These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#501 - 2015-02-28 10:46:25 UTC
How about only allow fighters to be assigned in in systems you have sov 5 in?
as a defensive perk to the system
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#502 - 2015-02-28 10:54:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Ncc 1709 wrote:
How about only allow fighters to be assigned in in systems you have sov 5 in?
as a defensive perk to the system


People use carriers/assignment in ways and places completely unconnected to skynet or nullsec.

Penalising everyone due to the actions of a few isn't really a way forward.
Valan
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#503 - 2015-02-28 10:55:18 UTC
Keep the warp ability, the not assigning oké, but if you also take away the warping you can just remove these ship types entirely
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#504 - 2015-02-28 11:05:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Ncc 1709
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=27695081

there are simple ways of killing 'skynet' capitals. even the biggest aint safe.

why remove the best (Last) unique feature carriers have?
Worrff
Enterprise Holdings
#505 - 2015-02-28 11:05:50 UTC
The best bit is that you can tell that CCP Rise has never used fighters from a carrier himself, as he didn't know that there is an option to stop the fighters following a target.

Awesome idea of Devs nerfing things they have no clue about, and no experience with.

CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If it’s broken, leave it alone and break something else.
Worrff
Enterprise Holdings
#506 - 2015-02-28 11:10:55 UTC
Serendipity Lost wrote:
I feel like you are asking for some kind of special treatment. Being that this affects all of null, low and WH space (to an extent) how dare you demand a response on page 25. Your over developed sense of entitlement sickens me.





I have posted in many threads, and complained many times about the lack of response of the Devs, so don't be an idiot all the time, take a day off

CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If it’s broken, leave it alone and break something else.
bonkerss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#507 - 2015-02-28 11:11:55 UTC
its just not fun to get ganked by something that you have no chance of beating because its hiding in a structure somewhere in 100% safety. everything that wants to fight needs to be on the grid! this goes for every ship class. next problem we have to solve is safe spot boosters. they need to be on the grid too.
Copy Bird
ZC Industries
Dark Stripes
#508 - 2015-02-28 11:11:56 UTC
can we just swap to red, blue, green and pink ships and be done with any interesting options or game play. that does seam to be your over all intention with the game these days, dumb it down and make it dull (should really say duller, space aids has ruined the game for the most part in any case).
Cpt Buckshot
i420 Inc
#509 - 2015-02-28 11:16:38 UTC
The more I read about this the more I think this a terrible move, This all seems to stem for angry bloggers crying endless tears about carriers simply because its a great cap. First they nerfed its hangar then its cargo now its fighters. How about GIVE us the option to get Skill points back and isk on those skills???


Maybe CCP means the communist capsuler program where everyone is equal and we should all fly the same ships ???

This is Generation Me!!!! GIMME GIMME GIMME with no time invested

Game use to over 50k pilots on weekends ..... Now look at it CCP you are the next SOE !!!!

You have definitely lost your way CCP.. This is def the beginning of the end of one of the greatest games ever ....... :( sad panda here
kabivel
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#510 - 2015-02-28 11:17:37 UTC
Make fighters consume Bandwith from the ship Assited
Ben Hump
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#511 - 2015-02-28 11:19:08 UTC
Carriers by nature have the capability to launch fighters and bombers to far away targets.

Just a look at WW2 Carrier warfare shows that. If you take that away from carriers, then rename the whole class as maybe close support drone boats, as they will not be carriers anymore.

I fully agree with Lickem and the others, though some changes might be feasible, the changes you propose make carriers useless, a dinosaur of the past. The exception is, if you then make carriers able to fly in highsec again!!!

Do not remove the warp capability of fighters, they need to fight of grid, otherwise it is NOT a carrier.

Reduce the numbers of fighters you can assign to an individual ship, so the carrier pilot needs to assign them to more than one pilot. Maybe raise the fighters signature radius, causing the carrier pilot to have to recall his drones and fix them before he can send them out again.

Just some random ideas. I fly Carriers and I use them mainly for transport. If the proposed changes occur, I will sell both. As an individual player who occasionally supports corps, I do not have the ISK to have my carriers become more vulnerable and thus useless for their current role.

And the issue of carriers sitting near their POS is I think an issue you can change by making them not be able to launch their fighters until they have moved away a certain distance from the safety of their POS.

Ben
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#512 - 2015-02-28 11:25:11 UTC
Worrff wrote:
The best bit is that you can tell that CCP Rise has never used fighters from a carrier himself, as he didn't know that there is an option to stop the fighters following a target.

Awesome idea of Devs nerfing things they have no clue about, and no experience with.



The talk of assist when the feature that causes the problem is assign does raise my concerns - an understandable mistake from people without much carrier experience.
DEATHS PHOENIX
Zervas Aeronautics
#513 - 2015-02-28 11:25:53 UTC
Leave Carriers alone for now.

It takes a long time to get into a Carrier and in most cases even longer to properly use the fit. In many cases we're talking about close to or over a year in skilling time. Those individuals who take that time should see some benefits from their patience and dedication to their goal of getting into one. Besides after all it is a Carrier and ships of that size and majesty should have some unique aspects to their value.

Also Drones the size of Frigates should be able to warp to fleet members to give assistance. For Christs sake, its the size of a frigate so let it do what Frigates do and warp.

Also recently Carriers underwent a big change not only in how the operate but the possibilities of how they are going to be applied in the future tactically and therefore should be left alone for now.

However, if its your goal to Nerf the Carrier over time, considering the changes you've already made recently the plans you are leaning towards now will definitely begin to take you there.

Deaths
bonkerss
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#514 - 2015-02-28 11:30:17 UTC
Lugburz wrote:
What use is a carrier with fighters if not able to assist exactly? are you just relegating them to triage modes now? Im not overly a fan of cap warfare (though it has its uses) but it just amazes me you 'rebalance' ships simply because they get used a lot; i mean nerfing rails cus 'their popular'.. well yes of course they are, 2 whole factions use them (not including pirate factions) as opposed to one each for the projectile and lazer using factions.. currently there are what.. 2 t1 cruiser variants that are bonused for missiles? probably the same for projectile and lazer cruisers and at least double that for rails... of course their popular; more people can actually use them.

How about some scientists (probably caldari) frustrated at their gallente counterparts tactical use of carriers and the like research and design several operational counters to such tactics? Maybe a smartbomb.. oh wait.. how about an ecm burs.. oh nvm... who exactly is whining?


its simple. the carrier has to manually lock targets and kill it with fighters. its much like a dread who has to risk its ass on grid to kill shite.
Elg'caress Estanesse
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
#515 - 2015-02-28 11:37:35 UTC
bonkerss wrote:
Lugburz wrote:
What use is a carrier with fighters if not able to assist exactly? are you just relegating them to triage modes now? Im not overly a fan of cap warfare (though it has its uses) but it just amazes me you 'rebalance' ships simply because they get used a lot; i mean nerfing rails cus 'their popular'.. well yes of course they are, 2 whole factions use them (not including pirate factions) as opposed to one each for the projectile and lazer using factions.. currently there are what.. 2 t1 cruiser variants that are bonused for missiles? probably the same for projectile and lazer cruisers and at least double that for rails... of course their popular; more people can actually use them.

How about some scientists (probably caldari) frustrated at their gallente counterparts tactical use of carriers and the like research and design several operational counters to such tactics? Maybe a smartbomb.. oh wait.. how about an ecm burs.. oh nvm... who exactly is whining?


its simple. the carrier has to manually lock targets and kill it with fighters. its much like a dread who has to risk its ass on grid to kill shite.


Yes please, make every single ship the same. No dictors, no logis, no drone ship, lets ALL the ships warp in, lock target press F1 like dreads. Awesome idea, looking forward to it!
Aiyshimin
Shiva Furnace
#516 - 2015-02-28 11:39:32 UTC
So, maybe just extend the cyno block zone around towers to disallow launching fighters as well? Seems like everyone agrees that the safety of POS is the issue, and not assigning itself.
TijsseN
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#517 - 2015-02-28 11:40:53 UTC
Removing fighter assists fixes a balance issue where enemy supers assign fighters to tengus to murderzone our fleets without risks. I would certainly recommend to implement this. Making fighters and fighter bombers equal to drones will certainly open roads to a future capital and drone re-balance.

Sodamn In-sane
Doomheim
#518 - 2015-02-28 11:43:52 UTC
in all honesty i think you should remove fighter/drone assignment,purely because you ****** caps for pvp so you may aswell **** them for pve,tbh i really dont think it matters what we say,i think you'll just do it in one way or another,

suggestion's

REMOVE CAPS COMPLETELY
MAKE ALL WEPS CIVILAIN STANDARD (so no one can complain that this **** is overpowered)
IMPROVE GRAFFIX AND SOUND MORE (may as well get the lag while listening to music and station spinning because its hardly worth undocking anymore)


now so many people trained to get in these ships for the reasons that they had the characteristics at the time of choosing to train them and to have them constantly shat on by ccp,kinda annoying.the adapt or die is attitude now becoming slightly old.

you should really be asking your selves ,how can we encourage new players to join a game they will spend untold amounts of money and time on to find they will not be able to use they ship they trained to use,when they trained it.


do something constructive for once ccp ban the hub scammers / spammers


Fozzie

job change is good but you're still a muppet
Chriss Toronto
Black Aces
Goonswarm Federation
#519 - 2015-02-28 11:46:15 UTC
Why don´t you guys just ban scamming, set alliances to max 5 corps, concord every one thats fire there gunns or maybe make eve-online a care bear mining game, its been this way A LONG TIME! and assign/assist fighters is a problem now? ***** please, go play wold of warcraft with the other cry babys, if you want to rebalance something make Jump fatigue hull-mass based and not jump distance based. stop waisting your time on people crying becouse thay are camped in a station.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#520 - 2015-02-28 11:46:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Aiyshimin wrote:
So, maybe just extend the cyno block zone around towers to disallow launching fighters as well? Seems like everyone agrees that the safety of POS is the issue, and not assigning itself.


The issue is two fold - I've been following it for awhile and one of the biggest complaints with it is that people can be flying something small and fast, do everything they are "supposed" to do when flying smaller ships, put the utmost skill into what they are doing and might if they are lucky evade a volley or 2 but sooner or later (and usually sooner) get alpha'd by the assisted fighters, the quick and easy fix is to remove assignment but I'm pretty sure it could be balanced with some changes to how fighters work with the tracking formula (as titans already get a variant of this it can't be that much of an ask) and being a capital platform weapon IMO its not a problem to make an exception to the normal for them in that regard.

The other complaint is that the carrier/super is to all intents and purposes immune and IMO that is a more complex story as the risk ratio is a different story to flying around in say an ishtar, extending fighter assignment restrictions to the same range as cyno restrictions would definitely make a lot of sense to me on that side of it - its not a complete fix but it removes the most risk free method.

EDIT: I'm actually starting to favour some kind of bastion type mode for fighter use* (which includes the only way to do assignment) as this would completely balance the risk aspect of it and give carriers access to something interesting functionality wise beyond triage or non-triage ratting.


* Maybe not the exclusive mode for using fighters but the best way to use them for optimal effect.