|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
906
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:42:43 -
[1] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:can't you disallow fighter assist from within 50km of a tower instead ? that's gonna produce some lovely killmails
removing fighter warp is completely unnessecarry
Disallowing assignment when in proximity of control tower and station structures would pretty much balance out the risk factor without a knock on effect on unrelated carrier use.
Not a fan of removing fighter warping or making them pointable.
I do think fighter should have sig scaling on their damage titan style (though different parameters) so that they can't blap smaller stuff. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
906
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:35:41 -
[2] - Quote
Its relatively low risk but still a chance of being bumped out of alignment or not paying attention gets you into trouble - unlike now where you can for instance just online the FF and be immediately immune and/or shrug off anyone attacking. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
906
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:43:42 -
[3] - Quote
War Kitten wrote: I guess it was too hard to remove ship bonuses from off-grid fighters? Or was that just not nerfy enough?
Not really needed IMO the main issue is the ability to pretty much "blap" smaller stuff that they should never be able to touch in the first place realistically (even if they are frigate sized vessels*) and that can be far more elegantly countered with proper sig/damage scaling than slamming them with the nerf bat.
* Not piloted by pod pilots so not as highly skilled at gunnery + gameplay reasons. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
906
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:52:36 -
[4] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote: +1
Especially the bolded part. Just spitballing here, but in addition to not being able to deploy fighters near POSs or stations (and taking away bonuses from assigned fighters), maybe a 'siege-like' module that has to be activated for ships to assign fighters, that locks the carrier or SC in place for at least 5 minutes. And/Or 'recieving ship' bandwidth limitations (if a ship has no drone bay, it can't use fighters, if a ship can deploy 5 sentries it can accept 5 fighters etc, which kills small ship 'Skynetting').
I don't know how much of a nightmare that would be from a programming stand point so I offer the above with a big grain of layman's salt lol, but the point is CCP should be making things more interesting, not less.
Some interesting points there, one down side is that a siege/bastion like module would take away a drone control unit slot but tying fighters to some kind of bastion like mode would make them more interesting and give potential for more balanced ways of making them a little less meh outside of skynet type use.
Having them only get bonuses when assigned by activating some kind of bastion like module would be a solution to a fair few issues without a ridiculous nerf though I'm not hugely in favour of it.
EDIT: I guess as a compromise for off grid use it wouldn't be so bad as you could still fit for 15 fighters when doing stuff ongrid just lose the extra slot when assigning - the game should always be about making a choice and/or compromise not about flat out nerf batting. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
907
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:08:09 -
[5] - Quote
War Kitten wrote: The only reason they could blap that small stuff is because they benefited from an overload of tracking and damage mods on the carrier. If those bonuses weren't applied off-grid from the carrier, that couldn't happen any more.
People use assigned fighters for other areas of eve not just skynet which would be affected by the loss of bonuses - though only applying the lack of bonus off-grid would have less an effect than a total loss when assigned/assisted.
EDIT: Assist would keep the bonuses ongrid anyhow mind unless that was special cases yet again as its a different mechanic to assigned. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
908
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:55:56 -
[6] - Quote
Dirk Morbho wrote:DO NOT REMOVE Fighter (Bomber) Warp
Will have a bit of an impact on solo type use of supers, do you warp away when things get hairy and lose your main offensive capability even though your not necessarily out of the fight yet or disproportionately risk an expensive ship waiting on their return...
I get the feeling the people who came up with this idea don't fly capitals and mainly focused on small gang. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
909
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:22:41 -
[7] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:
The problem with the delegation mechanic is it is incredibly buggy and there still are multiple exploits or "clever use of game mechanics" that you can use to give you a significant advantage while assisting your drones, even if you were prevented from doing it on grid with a station or POS.
1. It's possible to get a Thanatos to "hard-to-probe" status by using another "hard-to-probe" Tengu with Remote ECCM. Spurs on the Thanatos and use of X-Instinct. (By "hard-to-probe" I mean the requirement of a max skilled covert ops character with some virtue implants required to probe the Thanatos/Tengu pair). Which makes it close to invulnerable and outside repercussions for the vast majority of gangs unless they specifically know what you're doing and bring Virtue Implants or an incredibly specific fit tengu into your space (risking more than your carriers net-worth), even then, it's possible for you to be aligned out to a POS with refit to WCS in your cargo in the event you get tackled, and RLML fitted on your booster Tengu, in a cynojammed system, making a black ops drop from multiple bombers and back-up recons (all of which you can scout) the only realistic means for your death. If you lose the Tengu+Thanatos and your implant set it still comes into around 2 billion isk ballpark if thanatos is uninsured. Which given what the other people have to field to have a fairly realistic chance of actually catching and killing you (which isn't guranteed) is marginal.
2. Fighters assigned to ships do not agress the ships using them. Unless CCP manages to bug-fix this aspect, this still makes ridiculous things possible such as fighters assigned to double 1600 plate covert ops, nullified subsystem t3s which sit on a gate with anchored bubbles and never aggress and just put fighters on people, jumping out as soon as they lose their 600,000 EHP to almost complete safety.
3. You can take 1) even further by burning a Confessor/Svipul with 10mn MWD in speed mode to the edge of a deadspace pocket in a complex (or a mission in npc 0.0), then setting up there, bringing your carrier 2-3km into the deadspace pocket and requiring even a snaked linked malediction <30minutes to burn to your thanatos if they probe out the plex, which you can easily just type "07 to ur t00nie" into local when it gets below 1000km on dir scanner and warp out.
4. Delegated fighters still fight while a Carrier is in warp so you can easily just assist your fighters to ships, then engage in a long warp to a friendly POS and your fighters will continue to fight while you're in warp and in complete invulnerability landing in the center of a safe POS when you land.
5. offline POS can be used (as they are done currently, right now with skynet/supers) with passwords entered and ready to go online to bypass CCP's current forcefield exclusion zone mechanics.
The problem isn't so much the ships used. As using a 400k EHP abaddon that never agresses with mwd+mmjd+ecm burst+cloak would still be possible with the beacon mechanic, costing 40 million isk after insurance if it dies, with the very likely possibility that it can escape unless the hostiles have multiple pilots (which you know about in your intel channels, and covert ops cloak capable ships if you see fit to allow the grid to allow it on cruisers). I think the risk should be for the Carrier pilot, not for other ships as it's too easy to mitigate risk on the other ships.
Hence my addition of some changes to the fighters themselves.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
910
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 20:21:59 -
[8] - Quote
XavierVE wrote:One Nyx assigning fighters to a single T3 is enough to kill a 20 man AF fleet with logi from the safety of POS shields. If you want to do DPS, be on grid. Pretty simple stuff, there. Fact is, a solid 75% of the people crying in this thread are renters or carebear deep null ratters. Of course they like fighter assist. Makes the game incredibly easy for them. This is EVE, not EVEasy.
Or you can add (proper) sig/damage scaling so fighters can't blap AFs any longer and sort that side of it far more elegantly without a knock on effect on people who might be peacefully enjoying the use of their carrier in completely unrelated ways. (Obviously it needs more changes than just that but it would be a good start without savaging a long standing feature).
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". |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
913
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:38:52 -
[9] - Quote
^^ They can remove assist if they want :D just leave in assignment :P |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
913
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:44:56 -
[10] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:I'm still looking for a reason why to keep the warping function with fighters. The only argument that people have come forward with is that they are expensive, and that its unique. is... Is that it?
If you want to explain it to me like I am five, I'll listen. Heck CCP is here ready to listen. So please do.
Why is this ability needed for Carriers and Supers? Why does the capital need a way to chase ships all over the system?
I can see it being a bigger deal with supers as their FBs are their main teeth (if they have fighters its usually just a token amount) unlike carriers where you still have sentries and a myriad of drones to fall back on. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
914
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 22:58:03 -
[11] - Quote
RogueHunteer wrote:CSM said to happen since all nerfs are coming, just remove all capitals and refund the SP. problem solve. no one wants to play with all nerfs roling out...
Not everyone plays flavour of the month, I pretty much got into the game because it was a "sandbox" and I like capitals (and 1-2 other things) a lot of what draws other people to the game leaves me unaffected i.e. flying around in an ishtar or bomber I get no enjoyment from at all. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
920
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 10:54:24 -
[12] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:How about only allow fighters to be assigned in in systems you have sov 5 in? as a defensive perk to the system
People use carriers/assignment in ways and places completely unconnected to skynet or nullsec. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
920
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:25:11 -
[13] - Quote
Worrff wrote:The best bit is that you can tell that CCP Rise has never used fighters from a carrier himself, as he didn't know that there is an option to stop the fighters following a target.
Awesome idea of Devs nerfing things they have no clue about, and no experience with.
The talk of assist when the feature that causes the problem is assign does raise my concerns - an understandable mistake from people without much carrier experience. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
920
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:46:16 -
[14] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:So, maybe just extend the cyno block zone around towers to disallow launching fighters as well? Seems like everyone agrees that the safety of POS is the issue, and not assigning itself.
The issue is two fold - I've been following it for awhile and one of the biggest complaints with it is that people can be flying something small and fast, do everything they are "supposed" to do when flying smaller ships, put the utmost skill into what they are doing and might if they are lucky evade a volley or 2 but sooner or later (and usually sooner) get alpha'd by the assisted fighters, the quick and easy fix is to remove assignment but I'm pretty sure it could be balanced with some changes to how fighters work with the tracking formula (as titans already get a variant of this it can't be that much of an ask) and being a capital platform weapon IMO its not a problem to make an exception to the normal for them in that regard.
The other complaint is that the carrier/super is to all intents and purposes immune and IMO that is a more complex story as the risk ratio is a different story to flying around in say an ishtar, extending fighter assignment restrictions to the same range as cyno restrictions would definitely make a lot of sense to me on that side of it - its not a complete fix but it removes the most risk free method.
EDIT: I'm actually starting to favour some kind of bastion type mode for fighter use* (which includes the only way to do assignment) as this would completely balance the risk aspect of it and give carriers access to something interesting functionality wise beyond triage or non-triage ratting.
* Maybe not the exclusive mode for using fighters but the best way to use them for optimal effect. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
921
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 12:24:16 -
[15] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote: also to the cryers. most carriers hugging a pos will go into the force field if a hostile ship shows up on grid... forces them into the pos which recalls the fighters. not exactly hard to force them out of the fight
Most of the complaints stem from small gangs roaming - even solo or just a couple of players, jump in see/find a viable target and engage then *suddenly fighters* and despite doing everything they are "supposed" to do survival is pretty slim to none - a valid complaint IMO given the combination of the fact that fighters can do damage in scenarios completely out of balance with the game normal when used in a situation that allows the "skynet" fit and that unlike a hotdrop you can't potentially escalate with a counter drop, etc. IMO that doesn't justify essentially cutting off one leg of the carrier as a way to balance it however. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
921
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 13:12:10 -
[16] - Quote
POS/stations aren't the only problem but they are where the biggest most "game breaking" source of immunity comes from - if your out in space atleast there is a more viable chance you'll screw up, etc. unlike at a POS where even if you get sloppy you can just press the enter button and up FF. Even a carrier hugging the edge of a fight on grid could cyno out if it looks like something is going to tackle it - there is always going to be some less than ideal balances to it. (Or should we just remove carriers to?)
Just making it so that fighters struggle to hit smaller faster ships even with the skynet fit would go a huge way to balancing the problem - personally not a fan of fighters losing all bonuses when off grid with their parent carrier as that kind of flies in the face of what fighter carriers are designed to do, sig/damage scaling as far as I can see has the least knock on effects. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
921
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 13:33:56 -
[17] - Quote
Jori McKie wrote: You are correct i added an "only" to my orignal post
As an aside the rhetoric in my post wasn't aimed at you more a general response to the topic. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
925
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 18:42:06 -
[18] - Quote
Celesae wrote: So: an inferior force engages a superior force without knowing it is superior... Sounds like something straight out of The Art of War.
This is poor planning and/or just the way EVE plays when you have a sandbox. Always assume your enemy has a trump card - if you engage, you do so knowing that there's a risk of loss (personally, I like the mantra of, "If I undock it, I've already lost it").
They could have: 1) Used scouts (d-scan!). Having hostiles in system and not-on grid is a good sign you don't have enough intel. 2) Used the in-game map to look for recent cynos 3) Used killboards to look at the hostiles' previous kills and/or recent kills in the particular system 4) Plot revenge. Even if they can't themselves, there are groups that hunt capitals in lowsec - they'd be more than happy to get intel of skynet carriers.
If none of those were available at all, at any point, then that was a pretty well-laid trap and I'd say the aggressors were doomed to die regardless. Such is EVE.
EDIT: If we're talking about nullsec, then no one should really be surprised at all when this happens. Null-sov space may have ripe and juicy ratting/mining targets, but those are often guarded by the pilots and ships that helped to win and hold the sov in the first place. Hit-and-fade tactics always carry the risk of being snuffed out by the defending garrisons; it's basically guerrilla warfare and carries the same risks.
While I don't exactly disagree - that is an over simplified way to look at it i.e. while some people operate out of the same system doing it over and over some bounce around a region never doing it from one place for very long or as in another case following conflict or other events like thera exits.
If the people doing it are using the more common techniques then plotting revenge is largely a waste of time at the most you might force them to move system prematurely though you might catch the more careless ones. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
925
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:09:38 -
[19] - Quote
Carrion Crow wrote:With regards to disallowing fighter use in close proximity to a POS.
While there are several suggestions for this, I believe that it would remove the ability to use a carrier as part of a genuine POS defense fleet. This would impact smaller corps far harder than large ones.
Again, this would also break lore/common sense - if fighters are piloted ships, why can't they operate near a POS?
I'm sure a nerf to the ability of fighters to attack and flee/warp away at will, would be considerably better from a game play perspective.
I also like the idea of fighter killmails, the more we make them like real ships / improve impact of loss, the better.
CC
Its only assignment within proximity of a POS that should be restricted not fighter use on grid itself of the POS. Which can easily enough be explained by all the systems at the POS causing communication scrambling/distortion/attenuation or something to off grid fighters when a carrier is near the POS. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
925
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:12:46 -
[20] - Quote
Galian Kile wrote: This is true. Hence why a corpmate suggested it be a POS Anchorable Structure. Which is usable in WH space as well.
No one is really going to bother going around incapping them though, the other option I guess would be a module that worked like ecm burst but temporarily disrupted (assigned) fighters in range but that could be used to effortlessly grief without a lot of design work. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
926
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 22:57:15 -
[21] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote: EXACTLY!
It's getting absurd. Everyone is going to end up flying a frigate. Especially interceptor's...
CCP get a grip, it's getting frustrating now, i have been playing this game since 2004, and now, it seems the moment someone is able to fight off roaming gangs (interceptor roaming gangs are INCREDIBLY OP), NERF IT!
Here's some pro-tips to the masses of noobs complaining about skynet: Yes your little roaming gang should be decimated by a defense gang utilizing carrier/supercarrier back-up. Yes your little roaming gang of interceptor can EASILY get away if someone is actually defending their space. Yes you can kill or negate the carrier/supercarrier help (force it into the POS shield, kill the cap/supercap, kill the POS, hot-drop, kill the ship that has fighter's assigned, or... holy ****... kill the fighter's! A AF and a HAC can decimate a fighter so quickly, it's not even funny!).
I'm all for stopping fighters to follow targets when engaged, but taking the warp away from fighters... taking the assign option away... that's a pretty big nerf and cuts off gameplay completely for carriers/supercarriers (yet again...).
As much as I don't want to see fighters lose assignment or warp a lot of that just doesn't apply - a small roaming gang will NOT win the war of attrition by killing fighters as they can be recalled or assigned to another player out of range once they get low health. Bashing the POS will do nothing and you'll be extremely lucky to get into a position to kill or even hot drop the super/carrier unless the pilot gets extremely lazy/sloppy.
Trying to get away is easier said than done - skynet fighters can easily blap fast inties, etc. sure if you've got a few players in the gang those not tackled can warp off and try and find the super/carrier but by the time they've done that the player(s) tackled will be long dead and the super/carrier safe.
On the flipside I managed to escape easily in a sleipnir and if I'd have had my links alt with me or been dual booster fit probably would have been able to kill them rather than run away - if I had been caught in open space in that instance instead of near a gate though I'd have been dead. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
926
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 03:13:44 -
[22] - Quote
IIRC he logged in like 20-30km outside the FF. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
928
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 12:58:47 -
[23] - Quote
Cleanse Serce wrote:wouldn't it be better to just put a command line in which a Carrier couldn't put assist on fighter @ less than X km from a station / gate / POS / whatever ?
Skynet would still exist, but Carrier would be Probe-able and in danger cause they get Fighters timers !
Alone it doesn't solve the issue (though IMO its a needed step to resolving the issue without removing functionality).
Much of the original complaints stemmed from the fact that in combination with the "skynet" fit fighters were able to apply (unsupported) battleship to dread levels of alpha (and dps) to things that a battleship or dread could only dream of hitting, the fact that the super/carrier that was allowing that to happen was sitting about as safe as you get in this game while doing that was just adding insult to injury. Increasing the weighting of the sig component of the fighter's chance/quality to hit (i.e. similar style to what titan xl turrets use but not quite as extreme) so that they struggle and/or can't hit smaller stuff no matter how many tracking mods, etc. the carrier/super is using would go a long way to addressing that without any other changes and have minimal knock on effect on unrelated areas of eve.
@Vic Jefferson - that is one of the biggest reasons I'm not playing eve today as much as I used to and why changes like this make me sad - I jumped in the game with the intention from the start of training up for dreads - literally within days of finishing my skill queue they removed drone functionality from dreads - on its own not a big deal but when you've into run stuff like that several times it stops you wanting to put any effort into long term plans and not being a flavour of the month type player it leaves me less and less attached to the game (doesn't bother me to go and play something else but that isn't really an optimal outcome). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
928
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 14:41:16 -
[24] - Quote
Oblivious Aubaris wrote:What about an assisted drone bandwidth?
Just as an example. The taranis interceptor has a normal drone bandwidth of 10 Mbit/sec. If that was his assisted drone bandwidth, then he wouldn't even be able to have a fighter assigned to him at all. I'm not saying it should be 10 Mbits/sec. Let say it was 25 Mbits/sec assisted drone bandwidth. That allows the pilot to have the option of 1 fighter or 5 light drones. He could have 1 heavy drone or 2 medium drones and 1 light drone. Obviously this amount would grow exponentially as the ship size goes up. An example being a battleship can have a full 5 fighters assisting him, but he is risking his battleship on grid.
^^ People would just start using linked nano phoons ;) (or machariels)
Slightly less flippantly doesn't really solve the problem as there are a few cruisers that have the bandwidth and you still have the factor that triggered a lot of complaints in that those fighters can easily blast ships away that anything else with that kind of firepower would struggle to hit at all. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
928
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 23:16:42 -
[25] - Quote
Byson1 wrote:Phoenix Jones wrote:I'm still trying to see why keeping the fighter warp is beneficial. Nobody is saying why. You have to be completely out of the shields to be able to assign fighters. It's been that way for a while now. There was a time when they could stick their nose out and assign. That time is no longer.. I would suggest maybe slowing carriers down more, lowering aggility, so it takes longer for them to return to shields rather than have to be a minimum distance from pos shields as there is already a min distance -you have to be out of the shields.
Its not just carriers sitting on the edge of the FF :S and even those that are if they are doing it "properly" can get safe without having to move - hence the recommendation of disallowing fighter delegation inline with the cyno restrictions around POSes.
Carriers are supposed to have "over the horizon" capabilities as well as fleet support - taking away fighters being able to warp and be assigned would take away a part of what a carrier actually is.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
928
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 23:18:32 -
[26] - Quote
Dean Dewitt wrote:
This is ASSIST not ASSIGNING, can we talk about the issue with people who know what they are talking about?
There needs to be a sticky lol - the number of people bringing up the same wrong misconceptions and/or blatantly incorrect use of the terminology (that is excusable if you've never actually flown a carrier) repeatedly is funny.
EDIT: Does anyone know if "attack and follow" actually works? (if disabled) I've always just left it on and micro-managed fighter actions i.e. swapping targets/recalling/reassigning to prevent them warping off after someone. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
930
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 11:59:51 -
[27] - Quote
Kane Carnifex wrote:Skynet, an overview and suggestions review
Some of your knowledge of this is 6 months behind the curve (atleast taking your post at face value) - people doing this are increasingly moving away from sitting at the edge of the FF towards other ways of using POS mechanics to be safe where they don't need to move back inside the FF to become perfectly safe.
Even a ship with interceptor speed and sig will struggle to kite off fighters unless with a head start let alone a cruiser from what I've seen.
The revenant that got killed while it had been involved with doing skynet stuff got caught on login 20-30km outside the POS FF possibly at the spot where he cyno'd in. (which IMO is a good example of why fighter assignment should follow cyno restrictions around a POS). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
930
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 13:31:10 -
[28] - Quote
@Kane Carnifex - one of the becoming common techniques is to set up a few POSes around a region without on-lining the forcefield and sitting right by the control tower itself while assigning fighters - this way if anything does become a threat to you you simply online the forcefield. I believe it also means you can cyno straight to another control tower directly as well without the normal cyno restrictions but I'd not tested that for myself (heard something about "garage dooring" but not looked into it).
There are a couple of other techniques involving POS mods but I'd rather not elaborate on that as they are lesser known and/or while I know its possible to do some of them I've not worked out the steps to reproduce it. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
930
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 13:56:37 -
[29] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Rroff wrote:
You could reduce fighter weapon ranges to reduce this but then you'd run into the old problem that made fighters mostly useless back in the day in that their high orbit speed and short optimal range meant they'd often defeat their own tracking.
Which the receiving ship fixes with webs/target painters/scrams etc.
As I mentioned before my preferred solution would be to implement the tracking formula for fighters (and sentries as an aside) like titans where the signature component has more weight - with the right parameters it makes it very hard to hit inties, etc. while having minimal (AFAIK) knock on effect to applying damage to say BC sized and larger targets (where the sig component of the chance to hit formula would be satisfied).
There is a bit of a knock on effect to people who might use "skynet" to rat from POS in that they will have to risk something slightly more expensive to regain parity in the efficiency of killing smaller NPC ships but I don't really have a lot of sympathy there as it merely means putting a little more ISK onto the field and still doesn't mean risking the carrier.
EDIT: This makes sense to me anyhow as while fighters are frigate sized craft they have normal pilots rather than pod pilots so wouldn't have the same level of gunnery skills ;) |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
930
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 14:09:47 -
[30] - Quote
Karma ChameIeon wrote: And is it just me or have so many people not understood what "Attack and Follow" means for drone settings, is this a failing on CCP's part in tutorial or wiki pages or are these people just too lazy to look it up? I found out on my first day because I saw it and asked in rookie help!
TBH despite flying carriers for more than 3 years I've never experimented with that setting - just left it enabled and micro-managed my fighters, I was aware of of being there and what it was supposed to do however though couldn't say if it actually worked or not heh. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
930
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 15:14:57 -
[31] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote: The problem started when you had all skills and all drone modules applying their bonuses to the fighters and fighter bombers. Before this , you could not get fighters moving at 6k m/s and dealing tons of DPS.
You did not have cheap nullified ships like ceptors.
Many things have changed.
Its not a problem from normal combat fit carriers (which are finally in sort of a good place). A lot of the problem stems from the fact that as tracking becomes less of a problem the less significance any sig size discrepancy has between the turret sig res and target sig size which isn't a problem (infact works well) in general gameplay but "skynet" fits allow this side effect to become an issue (same as happened with Titans) they are edge cases but need dealing with none the less.
I really don't want to see fighters lose bonuses from drone mods again whether assigned or not.
Seeing the discussions over the last few days in regards to carriers, ishtars and sentries I'm starting to think (though testing might prove otherwise) that both sentries and fighters should use titan style tracking formulas as this would do a ton of balancing in one go (giving drone BS a bonus to sentry sig to make them more effective with sentries than cruiser hulls). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
931
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 20:26:56 -
[32] - Quote
Haywoud Jablomi wrote:Ncc 1709 wrote:make assisted fighters use ship bandwidth. they use 25 on a carrier so they should also use 25 of the ship there assigned to. so only frigs like the Tristan and ishkur could run 1 fighter. Thorax 2, vexor 3. myrmidon 4.
maraudas could only run 1 (2 for kronos)
the only ships that would be able to natively run 5 fighters would be the ships that already use drones as their damage output. so T3's would either run 0 or 1 with proteus at 4
wow a whole page of comments disappeared while typing this Everything he said.. Do it... DO IT NOW!!!
Doesn't really solve anything though - shuffles the problem around a bit but doesn't address the core issue. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
931
|
Posted - 2015.03.02 22:27:57 -
[33] - Quote
Momiji Sakora wrote:Not sure if this has been suggested already, but how about making fighters only assistable to battle cruiser hulls and above, or a particular ship class? It certainly doesn't feel sensible to have frigates with fighters assisted, or cruisers. But surely a battleship with fighters is decent?
Even a battleship with fighters as is is still a platform that can apply battleship through to capital levels of damage to things that battleships through to capitals can only dream of hitting that effectively.
The last 30 pages of this thread have been constant repeats of the first 10 pages 3x over :( with the same points, misconceptions and counter points being brought up :S
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
931
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 11:52:58 -
[34] - Quote
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.
I don't think there is anyone here who supports the mechanics that allow for the skynet thing or a very small number if there is, most people don't want to see another huge feature nerf/removal that affects a wider spread of uses including non-pvp use due to the actions of a few. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
932
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 12:28:21 -
[35] - Quote
afkalt wrote: At the end of the day, people put faction fit marauders/T3/battleship on the line on field on a regular basis, but people are too scared to do the same with a capital which doesnt cost significantly more*....because why? Hell people fly in pods with multiple billions in low sec.
People need to get over the mental hurdles of committing caps to a fight, on grid.
*supers being stupid not withstanding
Somewhat its due to the logistics of replacing a capital and/or for some people a capital is the product of years of training and investment which is generally a higher order than even a pimp marauder.
You get over it a bit after losing the first capital - but I've still got my first thanny (survived 5-6 fights) and a bit of attachment to that particular one and while I'm not afraid to risk it on grid and have done so won't just throw it away. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
933
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 12:58:13 -
[36] - Quote
afkalt wrote: The other acid test is - if these didn't exist today but people proposed adding them - what would the reaction be? You and I both know the answer to that.
You'd never get an objective response to that proposal today anyhow a good bulk of players have no intention of flying capitals and/or only play eve in a disposable or flavour of the month manner and wouldn't be for anything that wasn't easy prey for an ishtar or stealth bomber. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
934
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 13:40:52 -
[37] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello
Appreciate all the feedback very much.
Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist.
We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving.
Thanks again.
I really wish you actually meant assist.
Good job on ignoring everything said here and going along with what you originally planned all along. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
934
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 13:54:37 -
[38] - Quote
Necharo Rackham wrote:Kane Carnifex wrote: The removal of this feature will not increase the amount of battles as the most small gangs are totally unable to kill a carrier or even get through the active tank. So they will run away once they see a capital on Dscan or badphone for more people.
I think there are plenty of small gangs that could kill a full gank fit carrier on grid - i mean, if they are unable to kill it, why have it in/near the POS to start with?
Also means with this change you've gone from having a usually safe carrier (that can occasionally be caught if the user gets lazy/messes up) to the carrier not being there at all with the feature removed... some of the options give a bit more balance where people would continue to use carriers for this kind of thing but with reduced effectiveness and a higher chance of being caught by the prepared :S |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
935
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:02:25 -
[39] - Quote
afkalt wrote: Because they'll spend time and money sorting POS mechanics and people will just hide in dead space pockets and nothing will change. They don't do that today because the POS is mechanically easier but if there's one thing we know about EVE players - effort knows no bounds when it gives a stupid advantage.
So the list is actually stations, POS AND deadspace - and you can bet your bottom dollar that's some legacy ass code so old it's probably haunted.
The problem isn't just the ways that people can make themselves safer or safe from repercussion - its as much and more so really the fact that skynet fighters can do things that other ships with comparable firepower simply can't ongrid or offgrid - a good start would have been to address that and see how things panned out before other changes that have a far wider reaching impact.
Hiding on the edge of DED pockets while shouldn't be possible is far less reliable to do than many other techniques and does atleast mean someone is moving a capital about space which gives chances to catch them at some point - atleast the capital is there with a chance of being caught (and with minimal impact on roaming gangs if my other advice is sound - which I believe it is though can't easily test for myself) unlike this change which means the capital won't be there in the first place even if the problem is gone. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
935
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:20:55 -
[40] - Quote
Kane Carnifex wrote:Rroff wrote: really the fact that skynet fighters can do things that other ships with comparable firepower simply can't ongrid or offgrid
They are expensive drones which have the ability to warp and chase targets which you pay with 20 Million for around 200DPS per drone. Also they are easy to kill if you want, but doesn't produce a kill mail so not interesting for PVP.
With the skynet fits they can apply levels of alpha even to tiny stuff that is normally the upper end of battleship territory and through to capitals - which should never happen and is to my knowledge (atleast where I first started to see complaints about it) where most complaints about skynet stemmed from - from a properly fit super/rev you only need like 2 of the fighters to get good hits (which they will sooner rather than later in most cases) to kill many smaller frigs - which they can also easily chase down. If they were tweaked so as to be ineffective against sub BC type stuff I believe most of the skynet issues would go away with minimal knock on effect - sure people who use skynet for ratting would have to assign to something a little more expensive on the field to kill frigs and some cruiser NPCs off as quickly as they used to but I have little sympathy in that regard.
Killing fighters when assigned to someone isn't that easy if they are on the ball, they can immediately recall them or assign them to another player who is further away. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
935
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:27:19 -
[41] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:afkalt wrote:I don't think you know how the mechanic to which I refer actually works. Then please do educate me. If you're referring, however, to the instance where an interceptor warps into a gated pocket, burns just out of grid, has the carrier warp to him, slowboat inside the grid, finish the pocket so that the gate despawns, that has been ruled an exploit and will result in one getting banned.
Not directed at you but on that topic even removing assignment and forcing carriers on grid there is always going to be some cases where they can take advantage of mechanics to reduce the risk to themselves either via grid-fu or just sitting on the edge of the fight and cynoing out if anything threatens them and so on - sure they are a lot less safe than now - what next remove grids :D and cynos :S. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
935
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:37:29 -
[42] - Quote
Kane Carnifex wrote: You found a Problem, now think about a solution. Try to keep all people busy during the fight don't give time for thinking. I dont know if a pointed/bubbled fighter is able to warp.
Pointing fighters won't stop them warping - this was done on purpose originally due to gameplay reasons don't really have my head in it enough to know if they are still relevant reasons today.
Kane Carnifex wrote:
Regarding my experience a proper Pilot is able to kite them, once he is scram/webbed he dies.
When I was playing around with it (on SISI I don't do skynet on TQ as its lame) it was possible to make fighters that largely would blap even an inty trying to evade them unwebbed. Even without a full skynet fit they can apply something like 1/3rd of their DPS to an ABing, sig reduction linked, guardian.
EDIT: Its not a 100% guarantee - sometimes every single fighter will miss 2 volleys in a row - other times most of them will get good hits with the first volley. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
935
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:52:14 -
[43] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: What if they increased the sig radius of fighters, and made scrams affect them? That'd provide a good incentive to not use em.
^^ Its one thing people seem to forget when suggesting shooting fighters - revenant fighters (which in terms of "skynet" are a fair proportion of the use) get a big bonus to sig reduction and a decent bonus to EHP. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
943
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 20:58:34 -
[44] - Quote
Panther X wrote: You're going far too fast on big changes, and not fast enough on the little things. Like for example, CSPA. Really? It took you 10 years to realize what a useless thing that is? Seriously I figured THAT crap out in 30 seconds. And its a "feature" in Scylla? That should have been a bug patch like 9 years ago.
Wait... did someone finally get to fixing CSPA? and they didn't remove ISK as the fix either? |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
943
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 22:18:34 -
[45] - Quote
mannyman wrote:Another thing to consider,
Its the tracking modules in mid-slot thats the problem with fighters, the active omnis give way better tracking, why not just remove module enhancement to fighters when they are delegated/assisted (or offgrid from super or carrier) ? That makes it harder to track and damage wont get out of proportions
Its been suggested a few times in this and the related threads.
It would go a long way to fixing the problem but I kind of like where fighters have finally got to (outside of skynet use) and that takes away from it - albeit maybe it would need to happen but IMO a better fix would be to make the sig component have more weight in the chance to hit so even if the fighter tracking is good enough to bring its damage to smaller stuff it still wouldn't hit reliably due to the difference between the fighter turret sig res and the target signature res. I'm not sure it can really be accomplished just by increasing the turret sig on the fighters or not - more likely to really kill over the top skynet use against smaller roaming gangs it would need to be implemented in similar style to titan's turrets.
As an aside I think it would be a good change for sentries too as it would go a long way to balancing ishtars without otherwise shaking them up. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
944
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:22:42 -
[46] - Quote
Having lowsec restrictions is a bit arbitrary.
Fighter delegation using bandwidth does nothing to solve the problem just shuffles it around a bit.
Removing drone bonuses from assigned fighters would solve most of the core problems but a sad step backwards - IMO a better option exists there (turret sig based tweaks).
Reducing fighter amounts doesn't solve anything in regard to skynet.
Fighter delegation range around POSes would need fixing.
Making fighters warp disruptable would need to be looked at/opened for discussion. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
944
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 11:42:32 -
[47] - Quote
mannyman wrote: Fighter delegation doesnt shuffle it around, with drone bandwith, it ensures small noob ships cant get fighters, and also fast locking interceptors and shuttles and pods.
Assuming fighters still have bonuses you still have fighters that can murder small stuff even if there are restrictions on the number you can assign to certain ships, if you remove fighter stats then it doesn't make that much odds as fighters will be back to being not very effective. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
945
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 20:58:42 -
[48] - Quote
DerpimusPrime Aihaken wrote:Just got killed by an astero with templars assisted to it. Athleast remove the option to assist to frigs/destroyers and cruisers athleast. Sucks to be killed from something you cant do nothing about instead of having an actual 1v1.
What I've been saying all along - fighters shouldn't be able to blap an astero with (relative) ease - even just fix that and a large chunk of the problems with skynet go away without having to remove delegation. (Doesn't matter what they are assigned to). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
945
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:21:29 -
[49] - Quote
Panther X wrote: Balance changes
1) Restrict to hull class *X* sizer or above. 2) Only pilots who have trained fighters to *X* level can use assisted fighters 3) No assigned ship bonuses to fighters, only pilot controlling gets Fighters skill bonus, maximum fighters determined by Fighters skill level 4) Carriers/ Supers can not assign fighters within 50km of anchored structures
Does this balancing idea not make sense, and is fair to everyone? It keeps fighters assisted, keeps them warping, because they have always had the option to attack and follow anyway, addresses skynet, and keeps the flow of skillbooks going because if you want to have fighters assigned to you, you have to learn how to use them.
If fighters lose their carrier's bonus when assigned then you don't really need to restrict what they can be assigned to as they revert back to being for the most part ineffective against anything sub large battleship sized.
Personally I have several characters with fighters V and I doubt I'm alone in that so it doesn't really work much as a balance point.
Not being able to delegate fighters within 50km of a POS, etc. pretty much needs to happen IMO regardless if assignment were to stay in the game.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
945
|
Posted - 2015.03.04 21:37:40 -
[50] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:All the tricks in a 1v1. falcon alt, booster alt, and now assigned fighters
While it always makes me laugh when someone has expectations of a fair 1v1 in eve lol... its one thing to die because someone had friends, you got out played or were in over your head and another to as I guess happened die because the fighters were so amped up they negated and degree of skill or ship attributes on the part of the person they were set on.
(Your much more likely to see me assigning fighters than flying a frigate). |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
945
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 00:49:13 -
[51] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:DerpimusPrime Aihaken wrote:Just got killed by an astero with templars assisted to it. Athleast remove the option to assist to frigs/destroyers and cruisers athleast. Sucks to be killed from something you cant do nothing about instead of having an actual 1v1. Just leave then... You fought a stronger force and lost... It's normal. Warp away, get back to the gate and jump, hide somewhere and cloak.... I'm fine with cruiser and up being assigned fighters too.
Easier said than done - last time I ran into it I was in an old school single non-asb booster Sleipnir (hadn't got around to refitting it) and had to deagress and jump out fairly quickly - if I'd engaged anywhere but on a gate/station or had been further off gate I'd have been dead, very dead. (Might have been able to kill them if I'd been dual asb + linked... maybe...). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
945
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 01:55:40 -
[52] - Quote
Panther X wrote: Well...d-scan would have showed you a carrier in system. You should really know better. Unless you are going for the carrier in an anom, that's your own fault for aggressing something.
And really, you weren't 1v1'ing, you were agressing a hostile with backup in system. Whether it was assisted fighters or a fleet of ishtars, that's all on you.
I was aware the carriers were there which is partly why I managed to escape as I was expecting it - as aside though there is nothing to stop the carrier cloaking until needed, etc. as its lock time isn't a factor or just waiting docked up, etc.
Not sure about the 1v1 comment I think your confusing me with another poster. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
945
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 02:41:43 -
[53] - Quote
Davir Sometaww wrote:You could always; you know. Research the system you are entering and you would know in a heart beat.
Some do it out of the same system a lot - others hop around regions and rarely do it from one place long (especially if they are using supers). The revenant that was killed recently was doing it moving with thera exits. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
946
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:57:57 -
[54] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:
Well use a scout, use friends, have a better fit... Heck go back and hot drop the carrier...
People are saying take odd sky net because they want to attack protected areas and have it easy...
If anything those systems should be hard to crack...
Fighters don't instantly appear next to you and kill you. They take time to lock, they also need to travel in warp, etc etc etc... People are complaining about something they do not understand. You should lose when fighting 2-3 guys using capital support. Only reason people want those slow easy to kill capitals on grid is to padd their killboard because they are slow and easy to kill!
I'd agree with what you said if there were tweaks to make hot dropping a more realistic (even if slim) possibility, the revenant died because the pilot was either lazy or stupid - logging in some distance outside the POS FF pretty much handed PL the kill on a plate.
For every instance where what you said applies there is another instance where it doesn't with current mechanics and even though I'm not against people utilising skynet none of that excuses fighters that can usually kill even an inty in 2-4 volleys. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
946
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:38:53 -
[55] - Quote
helfen wrote:Check the fighter stats Here if you doubt my information about fighters and their delegated damage from the carrier hull being passed down or not
Have you tested the actual stats? - it could be the show info window is incorrect for the person who has them delegated. Unfortunately don't have the time right now to test. I know there are some issues if for instance you assign a nyx's drones to a thanny who then uses them. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
946
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:06:03 -
[56] - Quote
I know there are issues with super->carrier bonuses - doing a quick test with thanny shooting something then assigning the fighters to something else to shoot the same something showed <5% difference in the averages of the hits from the log file (not really scientific but close enough).
Its possible super bonuses got chopped on the quiet due to the other problem rather than fixed :S |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
946
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 20:26:15 -
[57] - Quote
Mkx pl wrote:Super capitals and theirs assists will be possible only to do for other Carriers or Supers. Not allowed for any other small ships.
Drone Bandwith for Supers and Carriers will be incerased, also Fighter and Fighter bombers will reques to use much more Drone Bandwith than now.
Explain > You can't assist Fighters for any other ship with small Drone Bandwith. Only Supers or Carriers have enought space for keep them
Only in this way we can keep Supers and Carriers to be unique, in other way Capitals will be destroyed.
Thing is - from a gameworld tech/mechanisms point of view - assist/assignment doesn't remove the parent ship from the equation - it still handles telemetry, gunnery, navigation systems, etc. only thing that has changed has delegation of command - hence you can assign fighters to well anything regardless of its own drone capabilities.
mannyman wrote: I agree! 20 or 50km doesnt matter, point is, further away than being inside pos shields than 10 seconds.
Its more than just about slowboating back inside FF if threatened - don't really want to go into all the techniques people use but it needs to be atleast 20-50km outside of the FF radius to prevent the various ways that can be done to make a carrier or super perfectly safe without moving it an inch. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
946
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 11:58:58 -
[58] - Quote
X4me1eoH wrote:And all messages with suggestions keep capitals at 10-20-50 km from field for assisting I think wrong. Because capital can be at safe spot with alining to pos.
See earlier in the thread, while not trivial to do a capital aligned in space is catchable. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
946
|
Posted - 2015.03.06 20:29:49 -
[59] - Quote
Hunter Anubis wrote: Also regarding carriers fighters they should work while carrier is in triage theres no logical reason for them to stop moving when their PILOTED unlike drones.
Is a bit silly they just stop responding the moment the carrier goes into triage - they should return to the carrier automatically - but understandable you can't use triage and fighters at the same time as in triage mode ostensibly all the ships capabilities are repurposed for triage operation hence the huge boost in local/remote tank. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
946
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 12:23:01 -
[60] - Quote
Eldwinn wrote: I am in favor of having fighters and bombers having the ability to warp. A lot of the comments in this thread seem to favor skynetting. This is pretty apparent as a lot of the replies are pressing for weak nerfs and solutions to the "problem" (skynetting) that do not place the carrier in any sort of risk. A lot of the very same comments indicate that the "risk" the carrier undergoes is a simple DD from a titan. Which DD'ing a skynetting carrier makes complete sense. This however only creates further problems. Small to medium groups typically have a harder time on isk income. With titans having such a large price tag it is unrealistic to think a small to medium group would be able to counter this mechanic how it exists now. Additional this would favor SOV holding alliances with large titan production options.
tl;dr nerf skynetting and assisting drones into the ground.
There are very few people who support skynetting from the pvp perspective (might be some disguised posts) there is a not insignificant number of posters who use drone assignment to make their isk either ratting in null or C4 wormholes (C5 upwards tend to take advantage of capital escalations) hence suggesting weaker nerfs.
There is a good way to nerf the worst elements of skynet into the ground with minimal knock on effect or feature removal but I'm beginning to think most people don't understand what I've been suggesting and others only care to see it gone completely whatever the consequences. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
947
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 17:06:58 -
[61] - Quote
^^ C5 and upwards caps on field due to the escalation (C4s don't escalate) - C4 people "tend" (its not common but not completely uncommon either*) to sit the carrier outside the FF and assign fighters to a marauder (or tengu) in site to speed things up. Its unusual for people to build more than 1 maybe 2 capitals in a C4 due to being unable to extract them.
* People who do it don't generally make it known they do it so as not to draw attention to their capitals. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
947
|
Posted - 2015.03.07 21:16:09 -
[62] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Lamar Muvila wrote:Wouldn't it work to have carriers anchor when they have fighters assigned and combine that with a minimum distance from a pos or station and if that isn't enough limit assigning fighters to cruisers and larger ships. The anchor feature could have a cool down time after the fighters return or are abandoned. You mean something like the Fighter Delegation Module mentioned earlier? Same idea as Bastion / Triage / Siege.
Actually kind of like the idea of a bastion style (duration/weapons timer) module for fighter delegation - if it included some other bonuses as well (NOT to tracking or damage heh). It would still need to be coupled with some tweaks so fighters couldn't blap smaller ships though. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
948
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 20:18:27 -
[63] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Make the accepting ship have open bandwidth to accept the fighters. Take away the actual passive bonuses when assigned (leave the module), it only makes sense that those bonuses be tied to the carrier itself and I doubt you'll find many super pilots against this.
Doesn't make much sense from the ingame tech perspective - the ship they are assigned to just takes command delegation the parent carrier still does all the normal processing for the fighters hence bonuses.
The main issues relating to skynet "should" (though I could be wrong) be fixable with tweaks to fighter turret sig without having to resort to divesting them of bonuses or other limitations.
As someone who has spent the last few months topping up my carrier pilots skills (multiple chars to carrier V, fighters V, ADI V, etc.) including investing a bit in fighter production (for my own derping around I have no interest in using skynet in PVP) this has put me completely off investing any more time into eve. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
948
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 21:25:35 -
[64] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote: Sorry to say, but the capital ship's role has always been around PVP and structure grinding. While it's nice to use in PvE so the space coffins help flip the bill for the account their sitting on, it wasn't really their intention. And from an ingame tech perspective it does make sense as the super carrier is equip to control the fighters to their utmost capabilities, by assigning them to another vessel it would make sense that they would then lose that bonus.
They already have an attached sig of 125m, making too much larger would make it so they can't hit a cruiser. The entire purpose of fighters are to be anti-sub cap, while bombers are the anti-cap. There is nothing wrong with their current damage application, it's with the types of ships that their power is being assigned to and to what level of safety the super pilot can reasonably expect to maintain while effectively participating in combat from afar.
Never said I wouldn't use one in PVP (and infact have) I wouldn't be using them (generally) to do skynet type stuff however - I've done it the odd time but thats just derping about shooting silly stuff for lols.
Assign/assist doesn't mean turning over full operation of the fighters to another ship - the parent carrier "still does" all the telemetry, gunnery, navigation, etc. processing, etc. (could debate whether having another ship (that they are assigned to) looped into the command interface has a reduction on efficiency).
I believe their current turret sig res is actually 400 - problem is that the better they are able to track a target (transversal wise) the less significant any discrepancy between their turret sig res and the target sig res becomes - which generally isn't a problem but in outlier cases like with what happened with titans and fighters when you don't have to consider using module slots for anything but buffing fighters (as per skynet) it does things that are way outside the normal - fighters have no problems chasing down and blapping even interceptors with relative ease - I don't disagree with fighters being able to apply damage to sub-capitals but skynet amps that up way too far - using a titan style modifier for sig would have minimal knock on effect in other situations where the target sig/fighter turret sig part of the equation is fully satisfied but stop them able to apply battleship or higher levels of damage to smaller stuff that battleship and bigger can't hit with anything like even remotely the same ease. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
948
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 21:38:14 -
[65] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Nasar Vyron wrote:They already have an attached sig of 125m, making too much larger would make it so they can't hit a cruiser. The entire purpose of fighters are to be anti-sub cap, while bombers are the anti-cap. There is nothing wrong with their current damage application, it's with the types of ships that their power is being assigned to and to what level of safety the super pilot can reasonably expect to maintain while effectively participating in combat from afar. You're confusing Signature Radius (how big something is on scanners / radar / whatever) and Signature Resolution (m2 of the gun's projectile / beam / whatever. Think of it like a shotgun's spread only it doesnt get bigger as distance increases) Nope sig resolution is 125m on einherji. Their scan resolution (not sure if up to date what im looking at) is/was 350mm. Sig radius 100m That's why they have such a hard time hitting frigates even when fully tracking fit with web and paint. I can see why you thought I was mistaken, it let me put the facts out there on the rest of their stats at least :) And so we're all on the same page... Einherji
Last time I looked at the database (firbolg):
Optimal target sig 400 m, Scan-res 125, signature (how big they are) 100.
Gonna check the recent scan res nerf thread to double check.
EDIT: As per Fozzie's post:
Quote: Type - Old Scan Res GÇô New Scan Res Dragonfly - 200 - 100 Einherji - 350 - 175 Firbolg - 250 - 125
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
949
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 21:48:51 -
[66] - Quote
^^ Unless the recent database dump is wrong then their optimal weapon sig is 400m.
Regardless you can still make them toast anything less than a snaked/linked interceptor with ease even without webbing/target painting it. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
949
|
Posted - 2015.03.10 23:00:02 -
[67] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote: Doesn't really change the fact that fighters are meant to be anti-sub cap tho and increasing it too much defeats their purpose unless they are to only be anti-BC/BS in the times ahead. Tho that would take one heck of a nerf.
Agreed but as things stand skynet type fits allow you to apply crazy amounts of damage to tiny stuff* - IMO they shouldn't be able to apply anything close to full damage to smaller cruisers and down.
* ok this is taking it to the absurd and my only inty pilot has sucky skills but... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUZsKXSEU8M |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
949
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:03:19 -
[68] - Quote
Nasar Vyron wrote: FYI - the second those fighters came at you you should have flown sideways rather than the direction they were flying, you had 0 transferal to them. That's a tip in general, not just for fighters :) screw with fighters even more by orbiting one of them closely as you kill them off. Even the best tracking fits will have a time and a half landing a blow if you drop in for close orbit.
Doesn't make any difference against that setup :S flying in any direction with MWD on they will blap you (I've tried heh) they drop out of MWD to shoot so you always go low transversal.
The second bit can work if your just up against 5 assigned to 1 ship but doesn't work if there are more fighters than that as some of them will always be in a position to hit you.
EDIT: That setup I'm using is crazy though - even if you try orbiting with MWD off they will kill that inty within 5 volleys always. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
949
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:11:57 -
[69] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: 4) We know nothing about the fit on the Claw or his skills except that he has a MWD and goes not even 4km/s, and all he's doing is attempting to keep at range 1,000km. He doesn't try to warp off, he doesn't overheat his MWD, he doesn't do anything that might save him from being exploded. Attempting to use this single video from the test server as an example of how bad things are is ludicrous as shown by the Revenant killmail.
As I said its taking it to the absurd (and my inty capable alt has rubbish skills - though the fit itself doesn't matter against that you will die no matter the fit and that is far from the max speed you can get out of those einherji) but its purely to illustrate just how easily fighters when amped up can deal with even the smallest ships in eve - the idea wasn't to escape or anything (i.e. you could be trying to run away from another fast ship thats holding long point on you). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
949
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 00:24:39 -
[70] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Except all you had to do was... warp... away.... If you're trying to outrun a long point, there's a nifty little maneuver called the "slingshot trick". Again, when the fighters are..... "amped up", as you said, that means he's sacrificed a good amount of tank, which means he's vulnerable to dreads or a Talos fleet.
Which isn't an issue if they are using some of the techniques people do to keep their super/carrier safe i.e. sitting right by the control tower ready to enter FF password.
Sure in that case I could have warped away - easily - though I'd have had to leave system pretty quickly but its not really the point - the point is that those fighters have dread levels of damage (albeit you'd need more than 1 ship on grid to fully assign it) but can easily apply that almost fully potentially even to an interceptor with very little if any assistance (let alone with assistance) - no amount of small ship piloting skills will keep you alive against that setup unless you can warp off or running snakes, etc. (those fighters can be pushed up to beyond 9km/s).
I don't have a problem with fighters being used in that way as such but there should never be a situation where they can blap small ships like that (unless your sitting dead still or something). |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
949
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 01:41:46 -
[71] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:
If they are forced to turn on their control tower and thus lose connection / power to their drones, I'd say that's Op success? I dunno about you, but according to my PYFA my Moros does northwards of 15k DPS. A Nyx does only 7k DPS with 15 Einherji. With 5x Unit W-634 Drone Nav comp, they only go 8.04km/s. Please stop attempting to distribute incorrect facts. It has only 9.42m EHP in PYFA (8.04m Pure explosive DD tank) compared to 18.2m with full tank lowslots (no Slaves). A quick You'd need 1 ship for each 5 fighters on grid, which is a not-insignificant amount of ships on grid (7 according to my math).
Sure if you get into that position to force their hand to run to safety - its easier said than done.
Sure its entry level dps for dreads but its still ballpark dread dps compared to anything else. My comment on the speed was a generalisation as as you pointed out supers can potentially do far more than the 5.5km/s in my video and the revenant (which is actually used a bit in the context of skynet) gets a bonus to fighter speeds and can top 12km/s. As an aside the revenant also only needs 2 people on grid to do its 7+K dps and with the recent changes to the number of fighters a super can field you only need 3 with those as well. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
949
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 03:22:58 -
[72] - Quote
That revenant was 20-30km outside the FF IIRC, logged in on that spot (possibly the same spot he'd cyno'd in at) into a trap due to getting sloppy (not to discredit the efforts PL put in).
Your taking a lot of what I'm saying to overly specifically, you can pick at technicalities but the point I'm making still stands - fighters when their carrier doesn't need to use modules for anything but enhancing them can apply unassisted battleship through to capital levels of damage to things that anything else with even close to that damage struggles to hit if at all.
Getting a hic or dic into position like that is a lot easier said than done especially if the carrier pilots are half on the ball and keep moving systems, etc. and don't log out in bad positions. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
949
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 11:56:56 -
[73] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: If anyone's been picking at technicalities, it's you. I'm just trying to make sure your math is up to speed with the realities of EFT/PYFA, however those examples we've discussed were very uncommon. For example, for the Revenant to achieve the maximum speed of it's Fighters we mentioned, it would need the top officer modules available in EVE Online, which, according to PYFA, go for 20b in Jita. If a single purple module on a battleship warrants it getting ganked in Niarja, imagine what sort of attention a ship-full will grab? If, for example, we have a minimum of, say, 50km where caps cannot assist fighters, that leaves a nice margin of error for a ship to get bubbled. Additionally, if supers now use "uber safe spots zomg", and you force them to panic warp to a POS, that's mission success, much the same way that Jita duelers / station gamers call it a victory of they force someone else to de-aggress and dock, or to pull out their Nestor and panic-rep.
As I said I was generalising (if you look back through the thread I've multiple times expounded on the various capabilities - getting a bit tired of repeating the same replies as this thread is basically the same 10 pages over and over again with the same stuff brought up) - 9+km/s is the top end of what you can manage with a fit that will blap interceptors with ease as fitted on a revenant (its still a super) sure its a little lower on regular carriers/supers my point was its possible to make one way or another fighters that are fast enough to chase down (and track) all but the most extreme interceptor setups never mind stuff like cruisers and that IMO is out of balance regardless of whether there is risk to the parent carrier or not.
I've been asking for a minimum distance for fighter delegation from POSes since before this thread even existed infact I believe I was the first person to even post such https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5503882#post5503882 and https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5530584#post5530584 etc. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
949
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 20:46:57 -
[74] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: 9km will get you plenty of speed, plenty of damage, but ****-poor tracking, so a single slingshot maneuver means you're free. You keep spouting false facts in an attempt to spread misinformation in a misguided attempt to destroy more capitals, but this is not the way to do it.
Not that I'd recommend the fit and lol stacking penalties... but 9km/s, 0.877 rad/s tracking and plenty of choice of mixed range and tracking as required (and not an officer mod in sight).
Quote: [Revenant, uhumyeah] Federation Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Federation Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Federation Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Federation Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Dread Guristas Omnidirectional Tracking Enhancer
Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Omnidirectional Tracking Link II, Tracking Speed Script Omnidirectional Tracking Link II, Tracking Speed Script Sentient Drone Navigation Computer Sentient Drone Navigation Computer
[empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot]
Capital Drone Speed Augmentor II Capital Drone Speed Augmentor II Capital Drone Speed Augmentor II
Einherji x1
I have 0 interest in seeing capitals destroyed - I have multiple carrier V, fighters V, ADI V, etc. characters - my main interest is in seeing a balanced outcome - I can also see the practical realities of the issue from the perspective of those who like to do more casual roaming. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
949
|
Posted - 2015.03.11 21:32:00 -
[75] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: First off, nobody in their right mind would put those rigs onto a supercarrier, let alone a Revenant. Second of all, you have 2.8m EHP without Slaves, which means a single Titan and a single dread and you're the proud owner of an all new ALOD. Third of all, nobody would dare fit that sort of supercarrier if they were 50km from a POS, or if they were in some mystical deep safe in system, because Murphy can and will make an entrance, and you can bet your bottom dollar that someone can be persuaded to hand out the PW of a POS that holds a Revenant. As I mentioned before, the sheer rarity of this ship adds some balance to it's power, much like Guardian-Vexors with their 10-drone control are balanced by the fact there's, what, two or three left in the game.
If your fit for skynet doesn't really make much odds what rigs you have on there - and if your in a position to refit then you can change rigs to - my comments are mostly intended with the scope of how things are now - if there were restriction in place around POSes so that you could only delegate from 50+km away then it would be a different story.
In the context (purely) of skynet (partly thanks to one person's prolific use) the revenant isn't so much a rarity and while those stats are taking things towards the absurd end of the scale you can still amp fighters up to some pretty scary capabilities generally even with the other supers and normal carriers. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
949
|
Posted - 2015.03.12 15:13:03 -
[76] - Quote
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:Oh wow, look at this posting CTA we have here! Shadow of xXDEATHXx must be monitoring that all pilots post at least once XD
I had to smile when I refreshed the thread and saw the CTA style posting lol.
Thing is this change does impact a lot deeper than skynet type use (which most people will agree is broken - even those who want fighter assignment to stay like myself). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
951
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 17:49:46 -
[77] - Quote
To be fair I've been in ~50 man torp bomber fleets where with the mix of skills and different bomber types (some are harder to get good dps out of than others) your probably looking at more like 420 or so dps on average per pilot - still enough to break all but the most pimped/linked carriers pretty quickly though. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
952
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 15:08:40 -
[78] - Quote
^^ With things as they are now you won't be bomber hot dropping a carrier used by someone doing "skynet" proper.
Never sure with your posts if your meaning as things are now or after a theoretical change to force people to be 50+km off a POS to assign fighters. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
952
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 18:17:09 -
[79] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rroff wrote:^^ With things as they are now you won't be bomber hot dropping a carrier used by someone doing "skynet" proper. Never sure with your posts if your meaning as things are now or after a theoretical change to force people to be 50+km off a POS to assign fighters. I'm not sure what you're saying. What do you think will happen to carriers after this change? If anything, they'll group up on the gate using the Pantheon doctrine and assign heavies or sentries to a Loki or Huginn. You've failed to explain how carriers are somehow immune to damage when they assist fighters on a station.
My point is that as things are now if people are doing skynet "properly" you aren't going to be bombing them - not sure if your talking from the perspective of after any theoretical changes or not. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
952
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 19:58:53 -
[80] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: Before change: If people are doing skynet "properly" they're using an Aeon or Archon with tank slots in the lows after 3-4 DDA and they're nosed just outside of a POS shield, not on a station. They're vulnerable to a Drive-by DD as seen by the Revenant, and they can be forced back into the shields if a neutral / enemy HIC decloaks anywhere within 14.7km of the gate or their POS. Assigned fighters to an interceptor or other frigate, which can be destroyed.
For those sitting on a station, they're easily targeted by TORPEDO bombers or Talos, or dreads and they can't dock for 60 seconds. Vulnerable to bump stabbers / talos / omen / machs.
After change: 10+ Archons parked on a gate assigning heavies or sentries to an interceptor or Loki / Huginn. May or may not have Aeon support. Untouchable unless you commit a fleet of dreads, supers, or titans, in which case "Hello B-R!"
Some people are doing it like that... its become increasingly common to do it sitting right by the tower itself with the forcefield down and the password dialog up so they can online the FF and save themselves from any harm without moving. There are also 2 other techniques where they can even sit right outside the FF and be instantly safe without moving at all - no matter how many bombers or titans you drop on them. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
954
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 20:54:04 -
[81] - Quote
"Same as other drones" says it all really... |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
955
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 21:16:08 -
[82] - Quote
I'm assuming it'll be exactly the same as normal assist which never had any limits (other than the recent change to 50 or whatever to prevent mass afk blapping). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
955
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 13:32:58 -
[83] - Quote
Galian Kile wrote:I have to add something to the new assist mechanic that will be implemented. I was on SISI testing the new ASSIST option on the carrier. If the carrier gets a "CONTROL RANGE" to fighters, if I am assisting fighters, that "CONTROL RANGE" should apply to the assist since the carrier is on GRID. It is currently limited to 56-60km which is the standard Skill Based Control Range and is not including the Carrier Control Range Bonus.
So it looks like a broken system is replacing a non-broken game mechanic...
Carrier's bonused and enhanced control range would have made it too easy to hide capitals in adjacent grids and as they can't hack grids out the game hence this... whole thing is a bloody hacksaw job and should be put on hold until they can put a competent solution in place. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
957
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 14:42:04 -
[84] - Quote
^^ It is a bit silly, if they are gonna implement this mess they might as well pull fighters entirely and replace them with a new heavy drone like the gecko but with a bit more firepower to make up the difference and without the other drawbacks of expense and volume, etc. :S |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
958
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 18:37:57 -
[85] - Quote
Galian Kile wrote:
I see what you are saying. But a Carrier won't be "offgrid" if control range comes into play. At max skills, your control range would be about 120km's? That is not offgrid... And why would you waste your High slots with DCA's to increase that range slightly? It would still not be offgrid, because as soon as my carrier went "offgrid" fighters warped back to me... This should get fixed...
You have a point about high slot usage after the change - used to depend on the shape of the grid but not tried it in awhile to be fair so might not still be possible. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
958
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 21:56:37 -
[86] - Quote
Talon Stormcrow wrote:My solution for fixing the fighter assigning "issue".
New carrier module - allows carrier to go into "Launch mode" (think triage mode). In launch mode a carrier cannot move or warp. Carriers can only launch fighters/bombers in this mode (it can launch drones in any mode). Launch mode cannot be activated within 100k of any FIXED object. Module would have a 60 second activation/deactivation delay. Launch mode allows the carrier to "link" to another ship and receive its targeting data by using a new ship link module. Carrier can then lock targets and send fighters to engage from off grid.
'''
Obviously there are details that would need to be fleshed out. This is just an idea so don't flame me to bad.
A new module for delegation (along similar style to bastion) isn't a terrible idea IMO but carriers should still be able to use fighters (on grid) without having to use it. As per my earlier post it should like bastion give some local tank bonuses, short duration but weapons timer in the same way when activated, it shouldn't give any tracking or damage bonus but a fighter EHP bonus possibly and maybe some other ancillary bonuses either to the carrier or to fighters i.e. bump in carrier scan res not to triage levels) for usage without delegation. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
958
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 13:54:54 -
[87] - Quote
Laura Agathon wrote:So the issue is having fighters assignable, and them being able to operate remotely from the carrier...
The issue is - fighters relatively recently becoming an effective weapons platform against... anything pretty much. Its been possible to assign fighters for years but no one complained when they struggled to hit anything smaller than a battleship - when they can blast the average roaming ship to nothing with ease that is completely unbalanced and the source of 99% of the complaints about skynet that I'm aware of (obviously no one complaining likes the relative safety of the carrier either).
Entirely taking away the bonuses that allow them to have the tracking and speed to make that possible would be a step backwards IMO. There is a "simple" elegant fix but it seems the technical nature of it is beyond most people to understand the implications of it.
The fact that in a typical "skynet" situation the carrier pilot can with the right techniques (the revenant kill has NO bearing on this) make themselves 99% immune to repercussion isn't ideal from a game balance perspective either (irrespective of fixes to reduce fighter effectiveness).
Wholesale removal of a long standing feature due to some overpowered use in edge cases should never be anything but a last resort if there is no other way to fix a game breaking feature. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
958
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:49:56 -
[88] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:I found out most people saying ban skynet... Have never actually fought fighters. With the last nerf, fighters take for ever to shoot anything, even a capital ship!
It takes a special type of idiot to get killed by a swarm of fighters when h is in a frigate...
They don't take all that long if your mwding (with the sig bloom) trying to escape. If your not pointed and/or reasonably close to gate without aggression then great. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
959
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 12:16:15 -
[89] - Quote
The only skill that matters for the person who fighters are assigned to is how many drones (not fighters) they can control. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
960
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 12:55:29 -
[90] - Quote
^^ Certainly an interesting one - forcing carriers to fight on grid but without being able to use triage (and fighters) and lacking the buffer, projected ecm, etc. of supers is pretty meh for the regular carrier pilot and/or just encourages mass RR use. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
960
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 13:51:27 -
[91] - Quote
Can't even see the assist and defend options with fighters with this update though I only jumped on very quickly to update before getting ready for work. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
961
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 17:38:40 -
[92] - Quote
Greymist wrote:Quote:
I support that claim... The Carrier's support like delegate Fighters should not be removed only because lots of people crying that they are not easy deal with. Carrier and Supercarrier represents significant investment both in skill line and ISK... they should not be easy to counter...
significant investment in skill line? since when? Everyone and their grandmother can fly them in short time. It is not like back when you had to train racial Battleships to 5..... If nothing else I think they should make the training time longer for carriers and dreads. Then add in carrier V, capital local/remote rep skills to V, fighters V, adi V, skills for T2 triage, etc. etc. to actually do something useful. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
962
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 20:44:35 -
[93] - Quote
Just reading the other dev responses on this... lols... jokes on me I guess...
I've spent quite a bit of the past little while training several characters to fighters V and settings up to be able to produce fighters (and drone control units) for uses completely unrelated to skynet and now I can't even realistically use it even for ongrid PVE due to the lack of assist option... to say this really doesn't cut it doesn't even come close.
Blowed if I'm gonna invest any more time or effort into this game. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
963
|
Posted - 2015.03.24 20:49:35 -
[94] - Quote
So riya wrote:Change frighter funtion = remap all our fighter skills ********** i dont want to train for fighter anymore
I've got a ridiculous amount of SP in fighter related stuff :| over 5m sp per character just on fighters V and ADI V that I wouldn't have bothered with if I knew these changes were coming. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
988
|
Posted - 2015.03.26 19:37:19 -
[95] - Quote
Jennifer Maxwell wrote: Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it.
Rorqual is awesome (I'm possibly one of the few people who've clocked up >100 hours of actual use in one) - when used in roles totally unintended - we used to use one as a repping platform when my old corp lived in a C5 pulsar as unlike other capitals they don't trigger an escalation wave - so we could drop in dreads and use the rorqual to support the webbing ships without the extra carrier waves on top of that.
Always had a soft spot for that ship as it could be pressed into out the box use i.e. troll tank bait fits. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
990
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 14:02:47 -
[96] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote:
Minus 8 montly subscriptions? Did you biomass them? If not, your words have no meaning. Screenshot or gtfo.
Also, give me your stuff. If you fail to recognize how broken skynet was (invicible fighters through warp scram immunity, 99.99% safety for the carrier through wanky POS mechanics, the exponential force multiplier of having fighter be able to track boosted, AB frigs that weren't webbed, etc) then you're better off being out of the game.
Eve is complex, but having a "iWin button" isn't good for eve...it never has been. Have fun back in WoW [insert other game you play], etc.
Its not about recognizing how broken skynet was - pretty much everyone in this thread (1-2 exceptions aside) recognise how broken skynet was including most actual capital pilots - there were plenty of ways to render skynet ineffective without completely making fighters useless.
I'm not going to biomass my characters but none of my accounts will be continuing to be subscribed beyond the current 6-10 days left on them unless there is a significant shift in attitude on matters like this from CCP - smacking long standing features into oblivion with no real dialogue with affected players - the larger proportion of whom are completely unrelated to the edge case where it was a problem just doesn't cut it - if it was really so game breaking it couldn't go unaddressed (which somewhat applies) and there really was no alternative for fixing it but to take extremely drastic measures that amount to feature removal most people can accept that but it really wasn't the case here and that is very bad game development. If thats the way CCP want to go forward then that is their prerogative but it isn't compatible with me personally when playing this kind of game where you can spend months and months working towards a goal. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
993
|
Posted - 2015.03.27 23:38:02 -
[97] - Quote
Antonia Iskarius wrote: And Skynet was never an iwin button. It was never this fullproof and safe method. If you tried doing it more than a handful of times you'd notice alts coming into local and logging off in safes and logging back in immediately when the skynet carrier would sign on. People could easily set up traps, bait and kill a Skynet carrier or super. Seeing as they fit zero tank, just one or two dreads or doomsdays would pop them. The problem wasn't really Skynet, it was lazy and risk adverse people thinking they should just remove an enitre gameplay mechanism because they felt entitled to kill **** with minimal work using frigs and cruisers in small gangs. I refuse to reward devs who coddle those kinds of players to the exclusion of vets who have invested significant training time and isk into acquiring their assets.
You have to be pretty bad at this game to lose a ship sitting at a POS... (I am meaning this glibly as no doubt if I continued playing I would at some point):
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCVsQUlP81Q
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDphNX9WmbU
Just 2 of several methods that can be used to make your capital almost instantly safe without moving an inch. Doing skynet "properly" your almost immune to repercussion unless you get lazy or screw up or do it from the same POS too many times in a row (second one works better if you have an inty or something to swap into).
(Obviously these methods aren't entirely proof against infiltration, etc.) |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
993
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 00:10:40 -
[98] - Quote
Ostor LightDust wrote:We do not want skynet back at this point. Most of us former skynetters realize it's OP-ness.
We want the damn assist/guard that we were honey dicked into believing we would get.
Absolutely no reason why delegate couldn't still exist with some adjustments that would have killed skynet just as effectively coupled with some other mechanism so that carriers can't make themselves safe... apart from my increasing feeling there are very few people in the game, including devs, who are upto speed on those aspects. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
996
|
Posted - 2015.03.28 12:54:01 -
[99] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Antonia Iskarius wrote: No, it doesn't work that way. We pay for this game, we get to have an opinion on how it works.
So does everyone else though. And everyone else read the bragging about how broken assisting 50 fighters to an interceptor was even if it had to be on grid. And the bragging about how the 50km POS bubble was easy to get around also. And all the other bragging. And so did CCP, hence why you didn't get assist as a replacement most likely. Just take your carriers on grid, and launch fighters from 250km at stuff. Is it a nerf, Totally, sometimes nerfs are needed to things. And sometimes Nerfs are needed in one area before buffs can come in another. Because if you do both at once you can't see that the change has had its intended effect.
50 anything is going to hurt... a lot... besides there were plenty of solid suggestions for balanced fixes for both of those issues. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
998
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 02:39:54 -
[100] - Quote
^^ People who are so risk adverse they sat at POS aren't going to suddenly start putting their carrier on grid with these changes - more likely the carrier will be retired - when with a better balanced set of changes it might have been possible to increase the chances of catching them without swinging the balance so far they felt the risk was too great. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
998
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 03:44:53 -
[101] - Quote
Rowells wrote:and not have the same amount of risk associated with it?
Not sure thats as simple a subject - the logistics of just one of the capital module alone on that carrier is probably more than the entire ishtar that invariably the pilot complaining about risk is flying :S
End of they day skynet is/was bad and had to go that doesn't mean however that the way CCP has chosen to go about that is in anyway a good solution. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
998
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 14:45:08 -
[102] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Rroff wrote:Rowells wrote:and not have the same amount of risk associated with it?
Not sure thats as simple a subject - the logistics of just one of the capital module alone on that carrier is probably more than the entire ishtar that invariably the pilot complaining about risk is flying :S End of they day skynet is/was bad and had to go that doesn't mean however that the way CCP has chosen to go about that is in anyway a good solution. I've always considered the pre-work done to acheive these kinds of things as a last concern. Usually reserved for comparing it to similar features rather than to the rest of the game as a whole. Otherwise things get very convoluted trying to make them work out properly.
True, its something a little closer to my heart as I tend to fly ships I care about a bit, usually put some effort into and often fairly expensive and while I'm not shy of putting them on grid won't throw away on a whim or treat in a disposable manner and I see the whole risk thing a bit differently to the typical attitude of many who fly around in generic fit flavour of the month inexpensive roaming ships or alliance wide doctrine ships. (Which as a very long post which I've re-typed half a dozen times and abandoned as no one really wants to read all through it leads back to why I've been vocal against the (as implemented) fighter changes in this thread despite also being anti-skynet and why I've made the decision not to continue with the game once my subscriptions expire). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
998
|
Posted - 2015.03.29 23:56:28 -
[103] - Quote
Have you tried your own advice? from what I can see fighters are distinctly a poorer choice to actually use now over sentries or geckos, etc. that you can still assist and if you really weigh it up I'm not even sure your better off just ditching the carrier and going with a pair of RR domis or something (as most people ratting with a carrier have atleast 2 accounts). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1001
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 13:02:56 -
[104] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:
So you agree that skynet was pretty much immune to risk, and that it's ok to have an unfair advantage because this isn't wow.
gg
If the skynet carrier/super had been at any risk, CCP wouldn't have removed the mechanism. This is the reality.
There are good and bad ways to go about addressing that however... |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1001
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 13:56:05 -
[105] - Quote
Malcaz wrote:Fighter assist was one of the fun things of having a carrier. There are many solutions to this where it does not have to be removed all together. For example, make it so that fighters cannot be assigned until 1000km from a pos shield or so. Problem solved... carriers are easy to probe and tackle and kill
No one cared about "skynet" until CCP gave players the tools to make fighters that could trundle around applying 1000s of dps (upto 7400 from a single nyx) with better effectiveness than light electron blaster, most people wouldn't even bother with doing skynet (not to say other changes shouldn't have been made) if fighters had been tweaked so as to be incidental dps in a typical skynet encounter instead of the prominent weapon platform in the situation that they'd become. Which would have been possible via a number of implementations, the knock on effect to carrier/super ratting would mean that they'd have to use something a bit more expensive along with their fighters to gain parity in efficiency at killing NPC frigs and cruisers but I've little sympathy in that regard it - would still have been possible with a moderately higher risk having to put a bit more ISK on grid.
As before my preferred implementation would have been to give fighters a variation of titan style tracking (it makes sense that human pilots wouldn't be as proficient with the same size weapon platform as pod pilots or drone electronics) - purely as an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about with 5 einherji versus a stationary interceptor it would reduce the damage from say ~1+kdps/3-4+K alpha to (depending on tweaking) something like upto 200dps/700 alpha and scaling upwards from there until you hit full damage at >400 sig or whatever. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1003
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 19:27:44 -
[106] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote: I might have missed something but it only means you can't just put your fighters to some Svipul anymore and kill everything in system that is moving, you need to be there to launch your drones.
Thoe complaints are like *OMG can't boost from inside POS FF anymore, RIP links* that got voiced the last time a similar impactful change came around.
Also, links amplify your ship's attributes. Skynet just adds a flat few thousand dps to anything.
People do use fighters outside of skynet style "pvp" - assign and assist no longer work on grid or off grid with fighters which makes them pretty much useless in reality for much of what they were used for outside of skynet.
As I've pointed out though skynet itself is pretty bad when done properly and had to go it doesn't sit right with me though that such a long standing feature that people who use it will mostly be long term players who've spent quite awhile training and so on to use can be casually wiped away with the wave of a hand and a fake feedback thread. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1003
|
Posted - 2015.03.30 20:20:16 -
[107] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote: Yes, because anything where the Devs don't agree with you is 'fake'.... Yea right, grow up. If the entire community had been on board with your POV then you might have some ground to complain, but most people were not in favour of the assign, and a lot also weren't in favour of a simple 'Assist as if drone' mechanic either.
I seem to have upset someone...
Plenty of people have posted alternative ideas and asked for a more balanced change rather than completely wiping out long standing fighter functionality I'm far from alone on that front - small gang type players are always going to proportionally out weigh capital representation however and hence have a louder voice - especially as they are typically on the receiving end and don't care beyond it going away any result where its gone is a good one to them. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1003
|
Posted - 2015.03.31 01:41:43 -
[108] - Quote
Aeryn Maricadie wrote:Arthur Aihaken wrote: Can we also add that carriers and dreadnoughts basically can't really defend themselves against even a small group of attackers?
they do have a 3% chance to do full damage with every volley no matter what, so if they pick small things they could potentially alpha them. (I am assuming that all dreads have 3 turrrets, i wouldn't know i haven't looked at all of them) I'm also no statistician but I think there is also a .02% chance of them doing x2 full alpha and .0001% of them doing x3 full alpha with every volley.
Some have 2 like the nag.
Wrecking shots seemed a bit broken with fighters - not sure if they really were but was getting more than I normally see when playing around - quite funny when you get 2-3+K alpha from a single fighter against a small target. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1004
|
Posted - 2015.04.01 01:12:09 -
[109] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rowells wrote:If your only options to counter the mechanic are running away or driveby doomsdays (good luck getting enought DPS to kill a carrier before it sucks the shields) then it's a pretty safe mechanic. Which is WHY WE ASKED FOR A BUBBLE AROUND A POS WHERE YOU COULD NOT DELEGATE FIGHTERS. Additionally, forcing a retreat of a hostile carrier into the POS shields or to dock would be considered a "win" by any reasonable person.
While I'm not 100% sold on it I think by far the best compromise in that regard would have been to have a bastion type module for delegation - 1 minute cycle time (once its turned off at the end of that cycle fighters automatically warp back) makes the carrier stationary + weapons timer and local (but not remote) tank buff along with maybe a bonus to fighter EHP.
Couple with changes to make fighters inefficient against anything too small and no one would really bother with skynet any more by and large while not almost if not entirely crippling things for people who use fighters entirely unrelated to skynet. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1005
|
Posted - 2015.04.03 19:20:29 -
[110] - Quote
Katie Hakoke wrote:I think voting on nerfs should only be allowed by people who trained the skills in question. I'm so tired of training up skills only to have them nerfed because of whining from ppl who haven't taken the time or isk to train the skill they complain about. Fighter assist is one of the reasons I trained carrier skills on my main. No fighter nerfs please.
The writings on the wall I'm afraid and we simply aren't valued as customers.
2 accounts down, one expires in a few hours and 8 days left on Rroff.
(Not playing brinkmanship or emo rage quitting - seems my play style isn't compatible with this game any more). |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1006
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 11:42:17 -
[111] - Quote
Cade Windstalker wrote:ITTigerClawIK wrote:ok so i dont get this, the problem here is that fighters can be assigned to people from just outside a POS force field so the solution by CCP here is to get rid of the entire mechanic, where in the thread about Removal of Cap jump bridges there is just a denial of use around a POS.... why the hell cant ther be a denial of Fighter assignment just outside a POS for capitals instead of removing the feature entirely????? Watch the Fanfest presentation on ship and module balancing. During the Q and A someone asks something very close to this and the basic answer is that they considered trying to discourage the practice by adding risk or otherwise tweaking things and it basically ended up being too complicated (and, I would assume, therefore exploitable or hard to deal with in the future) and there's a big capital rebalance coming that will hopefully fix a lot of concerns people have with the state of capitals in general.
That was painful to watch...
Relevant parts:
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqeUqRo0yto#t=1148
www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqeUqRo0yto#t=2416
Stumbling over the most basic terminology (for the 3rd time if you include the opening post and o7) - sorry as much as I love a lot of what Rise has done for the game... how was this person in charge of anything relevant to capital balancing? (Trying to be objective here not hating on Rise but he obviously does NOT have the familiarity with the overall subject required).
Condescending waffle about how he wants us to" feel better about using a capital" while removing 9/10ths of the functionality that someone (assuming they didn't train it to do skynet) spent >300 days and >-ú100 just on the core skills to fly 15 fighters with some vague promises that it'll all be better in the future... "just wait another 300 odd days" - his answer was completely dismissive that anyone might even use fighters outside of skynet - the drone module changes that allowed "skynet" to become a thing are relatively new changes most people who have the skills trained to use 15 fighters properly would have had to have started training long before they'd even know "skynet" would be possible even assuming they did "skynet" when it became possible. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1008
|
Posted - 2015.04.04 11:55:20 -
[112] - Quote
Khan Wrenth wrote:Rroff wrote:The writings on the wall I'm afraid and we simply aren't valued as customers.
2 accounts down, one expires in a few hours and 8 days left on Rroff.
(Not playing brinkmanship or emo rage quitting - seems my play style isn't compatible with this game any more). Just remember to contract your stuff to UAE before you go.
In all seriousness can't actually contract a lot of my assets - either being in w-space logged off or other reasons. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1010
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 02:14:20 -
[113] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: It's a MMO. If you don't expect stuff to change, you are thinking wrong.
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.
Rowells wrote: And what about the rest of the paying customers?
Approaching that from a slight tangent - skynet was bad and wrong and pretty much everyone accepts that it needed to change that doesn't automatically mean that that problem validates any and all change to carriers/fighters (even if people who don't fly capitals might think anything that removes skynet is good) - its not like there weren't other options for ending skynet. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1010
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 13:10:59 -
[114] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote: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.
Which I've demonstrated multiple times in this and the other skynet threads. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1010
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 18:27:03 -
[115] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: 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.
This bit I whole heartedly agree with. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1010
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 19:28:20 -
[116] - Quote
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). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1010
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 20:34:30 -
[117] - Quote
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. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1012
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 21:17:33 -
[118] - Quote
The technique of using the forcefield like a door however (AFAIK) isn't being changed - which still allows that mechanism to be used for non cyno use to make things safe. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1012
|
Posted - 2015.04.09 22:23:15 -
[119] - Quote
^^ Yup bumping a carrier in triage takes some effort - and really needs either out of control mass from another capital or something like a machariel with a good run up. Though if your sitting 1m from safety its doable - I've seen an archon in triage bumped before upto enough speed to reduce damage from citadel missiles. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1012
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 19:35:23 -
[120] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:OGB is the same cancur that will be dealt with shortly. There are/were no technical solutions for either of them.
The cold hard truth is 90% of people complaining about off grid boosters are actually people who just want the results without having to put in the effort - once it goes they'll just move onto complaining about whatever else gives a prepared/competitive player/corp an edge.
There are some areas of eve that it does validly have an undesirable negative impact but generally in anything other than very small gang/"solo" action people tend to bring command ships with them on grid these days and/or when they don't its generally because they are flying a setup that doesn't have a suitable on grid command platform i.e. some smaller kiting setups and so resort to off grid boosting. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1012
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 19:40:35 -
[121] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:If the on-grid issue can't be resolved, unloading Armour/Skirmish/Shield links onto a structure could be an interesting concept - same bonuses, but the source is now very scannable and is immobile. Perhaps a concept for the new structure system that is in the works. Anchoring should require the same skills as with current links.
A bit off topic for this thread - but I'd have loved to see links made a bit more tactical with a little of the effectiveness reduced on the links themselves (not too much as that would make them less attractive to use on unbonused BCs, etc.) and more of the effect moved to a variety of mindlinks with various grades of penalties i.e. you could have really powerful links for certain areas but they'd come at the cost of for instance sensor strength with the most basic mindlink having no penalty at all like with drugs. A variation of it could also be used to keep off grid boosting useable for non PVP use while generally ineffective for PVP use, etc. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1012
|
Posted - 2015.04.10 19:48:54 -
[122] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:It is a cancerous mechanic requiring to dual box a booster in any size gangs by default. Cancerous mechanic. Full stop.
And always will do - while not really something I've done very prolifically - when roaming on one char and trundling a booster around with it if off grid wasn't possible it would be coming on grid in "buff bot" form - an eos with mostly hands free brick tank, remote reps + links, local/remote eccm'd to the max, etc. contributing some extra dps via drones assisted to the main character.
(I don't generally do much outside of small to medium fleet PVP however so most of the time we have on grid links anyhow).
If your wanting fair 1v1 you ain't gonna find it (for the most part) in eve. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1012
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 12:33:25 -
[123] - Quote
^^ You "could" driveby someone doing skynet if they were lazy/complacent but it generally meant they had to do it frequently from the same POS and allow someone the opportunity to get a character logged off in position to spring the ambush. Anyone half on the ball would be a lot less susceptible to a driveby - the revenant for instance logged in at a spot quite a way off the FF (probably the spot he'd cyno'd in at before logging out) leaving himself quite vulnerable. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1012
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 13:44:22 -
[124] - Quote
Tydil Flux wrote:Honestly just force a check on the size of ship that the drone/fighter is being assigned to. Assigning fighters to other carriers should be okay. Why is this such a hard concept???
I still say the best solution would have been to force apply sig/damage scaling on fighters - fighters are frig sized platforms but piloted by "regular" pilots so you wouldn't expect them to be as proficient as pod pilots with the same sized craft making them most effective against battleships and other capitals. Sure it would have had a bit of an impact on people ratting with skynet type fits but they could bring their ratting capabilities back upto par by investing a bit more ISK in the ship they had on grid so I don't have much sympathy in that regard (none the least coming from a C5 wormhole background there have been times when I've been multiboxing 8+bn worth of ships on grid running escalations in PVE). |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1012
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 15:14:45 -
[125] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:It's dead, Jim. Ain't coming back.
Yup :S - Rroff expires 12 April 2015 - 7:18 pm UTC (in 1 days) all my other accounts are down. So you won't have to put up with my posts in this thread much longer.
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.
Hope that isn't the (real) reason... thats a very poor way to do game development. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1012
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 19:54:32 -
[126] - Quote
Completely off the wall rough idea but thinking about the idea of a bastion style module for delegation - as an aside it could have been extended to the rorqual with a "resource collector" style mining "fighter" (obviously not actually a fighter) but only delegatable to barges/exhumers - sure it wouldn't get the rorqual on grid but not many things will get someone to put a rorqual on grid without significant reward anyway but it would have a window of vulnerability but granular enough level of risk it wouldn't put people off using it. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1012
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 01:58:20 -
[127] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: It was mentioned countless times before, and you yourself dismissed it earlier.
Not talking about the idea of the module itself in the context of carrier/fighters or a serious suggestion it was just a random thought that came to me in the shower of something that could be done with the rorqual. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
1012
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 02:27:02 -
[128] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Rroff wrote: ...a random thought that came to me in the shower of something that could be done with the rorqual...
Tell me more. ( -í~ -£-û -í-¦)
Not sure tales of whales in the shower are quite appropriate for this forum. |
|
|
|