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) |
Ramases Purvanen
EVEL Tendancies The Methodical Alliance
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 03:11:40 -
[1021] - Quote
Davir Sometaww wrote:You could always; you know. Research the system you are entering and you would know in a heart beat.
You are going into the enemy's turf. Don't cry when something like a carrier or god forbid; a falcon decides to ruin your day.
Back on topic:
We'll see what CCP decides to do and whether it'll listen to its player base. At this point with 50+ pages - with multiple players suggesting the most efficient fix WHILE making carriers still viable.
Or they just give us the finger. Maybe both.
CCP will show us the finger and then some players like myself will show them the door... |
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
62
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 04:12:18 -
[1022] - Quote
Rroff wrote: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...).
Well use a scout, use friends, have a better fit... Heck go back and hot drop the carrier... |
Neyko Turama
Black Arrows Sev3rance
4
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:24:49 -
[1023] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:
Me? I am in favour of the change because I never think a person should be able to be totally uninvolved and still be a part of the on field force. I dislike off-grid boosting for the same reason.
But the fighters were a mechanic that was fine, for a while, but then became abused more and more. What did you expect? That since it was fine yesterday it must be fine today and always will be? The game changes, for the better or worse will show in the longer run. But if you want to be heard, if you want to have a single iota of a chance to be heard by CCP then keep it civil.
If what I said ticked you off . . . well, I am running for CSMX. Vote accordingly.
m
Of course you do. As you and the other CSM are just another expression of this pseudo democratic game CCP is playing. Letting the players think their ideas and or attemps would change ANYTHING. Please CCP shut down this thread or give us any proof you are actually caring about the lamentating in here.
You didn-¦t tick me off. You amuse me. |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1942
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 06:44:32 -
[1024] - Quote
Neyko Turama wrote: Of course you do. As you and the other CSM are just another expression of this pseudo democratic game CCP is playing. Letting the players think their ideas and or attemps would change ANYTHING. Please CCP shut down this thread or give us any proof you are actually caring about the lamenting in here.
You didn-¦t tick me off. You amuse me.
The Laments are just that, Laments. No matter what decision CCP made people were going to lament over some topic. CCP however have to make the call based on value judgements and balance arguments, not pure emotion. So don't like it, work out how to refute CCP's case, which from my view is a very strong case. And do so without mixing in other issues which are unrelated to this particular change even if part of capital balance overall. |
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns Triumvirate.
433
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 07:17:09 -
[1025] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote: 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!
And the only reason to use skynet is because you want easy killmails without risking anything. |
Anton Menges Saddat
Minion Revolution SpaceMonkey's Alliance
93
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 08:57:06 -
[1026] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:d0cTeR9 wrote: 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!
And the only reason to use skynet is because you want easy killmails without risking anything. Yeah, that guy who lost a Revenant skynetting wasn't risking anything at all |
Vincintius Agrippa
The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology
77
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:02:26 -
[1027] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla.
This thread is for discussing the proposed removal of fighter assist for carriers and super carriers.
This change being largely driven by 'skynetting' which is a tactic where carriers and super carriers can sit in near perfect safety at the edge of starbase shields and assign thousands of DPS worth of fighter drones to their fleet mates who can fly whatever ship they want *) , while wielding an enormous amount of damage. We feel this is not meeting our standards for risk vs reward and therefor would like to remove the ability to assist fighters. More details are covered in this dev blog.
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?
Look forward to your feedback.
*) *snip* Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal.
^^^^^^^^^Dumbest collection of words that have ever been assembled. Of all time.^^^^^^^^^
Hmm, fighters with warp drives chase after their untackled targets. Provide the option to have fighters pursue or remain vs. Completely removing fighter warp. Bye bye warp engines I guess.
Hmm, prevent carriers from assisting through pos shields vs completely removing assist from the game. The choice is obvious, duh. Remove from game of course.
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!
|
mannyman
High Flyers The Kadeshi
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:28:09 -
[1028] - Quote
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:CCP Rise wrote:As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla.
This thread is for discussing the proposed removal of fighter assist for carriers and super carriers.
This change being largely driven by 'skynetting' which is a tactic where carriers and super carriers can sit in near perfect safety at the edge of starbase shields and assign thousands of DPS worth of fighter drones to their fleet mates who can fly whatever ship they want *) , while wielding an enormous amount of damage. We feel this is not meeting our standards for risk vs reward and therefor would like to remove the ability to assist fighters. More details are covered in this dev blog.
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?
Look forward to your feedback.
*) *snip* Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal. ^^^^^^^^^Dumbest collection of words that have ever been assembled. Of all time.^^^^^^^^^ Hmm, fighters with warp drives chase after their untackled targets. Provide the option to have fighters pursue or remain vs. Completely removing fighter warp. Bye bye warp engines I guess. Hmm, prevent carriers from assisting through pos shields vs completely removing assist from the game. The choice is obvious, duh. Remove from game of course.
Removing from game when there is different mechanics in null and lowsec regarding this, AND there is ways to do "skynetting" 100% safe with online POS that doesnt have Forcefield.
As I mentioned before, ensure POS gets forcefield automatically aft it onlined, AND, remove the delegation/assist from lowsec due to electronical interference from Empires claiming Lowsec.
But let this functionality be an option in nullsec, but with limitations on the POS.. offc.. 20km off the Forcefield to expose carrier more. |
Kane Carnifex
Yard Evolution The Kadeshi
30
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 09:44:44 -
[1029] - Quote
Due the planned SOV changes, offer an Module which allows carrier to assign fighter to give an advantage for the owner of the System.
Like an IHUB upgrade or an structure which spreads the commands through the systems.
|
Jacus Noir
Accretion Aftermath Headshot Gaming
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:14:11 -
[1030] - 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.
Ideally a carrier pilot should NEVER be micro managing fighters while trying to take on a logi role. As it stands right now fighters can be assigned to fleet mates and the carrier pilot can focus on actually doing what they should be which is logi not being a giant domi.
The better solution would be to require that all pilots who the carrier assigns fighters to be on grid with the carrier. In this way a carrier can assign fighters and then focus on logi while the pilot who gets the fighters would need to be on grid to keep fighters assigned to them.
You can still allow fighters to follow targets into warp, but doing returns fighter control to the carrier pilot and away from the pilot on grid. This SHOULD fix skynetting, force carriers to be in the fight, and still allow fighters to be assigned so that the carrier pilot can now focus on keeping his fleet alive. |
|
Wadiest Yong
Porcus Volans Sev3rance
6
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 10:47:21 -
[1031] - Quote
The mechanic of assigning fighters to other pilots has had its days but is now a thing that should go. Or at least for carriers in a logi role...
As to warp capability of fighters, it should stay. It's what sets them apart from drones.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
946
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 11:57:57 -
[1032] - 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. |
helfen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:24:06 -
[1033] - Quote
Wadiest Yong wrote:The mechanic of assigning fighters to other pilots has had its days but is now a thing that should go. Or at least for carriers in a logi role...
As to warp capability of fighters, it should stay. It's what sets them apart from drones.
That's the thing CCP can't make their dam mind up what role a carrier should play, If it indeed falls in the logistics role its jump range and fatigue needs altering but that is highly unlikely because of "enter CCP reason here" and the late grey scale narrowing the meaning of carrier to combat because it can use drones, Never mind the fact it's the only ship to use a Triage module that surprise surprise itself is a major LOGISTICAL buff to carriers.
CCP I want a job I can't code for crap but I know your own product better than you do since I've been working with it for 10+ years...
Rroff wrote:
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.
If they could actually do their job's correctly this would never have been as a big deal as it is, The drone augmentation modules are being passed down to delegated fighters while all the time the hull bonuses of the carrier are not but I suppose it's easier to remove a right click option in game than it is to FIX THE PROBLEM CCP CREATED.
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 |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
946
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:38:53 -
[1034] - 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. |
helfen
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 12:45:36 -
[1035] - Quote
Rroff wrote: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.
The thany in the tests I have done does not get the damage modifier from the Nyx hull making it more viable for the thany itself to launch fighters rather than receive them remotely from the Nyx.
It's when you add drone damage modules, Tracking modules and speed modules to the Nyx ( in this example ) that them modules stats ARE passed down. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
946
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 13:06:03 -
[1036] - 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 |
RomeStar
BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP Brave Collective
573
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:12:45 -
[1037] - Quote
I have noticed a lot of players selling their thannys in null for cheap prices I am hoping this is a big troll on CCP's part. If not I hope a skill reimbursement is incoming or the reversal of the previous fighter nerf atleast. If nothing well its time to whelp my thannys and sell off my fighters and pos.
Signatured removed, CCP Phantom
|
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:27:56 -
[1038] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:d0cTeR9 wrote: 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!
And the only reason to use skynet is because you want easy killmails without risking anything.
From my experience living in null for the past 4 or 5 years, most skynet has been for ratting. Assign your fighters to a tengu or other such ratting ship, warp to forsaken hub and blap away. It's only recently that its become an issue for those who want to hunt capitals in null. IF you think that skynet is a real problem, again look at that Revenant kill. Looked like a pretty easy 200b killmail to me. If you want easy kills, go suicide gank noobs in Jita.
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Isengrimus
LOST IDEA C0VEN
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 15:44:35 -
[1039] - Quote
Panther X wrote:[quote=Aiyshimin][quote=d0cTeR9]
From my experience living in null for the past 4 or 5 years, most skynet has been for ratting. Assign your fighters to a tengu or other such ratting ship, warp to forsaken hub and blap away. It's only recently that its become an issue for those who want to hunt capitals in null. IF you think that skynet is a real problem, again look at that Revenant kill. Looked like a pretty easy 200b killmail to me. If you want easy kills, go suicide gank noobs in Jita.
That Reventant was not an "easy kill" FYI, it has been tracked and hunted for MONTHS by at least several groups before it died, where of course PL had the biggest chance to catch him with their immense super fleet staying relatively close to where he dwelled. And to be honest. it died mostly because it was a Revenant, a really worthy prize. Should that be a Thanny or even a Nyx nobody would probably bother.
And that's the point - if you want easy kills, go gank noobs in Jita rather than using Thannys on a POS with lowered shields or sticiking to its FF. That's the easiest and safest way to PVP and I am really glad CCP did this.
As to the fighters warp ability - it should be kept, but making them pointable (and scrammable) is a good idea. |
Mkx pl
LOST IDEA C0VEN
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:01:41 -
[1040] - Quote
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. |
|
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:05:39 -
[1041] - Quote
Isengrimus wrote:Panther X wrote:[quote=Aiyshimin][quote=d0cTeR9]
From my experience living in null for the past 4 or 5 years, most skynet has been for ratting. Assign your fighters to a tengu or other such ratting ship, warp to forsaken hub and blap away. It's only recently that its become an issue for those who want to hunt capitals in null. IF you think that skynet is a real problem, again look at that Revenant kill. Looked like a pretty easy 200b killmail to me. If you want easy kills, go suicide gank noobs in Jita. That Reventant was not an "easy kill" FYI, it has been tracked and hunted for MONTHS by at least several groups before it died, where of course PL had the biggest chance to catch him with their immense super fleet staying relatively close to where he dwelled. And to be honest. it died mostly because it was a Revenant, a really worthy prize. Should that be a Thanny or even a Nyx nobody would probably bother. And that's the point - if you want easy kills, go gank noobs in Jita rather than using Thannys on a POS with lowered shields or sticiking to its FF. That's the easiest and safest way to PVP and I am really glad CCP did this. As to the fighters warp ability - it should be kept, but making them pointable (and scrammable) is a good idea.
You're not wrong in that there was a great effort in tracking this guy down at the right time and gathering the force to take it on. The actual fight itself didn't last long, and two DD's just made it into so much burning wreckage. In my opinion that's the way every capital kill should be, a Herculean effort, worth the risk of taking one on. Supers and Titans have the drawback of not being able to dock at all, so there should be some mitigating factor in the gargantuan risk in owning one. Carriers can dock but their mass and size hampers their ability to escape, again there's the balance.
I point again to my earlier post about small aircraft carriers like the USS Ranger; should it be easily sinkable by Somalian pirates with a Zodiac and rpgs? No; it's a freaking aircraft carrier. But it's only a small one, 60,000 tonnes compared to the current 100,000 tonnes in a Gerald R. FordGÇôclass aircraft carrier (super carrier).
To sink one of these bad boys it would take a real fighting force of modern fighters with well trained pilots and land to sea anti-ship missiles, plus probably a submarine force.
But in Eve all you need is two Atrons and a n00bship. Sometimes even less.
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
82
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:21:41 -
[1042] - Quote
RomeStar wrote:I have noticed a lot of players selling their thannys in null for cheap prices I am hoping this is a big troll on CCP's part. If not I hope a skill reimbursement is incoming or the reversal of the previous fighter nerf atleast. If nothing well its time to whelp my thannys and sell off my fighters and pos.
Good luck with the sp remap or anything like that. Cheap thannys and archons are good though. Buying thanny's for 100mill, contract to me.
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Isengrimus
LOST IDEA C0VEN
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:23:57 -
[1043] - Quote
Yay, real life military analogies! Is there an incoming Sun Tzu quote as well?
But caustic remarks aside - I am not really following your point on how 2 Atrons and a Noobship can kill a Capital in EVE - unless, of course, they are being assisted by a flight of Fighters from a safe Super or Carrier, sitting on a POS. That's exactly my point, thank you for that.
Also I believe you are actually reinforcing my key point - two guys in Atrons and a noobship should be an easy kill for a guy in a, say, Vagabond (look at your "it costs more so it should be harder to kill" argument). However, if the said Atrons have ten friends in Carriers in a system, that makes the whole concept of "small PVP" useless and almost totally risk-free for a side using crap ships assisted by fighter - and is EXACTLY what CCP wants to elimante. |
Isengrimus
LOST IDEA C0VEN
26
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:25:50 -
[1044] - Quote
Panther X wrote:RomeStar wrote:I have noticed a lot of players selling their thannys in null for cheap prices I am hoping this is a big troll on CCP's part. If not I hope a skill reimbursement is incoming or the reversal of the previous fighter nerf atleast. If nothing well its time to whelp my thannys and sell off my fighters and pos. Good luck with the sp remap or anything like that. Cheap thannys and archons are good though. Buying thanny's for 100mill, contract to me.
I'll double that! |
mannyman
High Flyers The Kadeshi
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:33:46 -
[1045] - Quote
Isengrimus wrote:Yay, real life military analogies! Is there an incoming Sun Tzu quote as well?
But caustic remarks aside - I am not really following your point on how 2 Atrons and a Noobship can kill a Capital in EVE - unless, of course, they are being assisted by a flight of Fighters from a safe Super or Carrier, sitting on a POS. That's exactly my point, thank you for that.
Also I believe you are actually reinforcing my key point - two guys in Atrons and a noobship should be an easy kill for a guy in a, say, Vagabond (look at your "it costs more so it should be harder to kill" argument). However, if the said Atrons have ten friends in Carriers in a system, that makes the whole concept of "small PVP" useless and almost totally risk-free for a side using crap ships assisted by fighter - and is EXACTLY what CCP wants to elimante.
The problem exists of 2 things: 1. the carrier is not exposed enough for a good fight to happen 2. the problem exists more in lowsec and gatecamping
There is less of a problem in nullsec as alliances use their toys to defend their own space
Therefore, as I have said before, Empires in Lowsec disrupts the electronics system of the carrier so delegation cant be done, AND, the POS onlines automatically, AND delegation can only be done in nullsec atleast 20km away from the POS shields. |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
175
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:43:32 -
[1046] - Quote
Personally i'd like to have the assist revamped to normal drone mechanic roles, but keep the warp ability in reduced form, allow the fighters to warp back to the (super)carrier if there recalled and the fighters are offgrid or more then 150 km away |
mannyman
High Flyers The Kadeshi
11
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 16:51:16 -
[1047] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Personally i'd like to have the assist revamped to normal drone mechanic roles, but keep the warp ability in reduced form, allow the fighters to warp back to the (super)carrier if there recalled and the fighters are offgrid or more then 150 km away
What about the fact that a supercarrier or carrier is tackled 3 minutes after a interdictor dies to the drones in nullsec ? 40m ship that tackles a 30b ship incl fittings for 3 whole minutes. Is it fair ? |
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
83
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:06:37 -
[1048] - Quote
Isengrimus wrote:Yay, real life military analogies! Is there an incoming Sun Tzu quote as well?
But caustic remarks aside - I am not really following your point on how 2 Atrons and a Noobship can kill a Capital in EVE - unless, of course, they are being assisted by a flight of Fighters from a safe Super or Carrier, sitting on a POS. That's exactly my point, thank you for that.
Also I believe you are actually reinforcing my key point - two guys in Atrons and a noobship should be an easy kill for a guy in a, say, Vagabond (look at your "it costs more so it should be harder to kill" argument). However, if the said Atrons have ten friends in Carriers in a system, that makes the whole concept of "small PVP" useless and almost totally risk-free for a side using crap ships assisted by fighter - and is EXACTLY what CCP wants to elimante.
No but I've been doing Hunter S. Thompson ones in skype...
You're right I was being facetious, but my comment was more directed at the lowsec guys who believe that they should be able to take on carriers with zero risk for huge rewards. I agree that skynet needs to be adjusted, and more risk involved, but, CCP has gone ballz deep on their fix for it.
Capital pilots take a huge risk every time they undock and/or log in supers. And CCP is making it even more of a risk with each passing release. You can tell that by the number of big kills on zkilboard that unfortunately happen to be Kadeshi. But you keep seeing us on there because we know and understand the risks involved in playing the meta. Hey people should be happy that we go big on ratting ships, and we don't play station games with n00bships. Those who are hunting us should be up in arms against these changes so they can continue hunting us. If CCP takes away the use of these ships we won't undock them/log them in and you won't get big juicy kills.
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
83
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:11:10 -
[1049] - Quote
mannyman wrote:Isengrimus wrote:Yay, real life military analogies! Is there an incoming Sun Tzu quote as well?
But caustic remarks aside - I am not really following your point on how 2 Atrons and a Noobship can kill a Capital in EVE - unless, of course, they are being assisted by a flight of Fighters from a safe Super or Carrier, sitting on a POS. That's exactly my point, thank you for that.
Also I believe you are actually reinforcing my key point - two guys in Atrons and a noobship should be an easy kill for a guy in a, say, Vagabond (look at your "it costs more so it should be harder to kill" argument). However, if the said Atrons have ten friends in Carriers in a system, that makes the whole concept of "small PVP" useless and almost totally risk-free for a side using crap ships assisted by fighter - and is EXACTLY what CCP wants to elimante. The problem exists of 2 things: 1. the carrier is not exposed enough for a good fight to happen 2. the problem exists more in lowsec and gatecamping There is less of a problem in nullsec as alliances use their toys to defend their own space Therefore, as I have said before, Empires in Lowsec disrupts the electronics system of the carrier so delegation cant be done, AND, the POS onlines automatically, AND delegation can only be done in nullsec atleast 20km away from the POS shields.
20k is still marginally in range of shields, so I would be happy with 50km. That's too far to slowboat in, not far enough to warp. One would have to be aligned to a safe and be moving to be safer. That is a perfectly reasonable compromise wouldnt you agree?
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
Alexis Nightwish
113
|
Posted - 2015.03.05 17:19:55 -
[1050] - 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.
Translation:
Hello
We skimmed through the feedback.
The gist of which was that you guys want fighter warping to remain, and since it's easy to make no change to it, we're not going to remove it. However, given our limited expertise, and that that any changes we announce aren't actually up for debate (in fact coding to remove delegation was already underway before the dev blog) we are not going to implement any of the creative ideas of the community that would solve the Skynet issue while still retaining one of the trademark aspects of carriers and supercarriers.
Despite the valid concerns of players who have spent months training into one of the most SP-intensive ships in the game, we are continuing with our ham-handed 'fix' fully aware that this will, as a side effect, totally remove all of the valid uses of fighter delegation. But don't worry! We will be looking at capitals in the future. No ETA on that and, let's be honest here. You probably won't see any movement on that front for years. However when we do, expect us to axe something else from the game in the name of balance.
**** you.
CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
|
|
|
|
|
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 |