Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Adress the risk issue than, not the feature itself, ther were a ton of great ideas how to do that.

Or do they intend to do the same with the other upcoming fixes?

Tengu is too tanky - Adjust subsystem or remove Tengu
Rails are overtuned - Adjust railgun stats or Remove railguns
Bouncers are overtuned - Adjust stnry drone stats or Remove bouncers
Ishtars overpowered and overused - Tone down its bonuses or remove Ishtars
Fighter assist is too much reward vs. almost no risk - Introduce some changes and tweaks or Remove the feature alltogether.

Is it really hard to see why this is so wrong?

I have read about half of the pages of this thread, and have gotten a lot of insight on where the history is in this issue.

Here's my two cents:


Q: Assisting and warping are two completely different things. Why are they in the same thread?

A: Because there's only been a small and recent protest to assisting, but we might get people to agree with the post in general by agreeing with how annoying attack & follow can be.


Q: Should we mention that we already have a mechanic in game that would resolve the annoying part?

A: Absolutely not, the uninformed wouldn't support our other changes then! Also, who let him in here?


Q: Skynetting is a conglomeration of a 9-year old mechanic and a 3-month old buff. If the 9-year old coding would be difficult to unravel, wouldn't changing the 3-month old buff be an easier fix?

A: Of course! But we buffed to break, so we would be justified in "listening to the player base" by removing the mechanic we didn't want anymore.


Q: That kill would've never happened if one of two things hadn't happened. The carrier couldn't assign, or the fighters couldn't hit the atron. Why aren't there kills like this from before the fighter buff?

A: I'm pretty sure I answered this with your last question, Maidas. Please, pay attention. We want to do differnt things in the game we oversee, and this little bit of intra-corp proof of a game breaking mechanic was just the straw man we have been waiting for. Once we FINALLY get rid of those characters who have been around forever, we will only have the newbies that don't know any better and we can do whatever we want. Remember the uproar from the introduction of Aurum? Once those that took offense to Eve becoming PFP are gone, we can implement it, and these new players who have been spending all that money in Candy Crush can start spending it here.


Q: Why are you such a jerk?

A: ...You're fired.


Seriously though, Of the two issues,:

1. Fighter warping. The only example given of why CCP Rise brought it up for removal is easily avoided by a mechanic that ALREADY EXISTS. End of concern.

2. Fighter assisting. What I love about Eve is, in order, everyone plays in the same universe, the player driven economy, and the community as a whole working to make the game we love better for everyone as a whole. And in relation to the last one, there are SO many other ways to resolve this issue that simply removing fighter/FB assisting completely seems lazy and selfish.

CCP is not the Pope, and we are not (all) Catholic. Come out and say that the fighter buffing was a mistake because it unbalanced one of the things that makes carriers unique. And then, REBALANCE IT. Something along the lines of, :"The upgraded communications between the carrier and its fighters that allow the boosts to follow through require special dedicated electronics on the assisted ship. Ships that already have the robust electronics required for this assisting are as follows:

T1 drone boats:
(I'm gallente through and through, so apply to other races as it works)
The Imicus can support 1 fighter or 0 FB's
The Vexor can support 2 fighters or 1 FB
The VNI can support 3 or 1
The Dominix can support 3 or 2
The DNI can support 4 or 2

T2 drone boats:
The Ishkur can support 2 or 1
The Ishtar can support 3 or 2


Blah blah blah. The three gems in this idea are as follows:

1. Natively, ONLY Command ships can oh.... I don't know, command? 5 fighters or 3 FB's.
2. Create warfare links to allow/increase fighter/FB assisting.
3. Create a mobile drone relay, something rather large, say 50 m3 per fighter or so, that would allow the person deploying it access to fighters.

As far as #3 goes, this would nicely scale up ship classes to the number of fighters able to assist, because while some hauling specific frigates could deploy larger ones, they wouldnt instalock or survive very long. I know that the interceptor pilot could just come out in a hauler, deploy a 5 fighter one and then just go reship. Maybe it could go offline after a certain amount of time and require scooping and redeployment? Or it could be more of a defensive measure, like dictor charges. Once deployed, you could be assisted, but it is destroyed after 15 minutes or so? Just ideas. But more thought out and better content generating than nerfbatting.

a simple fix to fighters is that they should return to base upon 50% shield damage for repairs.
once they have returned to base they need to rest and change their pants which takes them 5 mins of combat fatigue.


this would allow people to shoot them for a few seconds to force them off field, without removing the feature

also to the cryers. most carriers hugging a pos will go into the force field if a hostile ship shows up on grid... forces them into the pos which recalls the fighters. not exactly hard to force them out of the fight

It is quite simple. Don't change anything, but make it only applicable within fighter control range. That will make their warp capability more like a jump drive, for fast reaction within a large battle area, and allow them to warp with their carriers if needed. Then the carriers have to be on grid with whatever they assign their fighters to.

Drones can be assigned to another player on grid, why should it be different ?

Keep assist
Remove Warp

More caps and supers on GRID, risk vs reward rebalanced

End of story ?

This is a great change.

Fighter warp, keep it but make them pointable possibly even bubblable.

This thread is a ******** magnet. Delicious tears.

Gorsk is spot on.

POS/stations aren't the only problem but they are where the biggest most "game breaking" source of immunity comes from - if your out in space atleast there is a more viable* chance you'll screw up, etc. unlike at a POS where even if you get sloppy you can just press the enter button and up FF. Even a carrier hugging the edge of a fight on grid could cyno out if it looks like something is going to tackle it - there is always going to be some less than ideal balances to it. (Or should we just remove carriers to?)

Just making it so that fighters struggle to hit smaller faster ships even with the skynet fit would go a huge way to balancing the problem - personally not a fan of fighters losing all bonuses when off grid with their parent carrier as that kind of flies in the face of what fighter carriers are designed to do, sig/damage scaling as far as I can see has the least knock on effects.



* Even an aligned carrier isn't immune - if your at all in a position to provoke it into warping then your probably also in a position to have a good guess what station or POS its aligned to and get a bubble up inline with its end point before it warps.

Assigned fighters would not benefit from any host ship bonuses, or drone upgrade modules.