Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Two months ago CCP Fozzie wrote:

"I know that some people who are hoping for a major nerf to assigned fighters will be unhappy that this change will only have a small-moderate effect on that activity. We have been keeping a close eye on the way fighters are used ever since our recent rounds of drone rebalancing and we aren't ruling out any potential future changes at this time. However we are not going to rush into any larger changes to fighter mechanics"

[url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=396274[/url]

No comment

How about making fighters unusable within 100km of towers and stations?
Like all the types of deployables.

That will still make the carrier usaable for fighters but put a whole lot more risk when using it.
Also the guy who gets the fighters assigned should have full responsibility of what the fighters do.
That is, if fighters aggro, the assigned pilot will suffer the aggro timers and all, as well as the carrier pilot.

Removing assigning fighters will simply render the carrier into a very large logistics ship.
I fear that ppl won't use fighters at all, and will only bring out carriers to rep structures when needed.
Supers will be completely useless more or less. And tbh, a carrier can not be a carrier in the right sense
if it can't sit at very long range deploying fighters.

You are funny at CCP . You delete a defense mechanism of the game that allows a player outnumbered compete with many players with false pretenses and real nuisance in this game represent the ghost campers you will not care completely

I think you should only be able to assist to ships with sufficient done bandwidth.

In terms of fighter warping, I think the mechanic should be left in, it's beneficial being able to warp off in a carrier with fighters still out, then recall fighters to join you when you leave warp elsewhere in the system.

Just think of how much SP I'll be reimbursed!

You are a clever dog. Out of.. how many stickies? the one with the most replies stays at the top. Just remember when you point a finger 3 are pointing right back at you idiot.

Also I don't need your rundown on how ratting with carriers works



He hasn't said fighter warping will be definitely removed. Your primary concern is the inability to warp between sites with fighters deployed. Since NPCs don't warp between sites it stands to reason that being unable to assign fighters to your alt means that you can't start a new site with the alt and have the drones follow him while your skynet carrier catches up.

I think this is totally fine. It doesn't currently lie outside of the functionality of fighters but it soon will. Perhaps in the future you'll deploy sentry drones instead (and consequently get similar amounts of DPS without the travel time).

Also hilarious to me is how your income can drop by potentially 60 mil an hour. Because the economy is healthy when built on this rate of income generation, because the economy is healthy with titanic isk generation feasibly being achieved at this rate by a single person multiply by the ratters active in an alliance, pooled in to a coalition.

B-R had a very small effect on the economy of the game. IIRC it took far less than 24 hours for trading to stabilise at pre-battle levels. What does this suggest to you? In a macro-economical sense? And furthermore before you reply do consider the implications of the above for smaller entities that lack your particular flavour of grossly disproportionate income.

So if I understand CCP right here, they would rather castrate capitals again then come up with any thing resembling a well thought out solution. I mean space aids and then they take fighter assist. I have a question for any of the "thinkers" behind this brilliance. "WTF would u do with a cap after this nerf?"

- maybe ill gate camp with it or go do lvl 5 and sanctums...?!

CCP-
think about this long and hard you are going to over-correct again with taking fighter assit from cap pilots i have read at least a dozen more acceptable solutions for fixing your problem with fighters

A few that I found were GGRREEAATT!!!
-standardize a ship size to assign fighters to.
- make a min distance from pos/station
-create a new high slot mod that allows for fighter assigning.

Brilliant ideas to fix the problem, brought to you by people who actually play the game.

Should stop what your doing CCP and take any of the ideas about fixing fighter assigning here because your on your way to making caps useless and as an additional consequence you'd lose all the income those characters accounts generate because... WHY HAVE A CAP IF U CANT USE IT!!!

actually it's just an important feature for lazy incompetent pilots

Please do keep fighter warping .

So: an inferior force engages a superior force without knowing it is superior... Sounds like something straight out of The Art of War.

This is poor planning and/or just the way EVE plays when you have a sandbox. Always assume your enemy has a trump card - if you engage, you do so knowing that there's a risk of loss (personally, I like the mantra of, "If I undock it, I've already lost it").


They could have:
1) Used scouts (d-scan!). Having hostiles in system and not-on grid is a good sign you don't have enough intel.
2) Used the in-game map to look for recent cynos
3) Used killboards to look at the hostiles' previous kills and/or recent kills in the particular system
4) Plot revenge. Even if they can't themselves, there are groups that hunt capitals in lowsec - they'd be more than happy to get intel of skynet carriers.

If none of those were available at all, at any point, then that was a pretty well-laid trap and I'd say the aggressors were doomed to die regardless. Such is EVE.



EDIT: If we're talking about nullsec, then no one should really be surprised at all when this happens. Null-sov space may have ripe and juicy ratting/mining targets, but those are often guarded by the pilots and ships that helped to win and hold the sov in the first place. Hit-and-fade tactics always carry the risk of being snuffed out by the defending garrisons; it's basically guerrilla warfare and carries the same risks.