These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
ISD Supogo
ISD BH
ISD Alliance
#741 - 2015-03-02 04:54:48 UTC
Removed a post.

Quote:

Forum rules

2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

8. Use of profanity is prohibited.

The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.

31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, “outing” of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.

Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.

ISD BH Supogo

Bughunter

Equipment Certification and Anomaly Investigations Division (ECAID)

Interstellar Services Department
Udonor
Doomheim
#742 - 2015-03-02 05:07:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Udonor
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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.




Its low sec. Can't have gate guns shooting suspects with deadly effect. That would take out 80% of roam groups and stop capsuleer hot pursuit. Plus gate guns would need to be more deadly and proof against just being blown away for convenience. (From the flashing red pod killer outlaws in gate camps I passed I assume they can still be taken out really easily and don't come back until next DT.)

If you change gate guns to shoot suspect small frigates, next you will be wanting to shoot the rare disco BS parked on gates to kill frigates, pods, and bad tanked haulers warping to zero. Gate guns would need to be much more deadly for that.
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#743 - 2015-03-02 05:23:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Remiel Pollard
Udonor wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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.




Its low sec. Can't have gate guns shooting suspects with deadly effect. That would take out 80% of roam groups and stop capsuleer hot pursuit. Plus gate guns would need to be more deadly and proof against just being blown away for convenience. (From the flashing red pod killer outlaws in gate camps I passed I assume they can still be taken out really easily and don't come back until next DT.)

If you change gate guns to shoot suspect small frigates, next you will be wanting to shoot the rare disco BS parked on gates to kill frigates, pods, and bad tanked haulers warping to zero. Gate guns would need to be much more deadly for that.


If you attack someone in lowsec, on a gate, the guns will shoot you if it would be a criminal act in high sec. That is, if you don't have a legal engagement with what you're shooting at. Have you been to low sec lately? Gate guns DO shoot suspect small frigates when said suspect small frigates are flashing yellow as a result of an attack on that gate. That's how it works - attacking someone illegally in low makes you suspect, not criminal. I suggest you visit low and find out for yourself, things are different there than in high sec. The only small ship that can permatank gate guns that I know of is a duel-rep fit Confessor in defence mode (haven't tried the Svipul yet), and if you need fighter assist on a 'fessor, you're doing it wrong.

I'm suggesting any ship fighters are assigned to be shot at by gate guns when using assisted fighters to engage on gates. That way, it would be no different than if the ship itself were firing the shots. I personally don't understand why it wasn't already this way to begin with.

And here, of course, we see another element of the problem with kneejerk reactionary nerfing - most of the players doing the complaining don't really understand how EVE works, and/or the intricacies of many of the mechanics at play.

“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
Anazuz Aknak
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#744 - 2015-03-02 05:23:56 UTC
Hopelesshobo wrote:
Instead of removing fighter assist, why not create a highslot module called a Fighter Assist Link. This module would allow a certain amount of bandwidth of fighters and bombers to be assigned. They could come in a variety of sizes so small ships might only be able to have 1 fighter assisted to it, while a large one could have several bombers assigned to it.


Splendid.


And what about that people can choose if his fighter go follow/focus or not by just use checkbox?
Udonor
Doomheim
#745 - 2015-03-02 05:36:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Udonor
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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.



Now if you don't mind upsetting the status quo in low sec...

CCP could create some real fun from predatory antics at gates. That is CONCORD actions are what makes hi-sec instead of low sec. So logically Empire Navies and Police should be what make low sec into low sec instead of null.

Therefore any suspect acts committed on the same grid as a gate could have a low chance of generating an Empire NPC Factional "Incursion". After all gate space and activity is likely monitored from the gate structure. Suspect activity at gates could be interpreted as disruptive and interfering with the flow of local Empire faction commerce and economy. Whether NPC owned or not there are tax considerations,e tc. Such Empire Incursions if they occur would lack the surgical precision and certain immediate deadliness of CONCORD responses. They would certainly appear near gate and mobile portions then patrol planets and moon. Thus they might well stumble across suspect carriers at now suspect POS (extending shield aid to carrier) anywhere in system -- or not before suspect timer expires. Of course factional politics would not support factional Navy/Police Incursions lasting more than half an hour without additional suspect activity or NPC Faction kills (local grid escalation too).

Repeated suspect activity within a certain time frame (i.e. the moving average of suspect acts per minute) could gradually increase probability and possible size of response. There might even be a mechanism that causes a brief Empire Navy Incursion across the entire constellation.
Yume Mei
Khanid Dynamics
#746 - 2015-03-02 05:46:46 UTC
The whole "lack of risk" argument is pretty silly. Fighters are pretty expensive for the performance they offer.

I think what it really comes down to is stats.


People with fragile egos look at ships lost vs ships destroyed. If it isn't listed it may as well have never happened.

Fighter kills wont be listed so they don't count as defender losses, it's obviously not fair.



tldr: oh no my killboard stats Cry
Remiel Pollard
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#747 - 2015-03-02 05:50:17 UTC
Udonor wrote:
Remiel Pollard wrote:
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.



Now if you don't mind upsetting the status quo in low sec...

CCP could create some real fun from predatory antics at gates. That is CONCORD actions are what makes hi-sec instead of low sec. So logically Empire Navies and Police should be what make low sec into low sec instead of null.

Therefore any suspect acts committed on the same grid as a gate could have a low chance of generating an Empire NPC Factional "Incursion". After all gate space and activity is likely monitored from the gate structure. Suspect activity at gates could be interpreted as disruptive and interfering with the flow of local Empire faction commerce and economy. Whether NPC owned or not there are tax considerations,e tc. Such Empire Incursions if they occur would lack the surgical precision and certain immediate deadliness of CONCORD responses. They would certainly appear near gate and mobile portions then patrol planets and moon. Thus they might well stumble across suspect carriers at now suspect POS (extending shield aid to carrier) anywhere in system -- or not before suspect timer expires. Of course factional politics would not support factional Navy/Police Incursions lasting more than half an hour without additional suspect activity or NPC Faction kills (local grid escalation too).

Repeated suspect activity within a certain time frame (i.e. the moving average of suspect acts per minute) could gradually increase probability and possible size of response. There might even be a mechanism that causes a brief Empire Navy Incursion across the entire constellation.


Overly complicated and arbitrarily game-breaking for players who choose to participate in the already-risky life of lowsec compared to just making fighter assist hosts get shot at by gate guns. What you're suggesting is also overly-punitive for what is, essentially, the wild west of New Eden, especially if you're suggesting said Navy response should be capable of taking out a supposed 'suspect' POS.

CONCORD actions are not what make high-security space. CONCORD actions are merely an aspect of high-security space, as are Navy responses to low-security and bad-standing/enemy militia players. Again, please learn the mechanics of lowsec before trying to turn it into something it's not.

“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
Dedbforucme
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#748 - 2015-03-02 06:25:03 UTC
Removing the ability to assign fighters instead of changing because it is too broken, then what is next? CCP going to have to make it so interceptors can't warp through bubbles because it is too broken?
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#749 - 2015-03-02 07:10:29 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
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.


Uh, Mike. I dunno if you didn't notice, but CCP didn't respond to the wormhole threadnaut telling them to reverse the change (btw, we still haven't seen any of the promised graphs yet!). CCP hasn't responded to the ISBoxer thread, especially after that incident where they lied to us about having a meeting, not to mention the fact that CCP is working on a third-party program (in direct violation of their third party policy, I may add) that duplicates one of the very programs they just banned. CCP didn't respond to the hundred-and-one other threads where they put up a sticky, said "too bad, so sad", and then never touched it again. Some of us *have* suggested changes to many, many of these threads, and we were met with more silence than an uninhabited C1 right after downtime.
So you'll have to forgive us if we take this with a grain of salt the size of a Iapetan Titan as some of us don't trust CCP anymore to respond or listen to their playerbase if you don't have a "CSM" tag next to your name. People are tired of being told "we really do want your opinions, honest!" and then watching CCP turn around so fast they get whiplash.

You want to do some good in this thread? Post supporting evidence for this change. Engage the people who elected you. Be more than the politicians who promise the moon and the stars for a vote and then never pick up their phone once their in office.

Additionally, may be obtain a comment from you telling us how exactly that Revenant was "totally uninvolved"? What part of that lossmail says "I'm safe and untouchable"?
Victini
#750 - 2015-03-02 07:20:14 UTC
skynet is one of the reasons that many supers has been hunted down and killed.. so its not safe as u think it is (espescially when u have few titans ready to jump and DD the ***t out of it

So please keep as is .. countering it is not so hard
beakerax
Pator Tech School
#751 - 2015-03-02 07:44:45 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Additionally, may be obtain a comment from you telling us how exactly that Revenant was "totally uninvolved"? What part of that lossmail says "I'm safe and untouchable"?

On the killmail, the Waiver of Untouchability is located just to the right of the Notice of Improper Logoff.
Hammering Hank
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#752 - 2015-03-02 07:46:29 UTC
Pomponius Sabinus wrote:


Well it seems like you realised the problem is risk vs reward while asigning fighters from the edge of a POS FF. But instead of making it more interesting by finding some way to make it more dangerous to asign fighters you sadly take the easy way out and just remove it. It would be way more interesting for the game if you found a way to make carriers that asigned fighters more vulnerable.


The best solution is to introduce a Fighter Assist module only for carriers. Like a Triage module, it needs an activation timer and stops all locomotion. It could also increase the Signature Radius of the Carrier (easier to scan down) and not allow any remote boosting. Recommend naming the module T-Meg. The new module allows fighter assist to stay but carriers become more vulnerable.
ISD Supogo
ISD BH
ISD Alliance
#753 - 2015-03-02 07:50:42 UTC
Removed another rule-breaking post and those quoting it.

Quote:

Forum rules

3. Ranting is prohibited.

A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents.

8. Use of profanity is prohibited.

The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.

31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, “outing” of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.

Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.

ISD BH Supogo

Bughunter

Equipment Certification and Anomaly Investigations Division (ECAID)

Interstellar Services Department
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#754 - 2015-03-02 07:51:01 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
beakerax wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Additionally, may be obtain a comment from you telling us how exactly that Revenant was "totally uninvolved"? What part of that lossmail says "I'm safe and untouchable"?

On the killmail, the Waiver of Untouchability is located just to the right of the Notice of Improper Logoff.


Of course, how could I miss that? It was right in front of me the whole time!

*Snip* Please refrain from discussing forum moderation. ISD Ezwal.
Eessi
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#755 - 2015-03-02 07:55:46 UTC
Solid change and is much needed. Thank you for being bold.
Xavious Kane
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#756 - 2015-03-02 08:23:54 UTC
I think that it does need some work, however I think that removing it entirely, or modifying fighter behavior significantly would be a bad thing. Putting the carrier more at risk I think would go a ways to help the problem.

A module on the carrier or other ship to receive fighter assistance was an idea I saw in my skim of the discussion so far, but I like the idea of not being able to have them assigned while within X range of a station, gate or POS force field or if the carrier happens to find its self in a warp disruption bubble. Communications and other interference given off by the structures would cause an interruption in the link of the fighters causing them to be immediately recalled or otherwise disconnected. Drones/Fighters not assigned or on grind with the carrier at the time would still behave as they normally do, because the disruption is only in the "long range" of the drone control being disrupted.

It would add a bit more risk to the carriers who if caught have to risk more for the service that they provide. And as a side effect of that, there would be more carriers to hunt for those that like to do that sort of thing.
Kane Carnifex
Duty.
Stay Feral
#757 - 2015-03-02 08:54:36 UTC
Skynet, an overview and suggestions review

Skynet explanation
As already written down, a carrier/super with a drone track & dmg fit sitting on a safe spot. The safe spot is defined as on the edge of the POS, Docking range station, unprobable in space or similar to this. The drone assign function is a so called fleet multiplier like ewar, logistic, on/off grid booster and many more. 5 Fighter/Bombers per Ship with an DPS output against medium/large vessels from around ca. 1000 DPS (all V). We will later have a look into the risk/counter mechanics.


Deeper view into the fleet multiplier
This DPS amount is similar to another 1-2 Vessels in fight, only for none drone boats. (A Myrmidon without her own drones cannot perform the same damage as a Brutix (Brutix can easily bring 650DPS on field with a decent armor tank)

Let’s find some other mechanics which allows us a possible boosts with less risk or nearly no risk.
They are not an problem, as both parties can bring the same boots


Off – Grid Booster either in Space or in a POS similar to an orca/raq boost. I am not very familiar with this mechanic but my knowledge says here it is an advantage which is very safe.

Counter:
Bring your own off grid booster, welcome you are even.
But it is not possible to prevent getting the boost or to kill the booster.

##
Amor based Fleet with ewar tools in the mid, it doesn’t matter 10 dampners, 1 to 2 per ships will bring you enemy closer or kills the logistic completely.

Counter:
You don’t fight, or you know the fitting of the enemy which you can counter fit. But if you realize this to late you will lose the fight.


##
Also very nice is a cloaky camper, you cannot actively counter him.

Counter:
But you can bait him. I am fine with this mechanic as I love to snack shiny bling covert ops, never was it easier to kill 1 billion per ship.

##
The Skynet carrier
The difference how to counter it is the location of the Skynet carrier. We know which the carier can be placed near a station, a POS or an unprobable postion in space.

Counter
You always allowed to bring more logistic to even out the incoming fighter DPS.
You can kite the fighter which make it less possible for the fighter to apply dmg.

A Carrier near a station can be pushed to dock up, goodbye extra fighter dps and maybe lost in space.
As far as I know you need to be on grid with the fighter to reconnect to them .

Carrier at a POS
Kill the POS.
Kill the Carrier faster than he could get back into the FF. You may want to use a titan or a dread fleet.
(Yes, this why you install a cyno jammer, as you don’t like these kind of visits.)

Unprobable Carrier
I read about this in the forum and it can be countered with the right ship, implants, ******* expensive but you will find you kill it… once you find it there will be no escape.

Note:
If you cannot kill a carrier with your fleet DPS , you will not have a chance against it on grid or off grid.



IMHO

Your 20 men fleet is hunting for everything in a region which doesn’t belong to you. This region knows you and chooses the fight which they could win. Either you travel through a gatecamp and die in the camp as you not able to get to optimal or you will be baited. Nobody would bait you if they are not able to win the isk war or to bring the death to you whole fleet. Due the intel in this region the defender knows more about you than you about his fleet.

You can expect following long before you know the enemy fleet:
- More vessels (more DPS)
- Powerful vessels (fleet multiplier)
- Logistic
- If you only bring stuff from one race, be ready to get jammed.
- Lets cover the jamming under EWAR.
- Skynet Carrier (fleet multiplier)

So you don’t choose the fight, the living people choose the fight and it is not required to have a fair fight. Why should we? It is eve, RL ethics doesn’t work here. This is war, combat it will be unfair for one of the fighting side… the advantage is to let them believe which they could win or have a bigger support fleet in the backhand.

Let’s spin this little bit up. You jump into a system which is heavily camped as it is an pocket entrance. You see fighter drones on grid and decide to first probe out the carrier for a Titan drive by.
You bring a fleet up which supports the titan and a fleet which fights the local gate camp. Unfortunately once the Titan landed in the System it got holded by an hic and the defender brings in more reinforces…. Escalation escalation escalation…

Is there now a Problem?

People build up a POS, Station or make a deep safe spot somewhere in space. They are the defenders which want to defend their space unfortunately CCP doesn’t provide tools for defending space neither a own controlled concord or gate guns or something else to defend it. But you can use carriers to provide a locate defense in this system which allows you to turn a fight to your advantages, yes you also can bring an offgrid booster… I

The Skynet carrier live in 0.0 also with the advantages and disadvantages which this space area brings. Why should a PVP Fleet from Highsec get more advantage… they come to unknown k-space and search for a fight the others just live and defend their space whit it.

Also you can easy kite out the fighter drones with an cruiser as these small medium scale pvp ships are always build for kiting… you will be hard to hit, once you get webbed it is over.

I am starting to spinning around with my points, but I think I made my point clear which I don’t think this is a good decision to remove this function. If you cannot fight it ask you friends for help.

Capitals Ships requires high skills and it also requires high skills to counter it easy or a huge amount of mid skilled player to kill it.


Its my point of view, and yes i am pro skynet :)










http://vesuvi.de - EVE & Food Porn in German...
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#758 - 2015-03-02 08:57:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Daichi Yamato
Nolak Ataru wrote:


Additionally, may be obtain a comment from you telling us how exactly that Revenant was "totally uninvolved"? What part of that lossmail says "I'm safe and untouchable"?


Perhaps logoffski-drive-by-doomsdays aren't a counter practical enough for the masses to consider it good gameplay.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
Kira Hizu
Rotten Kimchi Squadron
#759 - 2015-03-02 08:58:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Kira Hizu
By any more changes to carriers or supers will cause more problems as theirs a use for the fighters. Any change to capitals will make hard feelings as we love our space ship shooter game.
Goin Off
Manson Family
Advent of Fate
#760 - 2015-03-02 09:50:07 UTC
It's simple, keep fighters as is but prevent capitals that deploy them from assigning them to be anywhere near a pos shield. It would certainly put the carrier/super at risk of being tackled and killed being vulnerable in space and probable. Keeping them balls deep on grid would be a benefit ONLY to the larger alliances because of the numbers the large alliances put up, but, would put the smaller alliances at an extreme disadvantage simply because of numbers.

CCP in the last year are doing everything to discourage the ownership/use of capitals in EVE. It's a disservice to all of us older characters with high numbers of skill points that have literally trained and worked for YEARS to to acquire the assets and skills to fly capitals.

Examples:

1. Rorqual (Poor Mans Jump Freighter) - NO LONGER VIABLE DUE TO JUMP RANGE NERF! What's left is providing fleet bonuses and compressing ore, MEH. Btw, I own a rorq and can't imagine the concept of a battle rorq except as a setup for a good km.

2. Carriers - Jump range nerf has really complicated null sec logistics for small alliances. The big alliances that CCP continues to suck up to don't care since they typically furnish their cap pilots with carriers wherever they need them to be.

CCP is going the wrong way with all of these capital nerfs by listening to all the Intergalactic "WHINERS" that are unwilling to invest the time and effort to fly capital ships, much less risk the ISK invested to buy a capital and fly them.