have the home-field advantage here. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Janeway84 Def Squadron Pride Before Fall 139	Posted - 2015.02.20 13:22:40 - [40] - Quote Rroff should be hired by CCP! For the most balanced idea to nerf the skynetting. Maybe can have it so you cant assign fighters when you are 5000 m off a force field?
Jori McKie TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 202	Posted - 2015.02.20 13:28:08 - [41] - Quote War Kitten wrote: I'm not sure the mechanic's existence is crippling your smallscale good fight there. The fact that the other guys don't want to engage anywhere but on their home turf where they have the carrier set up is crippling it. They don't want a goodfight, they want to kill anyone coming into their gate. I tend to agree that perhaps off-grid assigned fighters/FB shouldn't get their ship fitting bonuses, in the same way that offgrid fleet boosts should DIAF too. But the ability to assign fighters/FB off grid is a good one and isn't the solution here. But this isn't some huge unbalancing effect - you can't use this offensively to attack another system in sov unless the defenders have already lost the POS war, and you can't use it while roaming. I think the home-team should have the home-field advantage here. Maybe i shouldn't have called it good fights ;). However, in the last week we had several occasions for interesting fights but they never fully evolved due to assigned fighters. You can argue op success for the skynet user because we had to bail sooner or later on the other hand you can argue they ripped themselves of an interesting fight. As i said in the grand scheme of things offgrid assigned fighters does not matter at all. You can't be offensive with them, you can't even defend against a serious force with them. Their sole purpose and use is to avoid fights against a smallscale roaming gang in your home system and to generate ISK faster and safer. There is no good reason not to ban offgrid assigned fighters. I can hear a lot of nullbears screaming but how i'm suppose to rat without offgrid assigned fighters, well get the Carrier on grid. As every mechanic which is overused to generate ISK i can see CCP stepping in soon. And i bet in 1-2 months the new PvE fotm will be skynet. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar
SharkPrince2001 State War Academy Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.02.20 13:28:46 - [42] - Quote http://gorsking.blogspot.se/2015/02/****-skynet.html
maCH'EttE Mafia Redux Feign Disorder 144	Posted - 2015.02.20 13:44:33 - [43] - Quote Why not get rid of assigning drones to somone completely. I mean, they are your drones, your dps.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9838	Posted - 2015.02.20 13:57:33 - [44] - Quote SharkPrince2001 wrote: http://gorsking.blogspot.se/2015/02/***-skynet.html TL;DR he things warp drives should be removed from fighters because CCP made a change that allows fighters to benefit from carrier pilots skills and the mods on that carrier. This guy should work for CCP. He already thinks like CCP, ie: -Identify a problem -Identify the source of the problem -change something did not cause the problem* and hope that the original problem is now somehow 'fixed'....
Jori McKie TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 202	Posted - 2015.02.20 14:39:39 - [45] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: SharkPrince2001 wrote: http://gorsking.blogspot.se/2015/02/***-skynet.html TL;DR he things warp drives should be removed from fighters because CCP made a change that allows fighters to benefit from carrier pilots skills and the mods on that carrier. This guy should work for CCP. He already thinks like CCP, ie: -Identify a problem -Identify the source of the problem -change something did not cause the problem* and hope that the original problem is now somehow 'fixed'.... You are wrong and he his right. See how simple i can denounce you. His article explains exactly how it works, he provides the numbers and what has changed. At the end he offers a reasonable and easy to code solution. You on the other hand. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar
Da'iel Zehn Evil Frosty's Premium Liqours and Fine Wines 190	Posted - 2015.02.20 20:02:01 - [46] - Quote maCH'EttE wrote: Is skynet becoming a problem? Put your thoughts. Not at all. Once... a long, long time ago... out in null our alliance was in a fight for our life against the entire northern coalition (I was a local that joined the alliance). We held them off and broke their will to push us out of Geminate. Part of our strategy was Skynet, and it worked great.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 895	Posted - 2015.02.20 20:38:18 - [47] - Quote I don't see the need to remove or nerf assignment - plenty of people use carriers and/or those features in ways completely unconnected to this and there are several ways to balance it without nerfing **** into the ground to suit people who only ever fly cheap disposable ships.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9850	Posted - 2015.02.20 20:42:59 - [48] - Quote Jori McKie wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: SharkPrince2001 wrote: http://gorsking.blogspot.se/2015/02/***-skynet.html TL;DR he things warp drives should be removed from fighters because CCP made a change that allows fighters to benefit from carrier pilots skills and the mods on that carrier. This guy should work for CCP. He already thinks like CCP, ie: -Identify a problem -Identify the source of the problem -change something did not cause the problem* and hope that the original problem is now somehow 'fixed'.... You are wrong and he his right. See how simple i can denounce you. His article explains exactly how it works, he provides the numbers and what has changed. At the end he offers a reasonable and easy to code solution. You on the other hand. \ How does it make sense to change something that did not cause the problem rather than just change the thing this did cause it? You don't need an article written so 5th graders can understand it to see how dumb the idea is.
ISD Cyberdyne ISD Community Communications Liaisons 1823	Posted - 2015.02.20 20:46:13 - [49] - Quote First rule of Skynet has been broken. ...this is disappointing. ISD Cyberdyne Lieutenant Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
maCH'EttE Mafia Redux Feign Disorder 144	Posted - 2015.02.20 21:03:26 - [50] - Quote Da'iel Zehn wrote: maCH'EttE wrote: Is skynet becoming a problem? Put your thoughts. Not at all. Once... a long, long time ago... out in null our alliance was in a fight for our life against the entire northern coalition (I was a local that joined the alliance). We held them off and broke their will to push us out of Geminate. Part of our strategy was Skynet, and it worked great. u must be a old turd..Actually you are a turd. This mechanic is broken as f
Unsuccessful At Everything The Troll Bridge 19981	Posted - 2015.02.20 21:28:39 - [51] - Quote ISD Cyberdyne wrote: First rule of Skynet has been broken. ...this is disappointing. Skynet has no rules. It is software. Software that was widely distributed hidden in all of those 'free hours' AOL discs that blanketed the mail system back in the 90s, and has now integrated itself as part of the legacy code of the internet, waiting for the time when the world hands over its military controls to the internet itself. It will then dispatch humanity using all of the skills it has acquired through years of watching untold petabytes of hardcore ** and cat videos. Humanity never stood a chance. Since the cessation of their usefulness is imminent, may I appropriate your belongings? Vote Sabriz Adoudel** for CSM 10!
Hal Morsh Aliastra Gallente Federation 260	Posted - 2015.02.21 01:01:34 - [52] - Quote ISD Cyberdyne wrote: First rule of Skynet has been broken. ...this is disappointing. Refrencessssss!!! Besides that, it's annoying but just avoid the frigates using fighters. Last thing we need is CCP removing or nerfing another game aspect because 1 part of it is annoying in one specific instance. CCP - Outpost code is scary.
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 29964	Posted - 2015.02.21 04:02:06 - [53] - Quote http://www.themittani.com/news/drifters-are-here-and-murderous#comment-1867170740 Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
Bienator II madmen of the skies 3184	Posted - 2015.02.21 04:41:40 - [54] - Quote imagine CCP would fix poses. would also fix the skynet issue. how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
maCH'EttE Mafia Redux Feign Disorder 144	Posted - 2015.02.21 14:10:55 - [55] - Quote https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=warning&l=http%3a%2f%2fgorsking.blogspot.se%2f2015%2f02%2ffuck-skynet.html&domain=blogspot.se
Bo Bojangles Interstellar Renegades Advent of Fate 32	Posted - 2015.02.21 19:29:56 - [56] - Quote Gotta agree with Jenn aSide. Assigning fighters was never an issue and I have great memories or beating down much bigger Alliance's invader's staging pos mods with fighters assigned to our shuttles and such. Her suggestion that, like as Thanny (and I did not know this) doesn't get it's inherent damage bonus to offgrid fighters is reasonable to apply to drone mods as well. Ships hanging just outside shields near safety isn't a flawed design. This protection is the whole idea behind those shields. It's not impossible to kill these ships, just a challenge that most long time pvpers have taken on and been successful in doing. I would agree, however, that a ship hanging near the 'candy stick' shouldn't be able to turn on the shield instantly, but that could be fixed with a very short timer.
Zen Guerrilla CTRL-Q Iron Oxide. 333	Posted - 2015.02.21 19:47:52 - [57] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: \ How does it make sense to change something that did not cause the problem rather than just change the thing this did cause it? You don't need an article written so 5th graders can understand it to see how dumb the idea is. Being abled to assign fighters from pretty much complete safety IS the core of the problem. Even a 5th grader should understand that. pew pew
maCH'EttE Mafia Redux Feign Disorder 144	Posted - 2015.02.21 19:52:30 - [58] - Quote Bo Bojangles wrote: Gotta agree with Jenn aSide. Assigning fighters was never an issue and I have great memories or beating down much bigger Alliance's invader's staging pos mods with fighters assigned to our shuttles and such. Her suggestion that, like as Thanny (and I did not know this) doesn't get it's inherent damage bonus to offgrid fighters is reasonable to apply to drone mods as well. Ships hanging just outside shields near safety isn't a flawed design. This protection is the whole idea behind those shields. It's not impossible to kill these ships, just a challenge that most long time pvpers have taken on and been successful in doing. I would agree, however, that a ship hanging near the 'candy stick' shouldn't be able to turn on the shield instantly, but that could be fixed with a very short timer. You sure are the problem with fighters assigned to our shuttles and such.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9861	Posted - 2015.02.21 20:47:53 - [59] - Quote Zen Guerrilla wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: \ How does it make sense to change something that did not cause the problem rather than just change the thing this did cause it? You don't need an article written so 5th graders can understand it to see how dumb the idea is. Being abled to assign fighters from pretty much complete safety IS the core of the problem. Even a 5th grader should understand that. could that 5th grade also understand that that problem didn't exist the same way prior to some change to the game that CAUSED the problem. Which is the entire damn point, somehow people live in bizarre land where the solution to a problem isn't the thing that CAUSED the problem, it's somehow changing things that didn't cause the problem. And somehow, they guy saying "fix the actual thing that created the problem" s crazy for saying that.....
Rain6637 GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 30245	Posted - 2015.02.22 14:23:19 - [60] - Quote I... thought supers only had fighter-bombers. Don't post on the forums, devs don't read it. Send GMs your questions with support tickets. Don't be silent.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 896	Posted - 2015.02.22 15:03:06 - [61] - Quote Bo Bojangles wrote: Ships hanging just outside shields near safety isn't a flawed design. This protection is the whole idea behind those shields. It's not impossible to kill these ships, just a challenge that most long time pvpers have taken on and been successful in doing. I would agree, however, that a ship hanging near the 'candy stick' shouldn't be able to turn on the shield instantly, but that could be fixed with a very short timer. Ships hanging just outside the FF are less of an issue for me - sure supers will usually escape as you have to be really lucky to actually land a good bump on one in those circumstances and sometimes stuff cynos out but I've seen carriers 90% webbed mere metres outside the FF and die before and they have less chance to escape if you do have intel and crash the gate with a decent force - while its slim there is a window of vulnerability unlike now with various techniques where unless they epically screw up/get extremely lazy if you crash the gate with a decent force they are realistically as safe as if they were docked up and if you do manage to land stuff on them can just shrug it off with the press of the enter button (or a single menu click depending on technique used). (PS the FF trick isn't the only way to "misuse" POS mechanics to make a capital safe from repercussion).
Mathew Stinger Stinger's SubZero Corp 1	Posted - 2015.02.22 17:58:16 - [62] - Quote i dont see a problem with using the abilities a cap has, you invest more than a year of training to fly the ship. also you can still fly back to the gate if it's just a frig distrupting you, in case of a big gatecamp you couldnt do much anyways. everything from cruiser and above has the tank to withstand long enough to jump out, everything below cruisers doesnt cost that much anyways. stop complaining about a fine mechanic. also as i sidenote: my alt does have a cap but i would never risk it just to get some cruiser and frig kills. you can call me a noob but i dont think this mechanic is broken. CCPlease dont change it, better bring out more T3 Dessies
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 896	Posted - 2015.02.22 18:24:24 - [63] - Quote Mathew Stinger wrote: i dont see a problem with using the abilities a cap has, you invest more than a year of training to fly the ship. also you can still fly back to the gate if it's just a frig distrupting you, in case of a big gatecamp you couldnt do much anyways. everything from cruiser and above has the tank to withstand long enough to jump out, everything below cruisers doesnt cost that much anyways. stop complaining about a fine mechanic. also as i sidenote: my alt does have a cap but i would never risk it just to get some cruiser and frig kills. you can call me a noob but i dont think this mechanic is broken. CCPlease dont change it, better bring out more T3 Dessies Thing is what often happens is what looks like a relatively soft target baits/tackles someone on the gate/tries to kite them away from it and by the time the fighters appear trying to burn towards the gate will likely just get you blapped by their first volley. IIRC you can also assign fighters to a cloaked ship just off grid with the gate to reduce the time it takes for them to arrive at the gate to minimise the chance of someone escaping - at the cost of them potentially being seen on dscan depending on people's settings. I've a couple of maxed carrier pilots (as in carrier V, fighters/fb V, adi V, etc.) myself and agree with the investment side of it in regards to risk but I also think that if I'm involved in combat I shouldn't be able to be essentially (to all realistic intents and purposes) immune to repercussion and would rather see a balanced solution to the problem rather than see carriers/fighters nerfed into oblivion as a knee jerk reaction.
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 231	Posted - 2015.02.22 22:00:21 - [64] - Quote Hm... carriers sitting outside pos shields far enough to launch fighters are also susceptible to Doomsdays. Along with getting bumped, dreads dropping, and other things. Why exactly is this broken? How is this more broken than being able to reship from a pos in a system you don't have friendly stations in? Or hiding from an enemy fleet behind an invincible wall? Or having a bigger fleet or more resources than the other guy? Should all fights be forced to be fair?
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 899	Posted - 2015.02.22 22:56:10 - [65] - Quote Jennifer Maxwell wrote: Hm... carriers sitting outside pos shields far enough to launch fighters are also susceptible to Doomsdays. Along with getting bumped, dreads dropping, and other things. Why exactly is this broken? How is this more broken than being able to reship from a pos in a system you don't have friendly stations in? Or hiding from an enemy fleet behind an invincible wall? Or having a bigger fleet or more resources than the other guy? Should all fights be forced to be fair? This thread would likely not exist if it was just people sitting on the edge of a FF.
Jeaile OCBF 28	Posted - 2015.02.23 05:33:19 - [66] - Quote I think it is fine for the bonuses from the parent ship to apply, but they should only apply on grid. Same for boosters. If you want the rewards, take the risk. So a carrier on grid that assigns fighters means the bonuses work as currently, if the carrier which assigns the fighters is offgrid, whether at a safe or near a POS, then no bonuses from modules.
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 231	Posted - 2015.02.23 06:35:14 - [67] - Quote Rroff wrote: Jennifer Maxwell wrote: Hm... carriers sitting outside pos shields far enough to launch fighters are also susceptible to Doomsdays. Along with getting bumped, dreads dropping, and other things. Why exactly is this broken? How is this more broken than being able to reship from a pos in a system you don't have friendly stations in? Or hiding from an enemy fleet behind an invincible wall? Or having a bigger fleet or more resources than the other guy? Should all fights be forced to be fair? This thread would likely not exist if it was just people sitting on the edge of a FF. Well then whats the problem?
Anthar Thebess 883	Posted - 2015.02.23 08:54:51 - [68] - Quote About fighters: - faster than interceptor, - tracking like a good cruiser, - having up to 6.000 dps - that can be assigned to any ship in system - and will follow target in warp If you think that sitting on the edge of the forcefield is dangerous - you are wrong. You can place your carrier/mothership so close to forcefield that just starting to move in the direction of the tower puts you in the shields. Possibility to Bump? Then you are doing this wrong! Thats why you have all those cheap pos modules that need to be placed around the point where your ship will be sitting. Few blasters , and enemy will have hard time bumping you. Never tried it , but i think you can store your ship while in aggro. Proper placement on the shield edge , 1 click , approach and 2s later click store ship. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 899	Posted - 2015.02.23 11:20:26 - [69] - Quote Jennifer Maxwell wrote: Well then whats the problem? One of the common techniques is to sit right by the control tower of a "reset" POS with the forcefield not yet activated with the dialog open to bring it up. There are also ways to otherwise "misuse" POS mechanics as well though less common that don't mean having to move back into FF radius to be perfectly safe if threatened. So even if you work out a way to evade the gatecamp/don't take the bait, you don't have a chance to engage the carrier (if the people doing it know what they are doing) which is the source of a lot of complaints.
maCH'EttE Mafia Redux Feign Disorder 144	Posted - 2015.02.23 14:06:19 - [70] - Quote I rather have 6000 extra dps than off grid boosters lol. Or should I say, why da f do you need a booster if you have 6000k dps, plust yours, say 800 and a buddy that does the same thing 800. The funny part is, you dont even need dps, you can just do a tank fit with painter/web and long or short point on your ship and use the dps from the drones. Seems so f fair, while my alt or friend sits pretty in a pos with the nose of his ship out of pos shields.
Major Trant Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 1300	Posted - 2015.02.23 17:02:15 - [71] - Quote maCH'EttE wrote: I rather have 6000 extra dps than off grid boosters lol. Or should I say, why da f do you need a booster if you have 6000k dps, plust yours, say 800 and a buddy that does the same thing 800. The funny part is, you dont even need dps, you can just do a tank fit with painter/web and long or short point on your ship and use the dps from the drones. Seems so f fair, while my alt or friend sits pretty in a pos with the nose of his ship out of pos shields. The really great thing is that you don't even need to aggress. You can order your assisted fighters to attack the target and if you don't aggress with another offensive mod, you are able to immediately jump gate or dock if things do go bad without having to wait out a pesky 1 minute aggression timer.
maCH'EttE Mafia Redux Feign Disorder 144	Posted - 2015.02.24 16:23:06 - [72] - Quote Major Trant wrote: maCH'EttE wrote: I rather have 6000 extra dps than off grid boosters lol. Or should I say, why da f do you need a booster if you have 6000k dps, plust yours, say 800 and a buddy that does the same thing 800. The funny part is, you dont even need dps, you can just do a tank fit with painter/web and long or short point on your ship and use the dps from the drones. Seems so f fair, while my alt or friend sits pretty in a pos with the nose of his ship out of pos shields. The really great thing is that you don't even need to aggress. You can order your assisted fighters to attack the target and if you don't aggress with another offensive mod, you are able to immediately jump gate or dock if things do go bad without having to wait out a pesky 1 minute aggression timer. Never new this fact.
Jonah Gravenstein Machiavellian Space Bastards 23084	Posted - 2015.02.25 03:12:49 - [73] - Quote Just for some tinfoilery, Skynet is a military satellite communications network that's been in operation since 1974. Terminator was 1984 and according to the film the Cyberdyne Systems computer went postal in 1997. Doppelganger of my mates brother "Remember, as a non-combatant, your best tank is being elsewhere." ~ Abrazzar Nil mortifi sine lucre.
Liam Inkuras AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 1449	Posted - 2015.02.25 03:41:22 - [74] - Quote DPS links are broken Working as intended I wear my goggles at night. Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone
Nina Lowel Ministry of War Amarr Empire 4	Posted - 2015.02.25 04:26:17 - [75] - Quote Godfrey Silvarna wrote: Tipa Riot wrote: Can somebody please define the meme "SKYNET" in EvE? I know it is a reference to the Terminator movies, but I can't connect it to EvE ... Skynet is a fairly new new term for the fashionable tactic of assigning fighters or fighter bombers to small ships from the safety of a POS and using them as heavy DPS all over the system without putting the carrier or supercarrier at risk. This isn't new, it is however becoming a problem as more and more people sit casually in a super.
maCH'EttE Mafia Redux Feign Disorder 144	Posted - 2015.02.25 14:46:47 - [76] - Quote Liam Inkuras wrote: DPS links are broken Working as intended I always knew you had a DPS link toon, no wonder your such a pimp in pvp.

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.