These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#141 - 2015-01-06 03:04:18 UTC
Constantinee wrote:
Fozzie this still dont fix the archon spam that happens on a daily with sentries....
why hasent this even been adressed?


I would agree that sentries need to go in general. There really is no sufficient counter to carriers that can spit out hundreds of sentry drones and/or recall and redeploy them to dodge bombs. Except Supers! Roll
Tykonderoga
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#142 - 2015-01-06 03:05:48 UTC
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
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.



But somehow I feel that the 30k coalition you have cobbled together would not go away. And the only reason there has been a stockpiling of supers and titans has been to oppose your 30k man blob. And you say you want a healthy game, but how is a 30k man coalition, and that is most of EvE, healthy for the game?
Mr Omniblivion
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#143 - 2015-01-06 03:10:52 UTC
The current problem is that without a change from CCP, whoever acts first (and disbands or destroys their supers) loses.

I have a sneaky suspicion that the upcoming sov changes will pave the way for upcoming nerfs/removal of supers, and thus, the large coalitions.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#144 - 2015-01-06 03:17:34 UTC
Tykonderoga wrote:

But somehow I feel that the 30k coalition you have cobbled together would not go away. And the only reason there has been a stockpiling of supers and titans has been to oppose your 30k man blob. And you say you want a healthy game, but how is a 30k man coalition, and that is most of EvE, healthy for the game?

nerf diplomacy ;-(
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#145 - 2015-01-06 03:22:30 UTC
please allow me, as a representative of goonswarm federation, to apologize for using game breaking tactics such as "finding roles for low-SP doctrines," "making the game tolerable for new players," and "talking to people with the general goal of benefiting both parties"
Mario Putzo
#146 - 2015-01-06 03:29:18 UTC
Tykonderoga wrote:
Mr Omniblivion wrote:
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.



But somehow I feel that the 30k coalition you have cobbled together would not go away. And the only reason there has been a stockpiling of supers and titans has been to oppose your 30k man blob. And you say you want a healthy game, but how is a 30k man coalition, and that is most of EvE, healthy for the game?


Oh come on man settle down with the ideological hyperbole/ Obviously CFC is healthy for the game. You don't get 30K people working together to generate content for whatever the **** they want without having a healthy community. If any NS group was actually a cancer to the game they wouldn't exist because people just wouldn't play with them anymore.

Put down the pamphlets man.

d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#147 - 2015-01-06 03:41:44 UTC
How about nerfing the thousands of interceptors, cov ops and ishtars instead of picking on a few supercaps that are trying to survive from the onslaught flying something expensive brings? Meaning everyone wants to kill it and will do almost anything to get that on that KM...

Been around since the beginning.

Arkady Romanov
Whole Squid
#148 - 2015-01-06 03:46:20 UTC
Poor little you in your 25 billion ISK ship which was designed without proper consideration of its place in the context of the rest of the game. What an astonishing amount of effort it must have taken to maintain your account long enough for passive SP gain to skill you into it.

Truly, yours is the greatest burden to bear.

Whole Squid: Get Inked.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#149 - 2015-01-06 04:23:20 UTC
Removed an off topic post.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department

baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#150 - 2015-01-06 04:35:18 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
please allow me, as a representative of goonswarm federation, to apologize for using game breaking tactics such as "finding roles for low-SP doctrines," "making the game tolerable for new players," and "talking to people with the general goal of benefiting both parties"


You monster.
Firefox4312 Yatolila
Full Broadside
Deepwater Hooligans
#151 - 2015-01-06 06:38:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Firefox4312 Yatolila
So I guess this exploit splerg from CCP is more of an excuse for a nerf. Because if it was actually an exploit, and ccp cared about their game (which I guess they don't), they'd fix the bad code and not change some variables that leaves exploitable code in their game.

If I can get my sentries to recall then redeploy and engage and shoot in under their 4s ROF timer, say 3.5s, would I not be exploiting? What if I did this with Geckos, or Warriors, or ecm drones to get more jam cycles off? Aren't these all cases of exploiting? So why change only fighters/bombers at this point? Why not nerf the scan res of every drone in eve since they can all gain a DPS bonus from this exploit? Surely you'd have to rebalance the scanres on every drone in eve to fix this problem if CCP would rather not fix their code.

e: I think we should let Rise handle these changes so we can o7 drones completely like we o7'd RLMLs.
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#152 - 2015-01-06 07:06:27 UTC
Firefox4312 Yatolila wrote:
So I guess this exploit splerg from CCP is more of an excuse for a nerf. Because if it was actually an exploit, and ccp cared about their game (which I guess they don't), they'd fix the bad code and not change some variables that leaves exploitable code in their game.

If I can get my sentries to recall then redeploy and engage and shoot in under their 4s ROF timer, say 3.5s, would I not be exploiting? What if I did this with Geckos, or Warriors, or ecm drones to get more jam cycles off? Aren't these all cases of exploiting? So why change only fighters/bombers at this point? Why not nerf the scan res of every drone in eve since they can all gain a DPS bonus from this exploit? Surely you'd have to rebalance the scanres on every drone in eve to fix this problem if CCP would rather not fix their code.

e: I think we should let Rise handle these changes so we can o7 drones completely like we o7'd RLMLs.


Seriously, he's right. if an "exploit" is the reason that this "rebalance" (CCP's word not mine) is being implemented, then it has to be implemented across the board, because all drones act the same way.

The explanation IS pretty weak.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...

Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#153 - 2015-01-06 07:16:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Panther X
CCP Fozzie wrote:


The primary goal of this change is to ensure that rapidly scooping and relaunching fighters and fighter bombers never gives a dps advantage. 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.

The changes will also have the effect of delaying the initial alpha strike of fighters and fighter bombers, especially against subcaps. Although it is not the primary purpose of the change we are not displeased by this effect, and we do not believe that it will make fighters or fighter bombers underpowered.

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.



OK Fozzie, I'm calling you out on this. I have never, EVER seen this being used. By anyone. Anywhere. You do realize that fighters are not sentries, and that they actually have to fly TO their target and get in optimal range? "Rapidly" scooping and relaunching fighters and FB's? WTH are you going on about? The only scooping of drones is sentries. Are you ABSOLUTELY sure you aren't supposed to be fixing sentries with this?

Seriously my Canadian comrade, how rapidly can I scoop fighter bombers from 50km away? The scoop mechanic relies on me flying TO my drones and manually gathering them doesnt it? Especially when my Aeon goes a manly 68 m/s or something meaningless like that.

My tinfoil hat is tingling here

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...

Lee Janssen
Zero Fun Allowed
#154 - 2015-01-06 07:28:46 UTC
RIP in peace 40k dps Nyx
Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#155 - 2015-01-06 07:41:59 UTC
So I wanted to use a fighter Thanatos in PVP, and buy my first super this year.

Glad I don't have to log in to make the isk anymore, thanks Fozzie.

Lee Janssen
Zero Fun Allowed
#156 - 2015-01-06 07:47:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Lee Janssen
CCP Fozzie wrote:


The new numbers are:
Type - Old Scan Res – New Scan Res
Dragonfly - 200 - 100
Einherji - 350 - 175
Firbolg - 250 - 125
Templar - 300 - 150
Cyclops – 250 - 27
Malleus - 300 - 29
Mantis - 200 - 25
Shadow – 225 - 30
Tyrfing - 350 - 31

Thanks everyone, and happy New Year!



In all honesty tho Fozzie, i'd suggest doubling the proposed scan res on bombers since it currently causes 15+ second lock times against most things where a maximum of about half that is only required, considering there is some delay between the scooping, dropping and re-engaging. (most i've got out of it has ever been about a 100% overall dps increase, hence the proposal)

So yea, 50 scanres would be entirely sufficient for this fix and alleviate some of the super pilot anger.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#157 - 2015-01-06 07:48:54 UTC
you would think with all the super-resignations from pheobe and this thread their prices would have gone down more. Its a shame really. I wanted a Hel.
Jaiimez Skor
The Infamous.
#158 - 2015-01-06 07:49:41 UTC
I feel that this is a poor approach that won't change things, so now instead of those assigned fighters killing you in 5 seconds, they'll now do it in 10. Bombers I don't see why they need a scan res nerf, bombers are not broken what is broken is drone assigned fighters to frigates and interceptors.

Firstly what should be changed is you should NOT be able to launch drones within 15/20/25km of an online control tower REGARDLESS of whether the forcefield is up or not, you should not be able to assign fighters effectively risk free next to an online control tower and just online the forcefield if someone comes for you. I would even further this by suggesting to make it 20/25/30 so you have to be a minimum of 5km off the forcefield to be able to assign fighters, again to prevent this relatively risk free use of fighter assigning.
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#159 - 2015-01-06 07:59:10 UTC
Jaiimez Skor wrote:
I feel that this is a poor approach that won't change things, so now instead of those assigned fighters killing you in 5 seconds, they'll now do it in 10. Bombers I don't see why they need a scan res nerf, bombers are not broken what is broken is drone assigned fighters to frigates and interceptors.

Firstly what should be changed is you should NOT be able to launch drones within 15/20/25km of an online control tower REGARDLESS of whether the forcefield is up or not, you should not be able to assign fighters effectively risk free next to an online control tower and just online the forcefield if someone comes for you. I would even further this by suggesting to make it 20/25/30 so you have to be a minimum of 5km off the forcefield to be able to assign fighters, again to prevent this relatively risk free use of fighter assigning.


I see what you are saying. And I get it. I don't agree with the online down forcefield thingy. That I don't do.

It just seems to me a small issue of assigned fighters. There are bigger issues to fix.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...

Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#160 - 2015-01-06 08:08:18 UTC
Here CCP I will fix this for you.

move sentries to carriers only
fighters to supers
kill fighter assist
make all capitals forbidden in lowsec

then delete all the capitals from the game.

wait, isn't this where you are going anyway?

there's your next 6 months of releases

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...