These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#461 - 2015-01-08 19:14:30 UTC
Panther X wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
and hey for shits and giggles we'll do the same pre-nerf fighter

http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427en2evd7tn8l

so the nerf is adding an earth-shattering 4.5 seconds to the lock time of the fighters

truly we have seen the last straw for fighters, may they RIP in peace


rest in peace in peace?

Boom headshot!

http://i.imgur.com/YhU3GFY.jpg
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#462 - 2015-01-08 19:16:56 UTC
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:
The scan res changes decrease the drones ability to deal damage to smaller targets without changing the ability to defend against them, thus increasing the risk.

no it doesn't

the drones do the same damage as before

they just don't start doing damage until a small period of time has passed

Pretty sure scan res also effects tracking?

nope. only lock time.
Mario Putzo
#463 - 2015-01-08 19:17:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Promiscuous Female wrote:
and hey for shits and giggles we'll do the same pre-nerf fighter

http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427en2evd7tn8l

so the nerf is adding an earth-shattering 4.5 seconds to the lock time of the fighters

truly we have seen the last straw for fighters, may they RIP in peace



Thats not a huge change I guess for Fighters. FB's vs Capitals however is some cause for concern. Id hate to see Sentry Carriers become the goto again due to impracticality of SCs being able to target switch through reps.

That being said. CCP should still just put a timer on relaunching drones. It solves all the problems and prevents all ships from being able to abuse this mechanic, and add server load.

Thanks for the graphs though!
Syn Shi
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#464 - 2015-01-08 19:45:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Syn Shi
Mario Putzo wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
and hey for shits and giggles we'll do the same pre-nerf fighter

http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427en2evd7tn8l

so the nerf is adding an earth-shattering 4.5 seconds to the lock time of the fighters

truly we have seen the last straw for fighters, may they RIP in peace



Thats not a huge change I guess for Fighters. FB's vs Capitals however is some cause for concern. Id hate to see Sentry Carriers become the goto again due to impracticality of SCs being able to target switch through reps.

That being said. CCP should still just put a timer on relaunching drones. It solves all the problems and prevents all ships from being able to abuse this mechanic, and add server load.

Thanks for the graphs though!



As long as they change it so other weapon systems can be destroyed as well, and the only way to protect them is put them offline and on a timer before being able to use them again its all good.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#465 - 2015-01-08 19:57:02 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
and hey for shits and giggles we'll do the same pre-nerf fighter

http://www.wolframalpha.com/share/clip?f=d41d8cd98f00b204e9800998ecf8427en2evd7tn8l

so the nerf is adding an earth-shattering 4.5 seconds to the lock time of the fighters

truly we have seen the last straw for fighters, may they RIP in peace



Thats not a huge change I guess for Fighters. FB's vs Capitals however is some cause for concern. Id hate to see Sentry Carriers become the goto again due to impracticality of SCs being able to target switch through reps.

That being said. CCP should still just put a timer on relaunching drones. It solves all the problems and prevents all ships from being able to abuse this mechanic, and add server load.

Thanks for the graphs though!

nah

being able to swap drones is needed for drone users, and putting a global cooldown on drone swaps hurts everyone disproportionately to solve the problem

lowering the scan res of a drone solves the specific problem in the most elegant possible way
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#466 - 2015-01-08 20:21:56 UTC
Maybe we should just get the Goon CCP Developers to remove all super/titans and bpos from the game, reimbursing players with a new type of LP that gives faction ships/carriers, and a box of tissues for them to claim.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#467 - 2015-01-08 21:21:34 UTC
oh hey

Marlona Sky wrote:

I guess that blog by your leader not long ago, ordering all goons to NOT sell their super capitals, is a figment of my imagination?


following up on this:

Quote:

Everyone in NC. is required to have both a Dreadnaught and a Carrier they should be located in QueriousEveryone in NC. should be working towards owning a SC or a Titan and current pilots who own them should NOT be selling them regardless of what you think to changes CCP make! They are a SUPER important part of this game more so now than ever! You are not allowed to sell SCs and Titans outside of NC. PERIOD anyone found doing so will pay a tax for doing so which will be used to help other members get into Titans and SCs. (No this isn’t a joke)


L M B O
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#468 - 2015-01-08 21:22:24 UTC
but yeah i could see conflating your own alliance's supercap policies with those of goonswarm federation, noted eve: online sov haver
Mario Putzo
#469 - 2015-01-08 21:25:59 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:

nah

being able to swap drones is needed for drone users, and putting a global cooldown on drone swaps hurts everyone disproportionately to solve the problem

lowering the scan res of a drone solves the specific problem in the most elegant possible way


Having a timer doesn't limit you from being able to swap drones though, it just delays the process, as it should be.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#470 - 2015-01-08 21:36:32 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:

nah

being able to swap drones is needed for drone users, and putting a global cooldown on drone swaps hurts everyone disproportionately to solve the problem

lowering the scan res of a drone solves the specific problem in the most elegant possible way


Having a timer doesn't limit you from being able to swap drones though, it just delays the process, as it should be.

yeah I am saying that that is garbage and would disproportionately affect other drone havers to fix a problem that is easily solved by lowering the scan resolution of specific drones
Mario Putzo
#471 - 2015-01-08 22:58:23 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:

nah

being able to swap drones is needed for drone users, and putting a global cooldown on drone swaps hurts everyone disproportionately to solve the problem

lowering the scan res of a drone solves the specific problem in the most elegant possible way


Having a timer doesn't limit you from being able to swap drones though, it just delays the process, as it should be.

yeah I am saying that that is garbage and would disproportionately affect other drone havers to fix a problem that is easily solved by lowering the scan resolution of specific drones


Right because its not like we need a reason to discourage drone usage in fleets or anything like that...
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#472 - 2015-01-08 23:05:25 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:

nah

being able to swap drones is needed for drone users, and putting a global cooldown on drone swaps hurts everyone disproportionately to solve the problem

lowering the scan res of a drone solves the specific problem in the most elegant possible way


Having a timer doesn't limit you from being able to swap drones though, it just delays the process, as it should be.

yeah I am saying that that is garbage and would disproportionately affect other drone havers to fix a problem that is easily solved by lowering the scan resolution of specific drones


Right because its not like we need a reason to discourage drone usage in fleets or anything like that...

it also affects drone havers in smaller gangs and solo

also drone redeploy timer is hella circumventable in fleet fights by not changing drones

it's just a bad idea with too many flaws in it

scan res nerf on fighter(bomber)s is elegant, functional, and without collateral damage
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#473 - 2015-01-09 00:22:14 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
oh hey

Marlona Sky wrote:

I guess that blog by your leader not long ago, ordering all goons to NOT sell their super capitals, is a figment of my imagination?


following up on this:

Quote:

Everyone in NC. is required to have both a Dreadnaught and a Carrier they should be located in QueriousEveryone in NC. should be working towards owning a SC or a Titan and current pilots who own them should NOT be selling them regardless of what you think to changes CCP make! They are a SUPER important part of this game more so now than ever! You are not allowed to sell SCs and Titans outside of NC. PERIOD anyone found doing so will pay a tax for doing so which will be used to help other members get into Titans and SCs. (No this isn’t a joke)


L M B O


Thank you EveSkunk

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#474 - 2015-01-09 00:24:21 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:

nah

being able to swap drones is needed for drone users, and putting a global cooldown on drone swaps hurts everyone disproportionately to solve the problem

lowering the scan res of a drone solves the specific problem in the most elegant possible way


Having a timer doesn't limit you from being able to swap drones though, it just delays the process, as it should be.

yeah I am saying that that is garbage and would disproportionately affect other drone havers to fix a problem that is easily solved by lowering the scan resolution of specific drones


Right because its not like we need a reason to discourage drone usage in fleets or anything like that...

it also affects drone havers in smaller gangs and solo

also drone redeploy timer is hella circumventable in fleet fights by not changing drones

it's just a bad idea with too many flaws in it

scan res nerf on fighter(bomber)s is elegant, functional, and without collateral damage


You do have, ugh I hate to admit it, a valid point.
Kill me, I know, I actually agreed with a Goon. I need to have a shower now. I feel so dirty.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#475 - 2015-01-09 04:31:51 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.

I think so far the CSM and CCP are doing a stellar job at reducing the effectiveness and usability of carriers and supers. (sarcasm intended)


Quote:
We will evolve these key systems with the ambition of strengthening the unique sandbox gameplay in EVE, making territorial warfare available to both big and small groups
Before any details are announced the ability of a small group to take or hold sov is reduced because a subset of players wanted to complain and CCP was too lazy to actually fix the issue they were complaining about and threw the nerf bat around instead..

"IF" the perceived problem was supers recalling and quickly launching bombers to increase DPS. Why not just give them (and carriers) a relaunching delay. Recall drones and have to wait say 5 seconds before you can relaunch. (no need to nerf everyone for the supposed abuse of a few)

If assigned fighters/bombers is considered a problem - limit the range for assigning fighters/bombers. EG; you want to assign your fighters to a friend who is camping a gate - you must be within your drone control range, of the ship your fighters are assigned to. I have several carriers and am still mystified every time I can assign my fighters to someone 15AU from me.
(my bad here sorry, this might actually lead to more conflict - that is obviously not the aim with the proposed changes)

1 or 2 simple, reasonable, well thought out changes could eliminate the need for "potential future changes". If the simple changes are found to be ineffective you can look at it again. Just don't start with the nerf bat, there are alternatives.
Fozzie states this change will not meet player expectations - so why do it? Of course - 6 week release cycle and change was promised so right or wrong, good or bad we get it..

CCP bosses need to hide the nerf bat in a cupboard and make Devs come up with simple realistic change without these half assed attempts that don't address perceived problems.

Yet another nerf to capital game play for the whole of eve because a few players are thought to have abused a flawed mechanic.
As is the pattern with CCP Devs - Don't fix the flaw - Just nerf game play around it.

Your not evolving sandbox game play - You are directing it into small defined categories.
Evolution of a sandbox would be expanding it, to date the sandbox element of eve is getting narrower in scope.

- - - - - - - - -
Suggestion for a new (honest) advertising campaign - Welcome to CCP's all new NerfsOnline (AKA EveOnline), the only sandbox game available where every 6 weeks a new set of nerfs to game play will be released. Devs prefer to nerf game play and add effects which limit player choice rather than fix issues with game mechanics. Nerfing the game play of every subscriber due to the possibly inappropriate actions of a small group is seen as the way forward. Also - You will get regular updates that produce pretty colours and effects, boring unidentifiable icons and very limited and not so user friendly selections.
If you want to play a sandbox game where "the sky is the limit" and you can play as you choose - NerfsOnline is probably not your best choice.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#476 - 2015-01-09 08:33:52 UTC  |  Edited by: afkalt
Panther X wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
it also affects drone havers in smaller gangs and solo

also drone redeploy timer is hella circumventable in fleet fights by not changing drones

it's just a bad idea with too many flaws in it

scan res nerf on fighter(bomber)s is elegant, functional, and without collateral damage


You do have, ugh I hate to admit it, a valid point.
Kill me, I know, I actually agreed with a Goon. I need to have a shower now. I feel so dirty.


I'd bet that it wouldnt stop the exploit either - I'd betcha that an abandon/reconnect would probably work.

Not tested. Conjecture.....but I bet it would.


Might have messed up quotes. Had to manually bodge it, apologies if any misquotes happened.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#477 - 2015-01-09 11:05:18 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:
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.

I think so far the CSM and CCP are doing a stellar job at reducing the effectiveness and usability of carriers and supers. (sarcasm intended)


Quote:
We will evolve these key systems with the ambition of strengthening the unique sandbox gameplay in EVE, making territorial warfare available to both big and small groups
Before any details are announced the ability of a small group to take or hold sov is reduced because a subset of players wanted to complain and CCP was too lazy to actually fix the issue they were complaining about and threw the nerf bat around instead..

"IF" the perceived problem was supers recalling and quickly launching bombers to increase DPS. Why not just give them (and carriers) a relaunching delay. Recall drones and have to wait say 5 seconds before you can relaunch. (no need to nerf everyone for the supposed abuse of a few)

If assigned fighters/bombers is considered a problem - limit the range for assigning fighters/bombers. EG; you want to assign your fighters to a friend who is camping a gate - you must be within your drone control range, of the ship your fighters are assigned to. I have several carriers and am still mystified every time I can assign my fighters to someone 15AU from me.
(my bad here sorry, this might actually lead to more conflict - that is obviously not the aim with the proposed changes)

1 or 2 simple, reasonable, well thought out changes could eliminate the need for "potential future changes". If the simple changes are found to be ineffective you can look at it again. Just don't start with the nerf bat, there are alternatives.
Fozzie states this change will not meet player expectations - so why do it? Of course - 6 week release cycle and change was promised so right or wrong, good or bad we get it..

CCP bosses need to hide the nerf bat in a cupboard and make Devs come up with simple realistic change without these half assed attempts that don't address perceived problems.

Yet another nerf to capital game play for the whole of eve because a few players are thought to have abused a flawed mechanic.
As is the pattern with CCP Devs - Don't fix the flaw - Just nerf game play around it.

Your not evolving sandbox game play - You are directing it into small defined categories.
Evolution of a sandbox would be expanding it, to date the sandbox element of eve is getting narrower in scope.

- - - - - - - - -
Suggestion for a new (honest) advertising campaign - Welcome to CCP's all new NerfsOnline (AKA EveOnline), the only sandbox game available where every 6 weeks a new set of nerfs to game play will be released. Devs prefer to nerf game play and add effects which limit player choice rather than fix issues with game mechanics. Nerfing the game play of every subscriber due to the possibly inappropriate actions of a small group is seen as the way forward. Also - You will get regular updates that produce pretty colours and effects, boring unidentifiable icons and very limited and not so user friendly selections.
If you want to play a sandbox game where "the sky is the limit" and you can play as you choose - NerfsOnline is probably not your best choice.


Welcome to the conversation - you're about 20 pages behind. All of your points have been addressed several times over.

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.
Dadrom
Zap Blap Mining Co.
Blades of Grass
#478 - 2015-01-09 12:30:19 UTC
im sorry but i do not agree with the course you guys are taking . Players that spen months training carriers are getting punished for it . If you want to keep nerfing carriers it would be at least decent thing to refund half SP.. since they are now half as needed and effective


War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#479 - 2015-01-09 12:58:57 UTC
Dadrom wrote:
im sorry but i do not agree with the course you guys are taking . Players that spen months training carriers are getting punished for it . If you want to keep nerfing carriers it would be at least decent thing to refund half SP.. since they are now half as needed and effective


Confirming that halving the scan resolution is reducing effectiveness by a full 50%. Your math is spot on!

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
#480 - 2015-01-09 13:24:41 UTC
Dadrom wrote:
im sorry but i do not agree with the course you guys are taking . Players that spen months training carriers are getting punished for it . If you want to keep nerfing carriers it would be at least decent thing to refund half SP.. since they are now half as needed and effective





Did they delete anything from the game?

No.

No refund.

next