These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Kamikaze Akenatum
Kamikaze Fleet Command
Antesignani Alliance
#781 - 2015-03-02 14:19:42 UTC
If you remove fighter assist, then we may as well allow Carriers and Supers into high sec space!

CCP Rise, Put the Nerfbat away before you hurt your subscription base, and fix some of the other bugged game mechanics first.
Cumbus Kanjus
Liga Freier Terraner
Northern Coalition.
#782 - 2015-03-02 14:21:48 UTC
last time i checked wasn't eve supposed to be a sandbox?

therefore its the players task to find solutions for ingame mechanics (what they actually most of the time do).
its not CCPs task to fix issues (or fix isues where are none) just because some ppl keep whining and whining and whining!

some ppl might see high sec ganking as an issue. so??? did CCP do something about it? no because thats how it should be. ppl should adapt and learn to live with said mechanic.

"We also want to promote active gameplay as much as possible. We're failing on both with Skynet by having very little risk associated with something rather powerful, and we're also not providing any gameplay to the carrier pilot"

so u wanna say that dual or tripple boxing with carriers and or supers on a FF does not provide gameplay? well thats to be judged by the players doing so and not by CCP, right?

"very little risk associated with something rather powerful"

it might be powerful, but little risk? if the contra-party just brings enough of their own capitals u can just forget about skynet. and thats exactly how it should be. and party finds a new mechanic or using it, so the opposite party is being forced to counter that mechanic.
"very little risk" so building a super/titan and keeping it safe/alive is no risk for CCP, right?

so @CCP pls there is not just a "0" or "1". there is more than just "Yes" and "No"
im sure there is a solution that will be fine for both sides
Mihascheg
TheAuthority
#783 - 2015-03-02 14:25:11 UTC
As always consider only one side of the coin, 1-2 people complained that what that production workers gave putting pvp grief and immediately need something to remove something to alter. And the fact that people are engaged in the production is the only way how you fight off the heap in pozhevitsya flown home system you even does not occur. Many were especially trained and constructed by super only for that would be protected in such a way, these super not rush on systems with small ships they are participating only in the protection of their system. I believe that it is not correct to compare their organization fleets of 50-60 people and the fact that there is a risk of the driver jacket standing at the POS or not how do you will be able to ship this to do something against the 50-60 ships? I do not see in this protection system or of the advantages of their inhabitants.Just simply enough pairs of merchant ships type hugin/loki.If those who do not like the fact that they are given pvp and want what all sat at the stations when they arrive, they may not need to look for this PvP? Why fly to where the hurt?
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#784 - 2015-03-02 14:27:46 UTC
Cumbus Kanjus wrote:
last time i checked wasn't eve supposed to be a sandbox?

therefore its the players task to find solutions for ingame mechanics (what they actually most of the time do).
its not CCPs task to fix issues (or fix isues where are none) just because some ppl keep whining and whining and whining!

some ppl might see high sec ganking as an issue. so??? did CCP do something about it? no because thats how it should be. ppl should adapt and learn to live with said mechanic.

"We also want to promote active gameplay as much as possible. We're failing on both with Skynet by having very little risk associated with something rather powerful, and we're also not providing any gameplay to the carrier pilot"

so u wanna say that dual or tripple boxing with carriers and or supers on a FF does not provide gameplay? well thats to be judged by the players doing so and not by CCP, right?

"very little risk associated with something rather powerful"

it might be powerful, but little risk? if the contra-party just brings enough of their own capitals u can just forget about skynet. and thats exactly how it should be. and party finds a new mechanic or using it, so the opposite party is being forced to counter that mechanic.
"very little risk" so building a super/titan and keeping it safe/alive is no risk for CCP, right?

so @CCP pls there is not just a "0" or "1". there is more than just "Yes" and "No"
im sure there is a solution that will be fine for both sides


There are a few historical case where CCP were not happy with a mechanic and dealt with it instead of the player having to deal with it. The sandbox rules getting modified is not something never seen before and involved a lot of tears from player using what was getting cut every time and was preceded by a lot of different tears from people on the recieving side of it before just like this.
Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#785 - 2015-03-02 14:34:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Aiyshimin
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
I must admit to a bit of confusion.

If you at CCP didn't want this situation, whatever made you think that applying the originating carrier's mod bonuses to assigned fighters was a change worth implementing?

Assigned fighters were AFAIK not a huge problem when they were assigned without ship bonuses (specifically damage and tracking).


Assigned fighters still aren't a problem, but the fact that you can use them 101% risk-free from the safety of a POS.

EDIT: Let's face it: not a single one of these renter scrubs would use assigned fighters if there was any risk in it. Not a single one.
Dictateur Imperator
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#786 - 2015-03-02 14:43:07 UTC
Aiyshimin wrote:
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
I must admit to a bit of confusion.

If you at CCP didn't want this situation, whatever made you think that applying the originating carrier's mod bonuses to assigned fighters was a change worth implementing?

Assigned fighters were AFAIK not a huge problem when they were assigned without ship bonuses (specifically damage and tracking).


Assigned fighters still aren't a problem, but the fact that you can use them 101% risk-free from the safety of a POS.

EDIT: Let's face it: not a single one of these renter scrubs would use assigned fighters if there was any risk in it. Not a single one.



Have you already play to eve ? You can kill carrier/super near pos. But yes you need to send more is on the gris as he is on anom... and use ship create for it. In fact CCP want allow it's easier to kill with 100 M carrier or 500M/1B on the field super.

Actually engage 2B of ship do for killing cap near pos, you kill carrier, but yes defenser can kill some opponent with help of pos. Engage 15B of ship on a super neat pos, you can kill him same if you play well, bt yes again you can have loss.

This update it's for the moment only for people who cry to have easy KM.


CCP want risk VS reward, but the risk must be in each part of the game, not only for the defense. People who attack must have risk to, they 're reward :good KM.
Mihascheg
TheAuthority
#787 - 2015-03-02 15:02:17 UTC
There is one way to make the price of nyx 500-600-million approximately as Ishtar then there will be no need for him to be afraid of losing everything themselves will fly it in pvp, and how it is not fair to require the corporation to risk the ship out of 10 people at 20b it is asked that those who fly the ships 100-200m...
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#788 - 2015-03-02 15:24:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Dracvlad
After reading what some people said here I have to say that you should not remove the ability to assign fighters, it will hurt smaller entities the most.

The idea of not being able to do this within x km of a POS works for me if you really feel the need to tinkle with things, but it is fine as it is, the comments people ahve made about the Reverent are very relevant, people can be blown up doing this and often are.

EDIT: There is an issue with forum moderation on the Eve forums, there is a bias towards certain views and people.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Scooter King
The Fated
#789 - 2015-03-02 16:02:33 UTC
My experience with fighters is that you can actually keep them tied up - IF you know how to do it.

Select the furthest point in the solar system from where you are and warp (assuming you can ofc) - they follow you - whilst they are with you they are not doing dps on the field. The further you warp, the longer they take after recall (they have to drop out of warp to come back)

the problem is not the warping, but making the assigner more vulnerable - i like the options of only assignable on grid, but if the capital warps off then they should immediately return back to the capital (after completing their own follow warp)

within xKm of a pos is not sensible, basically the cap pilot will align to another pos and hover over the warp button - pointless imho - however, if on entering the pos shield then the drones lose all connection and become paperweights (even to the assignee), the cost of that is bourne by the pilot - that might work - if they win the battle, they can always be collected afterwards

just my 2 cents

Scoot
Lugh Crow-Slave
#790 - 2015-03-02 16:04:18 UTC
Mike Azariah wrote:
I

But the fighters were a mechanic that was fine, for a while, but then became abused more and more. What did you expect



I expected CCP to put the effort into solving the the abuse of the mechanic rather than just remove it do to one way it is being used.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#791 - 2015-03-02 16:07:08 UTC
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:
Mike Azariah wrote:
I

But the fighters were a mechanic that was fine, for a while, but then became abused more and more. What did you expect



I expected CCP to put the effort into solving the the abuse of the mechanic rather than just remove it do to one way it is being used.


If only we ever had the real reasoning they use for the decision instead of everybody just guessing what it was we would probably have a much more productive discussion on a TON of changes they implement.

Styphon the Black
Forced Euthanasia
#792 - 2015-03-02 16:14:12 UTC
Removing fighter assist and warping is a horrible idea. We use carriers all the time in nullsec and nerfing them this way would make them useless. We need fighter assists.
ISD Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#793 - 2015-03-02 16:16:39 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them.

The Rules:
12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited.

The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category.

ISD Ezwal Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Aiyshimin
Descendant Command
#794 - 2015-03-02 16:22:34 UTC
Dictateur Imperator wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
I must admit to a bit of confusion.

If you at CCP didn't want this situation, whatever made you think that applying the originating carrier's mod bonuses to assigned fighters was a change worth implementing?

Assigned fighters were AFAIK not a huge problem when they were assigned without ship bonuses (specifically damage and tracking).


Assigned fighters still aren't a problem, but the fact that you can use them 101% risk-free from the safety of a POS.

EDIT: Let's face it: not a single one of these renter scrubs would use assigned fighters if there was any risk in it. Not a single one.



Have you already play to eve ? You can kill carrier/super near pos. But yes you need to send more is on the gris as he is on anom... and use ship create for it. In fact CCP want allow it's easier to kill with 100 M carrier or 500M/1B on the field super.

Actually engage 2B of ship do for killing cap near pos, you kill carrier, but yes defenser can kill some opponent with help of pos. Engage 15B of ship on a super neat pos, you can kill him same if you play well, bt yes again you can have loss.

This update it's for the moment only for people who cry to have easy KM.


CCP want risk VS reward, but the risk must be in each part of the game, not only for the defense. People who attack must have risk to, they 're reward :good KM.


If your skynet carrier is so easy to kill on pos, why do you use it? Or is it less at risk than if you would be outside the POS?

This question is only for the babies who cry to keep their risk-free skynet.

gto Okaski
Crown Solutions
TOGETHER WE STAND
#795 - 2015-03-02 16:56:31 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:

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.


Can't believe I "liked" a goon post.
Lugh Crow-Slave
#796 - 2015-03-02 16:59:17 UTC
gto Okaski wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

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.


Can't believe I "liked" a goon post.


it's not all of ccp some do seem to do their best to respond to the player base

others yes it seams like they will open up a feedback thread and then never even act like the go back and read it fozzi being the worst with this.
Cpt Patrick Archer
I HAVE THE POWER OF GOD AND ANIME ON MY SIDE
Blue Eyes and Exodia Toon Duelist Kingdom Duelers
#797 - 2015-03-02 17:00:41 UTC  |  Edited by: Cpt Patrick Archer
I've had a quick readthrough of most of the pages and I felt like I had to comment anyway. If only to give more power to the already mentioned points.

It may become a long one, so here's a TL;DR for ya all:

- Killing fighterassists will hurt the new players.
- A lot of effort to get a (super)carrier, especially when you are just starting off. (This is a good thing).
- Combat:
* Attack someone's homesystem with a 5-10 man gang, without a proper scout party you should get raped anyway.
* Easy ways to disengage
* Does not create extra content for 'capital pilots'
- Possible fix:
* I totally agree with the same suggestion that has been posted about 1000 times now, minimum distance from forcefield
* Or capital is not able to move/jump/cloak untill fighters are returned to their own grid (unless they are scrambled maybe?)


For the long one:
Killing fighterassists will hurt the new players.
I speak for our corporation and many others that I know. We use skynet to give new players (1- 4 months) free fighters to help them with ratting and make some extra isk. This way they can start flying ships that are actually meaningfull in small gang nullsec combat and enjoy the game, instead of rotting away on level 4's in highsec.

A lot of effort to get a (super)carrier, especially when you are just starting off. (This is a good thing).
Players have spent years to perfect characters to pilot these awesome capitals, spent billions upon billions to aquire them. And now one of the features that makes a carrier unique is just getting removed. Making the assest, years of training and billions next to useless in quite a few scenario's.

Combat:
* I personally think that if you are roaming with a gang of about 5-10 people (these are apparently the people that actually get 'hurt' by fighter assists) and you are attacking someone's homesystem. You are going to have losses.

* These proposed changes remove content for super accounts, making them less usefull and not important to keep subscribed for quite a number of supercapital owners. I do not think that people will warp supers to gates to kill an Ishtar gang or whatever.
What I do see happening is people warping their damage/tracking fit carrier to the gate, bypassing subcaps completely (apart from a few fasttackle) and remote sensorboosting the carriers for the same effect.
Small gang still gets raped, because they shouldn't be in a position to kill any number of capitals in a 10 man gang anyways.

* The creating extra content agrument is especially missing it's point because nobody in their right mind is going to put their main and only toon in a super. The guys at the gate are usually the mains, so they are not missing content.

I do think that there needs to be more risk involved in assigning fighters because it's a big force multiplier, but removing them completely is outragous, shortsighted and removes an awesome and unique gamemechanic that does not ruin gameplay, but creates it. Otherwise people might choose to blueball.

Possible fix:
* Minimum distance from POS like tons of others have pitched already.
* (Super)caps can't move untill fighters are back on grid with the ship. This increases the risk a lot, and makes a super that is assigning fighters a viable target for a 10-20 man gang without killing this awesome feature.
Hammering Hank
Strategic Exploration and Development Corp
Silent Company
#798 - 2015-03-02 17:05:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Hammering Hank
Hammering Hank wrote:
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 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.


Cpt Patrick Archer wrote:
IPossible fix:
* Minimum distance from POS like tons of others have pitched already.
* (Super)caps can't move untill fighters are back on grid with the ship. This increases the risk a lot, and makes a super that is assigning fighters a viable target for a 10-20 man gang without killing this awesome feature.


The Fighter Assist (T-Meg) could also not be activated within 50k (or 100k) of any FF or gate (or anything using very high energy). Story line being that the Fighter communications systems cannot work around interference.
Zajian
Future Tec. Industries
#799 - 2015-03-02 17:15:31 UTC
I am not against fighter assist, but what i prefer is to make them only usable for cruisers and bigger ships.

That removes that ceptor/frigg problems with 1k dps.

Fighterassist ist a major feature of carrier/supercarriers and nerves them pretty hard, fighter bomber warp should be still in the game in future.

Lavrenti Palych
Zima Corp
Legion of xXDEATHXx
#800 - 2015-03-02 17:20:32 UTC
One more thing:

I hope your next move will be to remove off-grid bonuses including combat and orca/rorqual.

Because - you know... Nobody must be safe - like assist fighters carrier on POS....