These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#1001 - 2015-03-04 22:05:00 UTC
Rroff wrote:


If fighters lose their carrier's bonus when assigned then you don't really need to restrict what they can be assigned to as they revert back to being for the most part ineffective against anything sub large battleship sized.



Still it is a *balancing* factor. You will still get whatever bonus your fighters skill gives you, and whatever drone bonuses that your own ship gives; say you're flying a domi; +10% hp and damage, and whatever drone mods you have actually fitted.

It's just a suggestion

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...

Alyssa Severasse
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#1002 - 2015-03-04 22:26:03 UTC
Given how much I love capital killmails, I'd want to keep Skynet with the sole exception of denying fighter assist on the edge of a POS shield.

You can't light a cyno there, why not reuse that exact same code to make sure you can't assist fighters from there?

On station is fine as you get an aggression timer. Which is plenty of time to get some dreddz in...

I don't agree that removing this will render carriers useless, it will just encourage people to find different ways to (ab)use them.

Equally agressing with fighters should cause you to have an aggression timer, same as any other offensive module. This is frankly a defect!

There have been a *lot* of people making both of these suggestions on this thread. Let's hope CCP actually listens to it's player base....
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1003 - 2015-03-04 22:47:52 UTC
DerpimusPrime Aihaken wrote:
Just got killed by an astero with templars assisted to it. Athleast remove the option to assist to frigs/destroyers and cruisers athleast.
Sucks to be killed from something you cant do nothing about instead of having an actual 1v1.


Just leave then... You fought a stronger force and lost... It's normal.

Warp away, get back to the gate and jump, hide somewhere and cloak....

I'm fine with cruiser and up being assigned fighters too.

Been around since the beginning.

Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1004 - 2015-03-05 00:49:13 UTC
d0cTeR9 wrote:
DerpimusPrime Aihaken wrote:
Just got killed by an astero with templars assisted to it. Athleast remove the option to assist to frigs/destroyers and cruisers athleast.
Sucks to be killed from something you cant do nothing about instead of having an actual 1v1.


Just leave then... You fought a stronger force and lost... It's normal.

Warp away, get back to the gate and jump, hide somewhere and cloak....

I'm fine with cruiser and up being assigned fighters too.


Easier said than done - last time I ran into it I was in an old school single non-asb booster Sleipnir (hadn't got around to refitting it) and had to deagress and jump out fairly quickly - if I'd engaged anywhere but on a gate/station or had been further off gate I'd have been dead, very dead. (Might have been able to kill them if I'd been dual asb + linked... maybe...).
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#1005 - 2015-03-05 01:39:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Panther X
Rroff wrote:
d0cTeR9 wrote:
DerpimusPrime Aihaken wrote:
Just got killed by an astero with templars assisted to it. Athleast remove the option to assist to frigs/destroyers and cruisers athleast.
Sucks to be killed from something you cant do nothing about instead of having an actual 1v1.


Just leave then... You fought a stronger force and lost... It's normal.

Warp away, get back to the gate and jump, hide somewhere and cloak....

I'm fine with cruiser and up being assigned fighters too.


Easier said than done - last time I ran into it I was in an old school single non-asb booster Sleipnir (hadn't got around to refitting it) and had to deagress and jump out fairly quickly - if I'd engaged anywhere but on a gate/station or had been further off gate I'd have been dead, very dead. (Might have been able to kill them if I'd been dual asb + linked... maybe...).


Well...d-scan would have showed you a carrier in system. You should really know better. Unless you are going for the carrier in an anom, that's your own fault for aggressing something.

And really, you weren't 1v1'ing, you were agressing a hostile with backup in system. Whether it was assisted fighters or a fleet of ishtars, that's all on you.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...

Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1006 - 2015-03-05 01:55:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Panther X wrote:

Well...d-scan would have showed you a carrier in system. You should really know better. Unless you are going for the carrier in an anom, that's your own fault for aggressing something.

And really, you weren't 1v1'ing, you were agressing a hostile with backup in system. Whether it was assisted fighters or a fleet of ishtars, that's all on you.


I was aware the carriers were there which is partly why I managed to escape as I was expecting it - as aside though there is nothing to stop the carrier cloaking until needed, etc. as its lock time isn't a factor or just waiting docked up, etc.

Not sure about the 1v1 comment I think your confusing me with another poster.

EDIT: Having a little play with a shooting a claw just now - ok wrecking shots always hit but it made me laugh:

Quote:

[ 2015.03.05 01:35:34 ] (notify) Drones engaging -----'s Claw
[ 2015.03.05 01:35:52 ] (combat) Your Firbolg misses ----- completely - Firbolg
[ 2015.03.05 01:35:52 ] (combat) Your Firbolg misses ----- completely - Firbolg
[ 2015.03.05 01:35:52 ] (combat) Your Firbolg misses ----- completely - Firbolg
[ 2015.03.05 01:35:53 ] (combat) Your Firbolg misses ----- completely - Firbolg
[ 2015.03.05 01:35:53 ] (combat) 2594 to -----[-----](Claw) - Firbolg - Wrecks
Davir Sometaww
Spooks On Pings
SE7EN-SINS
#1007 - 2015-03-05 02:13:11 UTC
You could always; you know. Research the system you are entering and you would know in a heart beat.

You are going into the enemy's turf. Don't cry when something like a carrier or god forbid; a falcon decides to ruin your day.


Back on topic:

We'll see what CCP decides to do and whether it'll listen to its player base. At this point with 50+ pages - with multiple players suggesting the most efficient fix WHILE making carriers still viable.

Or they just give us the finger. Maybe both.



Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1008 - 2015-03-05 02:41:43 UTC
Davir Sometaww wrote:
You could always; you know. Research the system you are entering and you would know in a heart beat.


Some do it out of the same system a lot - others hop around regions and rarely do it from one place long (especially if they are using supers). The revenant that was killed recently was doing it moving with thera exits.
Ramases Purvanen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1009 - 2015-03-05 03:11:40 UTC
Davir Sometaww wrote:
You could always; you know. Research the system you are entering and you would know in a heart beat.

You are going into the enemy's turf. Don't cry when something like a carrier or god forbid; a falcon decides to ruin your day.


Back on topic:

We'll see what CCP decides to do and whether it'll listen to its player base. At this point with 50+ pages - with multiple players suggesting the most efficient fix WHILE making carriers still viable.

Or they just give us the finger. Maybe both.




CCP will show us the finger and then some players like myself will show them the door...EvilEvilEvil
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1010 - 2015-03-05 04:12:18 UTC  |  Edited by: d0cTeR9
Rroff wrote:
d0cTeR9 wrote:
DerpimusPrime Aihaken wrote:
Just got killed by an astero with templars assisted to it. Athleast remove the option to assist to frigs/destroyers and cruisers athleast.
Sucks to be killed from something you cant do nothing about instead of having an actual 1v1.


Just leave then... You fought a stronger force and lost... It's normal.

Warp away, get back to the gate and jump, hide somewhere and cloak....

I'm fine with cruiser and up being assigned fighters too.


Easier said than done - last time I ran into it I was in an old school single non-asb booster Sleipnir (hadn't got around to refitting it) and had to deagress and jump out fairly quickly - if I'd engaged anywhere but on a gate/station or had been further off gate I'd have been dead, very dead. (Might have been able to kill them if I'd been dual asb + linked... maybe...).


Well use a scout, use friends, have a better fit... Heck go back and hot drop the carrier...

People are saying take odd sky net because they want to attack protected areas and have it easy...

If anything those systems should be hard to crack...

Rroff wrote:
Davir Sometaww wrote:
You could always; you know. Research the system you are entering and you would know in a heart beat.


Some do it out of the same system a lot - others hop around regions and rarely do it from one place long (especially if they are using supers). The revenant that was killed recently was doing it moving with thera exits.


Fighters don't instantly appear next to you and kill you. They take time to lock, they also need to travel in warp, etc etc etc... People are complaining about something they do not understand. You should lose when fighting 2-3 guys using capital support. Only reason people want those slow easy to kill capitals on grid is to padd their killboard because they are slow and easy to kill!

Been around since the beginning.

Neyko Turama
Nomadic Vanguards
#1011 - 2015-03-05 06:24:49 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:


Me? I am in favour of the change because I never think a person should be able to be totally uninvolved and still be a part of the on field force. I dislike off-grid boosting for the same reason.

But the fighters were a mechanic that was fine, for a while, but then became abused more and more. What did you expect? That since it was fine yesterday it must be fine today and always will be? The game changes, for the better or worse will show in the longer run. But if you want to be heard, if you want to have a single iota of a chance to be heard by CCP then keep it civil.

If what I said ticked you off . . . well, I am running for CSMX. Vote accordingly.

m


Of course you do. As you and the other CSM are just another expression of this pseudo democratic game CCP is playing. Letting the players think their ideas and or attemps would change ANYTHING. Please CCP shut down this thread or give us any proof you are actually caring about the lamentating in here.

You didn´t tick me off. You amuse me.
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#1012 - 2015-03-05 06:44:32 UTC
Neyko Turama wrote:

Of course you do. As you and the other CSM are just another expression of this pseudo democratic game CCP is playing. Letting the players think their ideas and or attemps would change ANYTHING. Please CCP shut down this thread or give us any proof you are actually caring about the lamenting in here.

You didn´t tick me off. You amuse me.

The Laments are just that, Laments.
No matter what decision CCP made people were going to lament over some topic. CCP however have to make the call based on value judgements and balance arguments, not pure emotion.
So don't like it, work out how to refute CCP's case, which from my view is a very strong case. And do so without mixing in other issues which are unrelated to this particular change even if part of capital balance overall.
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#1013 - 2015-03-05 07:17:09 UTC
d0cTeR9 wrote:

Fighters don't instantly appear next to you and kill you. They take time to lock, they also need to travel in warp, etc etc etc... People are complaining about something they do not understand. You should lose when fighting 2-3 guys using capital support. Only reason people want those slow easy to kill capitals on grid is to padd their killboard because they are slow and easy to kill!


And the only reason to use skynet is because you want easy killmails without risking anything.
Anton Menges Saddat
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1014 - 2015-03-05 08:57:06 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
d0cTeR9 wrote:

Fighters don't instantly appear next to you and kill you. They take time to lock, they also need to travel in warp, etc etc etc... People are complaining about something they do not understand. You should lose when fighting 2-3 guys using capital support. Only reason people want those slow easy to kill capitals on grid is to padd their killboard because they are slow and easy to kill!


And the only reason to use skynet is because you want easy killmails without risking anything.

Yeah, that guy who lost a Revenant skynetting wasn't risking anything at all Roll
Vincintius Agrippa
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#1015 - 2015-03-05 09:02:26 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla.

This thread is for discussing the proposed removal of fighter assist for carriers and super carriers.

This change being largely driven by 'skynetting' which is a tactic where carriers and super carriers can sit in near perfect safety at the edge of starbase shields and assign thousands of DPS worth of fighter drones to their fleet mates who can fly whatever ship they want *) , while wielding an enormous amount of damage. We feel this is not meeting our standards for risk vs reward and therefor would like to remove the ability to assist fighters. More details are covered in this dev blog.

A particular point of feedback that we are interested in surrounds the ability of fighters to warp. We know that in some circumstances it can be frustrating to have your fighters warp off grid to chase a target when you would rather have them move to another target on grid with you instead. We also know that fighter warping is unique and provides some interesting gameplay in some scenarios. Would you prefer that we removed the ability for fighters to warp or that we left warping in, despite the absence of assist?

Look forward to your feedback.



*) *snip* Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal.


^^^^^^^^^Dumbest collection of words that have ever been assembled. Of all time.^^^^^^^^^

Hmm, fighters with warp drives chase after their untackled targets. Provide the option to have fighters pursue or remain vs. Completely removing fighter warp. Bye bye warp engines I guess.

Hmm, prevent carriers from assisting through pos shields vs completely removing assist from the game. The choice is obvious, duh. Remove from game of course.
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!
mannyman
Relics United
#1016 - 2015-03-05 09:28:09 UTC
Vincintius Agrippa wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla.

This thread is for discussing the proposed removal of fighter assist for carriers and super carriers.

This change being largely driven by 'skynetting' which is a tactic where carriers and super carriers can sit in near perfect safety at the edge of starbase shields and assign thousands of DPS worth of fighter drones to their fleet mates who can fly whatever ship they want *) , while wielding an enormous amount of damage. We feel this is not meeting our standards for risk vs reward and therefor would like to remove the ability to assist fighters. More details are covered in this dev blog.

A particular point of feedback that we are interested in surrounds the ability of fighters to warp. We know that in some circumstances it can be frustrating to have your fighters warp off grid to chase a target when you would rather have them move to another target on grid with you instead. We also know that fighter warping is unique and provides some interesting gameplay in some scenarios. Would you prefer that we removed the ability for fighters to warp or that we left warping in, despite the absence of assist?

Look forward to your feedback.



*) *snip* Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal.


^^^^^^^^^Dumbest collection of words that have ever been assembled. Of all time.^^^^^^^^^

Hmm, fighters with warp drives chase after their untackled targets. Provide the option to have fighters pursue or remain vs. Completely removing fighter warp. Bye bye warp engines I guess.

Hmm, prevent carriers from assisting through pos shields vs completely removing assist from the game. The choice is obvious, duh. Remove from game of course.



Removing from game when there is different mechanics in null and lowsec regarding this, AND there is ways to do "skynetting" 100% safe with online POS that doesnt have Forcefield.

As I mentioned before, ensure POS gets forcefield automatically aft it onlined, AND, remove the delegation/assist from lowsec due to electronical interference from Empires claiming Lowsec.

But let this functionality be an option in nullsec, but with limitations on the POS.. offc.. 20km off the Forcefield to expose carrier more.
Kane Carnifex
Duty.
Brave Collective
#1017 - 2015-03-05 09:44:44 UTC
Due the planned SOV changes, offer an Module which allows carrier to assign fighter to give an advantage for the owner of the System.

Like an IHUB upgrade or an structure which spreads the commands through the systems.

http://vesuvi.de - EVE & Food Porn in German...

Jacus Noir
Stellar Production
#1018 - 2015-03-05 10:14:11 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Hello

Appreciate all the feedback very much.

Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist.

We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving.

Thanks again.



Ideally a carrier pilot should NEVER be micro managing fighters while trying to take on a logi role. As it stands right now fighters can be assigned to fleet mates and the carrier pilot can focus on actually doing what they should be which is logi not being a giant domi.

The better solution would be to require that all pilots who the carrier assigns fighters to be on grid with the carrier. In this way a carrier can assign fighters and then focus on logi while the pilot who gets the fighters would need to be on grid to keep fighters assigned to them.

You can still allow fighters to follow targets into warp, but doing returns fighter control to the carrier pilot and away from the pilot on grid. This SHOULD fix skynetting, force carriers to be in the fight, and still allow fighters to be assigned so that the carrier pilot can now focus on keeping his fleet alive.
Wadiest Yong
The Graduates
The Initiative.
#1019 - 2015-03-05 10:47:21 UTC
The mechanic of assigning fighters to other pilots has had its days but is now a thing that should go. Or at least for carriers in a logi role...

As to warp capability of fighters, it should stay. It's what sets them apart from drones.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1020 - 2015-03-05 11:57:57 UTC
d0cTeR9 wrote:


Well use a scout, use friends, have a better fit... Heck go back and hot drop the carrier...

People are saying take odd sky net because they want to attack protected areas and have it easy...

If anything those systems should be hard to crack...

Fighters don't instantly appear next to you and kill you. They take time to lock, they also need to travel in warp, etc etc etc... People are complaining about something they do not understand. You should lose when fighting 2-3 guys using capital support. Only reason people want those slow easy to kill capitals on grid is to padd their killboard because they are slow and easy to kill!


I'd agree with what you said if there were tweaks to make hot dropping a more realistic (even if slim) possibility, the revenant died because the pilot was either lazy or stupid - logging in some distance outside the POS FF pretty much handed PL the kill on a plate.

For every instance where what you said applies there is another instance where it doesn't with current mechanics and even though I'm not against people utilising skynet none of that excuses fighters that can usually kill even an inty in 2-4 volleys.