These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon 1.1] Interceptor Agility Tweak

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Sixx Spades
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#121 - 2014-01-18 08:26:06 UTC
Re'doubt wrote:

Remote sebo'ed frigates can already catch our 1.9ish align time maledictions.


No they can't and you're absolutely delusional if you truly believe that. If they DO happen to get caught, it is due to pilot error on the Malediction's part.

Using a weapon as a deterrent in a diplomatic situation is only viable when you have proven that you have deployed it in the past and are willing to use it in the future.
Re'doubt
Ascendent.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#122 - 2014-01-18 08:42:00 UTC
Sixx Spades wrote:
Re'doubt wrote:

Remote sebo'ed frigates can already catch our 1.9ish align time maledictions.


No they can't and you're absolutely delusional if you truly believe that. If they DO happen to get caught, it is due to pilot error on the Malediction's part.


Two way street bro. It's just pilot error you guys aren't catching us and adapting.

I'm going to use that excuse more. Pilot error. I like that.
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#123 - 2014-01-18 11:47:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Hasikan Miallok
I must say I have never understood this idea that gate camps must, on principle, be able to stop absolutely everything that comes through regardless of the skill of the pilot or nature of the ship.

Maybe CCP should just give SOV owners some sort of null-concord style NPC protection and be done with it.
HiddenPorpoise
Jarlhettur's Drop
United Federation of Conifers
#124 - 2014-01-18 12:32:05 UTC
Sixx Spades wrote:
Re'doubt wrote:

Remote sebo'ed frigates can already catch our 1.9ish align time maledictions.


No they can't and you're absolutely delusional if you truly believe that. If they DO happen to get caught, it is due to pilot error on the Malediction's part.

Pods have an align less than that, a smaller sig, and can be caught, it's just a matter of luck at some point.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#125 - 2014-01-18 12:42:51 UTC
Re'doubt wrote:
Sixx Spades wrote:
Re'doubt wrote:

Remote sebo'ed frigates can already catch our 1.9ish align time maledictions.


No they can't and you're absolutely delusional if you truly believe that. If they DO happen to get caught, it is due to pilot error on the Malediction's part.


Two way street bro. It's just pilot error you guys aren't catching us and adapting.

I'm going to use that excuse more. Pilot error. I like that.


You are wrong. It takes minimum 2 seconds to lock and point something. It takes you less than 2 seconds to warp.
MonkeyMagic Thiesant
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#126 - 2014-01-18 12:53:57 UTC
HiddenPorpoise wrote:
Sixx Spades wrote:
Re'doubt wrote:

Remote sebo'ed frigates can already catch our 1.9ish align time maledictions.


No they can't and you're absolutely delusional if you truly believe that. If they DO happen to get caught, it is due to pilot error on the Malediction's part.

Pods have an align less than that, a smaller sig, and can be caught, it's just a matter of luck at some point.


Pods warp in 0.08 seconds.
Meyr
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
OnlyFleets.
#127 - 2014-01-18 14:40:06 UTC
After bashing Fozzie for many of the other changes he's proposing, I'll go on record as supporting this one.

That said, I'll ALSO go on record as stating that you were warned about this, your testing methods suck, and you obviously need further training in understanding the consequences of your proposed changes.

You've literally known FOR YEARS that the server operates in 1-second ticks, it was obvious from your ship fits, AND YET YOU DIDN'T SEE THIS COMING?!?!

What the hell is passing for QA there in CCP, and, more specifically, in your department? You absolutely cannot tell me that you don't have modeling software that works just like EFT to test your proposed changes, and get a numerical value about warp times - your post justifying your proposed changes to Capital Turret Tracking implies that it exists.
Michael Harari
Genos Occidere
HYDRA RELOADED
#128 - 2014-01-18 14:44:04 UTC
Meyr wrote:
You absolutely cannot tell me that you don't have modeling software that works just like EFT to test your proposed changes, and get a numerical value about warp times


They actually use pyfa
Meyr
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
OnlyFleets.
#129 - 2014-01-18 14:46:32 UTC
Michael Harari wrote:
Meyr wrote:
You absolutely cannot tell me that you don't have modeling software that works just like EFT to test your proposed changes, and get a numerical value about warp times


They actually use pyfa


Which just goes to show that SOMEONE isn't doing their job.
Sixx Spades
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#130 - 2014-01-18 16:17:13 UTC
MonkeyMagic Thiesant wrote:

Pods warp in 0.08 seconds.

Pods aren't bubble immune.

Using a weapon as a deterrent in a diplomatic situation is only viable when you have proven that you have deployed it in the past and are willing to use it in the future.
May Arethusa
Junction Systems
#131 - 2014-01-18 17:48:50 UTC
Rubicon: "There's no turning back." Apparently there is.

"Tactics to chip away at the behemoths have surfaced, allowing small fleets of troublemakers to become a concern for alliance strongholds."

We embraced the change, and this is how you repay us.

Fast aligning interceptors can be caught, and are insanely weak against anything other than their desired targets. The tactics they employ are easily countered, if anyone had bothered to try. A handful were learning, the rest were tabbing back to EVE with a dejected sigh.

What will this change do? Not much, because unlike the ratters and campers it benefits, we'll adapt again. Looking forward to your next patch to try and nerf those fits.
Zircon Dasher
#132 - 2014-01-18 21:19:41 UTC
May Arethusa wrote:
Rubicon: "There's no turning back." Apparently there is.

"Tactics to chip away at the behemoths have surfaced, allowing small fleets of troublemakers to become a concern for alliance strongholds."

We embraced the change, and this is how you repay us.


Dude. You know that's advertising right? You don't really expect any change to threaten the powers that be do you?

Nerfing High-sec is never the answer. It is the question. The answer is 'YES'.
Voyager Arran
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#133 - 2014-01-18 22:04:37 UTC
Hasikan Miallok wrote:
I must say I have never understood this idea that gate camps must, on principle, be able to stop absolutely everything that comes through regardless of the skill of the pilot or nature of the ship.

Maybe CCP should just give SOV owners some sort of null-concord style NPC protection and be done with it.


We aren't asking for automatic protection or guaranteed safety. We're asking for combat pilots actively seeking to defend space the conquered, own, and pay bills for to be able to do so.

Literally none of this argument is about the actual act of killing ratters. Nobody here cares if ratters die when a combat ship catches them. The entire complaint from TEST is now that our defense gangs might actually be able to interfere with them in our own space.
Jafit
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#134 - 2014-01-18 23:42:46 UTC
Voyager Arran wrote:
Literally none of this argument is about the actual act of killing ratters. Nobody here cares if ratters die when a combat ship catches them. The entire complaint from TEST is now that our defense gangs might actually be able to interfere with them in our own space.


The problem is that you can't seem to conceive of a home defense gang taking any form other than an instalocking gatecamp. There are plenty of ways already detailed ITT for how you can mount a more effective defense, you just choose not to.

Apparently it's not a real home defense 'fleet' if CowWarrior can't run his 5000 scan res multibox gatecamp.
Re'doubt
Ascendent.
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#135 - 2014-01-19 01:00:12 UTC
We aren't saying that interceptors don't need some kind of tweak. We just don't want to see the malediction and crow nerfed into oblivion.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#136 - 2014-01-19 01:25:49 UTC
May Arethusa wrote:
Rubicon: "There's no turning back." Apparently there is.

All it takes is a riot...

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Optimo Sebiestor
The New Eden School of trade
Organization of Skill Extracting Corporations
#137 - 2014-01-19 13:01:52 UTC
Jack bubu wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Swiftstrike1 wrote:
Here's a hypothetical question for you CCP. In your opinion, what sort of scan resolution should be required to catch an interceptor after it has just jumped through a stargate?

That depends...... how much effort has the interceptor pilot put into making his ship fast & uncatchable.....
Or has he shield tanked it & plated it to make it slow & sluggish.

Or to put it better. How much wood could a wood chuck chuck if a wood chuck could chuck wood.


no ship should be uncatchable.


Then should look on the astero as well
JD No7
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#138 - 2014-01-19 15:11:57 UTC
Iudicium Vastus wrote:
JD No7 wrote:


This. As it stands they are virtually uncatchable, even with sensor boosts etc. Stupidly easy to get a cyno into system now.


But doesn't that get you those sought after fights?


As others say no ship should be uncatchable. If you are rocking 3000-5000 scan res and still can't catch the ship because the server code won't let you, that is broken.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#139 - 2014-01-19 15:19:28 UTC
Praal wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Every Interceptor is getting a slight agility nerf in this pass, with the missile ceptors (Crow and Malediction) getting bigger changes than the others since they have proven extremely powerful in other ways (especially in groups). On average this will result in a 10% longer align time for the class.

The balance of having Interceptors with more speed (and warp speed and bubble immunity) and Faction Frigates with better agility is one we believe will help keep the frigate pvp landscape diverse and exciting.

Agility (as a modifier on mass) affects the turning time (often measured as align time) of ships. Lower is better.
The align times listed below are for a hypothetical character with 0 skills.


This balance needs to come from the interceptors' combat strength, not their tackling ability. An interceptor's primary job is to catch things and pin them down, not to kill things. With this in mind the nerf should come in form of reduced damage.

This would lead to fleets that combine fast, agile interceptors to catch enemies with other frigates (such as assault frigs) to deliver the damage.


This is the voice of reason, CCP. Listen to it for once.
Scuzzy Logic
Space Spuds
#140 - 2014-01-19 15:23:01 UTC
Re'doubt wrote:

Again, I repeat my last post, don't down on missile interceptors and kill their ability to tackle and hold a point by reducing their agility. They are already paper thin and don't do much DPS. Why are we even revisiting this original change when CCP has bigger things to figure out like sov mechanics, POS quality of living, and other ships to still rebalance. Why are we as players/customers getting features we DO NOT want and DO NOT need? All these changes cause MORE problems rather than solve anything. These new changes serve only to break more things in this game.


Because the blocs don't want that. The blocs complained about 50-frig roams killing their ratters.