These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
#401 - 2015-01-08 01:09:06 UTC
Im an a$$ I know, my own alliance is sick of my memes in allaince chat. Oh especially forums.

Anyway, I would really just kind of like to see a roadmap as to where all the super hate is going from CCP. You want to get rid of them, or make them obsolete, even in home defense? OK, make a plan, lay it out, pay us back and it's all good to me.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#402 - 2015-01-08 02:01:31 UTC
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.


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 have chatted with almost a dozen of the non-troll active members of this thread. Most never flew a carrier/supercarrier. They roam in 6-8 man gang and expect to be able to take down anything. When a carrier shows up and scares them off, they complain. Most of the time it's a 3 man gang, with 2 of them using assigned fighters to defend their sov space.

I took a look at zkillboard, and it confirms it, heck most even admitted in chat to not flying a carrier and are just throwing fuel onto the anti-capital fire. They should all hunt in providence, no caps there :P

Been around since the beginning.
Ghalion
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#403 - 2015-01-08 03:08:38 UTC
When you guys are done nerfing capitals into the ground can you maybe refund us the skill points that took several months of training to do. It should be a option if we no longer want to fly our capitals due to these changes especially the jump fatigue.
Viktor Corgo
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#404 - 2015-01-08 03:48:31 UTC  |  Edited by: Viktor Corgo
Yes, nerfing capitals into the ground. That's what happened. Nevermind that this "nerf" is just a fix to an exploit and the fatigue implementation hit subcaps just as bad.

Nope, capitals have been nerfed into the ground. Reprocess them, folks!

(totally not just trying to keep using an exploit)
Esmanpir
Raccoon's with LightSabers
#405 - 2015-01-08 04:39:48 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
remove warping from fighters/bombers


Or make it that the farther they are (in warp) from their carrier the less effective they are. (Since they are away from their command ship the carrier.) If the carrier pilot allows them to get too far away their target may be able to turn and destroy them.
Viktor Corgo
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#406 - 2015-01-08 04:48:39 UTC
Esmanpir wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
remove warping from fighters/bombers


Or make it that the farther they are (in warp) from their carrier the less effective they are. (Since they are away from their command ship the carrier.) If the carrier pilot allows them to get too far away their target may be able to turn and destroy them.


Why? What exploit are you defending? This is all minor compared to the problem CCP has identified.
Esmanpir
Raccoon's with LightSabers
#407 - 2015-01-08 04:59:55 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
FearlessLittleToaster wrote:
Fozzie,

You are disrupting the natural cycle of Eve exploits. It should work like this:

1. Some really really clever players figure out how to do something and exploit the crap out of it.
2. The information spreads across the game and eventually the enemies of Goons adopt it as a common tactic.
3. Goons, being stupid and slow on the uptake for these sorts of things, cry about it like little girls while burning.
3 1/2. The people using the exploit insist that it is supposed to work that way and we need to HTFU.
4. Goons utilize the massive organizational ability of our dreaded middle management to adopt the exploit, figure out how to further min/max the exploit, and implement it as a doctrine coalition wide.
5. Idiocy and rage-posting are turned up to 11 cluster-wide.
6. Patch.

Now it looks like this:

1. Some really really clever players figure out how to do something and exploit the crap out of it.
2. You go "oh, hey, that's not supposed to do that" and fix it.

I find this to be an unnatural perversion that flies in the face of years of tradition dating back to at least 2006. Please post a detailed guide on how to use this right away so that the natural order can be restored. Otherwise the skies shall become as fire, the seas shall turn to blood, dogs and cats will live together in peace, and I will suddenly start to like gin.

In all seriousness though, I'm delighted that you caught/fixed this before it became a real issue. The new release cycle and so on are awesome but seeing a proactive change to prevent an exploit before it became a real problem makes me happier than I have been in a long time about the future of the game.



This. At least a few others saw the obvious exploit too - structure grinding.

C'mon folks, this was a post by Fozzie explaining a fix that they can make entirely through data changes without harming any code (and thus not taking eleventeen QA cycles to test and retest) before it can be released.

Don't make mountains out of molehills - I'm sure CCP are aware of other issues involving drones. This one is a small fix.

Analogy: Your mom noticed that your little brother was hungry and gave him a snack. She is probably aware that this does nothing to end world hunger, but it wasn't the problem she was looking to solve.





OMG! Logic... Brain... Starting... To... Melt...
Esmanpir
Raccoon's with LightSabers
#408 - 2015-01-08 05:06:42 UTC
Viktor Corgo wrote:
Esmanpir wrote:
Harvey James wrote:
remove warping from fighters/bombers


Or make it that the farther they are (in warp) from their carrier the less effective they are. (Since they are away from their command ship the carrier.) If the carrier pilot allows them to get too far away their target may be able to turn and destroy them.


Why? What exploit are you defending? This is all minor compared to the problem CCP has identified.


Why? - Just countering his proposal.

What exploit are you defending? - None. Just offering a different option to the comment "remove warping" since I don't agree with it but I'm willing to negotiate or carry on a dialog.

This is all minor... - Agree. Good that CCP is moving quickly on what they perceive as an exploit and something that requires very little effort to "fix." Also good to see that they are approaching it cautiously.
Solaris Vex
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#409 - 2015-01-08 05:11:26 UTC
Fighters and fighter bombers are fine. Subcaps can either outrun them or tank them with a moderate amount of logi.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#410 - 2015-01-08 06:13:24 UTC
Solaris Vex wrote:
Fighters and fighter bombers are fine. Subcaps can either outrun them or tank them with a moderate amount of logi.



They still are after this change but an exploit also happen to be fixed.
Malou Hashur
Enterprise Holdings
#411 - 2015-01-08 08:56:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Malou Hashur
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Solaris Vex wrote:
Fighters and fighter bombers are fine. Subcaps can either outrun them or tank them with a moderate amount of logi.



They still are after this change but an exploit also happen to be fixed.


The "fix" to the exploit would be to introduce a re-deployment timer.

This is a nerf to fighters & FB's, NOT a fix to an exploit. You need to be pretty dumb not to spot that.

CCP Philosophy ==>>

  1. If it works, break it. If it’s broken, leave it and break something else.

  2. Ignore all Forum comments that raise issues and concerns about our "features", and bring said "features" in anyway.
Malou Hashur
Enterprise Holdings
#412 - 2015-01-08 09:10:22 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.


Yeah, well I think that those weeks of work would be better spent, as according to Fozzie (below) the issue clearly is not urgent.

Quote:
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.

CCP Philosophy ==>>

  1. If it works, break it. If it’s broken, leave it and break something else.

  2. Ignore all Forum comments that raise issues and concerns about our "features", and bring said "features" in anyway.
Frank Haddad
International Fleet.
Northern Associates.
#413 - 2015-01-08 09:53:09 UTC
If you wish to screw us over in caps then give supers the ability to deploy the 'smaller' non fighter/FB drones again. This nerf isn't as big a loss for the carrier due to it's ability to use the other drones but the SuperCarrier is getting royally screwed AGAIN.

I personally have not seen much use of the recall / Redeploy 'tactic'. The only times I've seen that come into play is when the drones are the primary targets of the fleet. Usually by then several are popped anyways.

At the rate you're going why don't you just take all SuperCarriers out of the game and reimburse us for ships. You've reduced their DPS. Removed non-fighter/FBs from their drone bay. Increased fuel usage 50%. Reduced travel range by about 60% with Jump timer/Fatigue. At this point there will be no use for having SC's in the game. Anything left for them to do is easily done by dreads for far less cost.

Quick question: Why do the FB's have such a low scan res? So low that the SC locks faster then the drones? Everywhere else in this game the smaller you go the faster the scan res/lock time. I will grant you a reduction to scan res but the current numbers go TOOOOOOOOOOOO far.
Frank Haddad
International Fleet.
Northern Associates.
#414 - 2015-01-08 09:57:13 UTC
Malou Hashur wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Solaris Vex wrote:
Fighters and fighter bombers are fine. Subcaps can either outrun them or tank them with a moderate amount of logi.



They still are after this change but an exploit also happen to be fixed.


The "fix" to the exploit would be to introduce a re-deployment timer.

This is a nerf to fighters & FB's, NOT a fix to an exploit. You need to be pretty dumb not to spot that.


My thoughts exactly. If the issue is merely recall/redeploy CCP(athetic) can just add say an 10 second (example only) deployment timer any time fighter/FBs are launched. They've already got the code in other locations. Hell they have a 1 min timer on "Recall Drones" function. Can't be that damned hard to tweak the code for a deployment timer.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#415 - 2015-01-08 12:20:59 UTC
Malou Hashur wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Solaris Vex wrote:
Fighters and fighter bombers are fine. Subcaps can either outrun them or tank them with a moderate amount of logi.



They still are after this change but an exploit also happen to be fixed.


The "fix" to the exploit would be to introduce a re-deployment timer.

This is a nerf to fighters & FB's, NOT a fix to an exploit. You need to be pretty dumb not to spot that.


A more time-consuming fix to the exploit would be to introduce a re-deployment timer.

This is a nerf to fighters and FBs lock time, AND a fix to an exploit. You need to be pretty thick-headed to still be insisting otherwise.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#416 - 2015-01-08 12:23:04 UTC
Frank Haddad wrote:
Malou Hashur wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Solaris Vex wrote:
Fighters and fighter bombers are fine. Subcaps can either outrun them or tank them with a moderate amount of logi.



They still are after this change but an exploit also happen to be fixed.


The "fix" to the exploit would be to introduce a re-deployment timer.

This is a nerf to fighters & FB's, NOT a fix to an exploit. You need to be pretty dumb not to spot that.


My thoughts exactly. If the issue is merely recall/redeploy CCP(athetic) can just add say an 10 second (example only) deployment timer any time fighter/FBs are launched. They've already got the code in other locations. Hell they have a 1 min timer on "Recall Drones" function. Can't be that damned hard to tweak the code for a deployment timer.


Yes, CCP has timer technology and the ability to cut and paste. But software changes on projects of this scale aren't something one person can just edit, compile and push out to the world in a couple minutes.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#417 - 2015-01-08 12:27:43 UTC
d0cTeR9 wrote:

I have chatted with almost a dozen of the non-troll active members of this thread. Most never flew a carrier/supercarrier. They roam in 6-8 man gang and expect to be able to take down anything. When a carrier shows up and scares them off, they complain. Most of the time it's a 3 man gang, with 2 of them using assigned fighters to defend their sov space.


You didn't talk to me. I'm betting you didn't talk to many members of Goonswarm.

Quote:
I took a look at zkillboard, and it confirms it, heck most even admitted in chat to not flying a carrier and are just throwing fuel onto the anti-capital fire. They should all hunt in providence, no caps there :P


Oh I see, so your "non-troll active members of this thread" turned out to be trolls afterall. Good sampling.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#418 - 2015-01-08 13:13:01 UTC
Frank Haddad wrote:
Malou Hashur wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Solaris Vex wrote:
Fighters and fighter bombers are fine. Subcaps can either outrun them or tank them with a moderate amount of logi.



They still are after this change but an exploit also happen to be fixed.


The "fix" to the exploit would be to introduce a re-deployment timer.

This is a nerf to fighters & FB's, NOT a fix to an exploit. You need to be pretty dumb not to spot that.


My thoughts exactly. If the issue is merely recall/redeploy CCP(athetic) can just add say an 10 second (example only) deployment timer any time fighter/FBs are launched. They've already got the code in other locations. Hell they have a 1 min timer on "Recall Drones" function. Can't be that damned hard to tweak the code for a deployment timer.


I guess it's "that damn hard" to not continually target swap with your bombers/fighters since that is the only time their new lock time would have an effect...
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#419 - 2015-01-08 13:49:13 UTC
War Kitten wrote:
d0cTeR9 wrote:

I have chatted with almost a dozen of the non-troll active members of this thread. Most never flew a carrier/supercarrier. They roam in 6-8 man gang and expect to be able to take down anything. When a carrier shows up and scares them off, they complain. Most of the time it's a 3 man gang, with 2 of them using assigned fighters to defend their sov space.


You didn't talk to me. I'm betting you didn't talk to many members of Goonswarm.

Quote:
I took a look at zkillboard, and it confirms it, heck most even admitted in chat to not flying a carrier and are just throwing fuel onto the anti-capital fire. They should all hunt in providence, no caps there :P


Oh I see, so your "non-troll active members of this thread" turned out to be trolls afterall. Good sampling.



Didn't speak to me either. Not a troll, and actually am trying to get answers unlike some people.

I fly carriers and a supercarrier. So...yeah. Again, like I explained before, when something directly affects me and my play style, especially my big shiny thing, I want to know everything. Why, what, where, when etc. I want numbers, graphs, charts.

I don't take anything at face value, and don't like smoke being blown up my butt.

I have a fairly good sense of humour about it, regardless of what some people say *COUGH**PF**COUGH*

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#420 - 2015-01-08 14:10:22 UTC
Panther X wrote:



Didn't speak to me either. Not a troll, and actually am trying to get answers unlike some people.

I fly carriers and a supercarrier. So...yeah. Again, like I explained before, when something directly affects me and my play style, especially my big shiny thing, I want to know everything. Why, what, where, when etc. I want numbers, graphs, charts.

I don't take anything at face value, and don't like smoke being blown up my butt.

I have a fairly good sense of humour about it, regardless of what some people say *COUGH**PF**COUGH*


Like with every other change they do to fix something they label as an exploit, they won't give you more details. They won't even explain the current usage or give number because they want to kill it before it become more used.