These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
EvilweaselFinance
GoonCorp
Goonswarm Federation
#321 - 2015-01-07 01:01:13 UTC
Sootsia wrote:

I respectfully disagree... unless the target, AND the fighters/fighter bombers AND the ship that deployed them are at such a range in which that becomes true (Range = less than 4000 meters of the drone in question). the only drone to which all this hullabaloo is more apt to be true of, is not fighters, not Fighter bombers, not heavy drones, not medium drone, nor light drones, but virtually solely the Provence of sentries. This war-cry against fighters, and fighter bombers, is very similar to the propaganda used by J
Joseph Goebbels

"It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”
― Joseph Goebbels

i don't think i can express just how hilarious it is that you're so angry about an exploit being patched that you actually went there
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#322 - 2015-01-07 01:25:52 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The primary goal of this change is to ensure that rapidly scooping and relaunching fighters and fighter bombers never gives a dps advantage.

So instead of, you know, preventing the rapid scooping and relaunching of fighters and fighter bombers by either adding a cooldown to such actions or by tracking drones' cycle time while in the drone bay, you change the scan resolution?

I can only see three possibilities here. Laziness, incompetence, or deception.

Waiter there's a fly in my soup.

"Don't worry, I'll handle this"

*swings sledgehammer*
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#323 - 2015-01-07 02:27:52 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The primary goal of this change is to ensure that rapidly scooping and relaunching fighters and fighter bombers never gives a dps advantage.

So instead of, you know, preventing the rapid scooping and relaunching of fighters and fighter bombers by either adding a cooldown to such actions or by tracking drones' cycle time while in the drone bay, you change the scan resolution?

I can only see three possibilities here. Laziness, incompetence, or deception.

Waiter there's a fly in my soup.

"Don't worry, I'll handle this"

*swings sledgehammer*


Exactly.

Been around since the beginning.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#324 - 2015-01-07 03:18:29 UTC
Rowells wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The primary goal of this change is to ensure that rapidly scooping and relaunching fighters and fighter bombers never gives a dps advantage.

So instead of, you know, preventing the rapid scooping and relaunching of fighters and fighter bombers by either adding a cooldown to such actions or by tracking drones' cycle time while in the drone bay, you change the scan resolution?

I can only see three possibilities here. Laziness, incompetence, or deception.

Waiter there's a fly in my soup.

"Don't worry, I'll handle this"

*swings sledgehammer*

confirming that having to wait a few extra seconds before damage is applied is both literally worthy of a national socialist party comparison and considered a sledgehammer
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#325 - 2015-01-07 03:36:14 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Rowells wrote:
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
The primary goal of this change is to ensure that rapidly scooping and relaunching fighters and fighter bombers never gives a dps advantage.

So instead of, you know, preventing the rapid scooping and relaunching of fighters and fighter bombers by either adding a cooldown to such actions or by tracking drones' cycle time while in the drone bay, you change the scan resolution?

I can only see three possibilities here. Laziness, incompetence, or deception.

Waiter there's a fly in my soup.

"Don't worry, I'll handle this"

*swings sledgehammer*

confirming that having to wait a few extra seconds before damage is applied is both literally worthy of a national socialist party comparison and considered a sledgehammer

I'm responding to the counter-proposal.
GeeBee
Backwater Redux
Tactical Narcotics Team
#326 - 2015-01-07 03:45:27 UTC
I'm kinda neutral on these proposed changes. Basically it means if you're going to use fighters on cruisers you need target paint support to switch targets faster.

But on the topic of adjusting fighters the activation proximity stat is a default set @ 4000m on all fighters, but the base ranges on pretty much all the fighters exceeds this, and then is pushed out even more by skills and modules.

Einherji Optimal 1000m Falloff 5000m
Firbolg Optimal 1500m Falloff 3500m
Templar Optimal 4500m Falloff 2500m
Dragonfly Optimal 5000m Falloff 3500m

The Activation proxmity of 4000m the Einherji and Firbolg's is probably about right, but i believe with skills and modules the minimum templars and dragonflys should be 5000-6000 given their longer base range and high potential for modifying this with omni's If it were possible for the omni's to provide a stat change to the activation proximity to compensate that would also be wonderful.

The bonuses for range / tracking that were added this spring are majorly wasted by the activation prox / orbit ranges that are hard coded onto the fighters. Ideally the activation proximity and orbit ranges would adjust depending on the stats of the fighter / drone, but I believe this is impossible due to the aged state of the drone coding. Alternatively to the fighters / drones automatically doing this it could be added for the players to dial in orbit and activation ranges, but again same problem as the prior.

I am worried that the activation proximity stat also sets the base orbit range for the fighters and that any major changes to the engagement ranges of fighters will massively change the meta the of just smartbombing them off.

The activation proximity stat being a hard limiting factor to drones is not only limited to fighters, this is common in pretty much anything that is not a sentry drone.

Anyway this is my rant over, hopefully there is a future plan on new drone code being developed to remove the limitations we have currently.
Angelique Duchemin
Team Evil
#327 - 2015-01-07 04:40:13 UTC
Sootsia wrote:
Angelique Duchemin wrote:
Panther X wrote:
If they are an extension of the ship, shouldn't they have a scan res equal to that of the ship that launched them?


Maybe?

Before this change a Bomber had a scan res 5 times higher than the ship that launched them. After this change they will have about half the scan res of the ship that launched them.


Kuosu wrote:
Please explain how exactly this addresses stated exploit...


In the old system the fighter-bombers had the lock time of a cruiser. This meant that you could scoop and launch them and they would instantly lock their target and begin applying DPS.

With these changes the bombers will have to lock the target again every time you launch them and the time lost on applying a new lock will nullify the benefit of scooping and re-launching them.


It will also add a delay between switching targets since the bomber now need around 14 seconds to lock a battleship and even as much as 30 seconds to lock smaller Cruisers.

So if a Super has say.... 2 hictors locked then switching from one to the other will have a bomber lock time of about 15 seconds even if the super itself already has both of them locked. This will also make the hictors see the drones yellow boxing them far in advance of the actual damage. Giving the Hictor team time to switch points and alert logi support.


Edit: something, something, death to supers.


I respectfully disagree... unless the target, AND the fighters/fighter bombers AND the ship that deployed them are at such a range in which that becomes true (Range = less than 4000 meters of the drone in question). the only drone to which all this hullabaloo is more apt to be true of, is not fighters, not Fighter bombers, not heavy drones, not medium drone, nor light drones, but virtually solely the Provence of sentries. This war-cry against fighters, and fighter bombers, is very similar to the propaganda used by J
Joseph Goebbels

"It would not be impossible to prove with sufficient repetition and a psychological understanding of the people concerned that a square is in fact a circle. They are mere words, and words can be molded until they clothe ideas and disguise.”
― Joseph Goebbels


Godwin so soon? I am surprised.

The very sun of heaven seemed distorted when viewed through the polarising miasma welling out from this sea-soaked perversion, and twisted menace and suspense lurked leeringly in those crazily elusive angles of carven rock where a second glance shewed concavity after the first shewed convexity.

Haidere
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#328 - 2015-01-07 06:21:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Haidere
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Thats cute, but its not my problem if CCPs spaghetti code makes it hard for them to implement a new timer, that is CCP's problem and I can still expect them to actually fix what they claim they want to fix. Perhaps if they didn't spend the last 5 years kicking cans down the road they would have been able to streamline their code a bit more so they could overhaul aspects of the game they believe necessary to change. Keep in mind that this change is not only about DPS, but also avoiding server load. That server load is just as easily spiked with subcap drone usage as it it is with Capital drone usage. HED-GP?

I too would enjoy living in this fantasy world where "bad code" is the only thing preventing computers from doing everything you want them to.


Making Abandon/Scoop/Recall to Drone bay trigger a timer is perfectly possible within the game. We see this already occurring in a broad spectrum of commands in game already (reload weapons for example). In fact we just saw them implement a new timer tied to Jump to Beacon commands, that didn't exist before. So the computer can be told to function to have a command also begin a timer.

We also know that timers can be made to prevent someone from issuing commands again across a wide array of things. Which means locking drone commands based on a timer, is also a possible process in the game.

If for any reason this can not be implemented due to code structure, than it is an issue with the code, not the process capability of the game. So yes, if it can not be implemented, it is because of bad code, period.

It's not about code structure, it's about computing resources.
Keeping track of these timers would increase server load, which goes against part of CCP's intent for this change.



Now I admit I have not read the coding as far as drones are concerned, but you do bring up a valid point on reducing server load. I would like to take this a step further, CCP wants to reduce server load, is there a noticeable difference in server load when legions of drones are cycling normally and when a legion of drones are scooped? Now please, I am being sincere here. does the server not have a drastic change in load when those cycle times are reset? Would the load, in effect, not be the exact same if CCP made the cycle continue when your drones are in your drone bay?

Perhaps change how the cycle works, so that the server recognizes you have X drones deployed and to calculate damage of that pilot every 4 seconds as long as those same drones are engaged, and if different drones are launched, calculate damage at the end of the cycle for the new group. Hell, just calculate damage at the end of a cycle regardless. Now, unless I am completely mistaken on how the servers calculate damage, it would have to make the same calculations as with grouped guns.

That is merely how I see a possible solution to the issue, shouldn't reduce dps/lock time, would reduce server load, and minimize the ways one could exploit drone damage.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#329 - 2015-01-07 07:25:02 UTC
GeeBee wrote:
I'm kinda neutral on these proposed changes. Basically it means if you're going to use fighters on cruisers you need target paint support to switch targets faster.

But on the topic of adjusting fighters the activation proximity stat is a default set @ 4000m on all fighters, but the base ranges on pretty much all the fighters exceeds this, and then is pushed out even more by skills and modules.

Einherji Optimal 1000m Falloff 5000m
Firbolg Optimal 1500m Falloff 3500m
Templar Optimal 4500m Falloff 2500m
Dragonfly Optimal 5000m Falloff 3500m

The Activation proxmity of 4000m the Einherji and Firbolg's is probably about right, but i believe with skills and modules the minimum templars and dragonflys should be 5000-6000 given their longer base range and high potential for modifying this with omni's If it were possible for the omni's to provide a stat change to the activation proximity to compensate that would also be wonderful.

The bonuses for range / tracking that were added this spring are majorly wasted by the activation prox / orbit ranges that are hard coded onto the fighters. Ideally the activation proximity and orbit ranges would adjust depending on the stats of the fighter / drone, but I believe this is impossible due to the aged state of the drone coding. Alternatively to the fighters / drones automatically doing this it could be added for the players to dial in orbit and activation ranges, but again same problem as the prior.

I am worried that the activation proximity stat also sets the base orbit range for the fighters and that any major changes to the engagement ranges of fighters will massively change the meta the of just smartbombing them off.

The activation proximity stat being a hard limiting factor to drones is not only limited to fighters, this is common in pretty much anything that is not a sentry drone.

Anyway this is my rant over, hopefully there is a future plan on new drone code being developed to remove the limitations we have currently.


putting this up again in hopes a dev will see it

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Mihnea Tepes
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#330 - 2015-01-07 07:37:57 UTC
so first step was nerfing jump range ... now you announced even nerfing fighters

considering how long it takes to train a carrier properly it is a bullshit
Mario Putzo
#331 - 2015-01-07 08:09:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Haidere wrote:

Now I admit I have not read the coding as far as drones are concerned, but you do bring up a valid point on reducing server load. I would like to take this a step further, CCP wants to reduce server load, is there a noticeable difference in server load when legions of drones are cycling normally and when a legion of drones are scooped? Now please, I am being sincere here. does the server not have a drastic change in load when those cycle times are reset? Would the load, in effect, not be the exact same if CCP made the cycle continue when your drones are in your drone bay?


You apply the timer to the player not the drones. Stop Access to the drone Hangar, stop access to Launch command or whatever.

Drones on grid already put more strain on the servers than players (CCP last year after HED) as they are counted as individual objects. Extending objects to the hangar only increases the overall peak load. Currently when you recall a drone it will produce less load than one with timer on it in any capacity.

Which is why you don't go on the drone level and go on the player level. It doesn't change drone behavior at all, and only limits what the player has access to. In this case launching drones. If you initiate the relaunch timer, essentially it is like reloading weapons, you no longer can control that module, in any capacity.

In this case the module is the drone bay, and the ammo is drones.

Remember CCP a year ago cited the same reasoning for the drone bunny nerf. In that thread numerous time it was stated that the size of ship launching drones was irrelevant. Mostly by me. We are now here a year later with the same problem Drones.

Maybe its time CCP actually defined what they see in drones as a weapon system. As it stands you have several ships capable of
Different damage types
Numerous Ranges
Effective against all ship sizes
Ewar options
No Reloading

Its been a over a year and drones are still an issue. It started even before the Halloween War, before the Fountain War. CCP has honestly spent like 2 years balancing drones, and still refuses to just write the code so they can actually fix the problem.

It baffles me how some can sit here and accept yet another CCP can kick.
Another can maybe, but the same road.
Terraniel Aurelius
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#332 - 2015-01-07 08:56:53 UTC
Isn't this a little ridiculous in view of the fact that fighters and fighter-bombers need to move to the target to shoot it in the first place? If the drones have a ROF of 10 seconds, then you essentially have to launch them, get them to engage, wait for them to get to the target, wait for them to alpha strike on target, then recall drones, wait for them to come back, wait for them to all dock back up and then rinse, repeat, all in under 10 seconds in order to gain an actual dps advantage. And with server communication ticks the way they are, you're probably only looking at 6 useful seconds for the fighters to get to target and back in order to make it work.

Is this someone's idea of a joke? Who actually complains about these things? Why don't you spend some time actually fixing fighters and fighter bombers so they don't sit in space like a bunch of slack jawed morons while you are getting shot at, even though they are set to "aggressive"? How about that? It's not like you can't shoot the darned things down or anything.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#333 - 2015-01-07 09:44:48 UTC
Flagging players causes mahem for all drone users.

I'm in a FW tristan, I'm getting my drones shot - I pull them and I'm defanged for....how long? Or the enemy is free to wipe my DPS off field.

So you only do it for drone types maybe? How much of a pain in the arse is it going to be to swap from "banned" type to another legit type? So much for the box to track, what type did I p[ull, what type am I wanting to launch, what is the timer at etc.

Or ships only? Do only some ships meet the special snowflake requirement? Not much for consistency there and again a coding PITA.


Point being there are always uninteded and unexpected knock ons with code - hell I spend half my week shooting down "Cant we just...." or "It's only xxxx surely that's not hard?". Often xxx isnt actually hard, it's the collateral damage it causes no-one considers how to clean up.

Is this the most elegant solution? Probably not, but I bet it's the one that's a fraction of the cost/manpower/least likely to accidentally break other things.


Plus as I've said before I'm not coninved a 30 second lag in starting to apply supercap dps is going to break them to the point of uselessness.

So what's the alternative? Let these 0.01% of the population exploit away until however many sprints are done, unit tested, regression tested, performance tested until it's ready then fix all the stuff the testing missed.....? Or spend half an hour updating the values in the DB and accepting that maybe a small lag in a supercap swapping targets actually isn't the end of the world?

Something like devastating their speed, tracking and weapon sig would be a nasty, pointless nerf and I'd understand the tears...but really....a small lag on target acquistion....really? This level of tears? It's quite unbelievable. Well...it's all a bit like this actaully.
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#334 - 2015-01-07 11:12:04 UTC
afkalt wrote:
Flagging players causes mahem for all drone users.

I'm in a FW tristan, I'm getting my drones shot - I pull them and I'm defanged for....how long? Or the enemy is free to wipe my DPS off field.

So you only do it for drone types maybe? How much of a pain in the arse is it going to be to swap from "banned" type to another legit type? So much for the box to track, what type did I p[ull, what type am I wanting to launch, what is the timer at etc.

Or ships only? Do only some ships meet the special snowflake requirement? Not much for consistency there and again a coding PITA.


Point being there are always uninteded and unexpected knock ons with code - hell I spend half my week shooting down "Cant we just...." or "It's only xxxx surely that's not hard?". Often xxx isnt actually hard, it's the collateral damage it causes no-one considers how to clean up.

Is this the most elegant solution? Probably not, but I bet it's the one that's a fraction of the cost/manpower/least likely to accidentally break other things.


Plus as I've said before I'm not coninved a 30 second lag in starting to apply supercap dps is going to break them to the point of uselessness.

So what's the alternative? Let these 0.01% of the population exploit away until however many sprints are done, unit tested, regression tested, performance tested until it's ready then fix all the stuff the testing missed.....? Or spend half an hour updating the values in the DB and accepting that maybe a small lag in a supercap swapping targets actually isn't the end of the world?

Something like devastating their speed, tracking and weapon sig would be a nasty, pointless nerf and I'd understand the tears...but really....a small lag on target acquistion....really? This level of tears? It's quite unbelievable. Well...it's all a bit like this actaully.


Only carriers and supercarriers, not your Tristan mate (unless you have one that can use fighters)

Erm, "small lag", by that mean doubling the old "lag"? I don't think you fully understand what this nerf does. One more time:

Time spent locking is time not doing any damage. For carriers, this nerf adds a maximum 5 seconds of not doing any damage (for close range targets.)

All fighters will do one less volley against a target than before in the same time. In 30 seconds, this means 20% reduction in your damage output. In 60 seconds it's still 10% damage nerf.

Of course the fighter travel time "eats" some of it, but the "breaking point" for this nerf to not have any effect is at approximately 30-40km, depending on fighters and fit.

Considering how unused, ****** and vulnerable carriers are for anything else than massive triage blobs, this blanket nerf to any possible alternative uses of carriers was strictly uncalled for, and it's really time for CCP to actually start coding to fix their game. Implementing a ship-class dependent recall timer on the same target is the proper solution, instead just kicking carriers to the shitter.

Why even train for caps in the current EVE, I have no idea. Just blob with shitships.



Dewa Pedang
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#335 - 2015-01-07 11:12:59 UTC
Oscae wrote:
Damn those bombers are getting hit hard, but if it stops them blapping frigs I'm all for it.

NERF ALL THE CAPS!



You are a mongoloid who doesnt even know how the most basic game mechanic . How many frigs have you lost to FIGHTER BOMBERS ?
I can understand nerfing the scan rez to stop a exploit , but id like to know WHO exactly has ever been affected by this so called exploit EVER ?

Dumping fighter bomber scan rez to 30 seems abit ******** .... a harsh fix to something that aint broken or ever has been . And as some other people have posted instead of looking at the true overpowered ships you are messing with stuff that work perfectly fine .... .

Dont remove drone assist its a nice feture and game mechanic but as some other people have said make it so they cant warp off if they fighters/bombers are takled aka in bubles or distrupted .
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#336 - 2015-01-07 11:20:49 UTC
King Fu Hostile wrote:
afkalt wrote:
Flagging players causes mahem for all drone users.

I'm in a FW tristan, I'm getting my drones shot - I pull them and I'm defanged for....how long? Or the enemy is free to wipe my DPS off field.

So you only do it for drone types maybe? How much of a pain in the arse is it going to be to swap from "banned" type to another legit type? So much for the box to track, what type did I p[ull, what type am I wanting to launch, what is the timer at etc.

Or ships only? Do only some ships meet the special snowflake requirement? Not much for consistency there and again a coding PITA.


Point being there are always uninteded and unexpected knock ons with code - hell I spend half my week shooting down "Cant we just...." or "It's only xxxx surely that's not hard?". Often xxx isnt actually hard, it's the collateral damage it causes no-one considers how to clean up.

Is this the most elegant solution? Probably not, but I bet it's the one that's a fraction of the cost/manpower/least likely to accidentally break other things.


Plus as I've said before I'm not coninved a 30 second lag in starting to apply supercap dps is going to break them to the point of uselessness.

So what's the alternative? Let these 0.01% of the population exploit away until however many sprints are done, unit tested, regression tested, performance tested until it's ready then fix all the stuff the testing missed.....? Or spend half an hour updating the values in the DB and accepting that maybe a small lag in a supercap swapping targets actually isn't the end of the world?

Something like devastating their speed, tracking and weapon sig would be a nasty, pointless nerf and I'd understand the tears...but really....a small lag on target acquistion....really? This level of tears? It's quite unbelievable. Well...it's all a bit like this actaully.


Only carriers and supercarriers, not your Tristan mate (unless you have one that can use fighters)

Erm, "small lag", by that mean doubling the old "lag"? I don't think you fully understand what this nerf does. One more time:

Time spent locking is time not doing any damage. For carriers, this nerf adds a maximum 5 seconds of not doing any damage (for close range targets.)

All fighters will do one less volley against a target than before in the same time. In 30 seconds, this means 20% reduction in your damage output. In 60 seconds it's still 10% damage nerf.

Of course the fighter travel time "eats" some of it, but the "breaking point" for this nerf to not have any effect is at approximately 30-40km, depending on fighters and fit.

Considering how unused, ****** and vulnerable carriers are for anything else than massive triage blobs, this blanket nerf to any possible alternative uses of carriers was strictly uncalled for, and it's really time for CCP to actually start coding to fix their game. Implementing a ship-class dependent recall timer on the same target is the proper solution, instead just kicking carriers to the shitter.

Why even train for caps in the current EVE, I have no idea. Just blob with shitships.






So then you're back to my point of tracking all sorts of weird crap on the server, which might not even be practical.

I always said I dont understand the fighters, but then maybe there's more to the gaming of the system than either of us realise.

Most capital fights I've been in last a hell of a lot longer than 60 seconds and the ones that dont, damned sure that lag won't change jack - especially since everyone hits it.

Again - a perfect fix? Nope, best fix in the triangle of do well, do it quickly and do it cheaply - pick two....and only two? Most probably.
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#337 - 2015-01-07 12:13:00 UTC
afkalt wrote:

So then you're back to my point of tracking all sorts of weird crap on the server, which might not even be practical.

I always said I dont understand the fighters, but then maybe there's more to the gaming of the system than either of us realise.

Most capital fights I've been in last a hell of a lot longer than 60 seconds and the ones that dont, damned sure that lag won't change jack - especially since everyone hits it.

Again - a perfect fix? Nope, best fix in the triangle of do well, do it quickly and do it cheaply - pick two....and only two? Most probably.


But shouldn't we as consumers have the right to a product that actually works?

Our point is that this "fix" isn't necessary. It's the smallest tip of the iceberg, and has nothing to do with the problems in the meta. Drones are broken. Not fighters. Fix drones as a whole. You don't give someone a bandaid for a skinned knee after they've been disemboweled.

No one is crying over this fix. The actual fix, in and about itself is both pointless and meaningless. Fix the rest of the issue. There are so many other problems to be addressed that this actual issue is so infinitessimally small as to be non existent.

I don't know how to make it any clearer for the trolls, or the Goons, or the Goon trolls. Or the... you get the picture.

This is a "make work" project, at best. Your "tax dollars at work" so to speak.

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at that Dev meeting.. it probably would have gone something like this...

"Drones are buggered."
"Yes, let's pick out of the 30,000 things wrong with them, the thing that will cause us the least amount of work, and the highest amount of NC DOT versus Gooon forum trolls"
"Well obviously that means another super nerf"
"Obviously "
"Awesome, lets get to it"
"OK done, lets nerf fighters AND fighterbombers"
"DONE!"
"Great meeting guys, lets go to the pub and celebrate!!!"
High fives and Mittani smug all around.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Beidorion eldwardan
Tactically Armed Vanguard
Tactical Narcotics Team
#338 - 2015-01-07 12:32:50 UTC
wonderful !
yet another Fozzie fix - one fix closer to only having T1 frigs, destroyers and cruisers to fly

to tunned to see what get's Fuzzied up next. who knows it might be something you used to like.



Fozzie is roit not hiring anymore ? please set us free
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#339 - 2015-01-07 12:34:12 UTC
Panther X wrote:
afkalt wrote:

So then you're back to my point of tracking all sorts of weird crap on the server, which might not even be practical.

I always said I dont understand the fighters, but then maybe there's more to the gaming of the system than either of us realise.

Most capital fights I've been in last a hell of a lot longer than 60 seconds and the ones that dont, damned sure that lag won't change jack - especially since everyone hits it.

Again - a perfect fix? Nope, best fix in the triangle of do well, do it quickly and do it cheaply - pick two....and only two? Most probably.


But shouldn't we as consumers have the right to a product that actually works?

Our point is that this "fix" isn't necessary. It's the smallest tip of the iceberg, and has nothing to do with the problems in the meta. Drones are broken. Not fighters. Fix drones as a whole. You don't give someone a bandaid for a skinned knee after they've been disemboweled.

No one is crying over this fix. The actual fix, in and about itself is both pointless and meaningless. Fix the rest of the issue. There are so many other problems to be addressed that this actual issue is so infinitessimally small as to be non existent.

I don't know how to make it any clearer for the trolls, or the Goons, or the Goon trolls. Or the... you get the picture.

This is a "make work" project, at best. Your "tax dollars at work" so to speak.

I would have loved to have been a fly on the wall at that Dev meeting.. it probably would have gone something like this...

"Drones are buggered."
"Yes, let's pick out of the 30,000 things wrong with them, the thing that will cause us the least amount of work, and the highest amount of NC DOT versus Gooon forum trolls"
"Well obviously that means another super nerf"
"Obviously "
"Awesome, lets get to it"
"OK done, lets nerf fighters AND fighterbombers"
"DONE!"
"Great meeting guys, lets go to the pub and celebrate!!!"
High fives and Mittani smug all around.



Or you know....there's the whole obligation to patch exploits.
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#340 - 2015-01-07 13:36:55 UTC
afkalt wrote:


Or you know....there's the whole obligation to patch exploits.


How is reducing scan resolution on fighter bombers fixing an exploit?

When was the last time you repeatedly SCOOPED fighterbombers? Actually while you're at it, when was the last time anyone did?

Read the explanation of the fix and tell me what this exploit addressed?

No one scoops fighterbombers. You recall them because they have to fly to a target.I mean unless you are bombing yourself.

You scoop SENTRIES, my good man.

My super flies at what 68m/s. I don't know about yours with the 10,000mn Estamel's Modified MWD. If I'm going 68m/s and fighterbombers go at whatever MWD speed they go at.. Do the maths.

They have to orbit the target and get in optimal range to attack.

This is the lowest common denominator type of fix. I'm not sure how you don't understand why we are asking why they can't explain the actual reason for this type of "fix" at all. It. Doesn't. Make. Sense.

I can understand that if they explain "we nerfed scan resolution because it causes X" "Here's the numbers as to why we reduced it to X amount"

You might as well have put up a "Youmadbro?" Meme for all your argument. Are all drones not coded the same? Fighters and bombers down to ewar? I haven't seen the code. Have you? Has any one? Everyone talks about the code of this particular mechanic like they wrote it themselves. I'm not a coder. I haven't seen it, so I don't know. But I don't like being peed on and told that its raining. If one does it, they should all do it. Fix all drones if this is an exploit.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...