These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
mannyman
Relics United
#941 - 2015-03-03 21:39:48 UTC
Another thing to consider,

Its the tracking modules in mid-slot thats the problem with fighters, the active omnis give way better tracking, why not just remove module enhancement to fighters when they are delegated/assisted (or offgrid from super or carrier) ? That makes it harder to track and damage wont get out of proportions
Smoothlezz
4Th Horsman
#942 - 2015-03-03 21:41:31 UTC
if you want feedback here it is:

ppl will sell their capital ships if someone will buy them or just warp to anomalies to get their insurance from it with nothing fitted
what are the use for a capital ship if it cant assist due to carrier role ingame is = as i get it support so hes supporting other player/alt with fighters or remote repairing/shield boosting

my point is with the cutting of jump range for capitals was ok and i said nothing
but no use for carriers after sov change in next patches and huge nerf for fighters and their unicness
so yeah i guess ill get my insurance after the fighters are gone from game...

my point is carrier is a support ship and should stay like that

i dont agree with it and never will carriers are unique and should stay like that i think you already noticed its the shiptype i like the most in game :)

p.s: plz dont listen to whole those ppl who cry about getting killed by fast ship with fighters or something like that
p.s.s: I AND MORE LIKE ME DONT CRY WHEN THEY GET SUICIDED IN HIGH SEC


p.s.s.s: short jump range cant assist and soon cant go triage....
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#943 - 2015-03-03 21:46:29 UTC
Smoothlezz wrote:
if you want feedback here it is:

ppl will sell their capital ships if someone will buy them or just warp to anomalies to get their insurance from it with nothing fitted
what are the use for a capital ship if it cant assist due to carrier role ingame is = as i get it support so hes supporting other player/alt with fighters or remote repairing/shield boosting

my point is with the cutting of jump range for capitals was ok and i said nothing
but no use for carriers after sov change in next patches and huge nerf for fighters and their unicness
so yeah i guess ill get my insurance after the fighters are gone from game...

my point is carrier is a support ship and should stay like that

i dont agree with it and never will carriers are unique and should stay like that i think you already noticed its the shiptype i like the most in game :)

p.s: plz dont listen to whole those ppl who cry about getting killed by fast ship with fighters or something like that
p.s.s: I AND MORE LIKE ME DONT CRY WHEN THEY GET SUICIDED IN HIGH SEC


p.s.s.s: short jump range cant assist and soon cant go triage....


I though people were selling their capital when the jump range were nerfed. Is it the same people who will again sell their capital because they can't apply thousand of DPS off grid?
Aya Nova
Bearded BattleBears
#944 - 2015-03-03 21:50:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Aya Nova
Fighter Warping - This is a unique mechanic that sets fighters apart from just being "extra heavy drones". It should be preserved. If chasing off-grid is a problem it can be fixed by adding a "Allow fighter warp" checkbox in the drones menu (same one we set Aggressive/Defensive

Fighter Assign - Again, a unique mechanic which I think is important to be nerfed but preserved.

Why keep it?

  • Variety in what you can do and how you can do it makes for deeper, more interesting, more varied gameplay
  • Strategies which mix multiple roles / ship classes are more interesting than single ship-type blobs
  • Preserves the a facet of the unique abilities of a carrier


How?
Limit assigning and the quantity of assign to certain classes of ships. These numbers are examples, but something along these lines:

  • Shuttles, frigates, destroyers, T3 cruisers: 0 fighters
  • Cruisers: 1 fighter
  • Battlecruisers: 2 fighters
  • Command ships: 4 fighters
  • Battleships: 4 fighters
  • Carriers/supercarriers: As many as they could control of their own
  • Titans: Any? Assigning to titans isn't an issue, and one could much cheaper field a super instead.


Why only cruisers and up? The curent issue with fighter assigned is their use from ships that are very cheap, expendable, fast to assign massive DPS with no risk. Limiting (and scaling) the amount of assign to slower, heavier, more expensive ships eliminates this issue.

Maintaining this mechanic can also gives a situational advantage to non-drone ships (current meta numbers are largely based on ishtars and T3s. Amongst battleships the Dominix is the most prevalent). It also provides some pluses to BC/BS ships (which are close to extinct in the PvP meta). Similarly command ships are seen far too little on grid, and being able to control better than their peers is something that fits in the idea of commander.

Why no fighters for T3s? - They are a strong ship class that is heavily used in the current meta. Lore-wise, their distinct technology provides an easy explanation for the inability to interface.
Davir Sometaww
Spooks On Pings
SE7EN-SINS
#945 - 2015-03-03 21:54:29 UTC
Can we get an update from a blue on the current stance on this?

Its such a simple fix; just like you did with boosters. Removing it would remove a unique style of gameplay.
Smoothlezz
4Th Horsman
#946 - 2015-03-03 21:55:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Smoothlezz
Aya Nova wrote:
Why no fighters for T3s? - They are a strong ship class that is heavily used in the current meta. Lore-wise, their distinct technology provides an easy explanation for the inability to interface.


---T3 to be nurfed aswell....

Aya Nova wrote:
Fighter Warping - This is a unique mechanic that sets fighters apart from just being "extra heavy drones". It should be preserved. If chasing off-grid is a problem it can be fixed by adding a "Allow fighter warp" checkbox in the drones menu (same one we set Aggressive/Defensive.


---Agree with that should be able to choose if you want them to warp away or not

how about a mechanic like mobile tracktor beams or depot have for example 20km range away from pos or station cant launch fighters and fighter bombers (due to their heaviness and fear of bumping the station)?
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#947 - 2015-03-03 22:18:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
mannyman wrote:
Another thing to consider,

Its the tracking modules in mid-slot thats the problem with fighters, the active omnis give way better tracking, why not just remove module enhancement to fighters when they are delegated/assisted (or offgrid from super or carrier) ? That makes it harder to track and damage wont get out of proportions


Its been suggested a few times in this and the related threads.

It would go a long way to fixing the problem but I kind of like where fighters have finally got to (outside of skynet use) and that takes away from it - albeit maybe it would need to happen but IMO a better fix would be to make the sig component have more weight in the chance to hit so even if the fighter tracking is good enough to bring its damage to smaller stuff it still wouldn't hit reliably due to the difference between the fighter turret sig res and the target signature res. I'm not sure it can really be accomplished just by increasing the turret sig on the fighters or not - more likely to really kill over the top skynet use against smaller roaming gangs it would need to be implemented in similar style to titan's turrets.

As an aside I think it would be a good change for sentries too as it would go a long way to balancing ishtars without otherwise shaking them up.
Dean Dewitt
Universal Force Army
Neutral Lands Association
#948 - 2015-03-03 22:20:25 UTC
I understood the reason they didn't listen to us (the people who don't want the assignement remove), they don't want us to use the assignement for the next step for the 0.0 sov. It would be too easy to defend the sov with fighter assignement.
Smoothlezz
4Th Horsman
#949 - 2015-03-03 22:25:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Smoothlezz
Dean Dewitt wrote:
I understood the reason they didn't listen to us (the people who don't want the assignement remove), they don't want us to use the assignement for the next step for the 0.0 sov. It would be too easy to defend the sov with fighter assignement.


ccp said main reason for removal is small ships killin small ships in pvp using fighters not related to next sov changes even so bring carrier to sov fight get other capital ships on youre head even so if youre atacking or defending both sides will bring capital ships and there will be fleet fights i dont think fighter asignment will be the winner of those sov wars

even if the sov war changes doesnt mean everyone will stop using capital ships altho they dident think they probably remove the dreadnoughts role from the game if sov structures dont need to be atacked...and if they cut off the fighters there will be no cap in anything in game well only if they allow it into high sec for lvl 4 missions and incursions:D
Dean Dewitt
Universal Force Army
Neutral Lands Association
#950 - 2015-03-03 22:41:39 UTC
Yeah but it's in the same package, small and big ships, in the next sov patch, it would be so easy to add fighters dps to any ships. So if people want to use the fighter dps, they will have to put their carrier/mothership on the field, it would have been easy to defend with the assignement.

Maybe they didn't think about it either, but they have to make capitals more useful.
Smoothlezz
4Th Horsman
#951 - 2015-03-03 22:47:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Smoothlezz
Dean Dewitt wrote:
Yeah but it's in the same package, small and big ships, in the next sov patch, it would be so easy to add fighters dps to any ships. So if people want to use the fighter dps, they will have to put their carrier/mothership on the field, it would have been easy to defend with the assignement.

Maybe they didn't think about it either, but they have to make capitals more useful.


you probably havent read about new sov changes you will have to change systems for taking control over a system
what means to assing fighters as you think as it now they will have to have pos or station in every system so the carriers will be safe

in other words the atackers will have to put pos in the whole constalletion prior the atack too much logistics and isk as i see it to take one system and they will have to go though the gates (or jump 1 system at a time = fatigue)

what im trying to say is fighter assigment will be harder with the new sov system if you think about it more technically
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#952 - 2015-03-03 23:29:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Panther X
I mean really, I never used skynet to rat. (not like that clown with the Revenant anyway)

If I want to rat with my super, I will. Don't nerf it into the ground so I can't even create content for these lonely lowsec t1 frigates who so insist that it's their right to tackle me with 2 Atrons and an Ibis. Please give them the Drifter Doomsday too, that way they can't complain about Supers being overpowered.

Lol

Seriously, CCP, please put this on the back burner, for now. Supers and carriers are not the Evil Incarnate (TM) of the game right now. There is a lot more that is broken that needs to be addressed. This is such a small part of the game, that really only a small part of the community b!tches about it.

Fix ECM, fix T3's and Ishtars.

With so many changes to Null Sov and all the changes to jump drives, our big shinies need a break from the nerf bat.

Not to go back to the Real World example of carriers.. ok I have to, but this is a valid example.

The US carrier fleets patrolling the oceans around the world are a perfect example of the way that supers and carriers are, right now. Yes, they do their dirty work hundreds of miles from hostile shores, with a near impenetrable bubble of defensive aircraft, Aegis command ships, and support ships.

Why would they risk a multi-billion dollar ship by going right into the port of a hostile nation, where every terrorist with an rpg and a Koran can shoot at it with impunity?
This is what carriers and supers are designed to do. Attack targets from a safe distance, minimizing risk to such a valuable and terrifying resource.

What these lowsec guys are saying is that CCP should strip away the defensive fleet, the Aegis cruisers, the ECM planes, the high powered Ewar on the ship, the CIWS defense, so that Somalian pirates in a Zodiac with ak47s can come and try to sink it.

How on Earth or Amarr does that even remotely make sense?

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Dread Operative
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#953 - 2015-03-03 23:55:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Dread Operative
This is such an EASY fix, don't allow carriers to assign fighters within (X)k of POS shield. They already have the mechanic available; siphons, depots, cynos, etc etc. Carriers would continue to be useful while adding tons of vulnerability.
Davir Sometaww
Spooks On Pings
SE7EN-SINS
#954 - 2015-03-04 01:04:09 UTC
Panther X wrote:
I mean really, I never used skynet to rat. (not like that clown with the Revenant anyway)

If I want to rat with my super, I will. Don't nerf it into the ground so I can't even create content for these lonely lowsec t1 frigates who so insist that it's their right to tackle me with 2 Atrons and an Ibis. Please give them the Drifter Doomsday too, that way they can't complain about Supers being overpowered.

Lol

Seriously, CCP, please put this on the back burner, for now. Supers and carriers are not the Evil Incarnate (TM) of the game right now. There is a lot more that is broken that needs to be addressed. This is such a small part of the game, that really only a small part of the community b!tches about it.

Fix ECM, fix T3's and Ishtars.

With so many changes to Null Sov and all the changes to jump drives, our big shinies need a break from the nerf bat.

Not to go back to the Real World example of carriers.. ok I have to, but this is a valid example.

The US carrier fleets patrolling the oceans around the world are a perfect example of the way that supers and carriers are, right now. Yes, they do their dirty work hundreds of miles from hostile shores, with a near impenetrable bubble of defensive aircraft, Aegis command ships, and support ships.

Why would they risk a multi-billion dollar ship by going right into the port of a hostile nation, where every terrorist with an rpg and a Koran can shoot at it with impunity?
This is what carriers and supers are designed to do. Attack targets from a safe distance, minimizing risk to such a valuable and terrifying resource.

What these lowsec guys are saying is that CCP should strip away the defensive fleet, the Aegis cruisers, the ECM planes, the high powered Ewar on the ship, the CIWS defense, so that Somalian pirates in a Zodiac with ak47s can come and try to sink it.

How on Earth or Amarr does that even remotely make sense?


QFT -this hits the spot. When I think of carriers; I think of the one game that made me fall in love with space. Wing Commander.
Ramases Purvanen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#955 - 2015-03-04 02:19:16 UTC
Sieur NewT wrote:
i'm against removing fighter assist.

removing it is a bad idea.
if you do that, super cap will be useless
it's BAD

and near force field, supercap is not "safe"
a titan can jump in 1 seconde and DD
it's not safe
it's juste "less dangerous"

i agree to nerf A LITTLE fighter assist, but not HEAVY nerf
i agree to make impossible to assign to inty's
but i think assist super's fighter to carrier MUST stay.


so, please, CCP, don't do that this way. let the super assist to carrier. carrier only if you want.


and for fighter you can warp or not, let them warp when they are assist, and not when they are not assist.

thx you and do the right thing. :)


I concur with this, if CCP goes ahead and removes the feature all together then there isn't much point to owning a carrier except for triage and moving ships long distances in the cargo hold. (maybe i should convert it to a gas miner in wormholes)

CCP will be losing multiple monthly paid active subscriptions due to this change and I know of other people who will be doing the same as carriers will be rendered useless!

Thanks CCP yet again for screwing up the game... (mainly Rise with the Nerfbat which gets wielded too often!
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#956 - 2015-03-04 02:34:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Panther X
Dread Operative wrote:
This is such an EASY fix, don't allow carriers to assign fighters within (X)k of POS shield. They already have the mechanic already; siphons, depots, cynos, etc etc. Carriers would continue to be useful while adding tons of vulnerability.


...and bingo was his name-o.

CCP, take some advice from bittervets on this. The carrier mechanic is working AS INTENDED, really. Carriers and Supers are force projectors. If you force them on-grid because some lowsec jackwagon with a chip on his shoulder cause he can't hold sov says "assists r bad", well you are taking a step towards alienating the bittervets who have put hundreds, even thousands of training hours into these monsterous machinations of death and cosmic destruction.

What this change is effectively doing, as so many of my brethren have eloquently (some not so) stated is turning carriers into jump capable Bowheads. Just a bigger truck carrier like you see blocking up your town's main drag while they offload a bunch of Toyotas.

Do you really see carriers as a delivery service for Camrys, or as the USS Ranger? A floating city, with the offensive capability to turn any rogue nation's rickety old collection of MIG-29's into so much burning scrap?

Carriers are the FedEx of destruction and the UPS of Foreign Policy. Don't turn it into Ted's Bike Couriers.

Yours Truly,

Panther X

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
Trinkets friend
Sudden Buggery
Sending Thots And Players
#957 - 2015-03-04 03:28:06 UTC
Rroff wrote:
mannyman wrote:
Another thing to consider,

Its the tracking modules in mid-slot thats the problem with fighters, the active omnis give way better tracking, why not just remove module enhancement to fighters when they are delegated/assisted (or offgrid from super or carrier) ? That makes it harder to track and damage wont get out of proportions


Its been suggested a few times in this and the related threads.

It would go a long way to fixing the problem but I kind of like where fighters have finally got to (outside of skynet use) and that takes away from it - albeit maybe it would need to happen but IMO a better fix would be to make the sig component have more weight in the chance to hit so even if the fighter tracking is good enough to bring its damage to smaller stuff it still wouldn't hit reliably due to the difference between the fighter turret sig res and the target signature res. I'm not sure it can really be accomplished just by increasing the turret sig on the fighters or not - more likely to really kill over the top skynet use against smaller roaming gangs it would need to be implemented in similar style to titan's turrets.

As an aside I think it would be a good change for sentries too as it would go a long way to balancing ishtars without otherwise shaking them up.


I have said on the Ishtar thread already that the roblem isn't the ship itself, or its drones, it is the proliferation of drone buff modules.

i agree that this needs looking at. The whole tracking and gun res thing is a piece of maths that I agree CCP needs to really get to grips with in some fashion...because sig tanking is basically the only game in town for anything except drone ships, who get a variety of high slot, midslot and low slot modules to jeck up their drone parameters.

i mean, look at the typical Skynet carrier - it is entirely tankless and just loaded down with DDA's, omnis, drone control units, tracking links, blah blah blah. Maybe even capital drone rigs if they go all out. What starts as moderately balanced is pushed into a really ludicrous place.

The problem with your logic and reasoning is, basically, CCP doesn't do logic and reasoning. Secondly, the players will just adapt with 10MN Daredevils, or Ashimmu, se-bo's HICs, you name it, there will be a way (probably Garmur and Hyena related) to keep Skynet viable...or viable versus a wide variety of cruiser sized targets.

The only ways to really stop Skynet is, a) ensure no fighter assign when <40km from a POS shield (a small risk of hotdrop) or remove it entirely.

~~ Localectomy Blog ~~
Ramases Purvanen
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#958 - 2015-03-04 03:41:43 UTC
Panther X wrote:
Dread Operative wrote:
This is such an EASY fix, don't allow carriers to assign fighters within (X)k of POS shield. They already have the mechanic already; siphons, depots, cynos, etc etc. Carriers would continue to be useful while adding tons of vulnerability.


...and bingo was his name-o.

CCP, take some advice from bittervets on this. The carrier mechanic is working AS INTENDED, really. Carriers and Supers are force projectors. If you force them on-grid because some lowsec jackwagon with a chip on his shoulder cause he can't hold sov says "assists r bad", well you are taking a step towards alienating the bittervets who have put hundreds, even thousands of training hours into these monsterous machinations of death and cosmic destruction.

What this change is effectively doing, as so many of my brethren have eloquently (some not so) stated is turning carriers into jump capable Bowheads. Just a bigger truck carrier like you see blocking up your town's main drag while they offload a bunch of Toyotas.

Do you really see carriers as a delivery service for Camrys, or as the USS Ranger? A floating city, with the offensive capability to turn any rogue nation's rickety old collection of MIG-29's into so much burning scrap?

Carriers are the FedEx of destruction and the UPS of Foreign Policy. Don't turn it into Ted's Bike Couriers.

Yours Truly,

Panther X


You do notice that the only people bitching and whinging for these changes are people who cant fly carriers/never will fly carriers and cant afford carriers. Why alienate the people who do choose to fly them and take the risk of having an expensive ship! Seriously CCP....
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#959 - 2015-03-04 05:46:09 UTC
Our solution is simple methinks.

Kickstarter: Adam Online.

the new home of Capital ships.

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Elg'caress Estanesse
HUN Corp.
HUN Reloaded
#960 - 2015-03-04 06:18:11 UTC
There are a lot of things in EVE that are almost unavoidable or really hard to counter. Pipebomb, logon trap, hotdrop, (counter hotdrop), offgrid boosters, falcon alts, afk cloaking, the list goes on. Hell, its square and fair to suicide gank a ship worth hundreds of millions with a 2-4 million isk ship... where is the risk/reward and fairness in that? But somehow assisting fighters is the new devil and every other things are just fine... or will they be removed to?

And the most frightening thing isnt that assist gets removed: it is that the answer to an issue is the removal of a feature, no effort taken to fix/balance it, no answer given, why the community proposed fixes would not work.

Furthermore: After the upcoming sov changes and the forceprojection nerfs plese tell me, what are the purposes of a carrier? Ahh sorry, I get it now: their main and probably only purpose is to satisfy bored titan pilots for a DD driveby...