These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cyrus Doul
kotitekoinen sissijuusto
#441 - 2015-02-28 02:15:29 UTC
Garuda Nil wrote:
double post


suuuuure it was :) anyways in the context of what it originally said about you being paranoid of us tracing stuff back to your super main and holders cause you are afraid of people knowing who it is. same thing with everyone else having to deal with that means you get to deal with me calling you a whimp for being too afraid we might know who you are. If someone wants to get upset about something i say, locator me, then camp me in or something for it, so be it.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#442 - 2015-02-28 02:31:03 UTC
Haha, look at all these mongoloid ratter alliances crying that removing fighter assist will kill off super and carrier use.

Lets get real here ladies, you're literally crying wolf because you use it to rat and EVERYBODY reading the thread here knows it.

Good job being so completely transparent

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

Yroc Jannseen
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#443 - 2015-02-28 02:36:57 UTC
Roo Gryphon wrote:
while something needs to change regarding assigning drones, it should only applied while on grid, once you go offgrid the drones auto return to carrier. Now for sentrys you have to be with in 5-10km of your drones otherwise they go idle and sentrys can not be assigned.


If you're on grid just assist them and they can use all ten.
O'nira
Litla Sundlaugin
#444 - 2015-02-28 02:39:10 UTC
It's about time
Chuck Ursus
Insurgence.
Tactical Narcotics Team
#445 - 2015-02-28 02:45:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Chuck Ursus
please keep unique fighter warp feature, do remove delegation. Like the idea for fighters to be pointed, Also it is silly but how about fighter killmails; why stop at anchored killmails... Some of those fighters cost more then a cruiser/bc.
Maddaxe Illat
Un-protected Plex
Brothers of Tangra
#446 - 2015-02-28 02:57:20 UTC
I would be ok with fighters not be able to assist anymore because it is op. but please do not remove that fact that fighters can warp. With all the change you have made over the last 6 to 12 month it look like you dont can about anyone who has played the game for more the 3 yours. So that a no from me for fighters no warping
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#447 - 2015-02-28 03:00:02 UTC
Austin Ahmburg wrote:
In regards to the Carrier, the current tactics employed are inline with Carrier Philosophy.
( I.E. That Carriers are not meant to be on the same grid as another hostile ship.)
They are meant to operate away from any direct combat. The Link below demonstrates how Carriers are meant to be deployed. If you wish to remove a Carrier's sole role, then remove it from the ship line up, and replace it with something that isn't a Carrier. If not, then keep it the same, and keep in mind the fact that Carriers trumped the Battleship for a reason.






http://lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/aircraft-carrier-invulnerability.pdf


Regards,
Ahmburg

Unfortunately this is a game, not real life. Otherwise things would get messy.
Cyrus Doul
kotitekoinen sissijuusto
#448 - 2015-02-28 03:05:19 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Haha, look at all these mongoloid ratter alliances crying that removing fighter assist will kill off super and carrier use.

Lets get real here ladies, you're literally crying wolf because you use it to rat and EVERYBODY reading the thread here knows it.

Good job being so completely transparent


we do, you guys do, everybody does. way of life in the game. we will all adjust reguardless.
Zomgnomnom
Contra Ratio
GameTheory
#449 - 2015-02-28 03:38:38 UTC
Leave assist, just make them have to be on grid.

If people want the benefit, they should have to at least place the capitals and supers in harms way.
Kuosu
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#450 - 2015-02-28 03:45:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Kuosu
If we apply this thought process to cloaky camping maybe we should just remove cloaking from the game... its too hard to fix...

I'm really upset that the response to a complex problem is to just get rid of the problem.

I understand that a lot of things are effected by said changes, but lets face it this is a complex game. If it is so complex you cannot do anything about it without making it that convoluted and complex that should be a sign that it needs more dev time and to hold off for now until more well thought out solutions are ready to be implemented.


Now I do agree that assigning five super fighters to a cepter is broken. Though an easy change would be to make delegating a number of fighters dependent upon the receiving ships drone bandwidth. To make effective change I would also propose at the same time increasing the bandwidth requirements of fighters and capacity of carriers and make it so that cruisers could for example support one fighter and maybe battle ships more. Something along those lines.

I also agree that sitting on the edge of a pos is kinda silly. I would like to see a distance requirement away from the pos to use/delegate fighters.

Now playing devils advocate, the only people I ever hear crying about fighters are those looking for easy kills with miners but not an actual fight. I like having some kind of benefit of owning space where I can have some kind of defensive boon. Nerf it PLEASE. But this goes beyond nerfing beyond re balancing this is removal of gameplay mechanics due to it being a complex problem. Most skilled groups that come by with logi to fight , they like to kill drones and its not even a good idea to send drones after them because drones get webbed and you lose 25 mill a pop. FYI SOME risk is actually present.

Also, if removing this gameplay is a priority and fixing/removing cloaky camping is not then you guys are in for a rude awakening when long time players such as myself un sub our carrier pilots. I pay $$$ real money for my subscriptions btw. I dont have time to rat and plex accounts I have a job. It's pretty obvious the disdane CCP holds towards ships that require so much time to skill into properly. This is the end game content it took me more than a year to skill into having the skills to use carriers properly! They should have unique game mechanics and be fairly strong! Its not like I can dock a super up and change to another ship if im fighting goons and risking a super wouldnt make sense. I'm stuck in it.

This is like saying an aircraft carrier can only launch fighters and strike targets that are within the carriers eyesight. In real life it is commonplace to have scouts providing coordinates ( warpins) for the carrier to strike on targets that are not even in the freaking ocean (off grid). It is currently over powered but this is somewhat absurd. Remember we are talking about CAPITAL ships. Do we really want to take away unique game play and just make carriers into giant dominix with the ability to field huge heavy drones?

Nerf them please but come back with a well thought out solution.

We must all rememeber the risk reward of cloaky campers cynoing in 30 dudes to blap a skiff. So lets remove cloaking and cynos.....
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#451 - 2015-02-28 03:49:24 UTC
Fighter assist removal = good, im all for it needed to be done

Fighter and fighterbomber warp: Don't remove it, its a ncei uniqueness to the weapons system of a slow and hard to maneuver platform. I dont think fighters need to follow people into warp, but fighter/fb recovery and for repairs without there built in warp drives seriously impacts some of the mainline benefits to a super/carrier. I think it would be better to start with removing the asist and then take another look in a couple months at the warp drives in order to avoid overnerfing. In all honesty it feels like something that should not be looked at until you are ready to do the full rebalance pass on supercarriers and carriers.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#452 - 2015-02-28 04:05:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Rowells
I would like to see the fighter warp reworked to operate more like a regular warp. Seems odd how they go about it kind of teleporting then waiting and stuff. Maybe it's just me.

Also bubbles and point should work against fighters.
Emmy Mnemonic
The Northerners
Northern Coalition.
#453 - 2015-02-28 04:06:02 UTC
Skynet has gone self-aware. In the future it will destroy all humanity (sais Sarah. We others have not even noticed it yet!). But shut it down, that's fine!

But don't just remove the assign-fighters-function - compensate it and add a reason for the baddies (ie. the carriers assigning) to warp onto grid instead, so we can shoot them! Or, we can use them for pvp where their ISK value is balanced with their capability, not just their massive defensive capability but also a viable offensive capability!

10 Fighters with around 1000 DPS is not worth warping a carrier on-grid for. Applying that DPS to enemies 100 AU away through the capability to assign fighters or have fighters warp after fleeing targets IS worth it (and the latter can be turned off if people find it annoying...).

This nerf will not make people use their carriers in on-grid fights. It will have the opposite effect, carriers will be flown/used less, and only in "boring" gameplay. 1000 DPS can be projected on-grid for around 120 M ISK, why use 2 B ISK to apply that DPS?

So shut Skynet down, and save poor Sarah Connors son who has been complaining about it, and save the rest of the EVE-players ofc. But when you rip out that old T1000 fighter-assisting-data-link equipment in all carriers in the game, replace it with something else to compansate us, and keep EVE a diverse game where people willingly risk their carriers in small- and medium fights because the risk is compensated by the possible rewards!

Ex ex-CEO of Svea Rike [.S.R.]

Pittsburgh2989
Original Sinners
Northern Coalition.
#454 - 2015-02-28 04:07:52 UTC
Please do not remove Fighter Warping...

Either remove drone assist completely from the game or not at all...fighters are drones. Another simple solution is just make it where fighters cannot be launched within 10km of a POS...do the same thing you did with Cyno's. This would make Carriers vulnerable if they want to actually give fighters to someone else.
Celesae
Clan Shadow Wolf
Tactical Narcotics Team
#455 - 2015-02-28 04:22:31 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:

Yeah, carriers were uninteresting and worthless before skynet. They have absolutely no unique features about them except to enhance gate camps. Roll

It's bad enough these days so many people are skittish and unsportsmanlike about jousting space ships, but you seem to want a risk free way to add an absurd amount of DPS to gate camps. If you aren't going to put your chips in the pot, you shouldn't be able to win big with them.



That's not what I meant - you should know this. Assisted fighters can be worked around - kill the assigned ship. NCdot is assigning fighters to interceptors? Just bring some decent anti-support. Bump carriers away from POSes (which is why I think the proposal of a minimum POS range is good), and/or do a DD drive-by. These things happen already; players find a way. If there are simply too many carriers to kill, then you likely weren't going to win that fight, or needed to bring your own cap fleet anyway.

The lack of remote capabilities puts the carrier in a poor position. It is cannon fodder for every other capital class ship in the game, and is likewise just a juicy target for any medium-sized or better subcap fleet. Triage mode certainly doesn't put fear in anyone's hearts - that just earns the carrier a faster-earned title of "Primary!"

Carriers are based on real-world carriers - it's all about remote power projection (I'm not talking about jump drives here). The ships themselves are relatively weak, as they should be. The nations of Earth do not fear the carriers themselves, but the jets they launch - also as it should be. Make the carrier able to be struck with a focused attack (i.e.: not sitting on the very edge of a POS shield), make the "jets" more vulnerable to attack (bubbles/webs/points), and move on.

Don't remove what is a favorite feature of the class for many players and relegate the ship to only the role of a cap-sized logistics boat...
Cpt Buckshot
i420 Inc
#456 - 2015-02-28 04:25:03 UTC
Here is 10 cents on it,

There are valid views being expressed and for CCP just to take the easy way is very lame.

1. Maybe Carriers and MOMs should not be able to assign fighters 60km from a POS tower ish, maybe this way there is time bump them away from POS. As a care-bear that is hard for me to say but the combat aspect of is being abused.

2. Carriers pilots trained many months to use this ability to rat or for combat and also huge investment of isk. I personally hate when things are NERFED. Its the cheap way out, you all "CCP" are worried more about the next expansion than to do this correctly it seems to me. Why don't you focus on current game mechanics and fix or resolve them not delete them. This is what SOE always did and look where they are now ... gone.

3. All fighters should be point-able and web-able and also affected by warp bubbles. Easy fix I think on that one.

4. Maybe limit fighter assist to a certain ship size or types.

I don't know what the FIX is for this ,,,,, But this shouldn't be rushed either.
ROSSLINDEN0
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#457 - 2015-02-28 04:34:13 UTC
Please don't remove my S K Y N E T it will force me to get good at game and im not sure i want to do that at this stage of my lyfe
Mimiko Severovski
Zero Fun Allowed
#458 - 2015-02-28 04:38:20 UTC
WTFFFFFF!!!!!!????

i pay 25kkk isk for nix and ccp make nix bad
how wil make isk to plex?????
this make nix bad, why make nix bad????
give nix dron bay and track bonus like ishtar ship, then nix not bad ship like rifter!!!
this kill nix if continue!!!
whitefire34
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#459 - 2015-02-28 05:06:55 UTC
sending fighters is and as always been a usefull tool even when your mining in a belt and you have the rats attacking a mining fleet in nul sec just taking that out is kind of like losing a limb
Forrest Stokes
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#460 - 2015-02-28 05:13:08 UTC
I would like the fighter assist to NOT be removed.
I do agree with maybe making it where the carrier has to be outside the POS shields in order to use drone assist