These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Fighters and Off Grid assist

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#221 - 2015-01-18 23:17:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Suitonia wrote:
Also more risk free tactics, slowly edge your way out of a POS shield in your Thanatos, assign your fighters, then warp to friendly POS that is a long warp away, assisted fighters will continue to perform even while your carrier is in-warp and invulnerable! a 50 au warp will take around 60 seconds in a Thanatos allowing your fighters to continue to assist your gang while you are invulnerable in your warp tunnel landing in a Friendly POS, where you can then eek your way out, recall, reassign, then warp back to the friendly POS you started from, with your fighters fighting, and again, completely invulnerable and risk free!

I think I've provided enough evidence why fighter assign has to go and completely breaks Risk:Effort:Reward

Make it on-grid only, still allow fighters to follow into warp. Fixed.


Its not just about FF hugging or there would probably be less complaints about it - supers aside even with FF hugging there is a chance to catch a carrier, there are other techniques (some mentioned earlier in the thread) people are using which mean they are realistically pretty much immune unless they get really sloppy/epically screw up.

As per your longer post though just changing fighters to have sig damage scaling so they can't (short of some silly levels of webbing and painting) alpha away frigs, etc. with ease would make a massive difference.
Dmitry Kuvora
Sovetsky Soyuz
#222 - 2015-01-20 01:23:46 UTC
i'm a bit disappointed that CCP Rise was just blobed on o7 stream but not get raped by solo nano noobship with high grade snake + offgrid links +assisted nyx fighters
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#223 - 2015-02-26 21:48:29 UTC
Baali Tekitsu
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
#224 - 2015-02-26 22:10:23 UTC
Dmitry Kuvora wrote:
i'm a bit disappointed that CCP Rise was just blobed on o7 stream but not get raped by solo nano noobship with high grade snake + offgrid links +assisted nyx fighters



He dishonorably hid inside the medium plex. He was brought to justice by ECM wisdom however.

RATE LIKE SUBSCRIBE
Ereilian
Doomheim
#225 - 2015-02-26 22:10:27 UTC
Another Low hanging Fruit brought to you by your CCP Nerf Overlords.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#226 - 2015-02-26 22:19:50 UTC
Real sad that fighter warping had to go along with fighter assist.

+1 on removing assists, -1 on removing fighters warping when the carrier warps.
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#227 - 2015-02-26 22:25:07 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Real sad that fighter warping had to go along with fighter assist.

+1 on removing assists, -1 on removing fighters warping when the carrier warps.


Yeah removing the warp entirely is not the direction I expected them to go, but meh. Without the assist its probably more hindrance than help to carrier pilots really, as if they forget about it then fighters chasing a warping ship means large periods where yhe carrier is doing no dps.

So, probably the right move.
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#228 - 2015-02-26 22:28:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Real sad that fighter warping had to go along with fighter assist.

+1 on removing assists, -1 on removing fighters warping when the carrier warps.


Yeah removing the warp entirely is not the direction I expected them to go, but meh. Without the assist its probably more hindrance than help to carrier pilots really, as if they forget about it then fighters chasing a warping ship means large periods where yhe carrier is doing no dps.

So, probably the right move.


Not if you also use a carrier for ratting, and warp to the next site without recalling fighters that are 125Km away. Really puts a cramp on things if I need to wait several minutes between each sites to retrieve all my fighters.

Yes I know this is completely shallow, but it's a rather annoying hit for reasons that it's difficult to understand.

Although I'd be fine with it if they could always follow their host ship in warp, but not pursue enemies to an unknown location. But if I can have someone warp to me in a fleet, I would think that my fighters could always return to the parent ship.
Xiaosong Chen
Higher Than Everest
#229 - 2015-02-27 02:02:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Xiaosong Chen
As someone who is used to perversions like Ratting Supers i can totally get behind thoose changes.
Its just totally ******** being able to do the DPS of an Super without putting said ship on grid, where it can realistically get tackled.
To be honnest, that fighters wont follow you into warp anymore is probably a bit overkill, but it solves the risk free ratting with aligned carriers/supers, where you basically cant get cought.
So its just risk vs reward, as it should be.
And not making 150-300 mil per h without any real risk. (and it still wont be realy risky, if you have scouts and/or leave your fighters behind, but as fighters costs money, there certainly will be people getting cought, couse they didnt want to leave them behind^^)

P.S.: i lived in the same Pocket where some people in this thread encountered the bubbles + interceptors + superfighters, and as i have experienced how ******* overpowered this **** is, and yes, i have used it myself, and i still think its for the better good, that its gone.
and i have a feeling, that the people here in the thread arguing against it, are just afraid of having now useless supers/carriers, as they lack the balls to actually field thoose ships.
Kassasis Dakkstromri
State War Academy
Caldari State
#230 - 2015-02-27 03:16:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Kassasis Dakkstromri
Clearly Skynet is a risk free use of fighters and needs to be nerfed (as announced in the o7 Show today).

However, a uncomfortable development question comes up I believe: (as posed in Slack #csm)

"But what is unclear to me is why the addition to removing warp from fighters if they are already not going to be able to be assigned?"

If there is a clear reason CCP has for removing warp entirely from fighters, then please just be upfront and clear about it; otherwise, the perception is left of lazy fixes that simply relegate an iconic piece of EVE Online into obsolescence.

My thought is that the ability for fighters to warp after targets should remain - but an exception should be added that if a Carrier warps off grid, or enters warp at all, the fighters become "Abandoned"; and upon re-connection will auto return to the Carrier in the same system.

This will prevent Carrier groups warping in at a tactical on grid, dropping fighters and then leaving grid to Skynet at a POS (were anyone to think to do so).


That's my input, as I think CCP's announced nerf that also removes warp from fighters and turns them into giant lumbering drones is a over-reaching and misguided attempt to fix Skynet (which needs to be dealt with); but this is too broad, without clear enumeration by CCP as why this extra step is needed.

CCP you are bad at EVE... Stop potential silliness ~ Solo Wulf
Ramases Purvanen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#231 - 2015-02-27 06:01:07 UTC
leave the assist fighters/bombers alone at least or have the ability to still be able to assign them to other capital ships and not subcaps.

this would solve the problem of people using them as extra dps on gate camps!
Ramases Purvanen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#232 - 2015-02-27 06:03:00 UTC
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:
Clearly Skynet is a risk free use of fighters and needs to be nerfed (as announced in the o7 Show today).

However, a uncomfortable development question comes up I believe: (as posed in Slack #csm)

"But what is unclear to me is why the addition to removing warp from fighters if they are already not going to be able to be assigned?"

If there is a clear reason CCP has for removing warp entirely from fighters, then please just be upfront and clear about it; otherwise, the perception is left of lazy fixes that simply relegate an iconic piece of EVE Online into obsolescence.

My thought is that the ability for fighters to warp after targets should remain - but an exception should be added that if a Carrier warps off grid, or enters warp at all, the fighters become "Abandoned"; and upon re-connection will auto return to the Carrier in the same system.

This will prevent Carrier groups warping in at a tactical on grid, dropping fighters and then leaving grid to Skynet at a POS (were anyone to think to do so).


That's my input, as I think CCP's announced nerf that also removes warp from fighters and turns them into giant lumbering drones is a over-reaching and misguided attempt to fix Skynet (which needs to be dealt with); but this is too broad, without clear enumeration by CCP as why this extra step is needed.


I agree with this, if the carrier goes into warp then the drones disconnect and wont reconnect until the carrier is out of warp. Also if the carrier is in a POS the fighters/bombers also become abandoned..
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#233 - 2015-02-27 12:26:02 UTC
Anhenka wrote:
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron wrote:
Anhenka wrote:
Real sad that fighter warping had to go along with fighter assist.

+1 on removing assists, -1 on removing fighters warping when the carrier warps.


Yeah removing the warp entirely is not the direction I expected them to go, but meh. Without the assist its probably more hindrance than help to carrier pilots really, as if they forget about it then fighters chasing a warping ship means large periods where yhe carrier is doing no dps.

So, probably the right move.


Not if you also use a carrier for ratting, and warp to the next site without recalling fighters that are 125Km away. Really puts a cramp on things if I need to wait several minutes between each sites to retrieve all my fighters.

Yes I know this is completely shallow, but it's a rather annoying hit for reasons that it's difficult to understand.

Although I'd be fine with it if they could always follow their host ship in warp, but not pursue enemies to an unknown location. But if I can have someone warp to me in a fleet, I would think that my fighters could always return to the parent ship.


bwaaaah. I don't know - I don't really see why they should be treated differently from normal drones, so althought I wasn't advocating they be nerfed like that I'm also not upset that it's happened. They ought really to be treated simply as Capital sized versions of drones, and no other drone ship has the luxury of recalling its drones from off grid just because they had to leave. Imagine if Ishtars could get their Geckos back after being forced to leave grid.
Buzz Kill
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#234 - 2015-02-27 16:17:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Buzz Kill
Removing Assign fighters from carriers is a big mistake

you should drop the max assigned to 5 per ship instead of 50 you could add requirement of 25 bandwith per fighter
if you really do remove the assign function from carriers you will need to quickly find a new useful way to use carriers as you have totally removed the whole reason I had to own a carrier.

they dont qualify for the 90% jump fatigue reduction that JF enjoy but you reduce carriers combat usefulness making them more and more a transport ship.

What is wrong with assigning fighters and doing some ratting? NOTHING Thats what

why break ratting.

I have recently been involved in a fight where the enemy had fighters assigned we still over came their numbers and made kills, telling 40 people to target fighters was a easy way to get the fighters to run to safety. as an added bonus we killed some of their expensive fighters worth more than some of their ships.
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#235 - 2015-02-27 17:03:41 UTC
Buzz Kill wrote:
Removing Assign fighters from carriers is a big mistake

you should drop the max assigned to 5 per ship instead of 50 you could add requirement of 25 bandwith per fighter
if you really do remove the assign function from carriers you will need to quickly find a new useful way to use carriers as you have totally removed the whole reason I had to own a carrier.

they dont qualify for the 90% jump fatigue reduction that JF enjoy but you reduce carriers combat usefulness making them more and more a transport ship.

What is wrong with assigning fighters and doing some ratting? NOTHING Thats what

why break ratting.

I have recently been involved in a fight where the enemy had fighters assigned we still over came their numbers and made kills, telling 40 people to target fighters was a easy way to get the fighters to run to safety. as an added bonus we killed some of their expensive fighters worth more than some of their ships.


I disagree that there's nothing wrong with assigning fighters and ratting. You shouldn't be able to rat with your carrier without risking it in the site.

Jolly Archer
Perkone
Caldari State
#236 - 2015-03-24 12:04:04 UTC
Jolly Archer wrote:
Nerf assist fighters


Thanks