These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Proteus] Reduction in Fighter and Fighter Bomber scan resolution

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Mario Putzo
#21 - 2015-01-05 19:40:28 UTC
I don't get the significance of this change. Fighters and Fighter Bombers aren't really an issue in Cap v Subcap fights.

"These aren't the drones you are looking for"...somebody, probably.

Nerf sentries my good man, we all know they are out of balance, and we all know why there has been mostly drone boat meta since you tweaked Drones as a dedicated weapons platform over a year ago.

Its not bombers, its not fighter bombers, its not the Domi, it wasn't the Gila, it isn't the Prophecy, its not the Ishtar...

Its Sentry Drones. Quit kicking the can when anyone with a set of functioning eyeballs can see that Sentry Drones are not in line with other weapons, or other drones....god damn.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#22 - 2015-01-05 20:00:49 UTC
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:
This will sharply impact fighter use for null PVE, and not just assigned fighters. If this causes those carriers isk/hour (and isk/site) rates to drop too much (omg fighters already have delays killing npc frigs, this lowering of their lock speed will make that worse) people will move away from carrier and super carrier ratting and back to sub caps. Sub caps escape traps even better than carriers do (sure a carrier can rat aligned but sometimes a misclick will screw than and let the carrier get caught before it can warp).

While this might have a momentary good affect on the economy (less liquid isk poured into the economy from ratting carriers and supers) it also has the knock on effect of fewer carrier and super carrier pvp targets. Some of the best carrier/S.cap kills comes when a ratter is caught.

We'll just have to wait and see i guess.


Consider fitting target painters to your carrier/super if you're concerned about lock time.


More than the 3 I already have? Cool

Not a big deal for me (not nearly the end of the world), for ratting I'll just put the carrier guy in a FoF missile ship or a sub cap drone ship and keep on truckin. I'm more talking about the knock-on effects of a scan res nerf aimed at one thing (an abuse even CCP says isn't happening much) that ends up affecting a dozen other things unintentionally. Even then i don't know that it will be that bad, just puttin it out there.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#23 - 2015-01-05 20:03:24 UTC
Tikktokk Tokkzikk wrote:
Fighter assist is a problem right now because the meta hasn't adjusted to it yet. I myself just got a 100mn MWD Stratios which I'll use to bump carriers and possibly supers off POSes. The only nerf fighter assist should get is to make them scramable.


I wouldn't get rid fo fighter assist either, but like you say , i'd like to see a way to 'jam' them aka cut them off from their source carrier. The risk of assigning fighters would be losing connection with them.

Basically, all Carrier and Super Carrier pilots should be forced to sign up with Time Warner Cable, that is SURE to make them lose connection, it does for me. Twisted
Bienator II
madmen of the skies
#24 - 2015-01-05 20:06:18 UTC
sounds reasonable. any changes planed to address skynet carriers?

how to fix eve: 1) remove ECM 2) rename dampeners to ECM 3) add new anti-drone ewar for caldari 4) give offgrid boosters ongrid combat value
Sugar Kyle
Middle Ground
#25 - 2015-01-05 20:09:07 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
sounds reasonable. any changes planed to address skynet carriers?



To quote Fozzie:

Quote:
I know that some people who are hoping for a major nerf to assigned fighters will be unhappy that this change will only have a small-moderate effect on that activity. We have been keeping a close eye on the way fighters are used ever since our recent rounds of drone rebalancing and we aren't ruling out any potential future changes at this time. However we are not going to rush into any larger changes to fighter mechanics.


It is a topic that I have and several other members of the CSM have brought up with CCP as a problem. No solutions for you yet, sad to say.

Member of CSM9 and CSM10.
Daide Vondrichnov
French Drop-O-Panache
Snuffed Out
#26 - 2015-01-05 20:18:17 UTC
Bienator II wrote:
sounds reasonable. any changes planed to address skynet carriers?


Many things have shown that this thing needed to be fix, wait n' see !
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#27 - 2015-01-05 20:49:28 UTC
remove warping from fighters/bombers

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Penna Bianca
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#28 - 2015-01-05 20:59:20 UTC
@CCP Fozzie You are trying to balance something but your balancing always results into making the subject in question useless. You should balance things to were they are still viable not into uselessnes so that 2 years from now you don't have to come back and revisit the subject.

I look forward to your Ishtar & Tengus balancing as well as not seeing any Ishtars and Tengus on field for the next say year or two ? You have taken after whoever nerfed the Drake : )) into a useless hull.
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#29 - 2015-01-05 21:05:53 UTC
I still believe that assigned fighters "Work As Intended (tm)"
This is such a small and isolated issue that maybe there are other things that need to be addressed first?
Like Ishtars Online.
There's a higher chance that you will run into an ishtar fleet in nullsec than a tengu with assigned fighters. Ishtars and Rail-gus are a bigger problem. I fly them sure, but I don't like it.
Fix the stuff that actually means something to a wider section of the consumer base. This is minor stuff really when it comes down to it. And really, leave capital ships alone for 5 freaking minutes willya???

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Penna Bianca
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#30 - 2015-01-05 21:06:17 UTC
Sugar Kyle wrote:
Bienator II wrote:
sounds reasonable. any changes planed to address skynet carriers?



To quote Fozzie:

Quote:
I know that some people who are hoping for a major nerf to assigned fighters will be unhappy that this change will only have a small-moderate effect on that activity. We have been keeping a close eye on the way fighters are used ever since our recent rounds of drone rebalancing and we aren't ruling out any potential future changes at this time. However we are not going to rush into any larger changes to fighter mechanics.


It is a topic that I have and several other members of the CSM have brought up with CCP as a problem. No solutions for you yet, sad to say.


How about you suggest that they simply remove effects of drone modules from assigned Fighters ? So assigned fighters only get host ships hull bonus and not bonus from DDA, Omnilinks, Tracking Enhancer.. Fighters with base stats are pretty weak, I mean this whole subject is pretty stupid since fighters are pretty weak already combined with this nerf it should be more than enough.
Metal Icarus
Star Frontiers
Brotherhood of Spacers
#31 - 2015-01-05 21:11:26 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
remove warping from fighters/bombers


Or make them tackle-able. If they got a warp drive a scrambler should stop them. Enough of this ewar immune drone nonsence.

Fighter bombers are expensive. It warps to you after being targeted by an enemy frig, you warp off to a safe and the fighters land right on you. (No other weapons platform has this ability) If you scram it, web it, and start killing it only to see it warp off the second it hits structure even you had it tackled hard.....

Seems like a one way battle if you ask me... If you are going to let it ******* warp, it has to be able to get tackled otherwise it is a 0 risk weapon system. Same goes with ALL drones.

EWAR (all kinds) should affect drones.

#yesALLdrones
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#32 - 2015-01-05 21:21:42 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


The new numbers are:
Type - Old Scan Res – New Scan Res
Dragonfly - 200 - 100
Einherji - 350 - 175
Firbolg - 250 - 125
Templar - 300 - 150
Cyclops – 250 - 27
Malleus - 300 - 29
Mantis - 200 - 25
Shadow – 225 - 30
Tyrfing - 350 - 31



Well it's nice to see you haven't completely destroyed the Shadow What?

I'm just trying to understand the numbers on bombers. They seem pretty arbitrary to me. Let's watch the market numbers fall for the Mantis. As. We. Speak.

First, a question. Why do the drones even have their own scan res to begin with? If they are an extension of the ship, shouldn't they have a scan res equal to that of the ship that launched them?


My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Guntact
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#33 - 2015-01-05 21:22:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Guntact
Thanks for reminding me which CSM I should not support!

Assisted fighters are and should be a viable game mechanic. Being able to tackle Fighters is a good point someone else made.

Why are you even messing with Bombers?
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#34 - 2015-01-05 21:28:34 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
I don't get the significance of this change. Fighters and Fighter Bombers aren't really an issue in Cap v Subcap fights.

"These aren't the drones you are looking for"...somebody, probably.

Nerf sentries my good man, we all know they are out of balance, and we all know why there has been mostly drone boat meta since you tweaked Drones as a dedicated weapons platform over a year ago.

Its not bombers, its not fighter bombers, its not the Domi, it wasn't the Gila, it isn't the Prophecy, its not the Ishtar...

Its Sentry Drones. Quit kicking the can when anyone with a set of functioning eyeballs can see that Sentry Drones are not in line with other weapons, or other drones....god damn.


That was partially addressed when they reduced the drone bunny effect. Which really, didn't do very much at all. As a matter of fact I see more drone battles than ever. Just Ishtars though, not slowcats.

So you have a major point. It's the damned sentries that are the common factor.

Leave me fighters alone damnyeh

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#35 - 2015-01-05 21:41:47 UTC
Dunno, but if this is a change that is going to drive carrier pilots back to farming guristas in subcaps...well I guess that means there will be more AFKtars to kill. No complaints here.
codras
420 Waifu Tech Support Anime Lover Blaze It Fab
#36 - 2015-01-05 21:43:26 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Hey everyone. Hope you've all had a great holiday season. Most of us are back at the office now, and we're putting the final preparations in place for the Proteus release next week.

One of the tweaks we are making in Proteus is to the scan resolution of Fighters and Fighter Bombers, both of which are being reduced quite significantly.

The primary goal of this change is to ensure that rapidly scooping and relaunching fighters and fighter bombers never gives a dps advantage. This practice has not been widespread thus far, but any possible advantage gained this way would both provide imbalanced DPS and cause significant server load so we want to nip it in the bud.

The changes will also have the effect of delaying the initial alpha strike of fighters and fighter bombers, especially against subcaps. Although it is not the primary purpose of the change we are not displeased by this effect, and we do not believe that it will make fighters or fighter bombers underpowered.

I know that some people who are hoping for a major nerf to assigned fighters will be unhappy that this change will only have a small-moderate effect on that activity. We have been keeping a close eye on the way fighters are used ever since our recent rounds of drone rebalancing and we aren't ruling out any potential future changes at this time. However we are not going to rush into any larger changes to fighter mechanics.

The new numbers are:
Type - Old Scan Res – New Scan Res
Dragonfly - 200 - 100
Einherji - 350 - 175
Firbolg - 250 - 125
Templar - 300 - 150
Cyclops – 250 - 27
Malleus - 300 - 29
Mantis - 200 - 25
Shadow – 225 - 30
Tyrfing - 350 - 31

Thanks everyone, and happy New Year!


Surely a "session change" timer for fighters is a better way of addressing a "scooping-to-reset-guncycle-state". At those rates, bombers will have their very purpose of shooting capital ships will be affected somewhat harshly (~15 seconds to begin shooting a carrier). Normal fighter scan res nerf, fine I guess. But in all honesty, Tengus and Ishtars need the attention a lot more.
Daide Vondrichnov
French Drop-O-Panache
Snuffed Out
#37 - 2015-01-05 21:56:50 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
SFM Hobb3s wrote:
Dunno, but if this is a change that is going to drive carrier pilots back to farming guristas in subcaps...well I guess that means there will be more AFKtars to kill. No complaints here.


Rofl, it's always funny to get tackle some carriers, random people often try to defend it, and better they can warp moaaaar carriers.

codras wrote:

Surely a "session change" timer for fighters is a better way of addressing a "scooping-to-reset-guncycle-state". At those rates, bombers will have their very purpose of shooting capital ships will be affected somewhat harshly (~15 seconds to begin shooting a carrier). Normal fighter scan res nerf, fine I guess. But in all honesty, Tengus and Ishtars need the attention a lot more.


T3 rebalance is going on, they did talk about it earlier.

When they are fixing things it doesnt mean that they are not working on something else :p.



Fixed quoting. ISD Ezwal.
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#38 - 2015-01-05 22:04:08 UTC
+1 for drone session change timers.
SFM Hobb3s
Perkone
Caldari State
#39 - 2015-01-05 22:10:12 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
^^ two posts up I got quoted for someone else post rofl. *)
But yeah, tackling carriers in an anom is pretty fun even if your gang is only inties. Sometimes its just fun to kill the rescue party.


As for the people posting about where CCP's priorities are...I would have to agree. T3's, sentries, and SOV should be the TOP three priorities. Everything, EVERYTHING else should be coming AFTER.


*) I have fixed that. ISD Ezwal.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#40 - 2015-01-05 22:13:05 UTC
Brace yourselves, NC DOT superwaggon arriving.