These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Previous Topic Next Topic
Calexis Atredies
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#1201 - 2015-03-16 12:31:07 UTC
If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1202 - 2015-03-16 12:55:06 UTC
Calexis Atredies wrote:
If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned.

Not sure if serius or just trolling... Macro use is banned by CCP.
But if they were manually bouncing safespots, the warp deceleration coupled with the massive signature radius is a wet dream for any combat scanner.
Calexis Atredies
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#1203 - 2015-03-16 14:35:33 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Calexis Atredies wrote:
If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned.

Not sure if serius or just trolling... Macro use is banned by CCP.
But if they were manually bouncing safespots, the warp deceleration coupled with the massive signature radius is a wet dream for any combat scanner.


Depends entirely on the size of the system, anything over 36 AU in radius is going to be near impossible to chase them through.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1204 - 2015-03-16 17:18:59 UTC
Calexis Atredies wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Calexis Atredies wrote:
If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned.

Not sure if serius or just trolling... Macro use is banned by CCP.
But if they were manually bouncing safespots, the warp deceleration coupled with the massive signature radius is a wet dream for any combat scanner.


Depends entirely on the size of the system, anything over 36 AU in radius is going to be near impossible to chase them through.

Get a better person to scan for you. It isn't impossible to follow a archon moving at, what. 1.5au/s, with scan probes on something other than a five day old toon.
Aivlis Eldelbar
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1205 - 2015-03-17 01:28:33 UTC
Calexis Atredies wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Calexis Atredies wrote:
If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned.

Not sure if serius or just trolling... Macro use is banned by CCP.
But if they were manually bouncing safespots, the warp deceleration coupled with the massive signature radius is a wet dream for any combat scanner.


Depends entirely on the size of the system, anything over 36 AU in radius is going to be near impossible to chase them through.


Capitals have ludicrous signatures, you can get a warpable hit on very wide scans, and even if you fail, a dps-fit carrier will take so long to align you can just repeat the scan and still land a ceptor on it.
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#1206 - 2015-03-17 14:48:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuka Solo
Aivlis Eldelbar wrote:
Calexis Atredies wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Calexis Atredies wrote:
If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned.

Not sure if serius or just trolling... Macro use is banned by CCP.
But if they were manually bouncing safespots, the warp deceleration coupled with the massive signature radius is a wet dream for any combat scanner.


Depends entirely on the size of the system, anything over 36 AU in radius is going to be near impossible to chase them through.


Capitals have ludicrous signatures, you can get a warpable hit on very wide scans, and even if you fail, a dps-fit carrier will take so long to align you can just repeat the scan and still land a ceptor on it.


That in itself is a problem.

When scanning was still an art form, there was actual skill involved in finding signatures (ships and sites alike). These days, a blindman can scan something within a few seconds....

Nevermind the fact that somehow, in eve... big ships that by definition and sheer computing power should be able to target smaller - less sophisticated ships faster .... are incapable of doing so despite being big flying pinging dart boards with this crap scan resolution system we have going on.....

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Zhul Chembull
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#1207 - 2015-03-17 16:49:40 UTC
Removing this feature is a bad idea, but my experience is CCP doesn't really listen anyhow. These forums are here just so we have an outlit and they can say they have "listened to us." Well, I wont get too negative here, but let me just ask a simple question of CCP.

What do you want us to use these big ships for now ? With the upcoming sov changes I don't see any use to own one anymore. With small ships running around undoing sov, the days of using a capital ship are coming to an end. Perhaps this was the goal all along. Might want to rethink this a bit.
Pedro Minatore
#1208 - 2015-03-18 17:01:05 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Remove:
- fighter assist.
- fighter follow in warp the target.

Keep:
- fighters warping with the carrier

So you can send fighters only against target on grid.
When the target warps off the grid fighters will NOT follow.
When the carrier warps off the grid fighters will drop aggro and follow the carrier.



Very much this!!!

"[u]The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing[/u]." (Socrates)
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1209 - 2015-03-18 19:44:09 UTC
Well it was announced that this change is being railroaded through, despite literally everyone here saying it was a bad change.

Now, for everyone who told me that CCP would "really truly listen this time", you now owe me 100m isk each.
Antonia Iskarius
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#1210 - 2015-03-18 20:06:41 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Well it was announced that this change is being railroaded through, despite literally everyone here saying it was a bad change.

Now, for everyone who told me that CCP would "really truly listen this time", you now owe me 100m isk each.

Well colour me surprised Roll

It was pretty obvious all along that they had already decided to remove it, no matter what, before this thread was even created. This was just a ploy to make us think we actually had a voice. Almost everyone posting constructively in this thread gave good reasons to keep the feature and other solutions that would be effective in nerfing Skynet. The people in favor of removal were by and large 'death to all supers' and 'lol nullbear tears' trolls.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1211 - 2015-03-18 20:47:12 UTC
http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-scylla
Quote:
Fighters can no longer be assigned to other pilots. The ‘Delegate Control’ option has been removed and replaced by ‘Assist’ and ‘Defend’, same as other drones.

Fighter 'assist' will apparently function like regular drone assist, with the addition of warp capability (fighters will follow the assisted ship into/out of warp).

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1212 - 2015-03-18 20:54:04 UTC
"Same as other drones" says it all really...
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1213 - 2015-03-18 20:59:08 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-scylla
Quote:
Fighters can no longer be assigned to other pilots. The ‘Delegate Control’ option has been removed and replaced by ‘Assist’ and ‘Defend’, same as other drones.

Fighter 'assist' will apparently function like regular drone assist, with the addition of warp capability (fighters will follow the assisted ship into/out of warp).

If that means they're removing the 5 fighter assign limit, that might be a nice compromise....
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1214 - 2015-03-18 21:16:08 UTC
I'm assuming it'll be exactly the same as normal assist which never had any limits (other than the recent change to 50 or whatever to prevent mass afk blapping).
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1215 - 2015-03-18 21:53:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
Nolak Ataru wrote:
If that means they're removing the 5 fighter assign limit, that might be a nice compromise....

Hard to say. I'm a little surprised (maybe I shouldn't be) that there wasn't any update in this thread prior to the release of the patch notes. This change arriving in Scylla probably a better compromise than completely neutering carriers at the expense of SkyNet. I still think drone assist needs the limit reduced to a max of 15 drones though.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Feronix
Jade Falcon LLc
#1216 - 2015-03-18 23:25:02 UTC
Nerfing long held aspects of the game is as about ridiculous as it gets. Evil I just started playing again, and the rash of nerfs that have come down in the last two months just made me not want to play again.
Numen Anomalie
sonyc live
Not Purple Shoot It.
#1217 - 2015-03-19 00:09:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Numen Anomalie
Fun
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#1218 - 2015-03-19 01:38:58 UTC
Numen Anomalie wrote:
"Reads the patch notes, see's fighter assist removal"

You still have fighter assist and fighter warp. You just can't assign fighters to attack as before.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#1219 - 2015-03-19 02:52:23 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-scylla
Quote:
Fighters can no longer be assigned to other pilots. The ‘Delegate Control’ option has been removed and replaced by ‘Assist’ and ‘Defend’, same as other drones.

Fighter 'assist' will apparently function like regular drone assist, with the addition of warp capability (fighters will follow the assisted ship into/out of warp).

I kind of doubt that. Delegating fighter control essentially meant that calculations of control range were based on the ship which had control at the time. Drone assist still bases control range off of the ship that launched the drones. This means, if I'm right, that the carrier still has to be on grid with the fighters in order for commands (other than return) to be given.

So I don't think fighters will follow the assistee into warp.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#1220 - 2015-03-19 02:53:20 UTC
In any case, though, this is a particularly pleasant surprise. The nuances aren't terribly obvious though, and it'd be really helpful if CCP could clarify exactly how fighters will behave with assisting and defending.