EVE Search - Sticky:[Scylla] Skynet - Removing fighter assist for carriers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Scylla] Skynet - Removing fighter assist for carriers

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
BSG75 Kiith Paktu Curatores Veritatis Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 20:49:13 - [1321] - Quote I have been playing the game for some time and I believe I have the answer The solution is literally right under your noses: you know those same sub space warp effects that prevent targeting? well it can be worse than that if you are too close to the docking radius of a station: you take significant penalties to scan resolution as a result of the large structure near you preventing you from targeting and your drone bandwidth is 0 as a result of radio interference from the super massive structure you are sitting next to. If you are a carrier/drone pilot and too close to a POS's shields your drone bandwidth is 0 because massive energy emission signature needed to maintain the shields interfere with drone communication. a short distance ( say 40 km from the POS field) and you can assist but the signal gets too weak when they try to warp and wont do it. get far enough away from the station/POS and you can use your drones in all their assist/warping glory but be wary of the counter attack, just like the way you want it. Incidentally this change gets rid some of the F#@$%ing down syndrome station games that have been ruining this game for YEARS.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 963	Posted - 2015.03.24 20:49:35 - [1322] - Quote So riya wrote: Change frighter funtion = remap all our fighter skills ********** i dont want to train for fighter anymore I've got a ridiculous amount of SP in fighter related stuff :\| over 5m sp per character just on fighters V and ADI V that I wouldn't have bothered with if I knew these changes were coming.
Inquisitor Tyr Phantom Squad Skeleton Crew. 64	Posted - 2015.03.24 21:28:38 - [1323] - Quote If you take away a carriers fighter abilities, why would you ever field one over a dread ? You would essentially turn carriers into an oversized logistic support ship that is vulnerable due its size and horrible agility. The recent trend towards "nerf all the things" is becoming tedious. There will always be a best in class ship - and when you nerf the current one a new one will rise. So will you then nerf that one? Hurricane Fleet Popular: Nerf the cane. Those neuts OP, arty OP -> Domi fleet rises Domi Fleet popular: Nerf the domi. such drones, much OP -> Lets try ishtars. Ishtar fleet popular: Nerf the Ishtar, Ishtar too OP. Bouncers too popular must be OP -> fine, we'll use t3s T3s not balanced: Nerf the tengu, tengu OP. -> Fleet commanders pick a new doctrine. So once the best minds get together and pick a new doctrine: guess what -> EVERYONE in their coalition of 10,000 - 20,000 pilots will buy them, and use them. so 3 months from now when the new "best" ship arrive on scene, are you going to nerf that one too ? So now that I can fly lets see... EVERY ship in the game, due to the constant changes, at least I don't have to worry about not being able to fly in the fleet due to lasking SP. Sucks to be a newbro - but hey, always need more rifters in fleet :p When I see a new patch is coming out my first thought is "I wonder what they are going to nerf this time" or "I wonder how much more work its going to take me to support my corp mates after this change". Go back to content creation - you've messed with systems enough. The last year of changes have made the game more work to play and less enjoyable unless you have 40 hours a week to play EVE (that doesn't fit your target market of working middle and upper income earners). There have been a couple nice additions though but they are outweighed in my mind by the loss of ones I previously enjoyed. Unless you remove capital ships altogether - the reality of low/null space will always be one where capitals are required. And they will have to be moved - so pilots will have to spend time spinning their ships waiting for fatigue. Do you have metrics on how many hours people spend sitting in a station staring at a jump fatigue timer? Does that fit into the category of "not enjoyable or quality content" you keep talking about in all your dev blogs? Or is it simply okay to punish your longest serving most valuable customers? And then there's your other favorite line "not enough risk". Tell me what that means exactly - do you have any idea how vulnerable a capital ship actually is? And if you loose it : guess what -> Go Rat for the next few days to pay for it. If you want people to spend their whole day shooting eachother, you need to make it EASY for people to replace their ships. Recent changes are not increasing the WorkforShip : FlyShip ratio. Maybe you should adopt this as a metric. More time having fun, less time trying to earn isk to fly the spaceships.
Antonia Iskarius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 14	Posted - 2015.03.24 21:57:38 - [1324] - Quote The 8 accounts I had subbed are going offline. Maybe they come back after the rebalance, whenever that happens, if the new roles are good enough. I know I'm not the only one in the same boat who is tired of getting ****** over and shitted on. Keep pissing off your vet playerbase CCP as if it won't have consequences. I'm going to go play Elite Dangerous instead.
GhostPilotRex Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 23:13:47 - [1325] - Quote cutting boosting tengus? they provide off-grid bonuses... Orcas? Rorquals? remove fighter assist because they provide off-grid dps bonus?
Veronica MetalHeart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 23:22:58 - [1326] - Quote If fighters are given an edge to warp to target (like a regular ship) then to balance things out targets also need to be given tools & mechanics to defend themselves against them (just like against a regular ship).
So riya Lost in shadow Brothers of Tangra 9	Posted - 2015.03.25 01:25:45 - [1327] - Quote I am not sure than 10 % of eve players want retired drone assist I got a idee ....just email to all active acount and let them vote. ..... do the CCP are the Democracy man ? Or they r russian man ! Lol
Symoriah Realm-Enterprises 0	Posted - 2015.03.25 01:55:44 - [1328] - Quote I am currently training for super carriers. I have one thing to say about the warping of fighters and nearly safe zone of POS shields. I have trained to construct the carriers and have all BP's for all factions. I would not have taken the time and spent the Isk to do so, only to have them nerfed due to players grief. Please take a long hard look at what is actually the driving factor for the proposed changes.
Mr BeeMonster The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.25 03:36:08 - [1329] - Quote give carriers a Mode that they have to be in to give assist, like a massive control tower pops up, cant move but gives fighters ability to move about the system, maybe even have the Mode look like the prob map and u can send fighters where u want in space, kinda like a real time strategy game. the carrier couldnt move and that pilot would be busy looking at the map to notice any attach coming at him
Ostor LightDust SUPERFLUOUS WANDERLUST Gentlemen's.Club 1	Posted - 2015.03.25 03:50:48 - [1330] - Quote I absolutely love the no notice decision to change the wording on fighters. Oh you're getting assist and gaurdon fighters? Ok we can make this work. Literally less than 12 hours notice before the update after we'd all bought fighters in preparation for the changes you remove assist and guard. What the hell guys?

eX0rc1st The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1	Posted - 2015.03.25 04:47:56 - [1331] - Quote Don't take away their warping but do make it so you can point them.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4214	Posted - 2015.03.25 05:39:59 - [1332] - Quote Do fighters still warp or is that toast as well? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Jake Reece Unimatrix003 5	Posted - 2015.03.25 08:17:22 - [1333] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Do fighters still warp or is that toast as well? They do ATM
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4214	Posted - 2015.03.25 08:36:04 - [1334] - Quote Jake Reece wrote: They do ATM Well, at least there's that (the ability to follow targets into warp as well as recover them if you leave any behind). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
So riya Lost in shadow Brothers of Tangra 11	Posted - 2015.03.26 13:57:58 - [1335] - Quote damit i prefere the ccp put patch once per year or once per 10 years=ƒÿè
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 248	Posted - 2015.03.26 16:39:06 - [1336] - Quote I think we can stop complaining about this change now, guys. Between wanting our input, disregarding that input and going ahead with most of the changes they wanted to do anyways, then "typo"ing the bit about letting us assign fighters like drones on field in the last minute before the patch released and before anyone could argue, I think it's safe to say that when it comes to capitals and fighters, they didn't really want our opinions in the first place. Not to be a doomsayer, but don't stay too attached to your fighter's ability to warp at all; it was probably just too complex to remove before the patch's launch day, and they're working hard on taking it out as fast as they can. Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it.
Jake Reece Unimatrix003 15	Posted - 2015.03.26 16:44:34 - [1337] - Quote Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I think we can stop complaining about this change now, guys. Between wanting our input, disregarding that input and going ahead with most of the changes they wanted to do anyways, then "typo"ing the bit about letting us assign fighters like drones on field in the last minute before the patch released and before anyone could argue, I think it's safe to say that when it comes to capitals and fighters, they didn't really want our opinions in the first place. Not to be a doomsayer, but don't stay too attached to your fighter's ability to warp at all; it was probably just too complex to remove before the patch's launch day, and they're working hard on taking it out as fast as they can. Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it. Clearly they don't care about our input and do whatever they deem right. The thread on the wall is just 'pro forma' to make appear that we have some say in what is about to happen
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 248	Posted - 2015.03.26 17:00:17 - [1338] - Quote Jake Reece wrote: Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I think we can stop complaining about this change now, guys. Between wanting our input, disregarding that input and going ahead with most of the changes they wanted to do anyways, then "typo"ing the bit about letting us assign fighters like drones on field in the last minute before the patch released and before anyone could argue, I think it's safe to say that when it comes to capitals and fighters, they didn't really want our opinions in the first place. Not to be a doomsayer, but don't stay too attached to your fighter's ability to warp at all; it was probably just too complex to remove before the patch's launch day, and they're working hard on taking it out as fast as they can. Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it. Clearly they don't care about our input and do whatever they deem right. The thread on the wall is just 'pro forma' to make appear that we have some say in what is about to happen I'll give them this; they do listen to our opinions, and do honestly take them into consideration. When they legitimately want them about something. But if they've already made up their mind about something, why even ask us?
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 988	Posted - 2015.03.26 19:37:19 - [1339] - Quote Jennifer Maxwell wrote: Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it. Rorqual is awesome (I'm possibly one of the few people who've clocked up >100 hours of actual use in one) - when used in roles totally unintended - we used to use one as a repping platform when my old corp lived in a C5 pulsar as unlike other capitals they don't trigger an escalation wave - so we could drop in dreads and use the rorqual to support the webbing ships without the extra carrier waves on top of that. Always had a soft spot for that ship as it could be pressed into out the box use i.e. troll tank bait fits.
Antonia Iskarius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 20	Posted - 2015.03.26 20:30:25 - [1340] - Quote Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I think we can stop complaining about this change now, guys. Between wanting our input, disregarding that input and going ahead with most of the changes they wanted to do anyways, then "typo"ing the bit about letting us assign fighters like drones on field in the last minute before the patch released and before anyone could argue, I think it's safe to say that when it comes to capitals and fighters, they didn't really want our opinions in the first place. Not to be a doomsayer, but don't stay too attached to your fighter's ability to warp at all; it was probably just too complex to remove before the patch's launch day, and they're working hard on taking it out as fast as they can. Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it. Oh yes. I'm done with the feedback stage. I've moved on to the action stage. Minus 8 monthly subscriptions for CCP due to their extreme disregard for the input of paying customers and the bait and switch to rub it in. I was of the opinion all along that this thread was just for show and they would do the changes regardless of how we felt. They confirmed it in a blatant way.

Yun Kuai Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 243	Posted - 2015.03.27 10:02:25 - [1341] - Quote Antonia Iskarius wrote: Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I think we can stop complaining about this change now, guys. Between wanting our input, disregarding that input and going ahead with most of the changes they wanted to do anyways, then "typo"ing the bit about letting us assign fighters like drones on field in the last minute before the patch released and before anyone could argue, I think it's safe to say that when it comes to capitals and fighters, they didn't really want our opinions in the first place. Not to be a doomsayer, but don't stay too attached to your fighter's ability to warp at all; it was probably just too complex to remove before the patch's launch day, and they're working hard on taking it out as fast as they can. Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it. Oh yes. I'm done with the feedback stage. I've moved on to the action stage. Minus 8 monthly subscriptions for CCP due to their extreme disregard for the input of paying customers and the bait and switch to rub it in. I was of the opinion all along that this thread was just for show and they would do the changes regardless of how we felt. They confirmed it in a blatant way. Minus 8 montly subscriptions? Did you biomass them? If not, your words have no meaning. Screenshot or gtfo. Also, give me your stuff. If you fail to recognize how broken skynet was (invicible fighters through warp scram immunity, 99.99% safety for the carrier through wanky POS mechanics, the exponential force multiplier of having fighter be able to track boosted, AB frigs that weren't webbed, etc) then you're better off being out of the game. Eve is complex, but having a "iWin button" isn't good for eve...it never has been. Have fun back in WoW [insert other game you play], etc. --------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
Calexis Atredies Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 9	Posted - 2015.03.27 10:42:48 - [1342] - Quote Antonia Iskarius wrote: Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I think we can stop complaining about this change now, guys. Between wanting our input, disregarding that input and going ahead with most of the changes they wanted to do anyways, then "typo"ing the bit about letting us assign fighters like drones on field in the last minute before the patch released and before anyone could argue, I think it's safe to say that when it comes to capitals and fighters, they didn't really want our opinions in the first place. Not to be a doomsayer, but don't stay too attached to your fighter's ability to warp at all; it was probably just too complex to remove before the patch's launch day, and they're working hard on taking it out as fast as they can. Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it. Oh yes. I'm done with the feedback stage. I've moved on to the action stage. Minus 8 monthly subscriptions for CCP due to their extreme disregard for the input of paying customers and the bait and switch to rub it in. I was of the opinion all along that this thread was just for show and they would do the changes regardless of how we felt. They confirmed it in a blatant way. Post with your main + proof, or this is simply a poor attempt at trolling coming from an NPC corp scrub.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 990	Posted - 2015.03.27 14:02:47 - [1343] - Quote Yun Kuai wrote: Minus 8 montly subscriptions? Did you biomass them? If not, your words have no meaning. Screenshot or gtfo. Also, give me your stuff. If you fail to recognize how broken skynet was (invicible fighters through warp scram immunity, 99.99% safety for the carrier through wanky POS mechanics, the exponential force multiplier of having fighter be able to track boosted, AB frigs that weren't webbed, etc) then you're better off being out of the game. Eve is complex, but having a "iWin button" isn't good for eve...it never has been. Have fun back in WoW [insert other game you play], etc. Its not about recognizing how broken skynet was - pretty much everyone in this thread (1-2 exceptions aside) recognise how broken skynet was including most actual capital pilots - there were plenty of ways to render skynet ineffective without completely making fighters useless. I'm not going to biomass my characters but none of my accounts will be continuing to be subscribed beyond the current 6-10 days left on them unless there is a significant shift in attitude on matters like this from CCP - smacking long standing features into oblivion with no real dialogue with affected players - the larger proportion of whom are completely unrelated to the edge case where it was a problem just doesn't cut it - if it was really so game breaking it couldn't go unaddressed (which somewhat applies) and there really was no alternative for fixing it but to take extremely drastic measures that amount to feature removal most people can accept that but it really wasn't the case here and that is very bad game development. If thats the way CCP want to go forward then that is their prerogative but it isn't compatible with me personally when playing this kind of game where you can spend months and months working towards a goal.
Oakatsura The BlackHand Order The Bloc 0	Posted - 2015.03.27 15:03:30 - [1344] - Quote This is a tough subject do you remove a Drone Mechanic offered only to Carriers as a way of aiding allies from a distance but at the same time protecting the carrier in the eventuality that an enemy comes to you, much like Station games but the Carrier can easily pop in and out of a POS / Starbases Shields with little to no risk unless a large body fleet comes to bash each of the POS / Starbase they are in, and even then can still sit on a Reinforced POS with the same level of safety / more do the POS being untargetable. Fighters really need to have additional mechanics in order to work away from their carriers / super carriers that are operating them. Consequently I believe Fighters should only be able to warp off to their target if they are on the same field as the Carrier and attempt to leave. Basically a Tab / Check box in addition to Drone Aggression, for Fighter Engagement. Basically the Carrier Pilot selects the box and is aware that any fighters he has currently on the field that he has deployed will warp off if the target runs away. This way the Warp Mechanic is still available but limits it to the target the carrier selects in the field where the carrier was. Drone / Fighter / Bomber Assist remains but I think we need to add another mechanic to this to both assisting for not just Carriers and Supers but also Frigates / Destroyers / Cruisers, etc. Basically in order to assist drones to a target it must be targeted and selected. This will help by limiting assists on field as well as preventing fighters and drones from following their targets once they have left the immediate field. While the drones will still attack a target assisted to another pilot in an engagement, drone bandwidth and the targeting range would still dictate where the drones are on the field. Once a pilot exceeds anothers targeting range, the target disappears from the redicle and any drones assisted return back to or remain stationary where the target left targeting range.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 805	Posted - 2015.03.27 15:46:09 - [1345] - Quote Yun Kuai wrote: f you fail to recognize how broken skynet was (invicible fighters through warp scram immunity, 99.99% safety for the carrier through wanky POS mechanics, the exponential force multiplier of having fighter be able to track boosted, AB frigs that weren't webbed, etc) then you're better off being out of the game. Eve is complex, but having a "iWin button" isn't good for eve...it never has been. Have fun back in WoW [insert other game you play], etc. CCP removed the iWin button ages ago. It was called the AoE DD. Assigned fighters to something like an interceptor means the weak link is the inty. Pop that, and you're fine. For something larger, his weak spot is his scan resolution. You have failed to mention the changes proposed in this thread (scrammable fighters, 50km bubble on the POS) so if anyone should leave, it would be you. Don't post without reading the thread.
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 251	Posted - 2015.03.27 15:46:53 - [1346] - Quote Yun Kuai wrote: Antonia Iskarius wrote: Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I think we can stop complaining about this change now, guys. Between wanting our input, disregarding that input and going ahead with most of the changes they wanted to do anyways, then "typo"ing the bit about letting us assign fighters like drones on field in the last minute before the patch released and before anyone could argue, I think it's safe to say that when it comes to capitals and fighters, they didn't really want our opinions in the first place. Not to be a doomsayer, but don't stay too attached to your fighter's ability to warp at all; it was probably just too complex to remove before the patch's launch day, and they're working hard on taking it out as fast as they can. Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it. Oh yes. I'm done with the feedback stage. I've moved on to the action stage. Minus 8 monthly subscriptions for CCP due to their extreme disregard for the input of paying customers and the bait and switch to rub it in. I was of the opinion all along that this thread was just for show and they would do the changes regardless of how we felt. They confirmed it in a blatant way. Minus 8 montly subscriptions? Did you biomass them? If not, your words have no meaning. Screenshot or gtfo. Also, give me your stuff. If you fail to recognize how broken skynet was (invicible fighters through warp scram immunity, 99.99% safety for the carrier through wanky POS mechanics, the exponential force multiplier of having fighter be able to track boosted, AB frigs that weren't webbed, etc) then you're better off being out of the game. Eve is complex, but having a "iWin button" isn't good for eve...it never has been. Have fun back in WoW [insert other game you play], etc. You guys skynetted in Nenn a few times, if I remember right. Tell me, how often did a fleet simply leave? Did you jump your skynetting carrier through the gate to go after them? Probably not. How about going into plexes? Do fighters take gates? Last I heard, they don't. Were your fighters station at every gate into the system? Constantly? So let's see; powerful but restricted to one system, highly mobile but barred from 3 very popular battlegrounds, can bring a lot of firepower to bear but requires more than one person, and that second person can ONLY provide the dps, no Ewar, no point, no logi, nothing but dps. In FW space, it seems rather balanced to me. The enemy has an asset you can't counter? Avoid them. Don't take the fight. It's the same as running across a huge fleet and you're out on a small 3-8 man gang roam. You don't take what you can't fight. Except this huge fleet can't follow you without putting themselves at large risk. And in the kind of environment that lowsec is, especially Black Rise, a capital sitting ANYWHERE not either on station or a few meters out of a pos shield is in a LOT of danger. Earlier, someone had the great idea to go on a roam with their Enyo, Proteus and repping Thanatos. We tackled them on Okkamon gate in Reitsato, and started trying to get our barely at keyboard fleet into something that can take these guys. About 4 minutes into this happening, a 35-50 man bomber/BC/whatever gang dropped on the Thanatos and murerized it. Let's also consider that random carriers get doomsdayed on station in the area too. Or how about Spectre fleet HKs roaming the constellations constantly. I know one person who used to skynet in the area. After the 3nd time he did it, he was noticing Snuff and PL alts logging on in system literally seconds after he would. To the point where he just stopped logging the character on cause it was way too hot. Yeah, that sounds like 99.99% safety.
Crow Talon THE BOARD OF EDUCATION 0	Posted - 2015.03.27 15:51:26 - [1347] - Quote Hello Everyone and CCP. I have played Eve since '09 this is my first post. CCP I hope you read this and listen to what I say. My tone may be a bit harsh, but thats how I roll, I am a pirate after all YAAAAAR!!! Some of us are REALLY getting tired of the re balancing and constant shifting and adjusting and in general mucking about with our sand box. (some changes have been needed ofc but now I fear its getting out of hand. You need to hop off the rebalanced bus mmmkay??? Just stop it really. Instead of focusing you energy on making every ship and gun and drone just like the others in the name of "diversity" (Karl Marx would be proud of that one ) might I suggest you spend you time instead on fixing bugs and making better eye candy and ease of play such as the interface and stream line the process and logging in/ switching between multiple toons, Also if you could really put some effort into reducing "click pollution" my hand and wrist would really 'precate it very much. Crow Talon Merikan Redneck Pirate since '09
Lord O Shady Star Inc. 0	Posted - 2015.03.27 18:13:56 - [1348] - Quote Why not simply add a module? Skill: Fighter Control Module: Reduce Cpu Need for Fighter control module High Slot Mod Frigate mod allows control of 1 fighter Cruiser mod allows control of 2-3 fighters Battleship mod allows control of 5 fighters Seems that would fix the issues that are being addressed.
Antonia Iskarius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 26	Posted - 2015.03.27 18:41:20 - [1349] - Quote Yun Kuai wrote: Minus 8 montly subscriptions? Did you biomass them? If not, your words have no meaning. Screenshot or gtfo. Also, give me your stuff. If you fail to recognize how broken skynet was (invicible fighters through warp scram immunity, 99.99% safety for the carrier through wanky POS mechanics, the exponential force multiplier of having fighter be able to track boosted, AB frigs that weren't webbed, etc) then you're better off being out of the game. Eve is complex, but having a "iWin button" isn't good for eve...it never has been. Have fun back in WoW [insert other game you play], etc. All of those things were addressed by people in here with solutions to fix them without completely removing delegation, much less giving us assist/guard only to stealth remove it hours before patch hit. And Skynet was never an iwin button. It was never this fullproof and safe method. If you tried doing it more than a handful of times you'd notice alts coming into local and logging off in safes and logging back in immediately when the skynet carrier would sign on. People could easily set up traps, bait and kill a Skynet carrier or super. Seeing as they fit zero tank, just one or two dreads or doomsdays would pop them. The problem wasn't really Skynet, it was lazy and risk adverse people thinking they should just remove an enitre gameplay mechanism because they felt entitled to kill **** with minimal work using frigs and cruisers in small gangs. I refuse to reward devs who coddle those kinds of players to the exclusion of vets who have invested significant training time and isk into acquiring their assets.
Aeryn Maricadie Periphery Bound 15	Posted - 2015.03.27 19:06:01 - [1350] - Quote the whole point of a carrier is damage projection from far away, removing that entirely kinda ruins the class. hopefully in the future they will come up with some sort of middle ground. I say this as an aspiring Archon pilot, I would certainly like to do something with the carrier aside from logi.



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.