These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#301 - 2015-02-27 19:51:53 UTC
titan Multi3 wrote:
Their logistics platform is guess what, dependent on play style.

Half/Half split between DPS/triage support.

Instead you choose to believe YOUR play style is the only play style.


You can use your carrier for mining for all I care. This is not about that. It's about a very powerful game mechanic that is hardly balanceable to begin with and very similar to other mechanics that CCP removed already or is committed to remove at some point in the future.

Some people say it's a unique feature adding to the diversity of EvE. Be that as it may, though that doesn't make it a good mechanic.
Belinda HwaFang
Coreli Corporation
Pandemic Legion
#302 - 2015-02-27 19:53:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Belinda HwaFang
Panther X wrote:
Agent Unknown wrote:
Immortal Chrono Pimpin wrote:
Violet Corvus wrote:
Make the Fighters assignable from the same grid, just like regular drones. Carrier leaves -> Fighters unassign and follow.

This forces the Carrier to stick its neck out a bit and not cower near shields.



No reason to have assign if you are ongrid tbh

Alltho carrier irl project power over great distance and aren't supposed to be a direct danger.]

Kind of sad to see ccp killing it how lore and realistic is concerned.


Carriers have crap scanres, so assigning to a fast-locking ship would get the fighters to apply damage faster.


Actually, fighters and bombers had their own scan res nerfed last release, so.... no matter what your scan res is, the fighters and fb's still have to lock the target themselves.



That is correct, but by assigning fighters to a smaller ship that ship can start this locking process earlier of the fighers therefore allowing damage to be applied earlier.

I agree with Violet Corvus, just make it so they can be assigned on the same grid only. If the carrier (or subcap delegated leaves) leaves, they unassign and warp/orbit to follow their carrier.

I understand the vision of getting rid of the "lame" fighter assist from a POS gameplay, that currently is best countered by cyno bringing in a Domesday or other very high dps cynoable/bridgable fleet, but by removing assist entirely we lose some of the tactical plays that carrier pilots with the help of subcaps can make in a capital escalation brawl.

--
Fang
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
#303 - 2015-02-27 19:54:53 UTC
Amak Boma wrote:
allow assigning fighters on battleships battlecruisers cruisers , barges and orca/rorqyal dont allow assisting fighters on small ships


That doesn't fix the problem. Even when using BS as assignee Risk/Reward would still be out of whack.
Gor Thot
Bang Gang Body Bois
#304 - 2015-02-27 19:56:14 UTC
Please don't remove Fighter assist It is useful in doing wormhole sites and CCP needs to quit nefing all the **** they put in their games. I'm a carrier pilot myself and I use that function. If they do that there will be a lot of unhappy people.EvilEvilEvil
titan Multi3
Black friday20
#305 - 2015-02-27 19:56:55 UTC
Ab'del Abu wrote:
titan Multi3 wrote:
Their logistics platform is guess what, dependent on play style.

Half/Half split between DPS/triage support.

Instead you choose to believe YOUR play style is the only play style.


You can use your carrier for mining for all I care. This is not about that. It's about a very powerful game mechanic that is hardly balanceable to begin with and very similar to other mechanics that CCP removed already or is committed to remove at some point in the future.

Some people say it's a unique feature adding to the diversity of EvE. Be that as it may, though that doesn't make it a good mechanic.


It's powerful because it requires a large investment of isk/time. You need a very well skilled assigning toon, you need to have the capitals, and you still have to setup your own infrastructure. Limiting the mechanic to assigning to another capital class ship ( maybe just other carrier/sc ?) would be a decent way to balance the risk out, and still keep a good mechanic.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#306 - 2015-02-27 20:00:40 UTC
titan Multi3 wrote:


It's powerful because it requires a large investment of isk/time. You need a very well skilled assigning toon, you need to have the capitals, and you still have to setup your own infrastructure. Limiting the mechanic to assigning to another capital class ship ( maybe just other carrier/sc ?) would be a decent way to balance the risk out, and still keep a good mechanic.


Remote DD and AoE DD required a well trained toon, the capital to do it and to setup an infrastructure if you didn't want to leave your titan without protection and it was removed because it was a **** mechanic.
titan Multi3
Black friday20
#307 - 2015-02-27 20:01:33 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
titan Multi3 wrote:


It's powerful because it requires a large investment of isk/time. You need a very well skilled assigning toon, you need to have the capitals, and you still have to setup your own infrastructure. Limiting the mechanic to assigning to another capital class ship ( maybe just other carrier/sc ?) would be a decent way to balance the risk out, and still keep a good mechanic.


Remote DD and AoE DD required a well trained toon, the capital to do it and to setup an infrastructure if you didn't want to leave your titan without protection and it was removed because it was a **** mechanic.


Comparing AOE DD's and fighter assist is a TAD of a long stretch.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#308 - 2015-02-27 20:03:24 UTC
titan Multi3 wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
titan Multi3 wrote:


It's powerful because it requires a large investment of isk/time. You need a very well skilled assigning toon, you need to have the capitals, and you still have to setup your own infrastructure. Limiting the mechanic to assigning to another capital class ship ( maybe just other carrier/sc ?) would be a decent way to balance the risk out, and still keep a good mechanic.


Remote DD and AoE DD required a well trained toon, the capital to do it and to setup an infrastructure if you didn't want to leave your titan without protection and it was removed because it was a **** mechanic.


Comparing AOE DD's and fighter assist is a TAD of a long stretch.


Remote DD was kind of using a weapon system from off grid no?
titan Multi3
Black friday20
#309 - 2015-02-27 20:05:24 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
titan Multi3 wrote:
Frostys Virpio wrote:
titan Multi3 wrote:


It's powerful because it requires a large investment of isk/time. You need a very well skilled assigning toon, you need to have the capitals, and you still have to setup your own infrastructure. Limiting the mechanic to assigning to another capital class ship ( maybe just other carrier/sc ?) would be a decent way to balance the risk out, and still keep a good mechanic.


Remote DD and AoE DD required a well trained toon, the capital to do it and to setup an infrastructure if you didn't want to leave your titan without protection and it was removed because it was a **** mechanic.


Comparing AOE DD's and fighter assist is a TAD of a long stretch.


Remote DD was kind of using a weapon system from off grid no?


That was a broken mechanic, so is sky netting to a much lesser degree. One allows a large DPS boost, the other murders an entire fleet from off grid. It's a tad different.
Kalik Hideo
Sticky Situations
#310 - 2015-02-27 20:05:34 UTC
I think fighter assist should stay and still be able to warp. The thing is to make this risky for the carrier pilot so making it unable to be near a POS shield is a great idea. As soon as combat probes are on the field I doubt many carrier pilots will stay around and so warp back to the POS and hence the fighters will return to the carrier.

On another note, fighters are piloted by humans, they are the only ship where you can see them in the cockpit and so don't need to have the carrier around (in theory), so if you do remove the warp feature or be able to be delegated, then your going to have to change all the fighter models as well.....
Lydia Maulerant
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#311 - 2015-02-27 20:11:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Lydia Maulerant
While unpointable nullified, absurd EHP damage machines chasing you around until you cloak or leave system are kind of dumb, fighters being able to warp are pretty cool and should be preserved in some way.

Since I assume them being immune to point and bubbles is a technical limitation, is it possible fighters can be made to only warp with their carrier instead of having their ability to warp totally removed? There are some tactical advantages to this, like being able to warp off grid without having to pull your fighters in addition to looking awesome.
Zingr
Doomheim
#312 - 2015-02-27 20:11:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Zingr
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.


+1 to this... except that fighters that are tackled will not and loose their connection...
XavierVE
No Corporation for Old Spacemen
#313 - 2015-02-27 20:18:02 UTC
RICO Ramierz wrote:
How ?


One Nyx assigning fighters to a single T3 is enough to kill a 20 man AF fleet with logi from the safety of POS shields.

If you want to do DPS, be on grid. Pretty simple stuff, there. Fact is, a solid 75% of the people crying in this thread are renters or carebear deep null ratters. Of course they like fighter assist. Makes the game incredibly easy for them.

This is EVE, not EVEasy.
EnacheV2
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#314 - 2015-02-27 20:19:24 UTC
Remove fighter assist in low sec

Make assist possible in 0.0 but only for carrier/assisted ships belonging to the sovereign owning alliance
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
#315 - 2015-02-27 20:21:16 UTC
I'm going to post again, a bit more constructively this time.

While I'm all for anything and everything that makes supercapitals completely worthless such that nobody would ever want to fly one again (thus effectively removing them from the game as they should be), opening the so-called "pandora's box" of fighter balancing again in order to exempt them from being eligible for drone bonuses (be they from modules or implants or ship bonuses or eel pies) seems like the best way to go and something that should be done with all possible haste.

For the lore-junkies out there, fighters and fighter bombers are not drones. They are ships piloted by people. People we give no ***** about, but still not drones.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#316 - 2015-02-27 20:21:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
XavierVE wrote:
RICO Ramierz wrote:
How ?


One Nyx assigning fighters to a single T3 is enough to kill a 20 man AF fleet with logi from the safety of POS shields.

If you want to do DPS, be on grid. Pretty simple stuff, there. Fact is, a solid 75% of the people crying in this thread are renters or carebear deep null ratters. Of course they like fighter assist. Makes the game incredibly easy for them.

This is EVE, not EVEasy.


Or you can add (proper) sig/damage scaling so fighters can't blap AFs any longer and sort that side of it far more elegantly without a knock on effect on people who might be peacefully enjoying the use of their carrier in completely unrelated ways. (Obviously it needs more changes than just that but it would be a good start without savaging a long standing feature).

And yes I'm crying because its increasingly becoming a thing around here both from player demands and dev changes when something becomes a problem to nerf bat it into the ground rather than find an actual balanced fix - makes me not want to play the game any more because anything I might invest time, effort, etc. into could end up falling foul of something completely unrelated to my use and "dev nulled".
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#317 - 2015-02-27 20:25:30 UTC
Rroff wrote:


And yes I'm crying because its increasingly becoming a thing around here both from player demands and dev changes when something becomes a problem to nerf bat it into the ground rather than find an actual balanced fix - makes me not want to play the game any more because anything I might invest time, effort, etc. into could end up falling foul of something completely unrelated to my use and "dev nulled".


You are playing an MMO. If you are not ready for this to happen, you are playing the wrong game.
Maenth
The Thirteen Provinces
#318 - 2015-02-27 20:39:26 UTC
I think it wouldn't be good to remove fighter assist, because that's a unique and interesting tactical feature of carriers. Remove that, and we might as well just skip carriers and use dreadnoughts, right?

I imagine two things could be done around the 'Skynet' issue, and maybe helping with capital ships in general. I could be mistaken, but when a ship 's mid-point is in the starbase shield then it counts as being inside the shield... but what if that rule was changed slightly? What if that being a single point of interest we had two points of interest for starbase interaction:

-A) when a ship's midpoint is inside the starbase shield then its systems become disrupted/negated or whatever and at that point it can't lock targets or operate drones (and in the case of carriers, the fighters also stop or at least lose the carrier's projected ship bonuses) .... and as a ship further enters the forcefield then we eventually reach the second point of interest

-B) ships (or at least the gigantic capital ships) don't benefit from forcefield protection until the vessel is entirely within the forcefield, so capital ships can still be hit when that dozen-battleship-sized chunk of themselves is prodruding from the forcefield


As for fighter warping, I think it's pretty nifty and again makes carriers cool and different, without really being an overpowered feature IMO since it takes fighters away from the main battle, but adding gameplay for those who would attempt to fleeeee Smile

Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
HarlyQ
harlyq syrokos investment station
#319 - 2015-02-27 20:42:36 UTC
I think warping fighters should still be a mechanic.
Ama Atavuli
Rolled Out
#320 - 2015-02-27 20:43:36 UTC
Yes, remove skynetting, it's insanely broken, allowing subcaps to wield capital sized and bonused weapons is silly. But allowing them to follow both target, and owner in warp makes sense. You at least have to have your carrier on grid with the enemy before your drones will follow them.

I can't count the number of times me or someone in my fleet has died to Einherjis from a Nyx or Wyvern, that have followed them in warp despite being camped in a dead-end system, until, without a timer they x-ed their client in warp and STILL died.