|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2170
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:16:06 -
[1] - Quote
I'd prefer if small groups could still be fleet warped as usual. The prober shouldn't have to be a tackler too. At least make T3s easier to probe down (and give links a weapons timer while you're at it).
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2170
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 09:42:07 -
[2] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote:When BALEX as a corp roams (10-15 ppl) max we always have min 5 alts in the fleet, be it links, or probers/scouts. We move around lowsec trough WH a lot. When we move around we always use scout warp ins, so where is the problem?
Name one situation where scouts can't handle it. Tackling a nullbear before they leave their site.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2170
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 09:47:25 -
[3] - Quote
Sasha Sen wrote:Zappity wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote:When BALEX as a corp roams (10-15 ppl) max we always have min 5 alts in the fleet, be it links, or probers/scouts. We move around lowsec trough WH a lot. When we move around we always use scout warp ins, so where is the problem?
Name one situation where scouts can't handle it. Tackling a nullbear before they leave their site. Fleet warps work to anoms. Fine. Tackling a nullbear before they leave their signature.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2170
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 09:54:00 -
[4] - Quote
Sasha Sen wrote:Zappity wrote:Sasha Sen wrote:Zappity wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote:When BALEX as a corp roams (10-15 ppl) max we always have min 5 alts in the fleet, be it links, or probers/scouts. We move around lowsec trough WH a lot. When we move around we always use scout warp ins, so where is the problem?
Name one situation where scouts can't handle it. Tackling a nullbear before they leave their site. Fleet warps work to anoms. Fine. Tackling a nullbear before they leave their signature. warp gates..... do you eve? wat
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2170
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 09:54:59 -
[5] - Quote
Dwaigon Aumer wrote:I normally don't involve in changes, but i'll make an exception for this one. This: Caldari 5 wrote:This change hurts small gang, more than it does large gang/fleet, mostly due to the number of bodies available to try and get warp ins with.
When you only have a fleet of 10 or so guys having 3 or more guys trying to get warp-ins is large percentage of your potential DPS doing nothing. Yet if you have a fleet of 50 or more guys, having 4 or more guys trying to get warp-ins it is much less of an issue. Also it hurts explorer hunters, now they actually have to use their alt for combat and exposing themselfs. If you have to probe, warp at 10km, then warp your main on top the chances that the target is gone is way to much. Possible solutions are:
- Allow squad warp to probes, bookmarks etc.
- When fleet warping, make every member confirm it (when a member confirms, he starts to warp).
Yeah, I tend to agree. This will hurt smaller groups much more than blobs. Allowing this at squad level would be much better I think.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2170
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 10:00:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sasha Sen wrote:Wait what sites are you talking about? Relics? You need a fleet to catch a cov ops? Combat signatures and escalations. http://wiki.eveuniversity.org/Cosmic_Signatures#Combat_Sites You already need to be lucky to catch them because all they have to do is warp out when they see combat probes.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2170
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 10:04:34 -
[7] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote:Sasha Sen wrote:Zappity wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote:When BALEX as a corp roams (10-15 ppl) max we always have min 5 alts in the fleet, be it links, or probers/scouts. We move around lowsec trough WH a lot. When we move around we always use scout warp ins, so where is the problem?
Name one situation where scouts can't handle it. Tackling a nullbear before they leave their site. Fleet warps work to anoms. You cant tackle it with a prober and be a warp in for rest of the fleet? Yeah, this is the alternative. Care to suggest any fits for probing bonused ships that would survive even 20 seconds of drone DPS? You need an expanded launcher.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2170
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 10:06:33 -
[8] - Quote
Seems that this is actually reducing the specialised role of a prober rather than increasing it. I currently use a dedicated prober in a covops (you know, a probing ship) and they warp my cruiser onto targets. If the prober has to tackle then the fit will have to be enormously gimped. And why? That's the whole point of them - to probe, not to tackle.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2170
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 10:10:40 -
[9] - Quote
Sasha Sen wrote:If I remember correctly 99% of combat sites have a warp gate, in null sec what you can catch now with fleet warp you will be able to catch with a solo tackle as well. Who waits around in a site when local spikes? Escalations I have no clue about, I think those have no warp gates but you would have to use combat probes, and if they don't get out of the place while there is a person in local and combats pop out even for 15 seconds, then you will catch again with or without fleet warps. The only valid argument so far for this change being bad is the off grid booster that needs near perfect scanner to find. It is just not true. There are plenty of occasions right now when the timing is extremely close and they are leaving just as I land. Other times I catch them. It wouldn't be remotely close after the change.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2170
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 10:18:00 -
[10] - Quote
Sasha Sen wrote:Zappity wrote:Seems that this is actually reducing the specialised role of a prober rather than increasing it. I currently use a dedicated prober in a covops (you know, a probing ship) and they warp my cruiser onto targets. If the prober has to tackle then the fit will have to be enormously gimped. And why? That's the whole point of them - to probe, not to tackle. I am really confused, trying really hard to see why this is bad for you. You have a prober - check You got lock on a sig - check You warp your cov ops to the sig - check You warp with your combat ship to your scanner - check What am I missing? It will take an extra 20 seconds when the timing is already extremely tight right now.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2173
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 10:48:14 -
[11] - Quote
Zloco Crendraven wrote:Zappity wrote:Zloco Crendraven wrote:Sasha Sen wrote:Fleet warps work to anoms. You cant tackle it with a prober and be a warp in for rest of the fleet? Yeah, this is the alternative. Care to suggest any fits for probing bonused ships that would survive even 20 seconds of drone DPS? You need an expanded launcher. Any cloaky scanner. Just stay near him and get warp in for the fleet. It adds 30 sec to the practice that is actual now. Which is not using the scanner as a tackler.
Zloco Crendraven wrote:Or use any reacon or T3 as heavy tacklers. Which was precisely the point I made. The specific role of the prober is being reduced. You can't actually use a probing ship for the role any more. I don't like it.
I understand the reasoning behind the change for large fleets. I do not understand it for small fleets. Converting Fleet Warp to Squad Warp would be good.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2174
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 12:44:48 -
[12] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:unimatrix0030 wrote: No warpgates in wormholes , targets will be long gone before any fleet and/or tackle lands on a siterunner. Or the cloaky scan alt near it. Because they will see the probes... . Bascily you are diminishing the possibility of conflict by a factor of 10-100.
Warp to the site runner, no probes needed. You must be trolling. I refuse to believe you are so ignorant.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2174
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 13:00:31 -
[13] - Quote
Airi Cho wrote:Zappity wrote:Yeah, this is the alternative. Care to suggest any fits for probing bonused ships that would survive even 20 seconds of drone DPS? You need an expanded launcher. recons, t3 (c|d), stratios, astero, covertops properly flown. pick your poison. Astero can't fit expanded, covops will die immediately to drones, recons and Stratios are slow warp speed cruisers. So T3 bonused for warp speed. Seriously - replace covops with T3 is the suggestion. Not convinced for small gang.
I understand the problem of lack of involvement for large fleet warfare. But this is not a problem for small fleets. Fix the problem with the large fleets and leave the small ones alone.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2174
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 13:01:48 -
[14] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Airi Cho wrote:Zappity wrote:
You cant tackle it with a prober and be a warp in for rest of the fleet?
Yeah, this is the alternative. Care to suggest any fits for probing bonused ships that would survive even 20 seconds of drone DPS? You need an expanded launcher. recons, t3 (c|d), stratios, astero, covertops properly flown. pick your poison.
Interceptors work too.[/quote] Expanded launcher?
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2175
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 13:13:16 -
[15] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:unimatrix0030 wrote: So basicly you hate hunting for targets and want it completely eliminated? The thrill of the hunt is what makes w-space so much fun, this change just eliminates that and makes it a pve paradise. Also you seem to hate pvp'ers and want only pve fleets then? Baiting only works for the first 10 engagements then you will get a name and no more baiting. Now we can slingshot a sabre with warp rigs(absolutly needed) and still get the targets only 1/10 of the time. After this change catching target will be impossible.
It fixes nothing in w-space it only decreases content, makes things more safe and tedious. For w-space this a a step back to before there were corp bookmarks.
Again, people running the second they see probes has nothing to do with this change. Yes, it does. People often don't warp fast enough and you can catch them on the align out. Please share your expanded launcher tackle interceptor fit, btw. That could be useful.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2175
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 13:26:29 -
[16] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Zappity wrote: Yes, it does. People often don't warp fast enough and you can catch them on the align out. Please share your expanded launcher tackle interceptor fit, btw. That could be useful.
prober grabs tackle, more cepters arrive, bug out, fleet lands. As for the fit, thats for you to figure out. Anyone with a useful fit? Baltec, the expanded launcher is the one with the really high CPU requirement. Just in case you are confused.
Soldarius wrote:36 pages of tears... well done. My tear cup runneth over.
The fix is simple: have someone in a covops ships warp first, then FC (or individual members, or wing commanders) warps fleet to them. Fixed.
Such a simple solution. Eve is not dying. Fleet combat is not dead. Almost nothing to see here. Carry on. So what is the point?
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2181
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 21:59:42 -
[17] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:unimatrix0030 wrote: Can't cloak, will get spotted on d-scan . Targets will be gone.
So fit for warp speed then. Roll up folks! Here we have a scanning intercept fit courtesy of baltec1! Apparently a combat prober should now also land tackle (obviously):
[Malediction, Baltec1's Probing Malediction]
Co-Processor II Co-Processor II Co-Processor II Co-Processor I
5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Faint Warp Disruptor I [Empty Med slot]
Expanded Probe Launcher II [Empty High slot] [Empty High slot]
Small Processor Overclocking Unit II Small Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer I
As you can see this is a perfect fit for both probing out and tackling ships. The choice of an unbonused hull is deliberate because using a covops to do your scanning is clearly too straightforward for CCP. This is more fun because it takes twice as long to resolve a signature, meaning that you will spend a lot more time in the new map which is just perfect for the task.
Of course it is also perfect for tackle. It has 2.43k EHP, more than enough to survive up to three seconds on grid with any enemy. Pay no attention to those people who say that more than a couple of fitting mods on a ship is bad - they are just failing to adapt.
---
On a more serious note, I often trundle around with my scanning alt in this:
[Cheetah, T2 fit]
Photonic Upgraded Co-Processor Micro Auxiliary Power Core I Inertial Stabilizers II
5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Scan Rangefinding Array II Scan Pinpointing Array II Scan Rangefinding Array II
Covert Ops Cloaking Device II [Empty High slot] Expanded Probe Launcher II, Sisters Combat Scanner Probe
Small Warp Core Optimizer II Small Hyperspatial Velocity Optimizer II
(Small Warp Core Optimizer II because Thera.)
It is good at quickly resolving ships and then fleet warps tackle to catch the target. Timing is of the essence. In fact, they almost always get away because they are paying attention to local (null) or watching for probes (wormholes). Occasionally, however, they are a bit slow or hang around in the site too long. And then they get caught. This is balanced.
This game play is ruined with the change. A dedicated scanning alt will no longer be required for my roams because there will be no added advantage of having a fast prober.
Of course I will adapt. But I don't understand the point of ruining my game play when the design goals could be met with more intelligent changes rather than the typical sledgehammer approach.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2182
|
Posted - 2015.06.13 05:45:13 -
[18] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:Scipio Artelius wrote:HiddenPorpoise wrote:Unless you were in Low where such niceties don't work. And where a lack of bombs hasn't set off a battleship meta. What doesn't work about drone assist in lowsec? Worked before. Still works now, just limited to max 50 drones assisted. In low, unless it's a CONCORD legal target, drones have a habit of not engaging when assisted. That happens when the person that drones are assisted to doesn't cycle their guns. There is nothing special about lowsec that changes drone assist. All drones are a little bit rogue, not matter what the status of the space they are in. There isn't anything such as CONCORD legal target is lowsec. There is crimewatch that monitors acts of aggression and will trigger sentry guns if you perform a suspect or criminal act within 150km of them, but you can always shoot anyone you want depending on your own safety setting. Not quite:
CCP Fozzie wrote:Drones will never take an action that causes their owner to get a crimewatch flag unless the owner explicitly instructs them to. Basically going flashy is cool, going flashy without any choice in the matter is not. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5788543#post5788543
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2183
|
Posted - 2015.06.13 07:03:25 -
[19] - Quote
Resa Moon wrote:Proposed changes to fleet warp are idiotic. Eve has enough tedium as is, don't present more. Ridiculous if you feel you have to FORCE players into engaging with the game. This is an interesting point. Changes which make people want to be engaged would surely be better. I wonder if CCP understands the appeal of blob warfare (I certainly don't but acknowledge that there must be something I'm missing).
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2190
|
Posted - 2015.06.13 22:07:29 -
[20] - Quote
Please reduce CPU requirement of Expanded probe launchers.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2190
|
Posted - 2015.06.13 22:13:06 -
[21] - Quote
Why not increase the scan time for combat probes instead of buggering about with fleet warp?
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2190
|
Posted - 2015.06.13 22:27:38 -
[22] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Zappity wrote:Why not increase the scan time for combat probes instead of buggering about with fleet warp? Doesn't fit the stated goal of 'more pilot interaction' just increases time. That is one if their stated goals: "...reduce the speed at which fleets can get on top of targets."
I think the fleet warp change is ridiculous for the player involvement goal anyway. You might get a few extra scouts but the vast majority of fleet members won't do anything different. Surely it would be better to reduce maximum fleet size and nerf target broadcasting for this goal.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2192
|
Posted - 2015.06.13 23:20:26 -
[23] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Zappity wrote: That is one if their stated goals: "...reduce the speed at which fleets can get on top of targets."
I'm still wondering why that was under consideration to begin with. As far as I can tell this is a problem in the nullsec fleet meta and they are perfectly happy to stuff up fleets everywhere else to fix that problem.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2193
|
Posted - 2015.06.13 23:47:16 -
[24] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Zappity wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Zappity wrote: That is one if their stated goals: "...reduce the speed at which fleets can get on top of targets."
I'm still wondering why that was under consideration to begin with. As far as I can tell this is a problem in the nullsec fleet meta and they are perfectly happy to stuff up fleets everywhere else to fix that problem. What, that people can get fights? If they want fleets to drop on people less quickly, then how about they curb the hilarious speed power creep that has cropped up the past couple of years? Or would that mean admitting that the interceptor changes were wrong? I doubt they have a cohesive plan. Interceptor change and mining signatures being changed to anomalies go in one direction, this goes in the other. Bizarre.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2195
|
Posted - 2015.06.14 02:34:23 -
[25] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:No, this is not about killing your specific lifestyle but making people need to be present when playing. At least as far as I am confirmed...Be in the game if you be playing the game, yo. The problem is fleet involvement in nullsec? Then fix fleet involvement in nullsec. This isn't a problem in small gang lowsec, wormholes and your current solution is both a quality of life and useful feature reduction.
Fixing the problem of nullsec fleet involvement is good. Doing it at the expense of my gameplay isn't. Identify the root of the problem and address it rather than an indiscriminate sledgehammer solution.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2197
|
Posted - 2015.06.14 04:26:18 -
[26] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Zappity wrote:Mike Azariah wrote:No, this is not about killing your specific lifestyle but making people need to be present when playing. At least as far as I am confirmed...Be in the game if you be playing the game, yo. The problem is fleet involvement in nullsec? Then fix fleet involvement in nullsec. This isn't a problem in small gang lowsec, wormholes and your current solution is both a quality of life and a useful feature reduction. Fixing the problem of nullsec fleet involvement is good. Doing it at the expense of my gameplay isn't. Identify the root of the problem and address it rather than an indiscriminate sledgehammer solution. They did identify it and its an issue with every fleet everywhere. Its not like this is hard to adapt to. No, lack of involvement is not 'an issue with every fleet everywhere'. It is not an issue with small gangs in lowsec or wormholes. It is not an issue with highsec mission running or ganking groups. It is certainly not an issue when I am using fleet warp to a signature on an alt.
I do not want to adapt to it. I want them to come up with a better solution that fixes the problem without degrading my game play.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2199
|
Posted - 2015.06.14 12:08:17 -
[27] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Dun'Gal wrote:
Edit: and in reply to you Baltec1, I'm no so foolish to think that they do not have other changes down the pipe as well (they've eluded to as much in this thread already.) This one change though is completely ridiculous, and not one person can give any real reason, any GOOD reason for this change to happen. On the other hand there's 60+ pages of arguments as to why this shouldn't happen. So no, CCP aren't doing the smart thing here - the smart thing would be to say: Ok here's our "roadmap" for fleet changes (they seem to like roadmaps for other game changes.) So IF there is any real good reason why this change should happen in the first place, perhaps those of us who don't work at CCP and aren't limited by NDA can be let it in on the big secret thing that this change is presumably intended to help/hinder.
We have 60+ pages of people decrying the end of the world is upon us because they now need a scout rather than relying upon the FC to do all the work. Its hardly a convincing argument from your side. No. We have 60 pages of people explaining why this change negatively affects their game when their game is not the intended target. We also have 60 pages of you (and pretty much you alone) telling them to htfu.
Should they also remove warp to zero? After all, you only need a scout to go ahead and burn to the gate first. This is a similar argument - it would increase "player involvement" in fleets and be a complete pita for everyone else.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2218
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 10:13:25 -
[28] - Quote
It had been an interesting thread to watch. Many sov null people believe that their part of the game is the only important one and that anything that improves their gameplay should be implemented regardless of the effect on the rest of the game.
They are, of course, wrong and it is difficult to respect or take such a position seriously. Such extreme parochialism is embarrassing, frankly.
Personally, I do not understand the attraction of blob warfare but understand many others love it. I wish them luck and hope their game improves. Just not at the expense of everyone else's. EVE would be much poorer if it was a game of sov null only.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2224
|
Posted - 2015.06.15 21:07:03 -
[29] - Quote
Just increase combat probe scan time and slow down fleet warp speed. Leave the usefulness of the feature alone.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2227
|
Posted - 2015.06.17 21:54:07 -
[30] - Quote
Fleet Warp Q&A with CCP Larrikin and Spectre Fleet:
https://soundcloud.com/jayne-fillon/spectre-fleet-qa-with-ccp-larrikin
Someone wrote a tl;dr on reddit:
First question is why change in the first place:
* Give more people roles in fleets. When questioned about alts he didn't really have an answer. * Give sniper fleets more of an advantage. (Like they really need it since practically everyone runs them)
What about small fleets who can't spare the member to act as a warp beacon?
* Well that kind of sucks for them.
How will this change make it better? Regarding perch bookmarks.
* "That would be tough to find." * Share the bookmarks.
This would give corp fleets and advantage over NPSI and other mixed fleets.
* Would like to do alliance bookmarks but "technical difficulties". * Use an alt. * Doesn't think it gives an advantage.
Changes to bookmarks?
* "Yes" * "We realize this will impact wormhole groups."
Slippery Petes OP?
* Will flail nerf bat if it gets bad.
Why not let squad commanders warp?
* This breaks the what we want to do with the bomber meta.
This change will cause fleet members to land at different times due to warp speeds, is this intended?
* Fleet warp to a scout if you want to prevent this.
Why include mission locations?
* Consistency * Slowing mission runners down is not a bad thing.
Planned solutions for wormhole people?
* Looking into it.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2231
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 04:21:47 -
[31] - Quote
Oh for goodness sake, he wants to remove Orbit, Approach and Keep at Range next. This would utterly kill so much frigate and destroyer game play by making it impossible to get under the guns of a slower tracking weapon system.
I manually pilot cruisers and above. But for small ships the server tick speed means you cannot orbit manually at close range because you are already out of orbit by the time the next tick comes around. And you have to manage cap, reps, tackle and webs, weapons, overheating, target switching for drones etc etc.
Discussed in the wormhole feedback soundcloud: https://m.soundcloud.com/jimsuletu/wormholefleetwarping
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2231
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 05:04:30 -
[32] - Quote
joecuster wrote:Zappity wrote:Oh for goodness sake, he wants to remove Orbit, Approach and Keep at Range next. This would utterly kill so much frigate and destroyer game play by making it impossible to get under the guns of a slower tracking weapon system. I manually pilot cruisers and above. But for small ships the server tick speed means you cannot orbit manually at close range because you are already out of orbit by the time the next tick comes around. And you have to manage cap, reps, tackle and webs, weapons, overheating, target switching for drones etc etc. Discussed in the wormhole feedback soundcloud: https://m.soundcloud.com/jimsuletu/wormholefleetwarping lolwut What is lolwut?
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2231
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 07:01:16 -
[33] - Quote
Ihal Urgudz wrote:Reyko DU93 wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Rowells wrote:RIP Bomber wings You'll still be able to use them, but this will slow the speed at which they usually hit their targets. We consider that a very good outcome. Just as I started flying bombers And now I have no reason to even start training stealth bombers, torps, cloaks, and missile skills The reason for resubscribing this pilot is in question. Canceling account, and will submit a support ticket for a refund,. Bombers will still be useful. You will just have to be better at flying them.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2232
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 10:31:59 -
[34] - Quote
So Larrikin confirmed in the wormhole whatsit that he had not thought about the tight timing involved in catching bears in wormhole sites. This is also an issue in nullsec. If you have to combat scan you are on the clock.
While I understand the goals I do not want this play style hurt by these changes. I hope that CCP's wormhole solution (assuming there is one) is also applicable in null so I have a chance at catching people under these circumstances.
Please at least consider reducing the fitting requirements of Expanded Probe launchers so I don't have to use a T3 to scan and tackle.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2232
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 10:47:34 -
[35] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Zappity wrote:So Larrikin confirmed in the wormhole whatsit that he had not thought about the tight timing involved in catching bears in wormhole sites. This is also an issue in nullsec. If you have to combat scan you are on the clock.
While I understand the goals I do not want this play style hurt by these changes. I hope that CCP's wormhole solution (assuming there is one) is also applicable in null so I have a chance at catching people under these circumstances.
Please at least consider reducing the fitting requirements of Expanded Probe launchers so I don't have to use a T3 to scan and tackle. Use a cov-ops. To tackle? Lol
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2236
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 20:52:07 -
[36] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:Arrendis wrote:Iowa Banshee wrote:Amazing -- In a civilization so advanced it has faster than light travel, stargates, A communication channel between players that allows everything from social chat, swapping fits & overviews to instant cash transfers AND the best way to get a spot in space to warp to is Flush it out & scoop it up
That's right - superluminal communications completely unaffected by distances of thousands of light years, and my ship's computer can't give your ship's computer the 3 pairs of numbers that form coordinates when we're 1500m apart. Meh. According to the lore, your ship's gravity capacitor (not computer) has to lock onto a gravity signal into order to warp to it. So in theory, random bookmarks shouldn't work. Nor should warping to most/all sub-caps work. Nor should any target smaller than a "cluster of asteroids..." If CCP can completely ignore their lore, then appealing to logic is probably a sub-optimal debate tactic as well. edit: Gravity capacitor, not computer, decides where you warp. My scan probes can warp anywhere, not even a bookmark required.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2239
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 06:23:20 -
[37] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Zappity wrote: To tackle? Lol
Why not? We use just as flimsy interceptors, t1 frigates and Ewar frigs. "Just as flimsy"? You have got to be kidding. Covops are PAPER thin and clearly not designed for tackle. Interceptors are designed specifically for tackle.
But perhaps you are confused. After all, you seem to think interceptors are for scanning, too.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2240
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 10:55:59 -
[38] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Zappity wrote:baltec1 wrote:Zappity wrote: To tackle? Lol
Why not? We use just as flimsy interceptors, t1 frigates and Ewar frigs. "Just as flimsy"? You have got to be kidding. Covops are PAPER thin and clearly not designed for tackle. Interceptors are designed specifically for tackle. But perhaps you are confused. After all, you seem to think interceptors are for scanning, too. Anathema 2.3k ehp base crusader 2.16k ehp base Yea, just as flimsy. Don't be silly. Fit some tank on the Crusader. Check. Not to mention it comes with built in sig reduction.
Fit some tank on the Anathema. Oh wait you can't because there is no fitting left after the Expanded probe launcher. And there's no sig reduction either.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2241
|
Posted - 2015.06.19 21:21:22 -
[39] - Quote
Regarding, this Crusader vs Anathema issue, the problem is that we currently have ships fit for role perfectly - interceptors intercept and probers probe. The changes greatly reduce the utility of entire ship classes in certain usage cases with the result that you need to shoehorn fits that are actually quite ridiculous.
If combat probing is the core problem (and I accept this may be the case) then I would strongly prefer a direct nerf to combat probing without messing with the downstream ship uses.
Delay probe results or make them fuzzy. But still allow us to launch appropriate tackle at the result.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
Zappity
Stay Frosty. A Band Apart.
2241
|
Posted - 2015.06.20 01:14:14 -
[40] - Quote
baltec1 wrote:Arla Sarain wrote:You won't be using Anathemas and Cheetahs for tackle. Prolly not even a buzzard. No fitting space and no defense. So much for giving these twats combat bonuses or any role beyond a interacting with somewhat clever PVE.
This Helios has 4k EHP, more if you lose the nanos for overdrives. It's sole merit is the 1k hull.
[Helios, Tackle] Type-D Restrained Nanofiber Structure Damage Control II Type-D Restrained Nanofiber Structure
5MN Y-T8 Compact Microwarpdrive Warp Disruptor II Small Capacitor Booster II, Navy Cap Booster 200 Scan Acquisition Array I F-90 Positional Sensor Subroutines, Scan Resolution Script
Sisters Expanded Probe Launcher, Sisters Combat Scanner Probe Covert Ops Cloaking Device II
Small Gravity Capacitor Upgrade I Small Gravity Capacitor Upgrade I
You can decloak midst warp, about 1AU out and will land with no calibration timer. Not that's a clever idea in its own right, because cloak allows you to position favoruably. You could try recalibration rigs, this drops the timer down to 3.7s with Cloaking V, and rely on victims poor align time to tackle him/her/it.
Still, you cannot compare this to an interceptor because it is "Just as flimsy". This has no drone protection, no practically replenishable tank, and it has to use the sisters launcher, so its a 70mill ships + 10 mill cargo of probes and boosters.
And your average ceptor fits no tanking mods at all so when it gets caught it dies even faster. If you want something tanky then use an assault frigate or upgrade to a cruiser hull. We used to tackle stuff just fine with cov-ops. Covops die ridiculously fast to light drones. I've got a medium ASB on my Stiletto - I assumed everyone would want at least some tank.
Zappity's Adventures for a taste of lowsec.
|
|
|
|
|