These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#381 - 2015-01-07 20:10:38 UTC
Niskin wrote:
Panther X wrote:
OK we are getting closer to the heart of the matter. There's a partial explanation, but break it down. Fighters still do really little to no more damage than sentries against structures. Why are they getting the same treatment, and sentries aren't. In a capital structure grind supers will use FB's carriers are probably going to drop sentries.


That's a fair question, I don't know why Fighters got the same adjustment. It's possible there is a fighter based exploit that they didn't go into detail about. Maybe somebody else around here knows?

Panther X wrote:
And I don't know who sits at zero on a structure grind either. Anyone who's smart is not going to sit at zero and wait to get counter dropped by PL or goons or whoever.


I think the point is that one would only sit at zero on a structure when they wanted to use this exploit. It's riskier, but up to 50% more damage is a huge damage boost when talking FB's on a structure. Essentially two SC's could do the damage of 3 in the same amount of time.

Panther X wrote:
Reduce scan res, make all drones one animation (instead of 10 drones make them one), delete supers, make it Ishtars Online, I don't really care.

Just give me the REAL scoop, give me the numbers to back that sh!t up, tell me where it's going. Just be freakin honest.

But this specific situation, where scan resolution of two, and two only specific drones, in an extremely limited scenario, seems to be more back burner stuff. There is more important stuff that needs to be addressed in the game. If tears and smug was a power source, there would be no energy crisis.


Others have explained it already, but the difference between a data change and even the simplest code change could be the difference between an hour of work and weeks of work. Fixing exploits is important, enough so that they feel they need to make this change now.


I'll leave that whole string in because it does answer stuffs.

The operating word is COULD. Not DOES, not 1 or 0, or refers to null, but...maybe?

Who knows if it is a major change or a minor change? No one has definitely addressed that one way or another. Did they look at that? I don't know. Does anyone?

Maybe I have to run for CSM just to get the answers I want. I don't like half answers, especially to the stuff that affects me and or my style of play. It's up to me to decide what's important and what's not, just like anyone else. Troll me flame me, I don't really care. I just want to know more.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#382 - 2015-01-07 20:12:45 UTC
Viktor Corgo wrote:


Now, I suppose they could convert fighters/fibos to normal drones, remove scan res, and give them a significantly higher activation time, but... that sounds like a much bigger change than just a number tweak.


If the activation delay is actually a thing. For all we know, does appear to have an activation delay because you press F in the middle of a tick so it only proceed at the next one like a normal command would so adding a long delay to F/FB would involve creating a delay to begin with.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#383 - 2015-01-07 20:14:12 UTC
Panther X wrote:
I just want to know more.

no you don't

you want the change reverted because it represents a reduction in power towards supercaps, which you feel are entitled to afford you a disproportionate advantage in Eve: Online, a Spaceship Game, due to its cost
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#384 - 2015-01-07 20:15:34 UTC
Panther X wrote:
Niskin wrote:
Panther X wrote:
OK we are getting closer to the heart of the matter. There's a partial explanation, but break it down. Fighters still do really little to no more damage than sentries against structures. Why are they getting the same treatment, and sentries aren't. In a capital structure grind supers will use FB's carriers are probably going to drop sentries.


That's a fair question, I don't know why Fighters got the same adjustment. It's possible there is a fighter based exploit that they didn't go into detail about. Maybe somebody else around here knows?

Panther X wrote:
And I don't know who sits at zero on a structure grind either. Anyone who's smart is not going to sit at zero and wait to get counter dropped by PL or goons or whoever.


I think the point is that one would only sit at zero on a structure when they wanted to use this exploit. It's riskier, but up to 50% more damage is a huge damage boost when talking FB's on a structure. Essentially two SC's could do the damage of 3 in the same amount of time.

Panther X wrote:
Reduce scan res, make all drones one animation (instead of 10 drones make them one), delete supers, make it Ishtars Online, I don't really care.

Just give me the REAL scoop, give me the numbers to back that sh!t up, tell me where it's going. Just be freakin honest.

But this specific situation, where scan resolution of two, and two only specific drones, in an extremely limited scenario, seems to be more back burner stuff. There is more important stuff that needs to be addressed in the game. If tears and smug was a power source, there would be no energy crisis.


Others have explained it already, but the difference between a data change and even the simplest code change could be the difference between an hour of work and weeks of work. Fixing exploits is important, enough so that they feel they need to make this change now.


I'll leave that whole string in because it does answer stuffs.

The operating word is COULD. Not DOES, not 1 or 0, or refers to null, but...maybe?

Who knows if it is a major change or a minor change? No one has definitely addressed that one way or another. Did they look at that? I don't know. Does anyone?

Maybe I have to run for CSM just to get the answers I want. I don't like half answers, especially to the stuff that affects me and or my style of play. It's up to me to decide what's important and what's not, just like anyone else. Troll me flame me, I don't really care. I just want to know more.


Well if you want to be relly picky about it, it DOES take more time to recode anything than just making a data change because you have to test it more after which consume man-hours from a team.
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#385 - 2015-01-07 20:17:15 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Panther X wrote:
Viktor Corgo wrote:
( I believe, for sentries, without having a scan res, this is a flat activation time, either way, it's short)


There's the problem right there. Drones like sentries have NO scan res, while fighters and fb's have a scan res. Yes?

So... and I'm sorry if my babbywords (whatever the hell those are) aren't up to your obviously PhD level of eduma cashun why wasn't the scan res just...taken away? If the fighters and bombers have a higher scan res than the carrier itself, doesn't it make sense to treat it like other drones to not have a scan res?
Why the arbitrary 90% reduction? Supers have a horrible scan res anyway.


If you remove the scan res and have them activate like other drones, you make it even more worthwhile to drop/scoop them at 0 since you don't even lose ticks to the targeting delay. You might get close to 5 time the supposed amount of DPS to down a structure assuming you can drop (1st tick), shoot (2nd tick) and scoop (3rd tick) at the correct rate. 3x is more probable with errors but it does not fix the issue of the cycle resetting when the drone is scooped.


Great. Makes sense. Sounds legit and all that rot.

But still would just be a data change wouldnt it? If there's not scan res and the activation time is increased would that not accomplish the same thing, but make fbs and fighters act more like drones?

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#386 - 2015-01-07 20:18:37 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Panther X wrote:
I just want to know more.

no you don't

you want the change reverted because it represents a reduction in power towards supercaps, which you feel are entitled to afford you a disproportionate advantage in Eve: Online, a Spaceship Game, due to its cost


awww come on now PF, your "Umadbro?" meme is showing.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#387 - 2015-01-07 20:21:13 UTC
Panther X wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Panther X wrote:
Viktor Corgo wrote:
( I believe, for sentries, without having a scan res, this is a flat activation time, either way, it's short)


There's the problem right there. Drones like sentries have NO scan res, while fighters and fb's have a scan res. Yes?

So... and I'm sorry if my babbywords (whatever the hell those are) aren't up to your obviously PhD level of eduma cashun why wasn't the scan res just...taken away? If the fighters and bombers have a higher scan res than the carrier itself, doesn't it make sense to treat it like other drones to not have a scan res?
Why the arbitrary 90% reduction? Supers have a horrible scan res anyway.


If you remove the scan res and have them activate like other drones, you make it even more worthwhile to drop/scoop them at 0 since you don't even lose ticks to the targeting delay. You might get close to 5 time the supposed amount of DPS to down a structure assuming you can drop (1st tick), shoot (2nd tick) and scoop (3rd tick) at the correct rate. 3x is more probable with errors but it does not fix the issue of the cycle resetting when the drone is scooped.


Great. Makes sense. Sounds legit and all that rot.

But still would just be a data change wouldnt it? If there's not scan res and the activation time is increased would that not accomplish the same thing, but make fbs and fighters act more like drones?


With only a data change, to make them act more like drones and assuming they are a different entity since they have a stat other drones don't seem to have, you could give them a scan res over 3300 IIRC to make them target pretty much everything in less than a tick thus shooting the next one like drones seem to be. It would not achieve the DEV's stated goal for this exact change but it would make them behave a little bit more like other drones.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#388 - 2015-01-07 20:24:31 UTC
Panther X wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Panther X wrote:
I just want to know more.

no you don't

you want the change reverted because it represents a reduction in power towards supercaps, which you feel are entitled to afford you a disproportionate advantage in Eve: Online, a Spaceship Game, due to its cost


awww come on now PF, your "Umadbro?" meme is showing.


i don't see you denying it
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#389 - 2015-01-07 20:39:13 UTC
also, if we're going to stoop to DANK MEMERY, my tribe isn't the one that invoked Godwin's law

just saiyan
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#390 - 2015-01-07 20:40:03 UTC
see how dumb that looks

why'd you have to go there
Niskin
The Dead Parrot Shoppe Inc.
The Chicken Coop
#391 - 2015-01-07 20:54:05 UTC
Panther X wrote:
I'll leave that whole string in because it does answer stuffs.

The operating word is COULD. Not DOES, not 1 or 0, or refers to null, but...maybe?

Who knows if it is a major change or a minor change? No one has definitely addressed that one way or another. Did they look at that? I don't know. Does anyone?

Maybe I have to run for CSM just to get the answers I want. I don't like half answers, especially to the stuff that affects me and or my style of play. It's up to me to decide what's important and what's not, just like anyone else. Troll me flame me, I don't really care. I just want to know more.


As a guy who writes code for a living, when I said "could" I should have said "will." When a mechanic has already been tested and has been live in production for a long time, the affect of changing the inputs is predictable. Whereas changing the mechanic itself requires extensive testing. So we're talking changing some database values and checking to make sure the new values don't have unintended consequences, versus designing a new mechanic, coding the new mechanic and testing the new mechanic.

It's Dark In Here - The Lonely Wormhole Blog

Remember kiddies: the best ship in Eve is Friendship.

-MooMooDachshundCow
Lucille Laurent
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#392 - 2015-01-07 20:57:37 UTC
Meh.

Please look at ishtars and sentries. Hit them hard.

Thanks
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#393 - 2015-01-07 21:06:35 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
see how dumb that looks

why'd you have to go there


I'm just the messenger.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#394 - 2015-01-07 21:08:42 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
also, if we're going to stoop to DANK MEMERY, my tribe isn't the one that invoked Godwin's law

just saiyan



But... but...what about the children?

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#395 - 2015-01-07 21:16:55 UTC
Panther X wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
also, if we're going to stoop to DANK MEMERY, my tribe isn't the one that invoked Godwin's law

just saiyan



But... but...what about the children?

having run out of actual arguments, the disconsolate poster resorts to firing non-sequiturs as chaff
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#396 - 2015-01-07 22:18:23 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Panther X wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
also, if we're going to stoop to DANK MEMERY, my tribe isn't the one that invoked Godwin's law

just saiyan



But... but...what about the children?

having run out of actual arguments, the disconsolate poster resorts to firing non-sequiturs as chaff


just wait until i start throwing "shut up" or, "I know you are but what am I " at you.

Grr Goons.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
chossuh
Capital Fusion.
WE FORM V0LTA
#397 - 2015-01-08 00:34:02 UTC  |  Edited by: chossuh
Red Teufel wrote:
There is little to no risk to the carrier who is performing skynet. Especialy in a cyno jammed system. At most these changes just means if you are in an ishtar or anti frig you may have a chance to get away. Skynet is too broken. Waiting till it is used too much like isboxer is a bad move for the health of NS/LS space pvp. Right now we mostly avoid tackling carriers because of how OP the fighters are. Its just a content deterent.

FYI over the last few weeks almost every null roam we have run into skynet.


Erm...you're expecting to be able to kill a carrier on a cyno jammed system with a tiny subcap fleet?

Well it kind of makes sense that a carrier should be able to destroy your fleet if your fleet consists small subcaps...

PVP Carriers take a long time to skill into both in terms of the modules they require, the broad range of drones they need and additionally...they're capital ships derp derp.

A bunch of cruisers/HACS/BC's should not give a carrier pause for concern. The only thing a carrier should have to worry about is a large 20 + man fleet or other capitals.

This nerf is completely stupid.

I'm actually shocked to see most people in this thread think this change is a good idea - either none of you are capital pilots or eve is going in a direction that is inconsistent with the reasons why people actually play it.
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#398 - 2015-01-08 00:43:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Panther X
chossuh wrote:
Red Teufel wrote:
There is little to no risk to the carrier who is performing skynet. Especialy in a cyno jammed system. At most these changes just means if you are in an ishtar or anti frig you may have a chance to get away. Skynet is too broken. Waiting till it is used too much like isboxer is a bad move for the health of NS/LS space pvp. Right now we mostly avoid tackling carriers because of how OP the fighters are. Its just a content deterent.

FYI over the last few weeks almost every null roam we have run into skynet.


Well it kind of makes sense that a carrier should be able to destroy your fleet if your fleet consists small subcaps...

PVP Carriers take a long time to skill into both in terms of the modules they require, the broad range of drones they need and additionally...they're capital ships derp derp.

A bunch of cruisers/HACS/BC's should not give a carrier pause for concern. The only thing a carrier should have to worry about is a large 20 + man fleet or other capitals.

This nerf is completely stupid.

I'm actually shocked to see most people in this thread think this change is a good idea - either none of you are capital pilots or eve is going in a direction that is inconsistent with the reasons why people actually play it.


I've made that argument before, and the Chicken Little crowd from Lowsec didn't like it too much. They figure that two interceptors and a noob ship should be able to kill supercaps.

**COUGH**Snails and Frogs Guy**COUGH** lol

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
chossuh
Capital Fusion.
WE FORM V0LTA
#399 - 2015-01-08 00:53:53 UTC
Panther X wrote:
chossuh wrote:
Red Teufel wrote:
There is little to no risk to the carrier who is performing skynet. Especialy in a cyno jammed system. At most these changes just means if you are in an ishtar or anti frig you may have a chance to get away. Skynet is too broken. Waiting till it is used too much like isboxer is a bad move for the health of NS/LS space pvp. Right now we mostly avoid tackling carriers because of how OP the fighters are. Its just a content deterent.

FYI over the last few weeks almost every null roam we have run into skynet.


Well it kind of makes sense that a carrier should be able to destroy your fleet if your fleet consists small subcaps...

PVP Carriers take a long time to skill into both in terms of the modules they require, the broad range of drones they need and additionally...they're capital ships derp derp.

A bunch of cruisers/HACS/BC's should not give a carrier pause for concern. The only thing a carrier should have to worry about is a large 20 + man fleet or other capitals.

This nerf is completely stupid.

I'm actually shocked to see most people in this thread think this change is a good idea - either none of you are capital pilots or eve is going in a direction that is inconsistent with the reasons why people actually play it.


I've made that argument before, and the Chicken Little crowd from Lowsec didn't like it too much. They figure that two interceptors and a noob ship should be able to kill supercaps.

**COUGH**Snails and Frogs Guy**COUGH** lol


The impression that I have from reading through this thread is that most people who think this is a good idea seem to be highsec or lowsec pilots, most of whom evidently don't fly or have the need to fly capitals....
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#400 - 2015-01-08 01:05:44 UTC
...and Goons of course. They are so zombified they'll agree to anything HRM Mittani comes up with. Maybe someday on a whim he will tell them that they can only fly noobships in the Almighty Blob.

...and PF "Youmadbro" meme coming up in 3...2...1...

I kid I kid.

I mean about the noobships. It's harpies last time I looked Lol

Seriously folks, I'm here until Tuesday, try the veal.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...