These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

SCYLLA - General Feedback

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#141 - 2015-03-26 02:05:18 UTC
Svarii wrote:


Missions/Sites? Structure bashing? If you really believe the carrier is useless now. Don't use it. I'll be getting mine soon either way. Guess I'm glad I didn't already have one. Don't agree with Skynet, but don't care they took away the other options as well.

Good luck with your efforts to change it back. You're going to need it. o7


Not saying the carrier is useless now - but using fighters for anything much is largely pointless now outside of maybe some limited structure bashing (and I hear even thats changing) - if I'm relegated to sentries in PVE I might as well multibox RR domis or something.

Don't need luck (I'm gone once current subscriptions expire) - the off hand way this has been handled with combined with the obvious hacksaw job told me everything I needed to know days ago - was just waiting for the writing on the wall.
Svarii
Acclimatization
#142 - 2015-03-26 02:11:18 UTC
Rroff wrote:

(I'm gone once current subscriptions expire)


Guess I'll say it. Can I have your stuff?

Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
Ostor LightDust
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#143 - 2015-03-26 02:12:43 UTC
It'd be nice to have an actual discussion of this stuff, rather than just trolls asking for stuff and screaming HTFU.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#144 - 2015-03-26 02:14:34 UTC
Svarii wrote:
Rroff wrote:

(I'm gone once current subscriptions expire)


Guess I'll say it. Can I have your stuff?


You'll have to pry it from the cold dead fingers of the 20 odd people who've already asked before you :S
Arolix
Candidate Zero
#145 - 2015-03-26 02:18:03 UTC
Dammit CCP, why did you choose to convert the game to 60k files. Looks like it wastes 150mb of space. Made network backup a massive pita. If you include the logs folder and cache folder, eve is 32% of the total numbers of files on my SSD now....
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#146 - 2015-03-26 02:23:28 UTC
CCP Turtlepower wrote:
Siliouba wrote:
Reading from patch notes:

Fighters can no longer be assigned to other pilots. The ‘Delegate Control’ option has been removed and replaced by ‘Assist’ and ‘Defend’, same as other drones.


It seems "Assist and Defend" doesn't appears in game for fighters ....
Is this a bug or devs decision?


You are looking at an old version of the patch notes, we have also removed the Assist and Defend options. Capital ships will be re-balanced later this year, we will make them awesome again!

They better get highsec access...

...
Svarii
Acclimatization
#147 - 2015-03-26 02:24:47 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Svarii wrote:
Rroff wrote:

(I'm gone once current subscriptions expire)


Guess I'll say it. Can I have your stuff?


You'll have to pry it from the cold dead fingers of the 20 odd people who've already asked before you :S


Lol. Did you actually give your stuff away? If you really are quitting, you should keep your stuff. That's what I would do.

Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
Svarii
Acclimatization
#148 - 2015-03-26 02:29:05 UTC
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:

They better get highsec access...


Capitals in Highsec. Yes! I support this 100%

Throw the miners a bone for once and start with the Rorqual?
Gankers can gank it too so it works out for both sides.

Deny Pirates the Use of Implants
Arronicus
State War Academy
Caldari State
#149 - 2015-03-26 03:35:45 UTC
CCP Turtlepower wrote:
Siliouba wrote:
Reading from patch notes:

Fighters can no longer be assigned to other pilots. The ‘Delegate Control’ option has been removed and replaced by ‘Assist’ and ‘Defend’, same as other drones.


It seems "Assist and Defend" doesn't appears in game for fighters ....
Is this a bug or devs decision?


You are looking at an old version of the patch notes, we have also removed the Assist and Defend options. Capital ships will be re-balanced later this year, we will make them awesome again!


This is pretty incredibly disappointing. Assist and defend would have seen carriers and supers being brought on grid for small engagements, putting them at increased risk, and seeing more dead ships. Stripping it altogether of the ability to pass off fighters just reeks of "We're going to take away drones altogether from supercarriers, and we're going to make them awesome by giving them some completely meh system buff that makes them not fun to fly around in anymore"
Fredlah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#150 - 2015-03-26 04:53:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Fredlah
So let me get this straight guys. We could assign fighters to a ship, and that ship could have a MAX of 5 (or more for carrier) fighters assigned to it, and ccp didn't like it, so they removed it.

But with assist/guard ships would be able to have FIFTY fighters. PER SHIP. If you don't think that would have been broken then you're really wouldn't have enjoyed fights when an interceptor that could control 5 fighters is now controlling 50.

Take your head out of your asses and actually think for a moment, yeah?

If you are a carrier or supercarrier and you want to shoot something, you get on grid with it, drop fighters, and shoot it. They are still going to be at increased risk. Just be happy there is no insta-locking interceptor controlling them and carriers take a while to lock stuff, christ

you had a broken mechanic, and now you are having a tantrum because you didn't get an even more broken mechanic?
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#151 - 2015-03-26 07:19:22 UTC
Svarii wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:

They better get highsec access...


Capitals in Highsec. Yes! I support this 100%

Throw the miners a bone for once and start with the Rorqual?
Gankers can gank it too so it works out for both sides.


Also it's not like you could actually do anything useful to protect your miners with a Rorqual or any other capital for that matter since reps can't prevent alpha and you can't shoot firt in high sec anyway. Blink

Or well it's not like you could protect your fleet in null or low sec either if someone is really committed on ganking it.

You could have a practically "invulnerable to ganks capital" doing PvE in high sec which I presume is the only reason we don't have them in high sec but then again you could just dec the corp as usual, though the one in NPC corps might be an issue.
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#152 - 2015-03-26 07:29:54 UTC
Fredlah wrote:
So let me get this straight guys. We could assign fighters to a ship, and that ship could have a MAX of 5 (or more for carrier) fighters assigned to it, and ccp didn't like it, so they removed it.


You could assign only 5 to a ship as per maximum allowed amount of drones controlled that you could have more then 1 people to on grid with 5 fighters each is a separate issue.
Also delegated fighters counted as your maximum allotment of drones in space so you couldn't had both drones and fighters out from the same ship.

Only issue I see here is that, unlike with drones, delegated fighters retained the stats of their actual owner.
This allowed a drone carrier to pump out a maximum amount of dps for the fighters while sitting at POS.
This obviously was a none issue before all of these new drone damage toys that were implemented since before that only drone damage was from optimal- and tracking modules, ships drone dmg bonuses and drone rigs (but was there a drone dmg rig ? can't remember).
Ostor LightDust
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#153 - 2015-03-26 07:36:55 UTC
Assign != Assist for people acting confused.
Fredlah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#154 - 2015-03-26 08:11:09 UTC
Baneken wrote:
Fredlah wrote:
So let me get this straight guys. We could assign fighters to a ship, and that ship could have a MAX of 5 (or more for carrier) fighters assigned to it, and ccp didn't like it, so they removed it.


You could assign only 5 to a ship as per maximum allowed amount of drones controlled that you could have more then 1 people to on grid with 5 fighters each is a separate issue.
Also delegated fighters counted as your maximum allotment of drones in space so you couldn't had both drones and fighters out from the same ship.

Only issue I see here is that, unlike with drones, delegated fighters retained the stats of their actual owner.
This allowed a drone carrier to pump out a maximum amount of dps for the fighters while sitting at POS.
This obviously was a none issue before all of these new drone damage toys that were implemented since before that only drone damage was from optimal- and tracking modules, ships drone dmg bonuses and drone rigs (but was there a drone dmg rig ? can't remember).



Yes, that is exactly how the ASSIGN method worked. Which they were replacing with ASSIST. Which allows up to 50 to be assisted to any one ship. There have been no drone damage rigs.
Jake Reece
Blueprint Haus
Blades of Grass
#155 - 2015-03-26 08:27:06 UTC
Svarii wrote:
Rroff wrote:
Svarii wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Svarii wrote:
What's the proper response, oh yeah. TEARS! So many tears in this thread. LOL! HTFU!

Don't be a jerk. They have a legitimate concern.


Maybe they do. But it's not going to change anytime soon. Solution: Just use your fighters to apply DPS to a target instead of assigning them to another ship. People are acting like the fighters are useless now. The only thing that will be changing is how the ship is used by the players.


With the long lock time of non-triage carriers combined with the now nerfed scan res of fighters there is no reason to actually use them in a combat fit any more over the alternatives which also has an impact on fighter use in PVE.

I hope for consistency sake they now apply this to other areas of eve where things are in some cases problematic i.e. sentry drones should be nerfed to 1km optimal, 1km falloff.


Missions/Sites? Structure bashing? If you really believe the carrier is useless now. Don't use it. I'll be getting mine soon either way. Guess I'm glad I didn't already have one. Don't agree with Skynet, but don't care they took away the other options as well.

Good luck with your efforts to change it back. You're going to need it. o7


Either of those activities both in Null and WH-Space can be interrupted by gang of uninvited guests... and with current fighters condition, and sensor strenght it will take a LONG time to help your fleet in fighting due to target locking delay.... If you could assist - then you would not be delayed...
Jake Reece
Blueprint Haus
Blades of Grass
#156 - 2015-03-26 08:37:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Jake Reece
Fredlah wrote:
So let me get this straight guys. We could assign fighters to a ship, and that ship could have a MAX of 5 (or more for carrier) fighters assigned to it, and ccp didn't like it, so they removed it.

But with assist/guard ships would be able to have FIFTY fighters. PER SHIP. If you don't think that would have been broken then you're really wouldn't have enjoyed fights when an interceptor that could control 5 fighters is now controlling 50.

Take your head out of your asses and actually think for a moment, yeah?

If you are a carrier or supercarrier and you want to shoot something, you get on grid with it, drop fighters, and shoot it. They are still going to be at increased risk. Just be happy there is no insta-locking interceptor controlling them and carriers take a while to lock stuff, christ

you had a broken mechanic, and now you are having a tantrum because you didn't get an even more broken mechanic?


You are wrong m8t...

Assist means that your fighters would attack the taget of the ship you are assisting... So lets say your friend in BS has targeted someone - you could now send your fighters to assist that BS in attack on that target... and yes as it works with drones - you can send all of the fighters to assist, but you and only you will have full controll over them - so that BS would not be able to turn them back to orbit or send anywhere else.... as they would be fully controlled by carrier.

And yes - it means that it could be 15 fighters shootiang at the target of fleet member.
Aijle Mijleroff
Infernal Laboratory
Infernal Octopus
#157 - 2015-03-26 09:37:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Aijle Mijleroff
After small update in 25 March I am not may use more than 2 clients, if I launch third or more clients of eve one of them is working unstable (I can not open any menu) Evil
need to clear the cache of the client and launcher and then a couple of hours lags disappear, after 1-2 hours of work clients again unstable

PS: and launcher of eve online working very very bad
Azami Nevinyrall
172.0.0.1
#158 - 2015-03-26 12:06:31 UTC
Baneken wrote:
Svarii wrote:
Azami Nevinyrall wrote:

They better get highsec access...


Capitals in Highsec. Yes! I support this 100%

Throw the miners a bone for once and start with the Rorqual?
Gankers can gank it too so it works out for both sides.


Also it's not like you could actually do anything useful to protect your miners with a Rorqual or any other capital for that matter since reps can't prevent alpha and you can't shoot firt in high sec anyway. Blink

Or well it's not like you could protect your fleet in null or low sec either if someone is really committed on ganking it.

You could have a practically "invulnerable to ganks capital" doing PvE in high sec which I presume is the only reason we don't have them in high sec but then again you could just dec the corp as usual, though the one in NPC corps might be an issue.

I was thinking Carriers and Industrial Capitals only.

...prevent Capital module and Fighter usage.

...no Super shall be allowed in highsec!

...
Blitzer Harrsk
Mazda Miata Fan Club
#159 - 2015-03-26 13:23:15 UTC
Fredlah wrote:
So let me get this straight guys. We could assign fighters to a ship, and that ship could have a MAX of 5 (or more for carrier) fighters assigned to it, and ccp didn't like it, so they removed it.

But with assist/guard ships would be able to have FIFTY fighters. PER SHIP. If you don't think that would have been broken then you're really wouldn't have enjoyed fights when an interceptor that could control 5 fighters is now controlling 50.

*Take your head out of your asses and actually think for a moment, yeah?*

If you are a carrier or supercarrier and you want to shoot something, you get on grid with it, drop fighters, and shoot it. They are still going to be at increased risk. Just be happy there is no insta-locking interceptor controlling them and carriers take a while to lock stuff, christ

you had a broken mechanic, and now you are having a tantrum because you didn't get an even more broken mechanic?


Clearly you don't know the difference between assisting fighters and delegating/assigning them.

Defend: If something shoots at assisted ships, fighters pew it. Fighters cannot leave grid if assisted ship leaves. Carrier must be on grid as well.
Assist: If assisted ship shoots at something, fighters should help it. Fighters cannot leave grid if assisted ship leaves. Carrier must be on grid as well.
Fighters remain fully-usable only by carrier, and essentially become superdrones (as is appropriate considering their price)

Assigned fighters: Treated exactly like the ships own fighters, but bonused by carrier; Able to leave grid, press F to pay respects is also enabled, permitting all sorts of shenanigans.

Also, lol @ carrier lock-times, BRB detailing my car while I wait for lock-on.

But yes, replacing "assign fighters" with another mechanic that forces the carrier to be on-grid and treated like any other droneboat is totally broken, those ships shouldn't be allowed outside a station! /s


Illiteracy is a terrible thing :Sad
Fredlah
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#160 - 2015-03-26 14:22:21 UTC
Blitzer Harrsk wrote:
Fredlah wrote:
So let me get this straight guys. We could assign fighters to a ship, and that ship could have a MAX of 5 (or more for carrier) fighters assigned to it, and ccp didn't like it, so they removed it.

But with assist/guard ships would be able to have FIFTY fighters. PER SHIP. If you don't think that would have been broken then you're really wouldn't have enjoyed fights when an interceptor that could control 5 fighters is now controlling 50.

*Take your head out of your asses and actually think for a moment, yeah?*

If you are a carrier or supercarrier and you want to shoot something, you get on grid with it, drop fighters, and shoot it. They are still going to be at increased risk. Just be happy there is no insta-locking interceptor controlling them and carriers take a while to lock stuff, christ

you had a broken mechanic, and now you are having a tantrum because you didn't get an even more broken mechanic?


Clearly you don't know the difference between assisting fighters and delegating/assigning them.

Defend: If something shoots at assisted ships, fighters pew it. Fighters cannot leave grid if assisted ship leaves. Carrier must be on grid as well.
Assist: If assisted ship shoots at something, fighters should help it. Fighters cannot leave grid if assisted ship leaves. Carrier must be on grid as well.
Fighters remain fully-usable only by carrier, and essentially become superdrones (as is appropriate considering their price)

Assigned fighters: Treated exactly like the ships own fighters, but bonused by carrier; Able to leave grid, press F to pay respects is also enabled, permitting all sorts of shenanigans.

Also, lol @ carrier lock-times, BRB detailing my car while I wait for lock-on.

But yes, replacing "assign fighters" with another mechanic that forces the carrier to be on-grid and treated like any other droneboat is totally broken, those ships shouldn't be allowed outside a station! /s


Illiteracy is a terrible thing :Sad



I know the difference and have outlined them perfectly fine. The point (which you seem to have missed) is that with both assist or defend, you would have been able to have 50 fighters assisting/defending any given ship. Removing assigned fighters, which had a cap of 5 fighters, for assist/defend, with a cap of 50? I'm glad they didn't do that. And I fly a supercarrier. I know the difference mate. Assigned fighters was broken but giving assist/defend capabilities, nope that's going to end up even more broken.