These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#721 - 2015-03-01 23:18:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Dean Dewitt wrote:


This is ASSIST not ASSIGNING, can we talk about the issue with people who know what they are talking about?


There needs to be a sticky lol - the number of people bringing up the same wrong misconceptions and/or blatantly incorrect use of the terminology (that is excusable if you've never actually flown a carrier) repeatedly is funny.


EDIT: Does anyone know if "attack and follow" actually works? (if disabled) I've always just left it on and micro-managed fighter actions i.e. swapping targets/recalling/reassigning to prevent them warping off after someone.
Kelakh Cynbal
K. M. A. Enterprise
#722 - 2015-03-01 23:31:32 UTC
Greetings,

Please leave as is.

I am against this change.





d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#723 - 2015-03-01 23:45:42 UTC
So far people asking for 'skynet' to be gone, are people admitting to wanting easy kills... or simply not being prepared and their jack-of-all-trades interceptor isn't powerful enough...

They show up in a small-medium gang, in someone's territory, and get kill because suddenly someone is fighting back, and using capital help (in this case, fighter support)...

Isn't that the point!?

Those roaming gangs simply have to bring some ships to deal with fighters... again, isn't that the point of having different modules/ships/etc?

Next up, take away the ability of dreads to shoot anything but POS/Stations!

Been around since the beginning.

Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures
#724 - 2015-03-01 23:46:31 UTC
Racadiciu Velea wrote:
Yazzinra wrote:

Isn't the obvious answer to "skynet" just to remove the bonuses from the carrier (in the case of the thanatos) and modules when the fighters are assigned to someone? Few pilots used fighter assignment till the skills/module changes were introduced since fighters really are not ideal against small targets without them. You just made fighters viable after years of near uselessness, now you want to nerf them?


People are using fighters just because of the tracking and damage bonuses from modules. From those modules, the fighters have the ability to project damage to battleships and even cruiser sized hulls.

If you remove those bonuses, along with the fighter delegation, then you have to ask yourself, what is the purpose of the fighter in the first place? People would just stop using them as they did before the fighter buffs.

Why not remove the fighters completely in that case?


We're saying the same thing, I may have just worded it poorly. Trying to use my phone for forums is not ideal.
Byson1
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#725 - 2015-03-02 00:27:13 UTC
beakerax wrote:
Byson1 wrote:
HTFU

This would be more convincing if you weren't defending people who are unwilling to actually deploy their carriers on-grid.


All i hear is cry cry cry. If you want to do something rather than cry,

Hot drop the pos with the carrier. take down the pos. Target fighters. It's doable- why have CCP make carriers pathetic?

Yes everyone wants carriers to warp to gates- GUESS WHAT, Until carriers can really do the damage for 'their risk' aka cost no one is going to do that. IT'S ********.

THE ONLY ONES GOING TO DO might be LARGE ALLIANCES

IS THIS WHAT CCP WANTS? LARGE COALITIONS AND ALLIANCES THE ONLY ONES ABLE TO FIELD CAPS?

What? should we make this so you can fly in with your shuttle and destroy carriers?

Fighters are expensive. More so than most frigs, so to say sticking a few on a frig is no risk is BS.

FIGHTERS CAN POP.

Keep crying, it shows how pathetic you are.

Shodan Of Citadel
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#726 - 2015-03-02 01:24:32 UTC
leave the **** alone.

When carrier sends fighters to someone, that someone needs to have the fighter skill trained up letting them manage 1 fighter per level which is going to mean most you'll see on 1 ceptor is 3-4 fighters so will need to spread their fighters over 3-4 people.








beakerax
Pator Tech School
#727 - 2015-03-02 01:34:41 UTC
Byson1 wrote:
beakerax wrote:
Byson1 wrote:
HTFU

This would be more convincing if you weren't defending people who are unwilling to actually deploy their carriers on-grid.


All i hear is cry cry cry. If you want to do something rather than cry,

Hot drop the pos with the carrier. take down the pos. Target fighters. It's doable- why have CCP make carriers pathetic?

Yes everyone wants carriers to warp to gates- GUESS WHAT, Until carriers can really do the damage for 'their risk' aka cost no one is going to do that. IT'S ********.

THE ONLY ONES GOING TO DO might be LARGE ALLIANCES

IS THIS WHAT CCP WANTS? LARGE COALITIONS AND ALLIANCES THE ONLY ONES ABLE TO FIELD CAPS?

What? should we make this so you can fly in with your shuttle and destroy carriers?

Fighters are expensive. More so than most frigs, so to say sticking a few on a frig is no risk is BS.

FIGHTERS CAN POP.

Keep crying, it shows how pathetic you are.


whoa

scroll up
Crimsons Storm
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#728 - 2015-03-02 01:50:25 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
CCP Rise wrote:
As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla.

This thread is for discussing the proposed removal of fighter assist for carriers and super carriers.

This change being largely driven by 'skynetting' which is a tactic where carriers and super carriers can sit in near perfect safety at the edge of starbase shields and assign thousands of DPS worth of fighter drones to their fleet mates who can fly whatever ship they want *), while wielding an enormous amount of damage. We feel this is not meeting our standards for risk vs reward and therefor would like to remove the ability to assist fighters. More details are covered in this dev blog.

A particular point of feedback that we are interested in surrounds the ability of fighters to warp. We know that in some circumstances it can be frustrating to have your fighters warp off grid to chase a target when you would rather have them move to another target on grid with you instead. We also know that fighter warping is unique and provides some interesting gameplay in some scenarios. Would you prefer that we removed the ability for fighters to warp or that we left warping in, despite the absence of assist?

Look forward to your feedback.

*) *snip* Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal.


Carriers - which CCP have labelled on several occasions as logistical tools in the past, have first had their jump range kicked in the teeth…..and now you propose to kill one of the few things left that they are good for / makes them unique.

I agree – skynet is kinda gay, but its not game killing….i also agree there probably needs to be more risk and I like the idea of not being able to assign fighters within x km of POS shields.

Addendum: perhaps also make it that if the ship the fighters are delegated to dies, the fighters disengage. This offers opportunities to kill ships + fighters if the carrier pilot is not paying attention

Did you even consider that it (thanatos, with maximum skills, fitted for delegation) 1 carrier (15 fighters) still requires 4 actual people (5 fighters per * 3 + the carrier pilot) each of the 3 still only deals ~1000 DPS each + ship DPS…..of which in your crappy example (the shuttle) has none and in most cases is usually ****** frigates….and lets also consider the fact that in your example the shuttle didn’t have a point on the atron….that kind of rationalization boarders on “reductio ad absurdum“


It’s all good for you to ask for our opinions but the consensus rarely has any impact on the decisions you guys make, regardless of how much insist that it does (with things like CSM)

Sorry for the bluntness but no wonder your subscription numbers and activity seems to be in a state of decline
Keretech
Lunar Labs
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#729 - 2015-03-02 01:59:32 UTC
Well,

my vote is NO please do not completely nerf carrier & motherships without reasonable and maybe creative change to gameplay.

If you want to nerf bat something for now just limit delegation to larger ships:

- Frigates 0
- Cruisers 3 + 2 normal drones
- BC and up 5 fighters

Carriers were nerfed several times already, otherwise just cancel this class refund skill points refund ships as dreads and be done with it. Duh.

Or

Make carriers really carriers ->

1) Carry pilots -> pilot grabs fighter (pbbly improved somehow) and goes to battle,
2) Pilot can dock into carrier in egg only, and then can jump with carrier
3) Carrier cannot 'carry' ships anymore so whoever is on-board cannot bring ship to battlefield.
4) There can be whole tree of different fighters sizes, types etc with skill books etc like for carrier pilot so for fighters pilots

I know that opens few cans of worms, but it would make carrier real carrier.....and make game-play more fun.

In the mean time please fix POS defense - so it really works, and also rather work on more anchorable structures - space habitats, fortresses, landing platforms.

Also please fix funny physics - that bumping million ton ship with paperweight frigate is just weird.


Peace!Blink

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#730 - 2015-03-02 02:04:08 UTC
Yazzinra wrote:
I'm sure someone in the thread has said it, but:

Isn't the obvious answer to "skynet" just to remove the bonuses from the carrier (in the case of the thanatos) and modules when the fighters are assigned to someone? Few pilots used fighter assignment till the skills/module changes were introduced since fighters really are not ideal against small targets without them. You just made fighters viable after years of near uselessness, now you want to nerf them?

I think most everyone agrees fighters warping is fine and should be left alone. It really is a cool feature.


Yea, it's been said (a few dozen times now) but can't hurt to say it again.

That's the part that's really galling to me, it's super easy to see the cause of the problem (CCP's previous buffs to fighters) but rather than just fix what they created the idea here is to nix a unique and ancient game mechanic in and of itself didn't cause the problem.'

It just keeps happening. For example, in pve you used to be able to reset expedition timers by going to the system and warping to it. A very small number of people abused this by cargo scanning overseers and if they didn't like the loot, they'd just come back the next day and try again (everything resets at down time).

Was CCP's answer to this? Was it the common sense "make overseers unscannable blockade runners are" (ie the scalpel option)? Nope, it was get rid of the ability to reset all together. So now it don't matter that you get an escalation late into your session and want to come back later and reset so you can do it a couple days later. Now you got 24 hours, period, all because a FEW people abused something.

It's extremely lazy development policy if you ask me.
Andriea Chikatilo
Down to None
#731 - 2015-03-02 02:10:13 UTC
Well, you have already ruined carriers for jumping and helping to move assets around new Eden. Lets not kill them and make them worthless. Tell your people to take longer coffee breaks to help justify their isk making and leave unbroken stuff alone.
Assassn Gallic
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#732 - 2015-03-02 02:28:38 UTC
Before we nerf fighters some more, can we look at some of the things still needing to be fixed?

Fighter auto-agression only works on 1 target and then they turn idle.
Fighters were (In my opinion wrongly nerfed with scan res)
Albeit it, mostly a moot point now, but fighters are unable to be assigned in 0.4 systems (last i checked)


Scan res thread : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5530245#post5530245

Removing content should never be the goal, fix the problem not the mechanic.

Eg : Make fighters unable to be assigned if within 50 km of a star gate and Pos. (this goes for after they are assigned also)

Fighters, bring back their Scan res! Fighter scan res thread

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#733 - 2015-03-02 02:35:55 UTC
So... When are carriers going to be allowed into high-sec?

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Nada Spai
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#734 - 2015-03-02 02:51:03 UTC
fighters should definitely still warp, as they are more like frigs than drones and it adds a degree of difficulty to using them as well as fighting them. the question you were looking to answer was not "are fighters op" but "how do we stop skynet" so this is the answer i propose. Fighters should be able to be assigned to any other ship to control while ON GRID WITH THE CARRIER/SUPER! Once they leave that grid, they can longer issue an order to the fighters, who would return to the carrier after completed its final orders. Regular drones can be assisted so it isnt reasonable to say fighters have no right to be. A bs can assign drones to a frig to make up for lower scan res, a carrier should be able to do the same. Changing fighter assist to require both ships be on the same grid most definitely includes the amount of risk to a capital as you are intending, and it will lower the overall dominance skynet has over a system by requiring caps to stay more connected to the fight.
Bowboy686 Renalard
The Terrifying League Of Dog Fort
Bad-Touch
#735 - 2015-03-02 04:01:32 UTC
What if we keep the assist but they wont be able to warp after the target, but if the carrier is controlling the drones then they can warp after who ever they want. This way you can assist fighters but you would have to be on the same grid as the carrier.

Problem solved :)
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#736 - 2015-03-02 04:02:34 UTC
SIMPLEST solutions: Modules do not boost fighters/fighter bombers + fighters/fighter bombers do not follow enemy targets in warp.

Makes everyone happy, less dps, carriers/supercarriers still a bit useful...

Everyone copy paste to show CCP.

Been around since the beginning.

Silent Silhouette
Malevelon Roe Industries
Convocation of Empyreans
#737 - 2015-03-02 04:30:15 UTC
I also the fighter and drones should have their own bays. I think that carrier should have drones but not the near unlimited waves of them.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#738 - 2015-03-02 04:36:37 UTC
I know this is a hard concept to grasp for some of you.

Polite works far better then inarticulate swearing and insults. You are mad, we get that and do not need you to make any sexual references to prove that for you sex and anger are one and the same.

You don't like the changes? Some of you have done a fine job of suggesting alternatives or asking for lessening of the changes ot just voicing your concerns. Good.

Others, not so much.

Me? I am in favour of the change because I never think a person should be able to be totally uninvolved and still be a part of the on field force. I dislike off-grid boosting for the same reason.

But the fighters were a mechanic that was fine, for a while, but then became abused more and more. What did you expect? That since it was fine yesterday it must be fine today and always will be? The game changes, for the better or worse will show in the longer run. But if you want to be heard, if you want to have a single iota of a chance to be heard by CCP then keep it civil.

If what I said ticked you off . . . well, I am running for CSMX. Vote accordingly.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)

Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#739 - 2015-03-02 04:47:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
There was, of course, a simpler way of solving this problem without nerfing the uniqueness of fighters.

Make aggression rules apply to the ship they're assigned to. Small frigates instalocking ships on gates in lowsec go boom to gate guns the moment any fighters/drones assigned to them aggress something. It should have really been the only solution considered, but instead another element of the sandbox and the nature of EVE in general is killed off in a kneejerk reaction to what really amounts as nothing more than increased forum whining due to an influx of CCP's latest target audience - people who play every other MMO that EVE isn't.

“Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.” - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104

Udonor
Doomheim
#740 - 2015-03-02 04:52:47 UTC
There really is no wrong change. Sure status quo versus some new strategy yada yada. Somebody wins and someone else is always unhappy.

But removing fighter assist and especially warp does tend to make carriers into frontline capitals ships (dreadnaughts) instead of protected off main battle grid assets as they now need to be on-grid to see targets. So triage mode will probably become the normal mode of deployment and thus whoever loses battle will normally lose all carriers they brought, not just some.

That in turn may bring the Titan effect to any battle with many carriers at stake (i.e. battles don't break off when who will win overall battle should be clear but continues until one side actually loses all carriers). IDK if that is desirable or not. Probably longer battles but how much I won't guess. Perhaps more players forced to go AFK for work before ship dies. Or maybe EVE will just evolve smaller cheaper carriers and fighters as frontline ships to reduce ISK losses and keep typical battle lengths under control.

BUT if you want keep carriers as sometimes distant contributing targets to be hunted off-grid with their own separate battles to destroy/survive to parallel WWII carriers...
that rejected interference mechanic between POS shields and carriers fighter operational bandwidth still looks good.

Simplified version: knock base POS shields down 10% per fighter in operation within say 150 km of POS. Max fighters equal no base POS shield to help carrier. POS itself left more vulnerable as base points must regenerate after carrier stops fighter ops in range. Would certainly make people hesitate to conduct actual operation of carriers near shields of POS with real non-combat value. Not sure what the break even cost point would be for anchoring combat dedicated POS tower but it might be comparable to prices for better officer resist modules. After all as the number of fighters is reduced to keep more base POS shield, the effectiveness of the carrier DPS falls as well.

Alternative forms are possible if you want more spectacular risk-consequence: make that per fighter interference a chance of catastrophic shield energy release turn protection into an area effect bomb!!!