| 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) |
Kenshi Eto Uzamaki
The Coven's Spoon Corner Pub
5
   |
Posted - 2015.02.28 19:57:16 -
[601] - Quote
Don't go changing the whole game because a few guys got butthurt about a roam/gank that didn't go there way because of fighter assist, I've fought the little frigs that have fighters assigned to them, if u kill the frig the fighters go away... Stop changing this game so solo guys have a harder time or defending what they have turned into there emergent gameplay. a few guys whining about this current mechanic, should never change how this game works. |
Kenshi Eto Uzamaki
The Coven's Spoon Corner Pub
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 20:00:56 -
[602] - Quote
Lord HazMatelio wrote:I feel this will need to stay, Why not remove remote shield rep bonus from the scimi to....
^^lets change all the things that make this game EVE. +1 to you sir, for illustrating the absurdity |
Ele Rebellion
Dead Star Syndicate
I'd Rather Be Roaming
33
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 20:01:57 -
[603] - Quote
I would be in support of cruisers and up only.
As well as.
-Cruisers may have maximum of 3 fighters assigned. (can still deploy 2 drones of its own) Battlecruisers may have 4 fighters assigned (can still deploy one drone) and battleships may have 5 assigned.
-Carrier takes weapons timer upon assigning drones (same as the marauder's timer for using bastion) and timer remains at 1minute until fighters are unassigned (at which time the timer starts counting down)
-Carriers cannot assign fighters within 6km of a station or forcefield.
-Carriers pilots go suspect w/o standing loss upon assigning drones.
-Carriers pilots take standing loss upon assigned fighters attacking neutral target.
Also support the ship drones are assigned to going suspect upon telling the drones to engage a target. (under circumstances where the ship would normally go suspect if activating a weapon)
Currently carriers have 2 roles in PvP. Triage and Off-grid DPS.
With current faction battleship prices I see no reason anyone would field carriers for DPS. Faction battleships cost half of a carrier, cheaper to fit, and easier to field. Fielding carriers is usually reserved for Triage carriers (which cannot use drones or fighters while triaged.) |
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
965
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 20:12:57 -
[604] - Quote
Hmmm. CCP makes very clearly data driven decisions and people are unhappy. Yes, I know you can use data to lie. Data itself doesn't lie, but it will tell you anything you want it to say if you torture it long enough. But that isn't the case here. The analysis is very straightforward. Yet people still whinge about it. I don't understand that.
Then in another case, CCP is making a philosophical change: a change based on how they want the game to be played. A change based on some sense of fairness or an idea of what constitutes a reasonable minimum bar for fights being okay. Again, I fail to see the opposition's point.
The only thing I find disappointing in this dev-blog is that there isn't enough troll. CCP troll is best troll, usually. But not today.
I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Shut up, Anslo. --everyone
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
609
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 20:21:05 -
[605] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote: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.
Lazy incompetent pilots use autopilot.
Should CCP remove autopilot?
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Naomi Anthar
386
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 20:23:23 -
[606] - Quote
Now shutdown links and we got game we DESERVE. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
609
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 20:24:08 -
[607] - Quote
SootThis wrote: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
Do you not realize how aggro works?
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation
Goonswarm Federation
609
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 20:29:14 -
[608] - Quote
Here's a thought: to go along with suggestions to make fighter assist dependant on assistee ship size:
Leave battleships and command ships as the only classes able to be assisted 5 fighters, and allow 10 fighters to marauders in bastion mode (when leaving bastion return the other fighters to the carrier).
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Glathull
Warlock Assassins
966
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 20:32:04 -
[609] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Lazy, incompetent pilots use the autopilot mechanic to find gank targets
Should CCP remove lazy, incompetent pilots?
Fixed quite a number of things there for you.
And the answer to your query is no.
I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon
Shut up, Anslo. --everyone
|
Myrona
Space Explorer Institute
Northern Associates.
6
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 20:49:04 -
[610] - Quote
Bad idea, CCP. |
|
|
MadDog1
Mortis Angelus
The Kadeshi
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 21:13:28 -
[611] - Quote
Horrible plans CCP...much prefer addressing the tactic, rather then nerfing the functionality of the ship. Not being able to assign fighters within 50km of a POS or station or whatever would be the better balance. Stop tacking away ship features, and instead place limits on tactics which use game mechanics to avoid risk. |
Tomas Marksson
Zima Corp
Infinity Space.
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 21:16:41 -
[612] - Quote
One more time I admit you're ruining the game I like so much.
As for me, I don't appreciate it. I strongly recommend not to do that. I've decided to create this 2nd account to learn Thanatos and then give fighters to my Tengu to make some profit on anomalies in Null-sec. But instead of this I should give up this idea and forget about this account (and even the game) forever because you are going to ruin my expectations and the whole game making it boring.
Yes, boring. Because for months I've been looking forward to learning and buying a carrier with fighters to increase the amount of ISK I earn. It's my way of developing. But without this there's no develop. Why on earth should I spend months and ISKs I donate to get something I have been promised but I'm not going to get? Developers, just imagine, that you buy something (let it be a notebook) on the Internet and then you receive it with no screen! It works, of course, you can switch it on, but it's useful and now worth the money you've paid. Now you feel the same.
I hope you've understand my point of view and you'll make a good decision. Thank you. |
Seer Aaron
42 inc.
Bora Alis
10
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 21:37:19 -
[613] - Quote
I think that the question of balance you need to follow a simple medical principle: do no harm. Because fighters have other problems. If you plan to remove the ability of their warp and delegate control them, then let's increase their optimum range stilbite 30-50 km to figthers could shoot POS the field. I think it would be fair. |
warbds
Stoli Holdings
11
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 21:37:21 -
[614] - Quote
I do understand the reason why you want to remove the assist. However that is something to the nature of a carrier even in real life!
So why does this be removed and make carriers in my opinion useless vessels except for the reps.
Maybe just maybe the solution would be within 1 au you could support a frigate, whitin 2 au a cruiser within 3 au a bc within 4au a bs within 5 au a capital. Ranges could be discussed and skill in the carrier skill should be considered.
An other option would be create the assist skill lvl 1 with a frigate 1 drone 20% effective that would mean with the skill at lvl 5 1 fighther drone 100% effective ranging to capitals and the skill at level 5, 5 fighters at 100%
You could even consider a module to be fitted on the assigned ship, which would limit the damage the assisted ship does by it self These would limit the ammount of fighters assigned but keep the carrier intact . |
Mark Jervelund
Delta vane Corp.
Mordus Angels
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 21:50:06 -
[615] - Quote
I think you should do it in a different way, maybe do it so the ship that has gotten the fighters delegated to should require the bandwidth the control them, so an Ishtar can have 5, Algos can have 1 + 2 light Drones and a Tristan can have 1. This would also do so interceptors cannot get fighters since even the Taranis does not have the bandwidth to control one.
Mark Jervelund
|
warbds
Stoli Holdings
11
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 21:53:24 -
[616] - Quote
Mark Jervelund wrote:I think you should do it in a different way, maybe do it so the ship that has gotten the fighters delegated to should require the bandwidth the control them, so an Ishtar can have 5, Algos can have 1 + 2 light Drones and a Tristan can have 1. This would also do so interceptors cannot get fighters since even the Taranis does not have the bandwidth to control one.
Mark Jervelund
Sounds good but next to their own drones. Otherwise they can't use their own drones for defense against frigates
|
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies
SpaceMonkey's Alliance
48
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 22:02:33 -
[617] - Quote
Kenshi Eto Uzamaki wrote: Don't go changing the whole game because a few guys got butthurt about a roam/gank that didn't go there way because of fighter assist, I've fought the little frigs that have fighters assigned to them, if u kill the frig the fighters go away... Stop changing this game so solo guys have a harder time or defending what they have turned into there emergent gameplay. a few guys whining about this current mechanic, should never change how this game works.
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...). |
Mark Jervelund
Delta vane Corp.
Mordus Angels
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 22:04:18 -
[618] - Quote
Quote:
Sounds good but next to their own drones. Otherwise they can't use their own drones for defense against frigates
No there should still be a limit up 5 drones for normal ships and 15 for carriers |
Tomas Marksson
Zima Corp
Infinity Space.
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 22:12:08 -
[619] - Quote
Kenshi Eto Uzamaki wrote: Don't go changing the whole game because a few guys got butthurt about a roam/gank that didn't go there way because of fighter assist, I've fought the little frigs that have fighters assigned to them, if u kill the frig the fighters go away... Stop changing this game so solo guys have a harder time or defending what they have turned into there emergent gameplay. a few guys whining about this current mechanic, should never change how this game works.
I agree. Imagine you are trying to enter somebody's house and its owner meets you with a rifle in his hands. What are you going to do? Call a policeman to disarm the "aggressor"? Nonsence.
Even in nature supremacy over the weak is the balance. It makes them develop themselves and do something to become stronger in order to achieve their goals. But what if all the goals are achieved? |
Galian Kile
Interdimensional Chaos
Gentlemen's.Club
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 22:15:05 -
[620] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:Kenshi Eto Uzamaki wrote: Don't go changing the whole game because a few guys got butthurt about a roam/gank that didn't go there way because of fighter assist, I've fought the little frigs that have fighters assigned to them, if u kill the frig the fighters go away... Stop changing this game so solo guys have a harder time or defending what they have turned into there emergent gameplay. a few guys whining about this current mechanic, should never change how this game works. 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...).
I approve this message. Thank you. That is all. o7 |
|
|
malia katain
Borg Collective Unimatrix Zero
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 22:42:25 -
[621] - Quote
To Be honest since you nerfed the carriers jump range i just stopped useing carriers fullstop.
what your doing is messing with billions of isk worth of ships that people worked the ass's off
in game to build, and have rendered them almost useless from their traditional roles.
Contant fiddleing and messing with stuff may seem like a great idea to you guys, but all your doing
is alienateing people from going into those types of ships.
i dont support chages to the way fighters currently work. but whats the point in telling you anyway.
if your going to nerf something, you will no matter what the players say. |
O2 jayjay
Tit-EE Sprinkles
Stratagem.
19
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 22:53:25 -
[622] - Quote
+1
I don't think the assist should be completely removed. How about it can assist to caps only and must be on grid just like any other drone boat. Or have the assist to where its only on grid. No more of the safe POS crap That sounds fair.
inty can be assist ONLY if the super is on grid with it. That way you know to GTFO and its on par with risk vs reward. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
926
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 22:57:15 -
[623] - 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. |
Misha Hartmann
Arch Angels Assault Force
The Kadeshi
26
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 22:59:28 -
[624] - Quote
It is unfortunate to see the ongoing and never ending capital nerf. Its quite simply just ridiculous that capitals have seen nothing but nerfs, even when they dont necessarily deserve it.
The fighter assist nerf does not really affect me one way or another, I just find it serious bullshit that capitals are yet again being given the finger.
Please stop nerfing capital just because the sub-cap babies cant deal with ships that other people have worked their buts off to get.
THEY ARE CAPITAL SHIPS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. They are meant to be better - THEY ARE EXPENSIVE FOR A REASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If this keeps on going on the way it is, soon all one will be able to do is buy a 2-3bil capital ship that is worse than a subcap.
Not that any dev would care, nerfing caps seems the thing to do these days. |
Monasucks
BLACK SQUADRON.
The Bastion
147
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 23:13:44 -
[625] - Quote
Hi CCP another thing..
check ISIS ingame..
Quote:Caital ships able toremote repair and deploy advanced drones to assist allies.
[img]http://666kb.com/i/cwiu2frpy9paui8y6.jpg[/img]
http://666kb.com/i/cwiu2frpy9paui8y6.jpg
Just to remind you for what carriers are intend to.. and what you tell even ingame.. so leave this content and maybe fix it!
As many here intended do not allow assignment if close to POS etc.
Can I haz you're stuff?
A good worker is a live worker. Free to live - and work! A bad worker is a dead worker; and vice versa. Don't be a bad worker; bad workers are slaves, and dead. Payday for good workers has been postponed indefinitely. Payday for bad workers is cancelled!
|
Jagious
The Branded Few
The Pestilent Legion
11
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 23:20:32 -
[626] - Quote
In IRL and in eve the job of a carrier is to project power anywhere it needs to even beyond its field of view so dont change assigning of fighters. Giving the ability and control fighter warping would rid that problem. As for changing skynetting on the edge of a Pos and assigning. If CCP does this they might and well make T3 cruiser,command ships, Orca's and roquals and all other boosting ships unable to use there ability's near a POS to be fair with the discrimination. Carriers need to stay as a unique and strategic ship in the game like providing REP's for large alliance fights and as a force multiplier for small entity's. However I do favor making it impossible for FRIGATES and DESTROYERS of all types including skiffs, ventures and procurers being unable to receive fighters, which fixes the Remote sensor boosted frigs gate camps. |
Smurfette Zoohl
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 23:32:48 -
[627] - Quote
Just remove drone modes. Some of them were noble but bad idea |
Katarina The Despoiler
Domination and Retribution
24
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 23:38:22 -
[628] - Quote
Carriers and Supers should have an option in the Drone Window, whether the fighters/bombers enter warp or not. So you can either sit there and have them stay on grid, or chase the guy fleeing if you don't need the dps on grid at that time.
Time Will Tell, Sooner or Later, Time Will Tell.
Domination & Retribution
|
Anara Taran
Tsunagi Industries
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 00:14:40 -
[629] - Quote
Removing this from the game is an extremely bad idea. It just makes carriers just a little more useless than they already are. Carriers need this ability to be of any interesting use in the game. Just make it more dangerous please.. increase range from POS where this can be done, and make the carrier maintain this distance, otherwise fighters warp back and dock.
Carriers being able to do this is one of the most cool and interesting things you can do in EVE! Remove it, and make the game just a little less interesting as a whole.
|
Syco Saisima
Vector Galactic
Did he say Jump
16
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 00:17:19 -
[630] - Quote
I think Carriers and Supers should remain how they are as to maintain that special role they were intended for and just change the actual 'skynet' mechanic so they have to stay 1-2km off the edge of a POS shield (think recent cyno changes) in order to maintain connection to their drones. Your proposed change is just a band-aid fix to the wrong thing when the REAL problem is simply how POS shields work. It would also get rid of one of the few 'force projections' that smaller pirate/Faction Warfare groups have currently and their carriers still die sometimes. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |