Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Because it was announced during a o7 show livestreamed by CCP about an hour and change ago, well after the start of the thread.

Fighters are similar to other drones, but they do not make smaller drones redundant. They are effective at hitting capitals and BS, and with enough omnis and/or speed mods, can hit cruisers.

Heavies are good at hitting cruisers and up, and with enough omnis and/or speed mods, can hit destroyers.

Mediums are good at hitting destroyers and up, and with enough omnis and/or speed mods, can hit frigates.

Lights hit everything well for their small amount of damage.

Do you see a trend here?


Fighters do not make any other kind of drone redundant, and having a bonus that applies to both fighters and non fighter drones is as logical as a drone bonus that applies to both heavies and light drones.

All my arguments so far have been couched in the same terms of your own proposal. You argue they are redundant and not different enough, I argue they occupy different roles (which they do). You argue they are too different and carrier shouldn't have a bonus apply to both, I argue that they are not more different that other ships with general bonuses to all of a type of mod, like the Domi/Vexor/Geddon/etc bonuses to all drones, or the Orthrus/Barghest bonuses to all sizes of missiles. They are different, but similar, just like Ogres and Hobgoblins are different, but similar.

There's no contradiction between those two arguments. Fighters are larger drones with more abilities than smaller drones, but they are still drones, and bonus and skills that applies to all drones applies to them as well. And a bonus that enables the use of additional fighters has no logical reason that would prohibited it from deploying additional drones instead unless it's a matter of game balance, like the decision of entirely removing non fighter/FB drones from supercarriers. And you have yet to bring forth any arguments based on actual game balance, just spurious arguments based on mutable definitions.

On what Fozzie said on the o7 show....

For the purposes of this post, carrier is used to refer to carrier and mothership/super.

@Fozzie

I think, you sir, have not considered all of the consequences of making this change, or if you have, you have decided to ignore those of us who use the cap/fighter platform for other purposes than to attach said fighters to shuttles and interceptors.

Look, I was not happy with the jump changes made to capitals, but I could see how the loss of capability versus the reward to stopping hot drops anywhere anytime was a positive. This crazy idea though is not and I for one am shocked you guys did not publicly ask for feedback from players before you decided to kill something that has been in use since the beginning of the game for other methods besides 'skynet'.

What you should have done sir, is place limits on how they are used. Examples might be:

A) No ability to assign fighters in low sec.
B) Fighters cannot be attached to ship sizes below say a cruiser.
C) Fighters cannot approach a gate within X km. They automatically return and orbit the carrier if its attempted.

Look in the real world larger civilized countries purchase and use air craft carriers for air superiority. By definition (just looking at Iraq as an example), they were used to send fighters to the region they were needed in with no harm to the air craft carrier. The ocean was its POS.

Anyways, back to the point. I think you are making a terrible mistake. When I started playing this game, I was largely enticed by capitals in general. How special and versatile they were. It seems you are taking away all of its beauty every other patch at this point. I mean seriously it is starting to shape up to capitals being nothing better than a subcap with a bit better DPS. Literally it is better to fly them gate to gate now. You are also taking away any other true advantage the platform has and basically pushing its single purpose for large fleet support roles.

You are also pissing on older players many of whom retain well skilled alts simply that can fly carriers/supers for various reasons. I for one will divest myself away from the carrier platform if this change is made and my vote will be felt in CCPs pocket book directly as I will not renew my capital pilot subscription (which I pay for in dollars) after this change goes into effect. I am guessing many others will follow suit.

Are you guys really that adverse to keeping accounts open and therefore keeping CCP financially strong? You are really screwing everyone who has invested a year or more of training into this game because some people complained about a tactic that could be dealt with in so many other ways?

Hey if you make the change fine. I will live with it and adapt.
But I want my *GD* wasted skillpoints back buddy.

Xena

This is a sad, sad thread, started by clueless people.

Problem:
OP and supporters seem to think that pvp carriers fit a rack full of dcus and send in drones to dps ppl, as opposed to repair ppl.

Solution:
Go out to null, get a clue.

We have sad ideas flying around here about nerfing drones, which does nothing of consequence except screwing two group: ratters, and ratter gankers. There are other "nerf carrier" threads out there, they're also whiny, but they revolve around rr, so it's not the eye-rolling kind of whine.

Seriously, get a clue.