These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
12Next page
 

Carriers, Fighters & recent changes.
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Vidya Oncomata
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1 - 2014-10-22 06:02:08 UTC  |  Edited by: Vidya Oncomata
First of all, the recent changed to carriers & fighters are amazing, way to make them relevant again so I would like to thank CCP for these changes.

However with the changes allowing fighters to be more effective in combat some mechanics surrounding their use have become problematic. These mechanics are fighters ability to warp & fighter delegation.

TL;DR: Make fighters able to be warp disrupted preventing them from warping & remove fighter delegation.

Fighter warping & following targets:

The fighters ability to warp is in my opinion the easiest problem to solve. Currently if you are being attacked by fighters and warp off the fighters follow you as long as you remain in system. While there are some issues with this (such as how the hell do the fighter pilots know where to warp to if their demigod capsuleer overlords don't) I think the mechanic is overall a positive one and allows savvy pilots to use this to their advantage in small fleet fights.

However, fighters cannot be warp disrupted, allowing them to simply be recalled to their carrier if they start to take damage and there is nothing the person being attacked can do about that, the fighters return and are instantly able to be assigned to a new target. I propose to allow fighters to be warp scrambled / disrupted the same way ships are, or otherwise to remove this mechanic entirely. This means that having fighters follow their targets becomes somewhat of a risk to the fighters, and with the price of fighters this means that the mechanic is far more balanced in a risk vs reward way.

Fighter Delegation

This is, in my opinion a very broken mechanic. A max skilled thanatos can assign 5 fighters to any ship in system, even one which cannot usually use any drones at all, the carrier can be hugging a station or a pos and be applying dps anywhere in the system with practically no risk to it whatsoever.

For reference a max skilled thanatos with 4 DDA's can assign a total of 1111dps to a frigate, (I have seen this used to an insanely overpowered extent with a daredevil) and can assign a total of 15 fighters (with 5 dda's) to 3 allied ships for 3300 + dps.

While carriers being able to deal this amount of damage is fine, the fact that they (unlike every other ship in the game) can do this from the relative safety of the edge of a pos shield and support a fleet fighting on a gate is ludicrous. Even a supercarrier cannot assign its fighter bombers, why can fighters (which are now highly effective) still be assigned to others within the system.

I propose to remove the delegation of fighters entirely, if a carrier wants to apply its dps to a hostile fleet, it, like every other ship in this game should have to place itself on a battlefield where it is at risk, super carriers cannot assign fighters for a reason, and now with these changes, nor should a carrier.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#2 - 2014-10-22 06:05:11 UTC
I like this idea. carriers using this for both PVP and PVE subverts the intended mechanics that a fight should take place on grid, which is the same argument for people whining about links.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Tabyll Altol
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#3 - 2014-10-22 06:16:23 UTC
Don´t see such a need (and no i don´t fly a carrier).

-1
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#4 - 2014-10-22 07:08:54 UTC
Vidya Oncomata wrote:
First of all, the recent changed to carriers & fighters are amazing, way to make them relevant again so I would like to thank CCP for these changes.

However with the changes allowing fighters to be more effective in combat some mechanics surrounding their use have become problematic. These mechanics are fighters ability to warp & fighter delegation.

TL;DR: Make fighters able to be warp disrupted preventing them from warping & remove fighter delegation.

Fighter warping & following targets:

The fighters ability to warp is in my opinion the easiest problem to solve. Currently if you are being attacked by fighters and warp off the fighters follow you as long as you remain in system. While there are some issues with this (such as how the hell do the fighter pilots know where to warp to if their demigod capsuleer overlords don't) I think the mechanic is overall a positive one and allows savvy pilots to use this to their advantage in small fleet fights.

However, fighters cannot be warp disrupted, allowing them to simply be recalled to their carrier if they start to take damage and there is nothing the person being attacked can do about that, the fighters return and are instantly able to be assigned to a new target. I propose to allow fighters to be warp scrambled / disrupted the same way ships are, or otherwise to remove this mechanic entirely. This means that having fighters follow their targets becomes somewhat of a risk to the fighters, and with the price of fighters this means that the mechanic is far more balanced in a risk vs reward way.

Fighter Delegation

This is, in my opinion a very broken mechanic. A max skilled thanatos can assign 5 fighters to any ship in system, even one which cannot usually use any drones at all, the carrier can be hugging a station or a pos and be applying dps anywhere in the system with practically no risk to it whatsoever.

For reference a max skilled thanatos with 4 DDA's can assign a total of 1111dps to a frigate, (I have seen this used to an insanely overpowered extent with a daredevil) and can assign a total of 15 fighters (with 5 dda's) to 3 allied ships for 3300 + dps.

While carriers being able to deal this amount of damage is fine, the fact that they (unlike every other ship in the game) can do this from the relative safety of the edge of a pos shield and support a fleet fighting on a gate is ludicrous. Even a supercarrier cannot assign its fighter bombers, why can fighters (which are now highly effective) still be assigned to others within the system.

I propose to remove the delegation of fighters entirely, if a carrier wants to apply its dps to a hostile fleet, it, like every other ship in this game should have to place itself on a battlefield where it is at risk, super carriers cannot assign fighters for a reason, and now with these changes, nor should a carrier.


1 - What are you smoking. The recent changes have only made carriers worse... their glorified logi boats for gates (depending on what's tackling them) they probably can't gate through.... And their jump drives are now a "use incase of emergancy - solong as your not tackled" single shot option instead of the normal travel mechanic.

2 - Your nerfing carriers even more. They are almost incapable of applying their full damage to moving targets smaller than a bc without sub caps helping them in some way or form.

3 - No. We need the exact opposite of this. Fighters that can warp scram / web / neut / jam targets.... t2 fighters that can actually attack frigates without the need for points or TPs to be applied first.

4 - Delegation is a crap mechanic. Allow fighters to be assigned / guard / assist like normal drones while removing the carriers ability to field normal drones (scout, medium, Heavies and sentries).

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#5 - 2014-10-22 07:17:42 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
Vidya Oncomata wrote:
First of all, the recent changed to carriers & fighters are amazing, way to make them relevant again so I would like to thank CCP for these changes.

However with the changes allowing fighters to be more effective in combat some mechanics surrounding their use have become problematic. These mechanics are fighters ability to warp & fighter delegation.

TL;DR: Make fighters able to be warp disrupted preventing them from warping & remove fighter delegation.

Fighter warping & following targets:

The fighters ability to warp is in my opinion the easiest problem to solve. Currently if you are being attacked by fighters and warp off the fighters follow you as long as you remain in system. While there are some issues with this (such as how the hell do the fighter pilots know where to warp to if their demigod capsuleer overlords don't) I think the mechanic is overall a positive one and allows savvy pilots to use this to their advantage in small fleet fights.

However, fighters cannot be warp disrupted, allowing them to simply be recalled to their carrier if they start to take damage and there is nothing the person being attacked can do about that, the fighters return and are instantly able to be assigned to a new target. I propose to allow fighters to be warp scrambled / disrupted the same way ships are, or otherwise to remove this mechanic entirely. This means that having fighters follow their targets becomes somewhat of a risk to the fighters, and with the price of fighters this means that the mechanic is far more balanced in a risk vs reward way.

Fighter Delegation

This is, in my opinion a very broken mechanic. A max skilled thanatos can assign 5 fighters to any ship in system, even one which cannot usually use any drones at all, the carrier can be hugging a station or a pos and be applying dps anywhere in the system with practically no risk to it whatsoever.

For reference a max skilled thanatos with 4 DDA's can assign a total of 1111dps to a frigate, (I have seen this used to an insanely overpowered extent with a daredevil) and can assign a total of 15 fighters (with 5 dda's) to 3 allied ships for 3300 + dps.

While carriers being able to deal this amount of damage is fine, the fact that they (unlike every other ship in the game) can do this from the relative safety of the edge of a pos shield and support a fleet fighting on a gate is ludicrous. Even a supercarrier cannot assign its fighter bombers, why can fighters (which are now highly effective) still be assigned to others within the system.

I propose to remove the delegation of fighters entirely, if a carrier wants to apply its dps to a hostile fleet, it, like every other ship in this game should have to place itself on a battlefield where it is at risk, super carriers cannot assign fighters for a reason, and now with these changes, nor should a carrier.


1 - What are you smoking. The recent changes have only made carriers worse... their glorified logi boats for gates (depending on what's tackling them) they probably can't gate through.... And their jump drives are now a "use incase of emergancy - solong as your not tackled" single shot option instead of the normal travel mechanic.

2 - Your nerfing carriers even more. They are almost incapable of applying their full damage to moving targets smaller than a bc without sub caps helping them in some way or form.

3 - No. We need the exact opposite of this. Fighters that can warp scram / web / neut / jam targets.... t2 fighters that can actually attack frigates without the need for points or TPs to be applied first.

4 - Delegation is a crap mechanic. Allow fighters to be assigned / guard / assist like normal drones while removing the carriers ability to field normal drones (scout, medium, Heavies and sentries).


Carriers are broken. When it is not worth the server load in a major fight to have literally anything smaller than a capital, like at B-R, capitals are broken, and all of them will need to be rebalanced in light of both the drone changes and new drone modules, and the jump changes.

1: While I agree that the jump changes are fairly drastic, being able to move something intended to be a strategic asset at speeds which the fastest ships in the game cannot manage, as a sustained method of travel was asinine to begin with, and made them far too safe.

2: So are battleships, which are at least in the same category. Capitals are not supposed to be an "I WIN" butan to push.

3: Fighters should not be made substantially more powerful, as this effectively replaces every role for your newbies, and accelerates the decline of the game through excessive barrier to entry, toxic attitudes towards anyone not suitably "elite" and mechanics that make sane people wish to defenestrate the originators.

4: I could see removing the ability to field normal drones, or hard capping normal drones at 5, but allowing fighters the full range of options allowed for current "normal" drones is too much at this time.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Lugh Crow-Slave
#6 - 2014-10-22 07:30:53 UTC
assigning fighters is fine its only broken with the inability to scram as stated and the ability for them to do this right next to a pos or station there was a post a few months back that brought this up. carriers should retain the assist mechanic but they should be unable to do so withing x-rang of a station or pos shield

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#7 - 2014-10-22 07:35:42 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
assigning fighters is fine its only broken with the inability to scram as stated and the ability for them to do this right next to a pos or station there was a post a few months back that brought this up. carriers should retain the assist mechanic but they should be unable to do so withing x-rang of a station or pos shield

How about only being able to push out new targets while on grid? makes it so the carrier has to at least show up for a moment to assign/assist/whathaveyou the fighters and then can warp off if it isn't properly tackled in time.

Means you can pre-assign fighters for a trap, which is good, but can't just use a cheap brick to apply your carrier's DPS to rat.

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
Vidya Oncomata
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#8 - 2014-10-22 07:54:54 UTC
James Baboli wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
assigning fighters is fine its only broken with the inability to scram as stated and the ability for them to do this right next to a pos or station there was a post a few months back that brought this up. carriers should retain the assist mechanic but they should be unable to do so withing x-rang of a station or pos shield

How about only being able to push out new targets while on grid? makes it so the carrier has to at least show up for a moment to assign/assist/whathaveyou the fighters and then can warp off if it isn't properly tackled in time.

Means you can pre-assign fighters for a trap, which is good, but can't just use a cheap brick to apply your carrier's DPS to rat.


I think thats a good point, fighters should be able to continue attacking even if the carrier warps off grid, obviously with the power to be scrammed. but if the target dies, or leaves system, the carrier would have to come back, lock the target and set fighters to attack. That at least increases the risk for the carrier having to physically be on field at least temporarily.
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#9 - 2014-10-22 08:24:35 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
...
1 - What are you smoking. The recent changes have only made carriers worse... their glorified logi boats for gates (depending on what's tackling them) they probably can't gate through.... And their jump drives are now a "use incase of emergancy - solong as your not tackled" single shot option instead of the normal travel mechanic.


possibly

Asuka Solo wrote:

2 - Your nerfing carriers even more. They are almost incapable of applying their full damage to moving targets smaller than a bc without sub caps helping them in some way or form.


Hey even with the hictor changes one carrier dumps 7 Geckos on your head and takes the gate Sad

Asuka Solo wrote:

3 - No. We need the exact opposite of this. Fighters that can warp scram / web / neut / jam targets.... t2 fighters that can actually attack frigates without the need for points or TPs to be applied first.


What?
Can we hold on a minute or two and wait for ewar-drones to be fixed first? You know the 15 drones a carrier can launch at once do not all need to be of the same type Blink

Asuka Solo wrote:

4 - Delegation is a crap mechanic. Allow fighters to be assigned / guard / assist like normal drones while removing the carriers ability to field normal drones (scout, medium, Heavies and sentries).


True it's lame when you are "fighting a Tristan" and you keep wondering why she doesn't launch drones and all of a sudden 5 very angry looking ships start to orbit you and your ship goes poof.

ShockedShockedShockedShockedShockedShocked where did you come from, the d-scan was clear.. Sad

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Bl1SkR1N
13th HOUR
#10 - 2014-10-22 09:12:26 UTC
In my humble opinion what carriers need more is revisiting their repping abilities. No1 really cares about fighters these days anyway since sentries.
Vidya Oncomata
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#11 - 2014-10-22 11:02:45 UTC
Bl1SkR1N wrote:
In my humble opinion what carriers need more is revisiting their repping abilities. No1 really cares about fighters these days anyway since sentries.


Someone missed the last upgrade to them.....

Fighters are now affected by drone damage mods, tracking mods, navigation mods etc.. Harder better faster stronger.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#12 - 2014-10-22 11:35:12 UTC
Vidya Oncomata wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
assigning fighters is fine its only broken with the inability to scram as stated and the ability for them to do this right next to a pos or station there was a post a few months back that brought this up. carriers should retain the assist mechanic but they should be unable to do so withing x-rang of a station or pos shield

How about only being able to push out new targets while on grid? makes it so the carrier has to at least show up for a moment to assign/assist/whathaveyou the fighters and then can warp off if it isn't properly tackled in time.

Means you can pre-assign fighters for a trap, which is good, but can't just use a cheap brick to apply your carrier's DPS to rat.


I think thats a good point, fighters should be able to continue attacking even if the carrier warps off grid, obviously with the power to be scrammed. but if the target dies, or leaves system, the carrier would have to come back, lock the target and set fighters to attack. That at least increases the risk for the carrier having to physically be on field at least temporarily.




Their ability to send out fighters is one of the things that make these ships unique and similar to their RL counterparts. They ate not hard to scan down and other then the ones sitting on station undock are easy to catch and normal have very little tank to maximize the fighters potential.

Forcing them to show up on grid just to launch and warp off is not only ridiculous but impractical as a strategy.

BLOPS Hauler
The 16.8km Bubble
Bl1SkR1N
13th HOUR
#13 - 2014-10-22 12:54:29 UTC
Vidya Oncomata wrote:
Bl1SkR1N wrote:
In my humble opinion what carriers need more is revisiting their repping abilities. No1 really cares about fighters these days anyway since sentries.


Someone missed the last upgrade to them.....

Fighters are now affected by drone damage mods, tracking mods, navigation mods etc.. Harder better faster stronger.

made them actually at least a little bit useful :P
Rowells
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#14 - 2014-10-22 13:20:13 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
2 - Your nerfing carriers even more. They are almost incapable of applying their full damage to moving targets smaller than a bc without sub caps helping them in some way or form.
you mean fighters or carriers?
Celthric Kanerian
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#15 - 2014-10-22 14:33:00 UTC
Tabyll Altol wrote:
Don´t see such a need (and no i don´t fly a carrier).

-1


Then why do you even post anything in this post? You got no experience, therefore your say is completely irrelevant.
Bl1SkR1N
13th HOUR
#16 - 2014-10-22 16:31:00 UTC
In my opinion carriers are fine with being able to apply their part of dmg. It's fine if carrier is ably to do lot of damage, they are carriers after all...US carriers can do lot of harm when they get into area too. I don't think they should be able to do it while still being very capable logistics ships. There should be some trade off. I personally would remove any repping abilities of carrier while it's not in triage. Or at least limit it considerably...so you can chose between dmg platform and logistics capabilities.
Vidya Oncomata
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#17 - 2014-10-23 00:04:46 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Vidya Oncomata wrote:
James Baboli wrote:
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
assigning fighters is fine its only broken with the inability to scram as stated and the ability for them to do this right next to a pos or station there was a post a few months back that brought this up. carriers should retain the assist mechanic but they should be unable to do so withing x-rang of a station or pos shield

How about only being able to push out new targets while on grid? makes it so the carrier has to at least show up for a moment to assign/assist/whathaveyou the fighters and then can warp off if it isn't properly tackled in time.

Means you can pre-assign fighters for a trap, which is good, but can't just use a cheap brick to apply your carrier's DPS to rat.


I think thats a good point, fighters should be able to continue attacking even if the carrier warps off grid, obviously with the power to be scrammed. but if the target dies, or leaves system, the carrier would have to come back, lock the target and set fighters to attack. That at least increases the risk for the carrier having to physically be on field at least temporarily.




Their ability to send out fighters is one of the things that make these ships unique and similar to their RL counterparts. They ate not hard to scan down and other then the ones sitting on station undock are easy to catch and normal have very little tank to maximize the fighters potential.

Forcing them to show up on grid just to launch and warp off is not only ridiculous but impractical as a strategy.


Most carriers off grid assigning are hugging pos shields or stations, I have yet to ever see one hiding in a safe spot. This mechanic may be unique but it makes little sense (is fighter bombers cannot be remote assigned why can regular fighters) and allowed them to deploy a massive amount of dps with almost no risk to their ship whatsoever. This mechanic was unique and great back when fighters kind of sucked, but now that they are amoung the most powerful weapon systems in the game and this mechanic is massively overpowered, especially when you can have a t1 frigate able to deal 1200+ dps
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#18 - 2014-10-23 00:32:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:

Their ability to send out fighters is one of the things that make these ships unique and similar to their RL counterparts. They ate not hard to scan down and other then the ones sitting on station undock are easy to catch and normal have very little tank to maximize the fighters potential.

Forcing them to show up on grid just to launch and warp off is not only ridiculous but impractical as a strategy.


Yeah if they are hugging station and are fitted out with enough drone mods to make them efficient against subcaps then they will have limited active tank and less EHP than normal plus timer so potentially killable with a few dreads and half a plan. Not so easy on a POS unless you have a setup that can tank POS gun but even there fairly vulnerable to 90% webs and or bumping for those prepared to make the effort.
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow
#19 - 2014-10-23 00:54:09 UTC
Yeah, Carriers just got needed, let's break them to the point that they are over glorified hangar ornaments to be shown off as a status symbol rather than a viable fleet vessel. **** no.

Please contract all of your stuff and ISK to be and enter the biomass queue which is located over Arrow

Seriously, you are asking for an easy way to completely render capital ships useless.

I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Devil your parents warned you about.

||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Bowhead||
Vidya Oncomata
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#20 - 2014-10-24 08:11:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Vidya Oncomata
Jack Carrigan wrote:
Yeah, Carriers just got needed, let's break them to the point that they are over glorified hangar ornaments to be shown off as a status symbol rather than a viable fleet vessel. **** no.

Please contract all of your stuff and ISK to be and enter the biomass queue which is located over Arrow

Seriously, you are asking for an easy way to completely render capital ships useless.


Lol, any slight change to carriers and "they are overglorified hangar ornaments" hell can we have dreads that can shoot offgrid, what about assigning fighter bombers

You're overreacting, the changes will mean it will be harder to organize a hotdrop so carriers coming on field will be more possible.
12Next page