These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Scylla] Skynet - Removing Fighter Assist

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1441 - 2015-04-10 17:29:20 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
1) Off Grid Boosters.
2) If they were going to re-purpose them, they should have either a) given us some hint or b) held off until they were going to enact the actual change.


They gave you a hint in the thread about the scan res on fighter and fighter bomber. They specifically said they were loking into making change to it but not in that particular release. It came pretty much right after.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1442 - 2015-04-10 17:30:18 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
OGB is the same cancer that will be dealt with shortly.
There are/were no technical solutions for either of them. Blink


Wrong.
Boosters are no longer unscannable, and can no longer boost from inside a shield. Just add in a limit to the distance from a POS and you're golden.


THey already said the reason boost are not on grid yet is server load. It will come if they find a solution to that.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1443 - 2015-04-10 19:35:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
OGB is the same cancur that will be dealt with shortly.

There are/were no technical solutions for either of them. Blink


The cold hard truth is 90% of people complaining about off grid boosters are actually people who just want the results without having to put in the effort - once it goes they'll just move onto complaining about whatever else gives a prepared/competitive player/corp an edge.

There are some areas of eve that it does validly have an undesirable negative impact but generally in anything other than very small gang/"solo" action people tend to bring command ships with them on grid these days and/or when they don't its generally because they are flying a setup that doesn't have a suitable on grid command platform i.e. some smaller kiting setups and so resort to off grid boosting.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#1444 - 2015-04-10 19:36:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
If the on-grid issue can't be resolved, unloading Armour/Skirmish/Shield links onto a structure could be an interesting option - same bonuses, but the source is now very scannable and is immobile, and depending on the anchoring delay - could be more of a defensive featurette. Blink

Perhaps a concept for the new structure system that is in the works. Anchoring should require the same skills as with current links. Smile

Rroff wrote:
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
OGB is the same cancur that will be dealt with shortly.

There are/were no technical solutions for either of them. Blink


The cold hard truth is 90% of people complaining about off grid boosters are actually people who just want the results without having to put in the effort.


It is a cancerous mechanic requiring to dual box a booster in any size gangs by default. Smile

Cancerous mechanic. Smile

Full stop. Smile

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1445 - 2015-04-10 19:40:35 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
If the on-grid issue can't be resolved, unloading Armour/Skirmish/Shield links onto a structure could be an interesting concept - same bonuses, but the source is now very scannable and is immobile. Blink

Perhaps a concept for the new structure system that is in the works. Anchoring should require the same skills as with current links. Smile


A bit off topic for this thread - but I'd have loved to see links made a bit more tactical with a little of the effectiveness reduced on the links themselves (not too much as that would make them less attractive to use on unbonused BCs, etc.) and more of the effect moved to a variety of mindlinks with various grades of penalties i.e. you could have really powerful links for certain areas but they'd come at the cost of for instance sensor strength with the most basic mindlink having no penalty at all like with drugs. A variation of it could also be used to keep off grid boosting useable for non PVP use while generally ineffective for PVP use, etc.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1446 - 2015-04-10 19:48:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:

It is a cancerous mechanic requiring to dual box a booster in any size gangs by default. Smile

Cancerous mechanic. Smile

Full stop. Smile


And always will do - while not really something I've done very prolifically - when roaming on one char and trundling a booster around with it if off grid wasn't possible it would be coming on grid in "buff bot" form - an eos with mostly hands free brick tank, remote reps + links, local/remote eccm'd to the max, etc. contributing some extra dps via drones assisted to the main character.

(I don't generally do much outside of small to medium fleet PVP however so most of the time we have on grid links anyhow).

If your wanting fair 1v1 you ain't gonna find it (for the most part) in eve.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#1447 - 2015-04-10 19:51:55 UTC
It is the same as with trapping people in flying mothership coffins. Fun. Smile

Used to be a time when they envisioned BCs and CS on grid heroically supporting the fleets.

Is cancer now. Big smile

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Sep DeNau
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1448 - 2015-04-11 04:24:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Sep DeNau
When I open my client and see the 20,000 plus pilots online, that number is not necessarily the true number of "people" online. The game even advertises sidekick accounts to help with the tasking of your main account. Fighter assist was a feature I used to assist my main account in ratting, mining security, and defence of my system owned by my small corp. Lets face it, when it comes to combat, I am not going to go all in with all my accounts with my mediocre PC. I am going to use my strongest backed up by command bonuses off grid and now no longer fighter support. I guess there really is no room in EVE for little corps unless I give in and join the masses if I want to survive in null sec. Cheers to the death of good tactics and great game features!
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#1449 - 2015-04-11 08:30:59 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
OGB is the same cancur that will be dealt with shortly.

There are/were no technical solutions for either of them. Blink

No tactical solution against OGB? I wholeheartedly recommend ample use of combat probes with some player skills (be a capable prober both in terms of SP and knowledge), implants and proper ships. You can easily shut OGB off or scan and kill them when they dualbox and don't have their eyes on the booster all the time. Both things are very effective counters to OGB.
Skynet also has a counter: it's called drive by doomsday or a couple of supers showing up to have their Maleuses say hello. However, it is admittedly a lot harder to pull off and a whole lot riskier than to combat probe a boosting T3 and not feasible for smaller groups.

UI Improvement Collective

My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#1450 - 2015-04-11 10:40:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Tech - ni - cal.

No technical solution of turning cancer OGB into GB. Blink

Rivr Luzade wrote:

Skynet also has a counter: it's called drive by doomsday or a couple of supers showing up to have their Maleuses say hello.


Big smileBig smileBig smile

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDphNX9WmbU

My Nanophoons and 8 HS Geddons also had a counter.

Maybe. Blink

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1451 - 2015-04-11 12:33:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
^^ You "could" driveby someone doing skynet if they were lazy/complacent but it generally meant they had to do it frequently from the same POS and allow someone the opportunity to get a character logged off in position to spring the ambush. Anyone half on the ball would be a lot less susceptible to a driveby - the revenant for instance logged in at a spot quite a way off the FF (probably the spot he'd cyno'd in at before logging out) leaving himself quite vulnerable.

(That method above is much better done having the SMA window open and an inty or something selected ready to swap to and easily save your pod as well as making it quicker to panic do).
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#1452 - 2015-04-11 13:17:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Rroff wrote:
^^ You "could" driveby someone doing skynet


Hafta agree that game is degenerating beyond repair, when such options, and such scenarios like DD drivebys become 1) necessary; 2) common place; 3) yet unsuccessful in the case of Skynet specifically.

Hence DEATH TO ALL CAPITALS! Big smile

Is gud they saw reason, and that Skynet is no more.

☑ Skynet
☐ Non-Triage remote rep
☐ Cap transfers

Soem points to go, but gud start, gud start. Smile

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Tydil Flux
VV4ve
#1453 - 2015-04-11 13:18:20 UTC
Honestly just force a check on the size of ship that the drone/fighter is being assigned to. Assigning fighters to other carriers should be okay. Why is this such a hard concept???
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1454 - 2015-04-11 13:44:22 UTC
Tydil Flux wrote:
Honestly just force a check on the size of ship that the drone/fighter is being assigned to. Assigning fighters to other carriers should be okay. Why is this such a hard concept???


I still say the best solution would have been to force apply sig/damage scaling on fighters - fighters are frig sized platforms but piloted by "regular" pilots so you wouldn't expect them to be as proficient as pod pilots with the same sized craft making them most effective against battleships and other capitals. Sure it would have had a bit of an impact on people ratting with skynet type fits but they could bring their ratting capabilities back upto par by investing a bit more ISK in the ship they had on grid so I don't have much sympathy in that regard (none the least coming from a C5 wormhole background there have been times when I've been multiboxing 8+bn worth of ships on grid running escalations in PVE).
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#1455 - 2015-04-11 14:42:10 UTC
It's dead, Jim.

Ain't coming back. Blink

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Arctic Estidal
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1456 - 2015-04-11 15:03:56 UTC
The reason for its removal by CCP is due to the new node sov mechanic, which if allowed to continue would provide a significant defence strength to defenders as they would have a super on the system which an attacker would be trying to use an entosis link on and could kill the attackers without significant risk of assets.

I agree the mechanic is overpowered for the defender, or an attacker who drops a ninja pos, but there has to be significant bonuses to defenders who have upgraded their systems and actively use their space, when compared to non-active, non-upgraded systems.

I think this is an overpowered mechanic, but the question remains, what are you doing for super capital pilots that wants them to risk the isk, and secondly what are you doing to provide defence bonuses for heavily used systems so the staging systems of alliances cannot be headshot and the all their items and isk destroyed.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1457 - 2015-04-11 15:14:45 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
It's dead, Jim.

Ain't coming back. Blink


Yup :S - Rroff expires 12 April 2015 - 7:18 pm UTC (in 1 days) all my other accounts are down. So you won't have to put up with my posts in this thread much longer.

Arctic Estidal wrote:
The reason for its removal by CCP is due to the new node sov mechanic, which if allowed to continue would provide a significant defence strength to defenders as they would have a super on the system which an attacker would be trying to use an entosis link on and could kill the attackers without significant risk of assets.


Hope that isn't the (real) reason... thats a very poor way to do game development.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1458 - 2015-04-11 17:04:06 UTC
Arctic Estidal wrote:
The reason for its removal by CCP is due to the new node sov mechanic, which if allowed to continue would provide a significant defence strength to defenders as they would have a super on the system which an attacker would be trying to use an entosis link on and could kill the attackers without significant risk of assets.

I agree the mechanic is overpowered for the defender, or an attacker who drops a ninja pos, but there has to be significant bonuses to defenders who have upgraded their systems and actively use their space, when compared to non-active, non-upgraded systems.

I think this is an overpowered mechanic, but the question remains, what are you doing for super capital pilots that wants them to risk the isk, and secondly what are you doing to provide defence bonuses for heavily used systems so the staging systems of alliances cannot be headshot and the all their items and isk destroyed.


If your system is well used, the timers will take much longer letting you mount up an effective defense. You also probably ahve most if not all POS as friendly and possibly a station for re-shipping too.

What more do you need?
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1459 - 2015-04-11 19:54:32 UTC
Completely off the wall rough idea but thinking about the idea of a bastion style module for delegation - as an aside it could have been extended to the rorqual with a "resource collector" style mining "fighter" (obviously not actually a fighter) but only delegatable to barges/exhumers - sure it wouldn't get the rorqual on grid but not many things will get someone to put a rorqual on grid without significant reward anyway but it would have a window of vulnerability but granular enough level of risk it wouldn't put people off using it.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1460 - 2015-04-12 00:43:14 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Completely off the wall rough idea but thinking about the idea of a bastion style module for delegation - as an aside it could have been extended to the rorqual with a "resource collector" style mining "fighter" (obviously not actually a fighter) but only delegatable to barges/exhumers - sure it wouldn't get the rorqual on grid but not many things will get someone to put a rorqual on grid without significant reward anyway but it would have a window of vulnerability but granular enough level of risk it wouldn't put people off using it.

It was mentioned countless times before, and you yourself dismissed it earlier.