These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1401 - 2015-04-04 11:55:20 UTC
Khan Wrenth wrote:
Rroff wrote:
The writings on the wall I'm afraid and we simply aren't valued as customers.

2 accounts down, one expires in a few hours and 8 days left on Rroff.

(Not playing brinkmanship or emo rage quitting - seems my play style isn't compatible with this game any more).


Just remember to contract your stuff to UAE before you go.


In all seriousness can't actually contract a lot of my assets - either being in w-space logged off or other reasons.
Madchen Sterben
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#1402 - 2015-04-06 20:05:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Madchen Sterben
Please please please STOP killing capitals.


Solution #1
1) Do not allow fighter assist while the ship is within 500 km of a corp / owned force shield. This stops the very problem you "claim" to be fixing.

Solution #2
2) The new POS system with docking/mooring resolves this issue, No more force fields. No need to break more capitals and give false reasons for doing so.

Solution #3
3) Allow all carrier pilots to trade there 4+ years of carrier training into Plex. Showing respect to your loyal paying customers. Great for customer PR also.
godtallon boomer
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1403 - 2015-04-07 03:03:18 UTC  |  Edited by: godtallon boomer
i think there is something like this in progress already but make the fighters a thing like dust take them out other then when someone is controling the ship in first person i dont know how pratical it is but i thought it would take controle of the problems and give more control to fleet battles and stuff like that again im sorry if this has been talked about already iv been away for a while and iv been hopeing eve would go to the same path as dust and add the ships up to destroyers in the game and that would make the allience battles a lil more about skill and tatics and make players not have to change as much
Barbara Nichole
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#1404 - 2015-04-07 06:15:57 UTC
I'm not really in favor of removing the assist in the case of drones or fighters. It's a unique and interesting feature of carrier use.

  - remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not  "afk" cloaking -

[IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Glenn Eastland
SNAZZ PATROL
#1405 - 2015-04-08 16:50:12 UTC
i think ccp should stop changing everything all the time in general its crazy! people are going to find loopholes and find tricks you cant just keep stepping in and changing the game mechanics when they do!! you are hurting all the people that use the features in a productive and fun way, and not just this but every thing you "re-balance" aka nerf. ccp's input on the situation is that its "unfair" or to powerful and you take away every ships unique feature and ability's, im sorry but there is no 'unfairness' to eve everyone has the same chance to get the same ships with time, it should be a completely free world open market game like it once was. if your ship is getting blown up suck it up and get a different ship, that's all not have ccp make the other ship less powerful, i use my legion for missions and in another one of these patch notes you nerfed its armor hp??? why ? because it was too powerful for others to kill in pvp, for those people i say stop using t1 fit garbage and upgrade to your own t3, if you cant kill a ship with what you are currently flying trade ships,,, simple... dont engage a more powerful ship if you cant do it then have ccp nerf it when you lose.. i fly every race and every "re balance" has never helped and has only hurt all the ships ive ever flown, so yes this is a horrible idea to take away drone assist so is every other nerf you've ever done. if you truly must "re balance" then stop nerfing and give more attributes to other ships, instead of me waking up to an offline turret case power grid is different 10 percent less hp and 1 less turret hard point making me have to totally refit and have a ship that's not worth half what i paid for it and i can no longer use it for what i use it for......
Glenn Eastland
SNAZZ PATROL
#1406 - 2015-04-08 16:54:55 UTC
what i pay for in this game is relative to the money i give you ccp and if im dumping money into a game for a monthly sub and dumping money into the game to buy the ships i want and then you take away their significance you are taking money from me and hurting loyal paying customers that are keeping this game online, you are driving away all your older based cash cow capital pilots and that's just bad business
Hibiki Fox
LEGION OF PROFESSOR CHAOS
#1407 - 2015-04-08 18:48:22 UTC
Over the years capitals have became giant piles of floating trash.


Their survivability was completely destroyed were a few small ships can now blow one to hell without it every putting up much of a fight.

The reason capitals are used in the way they are now is all the previous nerfs they were given.

"Our fleet of 10 frigates can't blow up this multi billion Isk, massive carrier"

Better nerf capitals

"These ships that are clearly designed to support ENTIRE fleets are keeping our gank squad from killing Isk"

Better nerf capitals

"OMFG why are there so many drones?"

Better nerf capitals

"I can't stop it from warping or jumping? Come on CCP my 100k frigate can completely screw over this multi billion isk ship right?"

Better nerf capitals

" This capital ship that is completely useless except for giving smaller ships the ability to shoot other smaller ships is sitting at a POS, not doing it's intended job of supporting a fleet... and we can't kill it because it will just run inside the bubble...."

Well, you are right! Better nerf capitals....

How about you revisit all the nerfs to armor, shields, modules, support, abilities, drone usage, drone limits, survivability, roles in fleet combat, before you needlessly remove a feature of the game that CCP yourselves have basically shoved the carrier into.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1408 - 2015-04-08 22:45:44 UTC
Glenn Eastland wrote:
what i pay for in this game is relative to the money i give you ccp and if im dumping money into a game for a monthly sub and dumping money into the game to buy the ships i want and then you take away their significance you are taking money from me and hurting loyal paying customers that are keeping this game online, you are driving away all your older based cash cow capital pilots and that's just bad business


It's a MMO. If you don't expect stuff to change, you are thinking wrong.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1409 - 2015-04-08 23:51:16 UTC
Glenn Eastland wrote:
what i pay for in this game is relative to the money i give you ccp and if im dumping money into a game for a monthly sub and dumping money into the game to buy the ships i want and then you take away their significance you are taking money from me and hurting loyal paying customers that are keeping this game online, you are driving away all your older based cash cow capital pilots and that's just bad business

And what about the rest of the paying customers?
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#1410 - 2015-04-09 02:10:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Rowells wrote:
Glenn Eastland wrote:
what i pay for in this game is relative to the money i give you ccp and if im dumping money into a game for a monthly sub and dumping money into the game to buy the ships i want and then you take away their significance you are taking money from me and hurting loyal paying customers that are keeping this game online, you are driving away all your older based cash cow capital pilots and that's just bad business

And what about the rest of the paying customers?


Butt is x14 Rank skillbook? vOv

BTW, moms on grid could be becoming a thingg - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3U4R9iBqJ7I

Bhaal/Rattlesnake x2 gang dropped by a Hel at a gate. Pirate

That's after they took down a T3, two battleships and a BC under an enemy Chimera and a Thanatos in a separate engagement - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mY7Iin3AtzY

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1411 - 2015-04-09 02:14:20 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:

It's a MMO. If you don't expect stuff to change, you are thinking wrong.


I don't think it unreasonable as a paying customer to expect a little more care put into the change of a feature that takes a significant amount of investment however.

Rowells wrote:

And what about the rest of the paying customers?


Approaching that from a slight tangent - skynet was bad and wrong and pretty much everyone accepts that it needed to change that doesn't automatically mean that that problem validates any and all change to carriers/fighters (even if people who don't fly capitals might think anything that removes skynet is good) - its not like there weren't other options for ending skynet.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#1412 - 2015-04-09 02:17:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Skynet was cancer and you know it.

Fighters reaching ceptor speeds, while controlled by other ceptors.

Reminds me of another Skynet-type scenario from years ago that spelled game over for anyone caught by it - Nanophoons. Pirate

Risk - reward, get gud.

P.S. Oh, I'm going to read this thread from Page 1 while touching myself.

...Zooooah!..

Tiberian Deci wrote:
As someone training Advanced Drone Interfacing V so i could ~elite PvP~ from a POS with my Thanatos like PL, this makes me sad.

Overall I think the game will be better if it goes though.


This man takes it like a man. Cool

I can barely walk myself from all of the action over the years. I think 8 HS Armageddons were my most Sacred thing.

And Nanophoons... Phoooons...

God, why did they have to go away...

Oh God, WHY.·´¯`(>▂<)´¯`·.

Ab'del Abu wrote:

Please do explain how sitting at the edge of a force field feels like flying a carrier Big smile

Carriers are, first and foremost, a logistics platform. Hence the triage module and boni to remote reps and cap transfers, SMA, fitting services. These features by themselves are well worth the price tags attached to them.

Fighter assign is very much like offgrid boosting (to be removed at some time in the future as CCP stated multiple times already) and the cyno-doomsdays of the old days which got removed too ...

I for one am happy to see that CCP is trying to establish some kind of consistency in their game design.


Pls don't use the word "boni".

Pls

Jamy Lannister wrote:
Whoever wants this change, obviously doesnt know how to add drones to overview and use their brain.


My colleague from the Hedion University is a little special: he likes to fit Nanus and shield tank on all drone ships. Last time he's flown a laser ship was in the year YC108.

Ministry of Education has been informed about this unethical behavior. (⌐■_■)

Ab'del Abu wrote:
titan Multi3 wrote:
Their logistics platform is guess what, dependent on play style.

Half/Half split between DPS/triage support.

Instead you choose to believe YOUR play style is the only play style.


You can use your carrier for mining for all I care. This is not about that. It's about a very powerful game mechanic that is hardly balanceable to begin with and very similar to other mechanics that CCP removed already or is committed to remove at some point in the future


Re-thinking the role of carriers and motherships:

Mining Superdrones and a bonus to mining yield to be replaced on all carriers.

Gallente get 7.5% more mining yield.

Very reasonable proposal.

ORE Carrier pls. ༼ つ ◕_◕ ༽つ

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#1413 - 2015-04-09 04:13:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Frostys Virpio wrote:
titan Multi3 wrote:

Comparing AOE DD's and fighter assist is a TAD of a long stretch.


Remote DD was kind of using a weapon system from off grid no?


You could fire them thru cynos. Pirate

XavierVE wrote:


One Nyx assigning fighters to a single T3 is enough to kill a 20 man AF fleet with logi from the safety of POS shields.

If you want to do DPS, be on grid. Pretty simple stuff, there. Fact is, a solid 75% of the people crying in this thread are renters or carebear deep null ratters. Of course they like fighter assist. Makes the game incredibly easy for them.

This is EVE, not EVEasy.


Hi5. Goodpoast.

Drigo Segvian wrote:
End fighter assist. Down with Sky net.


RISE UP, BROTHER!

The Day of Victory against the machines is at hand. ୧༼ಠ益ಠ༽୨

Mimiko Severovski wrote:
WTFFFFFF!!!!!!????

i pay 25kkk isk for nix and ccp make nix bad
how wil make isk to plex?????
this make nix bad, why make nix bad????
give nix dron bay and track bonus like ishtar ship, then nix not bad ship like rifter!!!
this kill nix if continue!!!


Smile

// [PvP Damage Done by Class (Scylla)] //

[Cruisers Online]
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1414 - 2015-04-09 12:08:18 UTC
Rroff wrote:

I don't think it unreasonable as a paying customer to expect a little more care put into the change of a feature that takes a significant amount of investment however.


I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to understand applying damage from off-grid is stupid.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1415 - 2015-04-09 12:31:47 UTC
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:
Skynet was cancer and you know it.
Fighters reaching ceptor speeds, while controlled by other ceptors.
Reminds me of another Skynet-type scenario from years ago that spelled game over for anyone caught by it - Nanophoons. Pirate
Risk - reward, get gud.

It was bad, sure, but nowhere near as bad as certain people in this thread would lead you to believe. For starters, fighters were limited 5 to a person. Even AB inties had enough muscle to run back to the gate before getting blapped, and anything larger had enough punch to kill the inty before the fighters went to work.
I would pay real money to watch you to up to that pilot of the Revenant and tell him "Skynetting has zero risk".
And finally, instead of harping on how the mechanic should be removed, tell us why the other proposed changes in this thread are bad, in 5000 words or less.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1416 - 2015-04-09 13:10:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Rroff wrote:

I don't think it unreasonable as a paying customer to expect a little more care put into the change of a feature that takes a significant amount of investment however.


I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to understand applying damage from off-grid is stupid.


Which I've demonstrated multiple times in this and the other skynet threads.

Nolak Ataru wrote:

I would pay real money to watch you to up to that pilot of the Revenant and tell him "Skynetting has zero risk".
And finally, instead of harping on how the mechanic should be removed, tell us why the other proposed changes in this thread are bad, in 5000 words or less.


Despite the fact some people didn't take proper precautions... if done properly skynet did effectively have zero risk as per my videos of 2 ways of protecting your carrier while sitting at/near the POS - and there are atleast 3 other methods that I know of (don't entirely know how to reproduce 2 of them).

I don't disagree though that people could get a lot more creative in countering skynet - a sleipnir for instance stands up pretty well to 1-2+ flights of fighters - however I still don't believe that fighters should ever be the primary source of damage as they are in a typical skynet situation especially not when being projected from off grid - I'd be fine personally if they were incidental damage and the carrier was off grid aslong as it was reasonably at risk - end of the day your not going to force people on grid who are too afraid to use their carrier other than when hiding behind skynet they'll just stop using their carriers - better IMO to mitigate the worst effects of skynet i.e. being able to blap most scout ships with ease (which would mostly mean people wouldn't bother with doing it) with reasonable risk for those who persist - atleast theres the chance of catching the odd carrier then.

My real issue though is with the nature of the change - I personally expect more care to be put into a change that impacts on something ingame that people will have spent a not inconsiderable amount of effort towards - thats ignoring the people who trained up purely to do skynet - most of the people who currently have the ability to field 15 fighters effectively would have had to have started training towards that goal before skynet was a thing and probably didn't start training something that requires multiple rank 8-12 skills without some purpose in mind (even if some of them are also applicable to other areas).
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1417 - 2015-04-09 17:17:03 UTC
Yes, yes, if done "properly" XYZ would change. If done properly, we'd be seeing Naglfar usage spike tremendously, we'd see the Pantheon fleets lose archon after archon after being volleyed off the field, we'd see this, that, and the other thing. If we balance the game based on perfect situations, it's going to be very interesting, using the Chinese definition of "interesting".

There is no reason, with their new 6 week release time, to change the carrier's behavior to disallow usage of assigned fighters within 50km or so of a Control tower (to prevent garagedoor assists) and to enable a player to warp scramble a fighter, and to give it a run for 6 weeks to see how it fares. There is such a thing as overreacting, my friend, and CCP has done just that.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1418 - 2015-04-09 18:27:03 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:

There is no reason, with their new 6 week release time, to change the carrier's behavior to disallow usage of assigned fighters within 50km or so of a Control tower (to prevent garagedoor assists) and to enable a player to warp scramble a fighter, and to give it a run for 6 weeks to see how it fares. There is such a thing as overreacting, my friend, and CCP has done just that.


This bit I whole heartedly agree with.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#1419 - 2015-04-09 18:29:39 UTC
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Yes, yes, if done "properly" XYZ would change. If done properly, we'd be seeing Naglfar usage spike tremendously, we'd see the Pantheon fleets lose archon after archon after being volleyed off the field, we'd see this, that, and the other thing. If we balance the game based on perfect situations, it's going to be very interesting, using the Chinese definition of "interesting".

There is no reason, with their new 6 week release time, to change the carrier's behavior to disallow usage of assigned fighters within 50km or so of a Control tower (to prevent garagedoor assists) and to enable a player to warp scramble a fighter, and to give it a run for 6 weeks to see how it fares. There is such a thing as overreacting, my friend, and CCP has done just that.


Unless it's a major PITA to code... The cyno for example require a module to be turned on so they probably were able to add some line of code on the item to perform the distance check before it can start and the effect can't be moved anyway as the cyno itself is in space and not on the ship. Carrier don't need any module to assist a fighter, didn't get locked into place and there was nothing to be locked in space since you could of bumped your own damn carrier as close as possible to the forcefield to just require a slight push to get it back to safety. It probably would of required them to create a new module just for that to anchor the carrier/super in space so it can't be bumped by any mean to be sure it can't be done in a similar relative safety.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1420 - 2015-04-09 19:28:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Frostys Virpio wrote:

Unless it's a major PITA to code... The cyno for example require a module to be turned on so they probably were able to add some line of code on the item to perform the distance check before it can start and the effect can't be moved anyway as the cyno itself is in space and not on the ship. Carrier don't need any module to assist a fighter, didn't get locked into place and there was nothing to be locked in space since you could of bumped your own damn carrier as close as possible to the forcefield to just require a slight push to get it back to safety. It probably would of required them to create a new module just for that to anchor the carrier/super in space so it can't be bumped by any mean to be sure it can't be done in a similar relative safety.


A carrier running some kind of triage or bastion style mod for fighter delegation even bumped up against the FF is still relatively vulnerable - a "typical" skynet fit isn't very tanky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCVsQUlP81Q even a basic 3x gyro T2 fit nag put that thanny into half shields.

(Bare in mind that in the context of that video I purposely let one hit land for demonstration reasons - in reality that nag wouldn't have got a shot off if the carrier pilot was half on the ball and with no triage or bastion style module in effect).