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) |
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
6650
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 20:51:27 -
[1201] - Quote
Irya Boone wrote:No more fight advantage while being afk , hard to understand ?
I hope the expansion when Super are not combat vessels will come soon.
in the Other hand cloak should be an active thing too same as boost :) Is this the part where you start talking about off grid boosts... well, hmm you say they're more active than the carrier skyneting?
^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears.
Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
|
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1949
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 21:46:01 -
[1202] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: If you re-read the title, it was 38 "Amarr Militia" bombers. Additionally, if you check the fits (using meta launchers and faction torps) and the toons in question, they weren't "top of the line" bomber pilots and didn't have fantastic DPS. When people generally ping for "need bombers to kill capital", you're not going to go into the specifics of "ok, we only need 8 people", you take whoever joins fleet and undocks in a bomber. And as I mentioned, 1200 DPS Talos fleet is a valid option, and much easier to use than bombers. Or you can just get a Moros or two to mop up the carrier in a matter of seconds.
And if the player opts to sacrifice DPS for tank, then that's his prerogative. You can still force him to de-aggress and dock, which would be considered a "win".
Except for the small fact it isn't a win, it's at best a draw. And a 1200 DPS Talos fleet is not a valid option for a roaming gang. Nor are the Moros. Sure if you are specifically hunting a known skynetter you can do such things, but not if you are a random roaming gang. On the other hand if you are a random roaming gang and the carrier attempts to engage you at say.... the asteroid belt you chased the ratter to, you can tackle the carrier, concentrate on killing it's fighters off and then wear it down slowly. Without needing to play stupid station games. (Especially if the carrier fits for the max DPS/Tracking while on grid, which makes it a 0 tank target). So the carrier having to be on grid to engage makes a massive difference to the ability of the gang to deal with the carrier compared to it being off grid skynetting. |
BLACK METALL
Tauron Heavy industry Shadow of xXDEATHXx
25
|
Posted - 2015.03.14 21:56:57 -
[1203] - Quote
With each new update, the game more and more killing, it seems that those who are making updates to the game do not even understand its mechanics and principles |
Kazaheid Zaknafein
Mara's Hounds
13
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 00:04:38 -
[1204] - Quote
The carriers; if they are still used, will probably just be in blobs on gates. Who cares if they can assign fighters if there are 10 carriers on gate with 2^ and 2v for reps and cap chain. A single hictor and some paints means the carriers no longer need to deal with fighter delegation, and are now near immovable without dreads or titans. If this is the scenario that carriers are forced to, then just fit them for max tank and kill with sheer number of fighters. |
Irya Boone
Never Surrender.
447
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 00:57:40 -
[1205] - Quote
Alavaria Fera wrote:Irya Boone wrote:No more fight advantage while being afk , hard to understand ?
I hope the expansion when Super are not combat vessels will come soon.
in the Other hand cloak should be an active thing too same as boost :) Is this the part where you start talking about off grid boosts... well, hmm you say they're more active than the carrier skyneting?
no i'm syaing to maintain the cloak effect it should be something " active" not pasive like auto repeat of the cloak module something like 2 min cycle of the module and you have 15 sec to reload "the cloak) before you appear
CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails
.... Open that damn door !!
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 14:31:31 -
[1206] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Except for the small fact it isn't a win, it's at best a draw. And a 1200 DPS Talos fleet is not a valid option for a roaming gang. Nor are the Moros. Sure if you are specifically hunting a known skynetter you can do such things, but not if you are a random roaming gang. On the other hand if you are a random roaming gang and the carrier attempts to engage you at say.... the asteroid belt you chased the ratter to, you can tackle the carrier, concentrate on killing it's fighters off and then wear it down slowly. Without needing to play stupid station games. (Especially if the carrier fits for the max DPS/Tracking while on grid, which makes it a 0 tank target). So the carrier having to be on grid to engage makes a massive difference to the ability of the gang to deal with the carrier compared to it being off grid skynetting. You are forcing a retreat, that's a win. A draw would be two fleets with enough buffer and logi to keep themselves alive, so they both leave. I fail to see how a Talos fleet is not valid for roaming; those things are a beast. If you encounter a skynetter, you can then pull back to the other side of the gate, call for a bomber hotdrop, and then proceed to obtain a nice carrier killmail. Bombers Bar are always happy to obtain a capital killmail if you lack the skills. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
952
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 15:08:40 -
[1207] - Quote
^^ With things as they are now you won't be bomber hot dropping a carrier used by someone doing "skynet" proper.
Never sure with your posts if your meaning as things are now or after a theoretical change to force people to be 50+km off a POS to assign fighters. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 15:36:12 -
[1208] - Quote
Rroff wrote:^^ With things as they are now you won't be bomber hot dropping a carrier used by someone doing "skynet" proper. Never sure with your posts if your meaning as things are now or after a theoretical change to force people to be 50+km off a POS to assign fighters. I'm not sure what you're saying. What do you think will happen to carriers after this change? If anything, they'll group up on the gate using the Pantheon doctrine and assign heavies or sentries to a Loki or Huginn. You've failed to explain how carriers are somehow immune to damage when they assist fighters on a station. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
952
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 18:17:09 -
[1209] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Rroff wrote:^^ With things as they are now you won't be bomber hot dropping a carrier used by someone doing "skynet" proper. Never sure with your posts if your meaning as things are now or after a theoretical change to force people to be 50+km off a POS to assign fighters. I'm not sure what you're saying. What do you think will happen to carriers after this change? If anything, they'll group up on the gate using the Pantheon doctrine and assign heavies or sentries to a Loki or Huginn. You've failed to explain how carriers are somehow immune to damage when they assist fighters on a station.
My point is that as things are now if people are doing skynet "properly" you aren't going to be bombing them - not sure if your talking from the perspective of after any theoretical changes or not. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 18:26:22 -
[1210] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Rroff wrote:^^ With things as they are now you won't be bomber hot dropping a carrier used by someone doing "skynet" proper. Never sure with your posts if your meaning as things are now or after a theoretical change to force people to be 50+km off a POS to assign fighters. I'm not sure what you're saying. What do you think will happen to carriers after this change? If anything, they'll group up on the gate using the Pantheon doctrine and assign heavies or sentries to a Loki or Huginn. You've failed to explain how carriers are somehow immune to damage when they assist fighters on a station. My point is that as things are now if people are doing skynet "properly" you aren't going to be bombing them - not sure if your talking from the perspective of after any theoretical changes or not. Before change: If people are doing skynet "properly" they're using an Aeon or Archon with tank slots in the lows after 3-4 DDA and they're nosed just outside of a POS shield, not on a station. They're vulnerable to a Drive-by DD as seen by the Revenant, and they can be forced back into the shields if a neutral / enemy HIC decloaks anywhere within 14.7km of the gate or their POS. Assigned fighters to an interceptor or other frigate, which can be destroyed.
After change: 10+ Archons parked on a gate assigning heavies or sentries to an interceptor or Loki / Huginn. May or may not have Aeon support. Untouchable unless you commit a fleet of dreads, supers, or titans, in which case "Hello B-R!" |
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
952
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 19:58:53 -
[1211] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote: Before change: If people are doing skynet "properly" they're using an Aeon or Archon with tank slots in the lows after 3-4 DDA and they're nosed just outside of a POS shield, not on a station. They're vulnerable to a Drive-by DD as seen by the Revenant, and they can be forced back into the shields if a neutral / enemy HIC decloaks anywhere within 14.7km of the gate or their POS. Assigned fighters to an interceptor or other frigate, which can be destroyed.
For those sitting on a station, they're easily targeted by TORPEDO bombers or Talos, or dreads and they can't dock for 60 seconds. Vulnerable to bump stabbers / talos / omen / machs.
After change: 10+ Archons parked on a gate assigning heavies or sentries to an interceptor or Loki / Huginn. May or may not have Aeon support. Untouchable unless you commit a fleet of dreads, supers, or titans, in which case "Hello B-R!"
Some people are doing it like that... its become increasingly common to do it sitting right by the tower itself with the forcefield down and the password dialog up so they can online the FF and save themselves from any harm without moving. There are also 2 other techniques where they can even sit right outside the FF and be instantly safe without moving at all - no matter how many bombers or titans you drop on them. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2015.03.15 20:54:02 -
[1212] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Some people are doing it like that... its become increasingly common to do it sitting right by the tower itself with the forcefield down and the password dialog up so they can online the FF and save themselves from any harm without moving. There are also 2 other techniques where they can even sit right outside the FF and be instantly safe without moving at all - no matter how many bombers or titans you drop on them. And again, if you force them to turn the shield on, that's a win. And again, we were talking about adding a 50km range around a POS where you can't assign fighters from, which makes your other two points moot at best. |
Calexis Atredies
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 12:31:07 -
[1213] - Quote
If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 12:55:06 -
[1214] - Quote
Calexis Atredies wrote:If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned. Not sure if serius or just trolling... Macro use is banned by CCP. But if they were manually bouncing safespots, the warp deceleration coupled with the massive signature radius is a wet dream for any combat scanner. |
Calexis Atredies
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 14:35:33 -
[1215] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Calexis Atredies wrote:If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned. Not sure if serius or just trolling... Macro use is banned by CCP. But if they were manually bouncing safespots, the warp deceleration coupled with the massive signature radius is a wet dream for any combat scanner.
Depends entirely on the size of the system, anything over 36 AU in radius is going to be near impossible to chase them through. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
782
|
Posted - 2015.03.16 17:18:59 -
[1216] - Quote
Calexis Atredies wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Calexis Atredies wrote:If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned. Not sure if serius or just trolling... Macro use is banned by CCP. But if they were manually bouncing safespots, the warp deceleration coupled with the massive signature radius is a wet dream for any combat scanner. Depends entirely on the size of the system, anything over 36 AU in radius is going to be near impossible to chase them through. Get a better person to scan for you. It isn't impossible to follow a archon moving at, what. 1.5au/s, with scan probes on something other than a five day old toon. |
Aivlis Eldelbar
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
59
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 01:28:33 -
[1217] - Quote
Calexis Atredies wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Calexis Atredies wrote:If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned. Not sure if serius or just trolling... Macro use is banned by CCP. But if they were manually bouncing safespots, the warp deceleration coupled with the massive signature radius is a wet dream for any combat scanner. Depends entirely on the size of the system, anything over 36 AU in radius is going to be near impossible to chase them through.
Capitals have ludicrous signatures, you can get a warpable hit on very wide scans, and even if you fail, a dps-fit carrier will take so long to align you can just repeat the scan and still land a ceptor on it.
|
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2803
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 14:48:57 -
[1218] - Quote
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:Calexis Atredies wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:Calexis Atredies wrote:If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned. Not sure if serius or just trolling... Macro use is banned by CCP. But if they were manually bouncing safespots, the warp deceleration coupled with the massive signature radius is a wet dream for any combat scanner. Depends entirely on the size of the system, anything over 36 AU in radius is going to be near impossible to chase them through. Capitals have ludicrous signatures, you can get a warpable hit on very wide scans, and even if you fail, a dps-fit carrier will take so long to align you can just repeat the scan and still land a ceptor on it.
That in itself is a problem.
When scanning was still an art form, there was actual skill involved in finding signatures (ships and sites alike). These days, a blindman can scan something within a few seconds....
Nevermind the fact that somehow, in eve... big ships that by definition and sheer computing power should be able to target smaller - less sophisticated ships faster .... are incapable of doing so despite being big flying pinging dart boards with this crap scan resolution system we have going on.....
Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
|
Zhul Chembull
Universalis Imperium The Bastion
97
|
Posted - 2015.03.17 16:49:40 -
[1219] - Quote
Removing this feature is a bad idea, but my experience is CCP doesn't really listen anyhow. These forums are here just so we have an outlit and they can say they have "listened to us." Well, I wont get too negative here, but let me just ask a simple question of CCP.
What do you want us to use these big ships for now ? With the upcoming sov changes I don't see any use to own one anymore. With small ships running around undoing sov, the days of using a capital ship are coming to an end. Perhaps this was the goal all along. Might want to rethink this a bit. |
Pedro Minatore
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 17:01:05 -
[1220] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Remove: - fighter assist. - fighter follow in warp the target.
Keep: - fighters warping with the carrier
So you can send fighters only against target on grid. When the target warps off the grid fighters will NOT follow. When the carrier warps off the grid fighters will drop aggro and follow the carrier.
Very much this!!!
"[u]The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing[/u]." (Socrates)
|
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
786
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 19:44:09 -
[1221] - Quote
Well it was announced that this change is being railroaded through, despite literally everyone here saying it was a bad change.
Now, for everyone who told me that CCP would "really truly listen this time", you now owe me 100m isk each. |
Antonia Iskarius
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 20:06:41 -
[1222] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:Well it was announced that this change is being railroaded through, despite literally everyone here saying it was a bad change.
Now, for everyone who told me that CCP would "really truly listen this time", you now owe me 100m isk each. Well colour me surprised
It was pretty obvious all along that they had already decided to remove it, no matter what, before this thread was even created. This was just a ploy to make us think we actually had a voice. Almost everyone posting constructively in this thread gave good reasons to keep the feature and other solutions that would be effective in nerfing Skynet. The people in favor of removal were by and large 'death to all supers' and 'lol nullbear tears' trolls. |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4132
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 20:47:12 -
[1223] - Quote
http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-scylla
Quote:Fighters can no longer be assigned to other pilots. The GÇÿDelegate ControlGÇÖ option has been removed and replaced by GÇÿAssistGÇÖ and GÇÿDefendGÇÖ, same as other drones. Fighter 'assist' will apparently function like regular drone assist, with the addition of warp capability (fighters will follow the assisted ship into/out of warp).
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
954
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 20:54:04 -
[1224] - Quote
"Same as other drones" says it all really... |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
788
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 20:59:08 -
[1225] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-scylla Quote:Fighters can no longer be assigned to other pilots. The GÇÿDelegate ControlGÇÖ option has been removed and replaced by GÇÿAssistGÇÖ and GÇÿDefendGÇÖ, same as other drones. Fighter 'assist' will apparently function like regular drone assist, with the addition of warp capability (fighters will follow the assisted ship into/out of warp). If that means they're removing the 5 fighter assign limit, that might be a nice compromise.... |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
955
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 21:16:08 -
[1226] - Quote
I'm assuming it'll be exactly the same as normal assist which never had any limits (other than the recent change to 50 or whatever to prevent mass afk blapping). |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4132
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 21:53:36 -
[1227] - Quote
Nolak Ataru wrote:If that means they're removing the 5 fighter assign limit, that might be a nice compromise.... Hard to say. I'm a little surprised (maybe I shouldn't be) that there wasn't any update in this thread prior to the release of the patch notes. This is probably a better compromise than completely neutering carriers at the expense of SkyNet.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Feronix
Jade Falcon LLc The Ditanian Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.18 23:25:02 -
[1228] - Quote
Nerfing long held aspects of the game is as about ridiculous as it gets. I just started playing again, and the rash of nerfs that have come down in the last two months just made me not want to play again. |
Numen Anomalie
Evedustry Inc. The Kadeshi
5
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 00:09:59 -
[1229] - Quote
"Reads the patch notes, see's fighter assist removal"
"browses the bazaar for what his 1 year training of 9 extra toons to do exactly thAt to give his corp mates extra DPS, out of the safety of a POS, are worth, as they are about 21 days off the archon, but have perfect mining, PI, sentry, armor, gallente ship, transport- ships and logi skills" About 5-8 bil."
"does a little math on the isk loss, roughly 90-50 bil"
"does a little math on the money loss, since he didnt make it all months to plex them and spent money on it. Roughly 500 euros."
"scratches head"
"Drinks some coffee"
"Does not enjoy eve anymore"
"Will train these useless toons to archon, sell them and leave 1 account plexed for 3 years"
"Will probably never pay a single dime to this game again, nor do anything else but log on and train the single toon."
07 |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4134
|
Posted - 2015.03.19 01:38:58 -
[1230] - Quote
Numen Anomalie wrote:"Reads the patch notes, see's fighter assist removal" You still have fighter assist and fighter warp. You just can't assign fighters to attack as before.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |