These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

  • Topic is locked indefinitely.

[Scylla] Skynet - Removing Fighter Assist

First post First post First post
gto Okaski
Crown Solutions
#221 - 2015-02-27 16:51:36 UTC
Kel hound wrote:
Wasnt this basically the entire bloody point of a carrier from a design standpoint? IRL I mean. Battleships had massive guns that could fire over the horizon, but were defeated by carriers which could strike with aircraft from well beyond the horizon.

lool eve vs rl mechanics comparison is not a good idea... i tried once a similar comparison to understand why a titan is powerless against a hic ( a real life situation would be something like a battleship pinned down by a man with a hook in one of those boats with pedals )
#222 - 2015-02-27 16:53:54 UTC
Stageweight wrote:
Rroff wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:


Especially the bolded part. Just spitballing here, but in addition to not being able to deploy fighters near POSs or stations (and taking away bonuses from assigned fighters), maybe a 'siege-like' module that has to be activated for ships to assign fighters, that locks the carrier or SC in place for at least 5 minutes. And/Or 'recieving ship' bandwidth limitations (if a ship has no drone bay, it can't use fighters, if a ship can deploy 5 sentries it can accept 5 fighters etc, which kills small ship 'Skynetting').

I don't know how much of a nightmare that would be from a programming stand point so I offer the above with a big grain of layman's salt lol, but the point is CCP should be making things more interesting, not less.

Some interesting points there, one down side is that a siege/bastion like module would take away a drone control unit slot but tying fighters to some kind of bastion like mode would make them more interesting and give potential for more balanced ways of making them a little less meh outside of skynet type use.

Having them only get bonuses when assigned by activating some kind of bastion like module would be a solution to a fair few issues without a ridiculous nerf though I'm not hugely in favour of it.

EDIT: I guess as a compromise for off grid use it wouldn't be so bad as you could still fit for 15 fighters when doing stuff ongrid just lose the extra slot when assigning - the game should always be about making a choice and/or compromise not about flat out nerf batting.


i.e. purely for illustration purposes something like:

[Fighter Command Processor] - works fairly much like bastion mode including timers and local self rep (can't be fitted with triage), enables fighter assignment, increases fighter tracking (with a corresponding decrease in base), increases durability, can't be activated within x km of POS or station.

I kind of like this idea, overall removing fighter assist truely does kill the uniqueness of carriers. The trick is to find a way to increase the risk, but not increase it to the point of killing off the frequency with which it is flown.

To edit your Fighter Command Processor they could make it so "can't be activated within x km of POS or station", or add "Maximum Velocity Bonus -100% when active"

Either way would help reduce the use of Skynet, I just don't think you need both the distance from POS/station limit and the -100% velocity bonus.

I think the latter would allow for some very interesting engagements at the edge of POS's though. Think about it, you could be running your fleet, you see a bunch of cruisers that you want to engage and suddenly they have fighters assisted. Your scout gives you a warp in to the POS that the carriers are sitting outside of and they can't move back into the shields until their cycle completes. It forces the carrier to commit to being vulnerable, but still have a chance the flee back into the POS once they come out of siege. Of course while they are sieged you could bump them away from the shield. The question would be how long to make the cycle time.

That indeed sounds better than my version. Very well though through.

Gallente Federation
#223 - 2015-02-27 16:55:26 UTC
Removing fighter assignment virtually kills supercarriers. They cannot pos bash. They cannot jump far without fatigue. They cannot assign fighters... If this move is to kill supercarriers in eve then it would certainly be effective. Removing fighter assignment but allowing supers to be dockable would be a fair compromise imo.
#224 - 2015-02-27 16:56:37 UTC  |  Edited by: TractionControl
This seems like a real half ass way to fix the problem . Suggestions I like

Remove module bonuses of carriers when a fighter is assisted to someone, so the dps application of fighters would be less appealing.

Remove ability to assist within 15-20 km of a pos shields or station undock
Angry Germans
#225 - 2015-02-27 16:57:13 UTC
Suitonia wrote:
Charadrass wrote:

you are blaming the realworld drone attacks too right?
cause sending the soldier hiself on to enemy Terrain is more fair, instead of sending an unmanned drone?

the carrier is sitting in a System with a pos.
he can be scanned out. even without scanning there are only pos possible at moons, so warping to all moons cloaked shouldnt be a Problem.
afterwards. get a bumper ship. a Little fleet, and enjoy the carrier kill.

but that is tooooo much work. lets fill out a Petition to remove the reason for the carrier to be online outside of a pos. thats much easier , and sooooo much fun... wait. it is not....

An attentive carrier pilot is 40m from a POS forcefield, it takes less than <1s for it to make it into the POS. Due to the position of the force field and where the Carrier pilot is, it's very difficult to get a good angle for bumping. Additionally, a Carrier has a significant amount of mass and even a Cloaky 100mn Proteus (which will die in about 20 seconds to POS guns and is absolutely useless to your fleet) will find it difficult to achieve a significant bump, you need to get up to speed to get a worthwhile bump which you cannot do while cloaked, the chance of bumping a Carrier in this manner is incredibly unlikely, I would advise you put this into practice yourself and post the results here.

you are pointing out massive investements at the side of the carrier owner. why the heck do you want to get this Thing nerfed? cause you cant kill him because he invested sooooo much isk more than you? come on.
so in fact you want the owner of isk getting punished for usage of his isk... am i right?
Swamp Donkee
Swamp Donkey's United
#226 - 2015-02-27 16:59:58 UTC
Since the problem is simply capitals assisting fighters just outside the POS shield, wouldn't a better solution involve something that would make assisting fighters just outside a POS bubble more risky?

Solution 1: "The active shield harmonic is interfering with your ability to assist drones at this time. "

Solution 2: Add a high slot module that would act in a similar fashion as bastion mode. When active, the carrier is able to assist fighters, however the carrier is immobile and unable to receive logistical assistance. It could have a 20 minute activation cycle or something.

Solution 3: Introduce a 'Fighter assist module'. It would be a High slot and allows 1 fighter to be assisted per module. This would reduce the maximum amount of fighters fielded as well. A win-win.

Solution 4: Introduce an ECM module which would disable the ability of any ship to assist drones within its effective range.

Solution 5: Leave it alone

On a side note: I do not engage in capital/POS warfare. In my opinion, I do not think that simply removing functionality of a ship simply because its causing an unfair advantage is an "elegant" solution at all. In fact, its just poor thought. The elegant solution would be to introduce a module which would counter the unfair advantage. This is how all military weapons evolve.

Just my .02 ISK
Aureus Ahishatsu
Deadspace Knights
#227 - 2015-02-27 16:59:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Aureus Ahishatsu
Suitonia wrote:

Ignoring the bugs, I am suggesting to you that making it so that fighters lose their bonuses off grid

I think this would have actually been a better approach to handling the problem then removing fighter assist. If the fighters loose module bonuses while off grid "skyneting" wouldn't be plausible anyway because aside from capitals the fighters aren't going to hit anything anyways.

This would allow them to still be used in some of their current pve applications.
Id Est
RAZOR Alliance
#228 - 2015-02-27 17:03:33 UTC
im not sure someone else mentioned about changing "assist" command and limit assisting drones by assisted ship's bandwidth instead of assisted pilot's drones skill level?

raw idea, no yelling so harsh..

anti-antagonist "not a friend of enemy of antagonist"

Grath Telkin
Goonswarm Federation
#229 - 2015-02-27 17:04:08 UTC
Axloth Okiah wrote:
How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable?

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.

Immortal Chrono Pimpin
Avocado Cartel
#230 - 2015-02-27 17:06:32 UTC
uh can you just make a t2 fighter that can be assigned but it just cost a load of monie?

I really wanna keep ratting with nyx fighters making dank isk without warping my nyx to a anom.

kk thx
Yuri Fedorov
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#231 - 2015-02-27 17:08:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Yuri Fedorov
Just add an option in the drone window whether or not you want fighters to warp with a target. Let us choose if we want them to stay on grid or follow.

edit: Okay it already exists.

Keep the warp!!!!
Gallente Federation
#232 - 2015-02-27 17:10:02 UTC
Make t2 fighters that are assignable that cost a pretty penny with a 25% dmg cut sounds like a fair tradeoff
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#233 - 2015-02-27 17:11:14 UTC
I dont know if anyone has brought this up yet; but couldn't another way to look at this is:

don't allow assigning of fighters to toons with out the fighter least force a toon to be able to actually use fighters before they can be assigned. That would fall in to the no ship / module bonus from the assigned ship. If you can't use fighters to begin with, how the hell are you able to control them when they are assigned to you?

Not a game breaking change, but it will at least force you to learn fighters instead of just having them assigned to a frigate toon.

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...

So you want to be a Hero
#234 - 2015-02-27 17:15:36 UTC
Removing fighter assist +1
Removing fighters warping -1

Fighters should be able to follow targets around in system.


- reducing game play mechanics more then needed based on no other presented reason than "feelings" by CCPgames
(by nerfing this game mechanic now, you will take sand out of the sandbox and remove any imaginative future applications)
- it messes with the lore of the game, one day fighters and it's crew can warp around and the next day not
(light, medium, heavy and sentry drones are AI controlled and therefor have to stay in range of the "mothership")
- Capsuleers who have spend a lot of money and time into piloting capitals that use fighters should remain to have this option
(in eve we always talk about risc vs reward, when you risc so much wealth your rewards should be there)

Eve online is :

A) mining simulator B) glorified chatroom C) spreadsheets online

D) CCP Games Pay to Win at skill leveling, with instant gratification

Drakonius Damnerica
The Blood of the Saints
#235 - 2015-02-27 17:16:23 UTC
Well that just took away all motivation to ever train into a carrier. Thanks CCP! Roll
Sinigr Shadowsong
Gallente Federation
#236 - 2015-02-27 17:19:21 UTC
Do not remove fighters ability to warp, instead give carrier pilot more control through "Fighter Settings" tab in the drones menu.
Apotheosis of Caledvwich
Ex Cineres bonum Faustum
#237 - 2015-02-27 17:20:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Myrradah
There is no point to a carrier if you take it away. How can it force project at ranges like a carrier is supposed to? If you take it away, don't call it a carrier anymore. Call it a troop transport or something as that's essentially what it will be.

I agree there should be some changes and there are plenty of good ideas here but no reason to remove assist or warping.
handige harrie
Vereenigde Handels Compagnie
#238 - 2015-02-27 17:21:10 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:

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.

There is an Option on your Drone window called Follow in Warp. You can already uncheck it and it stops your fighters from following the target in warp.

Do you even play your own game, or search your own wiki for this when you make this stuff up? Wiki Image with Drone settings shown


Baddest poster ever

Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#239 - 2015-02-27 17:21:21 UTC
No need in such capitals. I will unsubscribe 2 accounts if this changes will apear on tranq.
Lenard Nimoy
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#240 - 2015-02-27 17:22:10 UTC
please leave fighters warpin off grid untouched.
its the only reliable way to kill a ratting carrier with minimal dps, if you can reliably take his fighters for a walk.
if they stayed on grid that would make it easier for ratting carriers to defend themselves