These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Sentry drone fleets, should they stay, or should they go?

First post
Author
Jack Miton
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#21 - 2013-07-03 00:58:35 UTC
A few bombers make the mean sentries go away.

There is no Bob.

Stuck In Here With Me:  http://sihwm.blogspot.com.au/

Down the Pipe:  http://feeds.feedburner.com/CloakyScout

Dato Koppla
Balls Deep Inc.
Minmatar Fleet Alliance
#22 - 2013-07-03 01:23:36 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
A few bombers make the mean sentries go away.


This, T2 Sentries are not cheap and a well placed bomber squad can pretty much wipe the field of all your dps instantly.
Vladimir Norkoff
Income Redistribution Service
#23 - 2013-07-03 05:35:46 UTC
Dato Koppla wrote:
This, T2 Sentries are not cheap and a well placed bomber squad can pretty much wipe the field of all your dps instantly.
If only I had put more than one flight of Sentry drones in my Archon! Dammit!

(And you guys are still completely missing the point the OP was trying to make.)
Froggy Storm
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#24 - 2013-07-03 06:33:08 UTC
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
Dato Koppla wrote:
This, T2 Sentries are not cheap and a well placed bomber squad can pretty much wipe the field of all your dps instantly.
If only I had put more than one flight of Sentry drones in my Archon! Dammit!

(And you guys are still completely missing the point the OP was trying to make.)


People being obtuse aside, the fact that a couple counters of various degree make the point (largely) moot.

Who cares if the grunts are there to push F1 or the FC can do it for them? Who cares if that then allows for multi box fleets?

If the complaint is that the fleet style is boring and minimally interactive, then the op needs to go join fw as all major fleets tend to be boring.

If the complaint is that there are too many ships per player, then it becomes the usual troll about "suck it up princess"

The only point (in my opinion) with some room for debate is the one about perfect alpha. And really it isn't that much different than the mumble order to primary by any other fleet is it? But as others pointed out your logi either catches the damage or not.
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#25 - 2013-07-03 06:51:43 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
A few bombers make the mean sentries go away.


You need a continuous stream of bombers, few bombers are totally irrelevant and Domis don't even need to pull sentries.

If the sentry fleet is smart enough to have a fast locker with them, they one-shot your bombers as soon as they decloak.

If you are going to use bombers, why not do it right and try to actually kill the Domis and not just their drones.





.

Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#26 - 2013-07-03 10:15:20 UTC
Hakaimono wrote:
Find an FC who knows how to counter that.



This.

->Bomber runs

->Suicide SM BS (not a good choice but sometimes is good enough)

->Doom Portal

Many others are possible and cooking untill someone start using them, succeeding and make them cry, just like the pretended so awesome stupid 200K EHP 700dps Tengus at....25km (with top skills and rage)-now those are not being replaced while just by reducing slightly the amount or EHP the same ship could do 600dps at over 55km...well 250dps caracals are better indeed.

Not a new tactic, it's rather a very old one and has its counters

removed inappropriate ASCII art signature - CCP Eterne

Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#27 - 2013-07-03 10:20:42 UTC
Couple the already given benefits with the fact that said sentry Dominix is pretty much the only ship type that can make decent use of the target spectrum breaker (as seen in the latest doctrines) for the simple fact that due to the 'assist' command, those ships only need to be on grid but not be able to target something and you have an extremely strong fleet concept, quite possibly too strong.

At the same time, that very doctrine is a hard counter to the use of TSBs, since only the drone director actually needs to lock a target.

I'm too inexperienced regarding the use of bombers, but I'd think that if the sentries were not assisting a single drone director but instead a couple of fast locking ships, the doctrine should be pretty lethal for bomber fleets as well.
Ginger Barbarella
#28 - 2013-07-03 16:23:35 UTC
Sofia Wolf wrote:
I don’t have any problems with sentry drones, my problem is mechanic that allows single player to simultaneously and perfectly control fire from hundreds of drones. Fleet of 250 ships, each with 5 drones, and FC can perfectly concentrate fire of over twelve hundred drones while remaining 249 people in fleet are picking their nose, or eating lunch, or whatever...

Is that good game design?


I have a problem with people being able to shoot me from 75-100k out... it's just not fair! They should go toe-to-toe with me, damn it!!

Is that good game design?!?!?!? I say NO! Nerf everything that can shoot me from more than 500m out!!

"Blow it all on Quafe and strippers." --- Sorlac

Ciyrine
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#29 - 2013-07-03 17:12:58 UTC
If i assign my sentries to someone with fast lock time can thr drones fire at targets that are outside my targeting range?
Whitehound
#30 - 2013-07-03 17:15:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Whitehound
Vladimir Norkoff wrote:
(And you guys are still completely missing the point the OP was trying to make.)

Oh, I think most get the "point", but they are only not paying any attention to it. And why would we? It is the same "point" we get to see all the time, made by a few mental kids who want to tell others how to play the game so they can have fun, because otherwise their brain implodes.

It starts with imagining how the ship they are shooting is a person and that they are shooting the person. Then they make rules what that person may and may not use and whine about how this or that becomes unfair to them based on their mental associations.

So others now must sit inside a ship and must not use sentries, because they would have to shoot sentries in order to win, when really they want to shoot the person, and so how can they shoot the person?!

Naturally, and because of the way their brains are build, will these implode on facing such a dilemma. So they go complaining on the Internet, hoping someone will fix their dilemma and also bring them cookies and milk.

If you are looking pretty sharp at the monitor right now, know there will not be any cookies or milk.

Most of the time do we not pay attention to it at all and all these "points" and whines zip through the Internet, flashing before our eyes, without ever reaching the soul.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Tsukino Stareine
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2013-07-03 17:20:25 UTC
Ciyrine wrote:
If i assign my sentries to someone with fast lock time can thr drones fire at targets that are outside my targeting range?


as long as theyre within drone control range you're fine.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#32 - 2013-07-03 17:25:43 UTC
Sofia Wolf wrote:
During las1t year we see increasing proliferation of sentry based fleet doctrines ranging in size form Vexors all the way up to slowcat blobs....


You'll perhaps be pleased to know that the CSM discussed this exact topic with CCP today.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#33 - 2013-07-03 17:26:20 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
A few bombers make the mean sentries go away.


Not really; sentries can be pulled instantly, and carriers can have unfeasible quantities of them in their drone bays

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Tinu Moorhsum
Random Events
#34 - 2013-07-03 17:43:31 UTC
Jack Miton wrote:
A few bombers make the mean sentries go away.


Not easily. Most of the sentry fleets will starburst and drop. They're actually quite robust around bombers.

Their really big weakness is intel and mobility. If you know who has control then they are easily taken off the field (if not you should run anyway) at which point you have a 15-20 second window where the enemy fleet isn't shooting at all while they get reorganized. If you also know who their secondary FC is then you really only have to kill 2 or 3 people in their fleet to throw the whole doctrine into chaos. Even though a lot of people CAN FC a fleet if they want to they won't step up in a fleet where the FC, the secondary and the tertiary callers have all been taken down early.... Few people suddenly grow a pair when that's happening.

The other weakness is mobility. They're vulnerable for hit and run tactics becasue they can't follow. In that sense bombers do make sense. Even if they aren't the answer to sentries if the fleet is properly run, they are good hit and run weapons. Alpha snipers also do well as do any sniper ships that can kite out of the 100km range. Basically sentry doctrine is akin to trench warfare so as long as you don't join thyem in the trenches you can work around it.





Whitehound
#35 - 2013-07-03 17:45:48 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
You'll perhaps be pleased to know that the CSM discussed this exact topic with CCP today.

If you want to please your voters will you have to get results and not only show that you were trying. Any news on the outcome would be interesting. If it was only for the discussion could one pick up the phone, dial C-C-P and have a dog breath into the phone.

Anything more specific than "we talked" would be nice.

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc.
The Fourth District
#36 - 2013-07-03 17:52:18 UTC
Thanks for the feedback Malcanis. I'm glad I’m not the only one that thinks drone assistance mechanic deserves some attention.

At this point I myself am not sure what change, if any, should be made but I definitely think this mechanic deserves some open debate, so I started this thread. Sadly most of the responses were either trolling or misguided mockery. Sad

Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows...

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#37 - 2013-07-03 18:01:35 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
You'll perhaps be pleased to know that the CSM discussed this exact topic with CCP today.

If you want to please your voters will you have to get results and not only show that you were trying. Any news on the outcome would be interesting. If it was only for the discussion could one pick up the phone, dial C-C-P and have a dog breath into the phone.

Anything more specific than "we talked" would be nice.


Dude you know we can't say "we discussed hurbleburbles with CCP and the devs agreed that they're grossly under/overpowered and are gonna be fixed next month"

All we can do is represent issues to CCP, advocate a position as best we can, and wait for the results to be announced.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#38 - 2013-07-03 18:02:16 UTC
Sofia Wolf wrote:
Thanks for the feedback Malcanis. I'm glad I’m not the only one that thinks drone assistance mechanic deserves some attention.

At this point I myself am not sure what change, if any, should be made but I definitely think this mechanic deserves some open debate, so I started this thread. Sadly most of the responses were either trolling or misguided mockery. Sad



Actually Mynnna raised the topic.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016

Whitehound
#39 - 2013-07-03 18:10:00 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Dude you know we can't say "we discussed hurbleburbles with CCP and the devs agreed that they're grossly under/overpowered and are gonna be fixed next month"

Why not? Did they not say anything to you in return?

Loss is meaningful. Therefore is the loss of meaning likewise meaningful. It is the source of all trolling.

Sofia Wolf
Ubuntu Inc.
The Fourth District
#40 - 2013-07-03 18:15:30 UTC
Whitehound wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Dude you know we can't say "we discussed hurbleburbles with CCP and the devs agreed that they're grossly under/overpowered and are gonna be fixed next month"

Why not? Did they not say anything to you in return?


Ever head of NDA?

Jessica Danikov > EVE is your real life. the rest is fantasy. caught in a corporation. no escape from banality. open up yours eyes, peer through pod good and seeeeeee. I'm just a poor pilot, I need no sympathy. because I'm easy scam, easy go, little isk, little know. anyway the solar wind blows...