These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tykonderoga
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#121 - 2015-01-06 02:19:52 UTC
Juneau Chokis wrote:
Tykonderoga wrote:
Fighters get murdered by subcaps all the time.

Except when they have a few DDA/DNC/tracking links on them and trash literally any ship in the game without any sort of ewar required.

Not sure if the rest of your post is some high-level trolling, though. I'm laughing my ass off reading that, knowing that you're in the largest snoozefest blob alliance in the game since the death of the northern coalition. You perfectly described it with your post.



And I guess you never saw a CFC harpie fleet destroy fighters like they were nothing and the fighters do nothing against them in ten percent tidi. Even ten ishtars can defang a super easily. Just shows how you never use them.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#122 - 2015-01-06 02:23:36 UTC
Tykonderoga wrote:

And I guess you never saw a CFC harpie fleet destroy fighters like they were nothing and the fighters do nothing against them in ten percent tidi. Even ten ishtars can defang a super easily. Just shows how you never use them.

hmm yes lets use fighters against a swarm of assfrigs, this is surely the best idea yet

whats sentries precious
Tykonderoga
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#123 - 2015-01-06 02:25:37 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Tykonderoga wrote:

And I guess you never saw a CFC harpie fleet destroy fighters like they were nothing and the fighters do nothing against them in ten percent tidi. Even ten ishtars can defang a super easily. Just shows how you never use them.

hmm yes lets use fighters against a swarm of assfrigs, this is surely the best idea yet

whats sentries precious



You are missing the point that fighters are not an I win button and never have been. You have a limited number and supers can be defanged easily. They don't need to be made even more vulnerable.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#124 - 2015-01-06 02:28:26 UTC
Tykonderoga wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Tykonderoga wrote:

And I guess you never saw a CFC harpie fleet destroy fighters like they were nothing and the fighters do nothing against them in ten percent tidi. Even ten ishtars can defang a super easily. Just shows how you never use them.

hmm yes lets use fighters against a swarm of assfrigs, this is surely the best idea yet

whats sentries precious



You are missing the point that fighters are not an I win button and never have been. You have a limited number and supers can be defanged easily. They don't need to be made even more vulnerable.

so your grand idea is to concoct the worst possible target to use fighters on as the fulcrum for your argument

great plan

also wow everyone calm down, it's literally putting a small delay on the fighter or fighter bomber attacking, it's not the end of the world
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#125 - 2015-01-06 02:29:19 UTC
actually i take that back, an online POS is the worst possible target for a fighter

swarms of afterburning assfrigs are probably #2 though
Tykonderoga
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#126 - 2015-01-06 02:33:08 UTC
You haven't disproved anything I said. This is not a fix to anything but a made up problem by developers who do not like capitals or supers.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#127 - 2015-01-06 02:35:47 UTC
Tykonderoga wrote:
You haven't disproved anything I said. This is not a fix to anything but a made up problem by developers who do not like capitals or supers.

i dunno seems pretty cut and dried to me, there existed an edge case where fighters and fighterbombers were able to shoot much more frequently than normal, and the edge case was handled in probably the most elegant way possible
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#128 - 2015-01-06 02:36:46 UTC
the only case where this actually hurts someone using fighters or fighterbombers are as follows:

A) they were using the exploit
2) they are ratting with fighters (or fighterbombers lmbo)

since anyone doing 2 is a complete retard we are forced to assume that anyone complaining was doing A
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#129 - 2015-01-06 02:40:10 UTC
It was me- I did it. Supers were too effective against us in the "oh I didn't know we deployed" deployment so I personally went to our goon CCP developers homes and shared some delicious bourbon as we discussed how to kneecap only our most hated enemies.


I really don't understand the whining over lock time on fighters/bombers. That is, unless, you were reliant on assigning fighters from supers orbiting a POS at 31km offgrid. In any real battle with capital ships or battleships (lol), this doesn't really have much effect.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#130 - 2015-01-06 02:42:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
CCP Fozzie wrote:
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.

Can you guys kill drone assist while you're at it?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Tykonderoga
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#131 - 2015-01-06 02:45:27 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Tykonderoga wrote:
You haven't disproved anything I said. This is not a fix to anything but a made up problem by developers who do not like capitals or supers.

i dunno seems pretty cut and dried to me, there existed an edge case where fighters and fighterbombers were able to shoot much more frequently than normal, and the edge case was handled in probably the most elegant way possible



O, dear lord! An undocumented case of an imaginary exploit!
Mario Putzo
#132 - 2015-01-06 02:45:56 UTC
Alvatore DiMarco wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
I don't get the significance of this change. Fighters and Fighter Bombers aren't really an issue in Cap v Subcap fights.

"These aren't the drones you are looking for"...somebody, probably.

Nerf sentries my good man, we all know they are out of balance, and we all know why there has been mostly drone boat meta since you tweaked Drones as a dedicated weapons platform over a year ago.

Its not bombers, its not fighter bombers, its not the Domi, it wasn't the Gila, it isn't the Prophecy, its not the Ishtar...

Its Sentry Drones. Quit kicking the can when anyone with a set of functioning eyeballs can see that Sentry Drones are not in line with other weapons, or other drones....god damn.


I'm not sure the problem really is sentries so much as how many ships are able to use them. They should be considered battleship-sized weapons for all intents and purposes and the ships that use them should absolutely be balanced with that in mind - mostly by having access to them removed or neutered. The Ishtar shouldn't be launching five sentries - no sub-battleship hull should be, especially not something cruiser-sized - and a capital ship shouldn't have subcapital-class tracking in the form of sentry and heavy drones. I'm sure someone will complain "but what if my carrier gets tackled and my fighters can't hit the ship?" and to that person I say "then you obviously shouldn't be operating a capital ship without subcap support".



Completely disagree. First there is nothing wrong with ships using drones to combat smaller class ships. This includes sentry carriers. The functionality of drones is not an issue with game play and they should not be restricted based on "ship size". Sentries are just to good at what they do and need to be scaled back some. Thats it.

Or better yet just get rid of them and allow Lights/Mediums/Heavies to have a "mode" switch.

1) Mobile
Can move
Low Damage per shot
High Rate of Fire
Short Range
Good Tracking

2) Sentry
Can't move
High Damage per shot
Low Rate of Fire
Long Range
Poor Tracking.

This allows drone boats at all levels to function as "brawlers" or "snipers" and gives added functionality to what is more or less a fire and forget weapon system.

I dunno, Sentries need to be looked at before CCP tweaks any more hulls thats for sure.
Rawketsled
Generic Corp Name
#133 - 2015-01-06 02:46:16 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
the only case where this actually hurts someone using fighters or fighterbombers are as follows:

A) they were using the exploit
2) they are ratting with fighters (or fighterbombers lmbo)

since anyone doing 2 is a complete retard we are forced to assume that anyone complaining was doing A

Why on earth would you want to stop anyone potato enough to rat with FBs from doing so?

Let idiots be idiots. Natural selection will take care of them.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#134 - 2015-01-06 02:46:40 UTC
Tykonderoga wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Tykonderoga wrote:
You haven't disproved anything I said. This is not a fix to anything but a made up problem by developers who do not like capitals or supers.

i dunno seems pretty cut and dried to me, there existed an edge case where fighters and fighterbombers were able to shoot much more frequently than normal, and the edge case was handled in probably the most elegant way possible



O, dear lord! An undocumented case of an imaginary exploit!

i recommend the "sticking your fingers in your ears and humming loudly" response towards all game changes
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#135 - 2015-01-06 02:47:49 UTC
Rawketsled wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
the only case where this actually hurts someone using fighters or fighterbombers are as follows:

A) they were using the exploit
2) they are ratting with fighters (or fighterbombers lmbo)

since anyone doing 2 is a complete retard we are forced to assume that anyone complaining was doing A

Why on earth would you want to stop anyone potato enough to rat with FBs from doing so?

Let idiots be idiots. Natural selection will take care of them.

i mean they can still rat with fighters (or fb rofl) after the patch, albeit at a very slight reduction in ISK / hr
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#136 - 2015-01-06 02:49:58 UTC
like if you are seriously so invested in fridging red crosses as your reason to log in that DRONE LOCK TIME is something that you accrue upset feelings about then you may wish to re-evaluate a thing or two
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#137 - 2015-01-06 02:50:59 UTC
If you guys are looking to offload your now "worthless" super carriers, I hear Black Legion is looking to replenish their fleet Pirate
Tykonderoga
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#138 - 2015-01-06 02:51:26 UTC
I was a little shocked I did not see you post four times. Anyway, there is no reason for this nerf other than to nerf alliances that like to use them and to in turn slowly make them useless. At least Baltec is truthful about his intentions. Well, he should amend his words to say: "Death to your supers, but not ours."
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#139 - 2015-01-06 02:59:00 UTC
Tykonderoga wrote:
"Death to your supers, but not ours."


In all honesty, the entirety of the CFC* would be more than happy to trade our supers in for other ships or reimbursement.

Supers really weigh down the low/null experience and are the reason for the huge coalitions. Thousands of subcaps don't matter against the combination of caps/supers, so groups are defined purely on the number of supers that they can contribute.

*: I say entirety, but I'm sure there are a few scrubs in the CFC that would cry that their shiny epeen was taken away.
Constantinee
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#140 - 2015-01-06 02:59:49 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
If you guys are looking to offload your now "worthless" super carriers, I hear Black Legion is looking to replenish their fleet Pirate


8 of 70.... our entire fleet is sacked whatever will we do..

Fozzie this still dont fix the archon spam that happens on a daily with sentries....
why hasent this even been adressed?

Constantinee video archive. http://www.youtube.com/user/Constvids?feature=mhee