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) |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1123
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:14:58 -
[91] - Quote
Removing fighter assign is good. Removing fighter warp is bad.
I can't follow a target warping to a safespot in my combat ship, so fighters being able to follow targets continuously is odd.
But I can always warp to a member of my fleet in the same system, and I can fleet warp, so at a minimum, fighters should always be able to warp TO the carriers location when the carriers location, and warp WITH the carrier when the carrier warps.
But feel free to remove the follow aggressed target function, it wouldn't be much of a loss. |
Jarod Garamonde
Jolly Codgers Get Off My Lawn
2495
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:15:45 -
[92] - 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.
I'd rather just see a killmail generated for fighters, and call it a day. Other than not getting a killmail when one dies, fighters are fine the way they are.
That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right...
[#savethelance]
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
127
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:16:03 -
[93] - Quote
Removal of both removes a huge sandbox. it also makes them useless. most people use fighters for their ability to follow. remove that then there's no point in fighters ever.
who would even risk using them in pve if just warping off loses you 200m isk of drones. so people will go back to using sentry drones on carriers, which would then need to be nerfed again.
so please leave the warp at least.
as for assigning... removing that just nerfed my ratting income by 65%, so thanks for that....
|
Suitonia
Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep
452
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:16:14 -
[94] - Quote
Inslander Wessette wrote:Delegating fighters is not equal to drone assist as delegating fighters is a unique mechanism .
Removing the mechanism would result in ships like thanatos (dedicated fighter bonus) being even more useless than they already are .
A really easy fix would be not allowing fighter assist within said radius of the POS force field or station .
A more complex and suggested fix would be to have a highslot module that acts like beacon on the ship to which the fighters will home or tether on to .
Whilst the beacon is on the fighters can be delegated .
With the module having said cpu / powergrid values we can easily screen out the ships that fighters can be delegated to . ( frigates and shuttles etc)
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.
Contributer to Eve is Easy:
https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos
Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
|
Canenald
Jump Drive Appreciation Society Test Alliance Please Ignore
46
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:19:08 -
[95] - Quote
I feel that removing fighter assists and warping would just make carriers more like large versions of subcapital drone boats. There has to be a better way of solving this problem.
Do the assigned fighters give aggression timers to the owner carrier? If they don't, they should. Carrier too tough so it waits out the aggression timer and docks? It's your problem you don't have the power to destroy a carrier before it deagresses. Don't pick a fight with groups that have carriers.
Assigning from the edge of POS shields is more complicated. Maybe prevent them from assigning while they are within certain range of the shields, like the same area in which jump bridges can't be placed. |
Kiyak Montizuma
Fault Line Industries Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:19:55 -
[96] - Quote
keep fighter warp and also allow the ability to assist to ships that are on grid. |
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
Alekhine's Gun The Periphery
192
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:19:59 -
[97] - Quote
No matter what, keep the warp drive on the fighters and fighter bombers. Huge QoL for carrier pilots and make for some interesting situations.
Fighter assist is overpowered because of skynets at the edge of POS shields. I'm a huge fan of ships being in space (especially expensive ships), so I'd rather skynetting wasn't possible near a POS shield (like cynos?) than it being removed from the game. That being said, I'd much rather see fighter assist be removed from the game than remain at the current state. |
Elenahina
Agony Unleashed Agony Empire
142
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:21:27 -
[98] - Quote
Gevlin wrote:I would remove the warping of fighters and keep the Fighter assist. Making the carrier required to be on grid to have their fighters be of use, therefore risk vs reward is kept.
But it's not - the two situations are not exactly the same. Carriers have notoriously slow lock times, especially for smaller ships, and fighters do not (last time I used any) auto aggress to new targets, you have to target them individually and click "Sic 'em" for the fighters to go dispense death. Removing the assist feature means that you have to use the carrier's lock time in order to get the benefit of the fighters, not the lock time of an interceptor.
Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
|
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
4085
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:21:39 -
[99] - Quote
Kill all drone assist, regardless. Fighters and standard drones. Retain fighter warp as this is a unique feature, and can be toggled already.
It's time for the 'Game of Drones' to come to an end.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
909
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:22:41 -
[100] - 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.
|
|
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
1434
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:22:55 -
[101] - Quote
I'm all for removing fighter assist. While the basis behind Skynetting has been "a thing" for a long time, Skynet carriers coupled with revamped fighters I think is a bit much. Valid? Yes. Still risky? Somewhat. But still a bit much.
I think fighters should keep their ability to warp. It sets them apart from other drones and gives carriers a unique capability, and without fighter assist they will already be losing some of their warp utility (i.e. no longer need to warp to their designated ship).
My Many Misadventures
Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook.
I seek to create content, not become content.
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1101
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:24:01 -
[102] - Quote
I've yet to see an actual argument to keeping fighters going to warp besides "please don't nerf they cost me money".
I hate being harsh but I haven't read one yet. I've read a few about fighters still engaging people while the carrier warps back and forth in between two pos's (haven't tried that actually, does that work?).
Yaay!!!!
|
Coelomate
Gilliomate Corp
14
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:24:38 -
[103] - Quote
- Fighter assist was clearly broken. It's a cool/interesting/fun mechanic, so sad to see it go from the reasonable use cases, but there is no doubt something drastic needed to change.
- Please keep fighter warping, at least for following the carrier in warp. Fighters are expensive and slow, removing warp will make them even less likely to be used.
Having said that, I'd love it if there were a way to nerf the most broken use cases of fighter assist while keeping it in the game. The two worst offenders being assigning tracking-bonused fighters from a POS to a small ship (usually for PVP) and assigning super carrier fighters from a POS to a regular carrier, allowing all of the super carrier fitting to improve damage and application while the carrier fitting improves tank/cap/rep/align (often for PVE). If you can find a way to stop those, the remaining uses of fighter assign aren't nearly as broken.
Some good ideas have already been presented here, although I imagine there are significant coding challenges to them all.
My biggest concern: what use case do (non-super) carriers and fighters have after this change?
Love,
~Coelomate
|
Baron Holbach
The Northerners Northern Coalition.
25
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:24:56 -
[104] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Remove: - fighter assist. - fighter follow in warp the target.
Keep: - fighters warping with the carrier
this |
Viserion Pavarius
RESET. Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:25:23 -
[105] - Quote
Hey, plz don't remove the follow in warp function for fighters and escpecially fighter Bombers.
If you lose your FB's on a supercap you lose your primary weapon and you are not able to replace them thanks to the "small" dronebay. Please think about this again CCP
I just like the post from a guy in NC. MUST BE A SIGN :p |
Souma12
Starframe Logistics Inc.
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:27:27 -
[106] - Quote
"In general, we want there to be risk associated with power."
Nerf AFK cloaking then, 0 risk and too much power, the design philosophy you have is being affected there! |
Xena Jax
Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:28:45 -
[107] - Quote
On what Fozzie said on the o7 show....
For the purposes of this post, carrier is used to refer to carrier and mothership/super.
@Fozzie
I think, you sir, have not considered all of the consequences of making this change, or if you have, you have decided to ignore those of us who use the cap/fighter platform for other purposes than to attach said fighters to shuttles and interceptors.
Look, I was not happy with the jump changes made to capitals, but I could see how the loss of capability versus the reward to stopping hot drops anywhere anytime was a positive. This crazy idea though is not and I for one am shocked you guys did not publicly ask for feedback from players before you decided to kill something that has been in use since the beginning of the game for other methods besides 'skynet'.
What you should have done sir, is place limits on how they are used. Examples might be:
A) No ability to assign fighters in low sec. B) Fighters cannot be attached to ship sizes below say a cruiser. C) Fighters cannot approach a gate within X km. They automatically return and orbit the carrier if its attempted.
Look in the real world larger civilized countries purchase and use air craft carriers for air superiority. By definition (just looking at Iraq as an example), they were used to send fighters to the region they were needed in with no harm to the air craft carrier. The ocean was its POS.
Anyways, back to the point. I think you are making a terrible mistake. When I started playing this game, I was largely enticed by capitals in general. How special and versatile they were. It seems you are taking away all of its beauty every other patch at this point. I mean seriously it is starting to shape up to capitals being nothing better than a subcap with a bit better DPS. Literally it is better to fly them gate to gate now. You are also taking away any other true advantage the platform has and basically pushing its single purpose for large fleet support roles.
You are also pissing on older players many of whom retain well skilled alts simply that can fly carriers/supers for various reasons. I for one will divest myself away from the carrier platform if this change is made and my vote will be felt in CCPs pocket book directly as I will not renew my capital pilot subscription (which I pay for in dollars) after this change goes into effect. I am guessing many others will follow suit.
Are you guys really that adverse to keeping accounts open and therefore keeping CCP financially strong? You are really screwing everyone who has invested a year or more of training into this game because some people complained about a tactic that could be dealt with in so many other ways?
Hey if you make the change fine. I will live with it and adapt. But I want my *GD* wasted skillpoints back buddy.
Xena |
Opner Dresden
Lugus Foundry The Explicit Alliance
25
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:29:24 -
[108] - Quote
So fighter assist is a problem of design... don't post any data, because you don't have any data to support it.
But battleship and Battlecruiser usage is only a stats question... nothing is wrong with the fact that absolutely no one is fielding anything larger than a cruiser hull as a primary doctrine for major combat outside of PL... and even then it's only for <5 jump TFIs and destroyer warp speed Machariels.
Can we get some consistency please? If skynetting is a serious problem and not just people annoyed with home systems having some defensive advantage against roaming gangs... show us the numbers.
Better solution, fighters can be scramed and generate killmails... and bubbles while you're at it.
Carriers just received a massive nerf in jump range, severely limiting one of the major perks of owning one (suitcase). Now the uses for ratting and home defense are being crippled (at least in any sort of busy space). |
BoBoZoBo
Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team
519
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:30:15 -
[109] - Quote
You have two variables you are looking at. Do not make the same mistake you made with jump fatigue and modify both at once. Start with removing the fighter assist if the problem persists, then remove the fighter warping.
Honestly, I do not see how the two are related. As a carrier pilot who use to use their own drones for themselves, being able to let the fighters warp with you is a nice insurance policy for the cap ship and the very expensive fighters.
Primary Test Subject GÇó SmackTalker Elite
|
Lunarstorm95
Di-Tron Heavy Industries Fatal Ascension
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:31:13 -
[110] - Quote
No.
Leave fighters alone and work on what needs fixing. You have a list full of game mechanics that need working on and fighters are not on said list. Stop sticking you nose in game mechanics you don't know anything about and start listening to the CSMs. Fighters warping have not been a problem that has no solution. THAT is when a mechanic need fixing. Not because some people would rather complain over finding a hard counter.
As for assisting, i feel it needs some work but i still feel it is not an issue. The **** that gets assigned fighters needs to get aggression as if it was their own drones.
If you remove either of these features fighters become pointless and you will have yet again made a change no one wants.
My 20-40 mil drones should have some extra bells and whistles over some drakes 500k drones.
Fix what needs fixing.
GÇ£You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.GÇ¥
GÇò Robert A. Heinlein
"Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance."
GÇò Confucius-á
|
|
drummendejef maaktnietuit
Active Fusion
21
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:31:25 -
[111] - Quote
We were going to start trying out skynet ratting in 2 days :(
I don't see the problem with it really. It's pvp, and alot should be possible. Yes, it's annoying when a frig kills a BS, but they don't always need fighters for that.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9936
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:32:10 -
[112] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:I've yet to see an actual argument to keeping fighters going to warp besides "please don't nerf they cost me money".
No "me" i don't use fighters anymore. What we're saying is that this unnecessary nerf (to fighter warping) means fewer people will use Carriers for PVE in null and low sec. Those PVE carriers are content creation devices, huge battles have started behind one ratting carrier or super carrier that got caught because it was misaligned or got stuck on a structure or something..
Without fighter warping, the financial risk (of losing a quarter bil in fighters) means people just won't do it, ratting is about making isk under acceptable levels of financial risk (which is why afktars or so popular, don't make a lot of isk but not a lot of loss if one dies) not losing it.
Some me will just use sentry carriers but those are dangerous because you can't be aligned, so after a few loses, they too will either switch to Afktars, cheap options like MJD Dominixes/other ships or outside of null sec pve (like faction warfare missions or whatever else) for income. RIP content creating ratting carriers getting caught.
|
Falnashna Akhiko
The Flying Pandas
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:32:20 -
[113] - Quote
I feel a much more appropriate option would be to make it so that they can still fighter assist, however, there is a maximum range to it. Ideally this would be like 1 AU. The advantage of doing this is that it severely limits where they can have the carrier to assist things in system. If it is in a moon that is right next to a station, I feel that raises the value of both the moon and the station, it would lead towards more conflict over that system (assuming holding alliances aren't massive). However, it doesn't give a blank check on any engages within the system.
Since the range is only 1 AU, say the enemy fleet/individual comes into system, he can quickly figure out the "range bubble" of the assist, and then engage stuff outside of it. This raises the tactics of the carrier, while still maintaining its "carrier-ness". With that said, it may be more reasonable to do it at a shorter range, such as 1000km, so that there can be fleet mechanics wherein you park your carriers just barely off grid, and then you will be able to assist the people that are in combat.
I personally just feel that outright removing a feature is never the way to go, as it removes diversity of play, however, it is appropriate, or more accurately demanded that said features should be balanced. |
Punky260
Deutsche Lichtbringer AG Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:32:23 -
[114] - Quote
Leave fighters warping - maybe with an optout option. So you could choose in the drones window if your Fighters should be able to leave grid or not.
Why: The uniqueness of fighters should not only be a bigger damage output, put also a larger range of "utility". Even there are probably only few scenarios where you might end up wanting your fighters warp away from you, it still can be. And I would want only the smallest change to remove skynet - the fighter assist does provide that, so why do something else? ;) |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2760
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:33:12 -
[115] - Quote
I'm going to put this here so I'm sure you'll read it.
You gave us an UNDER DEVELOPED LINE of singular capital and super capital hulls and told us to go forth and be gods if we could afford to. You nerfed them and AoE doomsdays because the poor rifter hobos who couldn't afford to be gods got blapped in the first few years. You nerfed carriers again because fighters did too much damage to small gangs thinking they can take on something 10 times their size and cost. Then you nerfed them some more because you wanted sub capitals to play a role in whoring on capital killmails with NO RISK from the caps (invalid targeting mechanic, crap scan res for a ship that should by all means have more targeting capabilities than the cheap budget frigates on offer). Recently you nerfed them again because they traveled across the galaxy, bypassing stargates at insane speeds (LIKE YOU INTENDED from the offset). Now your relegating carriers to the world of triaging on stargates or the role of dust collectors.
You promised me Incarna. You gave me a prolonged abortion with an eventual dismissal of the concept because some people blew up space statues and unsubbed their cyno alts.
You promised me PI. You gave me connect the dots and forgot about it.
SO there's not much for it.
Nerf my capitals with this, and I'll nerf your income by unsubbing whats left of my accounts and hoping for the days that your nigh-wow clone game failscades with headlines of job cuts at CCP or scandalous transfers of disgruntled former Devs to competitor studios.
I did not invest 10 years into this game hoping to fill the Freelancer hole in my heart, for Capital ships in general, Incarna and PI promises to sit back and watch you turn this game into rifters online with no content I like or want, week in, week out... all because of lesser ships and your inability to have fixed all of these design oversights that have cost us the much loved Jesus feature expansions in the first decade.
And i'll be keeping my stuffs thnx
Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
|
Suitonia
Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep
456
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:34:19 -
[116] - Quote
Opner Dresden wrote:So fighter assist is a problem of design... don't post any data, because you don't have any data to support it.
But battleship and Battlecruiser usage is only a stats question... nothing is wrong with the fact that absolutely no one is fielding anything larger than a cruiser hull as a primary doctrine for major combat outside of PL... and even then it's only for <5 jump TFIs and destroyer warp speed Machariels.
Can we get some consistency please? If skynetting is a serious problem and not just people annoyed with home systems having some defensive advantage against roaming gangs... show us the numbers.
Better solution, fighters can be scramed and generate killmails... and bubbles while you're at it.
Carriers just received a massive nerf in jump range, severely limiting one of the major perks of owning one (suitcase). Now the uses for ratting and home defense are being crippled (at least in any sort of busy space).
The advantage that home defense has is the option to reship and counter, more pilots on hand, and the ability to reinforce lost numbers during an engagement, as well as strategic assets like Jump Bridges to cut-off enemy escape routes or bring their own reinforcements in faster, and much better options for a safe retreat like safe stations and friendly structures.
Assigning 4,000 DPS from an invulnerable and intangible target that tracks every single ship in the game perfectly to 2 Stilettos and a Hyena (or t1 fit frigates) is not something which should be in the game.
Contributer to Eve is Easy:
https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos
Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
|
Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
230
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:35:49 -
[117] - Quote
So a unique and interesting feature thatGÇÖs been around for numerous years is being removed because of an undesirable side effect that has reared its head more often of late due to changes that came in Phoebe. So instead of correcting the side affect you are just going to axe the whole feature.
ThatGÇÖs like having a blemish on your hand and chopping off the whole hand to get rid of it.
*Golf clap* I guess we should be happy you guys are in game design and are not doctors, why not put forth some effort and prevent the undesirable behavior directly instead of taking easy sloppy way out?
|
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
4086
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:38:38 -
[118] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:I'm going to put this here so I'm sure you'll read it. I thoroughly enjoyed the rant. And you're not entirely wrong on most of your points, either. You can also add Combat Battlecruisers and Battleships to the list, too.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
13
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:40:06 -
[119] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Axloth Okiah wrote:How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable? I like that. And give us fighter and fighter bomber kill mails. |
Falnashna Akhiko
The Flying Pandas
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:41:06 -
[120] - Quote
Falnashna Akhiko wrote:I feel a much more appropriate option would be to make it so that they can still fighter assist, however, there is a maximum range to it. Ideally this would be like 1 AU. The advantage of doing this is that it severely limits where they can have the carrier to assist things in system. If it is in a moon that is right next to a station, I feel that raises the value of both the moon and the station, it would lead towards more conflict over that system (assuming holding alliances aren't massive). However, it doesn't give a blank check on any engages within the system.
Since the range is only 1 AU, say the enemy fleet/individual comes into system, he can quickly figure out the "range bubble" of the assist, and then engage stuff outside of it. This raises the tactics of the carrier, while still maintaining its "carrier-ness". With that said, it may be more reasonable to do it at a shorter range, such as 1000km, so that there can be fleet mechanics wherein you park your carriers just barely off grid, and then you will be able to assist the people that are in combat.
I personally just feel that outright removing a feature is never the way to go, as it removes diversity of play, however, it is appropriate, or more accurately demanded that said features should be balanced.
Alternatively, what you could just do is set it so that pos's have a secondary "invisibile" bubble that is larger than the pos shield. Its only effect would be that carriers can't launch fighters while inside this invisible bubble. This would force them to trundle out a good deal farther to maintain the behavior, thus forcing them to be more vulnerable. |
|
|
|
|
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 |