EVE Search - Sticky:[Scylla] Skynet - Removing fighter assist for carriers

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Scylla] Skynet - Removing fighter assist for carriers

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 2 post(s)
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:44:40 - [1] - Quote Charadrass wrote: if both happens, no one will use supers or carriers again, and you can just delete them of the game instead of nerfing them. Like people were supposed to stop using capitals with the jump range limitation and the jump fatigue. I'm totally waiting for that to happen...
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:54:31 - [2] - Quote Charadrass wrote: guys. you can assist 5 fighters. not the whole bunch a carrier or super can Launch. thats a 2k dps per ship where you assist 5 of them. a good fitted vindicator with drones can get that too. gonna nerf vindicators right? It's 2k dps added to any ships. Crow with 2k dps? Sure why not right.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:29:35 - [3] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Suitonia wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: None of those bug matter is fighters can't hit anything smaller than a Dread. And that's the whole point. Removing fighter delegation because drone mods/bonuses being applied to fighters that can then be delegated is exactly like saying "you robbed a bank and used a car for the get away, I'm going to let you keep the money and go free and arrest the guy who sold you the car!".-Signed, CCP Police Department. Ignoring the bugs, I am suggesting to you that making it so that fighters lose their bonuses off grid is probably going to take a huge amount of development time from CCP for lackluster returns. The usage of assisted fighters before the changes was close to non-existent. Are there actually any tangible uses for assisted fighters if they do not retain the current stats? The ships that get them assigned have to sacrifice for webs and target painters and such, so yea their is, but not as easy as it is now. And it's for CCP to decide how hard a change is, however eliminating a 10 year old thing rather than reverting a 3 month old change doesn't make sense. If a thing causes a problem you fix that thing, not things that didn't cause the problem. What if they want to keep the modules affecting bomber/fighter? Did you think that might be the reasons why they didn't just revert back? What if they changed their mind and think projecting damage off a ship own grid is broken just like they want to get rid of OGB but can't for technical reasons? The only real problem with this change right now is we get no answer on why approach X, Y and Z were not used to fix the issue.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:47:21 - [4] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: if that's the issue CCP should say so. Still, the change to make fighters use bonuses happened, it can un-happen. I'd much rather see CCP change the thing that created the problem rather than trash can a cool game mechanic that is innocent. It won't be the end of the world if they get rid of fighter delegation (or even fighter warping, though a fighter warping nerf WILL have a more noticeable effect), just the end of a cool aspect of the game that didn't cause any problems. At this point, all I hope for is a DEV blog about what led to this decision with as much details as possible.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:00:40 - [5] - Quote titan Multi3 wrote: It's powerful because it requires a large investment of isk/time. You need a very well skilled assigning toon, you need to have the capitals, and you still have to setup your own infrastructure. Limiting the mechanic to assigning to another capital class ship ( maybe just other carrier/sc ?) would be a decent way to balance the risk out, and still keep a good mechanic. Remote DD and AoE DD required a well trained toon, the capital to do it and to setup an infrastructure if you didn't want to leave your titan without protection and it was removed because it was a **** mechanic.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:03:24 - [6] - Quote titan Multi3 wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: titan Multi3 wrote: It's powerful because it requires a large investment of isk/time. You need a very well skilled assigning toon, you need to have the capitals, and you still have to setup your own infrastructure. Limiting the mechanic to assigning to another capital class ship ( maybe just other carrier/sc ?) would be a decent way to balance the risk out, and still keep a good mechanic. Remote DD and AoE DD required a well trained toon, the capital to do it and to setup an infrastructure if you didn't want to leave your titan without protection and it was removed because it was a **** mechanic. Comparing AOE DD's and fighter assist is a TAD of a long stretch. Remote DD was kind of using a weapon system from off grid no?
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:25:30 - [7] - Quote Rroff wrote: And yes I'm crying because its increasingly becoming a thing around here both from player demands and dev changes when something becomes a problem to nerf bat it into the ground rather than find an actual balanced fix - makes me not want to play the game any more because anything I might invest time, effort, etc. into could end up falling foul of something completely unrelated to my use and "dev nulled". You are playing an MMO. If you are not ready for this to happen, you are playing the wrong game.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1609	Posted - 2015.03.02 13:29:10 - [8] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Does this change mean that CCP really doesn't know what to do with capital ships? Does this change mean that CCP really cannot think of ways to alter the environment to make this tactic less appealing in some circumstances where it might be more problematic? I think it means "everything altering combat coming from off grid will die when they find a way to do it/can be bothered to implement it".
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1609	Posted - 2015.03.02 14:27:46 - [9] - Quote Cumbus Kanjus wrote: last time i checked wasn't eve supposed to be a sandbox? therefore its the players task to find solutions for ingame mechanics (what they actually most of the time do). its not CCPs task to fix issues (or fix isues where are none) just because some ppl keep whining and whining and whining! some ppl might see high sec ganking as an issue. so??? did CCP do something about it? no because thats how it should be. ppl should adapt and learn to live with said mechanic. "We also want to promote active gameplay as much as possible. We're failing on both with Skynet by having very little risk associated with something rather powerful, and we're also not providing any gameplay to the carrier pilot" so u wanna say that dual or tripple boxing with carriers and or supers on a FF does not provide gameplay? well thats to be judged by the players doing so and not by CCP, right? "very little risk associated with something rather powerful" it might be powerful, but little risk? if the contra-party just brings enough of their own capitals u can just forget about skynet. and thats exactly how it should be. and party finds a new mechanic or using it, so the opposite party is being forced to counter that mechanic. "very little risk" so building a super/titan and keeping it safe/alive is no risk for CCP, right? so @CCP pls there is not just a "0" or "1". there is more than just "Yes" and "No" im sure there is a solution that will be fine for both sides There are a few historical case where CCP were not happy with a mechanic and dealt with it instead of the player having to deal with it. The sandbox rules getting modified is not something never seen before and involved a lot of tears from player using what was getting cut every time and was preceded by a lot of different tears from people on the recieving side of it before just like this.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1610	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:07:08 - [10] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: I But the fighters were a mechanic that was fine, for a while, but then became abused more and more. What did you expect I expected CCP to put the effort into solving the the abuse of the mechanic rather than just remove it do to one way it is being used. If only we ever had the real reasoning they use for the decision instead of everybody just guessing what it was we would probably have a much more productive discussion on a TON of changes they implement.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1610	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:22:20 - [11] - Quote FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: wow, that is actually very helpful for a change. thank you. my OP was here if anyone wants to read it. http://eve-search.com/thread/409271-1/page/25#726 *and remember kids and CCP.* just because people aren't keeping totally calm and polite DOESN'T mean, what they are saying matters any less. if mass hordes of people are THAT UPSET. foaming at the mouth raging in opposition of this, or ANY change, THAT'S PROBABLY A SIGN you should stop and seriously consider what the heck you are doing. hell sign nothing, that's a Beacon with an airport air traffic controller and glow wands, and strobe lights, telling you this is an AWFUL idea. You do realise people were more than likely raging and foaming at the mouth about change like removing AoE and remote DD right? People also foamed at the mouth for close to every tiericide changes post. Freighter fitting options were epic too especially when people foamed at the mouth for the fail investement in capital rigs BPOs. People always rage. FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: you are an awful forum moderator. either you know full well what you are doing, or you don't understand the seriousness and criticalcality of what you are deleting. people need to see majority of posts you are deleting please stop and let someone else do your job. Besides. you're just a "Vice" admiral. im a "Fleet" admiral.. i out Rank you. This won't end well.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1611	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:33:46 - [12] - Quote Lavrenti Palych wrote: One more thing: I hope your next move will be to remove off-grid bonuses including combat and orca/rorqual. Because - you know... Nobody must be safe - like assist fighters carrier on POS.... I would love that but up until now, their only "workable" solution would kill the nodes so it was not implemented. I'm not 100% sure but I think it was either said by Fozzie or Veritas.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1611	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:43:42 - [13] - Quote Byson1 wrote: Kane Carnifex wrote: Skynet, an overview and suggestions review ... Note: If you cannot kill a carrier with your fleet DPS , you will not have a chance against it on grid or off grid. [/i] IMHO Your 20 men fleet is hunting for everything in a region which doesnGÇÖt belong to you. This region knows you and chooses the fight which they could win. Either you travel through a gatecamp and die in the camp as you not able to get to optimal or you will be baited. Nobody would bait you if they are not able to win the isk war or to bring the death to you whole fleet. Due the intel in this region the defender knows more about you than you about his fleet. You can expect following long before you know the enemy fleet: -More vessels (more DPS) -Powerful vessels (fleet multiplier) -Logistic -If you only bring stuff from one race, be ready to get jammed. -Lets cover the jamming under EWAR. -Skynet Carrier (fleet multiplier) So you donGÇÖt choose the fight, the living people choose the fight and it is not required to have a fair fight. Why should we? It is eve, RL ethics doesnGÇÖt work here. This is war, combat it will be unfair for one of the fighting sideGÇª the advantage is to let them believe which they could win or have a bigger support fleet in the backhand. LetGÇÖs spin this little bit up. You jump into a system which is heavily camped as it is an pocket entrance. You see fighter drones on grid and decide to first probe out the carrier for a Titan drive by. You bring a fleet up which supports the titan and a fleet which fights the local gate camp. Unfortunately once the Titan landed in the System it got holded by an hic and the defender brings in more reinforcesGÇª. Escalation escalation escalationGÇª Is there now a Problem? People build up a POS, Station or make a deep safe spot somewhere in space. They are the defenders which want to defend their space unfortunately CCP doesnGÇÖt provide tools for defending space neither a own controlled concord or gate guns or something else to defend it. But you can use carriers to provide a locate defense in this system which allows you to turn a fight to your advantages, yes you also can bring an offgrid boosterGÇª I The Skynet carrier live in 0.0 also with the advantages and disadvantages which this space area brings. Why should a PVP Fleet from Highsec get more advantageGÇª they come to unknown k-space and search for a fight the others just live and defend their space whit it. Also you can easy kite out the fighter drones with an cruiser as these small medium scale pvp ships are always build for kitingGÇª you will be hard to hit, once you get webbed it is over. I am starting to spinning around with my points, but I think I made my point clear which I donGÇÖt think this is a good decision to remove this function. If you cannot fight it ask you friends for help. Capitals Ships requires high skills and it also requires high skills to counter it easy or a huge amount of mid skilled player to kill it. Its my point of view, and yes i am pro skynet :) Well said. The whole point of this nerf is - A CCM and a few with load voices wants the game to be easier. They get CCP to change mechanics for their advantage. my opinion: A FLEET WITH A CARRIER should have an advantage. IT SHOULD take effort to hunt it down and kill it at a POS or where ever. LEAVE IT ALONE you want options: learn how to target, kite fighters, they are more expensive than your frig ships you bring to greif miners. Risk vs Reward right? There is nothing wrong with this. It's worked for those who have come before you. The current mechanics of carrier dps takes more pilots to do a bit of dps, with these mechanics level of work it takes to kill capitals represents the risk reward it should be- rather than carrier pilots have all the risk at a gate and a reward of woot you killed a frig good job. A fleet with a commited carrier should have an advantage VS a fleet without it. Not a fleet with a carrier 90 AU away. It worked before because fighter were not as potent as they are now with drone mods affecting them. CCP could technically just remove the drone mods effect but I feel they don't want to do that so they have to go with another solution.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1613	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:02:02 - [14] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: afkalt wrote: I'm still waiting for even one of these risk averse cowards to explain why, in a world where people are against off grid boosting, they think off grid DPS is somehow "ok"....Cost and training time are not a reason. Man up, put it on grid. If you don't have the fortitude for that risk, stop flying it. Hell you get change out 1.5b for an archon these days. People lose ships worth that on a daily basis. It has been explained countless times in this thread, but we forgive you for not reading. All one has to do is look at the Revenant KM to be able to laugh at anyone saying skynetting is 100% safe, but we are willing to sacrifice a bit; namely, have a bubble around a POS from which you cannot delegate fighters from. Yeah we should totally all setup logoff traps over a week and then wait for our watchlist to go blinky a few days later to hot drop some titans so a roaming gang can jump a gate after their scout got wrecked by assisted fighters...
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1613	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:45:29 - [15] - Quote Anton Menges Saddat wrote: The removal of fighter assist coupled with the just released dev blog on sov changes which removes structure grinding is close to being a bridge too far for me. I spent the whole of the last year training multiple pilots up to supers and grinding out the isk for hulls and fits. Now it seems that my supers are close to useless as they no longer are necessary for structure bashes and can no longer assign fighters, which leaves them with the sole purpose of killing other capitals, which is much more cost effective just using dreads. I personally haven't ever used Skynet as a tactic and I've not encountered the tactic myself when on fleets nor heard complaints from alliance or coalition mates about the practice so this whole idea of it being an epidemic just seems overblown to me. I see a lot of take with no give in regards to capitals being nerfed. There are more elegant solutions to the Skynet question than just out and out removing a decade-old game mechanic. At this point I am getting very frustrated with training characters up on extremely long skill plans just to see them become irrelevant. I am also upset by the fact that our feedback never seems to get taken into account, why even have this thread when you]re not going to listen to the players? The fact that there are people against the change does not mean they have to cancel it. They can take your feedback into account but still think their solution is the best one after seeing all the proposed other ideas and argument against their own solution. The problem many people have right now is they think the only way they can take feedback into account is to go with what people said but this is not what it actually mean. Taking things into consideration does not prevent you from not changing your decision.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1613	Posted - 2015.03.03 20:44:27 - [16] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: The fact that there are people against the change does not mean they have to cancel it. Corollary: The fact that CCP introduced said change does not mean they have to go forward / that it's good. Alternate corollary: Just because someone's defending a feature does not mean that feature is inherently bad. That's called a Kafkatrap. Yes but trying to call out CCP as not taking the feedback into account is still stupid even if they might be wrong in their final decision.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1613	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:46:29 - [17] - Quote Smoothlezz wrote: if you want feedback here it is: ppl will sell their capital ships if someone will buy them or just warp to anomalies to get their insurance from it with nothing fitted what are the use for a capital ship if it cant assist due to carrier role ingame is = as i get it support so hes supporting other player/alt with fighters or remote repairing/shield boosting my point is with the cutting of jump range for capitals was ok and i said nothing but no use for carriers after sov change in next patches and huge nerf for fighters and their unicness so yeah i guess ill get my insurance after the fighters are gone from game... my point is carrier is a support ship and should stay like that i dont agree with it and never will carriers are unique and should stay like that i think you already noticed its the shiptype i like the most in game :) p.s: plz dont listen to whole those ppl who cry about getting killed by fast ship with fighters or something like that p.s.s: I AND MORE LIKE ME DONT CRY WHEN THEY GET SUICIDED IN HIGH SEC p.s.s.s: short jump range cant assist and soon cant go triage.... I though people were selling their capital when the jump range were nerfed. Is it the same people who will again sell their capital because they can't apply thousand of DPS off grid?
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1614	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:29:31 - [18] - Quote Syrix Death wrote: Goddamnit CCP!!!! Stop removing features just because you failed balancing the mechanics! What about just to tighten the regulations in low sec, like carriers have to be ~10, 20 or 50km of the force field. Thats enough! Knowing how most stuff at CCP works, it would prevent other boats from using drones withing those range too. Cyno could be made to not work because it's an activated mod.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1615	Posted - 2015.03.04 18:10:31 - [19] - Quote Bethan Le Troix wrote: I don't have an axe to grind on this issue but it doesn't sound like that much of a problem. It would probably be better to decide on some restrictions of use based on ship size or drone bandwidth. Maybe make it so fighters can only be assigned to battlecruisers, battleships and above. We have these larger ship types that can use fighters and CCP seems to be going from one side directly to the other. A far larger problem at the moment is 'hyper-dunking' in high sec which negates the fifteen minute combat timer and is currently considered to be a legal exploit. At the time of the Bowhead being launched it was pointed out this ship would the suicide gankers wet dream and this has indeed come to pass. Sorry about the sexual references there. So if you want to fix a perceived problem I would suggest you look at 'hyper-dunking' first. Off topic but hyper-dunking is not a problem.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1621	Posted - 2015.03.06 14:00:21 - [20] - Quote Ncc 1709 wrote: Seems people have realised that ccp don't care on this one and are going to force the changes through no matter what Or they took it into account and decided each suggestion was not enough so they are going ahead with their own idea but I guess that is patently impossible right...
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1669	Posted - 2015.04.08 22:45:44 - [21] - Quote Glenn Eastland wrote: what i pay for in this game is relative to the money i give you ccp and if im dumping money into a game for a monthly sub and dumping money into the game to buy the ships i want and then you take away their significance you are taking money from me and hurting loyal paying customers that are keeping this game online, you are driving away all your older based cash cow capital pilots and that's just bad business It's a MMO. If you don't expect stuff to change, you are thinking wrong.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1676	Posted - 2015.04.09 12:08:18 - [22] - Quote Rroff wrote: I don't think it unreasonable as a paying customer to expect a little more care put into the change of a feature that takes a significant amount of investment however. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to understand applying damage from off-grid is stupid.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1677	Posted - 2015.04.09 18:29:39 - [23] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Yes, yes, if done "properly" XYZ would change. If done properly, we'd be seeing Naglfar usage spike tremendously, we'd see the Pantheon fleets lose archon after archon after being volleyed off the field, we'd see this, that, and the other thing. If we balance the game based on perfect situations, it's going to be very interesting, using the Chinese definition of "interesting". There is no reason, with their new 6 week release time, to change the carrier's behavior to disallow usage of assigned fighters within 50km or so of a Control tower (to prevent garagedoor assists) and to enable a player to warp scramble a fighter, and to give it a run for 6 weeks to see how it fares. There is such a thing as overreacting, my friend, and CCP has done just that. Unless it's a major PITA to code... The cyno for example require a module to be turned on so they probably were able to add some line of code on the item to perform the distance check before it can start and the effect can't be moved anyway as the cyno itself is in space and not on the ship. Carrier don't need any module to assist a fighter, didn't get locked into place and there was nothing to be locked in space since you could of bumped your own damn carrier as close as possible to the forcefield to just require a slight push to get it back to safety. It probably would of required them to create a new module just for that to anchor the carrier/super in space so it can't be bumped by any mean to be sure it can't be done in a similar relative safety.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1678	Posted - 2015.04.09 19:52:34 - [24] - Quote Rroff wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Unless it's a major PITA to code... The cyno for example require a module to be turned on so they probably were able to add some line of code on the item to perform the distance check before it can start and the effect can't be moved anyway as the cyno itself is in space and not on the ship. Carrier don't need any module to assist a fighter, didn't get locked into place and there was nothing to be locked in space since you could of bumped your own damn carrier as close as possible to the forcefield to just require a slight push to get it back to safety. It probably would of required them to create a new module just for that to anchor the carrier/super in space so it can't be bumped by any mean to be sure it can't be done in a similar relative safety. A carrier running some kind of triage or bastion style mod for fighter delegation even bumped up against the FF is still relatively vulnerable - a "typical" skynet fit isn't very tanky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCVsQUlP81Q even a basic 3x gyro T2 fit nag put that thanny into half shields. (Bare in mind that in the context of that video I purposely let one hit land for demonstration reasons - in reality that nag wouldn't have got a shot off if the carrier pilot was half on the ball and with no triage or bastion style module in effect). But what happen if when you jump or warp your nag to the POS where I am sitting if I bump my carrier inside the POS shield? Does the carrier become invulnerable for being inside the shield or does a triage module really prevent you from being bumped inside of it by any mean possible?
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1678	Posted - 2015.04.09 20:15:31 - [25] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: And finally, instead of harping on how the mechanic should be removed, tell us why the other proposed changes in this thread are bad, in 5000 words or less. That would be lending you credibility, which I don't intend to do. Train went Choo-Choo the second drone upgrade mods were introduced. (GÇó_GÇó) ( GÇó_GÇó)>GîÉGûá-Gûá (GîÉGûá_Gûá) I really shouldn't have expected anything other than a dodge from an NPC alt. I really don't know why I'm disappointed. Frostys Virpio wrote: But what happen if when you jump or warp your nag to the POS where I am sitting if I bump my carrier inside the POS shield? Does the carrier become invulnerable for being inside the shield or does a triage module really prevent you from being bumped inside of it by any mean possible? So combine the two. Make a fighter assist module AND make sure it can't be used within 50k of a tower. No Archon will survive hostile fire long enough for it to edge back into the shields. If it does not anchor you, what prevent me from bumping my own ship with an alt at the very edge of the POS shield or the POS itself to use my garage door to shield myself? Will the module stop working as soon as I get too close?
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1679	Posted - 2015.04.09 20:58:27 - [26] - Quote Rroff wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: If it does not anchor you, what prevent me from bumping my own ship with an alt at the very edge of the POS shield or the POS itself to use my garage door to shield myself? Will the module stop working as soon as I get too close? The "garage door" type techniques would keep you safe (currently) but a carrier running a triage or bastion type module will take a bit of bumping even if its right up against the FF - by the time you've carried out the manoeuvre the carrier is potentially dead. Disallowing fighter delegation within ~50km of the POS would have made sense with or without such a module and made it a lot harder to make a carrier too safe while delegating. If you don't have a module to make a check every X amount of time, you will delagate from 50001 meters and then slowboat toward the POS because the fighter are already delegated. That's why I say you need to be anchored at that distance or else people will definately have to will to try to bump themselves back toward the shield. It's EVE, where there is a way there is a will.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1679	Posted - 2015.04.09 21:29:24 - [27] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: 2 things: 1) Garage Door Cynos are being or have been patched out. And I mentioned 50km or so from the tower, not the shield. 2) An anchor-type module that consumed no fuel coupled with a simple check every second / cycle would do it for the module. Hell, even every 5 seconds would be fine. You can still garage door yourself if you are already inside where the shield will cover. If you can somehow be bumped after assisting the drones away, we sadly ahve to assume people will put in the effort. Do we have any module that really anchor you? The only one I am used to is the Cyno and it's not an anchor. You can still be bumped in any direction. You would need to be anchored in space like a POS for example. And all of that assume it's not 100% stupid to be able to apply damage while of grid too...
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1679	Posted - 2015.04.10 13:49:34 - [28] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: The fact you have to make such a convoluted mechanic simply to even attempt to stop skynetting should be telling you things. Convoluted mechanics are bad. Mechanics that require being exactly x distance from things are also bad due to how fiddly they are, and the fact distance checks are not pretty on run time. You also aren't considering the possibility that CCP wanted fighter assist for ratting to go as well. They could just inhibit assisting fighters within 50km of the tower and call it a day, and that'd solve a lot of their problems. Fighter assist on ratting one way to help new players earn some ISK. Assisted fighters do less damage than bonused drones on a drone boat, from my math. If CCP wants to let caps take acceleration gates, then I'd say it's a fair trade-off. But as it stands right now, CCP's cutting off their face to spite their nose. What if caps were not intended to be used that way especially since they are about to be re-purposed according to CCP? What if CCP just though no matter how safe or not, you aren't supposed to off-load your damage potential to another ship from ouside the grid? Want to use your cap, how about you bring it on the field instead of keeping it X AU away from what it's helping achieve?
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1681	Posted - 2015.04.10 17:29:20 - [29] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: 1) Off Grid Boosters. 2) If they were going to re-purpose them, they should have either a) given us some hint or b) held off until they were going to enact the actual change. They gave you a hint in the thread about the scan res on fighter and fighter bomber. They specifically said they were loking into making change to it but not in that particular release. It came pretty much right after.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1681	Posted - 2015.04.10 17:30:18 - [30] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: OGB is the same cancer that will be dealt with shortly. There are/were no technical solutions for either of them. Wrong. Boosters are no longer unscannable, and can no longer boost from inside a shield. Just add in a limit to the distance from a POS and you're golden. THey already said the reason boost are not on grid yet is server load. It will come if they find a solution to that.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1682	Posted - 2015.04.11 17:04:06 - [31] - Quote Arctic Estidal wrote: The reason for its removal by CCP is due to the new node sov mechanic, which if allowed to continue would provide a significant defence strength to defenders as they would have a super on the system which an attacker would be trying to use an entosis link on and could kill the attackers without significant risk of assets. I agree the mechanic is overpowered for the defender, or an attacker who drops a ninja pos, but there has to be significant bonuses to defenders who have upgraded their systems and actively use their space, when compared to non-active, non-upgraded systems. I think this is an overpowered mechanic, but the question remains, what are you doing for super capital pilots that wants them to risk the isk, and secondly what are you doing to provide defence bonuses for heavily used systems so the staging systems of alliances cannot be headshot and the all their items and isk destroyed. If your system is well used, the timers will take much longer letting you mount up an effective defense. You also probably ahve most if not all POS as friendly and possibly a station for re-shipping too. What more do you need?