These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 Ezwal
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#801 - 2015-03-02 17:20:53 UTC
I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil!

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)
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#802 - 2015-03-02 17:27:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Ncc 1709
make assisted fighters use ship bandwidth. they use 25 on a carrier so they should also use 25 of the ship there assigned to.
so only frigs like the Tristan and ishkur could run 1 fighter.
Thorax 2, vexor 3. myrmidon 4.

maraudas could only run 1 (2 for kronos)

the only ships that would be able to natively run 5 fighters would be the ships that already use drones as their damage output. so T3's would either run 0 or 1 with proteus at 4

wow a whole page of comments disappeared while typing this
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#803 - 2015-03-02 17:33:46 UTC
Lavrenti Palych wrote:
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....


I would love that but up until now, their only "workable" solution would kill the nodes so it was not implemented. I'm not 100% sure but I think it was either said by Fozzie or Veritas.
Lavrenti Palych
Zima Corp
Legion of xXDEATHXx
#804 - 2015-03-02 17:44:54 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

I would love that but up until now, their only "workable" solution would kill the nodes so it was not implemented. I'm not 100% sure but I think it was either said by Fozzie or Veritas.


Well, I see their "workable solution":

-Man, I have headache!
-All right! Hey guys - cut his head off!

You know, like Carroll's Queen of Hearts...
Gypsien Agittain
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#805 - 2015-03-02 17:55:41 UTC
41 pages of proposals and 99,99% are more reasonable than removing assist while fixing the skynet problem.

Imo CCP Leadership and shareholders should start thinking about whats happening with the team developing the game when even the less gifted capsuleers are able to provide much better solutions to game balance.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#806 - 2015-03-02 18:11:40 UTC
This whole thing makes me fear something is rotten at the heart of Eve. "We don't have a clue how to fix POS code, or off-grid boosters, or local chat, or really anything except modify a few numbers in some spreadsheets, so let's do that."

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#807 - 2015-03-02 18:23:16 UTC  |  Edited by: d0cTeR9
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.

m


Ignore people that are cursing/insulting and not providing any real feedback, like the rest of us do. Even with CCP's poor history of 'listening to players', we are still trying to provide clear & good feedback to them.

So what about AFK cloakers? Intelligence Gathering cloakers? Off-Grid Boosters? Cloak boosters?

All of those are the same as skynet, you don't put your ship in danger. Hey, let's force the rorqual in asteroid belts, it's only fair after all...

Since you and a few other's missed the message/point, let me make it clear: We are NOT saying it's expecting to be fine for ever, that's why we are suggesting work around like modules not boosting fighters, no fighter assignment near POS, fighters no longer follow hostiles in warp, etc.

FT Diomedes wrote:
This whole thing makes me fear something is rotten at the heart of Eve. "We don't have a clue how to fix POS code, or off-grid boosters, or local chat, or really anything except modify a few numbers in some spreadsheets, so let's do that."


That's how it feels and looks like...

Been around since the beginning.
Haywoud Jablomi
Vay Mining Corporation
#808 - 2015-03-02 18:56:25 UTC
Ncc 1709 wrote:
make assisted fighters use ship bandwidth. they use 25 on a carrier so they should also use 25 of the ship there assigned to.
so only frigs like the Tristan and ishkur could run 1 fighter.
Thorax 2, vexor 3. myrmidon 4.

maraudas could only run 1 (2 for kronos)

the only ships that would be able to natively run 5 fighters would be the ships that already use drones as their damage output. so T3's would either run 0 or 1 with proteus at 4

wow a whole page of comments disappeared while typing this



Everything he said.. Do it... DO IT NOW!!!

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Liet Ormand
Sons of Bacchus
#809 - 2015-03-02 18:58:31 UTC
CCP -


I am interested in the graph assessing Battlecruiser use.

Since this assessment (in the blog) was made based on PvP activities, is the purpose of BCs to engage in PvP activities only?

Or if not, is there a similar graph in existence for PvE type use of ships? Ideally, I'd love to get a "sanitized" copy of the numeric data to play with.


More generally, all the changes noted in this blog seem to focus around PvP, which is certainly a major portion of the player base and thus worthy of attention. However, I'm certain the designers and developers also know there are PvE types playing as well as businesspeople, miners, etc. Is there a release anywhere on the horizon to address changes/fixes to things like DED and FW complexes, or hacking/relic sites, or some more encouragement for miners to leave high sec?

I'm sure I'll get flamed into oblivion for daring to post anything suggesting that developers take any time away from delivering "more important" fixes, but that's the Eve forums for ya.
Darmok Tamal
Fraternal Order of Providence
#810 - 2015-03-02 19:00:03 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
*Snip* Please refrain from discussing forum moderation. If you are perceiving a problem with ISD behaviour on the forum or are disagreeing with the way (your) posts are being moderated, please feel free to read the CCP policies and follow the procedure found under the header 'Complaints'. ISD Ezwal..
FleetAdmiralHarper
Kitchen Sink Kapitals
#811 - 2015-03-02 19:01:26 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Darmok Tamal wrote:
*Snip* Please refrain from discussing forum moderation. If you are perceiving a problem with ISD behaviour on the forum or are disagreeing with the way (your) posts are being moderated, please feel free to read the CCP policies and follow the procedure found under the header 'Complaints'. ISD Ezwal..



*Snip* Removed a reply to an edited out part of the quoted post. ISD Ezwal.
TerminalSamurai Sunji
Perkone
Caldari State
#812 - 2015-03-02 19:32:05 UTC
[Tears]
These changes are pretty personal to me unfortunatly, I've litterally injected a racial carrier skill about a week ago and just finished leadership V for the sole purpose of injecting fighters today. And now I feel like it's a moot point to continue training down this path, so for the last 90 days I've been grinding specifically for a carrier and said skills I have been wasting my time. And yes I know a lot of you have invested much more time than I have in these skills. At this point I'd rather just have all of my isk / sp reimbursed.


[Opinion]
Fighter Assist goes away, fine (Sitting by a pos doesn't have enough risk, I get it). Fighter warping goes away... Whats the theory here? If your not assigning them in the first place then you're putting your carrier at risk. If I have to recall drones every site because my CRUISER sized drones don't have a warp drive, then that's pretty lame. Might as well go back to spider tanking Domis or rattlesnakes which are easiesr to train into anyways.


[Theory Mechanic Solutions]
Other Eve weapon systems have a reload time, why don't drones?

Previous fighter nerfs were due to abusing drones. Is the underlying drone code that ugly that mechanics CANT be added? only removed? If so, then I feel bad for the devs, Every one is now paying the price for code debt. (Not just the frustrated devs)
Pandorik
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#813 - 2015-03-02 19:32:43 UTC
Dear CCP,

Removing the Fighter assist and allowable warp is simply appalling Evil. This Risk vs Reward venture of CCPs scope should be focused on High sec so that we may actually fight gankers.

Either way I am utterly disappointed that CCP is removing content and play styles instead of introducing a mechanic that would allow players to counter. In lay-mans terms we are talking about taking the scissors out of RPS instead of adding a new way to play or a way to counter the "Skynet Problem"; lets just remove it.

How about removing the skewed dynamics that Gankers use to their advantage and leaves everyone else high and dry? Oh wait they are trading a 4M isk fit for a hauler carrying a few billion isk, that sounds like a really square Risk v Reward dosent it? Then not having any possible way to strike back at them, sounds like everything is in order here, right!? Idea

Moving forward with this you will see a tremendous decline of Carrier use. Thats on you.

I say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO to all and any form of changes to the carriers.EvilEvilEvilEvil

- Panda

P.s. Your making a mistake.
Darmok Tamal
Fraternal Order of Providence
#814 - 2015-03-02 19:46:59 UTC
How long before CCP loses all of it's subscribers? 1 year? 6 months?
Goosius Tal
Bacon Buccaneers League
#815 - 2015-03-02 19:51:56 UTC
Removing fighter assist/warp would negativly effect the games expiriance for many. Making people stay on grid to use their carriers would mostly restrict use to alliances that can feild large numbers to support them. If people are "worried" about loosing their fighters because they run off there is a box that says chase target they shouldn't have it clicked. Last i knew fighter bombers didn't warp off any ways. Not every one that uses their carrier for fighter support is hanging out by a pos. I may only occasionaly use my carrier for random stuff but even at this point i have to worry about people jumping a fleet on me as soon as i make use of it. Keeping carriers the way they are or even lowering the damage a bit would atleast keep the versatility and more unique style of play for those of us that have trained for and spent the isk to be able to fly them.
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures
#816 - 2015-03-02 19:53:35 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.

m


irony, look it up.
Byson1
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#817 - 2015-03-02 19:54:10 UTC
Nada Spai wrote:
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.


Completely useless to only be able to assign fighters while on grid that would be what is considered assist rather than assign.
Langbaobao
Tr0pa de elite.
#818 - 2015-03-02 19:56:00 UTC
As a capital and supercap pilot, and one who uses them often, I don't have anything against removing fighter assignment to subcaps. I guess people using them for ratting by assigning fighters to a subcap and having the carrier safe at a POS will complain, but I don't really care since I don't get my ISK with ratting. And TBH, if they want to use fighters they should put their carrier or super on the line.

With regards to fighters warping, I don't think it's really necessary to remove it. Removing fighter assignment already kills the so-called 'skynet' tactic, so I don't really see the necessity to kill fighter warping. Fighter warping in itself isn't really a problem if they can't be assigned.
Mike Azariah
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#819 - 2015-03-02 20:14:01 UTC
d0cTeR9 wrote:


So what about AFK cloakers? Intelligence Gathering cloakers? Off-Grid Boosters? Cloak boosters?

All of those are the same as skynet, you don't put your ship in danger. Hey, let's force the rorqual in asteroid belts, it's only fair after all...

Since you and a few other's missed the message/point, let me make it clear: We are NOT saying it's expecting to be fine for ever, that's why we are suggesting work around like modules not boosting fighters, no fighter assignment near POS, fighters no longer follow hostiles in warp, etc.

FT Diomedes wrote:
This whole thing makes me fear something is rotten at the heart of Eve. "We don't have a clue how to fix POS code, or off-grid boosters, or local chat, or really anything except modify a few numbers in some spreadsheets, so let's do that."


That's how it feels and looks like...


I have said before and I will say again. AFK cloakers, off grids boosters, all of those things. If they encourage you to log on and not PLAY they are bad.

Intelligence cloaking, where you are there and watching? You are playing, I have no beef with them anymore than I think snipers in the military should wear dayglo orange.

m

Mike Azariah  ┬──┬ ¯|(ツ)/¯
Byson1
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#820 - 2015-03-02 20:22:47 UTC
Kane Carnifex wrote:
Skynet, an overview and suggestions review

...

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


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 :)




Well said.
The whole point of this nerf is -
A CCM and a few with load voices wants the game to be easier. They get CCP to change mechanics for their advantage.

my opinion:
A FLEET WITH A CARRIER should have an advantage. IT SHOULD take effort to hunt it down and kill it at a POS or where ever. LEAVE IT ALONE

you want options:
learn how to target, kite fighters, they are more expensive than your frig ships you bring to greif miners. Risk vs Reward right?
There is nothing wrong with this. It's worked for those who have come before you.

The current mechanics of carrier dps takes more pilots to do a bit of dps, with these mechanics level of work it takes to kill capitals represents the risk reward it should be- rather than carrier pilots have all the risk at a gate and a reward of woot you killed a frig good job.