These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fighters and Off Grid assist

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Aqriue
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2014-12-04 17:46:43 UTC
Walextheone wrote:
Naaaaah. The problem is that it's totally risk free and there is no counter. That's the broken mechanics.
Normally we and others just adopts to different circumstances but in this situation there is nothing to do.

With 37k possible alpha hacs can't survive more than a few seconds. Bringing more than 6 scimis just too survive is not a viable option.

Found the problem, its operator error. It cannot HTFU and adapt, will only fly a HAC or cruiser, won't bother to field something with the words "capital" "carrier" "titan" "dread" or basicly anything that has a really really thick tank that is getting killed by....seems the operator is blaming the other user of "fighters and bombers" as it that's is broken who seems to have HTFU and adapted a rather nifty way to use from a POS. The first operator can do nothing but whine about it, but should maybe just blob the **** out of the gate with a capital fleet and let a cloaky go find that annoying POS tanking super carrier Roll.

That's how I would deal with the problem, blob the gate with a capital fleet and cause a distraction with someone else scouting out for the super...if you cannot field capitals, the other side is crushing your HAC/BS/whatever....seems they planned accordingly, capitals have two advantages (thick tanks with high damage) with two costs (high price, long train). If you keep dying to a single tactic and you keep using the same tactic, the enemy is being very diligent with keeping you out of their systems....yeah, you deserve to lose and should just uninstall, try kicking the front door in cause I bet their gate guard with assigned fighters wouldn't survive a small carrier gang and a POS bashing dread team. Otherwise, go roam lowsec where they cannot bubble gates and you can run from them.
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#22 - 2014-12-04 17:54:26 UTC
Aqriue wrote:
Walextheone wrote:
Naaaaah. The problem is that it's totally risk free and there is no counter. That's the broken mechanics.
Normally we and others just adopts to different circumstances but in this situation there is nothing to do.

With 37k possible alpha hacs can't survive more than a few seconds. Bringing more than 6 scimis just too survive is not a viable option.

Found the problem, its operator error. It cannot HTFU and adapt, will only fly a HAC or cruiser, won't bother to field something with the words "capital" "carrier" "titan" "dread" or basicly anything that has a really really thick tank that is getting killed by....seems the operator is blaming the other user of "fighters and bombers" as it that's is broken who seems to have HTFU and adapted a rather nifty way to use from a POS. The first operator can do nothing but whine about it, but should maybe just blob the **** out of the gate with a capital fleet and let a cloaky go find that annoying POS tanking super carrier Roll.

That's how I would deal with the problem, blob the gate with a capital fleet and cause a distraction with someone else scouting out for the super...if you cannot field capitals, the other side is crushing your HAC/BS/whatever....seems they planned accordingly, capitals have two advantages (thick tanks with high damage) with two costs (high price, long train). If you keep dying to a single tactic and you keep using the same tactic, the enemy is being very diligent with keeping you out of their systems....yeah, you deserve to lose and should just uninstall, try kicking the front door in cause I bet their gate guard with assigned fighters wouldn't survive a small carrier gang and a POS bashing dread team. Otherwise, go roam lowsec where they cannot bubble gates and you can run from them.


You don't get it; we could bring caps, and then they just turn the force field on and log off. Don't even have to motor back into the shield, they're already in there. At no point are we actually going to be able to kill the super next to the tower, it's basically 0 risk.

Nor does this address the game design 'problem' in the first place. "HURR HURR U CAN JST DROP SOME DREADS" doesn't solve any problems.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#23 - 2014-12-04 17:56:54 UTC
Adrie Atticus wrote:

But they did put 200M of assets on the field + ships to utilize them. The defenders also popped the webbing ship first so there is a higher chance for the fighters/FB's to be popped.

I think this usage is not overpowered or breaking any of current mechanics.


I'm not really concerned about the ISK side of it - the main source of their force is being projected by something that realistically is almost if not entirely untouchable.
Gizznitt Malikite
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
#24 - 2014-12-04 17:57:43 UTC

1.) Your method to assign fighters requires a lot of work to setup right. The tower needs to be ONLINE, but with a password no longer entered into the tower. Once the PWD is entered, you have to unanchor the tower, haul it to a station, repackage it, then bring it out and anchor again. For a medium tower, this is going to be 30 minutes to unanchor, time to go get a new tower, 15 minutes to anchor a new one, 15 minutes to online. Essentially, every time you get that super to turn on the forcefield, you cost them an hour+ to reset their setup.

2.) The method to "online a tower's shields" for defense has a MAJOR flaw. If anyone puts a ship between the capital and the tower, the capital is in for one nasty motherfucking bump if they online that tower.

3.) Many pilots simply put a carrier at the edge of the POS shields and launch fighters from that "protected" location. This regularly results in the death of those carriers!

4.) Other thoughts:
Fighters are slow, and can be kited in a fast cruiser hull.
Fighters can be destroyed, and are worth almost as much as an AF.
You can destroy the AF or whatever ship that has the fighters assigned to them, and then the fighters will stop attacking you.
A single subcap can only control five fighters, which limits how much dps they really assign to you.

Here's the TL;DR;
--- A carrier assigning fighters is not in a risk free situation. Even the method you proposed takes time to setup and can be FUBAR'd by an opponent that knows what they are doing. Furthermore, the benefit assigned fighters provide is properly limited by the number of drones a ship may control, by the drone AI, and by the capabilities of your combat ship/pilot.

Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#25 - 2014-12-04 17:58:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Aqriue wrote:

Found the problem, its operator error. It cannot HTFU and adapt, will only fly a HAC or cruiser, won't bother to field something with the words "capital" "carrier" "titan" "dread" or basicly anything that has a really really thick tank that is getting killed by....seems the operator is blaming the other user of "fighters and bombers" as it that's is broken who seems to have HTFU and adapted a rather nifty way to use from a POS. The first operator can do nothing but whine about it, but should maybe just blob the **** out of the gate with a capital fleet and let a cloaky go find that annoying POS tanking super carrier Roll.

That's how I would deal with the problem, blob the gate with a capital fleet and cause a distraction with someone else scouting out for the super...if you cannot field capitals, the other side is crushing your HAC/BS/whatever....seems they planned accordingly, capitals have two advantages (thick tanks with high damage) with two costs (high price, long train). If you keep dying to a single tactic and you keep using the same tactic, the enemy is being very diligent with keeping you out of their systems....yeah, you deserve to lose and should just uninstall, try kicking the front door in cause I bet their gate guard with assigned fighters wouldn't survive a small carrier gang and a POS bashing dread team. Otherwise, go roam lowsec where they cannot bubble gates and you can run from them.


I'd have absolutely no problem bringing a super or carrier to balance out theirs if I had the same level of safety ;)

Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

1.) Your method to assign fighters requires a lot of work to setup right. The tower needs to be ONLINE, but with a password no longer entered into the tower. Once the PWD is entered, you have to unanchor the tower, haul it to a station, repackage it, then bring it out and anchor again. For a medium tower, this is going to be 30 minutes to unanchor, time to go get a new tower, 15 minutes to anchor a new one, 15 minutes to online. Essentially, every time you get that super to turn on the forcefield, you cost them an hour+ to reset their setup.

2.) The method to "online a tower's shields" for defense has a MAJOR flaw. If anyone puts a ship between the capital and the tower, the capital is in for one nasty motherfucking bump if they online that tower.

3.) Many pilots simply put a carrier at the edge of the POS shields and launch fighters from that "protected" location. This regularly results in the death of those carriers!

4.) Other thoughts:
Fighters are slow, and can be kited in a fast cruiser hull.
Fighters can be destroyed, and are worth almost as much as an AF.
You can destroy the AF or whatever ship that has the fighters assigned to them, and then the fighters will stop attacking you.
A single subcap can only control five fighters, which limits how much dps they really assign to you.

Here's the TL;DR;
--- A carrier assigning fighters is not in a risk free situation. Even the method you proposed takes time to setup and can be FUBAR'd by an opponent that knows what they are doing. Furthermore, the benefit assigned fighters provide is properly limited by the number of drones a ship may control, by the drone AI, and by the capabilities of your combat ship/pilot.



If you can get a ship between the super/carrier and the tower sure - which is almost impossible as they will up FF at the first sign of a threat and move around (change system and/or POS) to minimise the risk of login traps, etc.

With the setups they are typically using the fighters aren't slow at all - IIRC typically doing 4-5km/s, if you could get on top of the carrier or super they'd melt with most of their slots dedicated to drone tracking and mwd speed.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#26 - 2014-12-04 18:22:52 UTC
Walextheone wrote:
Ugh
Adrie Atticus wrote:
All I see is you engaging in a blatant gank attempt while roaming for free and stupid targets (null ratters) which then went horribly wrong. Why wouldn't people be allowed to defend against multiple HACs, dictor and assorted tackle with ships which are available in-system, especially when the system is a dead-end and allows for effective defense?



Naaaaah. The problem is that it's totally risk free and there is no counter. That's the broken mechanics.
Normally we and others just adopts to different circumstances but in this situation there is nothing to do.

With 37k possible alpha hacs can't survive more than a few seconds. Bringing more than 6 scimis just too survive is not a viable option.

Even with tracking mods fighters can't hit frigates successfully a few AFs can defend a fleet from fighters and 200mil is not a small amount nor is it risk free as for a set of mistaken that can get you over 1200 dps for under 200mil look to polarized weapons.

Off grid assist is not a broken mechanic and it does have counters you just need to be prepared. With that said forcing the carrier to be further off the tower would be a good idea shop it couldn't sit within FF range as well as proximity to stations

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#27 - 2014-12-04 18:30:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Walextheone wrote:
Ugh
Adrie Atticus wrote:
All I see is you engaging in a blatant gank attempt while roaming for free and stupid targets (null ratters) which then went horribly wrong. Why wouldn't people be allowed to defend against multiple HACs, dictor and assorted tackle with ships which are available in-system, especially when the system is a dead-end and allows for effective defense?



Naaaaah. The problem is that it's totally risk free and there is no counter. That's the broken mechanics.
Normally we and others just adopts to different circumstances but in this situation there is nothing to do.

With 37k possible alpha hacs can't survive more than a few seconds. Bringing more than 6 scimis just too survive is not a viable option.

Even with tracking mods fighters can't hit frigates successfully a few AFs can defend a fleet from fighters and 200mil is not a small amount nor is it risk free as for a set of mistaken that can get you over 1200 dps for under 200mil look to polarized weapons.

Off grid assist is not a broken mechanic and it does have counters you just need to be prepared. With that said forcing the carrier to be further off the tower would be a good idea shop it couldn't sit within FF range as well as proximity to stations


200mil is definitely a small amount, certainly to gain 2000 DPS and it is more or less risk free - at least in the circumstances we're talking about here. With a few tracking mods, Einherji's tracking is 0.0016575 compared to 0.0001985 for a Null Talos - they sure as hell can hit Frigates.

EDIT: A Thorax with Electron Blasters and CN Antimatter has 0.001976 tracking - so the Einherji are not much worse than that.
Walextheone
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#28 - 2014-12-04 18:45:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Walextheone
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Walextheone wrote:
Ugh
Adrie Atticus wrote:
All I see is you engaging in a blatant gank attempt while roaming for free and stupid targets (null ratters) which then went horribly wrong. Why wouldn't people be allowed to defend against multiple HACs, dictor and assorted tackle with ships which are available in-system, especially when the system is a dead-end and allows for effective defense?



Naaaaah. The problem is that it's totally risk free and there is no counter. That's the broken mechanics.
Normally we and others just adopts to different circumstances but in this situation there is nothing to do.

With 37k possible alpha hacs can't survive more than a few seconds. Bringing more than 6 scimis just too survive is not a viable option.

Even with tracking mods fighters can't hit frigates successfully a few AFs can defend a fleet from fighters and 200mil is not a small amount nor is it risk free as for a set of mistaken that can get you over 1200 dps for under 200mil look to polarized weapons.

Off grid assist is not a broken mechanic and it does have counters you just need to be prepared. With that said forcing the carrier to be further off the tower would be a good idea shop it couldn't sit within FF range as well as proximity to stations



THAT'S BULL! Shocked
The fighters can easily kill interceptors / frigates. We see it on killboard from all roaming gangs, every day. 3 drone navs and they go 4800m/s.

They just follow a ship with full speed and it will shoot in a straight line. They don't even need to track
Alundil
Rolled Out
#29 - 2014-12-04 18:49:35 UTC
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Walextheone wrote:
Ugh
Adrie Atticus wrote:
All I see is you engaging in a blatant gank attempt while roaming for free and stupid targets (null ratters) which then went horribly wrong. Why wouldn't people be allowed to defend against multiple HACs, dictor and assorted tackle with ships which are available in-system, especially when the system is a dead-end and allows for effective defense?



Naaaaah. The problem is that it's totally risk free and there is no counter. That's the broken mechanics.
Normally we and others just adopts to different circumstances but in this situation there is nothing to do.

With 37k possible alpha hacs can't survive more than a few seconds. Bringing more than 6 scimis just too survive is not a viable option.

Even with tracking mods fighters can't hit frigates successfully a few AFs can defend a fleet from fighters and 200mil is not a small amount nor is it risk free as for a set of mistaken that can get you over 1200 dps for under 200mil look to polarized weapons.

Off grid assist is not a broken mechanic and it does have counters you just need to be prepared. With that said forcing the carrier to be further off the tower would be a good idea shop it couldn't sit within FF range as well as proximity to stations


200mil is definitely a small amount, certainly to gain 2000 DPS and it is more or less risk free - at least in the circumstances we're talking about here. With a few tracking mods, Einherji's tracking is 0.0016575 compared to 0.0001985 for a Null Talos - they sure as hell can hit Frigates.

EDIT: A Thorax with Electron Blasters and CN Antimatter has 0.001976 tracking - so the Einherji are not much worse than that.

Can confirm. Fighters have little problem applying damage to frigates. And they are fast enough to catch or pace anything but the fastest of frigate/destroyer hulls..

I'm right behind you
Tappits
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
#30 - 2014-12-04 18:53:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Tappits
+1

Its quite a broken mechanic and should be removed.
Could prob remove all Drone assist from the game.
Walextheone
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2014-12-04 18:53:57 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

1.) Your method to assign fighters requires a lot of work to setup right. The tower needs to be ONLINE, but with a password no longer entered into the tower. Once the PWD is entered, you have to unanchor the tower, haul it to a station, repackage it, then bring it out and anchor again. For a medium tower, this is going to be 30 minutes to unanchor, time to go get a new tower, 15 minutes to anchor a new one, 15 minutes to online. Essentially, every time you get that super to turn on the forcefield, you cost them an hour+ to reset their setup.

2.) The method to "online a tower's shields" for defense has a MAJOR flaw. If anyone puts a ship between the capital and the tower, the capital is in for one nasty motherfucking bump if they online that tower.

3.) Many pilots simply put a carrier at the edge of the POS shields and launch fighters from that "protected" location. This regularly results in the death of those carriers!

4.) Other thoughts:
Fighters are slow, and can be kited in a fast cruiser hull.
Fighters can be destroyed, and are worth almost as much as an AF.
You can destroy the AF or whatever ship that has the fighters assigned to them, and then the fighters will stop attacking you.
A single subcap can only control five fighters, which limits how much dps they really assign to you.

Here's the TL;DR;
--- A carrier assigning fighters is not in a risk free situation. Even the method you proposed takes time to setup and can be FUBAR'd by an opponent that knows what they are doing. Furthermore, the benefit assigned fighters provide is properly limited by the number of drones a ship may control, by the drone AI, and by the capabilities of your combat ship/pilot.



1. We see it all over nullsec at bigger ratting systems and through alert channels carrier / super carrier pilots can easily set it up in time. With or without FF.

4. No no no. Everyone uses Drone navs theese days so fighters go about 4800m/s.
Ugly Eric
Fistful of Finns
#32 - 2014-12-04 20:43:45 UTC
The problem in my eyes is, that is killing the really small gang pvp alltogether. As a solo vagabond cant escape fighters assigned from a nyx in a correct fit, with a inty holding point on you is broken.

I DO think, that assigning should NOT be taken away. It's a unique feature that can give you some extra something in certain scenarios. However, that should not be allowed within x kilometers from pos shields, stargate or a station.

IF we introduce the limit to for example 50km, the assigning must be done in a safespot while aligned. You still are very safe, but not invulnerable. Smuggling a cloaky dictor to the safepos would solve the problem.

However even that safespot mechanic would not do **** to real small gang pvp.

How about this:

you can fit a midslot "siege" module to a carrier. You then have the same disadvantages you have on triage/siege, but no other bonuses, than give 200% bonus to drone DPS or something like that. In those situations the (super)carrier would be really voulnerable. Would also quicken the big 0.0 blobfights, as supers would do double dps, if you are willing to risk to stay at the "siege" for that 5 minutes.

I dont know wether this would brake the carriers in other scenarios completely, but I think it would be fair fix for this certain problem.
Lady Rift
His Majesty's Privateers
#33 - 2014-12-04 21:33:36 UTC
Gizznitt Malikite wrote:

1.) Your method to assign fighters requires a lot of work to setup right. The tower needs to be ONLINE, but with a password no longer entered into the tower. Once the PWD is entered, you have to unanchor the tower, haul it to a station, repackage it, then bring it out and anchor again. For a medium tower, this is going to be 30 minutes to unanchor, time to go get a new tower, 15 minutes to anchor a new one, 15 minutes to online. Essentially, every time you get that super to turn on the forcefield, you cost them an hour+ to reset their setup.

2.) The method to "online a tower's shields" for defense has a MAJOR flaw. If anyone puts a ship between the capital and the tower, the capital is in for one nasty motherfucking bump if they online that tower.

3.) Many pilots simply put a carrier at the edge of the POS shields and launch fighters from that "protected" location. This regularly results in the death of those carriers!

4.) Other thoughts:
Fighters are slow, and can be kited in a fast cruiser hull.
Fighters can be destroyed, and are worth almost as much as an AF.
You can destroy the AF or whatever ship that has the fighters assigned to them, and then the fighters will stop attacking you.
A single subcap can only control five fighters, which limits how much dps they really assign to you.

Here's the TL;DR;
--- A carrier assigning fighters is not in a risk free situation. Even the method you proposed takes time to setup and can be FUBAR'd by an opponent that knows what they are doing. Furthermore, the benefit assigned fighters provide is properly limited by the number of drones a ship may control, by the drone AI, and by the capabilities of your combat ship/pilot.




please contract me the cruiser hull that can pull 5.1km/sec and still be useful for other things. the 1200 dps is for 5 fighters.
James Arget
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
#34 - 2014-12-04 23:17:00 UTC
It's a solid complaint. Fighters were buffed, fighter affecting mods were buffed, fighter mechanics were not changed. I have no issue with fighting against fighters. I have no issue fighting against a carrier. I do have an issue where I have to defang a POS in order to kill that carrier. A single warp disruption battery has more EHP than the carrier it's shielding. With link ships it's an option to make bombing runs or boomerang ABC hits against them, not quite the case with carriers.

I won't hurf that it's "grrr zero risk", but it does provide a way to massively affect the battlefield with a minimum of effort. Some things have changed, and other things need to change to match.

CSM 8 Representative

http://csm8.org
Lucian Thorundan
House Of Serenity.
#35 - 2014-12-05 01:02:08 UTC
So far i have seen two ideas i really like

1. Making the force field eject anything when first coming up as it cant distinguish between friend or foe. I think this would go a long way to preventing this particular trick and is not "game breaking" in any other way

2. Making fighters only able to aggress things that are on grid with the carrier. I'm happy for them to continue to chase something into warp, but you should have to be on grid to get them to start in the first place.

I'm ok with drone assist, but i dont think you should be able to assign a capital weapons platform to an interceptor. Maybe give all ships an "assist" bandwidth and limit it that way?

I agree the fighter assigning is completely broken, it is completely feasible (and i have had it done to me personally) to simply drop a few capitals on a gang coming in, if you choose to do that and smash that small gang thats fine, you commit your expensive ship to that and should be entitled to a power advantage, but its a risk that you take by doing so.

Being able to do the equiv. action from off grid is just crazy.
Mr Floydy
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#36 - 2014-12-05 09:03:36 UTC
As others have said, being able to project damage like this with no feasible way for a small gang to counter is really spoiling NS roaming for smaller gangs. The dps figures Nors has given in the OP are just from a single capital, there is no reason there couldn't be a few of them within the same POS...

Now I appreciate the counter that the defenders should have the upper hand over a roaming gang that hasn't prepared but I think this is taking it a little too far. Stopping this tactic being usable within an offlined pos shield radius would clear this issue without really having any other side effects that I see.
Kesthely
State War Academy
Caldari State
#37 - 2014-12-05 09:22:42 UTC
Problem with what you are all forgetting is that it only takes one cloaky to have a good warpin and bump off the poss, or stay between the super and the pos and keep him tackled, even a starburst then doesn't free you. There is little risk if you do it for a limited time and not verry often, but if you do this alot, people will notice, and will setup traps for you. And even a small group can kill a single (super)carrier if it finds this tactic used often.

Secondly besides the still available risk, your also completly ignoreing the time and effort it takes to actually get these ships, all for a primarily defensive tactic. Removeing this tactic will ONLY benefit offensive fleets and will reduce the chance of a smaller group to protect against a bigger group.

If your so blindly running in the same tactic of theirs more then once, you deserve to lose your fleet anyways. Use scouts or baits and perhaps a interceptor with a cyno to drop ontop of the (super)carrier. Theres enough possible ways to make it a verry bad day for the player(s) who use these tactics if you know they use them. Use them instead of shooting OP to a mechanic you clearly only see in a one sided way
Necharo Rackham
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#38 - 2014-12-05 09:43:13 UTC
James Arget wrote:
It's a solid complaint. Fighters were buffed, fighter affecting mods were buffed, fighter mechanics were not changed. I have no issue with fighting against fighters.


An alternative solution would be to buff Fighters/Fighter Bombers somewhat, and then stop the drone modules from affecting them.
Sarah Nahrnid
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#39 - 2014-12-05 10:07:18 UTC
You're all cry babies, seriously HTFU!

You want to deal with fighter assign? Kill the carrier. It aint hard.

If I were to assign fighters from my Archon from a pos shield, it takes me 90s to do a 180 degree turn, then I have to motor back in (pro tip, webs and scrams makes this markedly harder for the carrier) and no, you don't need caps to kill caps either.
CCP made sure scrubcaps can kill capitals.
Secondly, if you fit it (Archon) for Max DDAs and Drone Nav comps/Omnis, it suddenly has zero tank (well negligible at best).

All I see here are people trying to gain easy kills, failing because people out smarted them and decided to whine on forums rather then find a decent way to fight.

Fun fact: Last time I heard of a Super assigning fighters, NC cyno'd in and volleyed it with Doomsdays.
IIFraII
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#40 - 2014-12-05 10:37:17 UTC
Sarah Nahrnid wrote:
You're all cry babies, seriously HTFU!

You want to deal with fighter assign? Kill the carrier. It aint hard.

If I were to assign fighters from my Archon from a pos shield, it takes me 90s to do a 180 degree turn, then I have to motor back in (pro tip, webs and scrams makes this markedly harder for the carrier) and no, you don't need caps to kill caps either.
CCP made sure scrubcaps can kill capitals.
Secondly, if you fit it (Archon) for Max DDAs and Drone Nav comps/Omnis, it suddenly has zero tank (well negligible at best).

All I see here are people trying to gain easy kills, failing because people out smarted them and decided to whine on forums rather then find a decent way to fight.

Fun fact: Last time I heard of a Super assigning fighters, NC cyno'd in and volleyed it with Doomsdays.



So to counter an assigning carrier i need a fleet capable of killing it in 90 secs
To counter a super enough Titans to volley it with doomsdays.

You then agree with the OP when he says this tactic nukes SMALL GANG pvp.
Good good Big smile