Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 30 40 50 .. 50 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
492
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 17:28:10 -
[571] - Quote
Anhenka wrote:Caleb Seremshur wrote:How on earth has this garbage topic remained at the top? Just how many afk pvpers and botting ratters are there in this game? It's a sticky you blathering idiot, of course it's at the top.Also it's a fairly big deal for a lot of people. I for example use fighters only for ratting (directly controlled by the carrier, so assign change does not effect me) and on grid support for my slowcat, so this change does not effect my PvP, but the warp changes do mean that I am forced to recall fighters 100km+ between each PvE site. That in turn takes the time it takes for me to run a site from around 7 minutes to 9, dropping my isk per hour by a good 50-60 mil/hour. If you want to look at "botting ratters", go look at AFKtars, not carriers.
You are a clever dog. Out of.. how many stickies? the one with the most replies stays at the top. Just remember when you point a finger 3 are pointing right back at you idiot.
Also I don't need your rundown on how ratting with carriers works
CCP Rise wrote:A particular point of feedback that we are interested in surrounds the ability of fighters to warp. We know that in some circumstances it can be frustrating to have your fighters warp off grid to chase a target when you would rather have them move to another target on grid with you instead. We also know that fighter warping is unique and provides some interesting gameplay in some scenarios. Would you prefer that we removed the ability for fighters to warp or that we left warping in, despite the absence of assist?
He hasn't said fighter warping will be definitely removed. Your primary concern is the inability to warp between sites with fighters deployed. Since NPCs don't warp between sites it stands to reason that being unable to assign fighters to your alt means that you can't start a new site with the alt and have the drones follow him while your skynet carrier catches up.
I think this is totally fine. It doesn't currently lie outside of the functionality of fighters but it soon will. Perhaps in the future you'll deploy sentry drones instead (and consequently get similar amounts of DPS without the travel time).
Also hilarious to me is how your income can drop by potentially 60 mil an hour. Because the economy is healthy when built on this rate of income generation, because the economy is healthy with titanic isk generation feasibly being achieved at this rate by a single person multiply by the ratters active in an alliance, pooled in to a coalition.
B-R had a very small effect on the economy of the game. IIRC it took far less than 24 hours for trading to stabilise at pre-battle levels. What does this suggest to you? In a macro-economical sense? And furthermore before you reply do consider the implications of the above for smaller entities that lack your particular flavour of grossly disproportionate income.
Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
|
Caleb Seremshur
The Atomic Fallout Kids
492
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 17:33:44 -
[572] - Quote
Eva Angeli wrote:You are funny at CCP . You delete a defense mechanism of the game that allows a player outnumbered compete with many players with false pretenses and real nuisance in this game represent the ghost campers you will not care completely
You yokel, have you ever considered the ramifications of putting up a guerilla POS in someones system, decking it out with literally hundreds of guns and webs and then having a whole fleet of skynet carriers warping to it, then deploying assigned fighters?
No.
And while I hate AFK cloaking as much as the next man, the real demon is their presence in local, not the fact that they're AFK or cloaked in your system, watching you, learning your patterns, organising a hot-drop fleet gift-wrapped in red tape for your ships. The real problem is that you're scared of schrodingers hotdropper, the potential to be killed by someone who might not even be at the keyboard.
And I find it credulous how Rise will tell you that removing combat recons from D-scan makes people take more risks while not implementing removing cloaked people from local. The effect would be largely the same but on a raucously larger scale.
Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
|
Zazzel Waterchester
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 17:34:57 -
[573] - Quote
So if I understand CCP right here, they would rather castrate capitals again then come up with any thing resembling a well thought out solution. I mean space aids and then they take fighter assist. I have a question for any of the "thinkers" behind this brilliance. "WTF would u do with a cap after this nerf?"
- maybe ill gate camp with it or go do lvl 5 and sanctums...?!
CCP- think about this long and hard you are going to over-correct again with taking fighter assit from cap pilots i have read at least a dozen more acceptable solutions for fixing your problem with fighters
A few that I found were GGRREEAATT!!! -standardize a ship size to assign fighters to. - make a min distance from pos/station -create a new high slot mod that allows for fighter assigning.
Brilliant ideas to fix the problem, brought to you by people who actually play the game.
Should stop what your doing CCP and take any of the ideas about fixing fighter assigning here because your on your way to making caps useless and as an additional consequence you'd lose all the income those characters accounts generate because... WHY HAVE A CAP IF U CANT USE IT!!! |
Judy Mikakka
Militaris Industries Northern Coalition.
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 17:43:57 -
[574] - Quote
Remove fighter assisting really, perfectly fine, was a little bit over powered, but some have already suggested alternatives to a out right removal of it, but what I wouldn't be happy with was fighter warping, you mention that it's a hassle for your fighters to warp off when the target you are attacking warps off, but if you simply learnt game mechanics and turned attack and follow, you wouldn't say that, so with that out the way, leave fighter warping itself in the game, as it's an important feature for a super carrier, or a carrier. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1021
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 17:57:59 -
[575] - Quote
Judy Mikakka wrote: Remove fighter assisting, or review other alternatives to revising the mechanic, and leave fighter warping itself in the game, as it's an important feature for a super carrier, or a carrier.
actually it's just an important feature for lazy incompetent pilots |
Skydott
Burnin plasma ball
23
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 18:03:33 -
[576] - Quote
Great! remove fighter assist and give carriers 8highslots with capital turrets hardpoint . |
Tagapaz
Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 18:11:34 -
[577] - Quote
Please do keep fighter warping . |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
607
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 18:14:03 -
[578] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Judy Mikakka wrote: Remove fighter assisting, or review other alternatives to revising the mechanic, and leave fighter warping itself in the game, as it's an important feature for a super carrier, or a carrier.
actually it's just an important feature for lazy incompetent pilots That's not a valid reason to remove it.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Celesae
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
26
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 18:19:27 -
[579] - Quote
Rroff wrote: 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.
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. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
1021
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 18:19:40 -
[580] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:Judy Mikakka wrote: Remove fighter assisting, or review other alternatives to revising the mechanic, and leave fighter warping itself in the game, as it's an important feature for a super carrier, or a carrier.
actually it's just an important feature for lazy incompetent pilots That's not a valid reason to remove it.
feeling pretty trolled right now. |
|
lboogs
BLACK SQUADRON. The Bastion
2
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 18:34:04 -
[581] - Quote
I for one think it's a terrible idea to nerf the fighter assist. As said before its a feature in the game that make carriers unique ships. If you are going to nerf it anyways, is there a possibility that you would limit the fighter control range to about 5 to 10 Au and add a skill book that would increase that range? |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
925
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 18:42:06 -
[582] - 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. |
Lord HazMatelio
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 18:42:21 -
[583] - Quote
I feel this will need to stay, Why not remove remote shield rep bonus from the scimi to.... |
Galian Kile
Interdimensional Chaos Gentlemen's.Club
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 18:54:12 -
[584] - Quote
One of my corp members has this Idea. I proposed a Sov Upgrade. Corp member propsed to have an Anchorable Structure for "SKYNET" This is another tactiful method that can be introduced. You can incap this structure therefore negating Deligation of Fighters in the system. Also, Let's not forget you can ONLY deligate FIGHTERS, not FIGHTER BOMBERS. So therefore, the DPS isn't much. Even with 4 DDM's, You can get more close to that DPS out of an ISHTAR and Battleship or even more.
LIke everyone has said, Deligation is a Carrier FEATURE. You take that away because you have players who are complaining they are losing too much isk to that Feature/Tactic? Come one CCP!!. THIS IS EVE! !!!!
HARDEN THE F*** UP!!!!
|
Carrion Crow
Ready Player 1
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 18:56:29 -
[585] - Quote
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
|
beakerax
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
41
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 18:56:54 -
[586] - Quote
Rise, if you keep on removing everything that is broken and gimmicky about Eve, you will eventually end up with a game that is neither broken nor gimmicky. |
ShadowFireGirl
Astral Inferno Balcora Gatekeepers
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 18:57:06 -
[587] - Quote
Galian Kile wrote:Taking away the assist feature will see a fall in ISK making as well. Assist isn't ONLY used in fighting but in ISK making. This is a feature that a carrier has had for a long time. Like others have said, orbiting or sitting at a POS is NOT 100% safe. You fly what you can afford to lose. It is not the carriers pilot fault people who come into a system to harass are engaged with fighters that are assigned. What is Eve's Motto???
HARDEN THE ***** UP!!
If you want to put a balance on this, I propose this; No Module or anything of that sort. Let "SKYNET" be a SOV UPGRADE. And let the aggressor take the risk of entering a system where fighters can be assigned. PERIOD. It is a WIN-WIN
That is All...
This won't work. Many people live in wormholes and use this feature, unless you are proposing that wormholers can use it too somehow, this is just not a good solution. |
Ranamar
Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind
81
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:06:49 -
[588] - Quote
Assigned fighters are pretty ridiculous. It allows adding 500 DPS to any random ship, and two of them at a time from a single carrier, which will double the damage output of most cruisers, never mind smaller tackle stuff. Meanwhile, the carrier is barely at risk. In fact, it's sufficiently not-at-risk that you can afford to fit all damage and tracking mods.
Following fighters are the kind of thing that's funny for the user and really not fun for the target. I'm sorta okay with them, but they have warp-following skills that any interceptor pilot would envy, and a few fighters can destroy a cruiser (which they match in warpspeed and always get the right warpin) in only a couple volleys. You can't even warp to a safe because they will find you there.
Fighter warping I'm sort of ambivalent about. Given how expensive everything involved is, I like knowing that I can warp off field without having to recall my drones, because they'll catch up with me. On the other hand, I'd understand if you wanted to make "we pulled the warp drives out of the fighters" the explanation for why they can no longer perfectly predict where you're warping to and arriving there with you. I'd prefer keeping that feature, but it's a peace of mind thing, mostly. |
Zhalon
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
36
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:07:18 -
[589] - Quote
I'm training an alt to assign perfect fighters for assisting....No need to dual train that character now. I understand things will change and there are no guarantees, but come on... Assigning fighters and their warp mechanic has always made carriers unique. As EVE has evolved we see more ships being adding with SMA built in, fleet hangars, jump capabilities, "seige" type modes but fighters have remained unique for carriers. In my opinion you just broke the uniqueness of carriers.
These type of major changes are extremely frustrating when someone skill plans a capital ship that will take more than a year of training....8 months and you negate my whole purpose for the training.
To clarify...assigning fighters is valuable in pve, mining, and pvp. PVP is the only source of the complaining.
Make a new deployable that disrupts assigned fighter communication or something... |
Galian Kile
Interdimensional Chaos Gentlemen's.Club
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:07:21 -
[590] - Quote
ShadowFireGirl wrote:Galian Kile wrote:Taking away the assist feature will see a fall in ISK making as well. Assist isn't ONLY used in fighting but in ISK making. This is a feature that a carrier has had for a long time. Like others have said, orbiting or sitting at a POS is NOT 100% safe. You fly what you can afford to lose. It is not the carriers pilot fault people who come into a system to harass are engaged with fighters that are assigned. What is Eve's Motto???
HARDEN THE ***** UP!!
If you want to put a balance on this, I propose this; No Module or anything of that sort. Let "SKYNET" be a SOV UPGRADE. And let the aggressor take the risk of entering a system where fighters can be assigned. PERIOD. It is a WIN-WIN
That is All... This won't work. Many people live in wormholes and use this feature, unless you are proposing that wormholers can use it too somehow, this is just not a good solution.
This is true. Hence why a corpmate suggested it be a POS Anchorable Structure. Which is usable in WH space as well. |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
925
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:09:38 -
[591] - 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. |
Mr Coulson
S.H.I.E.L.D. HQ Sentinels of Sukanan Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:09:45 -
[592] - Quote
I'm not a cap pilot, I haven't fought in Large fleet battles and only know of Fighters and what they do because i found two idle at a gate to high sec once. But from a new player perspective -- someone who has had to change his skill goals so many times because of 'Balance Changes' and new direction of game play. I see many ways to do PvP and combat that older players I have talked to haven't considered because of the forest in the trees problem, New players bring fresh ideas and THAT is where new game play should be coming from . from ideas no one has thought of yet, but using existing mechanics....
I'm in a group of players who brainstorm ways to play, constantly ridiculed by the vets cause 'the game isnt played that way' yet these ideas work and we have fun thinking them up and trying them out. yet I am personally becoming very frustrated over how much time I'm wasting trying to train to be able to use these new combat concepts because over and over -- you make changes which kill the ability to use them before we even get started using them. nipping in the bud the ideas that fresh New players -- who figure out on their own ways to play -- many of which are new -- all just to have it dissapear as you move to satisfy the older veteran players.
If your goal is to keep the old player base happy and chase away the newer players with frustration. its achieved,
Keep Drone Assisted AS IS, make it even better by allowing those assisted more control of the drones (make it a module on that ship if u must).
If having a large cap hide i behind a Pos shield is a problem? then get rid of that problem. Make them come out. They are too easy to find? (or some poor underpaid alt - like me - who sits cloaked at towers for hours on end just to spot a cap go online and calls for BLOP drop) and suddenly a small fight escalates into a bigger fight to kill the carrier? Wahoo YES!
K.I.S.S. - Make the caps come out! but think bigger CCP, ADD game play - not continuous TAKE IT AWAY.
Right now the lore has in it, a race that has new cloaking tech, find some wreckage and redesign it to a new mod for carriers that allows them to play in normal space. Maybe they will warp to a safe spot after assisting drones and activate it. This mod could scramble combat probes so they cant be found in under 30 seconds, maybe it will only give a warp-in that is like 300-1000k away, so anyone trying to find it will have to slowboat to it. give it a chance to warp off to a new spot. OOooo a capital chase, NICE! Possibly even have the drones go dormant for the time its in warp. OOooo another new combat factor to play with! Fighters warping after ships could get lost and now u have to go salvage them, or the enemy may learn to time jumping a hidden cap at the right moment and it could turn the tide of a battle. OOooo,
Wait is that a new combat idea? Using Tactics instead of F1 Blobbing?. Naw it would never fly.
GET CREATIVE CCP expand game-play not shrink it ---- and stop killing off all my good fresh and new ideas before I even get a chance to use them. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
925
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:12:46 -
[593] - 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. |
Zhalon
Forging Industries Silent Infinity
36
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:12:53 -
[594] - Quote
You removed content, you removed a play style.....please focus on adding content. |
SootThis
High Flyers The Kadeshi
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:16:49 -
[595] - Quote
Leave fighters ability to warp after their target alone... as that does provide some often amusing results when a aggressor to a capital, breaks off and runs for the gate, only to realize when he is stuck there on account of aggression while the fighters pummel him |
Lavrenti Palych
Zima Corp Infinity Space.
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:22:58 -
[596] - Quote
I'm not sure that such nerf of carriers increase their involvement in pvp (as victims on npc hunt , at best). But I'm sure that is one more step to dominant concept "small and cheap easy kill a large and expensive" - like well-established popular format of the interceptors gangs.
So, in these conditions - why do I need (expensive and long time studied) a carrier or supercarrier? Best healing structures or powerblocs mass-pvp with over 4000 local and terrible lags? Oh... No, thanks.
Charadrass wrote:guys. you can assist 5 fighters. not the whole bunch a carrier or super can Launch.
thats a 2k dps per ship where you assist 5 of them. a good fitted vindicator with drones can get that too. gonna nerf vindicators right?
Yep. Next-gen total pvp of EVE: mass fleets of frigates and destroyers - it's fast, cheap and effectively. |
SiKong Ma
House of Nim-Lhach Skeleton Crew.
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:24:51 -
[597] - Quote
I'm for fighter assist to stay as this unique ability makes the difference between a fleet supported by carriers vs those that are not. It also adds to the gameplay for the opposing fleet to locate the carrier. Further suggest the carriers must be outside the POS (at least 100 km distance from POS) or the fighters will automatically return to the carrier.
Suggest give carrier pilots the option to toggle fighters follow targets in warp. |
Silent Silhouette
Noir. Academy Of Sound Mind
12
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:25:14 -
[598] - Quote
Why just remove fighter assist? Why not make it so that fighter when assigned to, lets say a vexor, then takes up drone bandwidth on both the carrier and the assigned ship. So the vexor could only be assigned and control 3 fighters(meaning he can't launch his drones, and if his drones are already out they can't be assigned to him) this making coordination within fleets important, instead of lets assign 100 fighter to that interceptor. |
CMD CTRL
poonswarm
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:26:10 -
[599] - Quote
What a suprie.. everyone who uses carriers/supers to rat havens are crying about this change.
One of the best moves CCP have made in along time, I commend them on their decision- would be alot easier to leave it broken.
x |
Mr Coulson
S.H.I.E.L.D. HQ Sentinels of Sukanan Alliance
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:30:41 -
[600] - Quote
Silent Silhouette wrote:Why just remove fighter assist? Why not make it so that fighter when assigned to, lets say a vexor, then takes up drone bandwidth on both the carrier and the assigned ship. So the vexor could only be assigned and control 3 fighters(meaning he can't launch his drones, and if his drones are already out they can't be assigned to him) this making coordination within fleets important, instead of lets assign 100 fighter to that interceptor.
I Like these ideas too. Also could make it so u can only send drones to assist a ship that has a drone assist control module installed? |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 30 40 50 .. 50 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |