These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
 

[Proteus] Reduction in Fighter and Fighter Bomber scan resolution

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#541 - 2015-01-25 02:45:31 UTC
Solaris Vex wrote:
Fighters are pretty easy to counter already, just broadcast for reps.
Or outrun them they only move at 2500m/s.
Or shoot them, they're sig radius is 400m, for comparison a sabre with MWD is only 300m.

In the battle against PL last December we (HERO Coalition) destroyed fighters so rapidly that PL stopped launching them. If fighters generated killmails our isk efficiency would have been through the roof.

But nothing will stop people from complaining if they can't solo a carrier with their vagabond.

People aren't whining that fighters are bad (at least not over all) the complaint is that you don't have to really risk the carrier deploying them. I'm gonna bet that PL didn't have all those carriers circling the shields of a POS while random frigs were on the field being assisted.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#542 - 2015-01-25 03:00:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Solaris Vex wrote:
Fighters are pretty easy to counter already, just broadcast for reps.
Or outrun them they only move at 2500m/s.
Or shoot them, they're sig radius is 400m, for comparison a sabre with MWD is only 300m.

In the battle against PL last December we (HERO Coalition) destroyed fighters so rapidly that PL stopped launching them. If fighters generated killmails our isk efficiency would have been through the roof.

But nothing will stop people from complaining if they can't solo a carrier with their vagabond.


Since recent patches fighters can easily top 5km/s, their sig radius is 100m - its their guns that have a 400m sig (I believe) but with the "skynet" fits on thannies and supers they can track and apply significant damage to even tiny ships like interceptors - potentially upto ~42K alpha from a nyx.

The problem here is nothing to do with soloing a carrier with a vagabond. If your on the average casual roam and have someone drop assigned fighters from a carrier/super setup with the "skynet" fit they will alpha through smaller ships long before reps land, in heavy fights where "skynet" fits aren't feasible anyhow its a whole different ballgame.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

So your suggestion (part of which already applies, fighters can't be assigned from inside a pos) is another round of nerfs rather than a fix that doesn't reduce a carriers capability further?
Simply changing the "fighter assign" mechanic to match "drone assist" (not in drone control range = not assigned) would be the best fix and would make carriers / supers 100% vulnerable to attack.




I don't personally want to see fighters/carriers nerfed at all (I've a couple of gal carrier V, fighters V, ADI V, etc. etc. characters myself). I want to see balance in it though - currently fighters can be setup to easily apply significantly "out of class" damage and I certainly don't want to see fighter assignment become basically glorified drone assist.

The reason for the POS FF thing is due to a number of techniques that people have been using allowing them to assign fighters while making use of the safety of the POS (NOT hugging the FF) resulting in them being able to contribute significantly to a fight while realistically safe from any harm themselves.


EDIT: This is going to the crazy end of the scale but revenant assigned fighters have a 50m sig radius, can top 9.3km/s, just short of 0.9 tracking (assign to say a hyena and you could probably alpha 1 frig per fighter) and between 28 and 45K alpha depending on fighters used and somewhere in the region of 180K EHP if my maths is correct :O
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#543 - 2015-01-25 11:07:22 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Solaris Vex wrote:
Fighters are pretty easy to counter already, just broadcast for reps.
Or outrun them they only move at 2500m/s.
Or shoot them, they're sig radius is 400m, for comparison a sabre with MWD is only 300m.

In the battle against PL last December we (HERO Coalition) destroyed fighters so rapidly that PL stopped launching them. If fighters generated killmails our isk efficiency would have been through the roof.

But nothing will stop people from complaining if they can't solo a carrier with their vagabond.


Since recent patches fighters can easily top 5km/s, their sig radius is 100m - its their guns that have a 400m sig (I believe) but with the "skynet" fits on thannies and supers they can track and apply significant damage to even tiny ships like interceptors - potentially upto ~42K alpha from a nyx.

The problem here is nothing to do with soloing a carrier with a vagabond. If your on the average casual roam and have someone drop assigned fighters from a carrier/super setup with the "skynet" fit they will alpha through smaller ships long before reps land, in heavy fights where "skynet" fits aren't feasible anyhow its a whole different ballgame.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

So your suggestion (part of which already applies, fighters can't be assigned from inside a pos) is another round of nerfs rather than a fix that doesn't reduce a carriers capability further?
Simply changing the "fighter assign" mechanic to match "drone assist" (not in drone control range = not assigned) would be the best fix and would make carriers / supers 100% vulnerable to attack.




I don't personally want to see fighters/carriers nerfed at all (I've a couple of gal carrier V, fighters V, ADI V, etc. etc. characters myself). I want to see balance in it though - currently fighters can be setup to easily apply significantly "out of class" damage and I certainly don't want to see fighter assignment become basically glorified drone assist.

The reason for the POS FF thing is due to a number of techniques that people have been using allowing them to assign fighters while making use of the safety of the POS (NOT hugging the FF) resulting in them being able to contribute significantly to a fight while realistically safe from any harm themselves.


EDIT: This is going to the crazy end of the scale but revenant assigned fighters have a 50m sig radius, can top 9.3km/s, just short of 0.9 tracking (assign to say a hyena and you could probably alpha 1 frig per fighter) and between 28 and 45K alpha depending on fighters used and somewhere in the region of 180K EHP if my maths is correct :O

So your "crazy end of the scale" using the rarest ship in the game in a very niche situation, just made the best argument I have ever heard for nerfing fighter assign.
Which anyone who has read the OP can see, "it might happen" is all it takes for Devs to swing that nerf hammer wide and hard.

Fighters and Bombers are perfectly balanced for use by carriers and supers but are by some, considered OP when assigned. The only problem is, to balance the damage potential of assigned fighters would render them next to useless when being used by a super or carrier.

As for glorified drone assist, I'd be happy with that. I would rather lose a carrier fighting than have it rot away sitting in my hangar. As I said in an earlier post, I am still dumbfounded every time I assign fighters to someone 20AU from me. I can put my carrier 300 or 400 K off a gate and be pretty sure I am not going to get dropped by a massive fleet of carriers and dreads.

The skynet fit does in fact allow assigned fighters to destroy many smaller ships in 3 or 4 volleys, whereas a sabre using drone assist and often a mix of drones will alpha them. Should drone assist be nerfed yet again so smaller ships can survive gate camps?

Drone assist and fighter assign by design provide out of class damage.
Having an alt that flies dictors I believe ceptor bubble immunity gives them an unfair advantage, can we get that removed while we are removing any and all advantages.



Our new Eve in slow motion, lends itself perfectly to carriers and supers being used more but the trend all over seems to be, NO CAPS IN FLEET.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#544 - 2015-01-25 12:56:49 UTC
By "out of class" damage I'm referring to the fact that fighters with the "skynet" fit can significantly out perform the "appropriately" sized drones for a given target not that they give the ship they are assigned to out of its class damage. Hence my suggestion of using titan style damage scaling so that its harder to use them to alpha small ships.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#545 - 2015-01-25 22:16:22 UTC
Rroff wrote:
By "out of class" damage I'm referring to the fact that fighters with the "skynet" fit can significantly out perform the "appropriately" sized drones for a given target not that they give the ship they are assigned to out of its class damage. Hence my suggestion of using titan style damage scaling so that its harder to use them to alpha small ships.


The carrier has to make sacrifice to grant that damage and apply it. The only problem right now is how they can do so in relative safety. Force the carrier to be on grid and people will fit less omni/DDA/navs.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#546 - 2015-01-26 03:38:19 UTC
Rroff wrote:
By "out of class" damage I'm referring to the fact that fighters with the "skynet" fit can significantly out perform the "appropriately" sized drones for a given target not that they give the ship they are assigned to out of its class damage. Hence my suggestion of using titan style damage scaling so that its harder to use them to alpha small ships.

Balancing fighters to suit one particular fit (skynet), would render them all but useless for any other purpose.

I am unsure what you mean by "appropriately sized drones". I use heavy drones on small ships, I have even used light drones on battleships. So what exactly are "appropriately sized drones" for a given target.

With a combat fit carrier, fighters don't one shot small ships, in fact they have great difficulty hitting small targets without the addition of 2 or 3 omnis. Even then to apply anywhere near full damage the target needs to be webbed.

Best solution all round is to render the Skynet fit obsolete in its current form.
If a carrier pilot wants to gate camp to get kills with fighters, they should be forced to take the same risks as the rest of their fleet and those they are fighting.

Using the carriers role bonus to fighter control range allows them to be on grid but not right in the midst of things.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#547 - 2015-01-26 12:00:27 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Balancing fighters to suit one particular fit (skynet), would render them all but useless for any other purpose.

I am unsure what you mean by "appropriately sized drones". I use heavy drones on small ships, I have even used light drones on battleships. So what exactly are "appropriately sized drones" for a given target.

With a combat fit carrier, fighters don't one shot small ships, in fact they have great difficulty hitting small targets without the addition of 2 or 3 omnis. Even then to apply anywhere near full damage the target needs to be webbed.

Best solution all round is to render the Skynet fit obsolete in its current form.
If a carrier pilot wants to gate camp to get kills with fighters, they should be forced to take the same risks as the rest of their fleet and those they are fighting.

Using the carriers role bonus to fighter control range allows them to be on grid but not right in the midst of things.


The "problem" with the normal tracking formula is that the lower tracking issues your dealing with the less relevance signature radius has on how well you hit with turret based weapons (this actually works quite well for eve in general) but by applying titan style scaling to fighters it would only very very minorly impact on their efficiency against smaller targets with a combat fit carrier but have a much bigger balancing factor when a "skynet" fit was used - with the right target "optimal" sig set there would be no impact on their use against larger targets in both scenarios.

Heavy drones do half the alpha or less and a lot less dps than a set of fighters and can't be assigned.

Eve has a messed up balance when it comes to risk and implementation of it and I don't personally believe that forcing a carrier to be on grid to use its capabilities is necessarily the right call in that light especially when it comes to supers but I do believe that it should be potentially vulnerable to repercussion (if the opposing force is creative or clever enough, etc.) if it is actively involved in combat whereas as things stand there are a number of ways (I don't know the full steps to reproducing all of them) in which the carrier pilot can be for all realistic intents and purposes immune - there are a couple of other threads on here that cover it.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#548 - 2015-01-26 17:25:36 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Balancing fighters to suit one particular fit (skynet), would render them all but useless for any other purpose.

I am unsure what you mean by "appropriately sized drones". I use heavy drones on small ships, I have even used light drones on battleships. So what exactly are "appropriately sized drones" for a given target.

With a combat fit carrier, fighters don't one shot small ships, in fact they have great difficulty hitting small targets without the addition of 2 or 3 omnis. Even then to apply anywhere near full damage the target needs to be webbed.

Best solution all round is to render the Skynet fit obsolete in its current form.
If a carrier pilot wants to gate camp to get kills with fighters, they should be forced to take the same risks as the rest of their fleet and those they are fighting.

Using the carriers role bonus to fighter control range allows them to be on grid but not right in the midst of things.


The "problem" with the normal tracking formula is that the lower tracking issues your dealing with the less relevance signature radius has on how well you hit with turret based weapons (this actually works quite well for eve in general) but by applying titan style scaling to fighters it would only very very minorly impact on their efficiency against smaller targets with a combat fit carrier but have a much bigger balancing factor when a "skynet" fit was used - with the right target "optimal" sig set there would be no impact on their use against larger targets in both scenarios.

Heavy drones do half the alpha or less and a lot less dps than a set of fighters and can't be assigned.

Eve has a messed up balance when it comes to risk and implementation of it and I don't personally believe that forcing a carrier to be on grid to use its capabilities is necessarily the right call in that light especially when it comes to supers but I do believe that it should be potentially vulnerable to repercussion (if the opposing force is creative or clever enough, etc.) if it is actively involved in combat whereas as things stand there are a number of ways (I don't know the full steps to reproducing all of them) in which the carrier pilot can be for all realistic intents and purposes immune - there are a couple of other threads on here that cover it.


The skynet fit is only applying damage like that because he can "afford" to fit all drone application/damage mods. Just requiring the carrier/super to be within drone control range would mean nobody use fit like that unless they want to field suicide skynet carriers because some day, someone will go there with more than 6 HACs and that skynet boat will burn.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#549 - 2015-01-26 20:14:04 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:


The skynet fit is only applying damage like that because he can "afford" to fit all drone application/damage mods. Just requiring the carrier/super to be within drone control range would mean nobody use fit like that unless they want to field suicide skynet carriers because some day, someone will go there with more than 6 HACs and that skynet boat will burn.


Refitting on a mobile depot or another carrier isn't out of the question.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#550 - 2015-01-26 23:54:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Sgt Ocker
Rroff wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

Balancing fighters to suit one particular fit (skynet), would render them all but useless for any other purpose.

I am unsure what you mean by "appropriately sized drones". I use heavy drones on small ships, I have even used light drones on battleships. So what exactly are "appropriately sized drones" for a given target.

With a combat fit carrier, fighters don't one shot small ships, in fact they have great difficulty hitting small targets without the addition of 2 or 3 omnis. Even then to apply anywhere near full damage the target needs to be webbed.

Best solution all round is to render the Skynet fit obsolete in its current form.
If a carrier pilot wants to gate camp to get kills with fighters, they should be forced to take the same risks as the rest of their fleet and those they are fighting.

Using the carriers role bonus to fighter control range allows them to be on grid but not right in the midst of things.


1) The "problem" with the normal tracking formula is that the lower tracking issues your dealing with the less relevance signature radius has on how well you hit with turret based weapons (this actually works quite well for eve in general) but by applying titan style scaling to fighters it would only very very minorly impact on their efficiency against smaller targets with a combat fit carrier but have a much bigger balancing factor when a "skynet" fit was used - with the right target "optimal" sig set there would be no impact on their use against larger targets in both scenarios.

2) Heavy drones do half the alpha or less and a lot less dps than a set of fighters and can't be assigned.

3) Eve has a messed up balance when it comes to risk and implementation of it and I don't personally believe that forcing a carrier to be on grid to use its capabilities is necessarily the right call in that light especially when it comes to supers but I do believe that it should be potentially vulnerable to repercussion (if the opposing force is creative or clever enough, etc.) if it is actively involved in combat whereas as things stand there are a number of ways (I don't know the full steps to reproducing all of them) in which the carrier pilot can be for all realistic intents and purposes immune - there are a couple of other threads on here that cover it.

1) Problem is and always will be, when Devs get it wrong it stays wrong.
Personally I don't think CCP can "balance" fighters as you suggest. They have shown over and over, they don't have the skills to actually "balance" and would rather use a simple nerf because it is the easiest option.
The nerf this thread is relates to is just the most recent of lazy fixes.
Not too long ago Supers and Carriers were giving the added bonus of being able to fit and use DDA's and scripts were added to omnis to increase their effectiveness.
Skynet carriers have been around for years, yet for some reason Devs were unable to see what impact their changes would have on the game. This in turn has generated hate mail in regard to skynet carriers. Now the only answer is to "balance" fighters - "balance" being a reduction in their capability.

2) Leaving out the difference between "Assigned" and "Assisted" - 10 Domis or Ishtars sitting 150 off a gate with drones assisted to a Sabre is going to do far more Alpha and DPS than a skynet carrier with his 5 fighters assigned to that Sabre.
Assigned fighters with good skills and skynet would be around 700 DPS.
That is about the same as 1 Domi assisting Heavy drones, now multiply that by 10.
Since the reduction in scan res for fighters and bombers, the heavy drones are going to apply their damage a lot faster than fighters.

3) Yes, foresight with a lot of implementation and use is a problem in Eve.
But simply the fact skynet carriers are seen as a problem is something that is not down to CCP at all.
It is down to player actions or lack of actions. Skynet carriers, especially Supers, will 99% of the time be at a friendly pos. A quick scout of a system will soon tell you if there is the possibility of a skynet carrier being present. If there is, you make an informed decision as to whether you engage or not. Jumping blind (without a scout) anywhere other than your own sov space (one would hope you have and use intel channels) is asking to be sent home in a pod, or worse, without your pod and implants.

Reducing fighter assign to "fighter control range" is not the best option but it is far better than having fighters and bombers nerfed again. The biggest problem as you described is the vulnerability of these ships to a relatively small fleet of subcaps but isn't that what Eve is meant to be about - Risk VS Reward - You want to use a particular class of ship, you weigh the risk, if you deem the risk too high, DON'T UNDOCK.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"I jumped without a scout and got dumped on by a sabre and skynet carrier" Scream, Whinge, Cry, Petition - Nerf them, its just not fair.
How unEve is that.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#551 - 2015-01-27 11:21:36 UTC
Forcing fighters to be used in a glorified assist way would be a fairly significant nerf to carrier capabilities - overall a far bigger nerf than what I'm suggesting. My interest here is finding a balanced solution.

Skynet carriers in this form haven't been around for years - the changes that made this possible are months old.

Jumping a scout in and finding 10 domis on grid is a totally different scenario to jumping in and finding 1-3 small ships with the carrier/super not always so obvious for a variety of reasons.

Assigned fighters with good skills is around 1000-2500 per assigned ship depending on carrier or super and skills but most instances I'm aware of they usually have enough ships in reserve to apply more than that if necessary.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#552 - 2015-01-27 14:50:20 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Forcing fighters to be used in a glorified assist way would be a fairly significant nerf to carrier capabilities - overall a far bigger nerf than what I'm suggesting. My interest here is finding a balanced solution.

Skynet carriers in this form haven't been around for years - the changes that made this possible are months old.

Jumping a scout in and finding 10 domis on grid is a totally different scenario to jumping in and finding 1-3 small ships with the carrier/super not always so obvious for a variety of reasons.

Assigned fighters with good skills is around 1000-2500 per assigned ship depending on carrier or super and skills but most instances I'm aware of they usually have enough ships in reserve to apply more than that if necessary.

I'm not sure you understand what you are suggesting - Titan style damage scaling would leave a carrier using fighters unable to hit anything smaller than another carrier or possibly an MWD battleship.

I've been using assigned fighters for at least 4 years and yes recent changes have made them more effective but that really begs the question - Do CCP look at what effects changes they make a likely to have or is it just a case of - Lets do it and see what happens.
Assigning fighters has been around a long time but now because Devs gave Carriers and Supers a much needed damage buff, they are on the line for a range of nerfs to reduce their effectiveness due to the use of one particular fit in a fairly limited scenario.

I take it you believe carriers should be immune to any conflict whilst they have fighters assigned - Why should this be the case?

You say it would be a significant nerf for them to sit 400k off a gate with fighters assigned, why? Should we remove all risk from Eve?

What variety of reasons is going to hide assigned fighters? The carrier or super may not be in view but the fighters it has assigned certainly would be.
If you wait until the fight has begun to assign them (the only way it would not be obvious) what you are assigning them to, is likely to be dead by the time they arrive.

And yes, when I looked at dps it was on a lower skilled carrier toon, (my bad). A little over 1100 for my max skill Thany

I've never seen a group using fighter assign that has ships in reserve, hiding somewhere off grid "in case they are needed". Who is going to sit idle in a pos or safe while a few others are getting kills, with or without fighter support?
You may get a support fleet turn up if a fight escalates but then both sides have the option to call for backup..

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#553 - 2015-01-27 20:05:52 UTC
Sgt Ocker wrote:

I'm not sure you understand what you are suggesting - Titan style damage scaling would leave a carrier using fighters unable to hit anything smaller than another carrier or possibly an MWD battleship.


I don't mean copy and paste the exact set of parameters as per titan damage scaling as that would leave them incapable of being used for much at all yeah, but using the same style of sig based scaling but set at a lower level would still allow them to hit say larger sig cruisers and upwards fairly well and BS and upwards fully but much harder for them to apply 1000s of points of alpha to frigs and other smaller stuff - which currently using "skynet" style fits they can do relatively easily with minimal support.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

I've been using assigned fighters for at least 4 years and yes recent changes have made them more effective but that really begs the question - Do CCP look at what effects changes they make a likely to have or is it just a case of - Lets do it and see what happens.
Assigning fighters has been around a long time but now because Devs gave Carriers and Supers a much needed damage buff, they are on the line for a range of nerfs to reduce their effectiveness due to the use of one particular fit in a fairly limited scenario.

I take it you believe carriers should be immune to any conflict whilst they have fighters assigned - Why should this be the case?

You say it would be a significant nerf for them to sit 400k off a gate with fighters assigned, why? Should we remove all risk from Eve?

What variety of reasons is going to hide assigned fighters? The carrier or super may not be in view but the fighters it has assigned certainly would be.
If you wait until the fight has begun to assign them (the only way it would not be obvious) what you are assigning them to, is likely to be dead by the time they arrive.

And yes, when I looked at dps it was on a lower skilled carrier toon, (my bad). A little over 1100 for my max skill Thany

I've never seen a group using fighter assign that has ships in reserve, hiding somewhere off grid "in case they are needed". Who is going to sit idle in a pos or safe while a few others are getting kills, with or without fighter support?
You may get a support fleet turn up if a fight escalates but then both sides have the option to call for backup..



I don't believe the super or carrier should be immune - hence wanting some mechanism (though its a bit arbitrary) to prevent fighters being assigned inside the POS FF radius due to a number of techniques that can be used to sit within that radius with fighters out - the common one sitting right by the control tower with the FF down and the password dialog to put the FF up open. The problem is the granularity of risk involved is somewhat low and tends to swing between the carrier being too safe or too much at risk without a good balance between which is less of a problem for cheaper stuff but a bit unfair when your talking something like a super.

Seen a few instances where they have multiple ships, sometimes cloaked on grid like a rapier, etc. sometimes warping in later - one person who does it regular with a nyx and wyvern has atleast 4-5 ships in backup. Atleast one person I know of has the carrier cloaked (due to the FF being down they can do that) and try to kite the target off the gate and webbed down before assigning fighters.
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#554 - 2015-01-27 23:25:47 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Sgt Ocker wrote:

I'm not sure you understand what you are suggesting - Titan style damage scaling would leave a carrier using fighters unable to hit anything smaller than another carrier or possibly an MWD battleship.


I don't mean copy and paste the exact set of parameters as per titan damage scaling as that would leave them incapable of being used for much at all yeah, but using the same style of sig based scaling but set at a lower level would still allow them to hit say larger sig cruisers and upwards fairly well and BS and upwards fully but much harder for them to apply 1000s of points of alpha to frigs and other smaller stuff - which currently using "skynet" style fits they can do relatively easily with minimal support.

Sgt Ocker wrote:

I've been using assigned fighters for at least 4 years and yes recent changes have made them more effective but that really begs the question - Do CCP look at what effects changes they make a likely to have or is it just a case of - Lets do it and see what happens.
Assigning fighters has been around a long time but now because Devs gave Carriers and Supers a much needed damage buff, they are on the line for a range of nerfs to reduce their effectiveness due to the use of one particular fit in a fairly limited scenario.

I take it you believe carriers should be immune to any conflict whilst they have fighters assigned - Why should this be the case?

You say it would be a significant nerf for them to sit 400k off a gate with fighters assigned, why? Should we remove all risk from Eve?

What variety of reasons is going to hide assigned fighters? The carrier or super may not be in view but the fighters it has assigned certainly would be.
If you wait until the fight has begun to assign them (the only way it would not be obvious) what you are assigning them to, is likely to be dead by the time they arrive.

And yes, when I looked at dps it was on a lower skilled carrier toon, (my bad). A little over 1100 for my max skill Thany

I've never seen a group using fighter assign that has ships in reserve, hiding somewhere off grid "in case they are needed". Who is going to sit idle in a pos or safe while a few others are getting kills, with or without fighter support?
You may get a support fleet turn up if a fight escalates but then both sides have the option to call for backup..



I don't believe the super or carrier should be immune - hence wanting some mechanism (though its a bit arbitrary) to prevent fighters being assigned inside the POS FF radius due to a number of techniques that can be used to sit within that radius with fighters out - the common one sitting right by the control tower with the FF down and the password dialog to put the FF up open. The problem is the granularity of risk involved is somewhat low and tends to swing between the carrier being too safe or too much at risk without a good balance between which is less of a problem for cheaper stuff but a bit unfair when your talking something like a super.

Seen a few instances where they have multiple ships, sometimes cloaked on grid like a rapier, etc. sometimes warping in later - one person who does it regular with a nyx and wyvern has atleast 4-5 ships in backup. Atleast one person I know of has the carrier cloaked (due to the FF being down they can do that) and try to kite the target off the gate and webbed down before assigning fighters.

Reducing Carrier and Super capabilities due to the use of one of many possible fits should not be seen as a legitimate change. We just got one of those with the scan res reduction.
If fighters were to receive Titan style 'damage scaling" based on the skynet fit, they would be totally useless in any other configuration.
Assigned fighters is not the problem, the Skynet fit is the problem.

So once again we come to player choice (and this is a really simple fix). A cooldown timer for entering pos shields. Use fighter assign, you can't enter pos shields for 60 seconds from the time your fighters last engaged a target. Works Exactly the same way a docking timer does.
No nerfs needed and only affects skynet users sitting on pos's (if you are in the pos with shields down and activate the shield within the 60 sec timer, you will be bounced from the pos).

Yes kiting a single ship off a gate then assigning fighters.. Sounds simple and it is but is only going to work when only one enemy jumps in.. If he has backup on the other side of the gate, the guy waiting for the fighters to arrive while sitting within web range is more than likely going to die (pretty fast) unless he is in something that can match what he is kiting in which case, you don't need the fighters.
People cloak on grid all the time but that has nothing to do with fighter assign.
None of the tactics you mention is anything a fleet without assigned fighters can't do and none increase the abilities of assigned fighters disproportionately.

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Vincintius Agrippa
Crimson Serpent Syndicate
#555 - 2015-01-29 00:01:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Vincintius Agrippa
Lets forget for a second that fighters and bombers are frigate and destroyer sized units. Lets forget that a large number of anything shooting at you with enough volley will eventually hit you and possibly kill you.

1. Gate camps equal death for anything other than an atron or condor. Instalock tackle will web and scram you down to 0 m/s from x distance away. Doesn't matter whether its ten thrashers or ten tornados or 50 of each one. You are going to loose your ship. Bubbles? your pod as well. You don't need a carrier to do this. If some guys want to troll you with carrier support, or siege a phoenix just to kill your ibis, they are going to do so. Why? Because its funny. Unlike complete d-scan immunity, It's not cheating or game breaking. Face the facts: some eve players are d*cks. We all know this.

2. These are carriers.
Carriers are not designed for frontline fighting anyway. They support attacks from distances that their opposition can rarely respond with a counter attack. Carriers should not be restricted to the roles of either a) undocking to be alpha'd by 50 moros or b) nullsec blobs. However, they shouldn't be able to go out and solo. With the recent changes to long distance travel, jumping a blob from one part of the universe to another just to get a lowly carrier kill isn't worth the effort anymore. This open up carriers, not so much supercarriers to be used in small fleet operations. By small I mean <50, hell 30! Imagine a frig and dessie fleet, or cruiser and destroyer based fleet with 1-2 carriers in support. Fleet boosts and an extra bit of dps to give your fleet an extra bit of firepower. We could even use carrier bays to regroup and reship (into frigs & dessies of course). Its not a bad Idea. Could actually spice up small gang warfare.

3. Carriers shouldn't be able to assist ( other than by resupplying the fleet from its bays) in fighting from a pos shield! Why? For the same reason we cant lock (Although in truth they are not actually drones and could be directed to support an individual). However, they should not have to be directly on grid!. Fighters and bombers have warp drives for a reason.

I present the following proposals. <-------------------------- Solution to all problems.

a. Fighters have a maximum occupational range of 15au from their mother ship. Bombers, 25-30 au.

or
b. Carriers can provide long range attack support from no more than 15au from main fleet. Supercarriers can provide no long range support beyond the 25-30au range.

As always, direct (target swapping) intervention can only be performed on field.

This prevents carriers, like all other ships from participating in a battle without any risk. However, it does not put carriers on a silver platter. If you want to kill that carrier you need to work for it! pop probes, etc. etc.

Attacking a system with carrier support without proper planning will see your fleet burn. If the enemy have lousy coordination you can burn their entire fleet comp.

Likewise, if you wish to deploy carrier support in an opponent, or enemy system, you run the risk of being tackled and destroyed.

No one gets a free pass, and everyone shares risk.

Problem solved.

Edit: Oh wait, you could also add a module that lets you add an extra 5au range for all fighters and bombers, max 2!
Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!
lexa21
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#556 - 2015-01-29 04:53:11 UTC
Ah ok...

Dear CCP the easiest way to deal with scoop - deploying drones was transfer an active effect (damage\E-war\heal) to the end of work cycle.

I dont know why should i pay to such incompetent pepole.
d0cTeR9
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#557 - 2015-02-03 05:02:36 UTC
So... people whining about carriers/supercarriers that gimp their tank completely to give the ability to fighters (and assigned) fighters to kill little t2 frigates?

Nerf em guys, how the **** do they dare kill the roaming ceptor gangs!!!

Been around since the beginning.
God's Apples
Wilderness
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#558 - 2015-02-08 15:07:15 UTC
I don't think anybody thinks that fighters themselves are imba.

If my enemy wants to bring a carrier on grid, good for them. But having inties assigned with super fighters is not a fun fight. The problem is a lot of people are coming from a fleet perspective. Obviously when you have 50 or 100 dudes the extra 3k dps on the field doesn't really matter, especially when you can alpha fighters off the field. But what this really hurts is small gang pvp because if you bring a fight to renters you are guaranteed to have 2 sets of fighters on you at all times.

"Hydra Reloaded are just jealous / butthurt on me / us because we can get tons of PVP action in empire while they aren't good enough to get that." - NightmareX
Sgt Ocker
What Corp is it
#559 - 2015-02-09 00:13:54 UTC
God's Apples wrote:
I don't think anybody thinks that fighters themselves are imba.

If my enemy wants to bring a carrier on grid, good for them. But having inties assigned with super fighters is not a fun fight. The problem is a lot of people are coming from a fleet perspective. Obviously when you have 50 or 100 dudes the extra 3k dps on the field doesn't really matter, especially when you can alpha fighters off the field. But what this really hurts is small gang pvp because if you bring a fight to renters you are guaranteed to have 2 sets of fighters on you at all times.

So let me see if i got this right.
Your small gang who is roaming "renter space" to gang bang miners and those doing anoms, is complaining about fighters being assigned to ?
Because those fighters give the renters an advantage over you - The gang of roamers, who primarily look for solo easy targets.

What you are really trying to say is - CCP please nerf assigned fighters as we want to get our kills the easiest way possible.

Again we have dumb logic (it isn't fair) being used to try and nerf a valid game mechanic.

- - - - - - - -
God's Apples - Tell me is it unfair when you and 2 or 3 of your buddies in faction battleships and a ceptor catch a lone cynabal and kill it ??
I really would like an answer because maybe we need to petition CCP to nerf things so that all fights are "FAIR"

My opinions are mine.

  If you don't like them or disagree with me that's OK.- - - - - - Just don't bother Hating - I don't care

It really is getting harder and harder to justify $23 a month for each sub.
Zekora Rally
U2EZ
#560 - 2015-02-12 04:48:27 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Rroff wrote:
By "out of class" damage I'm referring to the fact that fighters with the "skynet" fit can significantly out perform the "appropriately" sized drones for a given target not that they give the ship they are assigned to out of its class damage. Hence my suggestion of using titan style damage scaling so that its harder to use them to alpha small ships.


The carrier has to make sacrifice to grant that damage and apply it. The only problem right now is how they can do so in relative safety. Force the carrier to be on grid and people will fit less omni/DDA/navs.

If you are getting welped with the carrier off-grid, nothing is going to change with the carrier on-grid.