Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Amazing. Ishtars and carriers online

good changes

So what exactly is your complaint? You weren't clear on that part, other than making it clear uhasmad.

This type of response makes people think you either used the exploit or don't really know what you're talking about.

As creators and caretakers of the game, that is their purview.

However, there is *this* thread for opinions that's been around since Jan 5th. No one has presented a good argument why lowering scan res to fix the exploit is going to break anything.

The best arguments against it are that a better programming solution might be in order (but that would take far more resources han this fix), and "Whaaa - this feels like a nerf!"

Your argument fits in the second category and has been heard.

So let me understand this, Fighter are frigate sized, and bombers are destroyer sized, with accompanying ehp, and mwd speed. So why shouldnt they have scan res that matches there ship size? From a point of reference alone this is ********. Fighter and bombers have the scan res of battleships and dreadnoughts now. I don't ever recall someone using supers to kill frigs and cruisers ever being a problem, not that they could lock these smaller ships in time to do any damage. If your webbed and scrammed, whether or not someone assigns drones or targets you themselves, you would die in any situation. Who would drop a carrier to kill a single cruiser or frig? Either 1, a troll, or 2, someone who wants to lose that carrier. Battleships should take full damage from fighters and bombers. They are large enough and slow enough.

Also, I was under the impression that in drone and fighter warfare one recalls drones to prevent them from being destroyed. When they are redeployed your drones shields are recharged (like docking and un-docking) and your enemy is forced to re-target them.

Its a tactic.

This has not been, or will ever be a problem or a game breaker.

It is simply another scapegoat for ccp to avoid server lag [Gee, server lag with 500-1000+ people trying to kill each other at the same time in a confined space, whoda thunk?], just like nerfing HM's, HAMs, and more recently LM's into the dirt.

What part of capital warfare create more server load than subcap? This stupid argument of yours is nothing more than crying because you don't understand why the change was made and what it's target was.

As for your skillpoint in capital being refunded, I think the saying goes HTFU.

1- More server load is generated by 600 domi with 5 drones each than by 200 carrier with 10 dornes each.

2- In regard to the OP, the server load Fozzie wanted to kill was the one created when people were abusing the cycle reset on drones. Not the one from just spamming drones. The load caused by people wanting to reset their cycle on their fighter/bombers will be gone as it is no longer valuable to do so. Wanting to eliminate "some" server load does not mean you want to eliminate all server load with the same change.

3- Everybody who has coding experience will tell you they would not rewrite a large part of an app when a few data change can fix the targetted issue. The issue YOU want CCP to fix at the same time cannot be fixed the same way but it was not the target to begin with.

4- Common sense is something you should use to understand CCP was not trying to fix what you think they were. If you don't get the idea of what they wanted to fix, you will always make bad assumption to what the good solution should be.

5- If capitals are eating nerfs, it's most likely because CCP think they are in an imbalanced states. They will then eat nerfs like every other ships in the game, their user will be mad about it just like every other nerfed ship user and EVE will keep on trucking. If you can't stop taking for granted the power your capital ship currently has, every nerf will make you unhappy and you might as well stop playing MMO because everything always gets buffed/nerfed in those games. It's the way they are.

6- CCP said they want to gather more data on fighter assist. If they will nerf it or not is their choice based on how they think their game should be played. We can give feedback all we want about it but at the end of the day, they hold the strings and it's their decision.

7- The skillpoint getting reimbursed would mostly set a precedent they will never want to accept setting. While it would be a "good gesture" in view of how much the capital ships are changing over the last few and most likely also the next few release, it will just not happen.

8- Cap fleet are smaller than subcap fleet. Their drone numbers being bigger on a per ship ratio does nto mean the server eat more total load based on them. Ass noted in point 2, Fozzie didn't want to reduce all possible load coming from drones. Spamming drones can still cause stupid high load but this is something they don't seem to be ready to tackle yet or just unwilling.

The load of Titans PL dropped into HED-GP?

The tons of POS bashing in Catch?

The use of suicide dreads in the SBU war between HERO and PL?

The actual use of triage Archons as triage carriers were really properly intended to be used (imagine that!) to rep TFIs in the last HED-GP fight.

Those are just a few mentions of a couple of cap uses since Phoebe.

The objections on this thread have been some of the dumbest I've seen in a while.

Reduce the m3 of fighters and fighter bombers as well as the drone bay or carriers and supercarriers respectively.

For example, a carrier has a 80,000m3 drone bay with fighters taking up 5,000m3 each. If fighters took only 50m3 and a carrier was scaled to hold the same max number of fighters (16) then you end up with a 800m3 drone bay. This means carriers can no longer carry near endless numbers of sentries, lights, medium drones,.....players have to choose carefully what drones to and not to carry in their holds and large groups of RR carriers would have to choose their load outs carefully limiting their flexibility and DPS durability/repeatability of launching many many waves of drones.

I propose that the same type change (appropriately scaled) for fighter-bombers and supercarriers.