These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Charadrass
Angry Germans
#181 - 2015-02-27 16:20:12 UTC
Suitonia wrote:
Charadrass wrote:
suddenly i feel like seeing the neighbours Boy sitting in the sandbox calling mommy and blaming the 5 year older kid for destroying his plan to world dominance.

just like, if i can't kill it quick enough, iam gonna run to mommccp and make them disappear through another way.

grow balls. seriously.


You could just bring your Carrier on-grid and get the same results, but that would require a tangible level of risk. So please take your Ad-Hominems elsewhere.



you are blaming the realworld drone attacks too right?
cause sending the soldier hiself on to enemy Terrain is more fair, instead of sending an unmanned drone?

the carrier is sitting in a System with a pos.
he can be scanned out. even without scanning there are only pos possible at moons, so warping to all moons cloaked shouldnt be a Problem.
afterwards. get a bumper ship. a Little fleet, and enjoy the carrier kill.

but that is tooooo much work. lets fill out a Petition to remove the reason for the carrier to be online outside of a pos. thats much easier , and sooooo much fun... wait. it is not....
Suitonia
Order of the Red Kestrel
#182 - 2015-02-27 16:21:04 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:

None of those bug matter is fighters can't hit anything smaller than a Dread. And that's the whole point.

Removing fighter delegation because drone mods/bonuses being applied to fighters that can then be delegated is exactly like saying "you robbed a bank and used a car for the get away, I'm going to let you keep the money and go free and arrest the guy who sold you the car!".-Signed, CCP Police Department.


Ignoring the bugs, I am suggesting to you that making it so that fighters lose their bonuses off grid is probably going to take a huge amount of development time from CCP for lackluster returns. The usage of assisted fighters before the changes was close to non-existent. Are there actually any tangible uses for assisted fighters if they do not retain the current stats?

Contributer to Eve is Easy:  https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos

Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Admiral Whatever
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#183 - 2015-02-27 16:21:26 UTC
ScorpionD III wrote:
Somethings in eve are just no sense.

Why remove the assist mecanic?

Risk x Reward not good enough?

But who says it have to be?


So Darkness is where all the CRABS from Xdeath went????

Interesting.
LT Alter
Ryba.
White Squall.
#184 - 2015-02-27 16:21:29 UTC  |  Edited by: LT Alter
Just a small idea that may be hard to implement from a developmental standpoint. What if fighters and fighter bombers did NOT receive drone module bonuses while off-grid from their parent carrier/super-carrier. Such that when fighters warp after a target or are assisted to friendlies they will be drastically less powerful. Just spit-balling an idea.

On current implementation and mechanics, removal of sky netting is just fine as far as I'm concerned. On the topic of fighter warping, this as a mechanic should stay. At the very most remove attack and follow if CCP feels this is unbalanced, but allow our fighters to warp after us when we warp away with our carriers/super-carriers.
Myojen Invictae
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#185 - 2015-02-27 16:21:53 UTC
Don't scrap fighter assist, it simply removes gameplay aspects without adding anything new to the game. Taking a feature from carriers and supers without adding something means diminishing gameplay not improving or altering it.

If fighter assist is removed on the basis of risk/reward for carriers, then an increase in risk should be offset by an increase in reward. If carriers are not meant to sit off a POS bubble and assist fighters make their functionality better when they are on grid (with fighters rather than just being heavy logi boats). Give fighters a new feature, or diversify their utility. Allow them to be pointed, but also allow them to point. Drone skills and rolls do not just have to be about increase in damage, and current fighter mechanics make for some interesting growth directions rather than just reducing them to the point where they are useless.
OutCast EG
Very Industrial Corp.
#186 - 2015-02-27 16:23:30 UTC
I have a related question:

What is the timeslot for capital/super rebalancing/redesign?
Is ship balancing/tiercide initiative still active?
When are we going to get it?
Release name? Maybe at least a year? This year? Next year?
When???
Nartel Vortok
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#187 - 2015-02-27 16:24:13 UTC
Charadrass wrote:
Suitonia wrote:
Charadrass wrote:
suddenly i feel like seeing the neighbours Boy sitting in the sandbox calling mommy and blaming the 5 year older kid for destroying his plan to world dominance.

just like, if i can't kill it quick enough, iam gonna run to mommccp and make them disappear through another way.

grow balls. seriously.


You could just bring your Carrier on-grid and get the same results, but that would require a tangible level of risk. So please take your Ad-Hominems elsewhere.



you are blaming the realworld drone attacks too right?
cause sending the soldier hiself on to enemy Terrain is more fair, instead of sending an unmanned drone?

the carrier is sitting in a System with a pos.
he can be scanned out. even without scanning there are only pos possible at moons, so warping to all moons cloaked shouldnt be a Problem.
afterwards. get a bumper ship. a Little fleet, and enjoy the carrier kill.

but that is tooooo much work. lets fill out a Petition to remove the reason for the carrier to be online outside of a pos. thats much easier , and sooooo much fun... wait. it is not....


Ignoring the fact that non-retards can get back in the pos long before you bump them.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#188 - 2015-02-27 16:24:22 UTC
Suitonia wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

None of those bug matter is fighters can't hit anything smaller than a Dread. And that's the whole point.

Removing fighter delegation because drone mods/bonuses being applied to fighters that can then be delegated is exactly like saying "you robbed a bank and used a car for the get away, I'm going to let you keep the money and go free and arrest the guy who sold you the car!".-Signed, CCP Police Department.


Ignoring the bugs, I am suggesting to you that making it so that fighters lose their bonuses off grid is probably going to take a huge amount of development time from CCP for lackluster returns. The usage of assisted fighters before the changes was close to non-existent. Are there actually any tangible uses for assisted fighters if they do not retain the current stats?


The ships that get them assigned have to sacrifice for webs and target painters and such, so yea their is, but not as easy as it is now. And it's for CCP to decide how hard a change is, however eliminating a 10 year old thing rather than reverting a 3 month old change doesn't make sense.

If a thing causes a problem you fix that thing, not things that didn't cause the problem.
Kel hound
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#189 - 2015-02-27 16:25:36 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
CCP Rise wrote:
As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla.

This thread is for discussing the proposed removal of fighter assist for carriers and super carriers.

This change being largely driven by 'skynetting' which is a tactic where carriers and super carriers can sit in near perfect safety at the edge of starbase shields and assign thousands of DPS worth of fighter drones to their fleet mates who can fly whatever ship they want *), while wielding an enormous amount of damage. We feel this is not meeting our standards for risk vs reward and therefor would like to remove the ability to assist fighters. More details are covered in this dev blog.


*) *snip* Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal.


Wasnt this basically the entire bloody point of a carrier from a design standpoint? IRL I mean. Battleships had massive guns that could fire over the horizon, but were defeated by carriers which could strike with aircraft from well beyond the horizon. In EVE that tactical asymmetry was (I thought) represented by fighter assignments, allowing a carrier to delegate fighters to other craft while remaining in relative safety off-grid. Take that away and they're just big fancy logi-boats with high drone damage.


Why is this 'Skynet' tactic considered a bad thing anyway? It gives an advantage to those who plan and prepare. Isnt that what you want?



Quote:
A particular point of feedback that we are interested in surrounds the ability of fighters to warp. We know that in some circumstances it can be frustrating to have your fighters warp off grid to chase a target when you would rather have them move to another target on grid with you instead. We also know that fighter warping is unique and provides some interesting gameplay in some scenarios. Would you prefer that we removed the ability for fighters to warp or that we left warping in, despite the absence of assist?


Honestly, if you're going to do this you might as well just make fighters and bombers just regular drones like everything else. Fighters and bombers are too expensive to send them off without supervision.

Quote:
Look forward to your feedback.


I can see the forced smile as you type that from here.
GsyBoy
Doomheim
#190 - 2015-02-27 16:28:39 UTC
Good change.

https://www.twitch.tv/gsyboy
kelvin oriley
Caldari Deep Space Ventures
#191 - 2015-02-27 16:29:06 UTC
Within hours of the Dev blog you get this reaction I'd say this is pritty much 70%against the idea 20%for the idea and 10% trolls

normaly I'm all for change etc but you seem to have given up thinking about things

It's about risk adverse behaviour and it's use to make small ships even more over powered

Yes stop fighter assist withing X range of a force field this has been an issue for a wile
no don't stop it from stations they still have the aggression timer like the rest of us and it's easy enoth to bump a carrier off a station in 60 sec

Limit the amount of fighters that can be assigned to a class of ship

Frig not possible
destroyer gets one
cruiser gets two
battle cruiser gets three
battle ship gets 4
capitals get 5


Please stop thinking so linea some times things arnt as simple as on and off or black and white most of the time it's lots of gray in between that would both please the masses and help the game
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#192 - 2015-02-27 16:29:35 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Suitonia wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

None of those bug matter is fighters can't hit anything smaller than a Dread. And that's the whole point.

Removing fighter delegation because drone mods/bonuses being applied to fighters that can then be delegated is exactly like saying "you robbed a bank and used a car for the get away, I'm going to let you keep the money and go free and arrest the guy who sold you the car!".-Signed, CCP Police Department.


Ignoring the bugs, I am suggesting to you that making it so that fighters lose their bonuses off grid is probably going to take a huge amount of development time from CCP for lackluster returns. The usage of assisted fighters before the changes was close to non-existent. Are there actually any tangible uses for assisted fighters if they do not retain the current stats?


The ships that get them assigned have to sacrifice for webs and target painters and such, so yea their is, but not as easy as it is now. And it's for CCP to decide how hard a change is, however eliminating a 10 year old thing rather than reverting a 3 month old change doesn't make sense.

If a thing causes a problem you fix that thing, not things that didn't cause the problem.


What if they want to keep the modules affecting bomber/fighter? Did you think that might be the reasons why they didn't just revert back? What if they changed their mind and think projecting damage off a ship own grid is broken just like they want to get rid of OGB but can't for technical reasons?

The only real problem with this change right now is we get no answer on why approach X, Y and Z were not used to fix the issue.
Sarrian Calda
Perkone
Caldari State
#193 - 2015-02-27 16:31:13 UTC
Assignment-related suggestions

  • Allow on-grid assignment only, just like drones.
  • Fighters cannot warp with the ship they are assigned to.
  • If assigned ship becomes invalid target to retain assignment, fighters should fly back to owner.


Offense-related suggestions

  • Fighters should still be able to "Attack and Follow" (toggled option, as is) ships that they are commanded to attack.
  • If target warps off, fighters should follow and enter warp too.
  • If target becomes invalid after dropping out of warp (destroyed, jumped out of system, entered POS forcefield, docked, logged off successfully somehow, fighters get ECM'ed and unable to acquire lock), the fighters will warp back to owner as soon as they can.


Miscellaneous suggestions

  • Fighters should still be able to warp together with the owner when they are deployed and the owner enters warp, as per current mechanics.
  • If a fighter becomes pointed or bubbled when owner warps away, it should keep aligning to the owner's location in space until it is able to warp again (or follow current in-game mechanic if there's already one set up for when fighters are prevented from warping).
  • If the owner docks up, logs off or get destroyed at any time while the fighters are deployed, they become abandoned in space. If they are in-warp when this happens, they should appear at the destination where they were warping to and become abandoned there. (If ships cannot break warp while warping, fighters shouldn't too.)
5mok1ng gun
Moon Of The Pheonix
#194 - 2015-02-27 16:31:16 UTC  |  Edited by: 5mok1ng gun
Gilbaron wrote:
can't you disallow fighter assist from within 50km of a tower instead ? that's gonna produce some lovely killmails

removing fighter warp is completely unnessecarry


Totally agree removing fighter warp is completely unnecessary, I would go further with disallowing fighter assist within 400k of a towers shield ( so an attacker can shoot the parent ship without problems from the tower ).


Axloth Okiah wrote:
How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable?


I'm all for pointing fighters and stopping them being recalled.

Better still to stop the named "sky net" style just stop them from being assigned to anything below a cruiser, I would also like to bring up the fact that carrier hull bonuses to fighters are not applied to assigned fighters but the modules that augment drone stats ARE passed down to assigned fighters, This needs to be changed before attacking assigning fighters, Fighter warping and so on.

Step 1. Remove drone module pass down to ships receiving assigned fighters.
Step 2. Restrict fighter assignment to cruisers and above.
Step 3. Allow fighters to be scrambled / Disrupted so they don't warp off.
Step 4. Restrict carriers from assigning fighters within range of a POS an ideal range would be 110k so the carrier can't warp to the POS or at least that's the least range I would want to see.


Leave fighter warping and assignment alone, The problem is with questionable skilled players finding these carriers and killing them, Who knows people that regularly PVP in low / null sec might actually scan something down to kill instead of warping to zero on the best sites to snag an easy one.
Suitonia
Order of the Red Kestrel
#195 - 2015-02-27 16:32:21 UTC
Charadrass wrote:


you are blaming the realworld drone attacks too right?
cause sending the soldier hiself on to enemy Terrain is more fair, instead of sending an unmanned drone?

the carrier is sitting in a System with a pos.
he can be scanned out. even without scanning there are only pos possible at moons, so warping to all moons cloaked shouldnt be a Problem.
afterwards. get a bumper ship. a Little fleet, and enjoy the carrier kill.

but that is tooooo much work. lets fill out a Petition to remove the reason for the carrier to be online outside of a pos. thats much easier , and sooooo much fun... wait. it is not....


An attentive carrier pilot is 40m from a POS forcefield, it takes less than <1s for it to make it into the POS. Due to the position of the force field and where the Carrier pilot is, it's very difficult to get a good angle for bumping. Additionally, a Carrier has a significant amount of mass and even a Cloaky 100mn Proteus (which will die in about 20 seconds to POS guns and is absolutely useless to your fleet) will find it difficult to achieve a significant bump, you need to get up to speed to get a worthwhile bump which you cannot do while cloaked, the chance of bumping a Carrier in this manner is incredibly unlikely, I would advise you put this into practice yourself and post the results here.

Contributer to Eve is Easy:  https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos

Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Andy Koraka
State War Academy
Caldari State
#196 - 2015-02-27 16:32:22 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla.
A particular point of feedback that we are interested in surrounds the ability of fighters to warp. We know that in some circumstances it can be frustrating to have your fighters warp off grid to chase a target when you would rather have them move to another target on grid with you instead. We also know that fighter warping is unique and provides some interesting gameplay in some scenarios. Would you prefer that we removed the ability for fighters to warp or that we left warping in, despite the absence of assist?

Look forward to your feedback.

As far as the "frustration" of having your fighters warp off chasing someone there's a little checkbox for that in your drone settings to disallow it.

Overall fighter warping is a huge quality of life thing. In an Ishtar I don't really care about leaving 5m in sentries behind, but I very much care about abandoning 300m of Fighter bombers on an old grid. In that situation you would either make the whole fleet go back as a group to retrieve the guy's bombers (wasting everyone's time) or you accept that the guy will be defanged (and useless) until he can haul 100,000m3 of Fibos down to deep nullsec.
Sheria Delraneth
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#197 - 2015-02-27 16:34:21 UTC
Instead of removing a potentially useful mechanic from the game entirely, how about narrowing its scope instead?

Set it up so that fighters can only be assigned to drone boats and only up to their available bandwidth. We can then see how it works out, and then make a final decision six months down the road instead of removing it completely.
RogueHunteer
Doomheim
#198 - 2015-02-27 16:34:46 UTC
I don't see point in changing anything with capital until you come up with better plan for them all. nerfing this or that.... your going to end up like you did with back with "Crucible" updates after all users get upset here. So shale we start?

titains - need new role dps
supers - need new role dps
carroprs - logi ? really?
dreads - dps again all this dps?

we have tone of dps no ewar or roles yet just nerfs again and again... so we remove all current roles until we get nothing at this point? right not awesome for me... sandbox lets mix up the game play it's need for LONG time and no one has yet come to answer of what to do with them.... you went tho all basic ships in eve it's time we do something about capitals.. nerfs not awesome but boring.


Let's come up with better ideas how each capital roles are used .....
Ivan Stoner
Optimistic Wasteland Inc.
Fraternity.
#199 - 2015-02-27 16:35:11 UTC
I think its a difficult decision which CCP has to take.

Because:
- a Carrier isnt a frontline ship
- the fighters or fighter bombers doing all the work not the ship itself

on the other side i saw how Brave use the Skynet tactic on the receiving end and yeah its annoying. You lost ship but you cant catch the ceptor and if you warp to the carrier POS hes all ready inside or he puts the password in.

My opinion is that CCP should only allow Fighter assist only for min. Cruisers or BC and or above. Fighter Bomber assist only to BS and above. They also should limit the Fighter/Fighter Bomber assist to max 5 per assistet ship.
Stageweight
Aviation Professionals for EVE
#200 - 2015-02-27 16:35:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Stageweight
Rroff wrote:
Jenn aSide wrote:

+1

Especially the bolded part. Just spitballing here, but in addition to not being able to deploy fighters near POSs or stations (and taking away bonuses from assigned fighters), maybe a 'siege-like' module that has to be activated for ships to assign fighters, that locks the carrier or SC in place for at least 5 minutes. And/Or 'recieving ship' bandwidth limitations (if a ship has no drone bay, it can't use fighters, if a ship can deploy 5 sentries it can accept 5 fighters etc, which kills small ship 'Skynetting').

I don't know how much of a nightmare that would be from a programming stand point so I offer the above with a big grain of layman's salt lol, but the point is CCP should be making things more interesting, not less.


Some interesting points there, one down side is that a siege/bastion like module would take away a drone control unit slot but tying fighters to some kind of bastion like mode would make them more interesting and give potential for more balanced ways of making them a little less meh outside of skynet type use.

Having them only get bonuses when assigned by activating some kind of bastion like module would be a solution to a fair few issues without a ridiculous nerf though I'm not hugely in favour of it.

EDIT: I guess as a compromise for off grid use it wouldn't be so bad as you could still fit for 15 fighters when doing stuff ongrid just lose the extra slot when assigning - the game should always be about making a choice and/or compromise not about flat out nerf batting.

EDIT2:

i.e. purely for illustration purposes something like:

[Fighter Command Processor] - works fairly much like bastion mode including timers and local self rep (can't be fitted with triage), enables fighter assignment, increases fighter tracking (with a corresponding decrease in base), increases durability, can't be activated within x km of POS or station.



I kind of like this idea, overall removing fighter assist truely does kill the uniqueness of carriers. The trick is to find a way to increase the risk, but not increase it to the point of killing off the frequency with which it is flown.

To edit your Fighter Command Processor they could make it so "can't be activated within x km of POS or station", or add "Maximum Velocity Bonus -100% when active"

Either way would help reduce the use of Skynet, I just don't think you need both the distance from POS/station limit and the -100% velocity bonus.

I think the latter would allow for some very interesting engagements at the edge of POS's though. Think about it, you could be running your fleet, you see a bunch of cruisers that you want to engage and suddenly they have fighters assisted. Your scout gives you a warp in to the POS that the carriers are sitting outside of and they can't move back into the shields until their cycle completes. It forces the carrier to commit to being vulnerable, but still have a chance the flee back into the POS once they come out of siege. Of course while they are sieged you could bump them away from the shield. The question would be how long to make the cycle time.