These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page12
 

Carrier issue.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#21 - 2014-01-09 00:58:36 UTC
I'm completely ok with people asking for a better drone implementation or whatever. What I'm not ok with is attempting to justify nerfs based on your perception of what the root cause of performance issues are.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Seeker's's
Praid-inc
#22 - 2014-01-09 02:50:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Seeker's's
Fair enough. IMHO, it should be done carefully and with no rush and no sudden nerfs CCP love so much.

But using drone assist in TiDi today is close to exploit of server mechanics. Assisted drones from 200-300 carriers have a tremendous alpha delivered within 1-2 server ticks (even in TiDi it lands PERFECTLY). This guarantees an instapop of any dread or lesser.
At the same time 200-300 dreads using voice countdown deliver their damage spread within several seconds. In the case of good-buffered and resistant carrier this little difference proves to be enough to survive at structure and get repaired by logis.
The only thing giving advantage to carriers is software drone assist. Add TiDi from notorious drones again and get 4-5 carriers destroyed in EIGHT hours. That's the reality of mass-pvp today.
And you shouldn't forget that a carrier pilot can give out his drones to the trigger ship and just go away. AFK pvp? Great idea. Even miners don't have that easy mode.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#23 - 2014-01-09 05:25:21 UTC
I'm not defending drone assist; I don't even care about drone assist. I'm just saying that we shouldn't balance the game around some players' ideas for what causes server load, because they have no idea what the server source code looks like. And on top of that, such radical ideas as taking drones away from carriers are simply ludicrous. :)

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Blodhgarm Dethahal
8 Sins of Man
Stray Dogs.
#24 - 2014-01-09 05:33:24 UTC
You also cannot balance a ship or a set of ships based around one situation. Carriers are seen in smaller scale engagements as well to great effect but can be drasticly fitted differently. You have to consider both.
Seeker's's
Praid-inc
#25 - 2014-01-09 09:01:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Seeker's's
Blodhgarm Dethahal wrote:
You also cannot balance a ship or a set of ships based around one situation. Carriers are seen in smaller scale engagements as well to great effect but can be drasticly fitted differently. You have to consider both.
Absolutely. And carrier carebears shouldn't be forgotten.
But hey, this little by little should be announced, discussed, tested on Singularity and applied. Not only drones, but also missiles, aoe damage, common inventories - all that top laggy stuff. But yet even the problem hasn't been admitted.
Odithia
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#26 - 2014-01-09 11:31:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Odithia
Liang Nuren wrote:
And on top of that, such radical ideas as taking drones away from carriers are simply ludicrous. :)

-Liang

I would like to see carrier as more than a glorified hybrid between a jump freighter, a logi and a Dominix.
If it takes nerfing it's ability to use (sentry) Drones and potentially boosting it's fighter I am all up for it as it would make it a more unique platform to use with other Hull class rather than the ultimate all in one package capable of ridiculous damage projection, applications (to any Hull class) , alpha, strategic mobility and tank.

Or better, but the sentry drones with a good old nerfbat swing.
All problem solved!
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#27 - 2014-01-09 14:54:30 UTC
Brought to you by: CFC Meta-Propaganda Campaign


Please....

Your entire position is false, and self serving.

The Archon Doctrine is working as intended - where outnumbered players have innovated an emmergant game play style and brought more expensive ships to the field in the face of enemy numbers.

CCP's consistent theme regarding mechanics over the life of EVE Online has been about 'trade offs' - nothing about Archon's is either new nor broken. The ship has been the same for ages, and so are the mechanics that are being used in opposition to an attempted null sec invasion.

So rather than attempt to meta-game a 'nerf' out of CCP in favor of the CFC and it's war allies - why don't you all just SHIP UP and escalate.

That's the real issue - not the Archon.

This is a non-issue!

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Mondra Ronuken
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#28 - 2014-01-09 15:02:27 UTC
If you take away sentrys from carriers, you would also have to remove them from ishtars and small and medium drones from BS. Every ship can use "smaller" weapon system than intended for its class, so why remove this option only for carriers? If fighters are redesigned (less m3, more EHP and cheaper to build), lets try - but to be honest, this discussion is about goons "not winning fast enough". Head over to TMC.com, some delicious tears from DBRB including wrong maths.

CFC = Cry For Changes (Trademark^^)
Ilaj Baiulus
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#29 - 2014-01-09 15:13:12 UTC
Mondra Ronuken wrote:
If you take away sentrys from carriers, you would also have to remove them from ishtars and small and medium drones from BS. Every ship can use "smaller" weapon system than intended for its class, so why remove this option only for carriers? If fighters are redesigned (less m3, more EHP and cheaper to build), lets try - but to be honest, this discussion is about goons "not winning fast enough". Head over to TMC.com, some delicious tears from DBRB including wrong maths.

CFC = Cry For Changes (Trademark^^)

^this
Odithia
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2014-01-09 15:23:21 UTC
Mondra Ronuken wrote:
If you take away sentrys from carriers, you would also have to remove them from ishtars and small and medium drones from BS.

Meh, if it was up to me I would just remove sentry form the game altogether!
Other drones are OK as they have more serious drawbacks.
Odithia
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2014-01-09 15:28:27 UTC
Mondra Ronuken wrote:
Every ship can use "smaller" weapon system than intended for its class, so why remove this option only for carriers?

Other ships recieve no Hull bonus for downsized weapons.

For smaller Hull, other cruisers can't fit a rack of up sized weapons with top notch damage application, tank, utility and mobility.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#32 - 2014-01-09 18:17:56 UTC
Odithia wrote:
Mondra Ronuken wrote:
Every ship can use "smaller" weapon system than intended for its class, so why remove this option only for carriers?

Other ships recieve no Hull bonus for downsized weapons.

For smaller Hull, other cruisers can't fit a rack of up sized weapons with top notch damage application, tank, utility and mobility.


Yes they do.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#33 - 2014-01-09 18:35:09 UTC
Odithia wrote:
Mondra Ronuken wrote:
If you take away sentrys from carriers, you would also have to remove them from ishtars and small and medium drones from BS.

Meh, if it was up to me I would just remove sentry form the game altogether!
Other drones are OK as they have more serious drawbacks.


Yeah, because choosing between movement and dps is totally not a serious drawback at all. Or having to drop 55 cpu for a highslot module just to shoot something thats both within your optimal range and within your lock range.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Lina Theist
Running out of Space
ExoGenesis Consortium
#34 - 2014-01-10 15:15:36 UTC
rework sentries to have the same locking times as the mother carrier. This would fix all sentry ships under BS size.

Problems partially solved
Batelle
Federal Navy Academy
#35 - 2014-01-10 16:06:58 UTC
Lina Theist wrote:
rework sentries to have the same locking times as the mother carrier. This would fix all sentry ships under BS size.

Problems partially solved


Don't you mean "BS size and above?"

Also, I would be careful with drone locking speed. The last thing we want is to have a drone owner have to lock something (that is not using drone assist), then tell his drones to attack it, then wait for THEM to lock it too before firing. Although admittedly I'm not 100% sure how drone target locking works right now.

"**CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"**

Never forget.
Mondra Ronuken
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#36 - 2014-01-15 00:09:45 UTC
Why change sentrys for PvEers (like me), who make L4's to fuel their PvP activities, just because goons can't deal with slowcats? I'm not interested in your "war" or whatever you like to call that, this is the wrong way to fix drones. CCP would be dumb to listen to players(or CEO's) that already claimed "we are here to ruin your game"(TM TheMittani.com). I'm here to have fun, not to deal with "whinebears" (Trademark^^).
Previous page12