|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1438
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 22:27:35 -
[1] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Yet another exploit tied to the drone system. Is it about time to start yelling "Death to Drones!" as much as we yell "Death to all Supers!", perhaps?
Death to all supers didn;t work all that well so while I might support the idea, I doubt it will have any real success... |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1438
|
Posted - 2015.01.05 22:28:43 -
[2] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Yarda Black wrote:So prevent relaunch within 20 seconds of scooping/returning drones.
They're trying to lower server load caused by drones, not increase it. The system would have to track each individual drone's lowered timer.
Timer on the pilot, can't launch any drone for 20 seconds after launching some others. But that is also server load technically... |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1440
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 18:37:13 -
[3] - Quote
EvilweaselFinance wrote:afkalt wrote:I wonder how easy it might be to have damage drones fire at the END of the cycle...?
Solved. Instantly. this is the sort of intelligent thinking that creates actually useful solutions question would be if you'd break ewar drones (really ecm drones, the rest might as well not exist) which is sort of a code issue
How about just making fighter/fighter-bomber small alpha high ROF for the same dps? Gaming a cycle by reseting it only works if that cycle is long enough to outlast the overhead of re-deploying. If it fires every 4 server ticks, you will have to be baller as **** to scoop/re-deploy fast enough after a cycle to gain some.
Is there a reason why they were built on the "high" alpha low ROF model to begin with? Server load of all those shots? |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1440
|
Posted - 2015.01.06 21:31:08 -
[4] - Quote
Angelique Duchemin wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:baltec1 wrote:Tykonderoga wrote:baltec1 wrote:Brace yourselves, NC DOT superwaggon arriving. Brace yourself, you use drones too, friend. And your bears do too. We dont care. Death to all supers. I guess that blog by your leader not log ago ordering all goons to NOT sell their super capitals is a figment of my imagination? No Goon can order any other Goon to do anything.
How about "Never stop posting" ?
:D |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1440
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 15:17:39 -
[5] - Quote
I like how everybody seems to be hunting for what the exploit use might be for ship on ship combat when I think it's pretty obvious it would be best be used against stationary target like structures where you could stay right on top of it and deploy/scoop over and over again to finish your grind that much faster... |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1440
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 16:03:22 -
[6] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:
This. At least a few others saw the obvious exploit too - structure grinding.
If the defense for something labeled by CCP as an exploit involve the target moving, find a target that can't. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1441
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 16:11:05 -
[7] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:just in case y'all forgot, it's drone scan resolution that is being nerfed
let that sink in a bit d r o n e s c a n r e s o l u t i o n
it means practically nothing
It means something if you go from target to target often but I don't know any use case for this to happen. Do supercap blap target within 2 drone cycle worth of damage? |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1441
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 18:31:11 -
[8] - Quote
Haidere wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:Haidere wrote: Now I admit I have not read the coding as far as drones are concerned, but you do bring up a valid point on reducing server load. I would like to take this a step further, CCP wants to reduce server load, is there a noticeable difference in server load when legions of drones are cycling normally and when a legion of drones are scooped? Now please, I am being sincere here. does the server not have a drastic change in load when those cycle times are reset? Would the load, in effect, not be the exact same if CCP made the cycle continue when your drones are in your drone bay?
You apply the timer to the player not the drones. Stop Access to the drone Hangar, stop access to Launch command or whatever. Drones on grid already put more strain on the servers than players (CCP last year after HED) as they are counted as individual objects. Extending objects to the hangar only increases the overall peak load. Currently when you recall a drone it will produce less load than one with timer on it in any capacity. Which is why you don't go on the drone level and go on the player level. It doesn't change drone behavior at all, and only limits what the player has access to. In this case launching drones. If you initiate the relaunch timer, essentially it is like reloading weapons, you no longer can control that module, in any capacity. In this case the module is the drone bay, and the ammo is drones. Remember CCP a year ago cited the same reasoning for the drone bunny nerf. In that thread numerous time it was stated that the size of ship launching drones was irrelevant. Mostly by me. We are now here a year later with the same problem Drones. Maybe its time CCP actually defined what they see in drones as a weapon system. As it stands you have several ships capable of Different damage types Numerous Ranges Effective against all ship sizes Ewar options No Reloading Its been a over a year and drones are still an issue. It started even before the Halloween War, before the Fountain War. CCP has honestly spent like 2 years balancing drones, and still refuses to just write the code so they can actually fix the problem. It baffles me how some can sit here and accept yet another CCP can kick. Another can maybe, but the same road. I hadn't thought of applying a timer to the PLAYER instead of drones, that would significantly reduce server load. Also folks, despite what you think and wanting CCP to make a fix with the least amount of work, remember, this coding is more than a decade old, they seriously need to go in and a major overhaul, otherwise small fixes and patches will add up and eventually it will become so convoluted and inefficient that they would have to redo it all anyways. I don't know about you, but I'd prefer getting that work out of the way now and be done with it for another decade.
Except in this case, the fix does not add a single line of code and does not have to be tested for non intended behaviour because all they need to do is change the scan res data value on the affected drones. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1441
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 19:22:05 -
[9] - Quote
Panther X wrote:
Doesn't sound like a fix. It sounds like an excuse.
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, if it's in Eve it's a bandaid for a larger problem.
The only gameplay getting nerfed by this is if you change target close to every cycle with your fighter/fighter-bombers. When does that happen for it to be such a massive pain in the ass to you that make the really easy way of fixing the deploy/scoop loot cycle abuse?
Tell me why this fix is such a bad idea by telling me which situation it breaks and why your carrier/super gets completely wrecked because you are un-able to make your fighter/fighter-bomber swap target every other attack cycle. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1441
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 19:48:36 -
[10] - Quote
Panther X wrote:
If you are seriously asking me, then you never read a word I actually wrote.
But ok I'll bite.
1. It doesn't happen to me. 2. a.) It doesn't break anything that I know of. I haven't gone on SiSi and been on the Masstest and tried it out to confirm or deny that it "breaks" or "fixes" anything. b.) My super is still fine, thank you very much. Not wrecked. Haven't hotdropped anyone yet today, or assigned my 3 sets of 5 fighters to 3 interceptors and tested that either. But if you are volunteering, come to my end of town and we will test it out with some other friends, and the guy who was complaining about having the literally "hundreds of fighters being assigned to hundreds of interceptors" and you can tell me if it's "broken" or "fixed"
:)
So basically, you are complaining here because you think they should put more effort into it while their proposed fix has less cost and does fix what they are intending to fix? |
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1441
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 20:12:45 -
[11] - Quote
Viktor Corgo wrote:
Now, I suppose they could convert fighters/fibos to normal drones, remove scan res, and give them a significantly higher activation time, but... that sounds like a much bigger change than just a number tweak.
If the activation delay is actually a thing. For all we know, does appear to have an activation delay because you press F in the middle of a tick so it only proceed at the next one like a normal command would so adding a long delay to F/FB would involve creating a delay to begin with. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1441
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 20:15:34 -
[12] - Quote
Panther X wrote:Niskin wrote:Panther X wrote:OK we are getting closer to the heart of the matter. There's a partial explanation, but break it down. Fighters still do really little to no more damage than sentries against structures. Why are they getting the same treatment, and sentries aren't. In a capital structure grind supers will use FB's carriers are probably going to drop sentries. That's a fair question, I don't know why Fighters got the same adjustment. It's possible there is a fighter based exploit that they didn't go into detail about. Maybe somebody else around here knows? Panther X wrote:And I don't know who sits at zero on a structure grind either. Anyone who's smart is not going to sit at zero and wait to get counter dropped by PL or goons or whoever. I think the point is that one would only sit at zero on a structure when they wanted to use this exploit. It's riskier, but up to 50% more damage is a huge damage boost when talking FB's on a structure. Essentially two SC's could do the damage of 3 in the same amount of time. Panther X wrote:Reduce scan res, make all drones one animation (instead of 10 drones make them one), delete supers, make it Ishtars Online, I don't really care.
Just give me the REAL scoop, give me the numbers to back that sh!t up, tell me where it's going. Just be freakin honest.
But this specific situation, where scan resolution of two, and two only specific drones, in an extremely limited scenario, seems to be more back burner stuff. There is more important stuff that needs to be addressed in the game. If tears and smug was a power source, there would be no energy crisis. Others have explained it already, but the difference between a data change and even the simplest code change could be the difference between an hour of work and weeks of work. Fixing exploits is important, enough so that they feel they need to make this change now. I'll leave that whole string in because it does answer stuffs. The operating word is COULD. Not DOES, not 1 or 0, or refers to null, but...maybe? Who knows if it is a major change or a minor change? No one has definitely addressed that one way or another. Did they look at that? I don't know. Does anyone? Maybe I have to run for CSM just to get the answers I want. I don't like half answers, especially to the stuff that affects me and or my style of play. It's up to me to decide what's important and what's not, just like anyone else. Troll me flame me, I don't really care. I just want to know more.
Well if you want to be relly picky about it, it DOES take more time to recode anything than just making a data change because you have to test it more after which consume man-hours from a team. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1441
|
Posted - 2015.01.07 20:21:13 -
[13] - Quote
Panther X wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Panther X wrote:Viktor Corgo wrote: ( I believe, for sentries, without having a scan res, this is a flat activation time, either way, it's short)
There's the problem right there. Drones like sentries have NO scan res, while fighters and fb's have a scan res. Yes? So... and I'm sorry if my babbywords (whatever the hell those are) aren't up to your obviously PhD level of eduma cashun why wasn't the scan res just...taken away? If the fighters and bombers have a higher scan res than the carrier itself, doesn't it make sense to treat it like other drones to not have a scan res? Why the arbitrary 90% reduction? Supers have a horrible scan res anyway. If you remove the scan res and have them activate like other drones, you make it even more worthwhile to drop/scoop them at 0 since you don't even lose ticks to the targeting delay. You might get close to 5 time the supposed amount of DPS to down a structure assuming you can drop (1st tick), shoot (2nd tick) and scoop (3rd tick) at the correct rate. 3x is more probable with errors but it does not fix the issue of the cycle resetting when the drone is scooped. Great. Makes sense. Sounds legit and all that rot. But still would just be a data change wouldnt it? If there's not scan res and the activation time is increased would that not accomplish the same thing, but make fbs and fighters act more like drones?
With only a data change, to make them act more like drones and assuming they are a different entity since they have a stat other drones don't seem to have, you could give them a scan res over 3300 IIRC to make them target pretty much everything in less than a tick thus shooting the next one like drones seem to be. It would not achieve the DEV's stated goal for this exact change but it would make them behave a little bit more like other drones. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1441
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 06:13:24 -
[14] - Quote
Solaris Vex wrote:Fighters and fighter bombers are fine. Subcaps can either outrun them or tank them with a moderate amount of logi.
They still are after this change but an exploit also happen to be fixed. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1441
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 13:13:01 -
[15] - Quote
Frank Haddad wrote:Malou Hashur wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Solaris Vex wrote:Fighters and fighter bombers are fine. Subcaps can either outrun them or tank them with a moderate amount of logi.
They still are after this change but an exploit also happen to be fixed. The "fix" to the exploit would be to introduce a re-deployment timer. This is a nerf to fighters & FB's, NOT a fix to an exploit. You need to be pretty dumb not to spot that. My thoughts exactly. If the issue is merely recall/redeploy CCP(athetic) can just add say an 10 second (example only) deployment timer any time fighter/FBs are launched. They've already got the code in other locations. Hell they have a 1 min timer on "Recall Drones" function. Can't be that damned hard to tweak the code for a deployment timer.
I guess it's "that damn hard" to not continually target swap with your bombers/fighters since that is the only time their new lock time would have an effect... |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1443
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 14:10:22 -
[16] - Quote
Panther X wrote:
Didn't speak to me either. Not a troll, and actually am trying to get answers unlike some people.
I fly carriers and a supercarrier. So...yeah. Again, like I explained before, when something directly affects me and my play style, especially my big shiny thing, I want to know everything. Why, what, where, when etc. I want numbers, graphs, charts.
I don't take anything at face value, and don't like smoke being blown up my butt.
I have a fairly good sense of humour about it, regardless of what some people say *COUGH**PF**COUGH*
Like with every other change they do to fix something they label as an exploit, they won't give you more details. They won't even explain the current usage or give number because they want to kill it before it become more used. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1443
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 15:41:06 -
[17] - Quote
Syn Shi wrote:So the CFC cant counter the NC meta and decide to sick their pets (CSM) on CCP.
Just blob and risk your ships. Maybe the reward will be you win.
My bad....this would involve nullsec taking a risk.
So you can't understand what this change is about so you decide to start putting tinfoil hat propaganda in the thread.
Just read the OP correctly and you will understand what is being changed and why.
My bad.... this would involve you using your brain. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1443
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 16:09:29 -
[18] - Quote
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:So if the problem is this relaunch exploit why not decrease rate of fire and volley damage? It seems unfair for a HIC/Dic to hold down a ship worth more than 100 times its cost with impunity (though smart bombs and neuts can help somewhat)
1- Because server load. You would have to make the ROF about the same as sentries and that is many more "fire" event for the server to handle. The current amount of drone doctrine pretty much already pushes nodes to the limit wo additionnal load is most likely entirely out of question.
2- The same HIC/Dic either already held you down because you could not kill him OR you currently can kill it and it will take you a few seconds more to kill it after the change because of the initial lock delay of your drones will be greater. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1443
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 16:45:40 -
[19] - Quote
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:DaeHan Minhyok wrote:So if the problem is this relaunch exploit why not decrease rate of fire and volley damage? It seems unfair for a HIC/Dic to hold down a ship worth more than 100 times its cost with impunity (though smart bombs and neuts can help somewhat) 1- Because server load. You would have to make the ROF about the same as sentries and that is many more "fire" event for the server to handle. The current amount of drone doctrine pretty much already pushes nodes to the limit wo additionnal load is most likely entirely out of question. 2- The same HIC/Dic either already held you down because you could not kill him OR you currently can kill it and it will take you a few seconds more to kill it after the change because of the initial lock delay of your drones will be greater. So your answer in part 1) is that a carrier which can launch 6-15 sentry drones at a static 4 second rate of fire puts significantly less load on the server than a super that can launch 6-16 fighters/FB's at say 5 second rate of fire? I think not, find another excuse.
No they do not put any less load but making fighter and fighter bomber cause more load than they currently do is useless when you can stop the unintended behaviour of the scoop/deploy in a different way and reducing the F/FB scan res does just that. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1443
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 17:21:16 -
[20] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote: any given csm member isn't beholden to represent the playerbase at large, they are beholden to represent the folks what voted him or her into power
I'm pretty sure any elected CSM member even if pushed by a coalition could technically try to push his own agenda even if it goes against the will of those who voted for him. |
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1443
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 17:38:42 -
[21] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Promiscuous Female wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:As much as I love seeing N3 and CFC throw ***** at each other in every dev thread. Can we get a response as to why you are skirting around the actual fix to the proposed problem?
Is there a reason you can't just make a timer apply to the drone bay? Why or why not?
As it stands this doesn't change the fact that people can still recall spam to increase server load in hopes of crashing the node. putting a global cooldown timer on the drone bay disproportionately punishes both other kinds of drones, whose shot timer is too low to be affected by this sort of chicanery, and ships that can't field fighters/fighterbombers adding a low scan resolution to the drones that are the most problematic in the scoop/relaunch scenario is objectively the best solution ecm drones are an odd man out that could probably benefit from a similar treatment that fighters/fighterbombers are getting but this thread is not about ecm drones That is great, i didn't ask that, I asked what CCP thinks this is going to accomplish in terms of reducing load on server caused by drones. It does nothing because the act of recalling and redeploying (which is the issue) is not being addressed at all.
It will not fix the exact thing you mention because it does not try to fix that. The server load mention in the OP is an added benefit as the drop/scoop cycle won't be used to do what the change is trying to fix. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1443
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 17:56:53 -
[22] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote: It will not fix the exact thing you mention because it does not try to fix that. The server load mention in the OP is an added benefit as the drop/scoop cycle won't be used to do what the change is trying to fix.
Quote: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. Not secondary. Quote: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. All secondary. CCP is worried about drone spam causing server load. It is of a primary concern as laid out in the OP. This does not fix that issue at all.
It's worried about drone spam giving a DPS advantage. The drone load is something cause by the behavior they want to curb, not the reason why they want to curb it.
I underlined the real "primary goal" sentence in your quote. Not a single word about server load in it. The server load they want to kill is a result of the spam used in order to achieve higher dps so killing the DPS gain will also make people stop overloading the server in the name of higher dps.
You can still try to overload the server with drone scoop/deploy which is sad but it is NOT the issue they are trying to fix with this change. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1443
|
Posted - 2015.01.08 17:59:23 -
[23] - Quote
DaeHan Minhyok wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:DaeHan Minhyok wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:DaeHan Minhyok wrote:So if the problem is this relaunch exploit why not decrease rate of fire and volley damage? It seems unfair for a HIC/Dic to hold down a ship worth more than 100 times its cost with impunity (though smart bombs and neuts can help somewhat) 1- Because server load. You would have to make the ROF about the same as sentries and that is many more "fire" event for the server to handle. The current amount of drone doctrine pretty much already pushes nodes to the limit wo additionnal load is most likely entirely out of question. 2- The same HIC/Dic either already held you down because you could not kill him OR you currently can kill it and it will take you a few seconds more to kill it after the change because of the initial lock delay of your drones will be greater. So your answer in part 1) is that a carrier which can launch 6-15 sentry drones at a static 4 second rate of fire puts significantly less load on the server than a super that can launch 6-16 fighters/FB's at say 5 second rate of fire? I think not, find another excuse. No they do not put any less load but making fighter and fighter bomber cause more load than they currently do is useless when you can stop the unintended behaviour of the scoop/deploy in a different way and reducing the F/FB scan res does just that. But the scan res changes effect more things negatively than the minor change in server load of an rof/dmg change
What other things are affected beside what I already listed in the thread, namely target swapping between pre-locked targets? |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1447
|
Posted - 2015.01.09 13:24:41 -
[24] - Quote
Dadrom wrote:im sorry but i do not agree with the course you guys are taking . Players that spen months training carriers are getting punished for it . If you want to keep nerfing carriers it would be at least decent thing to refund half SP.. since they are now half as needed and effective
Did they delete anything from the game?
No.
No refund.
next |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1448
|
Posted - 2015.01.10 06:32:13 -
[25] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: A billion isk in subcaps should NEVER be able to take down a super as easliy as they will after this nerf.
Freighter are even worse at defending themselves against catalyst... |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1461
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 14:54:14 -
[26] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: This change has nothing to do with any exploit, it is simply a fabricated excuse to further reduce capital warfare, hence, server load.
What part of capital warfare create more server load than subcap? This stupid argument of yours is nothing more than crying because you don't understand why the change was made and what it's target was.
As for your skillpoint in capital being refunded, I think the saying goes HTFU. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1483
|
Posted - 2015.01.14 22:17:59 -
[27] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: This change has nothing to do with any exploit, it is simply a fabricated excuse to further reduce capital warfare, hence, server load.
What part of capital warfare create more server load than subcap? This stupid argument of yours is nothing more than crying because you don't understand why the change was made and what it's target was. As for your skillpoint in capital being refunded, I think the saying goes HTFU. Sorry Frosty, didn't realize it was time for the trolls to come out and put in their 2 cents worth. It would seem you don't understand how server load works. You might want to try reading the OP in regard server load. You might want to talk to anyone who has played the game for more than a few weeks who has a little coding experience. You might want to use a little common sense, hard for some I know but given the benefit of doubt....... I understand perfectly what its target was - I also understand there was a better way to achieve the goal without a direct nerf. Fozzie has already laid the ground work for the next capital drone nerf - Assigning fighters. The simple fact the OP states it is not addressing the major complaint of players says it all. One nerf to lead the way for the next. Skill point refund would be a good will gesture on CCP's part. Many capital pilots would not take it but those who don't have time or just don't want, to play Eve in slow motion, should have the option to put skill points into something else. Frosty, ask yourself 1 question - Which would create more server load, one Domi or Ishtar with 5 drones or a Carrier with 10?
1- More server load is generated by 600 domi with 5 drones each than by 200 carrier with 10 dornes each.
2- In regard to the OP, the server load Fozzie wanted to kill was the one created when people were abusing the cycle reset on drones. Not the one from just spamming drones. The load caused by people wanting to reset their cycle on their fighter/bombers will be gone as it is no longer valuable to do so. Wanting to eliminate "some" server load does not mean you want to eliminate all server load with the same change.
3- Everybody who has coding experience will tell you they would not rewrite a large part of an app when a few data change can fix the targetted issue. The issue YOU want CCP to fix at the same time cannot be fixed the same way but it was not the target to begin with.
4- Common sense is something you should use to understand CCP was not trying to fix what you think they were. If you don't get the idea of what they wanted to fix, you will always make bad assumption to what the good solution should be.
5- If capitals are eating nerfs, it's most likely because CCP think they are in an imbalanced states. They will then eat nerfs like every other ships in the game, their user will be mad about it just like every other nerfed ship user and EVE will keep on trucking. If you can't stop taking for granted the power your capital ship currently has, every nerf will make you unhappy and you might as well stop playing MMO because everything always gets buffed/nerfed in those games. It's the way they are.
6- CCP said they want to gather more data on fighter assist. If they will nerf it or not is their choice based on how they think their game should be played. We can give feedback all we want about it but at the end of the day, they hold the strings and it's their decision.
7- The skillpoint getting reimbursed would mostly set a precedent they will never want to accept setting. While it would be a "good gesture" in view of how much the capital ships are changing over the last few and most likely also the next few release, it will just not happen.
8- Cap fleet are smaller than subcap fleet. Their drone numbers being bigger on a per ship ratio does nto mean the server eat more total load based on them. Ass noted in point 2, Fozzie didn't want to reduce all possible load coming from drones. Spamming drones can still cause stupid high load but this is something they don't seem to be ready to tackle yet or just unwilling. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1520
|
Posted - 2015.01.22 14:02:11 -
[28] - Quote
Calexis Atredies wrote:This is a terrible fix for sub-caps getting raped by assigned fighters and nano ships.
You are informed of HAC's getting blapped by fighters in 2 volleys and your fix is to give them an extra 10 seconds to live (given lock time is blanketed by travel time on-grid).
*golf clap*
Read the OP and you will realise this change was NOT aimed at nerfing assigned fighters used in "skynet" setups. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1523
|
Posted - 2015.01.23 18:42:38 -
[29] - Quote
Aiyshimin wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Calexis Atredies wrote:This is a terrible fix for sub-caps getting raped by assigned fighters and nano ships.
You are informed of HAC's getting blapped by fighters in 2 volleys and your fix is to give them an extra 10 seconds to live (given lock time is blanketed by travel time on-grid).
*golf clap* Read the OP and you will realise this change was NOT aimed at nerfing assigned fighters used in "skynet" setups. Which, however, was the only issue with fighters, not their scan resolution.
The scan resolution nerf was an "easy way out" to prevent something they observed completely different from assigning fighter to other ships. They probably rolled a quick fix like that because they though the practice would potentially snowball. Nerf to assisiting fighter will come, if needed, after they observed the current situation more. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1523
|
Posted - 2015.01.25 22:16:22 -
[30] - Quote
Rroff wrote:By "out of class" damage I'm referring to the fact that fighters with the "skynet" fit can significantly out perform the "appropriately" sized drones for a given target not that they give the ship they are assigned to out of its class damage. Hence my suggestion of using titan style damage scaling so that its harder to use them to alpha small ships.
The carrier has to make sacrifice to grant that damage and apply it. The only problem right now is how they can do so in relative safety. Force the carrier to be on grid and people will fit less omni/DDA/navs. |
|
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1525
|
Posted - 2015.01.26 17:25:36 -
[31] - Quote
Rroff wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote: Balancing fighters to suit one particular fit (skynet), would render them all but useless for any other purpose.
I am unsure what you mean by "appropriately sized drones". I use heavy drones on small ships, I have even used light drones on battleships. So what exactly are "appropriately sized drones" for a given target.
With a combat fit carrier, fighters don't one shot small ships, in fact they have great difficulty hitting small targets without the addition of 2 or 3 omnis. Even then to apply anywhere near full damage the target needs to be webbed.
Best solution all round is to render the Skynet fit obsolete in its current form. If a carrier pilot wants to gate camp to get kills with fighters, they should be forced to take the same risks as the rest of their fleet and those they are fighting.
Using the carriers role bonus to fighter control range allows them to be on grid but not right in the midst of things.
The "problem" with the normal tracking formula is that the lower tracking issues your dealing with the less relevance signature radius has on how well you hit with turret based weapons (this actually works quite well for eve in general) but by applying titan style scaling to fighters it would only very very minorly impact on their efficiency against smaller targets with a combat fit carrier but have a much bigger balancing factor when a "skynet" fit was used - with the right target "optimal" sig set there would be no impact on their use against larger targets in both scenarios. Heavy drones do half the alpha or less and a lot less dps than a set of fighters and can't be assigned. Eve has a messed up balance when it comes to risk and implementation of it and I don't personally believe that forcing a carrier to be on grid to use its capabilities is necessarily the right call in that light especially when it comes to supers but I do believe that it should be potentially vulnerable to repercussion (if the opposing force is creative or clever enough, etc.) if it is actively involved in combat whereas as things stand there are a number of ways (I don't know the full steps to reproducing all of them) in which the carrier pilot can be for all realistic intents and purposes immune - there are a couple of other threads on here that cover it.
The skynet fit is only applying damage like that because he can "afford" to fit all drone application/damage mods. Just requiring the carrier/super to be within drone control range would mean nobody use fit like that unless they want to field suicide skynet carriers because some day, someone will go there with more than 6 HACs and that skynet boat will burn. |
Frostys Virpio
The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc
1592
|
Posted - 2015.02.17 15:53:12 -
[32] - Quote
Zekora Rally wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Rroff wrote:By "out of class" damage I'm referring to the fact that fighters with the "skynet" fit can significantly out perform the "appropriately" sized drones for a given target not that they give the ship they are assigned to out of its class damage. Hence my suggestion of using titan style damage scaling so that its harder to use them to alpha small ships. The carrier has to make sacrifice to grant that damage and apply it. The only problem right now is how they can do so in relative safety. Force the carrier to be on grid and people will fit less omni/DDA/navs. If you are getting welped with the carrier off-grid, nothing is going to change with the carrier on-grid.
If the carrier is on grid, you migth be able to drop something on it. If he is now, you have to find him while he apply his DPS. If your scout report getting mauled by 2 frigs who had figther assigned, you are **** out of luck to do anything about it because you don't have any info on the carrier. If he has to be on grid, you can bring enough guns to try to take it down without having to scan his position first and maybe even realise he's sitting by a POS ready to shield up. |
|
|
|