Player Features and Ideas Discussion

My two cents on this being a cap pilot and having utilized fighters for other purposes besides skynetting. I believe if your going to put your fighters out of field you yourself should be on grid as well placing the risk/reward out there.

Another option that has been mentioned has been to restrict what ship class can receive fighters as well cruisers and above I believe would be a good start point for this with the exception of t3's because of the shear dps and or tank capabilities they have.

Made my day :)

doing a classic QFT !

Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, as there are currently 49 pages to sift through. I just read the original post, and eve news article, and the solution while having minimal gameplay and functionality complaints is so simple and apparent to me.

Keep fighter assist.
Its one of the primary things that makes carriers and supers something that new players want to fly. Its part of their heritage if you will, without getting too wordy. Im sure others have mentioned all the various pros and cons. I say fighter assist is a keeper.

Keep fighter warping.
This is what makes fighters special, and obviously allows you to provide some assistance for your mates while at the same time attempting to provide yourself some measure of safety.

The goal here seems to be to limit the potential abuses of retaining fighter assist in its current form; ie inty fleets with 5 fighters each. that's just silly.


Assigning fighters currently requires that the recipient pilot be able to field drones, and is then limited to only controlling the same # of fighters as the # of drones they are currently trained to be capable of fielding. This does not factor their current ship's drone bandwidth in any way. Fighters require a much greater bandwidth each, and as such no sub-capital ship would ordinarily be able to field even a single fighter.


THE SIMPLE SOLUTION::::

Make fighters require 25m bandwidth (same as heavy's for purposes of assisting) be available to the recipient pilots' ship for control purposes. Limit the # of assignable fighters to a given pilot based on the recipient pilots' current ship bandwidth values, after factoring in all skills. Also force abandon the recipient pilots in space drones (if any), and do not allow the recipient pilot to launch any drones beyond their bandwidth limit if they have fighters currently assisting them. Obviously the carrier pilot would still be limited by the current fighter bandwidth requirements vs. ship/skill capabilities for launching purposes themselves.

This obviously means that only a couple frig sized ships could receive fighter assistance, and even then would be limited to only 1 or 2 with max skills and no other drones to compliment the fighters.
Cruiser class and up would potentially be able to receive the current 5 fighter max limit.

Yes I know this would technically be a buff primarily for drone boats, and YES I know drone boats are currently the LEAST in need of a buff.....

BUT....

In my humble opinion it should be becoming more apparent than ever to ccp, that they kinda over-buffed gallente. Im not hating; Im a huge gallente ship fan, but I can admit when things are a bit tilted. In fact ccp has already announced changes to rails and the Ishtar/sentries, specifically because ccp wont do broad drone>ship changes. For the record im NOT in favor of making the following suggested changes, just providing an alternative to the "-2.5% this, and -15% to this other" crap that seems to be the new(old) fever @ ccp.


Either

A: Keep all gallente and related drones/sentries the same, and just buff the drone bays and bandwidth of the other race's ships,

OR

B: make minor reductions to gallente drone bays and bandwidth

I mean these last two suggestions not JUST for gallente drone boats, but all primarily drone related ships. Again, IF they(ccp) insist on doing such adjustments at all.

What im certain of, is that they should NOT turn off fighter warping OR fighter assist. Keep both and find another way.

I'm against removing fighter assist completely.

What about having carriers being required to assign fighters only on grid.

Fighters will only warp when returning to the carrier if the carrier left grid.

I took the time to read 5 pages oOo..

So to wrap it up:
- Empire control of electronics prohibits delegation/assist of fighters in Lowsec.

- NullSec is anarchy and player driven, so fighter delegation is allowed in this area.
- Fighter delegation to use bandwith, which will preferr drone boats and BS (which needs a buff anyway)
- Remove buff from ACTIVE modules in mid slots. It overpowers the tracking entirely, also removes the drone navigation buff.
- Most supers can mostly only use 10 drones anyway, restrict each super to max 10 drones by prohibiting the usage of capital Drone Link for supers, while carriers can still use it (as carriers has way lower DPS).
- Fighter delegation has to be outside 20km from the Forcefield of any POS. To ensure there is no absolutely safety for delegating, and to ensure super and carrier will have some kind of tank and not overpower the drones in low slots.
- Make POS go shields UP automatically when onlining it, so the online stick trick cant be used. too much safety for cyno's and delegated fighters.
- Make fighters warp core pointable, so we can actually kill them.
- If delegated ship cloak up, fighters return to super/carrier.

Its not arbitrary, its necessary as you can not get bubbled in lowsec, and you will have to do risk vs reward and be on grid. Any HAC a super / carrier can shoot down anyway pretty easy. But a interdictor can tackle for 3 min after it gets shot down with the bubble.

Fighter delegation doesnt shuffle it around, with drone bandwith, it ensures small noob ships cant get fighters, and also fast locking interceptors and shuttles and pods.

Goddamnit CCP!!!! Stop removing features just because you failed balancing the mechanics!

What about just to tighten the regulations in low sec, like carriers have to be ~10, 20 or 50km of the force field. Thats enough!

Well cynos are a whole other kettle of fish.

It looks like the naysayers have given up because they know that this is a bullsh1t move.
Why is always that when someone feels they are getting squished, features get removed, rather than fixed or adjusted to reflect a true balance? Balance by definition means
to serve as a counterpoise to; counterbalance; offset:

Nerf, by video game defintiion is: a nerf is a change to a game that makes something less effective or desirable

So let's get terms right; stop calling this hack job "balancing" you aren't making a counter to carriers, you are making them less effective.

So what's the plan? Give us some transparency. Do you want to eliminate carriers, supers and titans from the game? Be up front and tell us. Don't just nickle and dime us to death with "making less effective". If you want balance, make other things more effective, to the extent of what you are actually trying to balance.

You want to balance "Skynet"? Fine, balance it, the counter to "Skynet" is to force the carrier away from the pos, make is less easily available to turn on pos shields (which i think is a sh1tty tactic anyway). For example, a distance factor; 50km from the tower is a reasonable distance. It takes a long time to slow boat into the shields from that distance (approximately what 15km to edge of shield?) so you force the carrier to be aligned to a safe and to warp to the safe to escape. That's balance.

This eliminating features is just pushing capitals out the door.

Change is good, Change is dangerous and it takes brave people to make changes to something that is as old as eve online.

That said. I do not support removing fighter assignment, even though i never used it myself.

The problem is skynet behaviour, not assigning the fighters.

Skynet behaviour is indeed a problem with safety from POS.

Disable any drone assignment when within 500km of a structure. Interference from the object in space. make a good lore. everybody happy.