These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Cyrus Doul
kotitekoinen sissijuusto
#401 - 2015-02-28 00:17:58 UTC
0) Kind of wish ccp would put a thing in that pulls the poster's character info to see if they have ever actually used the ships we are talking about. Some of the comments like "well add a button that makes it the carriers choice to have the drones warp after someone or not" is hillarious if its actually coming from that many cap pilots. Either just ban the people who don't know what they are talking about but are sad that their tristan got blown up, or put up an icon that says "hey this guy at least has the skills / ship or something" like steam does to prove you own the game you are talking about in the forum. That way we can sort out the people crying.

1) I come from the land of supercapitals, and for all the people complaining about skynet, its one of the few things that we can actually use the ship for. Current options are:

Skynet pvp
Skynet pve
Actual PVP, on grid and what not
Actual PVE
Sov structure bash

get rid of skynet and my poor hel now has to actually go on grid. Thats ok cause its fast and can still wipe dreads off the field quick enough to not die. We get counterdropped and it will probably live due to its speed vs the other three. Unlike a carrier though I don't have that much of a defence against a whole bunch of little things. supercarriers can only drop fighters, and fighter bombers, and do not have enough room to carry a full set of both in the drone bay. They can try to get around this by being damn quick with a mobile depot to move drones around, but thats about it, and you know those are going to get blown up by the fleet while anchoring.

If CCP added back the supercarrier's ability to field drones other then fighters and fighter bombers, this would make them quite a bit more viable since they now have to be on the field. Also allows them to be able to beat on towers as neither bombers or fighters can actually hit the stick

2) Leave drone warping alone. If you really really want, take away them chasing enemies, and i do like that they could get pointed. A set of bouncers for an ishtar are like what? 10 -12 million? a set of 10 fighters last time i had to buy them were about 220 million, and bombers around 250. For something in all the lore of the game is supposed to be a piloted ship, sounds really dumb for it to just sit there, when you know they will either get stolen or die in a fire.

3) For the people that are saying "add a siege type module that allows for assign" I kind of like it, especially if it removes the ability to get RR. Force it to be deployed outside of a certain range of the stick too. That way i cant just bowl myself back in. I could bowl myself back out with a sieged dread starbursting from the tower, but then you guys have a dread that you can kill and get the nice 2.5 bil mail

4) For those saying keep it but make the ship have to be outside say 20-50 from the shield. I can be at a safe w few thousand kilometers out, full speed aligned. would work for ratting, and most defense fleets. I see probes and i just warp in. as mc hammer says, can't touch this.
Kossaw
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#402 - 2015-02-28 00:20:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Kossaw
Getting rid of Assigning Fighters AND Fighters warping is overkill. You only need to do one of these things to kill skynet.


  • Stopping Fighters Warping effectively kills "Skynet". Do this and the Carrier must be on grid with the ship that the fighters are assigned to, and hence at risk. If the fighters are assigned and the carrier warps off, then the carrier should loose contact with the fighters ( just like drones ) and have to return to the grid to reconnect to them.

  • Preventing the Ability to Assign Fighters does NOT mean that they don't require warp drive. Fighters and Fighter Bombers are expensive and the ability to reconnect to them anywhere in system and recall them is important if the carrier or super drops connection. Supers typically warp between targets without recalling drones.


The "best" solution would be to prevent fighters from Assisting - ie aggressing any new target - unless the owning carrier is on grid. However, given that this is probably more difficult to code, the preferable solution from a carrier / supercarrier pilots point of view is to remove fighter assist and keep the ability to warp.

But yeah, some of the more creative solutions - like a "siege module" - to allow you to assign could be pretty good too.

WTB : An image in my signature
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#403 - 2015-02-28 00:28:17 UTC
Do not remove fighter assign, it's a unique perk to carriers/supercarriers.

What you can do, is stop fighters to follow targets in warp. It makes all parties work harder for a kill that way.

Only reason carriers/supercarriers are sitting outside POS shields is because of how easy they die now a day. Fix that and then take away fighter assign...

Been around since the beginning.
Garuda Nil
Hotbirds
#404 - 2015-02-28 00:29:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Garuda Nil
Cyrus Doul wrote:

4) For those saying keep it but make the ship have to be outside say 20-50 from the shield. I can be at a safe w few thousand kilometers out, full speed aligned. would work for ratting, and most defense fleets. I see probes and i just warp in. as mc hammer says, can't touch this.


The fact that you can doesn't mean that you will.

People already used alligned, full-speed carriers ratting or doing L5s.

Yet they still die in a fire, on a regular basis.


If someone probes you down, you

1) Warp inside shields and lose the assist

2) cloak up and lose the assist

3)warp to a bookmark and get probed on landing (happens a lot),

4) warp to a POS and get caught in a drag bubble

5) get distracted by your kids and die in a fire


There are plenty of ways in which that scenario can go south.


Furthermore, any random schmuck can just deploy probes, scare you off and instantly get rid of your fighters.
Et voilà! Probes, the ultimate counter to fighter assist.

Alt posting because MUH FREEDOMS!
Alexis Nightwish
#405 - 2015-02-28 00:42:02 UTC
Cyrus Doul wrote:
0) Kind of wish ccp would put a thing in that pulls the poster's character info to see if they have ever actually used the ships we are talking about. Some of the comments like "well add a button that makes it the carriers choice to have the drones warp after someone or not" is hillarious if its actually coming from that many cap pilots. Either just ban the people who don't know what they are talking about but are sad that their tristan got blown up, or put up an icon that says "hey this guy at least has the skills / ship or something" like steam does to prove you own the game you are talking about in the forum. That way we can sort out the people crying.

If that was the case then Rise wouldn't be able to comment.
CCP Rise wrote:
Additional notes: Removing fighter assist raises the question of whether or not fighters should still warp. We would lean towards not, as usually it is undesirable to have your fighters go chasing off grid when you want the damage to stay put. But, once again this chips away at fighter uniqueness.

CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge

EVE Online's "I win!" Button

Fixing bombs, not the bombers
Cyrus Doul
kotitekoinen sissijuusto
#406 - 2015-02-28 00:49:49 UTC
Garuda Nil wrote:
Cyrus Doul wrote:

4) For those saying keep it but make the ship have to be outside say 20-50 from the shield. I can be at a safe w few thousand kilometers out, full speed aligned. would work for ratting, and most defense fleets. I see probes and i just warp in. as mc hammer says, can't touch this.



The fact that you can doesn't mean that you will.

People already used alligned, full-speed carriers ratting or doing L5s.

Yet they still die in a fire, on a regular basis.


If someone probes you down, you

1) Warp inside shields and lose the assist

2) cloak up and lose the assist

3)warp to a bookmark and get probed on landing (happens a lot),

4) warp to a POS and get caught in a drag bubble

5) get distracted by your kids and die in a fire


There are plenty of ways in which that scenario can go south.


Thats actually the whole point. To add piles of risk while not stripping major features off a majorly featureless ship. Full align for a carrier is death if anything like a ceptor lands on it. For example my ratting method is to put the 5x dcu hel with all damange stuff off the shield, and I assign to a full tanked 5 dcu archon in the site. I have the hel's damage with the archons brick tank. I might lose the archon to people being dumb, but never the hel. This forces me to endanger both. But for the hel you have to work for it, scan, plus have something bumpy or an actual dictor to hold me. and I have to scramble to get two things to safe. As to your five things you mentioned:

1) happens currently, the only thing on the hels overview, which is about 50 meters out of the shield, pointing inwards, is the stick, i double click it, he enters shields and the PVP fit archon now just deploys his own drones.

2) I would almost never cloak up. Most the time its never even fit since skynet, 5DCU + remote ECM for max damage and because swapping capital mods is a pain. if i get in a bump fest cause you dont have a dictor, im just going to cyno to a system in reach, I have 5 accounts, and each slot knows how to cyno leaving my ratting fleet 13 systems to pick from.

3) nothing changes here.

4) Hard to do, though not impossible, because it requires you to have done one of two things

Have to know where the tower is in relation to where i am to drop the bubble, else you can end up having it misaligned and i land in shield, same way as a bad pull bubble on a gate. You also have to know what tower im going to warp to. My ratting system has four alliance and a coalition one i can get into

you need something that can bubble, an anchor wont work cause unless item 5) is in effect as I'm paying attention and a mobile's anchor won't have time.

5) Don't have kids. takes too much time away from games, work, social life, and vacations.
Cyrus Doul
kotitekoinen sissijuusto
#407 - 2015-02-28 00:55:42 UTC
Alexis Nightwish wrote:
Cyrus Doul wrote:
0) Kind of wish ccp would put a thing in that pulls the poster's character info to see if they have ever actually used the ships we are talking about. Some of the comments like "well add a button that makes it the carriers choice to have the drones warp after someone or not" is hillarious if its actually coming from that many cap pilots. Either just ban the people who don't know what they are talking about but are sad that their tristan got blown up, or put up an icon that says "hey this guy at least has the skills / ship or something" like steam does to prove you own the game you are talking about in the forum. That way we can sort out the people crying.

If that was the case then Rise wouldn't be able to comment.
CCP Rise wrote:
Additional notes: Removing fighter assist raises the question of whether or not fighters should still warp. We would lean towards not, as usually it is undesirable to have your fighters go chasing off grid when you want the damage to stay put. But, once again this chips away at fighter uniqueness.



Hah, good catch

Hey CCP, I've been playing since 08, have flown everything from titans on down, Heavy industry (I built the vyo station), wormholes, PI. Oh and I've been doing QA for almost 4 years, single, and would love to move to Iceland. Though I'd have to work remote for a few months unless you buy out my lease that ends in 4 months. Can't code at all but that could change. I have leadership experience running two different teams currently, and don't mind the occasional 60+ oh god oh god the devs got this to me three days before release work week.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#408 - 2015-02-28 01:01:38 UTC
Cyrus Doul wrote:
4) For those saying keep it but make the ship have to be outside say 20-50 from the shield. I can be at a safe w few thousand kilometers out, full speed aligned. would work for ratting, and most defense fleets. I see probes and i just warp in. as mc hammer says, can't touch this.

I'll admit I haven't sat in a carrier in a while, but I was under the impression that fighters either returned or were disconnected once a carrier entered a POS. This would open new tactics at catching carriers outside of a POS and BLopsing it to death, or uncloaking on grid and forcing it to panic-warp, which would let you take out the interceptor or whatever he's assigning to with ease as he's left wondering where his DPS went.
IcyMidnight
Nobody in Local
Deepwater Hooligans
#409 - 2015-02-28 01:02:15 UTC  |  Edited by: IcyMidnight
Kill Fighter assist.

I like the idea of Fighters being able to follow their targets into warp keep it around - it's super cool! - though if it leads to crappy gameplay it shouldn't be there.

I might be good to cap Drone assist to the available bandwidth on the receiving ship and give ships without Drone bays some small amount of Drone bandwidth.
Arun Tadaruwa
Hotbirds
#410 - 2015-02-28 01:05:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Arun Tadaruwa
Cyrus Doul wrote:




Thats actually the whole point. To add piles of risk while not stripping major features off a majorly featureless ship.


No. The whole point is countering the current abuse of fighter assist.


Ratting isn't the primary issue here. The issue is player combat scenarios in which figters are used offensively without the carrier being at risk


If they make so that you can't assist drones next to a POS, and you assist your fighters to another ship for combat, that automatically means that you

1) Are far from POS shields with one or (probably) more hostiles in system

2) Can be tackled if you are willing to accept the gamble of being outside with said hostiles in system

3) Are not able to assist **** all of you don't accept the gamble.

4) Can be forced to drop the assist by simply deploying combat probes


That's a whole more risk than the current situation, without outright removing entire features and a shitload of possibilities from the game.

Alt posting because yes.
ADMIRAL ALLURE
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#411 - 2015-02-28 01:06:25 UTC
Celesae wrote:
No. Just no. This is what made carriers unique and interesting to use. I made a dedicated account for carriers. Wasted time and money for me and many others if this happens.

Some of the offered solutions are good, like minimal range to a POS before you can off-grid assist (delegate) - you still want to be able to use them if you're fighting on a POS. Stations are a risk for carriers because of bumping, so I'm not keen on a minimal range there - plus if you dock, very good chance you lose your fighters or spend a lot of time probing them down.

+1 Minimal POS remote (off-grid) delegate range
+1 fighters/bombers being scrammed/webbed/bubbled
+1 generating killmails - they cost more than quite a few ships out there

There are a lot of other issues with gameplay/mechanics that need to be dealt with, with much bigger implications.Why waste your time here with carriers?

I really hate how CCP seems to be focused on nerfing the good things rather than strengthening the bad things - for example, you're going after Ishtars (which, hey, could use some tweaking maybe, but whatever) instead of improving the unused HACs/subcaps - when's the last time anyone ever saw a Sacrilege in serious use? Or a Ferox, and so on?

Also, the myth that is "balance" is exactly that - these are military ships. There is no balance. The only balance would be if everything were exactly the same. I relish the idea that Amarr came up with a T3 Destroyer first - improvements to all ships should be treated in similar fashion, where each empire (and pirate faction) is trying to one-up or react to the technologies of the others.

I like that players come up with innovative solutions, too. That's what keeps this fun; cookie-cutter is NOT fun.

Meta changes constantly, but I like it when the PLAYERS drive the meta, not the devs. It's not fun at all when you see something you skilled and spent time and resources to get into, suddenly become worthless, but only because someone changed the code - player vs. dev. Not a game you can win, and quite honestly, not a game I want to play.


This^^

Lots of good points.
Kinborough
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#412 - 2015-02-28 01:10:01 UTC
For once I have no snark to give ya Rise, you done good here. Drone assist is a pretty broken thing in today's EVE.

But keep the fighter warp ability, capital stuff is so slow that's just bashing them in the knees after you pants'ed em.
Cyrus Doul
kotitekoinen sissijuusto
#413 - 2015-02-28 01:16:22 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Cyrus Doul wrote:
4) For those saying keep it but make the ship have to be outside say 20-50 from the shield. I can be at a safe w few thousand kilometers out, full speed aligned. would work for ratting, and most defense fleets. I see probes and i just warp in. as mc hammer says, can't touch this.

I'll admit I haven't sat in a carrier in a while, but I was under the impression that fighters either returned or were disconnected once a carrier entered a POS. This would open new tactics at catching carriers outside of a POS and BLopsing it to death, or uncloaking on grid and forcing it to panic-warp, which would let you take out the interceptor or whatever he's assigning to with ease as he's left wondering where his DPS went.



They dont disconnect, they return to you, Also, remember that I am talking about this stuff from the aspect of a supercarrier. I know you can do skynet from a regular carrier too, and then i would really have to worry about anything landing on me that has a point fit, but from a supercarrier's perspective, which is immune to EWAR and can not be pointed except by a bubble, or a superpoint coming from a scripted heavy interdictor, I can just sit full aligned and not have to warp off at all, even if you guys land next to me. If i know your gang does not have a dictor or hictor, Ill just keep doing my thing, while assigning 15 drones out to my friends. You guys all decide, lets shoot the Hel, i just cyno out after recalling drones.

I'm not sure about your guy's alliances since ya'll love to hide behind your alts like some neckbeard with his fedora and his guy fawkes mask. But I have seen darkness skyhook with carriers twice, yet seen it with supers countless.
Tahrl Cabot
The Gold Angels
Sixth Empire
#414 - 2015-02-28 01:20:09 UTC
Combine this idea for highslot fighter assist modules =>

Hopelesshobo wrote:
Instead of removing fighter assist, why not create a highslot module called a Fighter Assist Link. This module would allow a certain amount of bandwidth of fighters and bombers to be assigned. They could come in a variety of sizes so small ships might only be able to have 1 fighter assisted to it, while a large one could have several bombers assigned to it.


With this idea restricting carrier bonuses =>

Jenn aSide wrote:
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.


Ships with the highslot fighter assist module will benefit from the carrier bonuses, but are limited in number of assigned fighters by hull size: Small 1, Medium 3, Large 5, other capital 10 (or reasonable numbers that scale dps with hull size).

Fighters assigned to ships without a module do not benefit from the mothership's and her pilot's bonuses UNLESS the mothership is on grid.

You could also claim that POS shield frequencies interfere with Fighter links in much the same way that cellphone frequencies interfere with airliner navigation systems and therefore require 10km-20km clearance outside a shield.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#415 - 2015-02-28 01:22:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Nolak Ataru
Cyrus Doul wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Cyrus Doul wrote:
4) For those saying keep it but make the ship have to be outside say 20-50 from the shield. I can be at a safe w few thousand kilometers out, full speed aligned. would work for ratting, and most defense fleets. I see probes and i just warp in. as mc hammer says, can't touch this.

I'll admit I haven't sat in a carrier in a while, but I was under the impression that fighters either returned or were disconnected once a carrier entered a POS. This would open new tactics at catching carriers outside of a POS and BLopsing it to death, or uncloaking on grid and forcing it to panic-warp, which would let you take out the interceptor or whatever he's assigning to with ease as he's left wondering where his DPS went.


They dont disconnect, they return to you, Also, remember that I am talking about this stuff from the aspect of a supercarrier. I know you can do skynet from a regular carrier too, and then i would really have to worry about anything landing on me that has a point fit, but from a supercarrier's perspective, which is immune to EWAR and can not be pointed except by a bubble, or a superpoint coming from a scripted heavy interdictor, I can just sit full aligned and not have to warp off at all, even if you guys land next to me. If i know your gang does not have a dictor or hictor, Ill just keep doing my thing, while assigning 15 drones out to my friends. You guys all decide, lets shoot the Hel, i just cyno out after recalling drones.

I'm not sure about your guy's alliances since ya'll love to hide behind your alts like some neckbeard with his fedora and his guy fawkes mask. But I have seen darkness skyhook with carriers twice, yet seen it with supers countless.

Nice personal attack. Really makes me consider what you said more carefully. /s

Again, bubbles. If the merest hint of a dictor / HIC makes a Skynet carrier/super run for cover, then mission accomplished. Building balance patches around "what if..." is a seriously inept way to make a pass.

e:
Quote:
that cellphone frequencies interfere with airliner navigation systems and therefore require 10km-20km clearance outside a shield.

Wasn't this recently debunked?
Cyrus Doul
kotitekoinen sissijuusto
#416 - 2015-02-28 01:23:44 UTC
Arun Tadaruwa wrote:
Cyrus Doul wrote:




Thats actually the whole point. To add piles of risk while not stripping major features off a majorly featureless ship.


No. The whole point is countering the current abuse of fighter assist.


Ratting isn't the primary issue here. The issue is player combat scenarios in which figters are used offensively without the carrier being at risk


If they make so that you can't assist drones next to a POS, and you assist your fighters to another ship for combat, that automatically means that you

1) Are far from POS shields with one or (probably) more hostiles in system

2) Can be tackled if you are willing to accept the gamble of being outside with said hostiles in system

3) Are not able to assist **** all of you don't accept the gamble.

4) Can be forced to drop the assist by simply deploying combat probes


That's a whole more risk than the current situation, without outright removing entire features and a shitload of possibilities from the game.


Im going to assume that you either arent the guy that i originally quoted all that to, or you are and you develop severe amnesia from alt posting. As that poster was responding to my fourth point, saying i could for a bit extra risk put myself full aligned from the tower. and he was bringing up how its more dangerous. I then proceded to pretty much agree with him but explained that while yes, i am outside of the shields by a considerable distance, IE not skynetting, I still allow for being able to remote assist while giving you, the offending party, the ability to catch me. We see mails of people in sites and what not dying in a fire all the time, you never see dead skynet.
Luna TheMoonrider
State War Academy
Caldari State
#417 - 2015-02-28 01:24:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Luna TheMoonrider
Didn't read all posts, sorry about that.

What about keep fighter able to warp and assist BUT :

1/ *already said many time* Disable the assist if Carrier is too close from something (outpost/POS/whatever), and let the fighter come back to him

AND

2/ A fighter can't engage en player controlled ship off grid. Exemple : I assign a fighter to a mate for helping him ratting, fighter follow him and help him. But an very bad guy with a very nasty ship warp on him to kill him, the fighter don't engage him because I, the carrier, am not on the grid. But if I was on the grid, the fighter fight back, and follow the bad guy on warp if needed.

(and maybe limit the number of assign possible, like freg = 1, destro = 2, cruis = 3, etc...)


What do you think about that ?

(Sry if I'm not extremely clear, 0220 am here)
Henricks
#418 - 2015-02-28 01:25:52 UTC
To the community of EVE,

Greetings fellow plebeians. I’ve heard the newest round of groaning and crying due to more CCP bungling. I understand your pain. I too find myself dismayed by the inept decision makers at CCP. It’s almost as though they want to completely run off their entire player base and join the masses in the unemployment line. I’ve already lost too many friends who have quit this game due to CCP’s self-destructive nature.

It’s with this utter disgust of CCP’s seppuku loving nature that I beg the players of Eve to petition CCP to keep the capability of fighters to warp as well as the ability to assign fighter or fb to another capital or sub-cap ship. This keeps a certain level of risk to the capital pilot when they must field capitals vs staying behind the shields of a pos. This is why they are called fighters, because of the ability to warp.

I vote: KEEP!

I hope that if enough of this community votes to keep the current abilities of fighter and fighter-bomber’s, that CCP will listen to its community (I won’t hold my breath).

In addition, if these votes goes beyond my expectations and CCP still does not listen to its community (as they often do) then CCP will continue to lose the faith of the players who are still here.


Henricks
Garuda Nil
Hotbirds
#419 - 2015-02-28 01:26:33 UTC
Cyrus Doul wrote:
[

...from a supercarrier's perspective, which is immune to EWAR and can not be pointed except by a bubble, or a superpoint coming from a scripted heavy interdictor, I can just sit full aligned and not have to warp off at all, even if you guys land next to me. If i know your gang does not have a dictor or hictor, Ill just keep doing my thing, while assigning 15 drones out to my friends. You guys all decide, lets shoot the Hel, i just cyno out after recalling drones.

I'm not sure about your guy's alliances since ya'll love to hide behind your alts like some neckbeard with his fedora and his guy fawkes mask. But I have seen darkness skyhook with carriers twice, yet seen it with supers countless.


There's a thing called bumping.
Besides, it won't take much for some dude to watchlist you and start camping you with a hictor. Remember, you aren't inside pos shields any more. If all it takes to scare you off is a hictor in system or a covops warping at 15k from you, a prober and a single battleship in system, mission accomplished.

If you decide to cyno out, fighters are gone, problem solved.

Alt posting because MUH FREEDOMS!
Ice Acami
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#420 - 2015-02-28 01:27:14 UTC
Fighter assist = Yes
Fighter bomber assist= No