Player Features and Ideas Discussion

after sitting by and watching the thread grow I still feel that killing the delegate control mechanic is not the right way to go about this but it does need to be removed within xkm of a tower/station to prevent what is currently causing it to be over powered.


The delegation isn't much of a problem and can be countered and those advocating to remove it completely either don't understand it or don't care about it. but the ability of a carrier to do this with little to no risk is unbalanced and needs to be fixed


would also like to clear up a post a while back about re-entering a POS shield with fighters out you don't lose them they simply return to drone bay

just as drone assist still exists .. incursions.

And you've missed my point.

So you lost a huginn to fighters after a night of strolling through catch in a mixed gang with ishtars and an orthrus and you come to whine about how fighter mechanics ruined your party? Tower mechanics are a joke, and should never have been what they are right now, I'll give you that. But the attitude is that someone should be able to moonwalk into a system, where, as you've admitted, the fighters are sitting on grid, without +1ing your scouts and expect to have a fair fight against entrenched defenders?

Even with crappy tower mechanics, carriers are still at risk, and even with fighters on grid, the ships that they're assigned to are not invincible.

I don't see a problem with it being used to counter casual roaming. A more serious fleet comp will defeat a few ships augmented with fighter assist and a serious FC will see it as an opportunity to destroy a carrier.

As Rroff said; that particular incident was just the latest in a long line of them. We knew full well they had assigned fighters but took the fight anyway as we thought we'd probably be able to kill the assault frigates before the fighters killed us.

This fight is actually a prime example of what we're talking about anyway; the Vengenace and Ares died, the Scythe was driven off. At this point, since we were being fought by a Nyx, we really ought to have been able to start threatening that Nyx. Since he's in almost perfect safety at his POS though, we can't - and that's what aint right. He took part in that fight without ever putting himself in danger.



But this is the problem; the techniques being used mean that we have no realistic oppurtunity at all to destroy that carrier.

I don't see what's wrong with this. I had to work hard to own my super, why shouldn't I be able to keep it safe? Also, how on earth am I supposed to take on a whole gang by myself if I can't do it this way? They might have a HIC, and keeping eyes on the next system, a Falcon alt, AND a cyno alt on standby is too much work. 2 alts should be plenty for solo PvP.

definetelynotserious.jpg

Interestingly I was roaming low in a Flycatcher only yesterday and encountered this tactic. I landed on a gate and found a Hyena 100 Kms off the gate, I burned towards him in the hope that he might be /afk. However, he quickly got moving and stayed at least 90K off me. He yellow boxed, then I heard the engagement alarm and then the damage started climbing. I switched to the drone tag and saw 5 Einherji on me. Thankfully I had an ASB and used a full set of Navy charges as I aligned out. But if he had been in say a Garmur, as I've witnessed before and kept a long point on me, I would never have got out.

The real issue in my opinion. Is that I wasn't flashy, neither was the Hyena. When the fighters aggressed, it was the carrier that got the suspect flag, not the Hyena, even though the Hyena had ordered the fighters in on me. The engagement took place in range of the gate guns but the gate guns did not fire, because the carrier wasn't on grid. If the Hyena had burned in close enough and I had fired on him, the gate guns would have shot me assuming the Hyena didn't aggress me with anything else.

Even more broken - if the Hyena had been sat on the gate when I landed, he could have called in the fighters to shoot me and if I had aggressed back, he could have jumped out immediately and left the gate guns to finish me off.

The most important fixes needed is that people who have drones assisting them should red box when they order the drones to attack. Secondly gate and dock guns should pop fighters and drones if their controlling ship goes suspect but is out of range.

It appears to be fairly well known if so - as I've come across carriers making use of this fact on stations. There is also another possible bug, where fighters assigned to a carrier pick up two sets of bonuses - but will need to test this more to capture data on it.

I think this discussion is getting mixed up, both intentionally and based on the title.

I think there are 2 issues:

POS immunity - be it shield hugging or one click from putting up a forcefield. It's a (my opinion here) lame risk averse mechanic that should be removed from the game.

Assigning fighters / drone assist - these are also 2 seperate things.

I think (my opinion again) that assigning fighters is a cool carrier super power and should continue to be allowed in game [getting rid of POS immunity would make this feature acceptable to most pvp pilots - they just want a reasonable chance to hurt back on the ship that's hurting them]

I think (my opinion again) that drone assist should just go away. It's a lazy farmer tool that eve wouldn't miss in the PVE world. It's a crappy mechanic in pvp that allows small quick locking ships rediculous dps - it doesn't add fun to the game it allows very large groups the ability to punish anyone on grid for not being there first. An interceptor should not be able to contol over 200 dps through any means - period.


To the OP and others contributing on this - it's easier to get positive game change with clear discussion on clear objectives.