Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Don't go changing the whole game because a few guys got butthurt about a roam/gank that didn't go there way because of fighter assist, I've fought the little frigs that have fighters assigned to them, if u kill the frig the fighters go away... Stop changing this game so solo guys have a harder time or defending what they have turned into there emergent gameplay. a few guys whining about this current mechanic, should never change how this game works.

I would be in support of cruisers and up only.

As well as.
-Cruisers may have maximum of 3 fighters assigned. (can still deploy 2 drones of its own) Battlecruisers may have 4 fighters assigned (can still deploy one drone) and battleships may have 5 assigned.
-Carrier takes weapons timer upon assigning drones (same as the marauder's timer for using bastion) and timer remains at 1minute until fighters are unassigned (at which time the timer starts counting down)
-Carriers cannot assign fighters within 6km of a station or forcefield.
-Carriers pilots go suspect w/o standing loss upon assigning drones.
-Carriers pilots take standing loss upon assigned fighters attacking neutral target.

Also support the ship drones are assigned to going suspect upon telling the drones to engage a target. (under circumstances where the ship would normally go suspect if activating a weapon)

Currently carriers have 2 roles in PvP. Triage and Off-grid DPS.
With current faction battleship prices I see no reason anyone would field carriers for DPS. Faction battleships cost half of a carrier, cheaper to fit, and easier to field. Fielding carriers is usually reserved for Triage carriers (which cannot use drones or fighters while triaged.)

Lazy incompetent pilots use autopilot.
Should CCP remove autopilot?

Do you not realize how aggro works?

Fixed quite a number of things there for you.

And the answer to your query is no.

Horrible plans CCP...much prefer addressing the tactic, rather then nerfing the functionality of the ship. Not being able to assign fighters within 50km of a POS or station or whatever would be the better balance. Stop tacking away ship features, and instead place limits on tactics which use game mechanics to avoid risk.

I think that the question of balance you need to follow a simple medical principle: do no harm. Because fighters have other problems. If you plan to remove the ability of their warp and delegate control them, then let's increase their optimum range stilbite 30-50 km to figthers could shoot POS the field. I think it would be fair.

I think you should do it in a different way, maybe do it so the ship that has gotten the fighters delegated to should require the bandwidth the control them, so an Ishtar can have 5, Algos can have 1 + 2 light Drones and a Tristan can have 1. This would also do so interceptors cannot get fighters since even the Taranis does not have the bandwidth to control one.

Mark Jervelund

EXACTLY!

It's getting absurd. Everyone is going to end up flying a frigate. Especially interceptor's...

CCP get a grip, it's getting frustrating now, i have been playing this game since 2004, and now, it seems the moment someone is able to fight off roaming gangs (interceptor roaming gangs are INCREDIBLY OP), NERF IT!

Here's some pro-tips to the masses of noobs complaining about skynet:
Yes your little roaming gang should be decimated by a defense gang utilizing carrier/supercarrier back-up.
Yes your little roaming gang of interceptor can EASILY get away if someone is actually defending their space.
Yes you can kill or negate the carrier/supercarrier help (force it into the POS shield, kill the cap/supercap, kill the POS, hot-drop, kill the ship that has fighter's assigned, or... holy ****... kill the fighter's! A AF and a HAC can decimate a fighter so quickly, it's not even funny!).

I'm all for stopping fighters to follow targets when engaged, but taking the warp away from fighters... taking the assign option away... that's a pretty big nerf and cuts off gameplay completely for carriers/supercarriers (yet again...).

I agree. Imagine you are trying to enter somebody's house and its owner meets you with a rifle in his hands. What are you going to do? Call a policeman to disarm the "aggressor"? Nonsence.
Even in nature supremacy over the weak is the balance. It makes them develop themselves, accomodate or do something to become stronger in order to achieve their goals. But what if all the goals are achieved?