These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#21 - 2015-02-27 12:02:21 UTC
fighter warping doesn't provide interesting gameplay at all though.
Pomponius Sabinus
Loot und Sonstiges
#22 - 2015-02-27 12:03:30 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
CCP Rise wrote:


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.


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



Well it seems like you realised the problem is risk vs reward while asigning fighters from the edge of a POS FF. But instead of making it more interesting by finding some way to make it more dangerous to asign fighters you sadly take the easy way out and just remove it. It would be way more interesting for the game if you found a way to make carriers that asigned fighters more vulnerable.
The best way to adress this Problem would be to not allow asigning fighters within a certain distance to a POS. This will create a lot of interesting encounters / fights over carier/super carriers that are caught while they asigned fighters.

Concerning fighter warp there is no problem with that. People that don't want it can hit the don't follow button and all is fine.
Proton Stars
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2015-02-27 12:07:37 UTC
Has any thought gone into this at all?

From an attackers point of view you want to either kill the fighters or the capitals, but people are not going to put these assets on gates so by removing remote assist you remove any chance of them being used!

You need to bother to look at the Risk Vs reward of these changes. You have gone from ALL reward, No risk to NO reward so wont bother to risk.

I like the idea that fighters can be scrambled and killed, i like the idea that carriers must move out of the shields a little bit further (or sit on a station which is very dangerous due to bumping) both of these allow the mechanic to still exist but at a cost.

GeeShizzle MacCloud
#24 - 2015-02-27 12:09:55 UTC  |  Edited by: GeeShizzle MacCloud
Considering the changes to cynos on POS's the safety of having assisted fighters whilst skirting the POS shields is badly out of balance in terms of risk/reward, especially as dipping into the shields your fighters come back safely.

A midpoint may be that fighters not on grid don't come back if you dip into POS shields or that being in a POS shield prevents fighters from returning. and instead sit idle and can be killed.

However this midway point would be the continued adoption of current POS shields which i believe CCP wants to replace with something with a lot less caveats and workarounds.

I would also like to say that the manner that fighters 'appear' on grid after warping is also terrible and not consistent to how 'ships' land on grid. As fighters are essentially small ships they should land and be subject to the same mechanics that player warping adheres to, if this assisted fighter mechanic is not deleted outright.
stubbsie Panala
State War Academy
Caldari State
#25 - 2015-02-27 12:15:44 UTC
Keep fighter assist but make it so there is a minimum distance the carrier has to be from a POS or station of like 15-20 /Km. This still makes viable for drone assisting but at a very high risk cost

Small change for Ship Maintenance Arrays
Janeway84
Insane's Asylum
#26 - 2015-02-27 12:23:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Janeway84
Wouldn't it be better to make it so you can't assist from to close a range of a pos force field?
But I haven't ran into this special issue myself but whatever.
Also why not make fighters warp scrammable / ewar sensitive like others have suggested? Big smile
There should be higher tier ships that veteran players can use and find fun imo.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#27 - 2015-02-27 12:27:36 UTC
stubbsie Panala wrote:
Keep fighter assist but make it so there is a minimum distance the carrier has to be from a POS or station of like 15-20 /Km. This still makes viable for drone assisting but at a very high risk cost


actually that's still risk-free. just align to a pos or station.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#28 - 2015-02-27 12:35:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Its relatively low risk but still a chance of being bumped out of alignment or not paying attention gets you into trouble - unlike now where you can for instance just online the FF and be immediately immune and/or shrug off anyone attacking.

Combined with sig based damage scaling so that fighters couldn't apply any significant damage below about 300m sig or so it would balance the impact on small gangs while not unduly impacting people using fighters for other uses as on grid they'd have the options of using sentries, medium drones, etc. etc. and without a skynet fit aren't going to have the setup to apply damage like that to smaller stuff with fighters anyhow.
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
#29 - 2015-02-27 12:38:25 UTC
Just make the fighters pointable and make it so that proximity to a pos (within 50km) makes it impossible to assign them whether the FF is up or not.

EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Worrff
Enterprise Holdings
#30 - 2015-02-27 12:43:31 UTC
This

Proton Stars wrote:
Has any thought gone into this at all?

From an attackers point of view you want to either kill the fighters or the capitals, but people are not going to put these assets on gates so by removing remote assist you remove any chance of them being used!

You need to bother to look at the Risk Vs reward of these changes. You have gone from ALL reward, No risk to NO reward so wont bother to risk.



And this...


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.

CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If it’s broken, leave it alone and break something else.
Jori McKie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#31 - 2015-02-27 12:43:55 UTC
I like the removal of fighter assist very much.

The reasons to remove warp or not, no idea but i would assume that in PvP it is always better to have fighters on grid and don't waste DPS.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar
Anthar Thebess
#32 - 2015-02-27 13:04:38 UTC
Fighters need to be on grid to use fighters.
Forcing them to move more will change almost nothing .
Removing fighters ability to warp with the carrier will make them just another drones, that will be simply to expensive.

Should we bringing back old scan res for fighters and bombers - i think no.
This was because some other broken stuff , and i see current values good one.

Again what we need also is Capital Drone Link Agumentor.
Something that will give 30km range ( faction 35 , officer 40km ) and will have 8000 m3 in size - simply to remove the ability to refit on field.
One module per carrier , and we will also having solved issue in sentry abuse.
Next is to normalize capital reps, something that you have described in my signature.

Those changes will make Carriers similar to Dreads.
Very usefully, but not broken beyond any possible limits.

Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

Show your support to The Cause!
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#33 - 2015-02-27 13:08:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Arthur Aihaken
CCP Rise wrote:
Would you prefer that we removed the ability for fighters to warp or that we left warping in, despite the absence of assist?

Edit: Apparently the "Attack and Follow" drone setting already does this.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Somatic Neuron
Masterwork Productions Inc
#34 - 2015-02-27 13:11:26 UTC
Simple solution, simply remove the ability to Assist off-grid. If the assisted ship leaves your grid, or is destroyed, the fighters return to orbit you.

The only time fighters should warp, is if the on-grid assisted ship, or your carrier, engages fighters against another ship, and that target ship warps. If the assisted ship subsequently dies, or warps off, the fighters return to orbit your carrier.

Carriers should have the option (drone properties, like Aggressive/Passive, and Focus Fire) to turn off following at will....so the options would be "Aggressive", "Passive", checkbox for "Focus FIre" and checkbox for "Fighter Following".
Peter Johannesen
Suicide Investments
#35 - 2015-02-27 13:16:42 UTC
AttentionKEEP THE CURRENT CARRIER MECHANICS!

All this time eve is trying to get people to work together, and this is one of the strongest point in working together especially in WH spaces where it for small corporations provides some level of security and options.

Furthermore this is something that is so unique, and which makes the carrier an interesting choice.

Its seriously horrible too look at all this nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf.. that is primary affected by people sooner or later whining about a feature because they do not have anything better to do. Look at other games where the nerf bat has completely destroyed the games and the uniqness of the gameplay, where it in the end doesn't really matter what you do or what you pick, or where you dont get a choice whatsoever.

I understand fully that eve online is a very complex game with millions of options, but this is seriously just stupid to nerf a game feature that is in every way motivating people to play together. I would strongly assume that this was and is the original idea of the carrier when it was first introduced way back.

You guys at CCP have been doing lot of work on for example the cruisers, where there is one kind for every job. How about instead of picking the easy and quick choice to just nerf an unique ship mechanic, then look into developing some of the features that are unique to eve online, which simply makes the game worth playing together.

If you absolutely have to change mechanics, then at least look into the possibility of introducing more different kind of carriers. For example one that focuses on providing fighter support where the other is the logistic remote repair ship that we know it for.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#36 - 2015-02-27 13:16:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
It seems the main argument for keeping fighters going to warp is that the carrier pilot may have to flee too quickly and not be able to recall the drones, leaving fighters just sitting there abandoned when the carrier ran or warped.

I'm ok with that. If you commit a carrier, then have to run, leaving your fighters behind is the least damaging option. Will this annoy pve carriers, sure. They will have to press 2 button and wait a few seconds while fighters recall.

Again, ok with that.

Losing a fighter because you warped away too fast is not a big deal, It's just a part of doing business.

Every other drone boat loses drones whenever they warp off before recalling (those faction drones are not cheap). That's the benefit of forcing the person off field.

Good change.

Yaay!!!!
Turbular Knight
PVP Masters
#37 - 2015-02-27 13:22:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Turbular Knight
I agree that Fighter assist should remain, it is a uniqe feature that carriers hold. But by all means take away the ability to assign them while sitting at the edge of shields at a deathstar POS which is just ******** and annoying. Not everyone can perform a driveby doomsday, however far too many carrier holders can just sit back and assist their fighters to fastlocking ships camping gates with minimal risks. Also make it so that the pilot in-control of the fighters get a suspect timer when dropping fucktons of hurt upon neutral vessels.
Liam Inkuras
Furnace
Meta Reloaded
#38 - 2015-02-27 13:24:07 UTC
o7 Skynet, you were a well hated friend.

But I think the warping mechanic for fighters should remain as is.

I wear my goggles at night.

Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#39 - 2015-02-27 13:26:18 UTC

I guess it was too hard to remove ship bonuses from off-grid fighters? Or was that just not nerfy enough?

If I'm reading the post correctly, you're entirely removing drone-assist for fighters and FB? If that's the case, why not just remove all drone assist and be done with it? It's a problematic mechanic, just remove it already.

Please keep the fighter warp ability at least though. There ought to be something unique and interesting about fighters other than the fact that they're slow and have poor tracking. :/

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#40 - 2015-02-27 13:40:56 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
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.


The problem isn't caused by fighter assist. The problem is caused by the decision to let fighters benefit from drone mods. Before this, unbonused fighters assigned to small ships were good for exactly one thing" shooting POS guns. and that's it. Fighter Assist is one of the cooler game mechanics EVE has and removing it because some people abused the gift you guys gave them is a terrible idea.

A better idea would be to say "you can assign fighters, but they get no boost at all from carrier bonuses, drone mods or carrier pilot skills".

As for the warp drive, yea, that's complete overkill. It kills the Carrier for fighter based PVE (a ratting of lvl 5 carrier would be risking 200 mil worth of fighters every site if they had to get out quick, or risk being tackled if they wait for the fighters). End result will be some who switch back to Sentries for pve, but others will stop using carriers all together (especially those who switch to sentries, after a few carrier losses, carriers aren't cheap).

This means more people shifting to afktars and the like for isking which is way less interesting content wise, some of the best fights you can get is when a carrier gets tackled in an anom because he got pointed by an npc at the right moment or misclciked and lost alignment , and for them to be out there to be tackled people have to want to use them.