Player Features and Ideas Discussion

You have to be pretty bad at this game to lose a ship sitting at a POS... (I am meaning this glibly as no doubt if I continued playing I would at some point):

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCVsQUlP81Q

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

Just 2 of several methods that can be used to make your capital almost instantly safe without moving an inch. Doing skynet "properly" your almost immune to repercussion unless you get lazy or screw up or do it from the same POS too many times in a row (second one works better if you have an inty or something to swap into).

(Obviously these methods aren't entirely proof against infiltration, etc.)

EDIT: I hasten to add I agree with your general point - but skynet when done properly is completely broken - it did not however warrant what we have seen happen to fighters.

EDIT2: Also there was some delay in my videos in putting those methods into use - partly for demonstration purposes and partly as I'm knackered from work and head isn't really in it - against someone on the ball you wouldn't get a single shot off.

Absolutely no reason why delegate couldn't still exist with some adjustments that would have killed skynet just as effectively coupled with some other mechanism so that carriers can't make themselves safe... apart from my increasing feeling there are very few people in the game, including devs, who are upto speed on those aspects.

I agree, lets nerf all t2 frigates, cruisers, and bomb damage application into the ground. So that in a future patch at some unknown date we can completely rework the system making each tier of ship desirable/viable again.

So in a year or more after this nerf they can patch in a change to the damage calculation adding a penetration variable making it near impossible for a frigate to damage a battleship, while a battleship can barely, if at all, track a frigate. Then you are FORCED to field a cruiser or higher to kill a battleship, a battleship or higher to kill a capital. It's balanced right??? THIS was the rework you waited years for.

Your damage got **** on in one patch, then a year later it was pigeonholed further so taking your ship against larger ships was now completely out of the question. But you now have a specified role so there is no more confusion as to your purpose.


*Just to give you a reverse example of what has occurred here.

--


You see the problem here is things are being nerfed/removed with nobody but crying nobodies asking for it because they don't have the power themselves YET to handle the situation. Or just refuse to avoid a fight and recognize when they have been bested. But CCP promises that with these changes that a future patch will "make them desirable" again. Which translates to one of two things:
1) We wait a year or more for the rework and they are released creating a even more specified niche they can now fill.
2) We wait a year or more for the rework and they are released more broken than you considered them to be before, more crying, and more nerfing ensues as the cycle continues.

You can only assign 5 fighters to 1 interceptor.
Nothing stopped the idiots getting killed from warping away, jumping the gate, bringing more ships, hot dropping the carrier, etc etc ETC...

Bunch of noobs crying because they are getting killed by OVERWHELMING forces DEFENDING their space.

CCP just give mini doomsdays to ceptors and lets call it a day, i'm sure the noobs will finally be happy nothing can kill them, and they can kill anything.

http://eveion.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/ccp-introduces-balancing-on-fly.html Relevant to the new changes.

Now though you can have alot more fun and still use fighters by putting yourself at risk like everybody else by being in grid. Still don't understand why sitting at a POS is being argued as a good thing apart from by people with zero pvp skill.

I believe you are correct in saying that the 'victory' does not require destruction, however, the concern against fighter assist is not the destruction of capitals being absent, but the risk associated with using fighters. Sure, making a carrier duck under the shields might mean you control the field, but why should the carrier exert power over a field the ship is not even on, and not have the same amount of risk associated with it?

And stop pretending to speak for the majority. You in no way can try to use the silent majority to bolster your opinion.

I've always considered the pre-work done to acheive these kinds of things as a last concern. Usually reserved for comparing it to similar features rather than to the rest of the game as a whole. Otherwise things get very convoluted trying to make them work out properly.

True, its something a little closer to my heart as I tend to fly ships I care about a bit, usually put some effort into and often fairly expensive and while I'm not shy of putting them on grid won't throw away on a whim or treat in a disposable manner and I see the whole risk thing a bit differently to the typical attitude of many who fly around in generic fit flavour of the month inexpensive roaming ships or alliance wide doctrine ships. (Which as a very long post which I've re-typed half a dozen times and abandoned as no one really wants to read all through it leads back to why I've been vocal against the (as implemented) fighter changes in this thread despite also being anti-skynet and why I've made the decision not to continue with the game once my subscriptions expire).

Taking a short break from the game and my whole playstyle pve wise is gone - not really sure what game i come back to with this patch frequency. first the jumping now i cant even use carriers for 2 acc ratting? they only seem to care for the big things and not for the little guy. all the changes affect large scale sov stuff but also individual players in their logistics and personal money making. one needs a certain amount of overhead and isk income to partake in all the other stuff in eve. that overhead has now grown to a size where the ratio of have to do / wanna do is unfavorable - guess it's hitaus-o-clocka