These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Emmy Mnemonic
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#241 - 2015-02-27 17:22:11 UTC
Suitonia wrote:
Emmy Mnemonic wrote:
If fighter-assist capability is removed, carriers will be used less for pvp than they are as of now. There is no reason to warp a carrier into that kind of fight, where you today can assist fighters. Instead people will find other ships/means to buff their fleet DPS, just not by carriers.

So, by all means remove the fighter assist capability from carriers, but replace it with something that makes it interesting for people to warp their carriers on-grid! So we get more carriers to kill!


The problem with the current fighter assist mechanic is that people were not warping their carriers on grid at all, but instead were 40m from a POS forcefield. Using Throw-Away ships as anchors for the drones. This change will result in more PvP as Carriers will have to come onto grid to achieve the same effect as before (Resulting in more content, escalations and carrier kills). If people use other means than interceptors with Einherjis assigned to them then it will be a welcome change.


Uhmm, nor Sir/Madame it absolutely will not! If you want to add around 1000 DPS, there are many MANY more ISK-efficient ways to do that than to warp your carrier onto the grid. So, it will not happen - which is sad! I (and many with me) WANT more carriers on grid!

Ex ex-CEO of Svea Rike [.S.R.]
Vendrin
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#242 - 2015-02-27 17:22:20 UTC
So instead of taking the time to actually fix something you will just remove something from the game until you get back to it. Yea that is a great idea with ccps proven dedication to returning to features in a timely manner.
Emmy Mnemonic
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
#243 - 2015-02-27 17:24:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Emmy Mnemonic
Reprisa wrote:
Removing fighter assignment virtually kills supercarriers. They cannot pos bash. They cannot jump far without fatigue. They cannot assign fighters... If this move is to kill supercarriers in eve then it would certainly be effective. Removing fighter assignment but allowing supers to be dockable would be a fair compromise imo.


Has it struck anyones mind that there might not be a need for structure shoots for sov warfare after CCP reveales their new sov mechanics?
Also, I have never assigned fighterbombers or fighters from my Super when shooting structures. have I missed something?

Ex ex-CEO of Svea Rike [.S.R.]
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
#244 - 2015-02-27 17:27:19 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I've yet to see an actual argument to keeping fighters going to warp besides "please don't nerf they cost me money".

I hate being harsh but I haven't read one yet



Equally have yet to see an actual argument to kill the warpability either... so there is that.

I do not see how the issue of unreasonable drone assist is in ANY WAY related to the ability of fighters to warp.

It is not "please don't nerf they cost me money" it is "please don't nerf they cost me money, for no good ****!ng reason"

Primary Test Subject • SmackTalker Elite
Lobal Villasail
Harbingers of Chaos Inc.
Fraternity.
#245 - 2015-02-27 17:29:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Lobal Villasail
Really, I understand the ishtar and the tengu changes because in large sub-cap fleets these are HEAVILY used. But why mess with the carrier? Is this simply because people assign while ratting and hang around just outside a POS shield? If so then why would you change it?

This is not an OP Pvp issue, HK's might hate it but oh well, find an easier target that warps a cap to an anom. Assigning fighters is one of the few offensive reasons to have a carrier or super. What the hell is the point of having them if they are ineffective to the point of not being worth the isk. I am not in favor of this but what the hell do I know.
Niraia
Starcakes
Cynosural Field Theory.
#246 - 2015-02-27 17:31:03 UTC
Removing assist was a very good decision. I don't think that we should be able to apply damage without our ships being at risk (this is why I think your Ishtar nerf doesn't go nearly far enough, and doesn't fix their real problem, which is the ability to continually apply damage while running out of harm's way like a coward).

Fighter warping has been nothing but a pain for me. I disable follow, and I haven't yet encountered a situation where I'd have wanted my fighters to warp. I wouldn't miss it, but it's already optional.

♥
159Pinky
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#247 - 2015-02-27 17:37:31 UTC
Rather than removing the option, make it:
Only assign fighters to ppl on the same grid. As soon as the person leaves grid the fighters return to your ship?
Iorga Eeta
Hekatonkheires Industries
#248 - 2015-02-27 17:40:58 UTC
1) Make fighters and fighter-bombers affected by points and bubbles. (can't warp into or out of bubbles).

2) Add some sort of visual indication (icon/visual affect) to the drone bunny so there is some indication which ships have drones/sentries/fighters assigned to them.
Flax Volcanus
Montezuma's Revenge.
#249 - 2015-02-27 17:42:03 UTC
The idea of removing fighters' ability to warp after having it in game for, what -- seven years? -- is absolutely absurd.
Tiberian Deci
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#250 - 2015-02-27 17:42:52 UTC
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.
Apo Lyptica
Absolute Order XVIII
Absolute Will
#251 - 2015-02-27 17:44:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Apo Lyptica
CCP, this is your chance to gap the space between battleship and carriers and carriers and supers.

Right now for dread pilots it goes - Battle ship, Marauder, Dread then titan. The gap between dread and titan have been made closer than it is for carrier and super carrier.

Drone changes - Reduce fighter damage slightly, keep everything else the same.

Ship changes -

Add 'escort carriers' - These go between battleships and carriers. Would fill the battleship logistics role. Can launch 5 fighters and would be around 1k dps goal wise while using all faction damage mods. Can only launch 5 fighters and cannot use DCU's. The hull does not get a damage bonus (except for Gal). These hulls would get the drone control range bonus that carriers do and basically would get all of the logistical bonus that carriers do. The hulls would be generally weak and rely heavily on outside logistical support. These hulls cannot assign fighters. But can assist.
Escort carriers could have a T2 variant that would be the carrier version of the Marauder that could fit bastion and be a little more tanky. These ships can go into empire, but warp on the fighters are disabled due to regulations in micro warp field regulations enforced by Concord.

Carrier changes - Remove the +1 drone per skill level and instead add a 20% damage bonus per level, the goal with this is to reduce the number of drones but keep carriers at the current level they are at. With the increased reliance on fewer fighters and the current HP variables these become more important to manage and strategic. These hulls should be able to assign fighters but in doing so the fighters lose the bonus of the damage increase UNLESS THE CARRIER IS ON THE SAME GRID.

What this does is makes fighters more or less like heavy drones unless the carrier is on the same grid as the fighter. The lore principle could be along the lines that the carriers specialized control systems are LOS reliant.

Add 'Heavy carrier' - This hull bridges the gap between carrier and super. These carriers can only use 5 drones, fighters and bombers. These would not get any bonus to fighter/bomber damage (except MAYBE gal). But would fit bastion, bastion would have two more traits added that give 150% bonus to fighters and the missile/tracking bonus would apply to drones. This would make heavy carriers rely only on their own tank and add a strategic aspect. Do you deploy heavy carriers and go into bastion? This also gives a counter that normal pilots can bring to super fights. These hulls would get bonus to medium and heavy drone damage but not sentry.

Included with the reduction from 10 (with level 5) to 5 + damage bonus, carriers that go with DCU's would become a strategic asset as well. The extra fighters would increase the damage of the carrier but in turn the utility of the carrier would be restricted to combat only.

The introduction of the escort carrier gives a possible great opportunity to introduce faction fighters. As escort carriers could be used in empire (warp disabled for fighters in empire).
Inslander Wessette
Unleashed' Fury
The Initiative.
#252 - 2015-02-27 17:46:04 UTC
Suitonia wrote:
Inslander Wessette wrote:
Delegating fighters is not equal to drone assist as delegating fighters is a unique mechanism .

Removing the mechanism would result in ships like thanatos (dedicated fighter bonus) being even more useless than they already are .

A really easy fix would be not allowing fighter assist within said radius of the POS force field or station .

A more complex and suggested fix would be to have a highslot module that acts like beacon on the ship to which the fighters will home or tether on to .

Whilst the beacon is on the fighters can be delegated .

With the module having said cpu / powergrid values we can easily screen out the ships that fighters can be delegated to . ( frigates and shuttles etc)



The problem with the delegation mechanic is it is incredibly buggy and there still are multiple exploits or "clever use of game mechanics" that you can use to give you a significant advantage while assisting your drones, even if you were prevented from doing it on grid with a station or POS.

1. It's possible to get a Thanatos to "hard-to-probe" status by using another "hard-to-probe" Tengu with Remote ECCM. Spurs on the Thanatos and use of X-Instinct. (By "hard-to-probe" I mean the requirement of a max skilled covert ops character with some virtue implants required to probe the Thanatos/Tengu pair). Which makes it close to invulnerable and outside repercussions for the vast majority of gangs unless they specifically know what you're doing and bring Virtue Implants or an incredibly specific fit tengu into your space (risking more than your carriers net-worth), even then, it's possible for you to be aligned out to a POS with refit to WCS in your cargo in the event you get tackled, and RLML fitted on your booster Tengu, in a cynojammed system, making a black ops drop from multiple bombers and back-up recons (all of which you can scout) the only realistic means for your death. If you lose the Tengu+Thanatos and your implant set it still comes into around 2 billion isk ballpark if thanatos is uninsured. Which given what the other people have to field to have a fairly realistic chance of actually catching and killing you (which isn't guranteed) is marginal.

2. Fighters assigned to ships do not agress the ships using them. Unless CCP manages to bug-fix this aspect, this still makes ridiculous things possible such as fighters assigned to double 1600 plate covert ops, nullified subsystem t3s which sit on a gate with anchored bubbles and never aggress and just put fighters on people, jumping out as soon as they lose their 600,000 EHP to almost complete safety.

3. You can take 1) even further by burning a Confessor/Svipul with 10mn MWD in speed mode to the edge of a deadspace pocket in a complex (or a mission in npc 0.0), then setting up there, bringing your carrier 2-3km into the deadspace pocket and requiring even a snaked linked malediction <30minutes to burn to your thanatos if they probe out the plex, which you can easily just type "07 to ur t00nie" into local when it gets below 1000km on dir scanner and warp out.

4. Delegated fighters still fight while a Carrier is in warp so you can easily just assist your fighters to ships, then engage in a long warp to a friendly POS and your fighters will continue to fight while you're in warp and in complete invulnerability landing in the center of a safe POS when you land.

5. offline POS can be used (as they are done currently, right now with skynet/supers) with passwords entered and ready to go online to bypass CCP's current forcefield exclusion zone mechanics.


The problem isn't so much the ships used. As using a 400k EHP abaddon that never agresses with mwd+mmjd+ecm burst+cloak would still be possible with the beacon mechanic, costing 40 million isk after insurance if it dies, with the very likely possibility that it can escape unless the hostiles have multiple pilots (which you know about in your intel channels, and covert ops cloak capable ships if you see fit to allow the grid to allow it on cruisers). I think the risk should be for the Carrier pilot, not for other ships as it's too easy to mitigate risk on the other ships.


Nice read . Think i knew most of it here . Few points i din :)

But then again "clever use of game mechanic " is just like hyperdunking or cloak mwd trick on low sec gates . why should one be allowed when the other isnt ?

Removing the entire mechanic solves nothing .Let alone makes the thanatos useless other than ratting . if we are talking charts i'd like to see how many thanatos are actually used in pvp over archons . Do we wanna remove the only reason these ships are used in eve atm ?

point 1) i am not sure how removing fighter assist is gonna solve ur problem here . lol it may help if the pilot is dumb enuf to recall his fighters over saving his carrier

point 2 ) agree with u completely and that timers should be given to the delegated pilot as well . If ur worried about nullified t3's sorry cant help u there .

point 3 ) this is an issue with the deadspace pocket mechanics and the pilot using the delegate fighter mechanic to exploit the broken deadspace pocket mechanic . lol this mechanic is very rarely used as well given the amount of time it takes which you and i know cba with .

point 4) Agree with you again this is broken in fact i have been on the receiving end of such a crapy system . its needs a fix . Fighter should be called of when the carrier enters warp .

point 5) Again ur referring to the broken pos mechanic . Fighter assist is just a bloody bonus . You dont need fighter assist to exploit this mechanic ?

P.S staying alinged in a carrier in null sec when ratting or making em hard to probe has nothing to with fighter assist . Fighter assist its jus a causative . not the problem itself . Removing fighter assist dont solve em . only makes me store a 1.2 bil ship away for good






Terraniel Aurelius
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#253 - 2015-02-27 17:46:32 UTC
I don't like the idea of removing fighter assist. It's a neat mechanic that yes, could be exploited, but only because of the relative safety of the carrier pilot. In large fleet fights it can be a powerful tool that adds an extra dynamic to a fight. As far as I'm concerned, more dynamics makes for less predictable fights, and that is a good thing.

Where this mechanic can be exploited, is as CCP said, in the relative safety of the carrier pilot. So why don't we just make it so the carrier has to be on grid to assist? Problem solved. No more free dps without risk, and if the enemy is on-grid with a POS then so be it.

I'm up in the air about fighter warping. I feel like the ships are already slow enough as it is, without having to wait for fighters to return. I assume fighter-bombers are slower, but I don't have direct experience. That being said, usually I can get my fighters back to my thany (with a single drone nav) before I go into warp. However, if the change was made so I would have to be on-grid to assist, then I think figher warping is a fine mechanic. Carrier at risk? Check. Do fighters keep agressing after I dock/POS up? Nope. Is it overpowered? I suppose - but don't you think a carrier fielding a swarm of fighters should be able to take down anything less than another carrier? I do.

CCP: stop nerfing big ships just because they blow up smaller ships so well! That's the point for crying out loud. There is nothing wrong with that. If you want more diversity, tune your ships to be better at rock-paper-scissors.
Immortal Chrono Pimpin
Codename-47
Avocado Cartel
#254 - 2015-02-27 17:47:13 UTC
Realtalk tho since its getting removed replace the useless fighter control range with something more useful,

Maybe something having to do with triage for carriers and idk what for supers tbh.
Elenahina
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#255 - 2015-02-27 17:50:31 UTC
lexa21 wrote:
No need in such capitals. I will unsubscribe 2 accounts if this changes will apear on tranq.

Oh no! Please please don't uinsub two accounts!

Seriously dude? You basically just resorted to the "I'll take my ball and go home" argument.

Guess what? No one cares if you go home. We don't need you, or your ball.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno
Hiroito
Hiroito Internation Holding
#256 - 2015-02-27 17:50:43 UTC
My suggestion

A carrier/supercarrier can assign drone at 2 conditions :
- He is at 0m/s (any acceleration has one chance on 2 to make the fighter come back, the other chance to loose them) AND
if the carrier move while having fighter assign, he became a beacon like a cyno for 2 minutes.
- Can't be on the same grid as a protective structure like POS, Gate, Stations (Offline POS count as a POS)
AND :
- Drone bonus modules doesn't apply if the carrier is not on-grid because off-grid boosting is bad.
Davir Sometaww
Spooks On Pings
SE7EN-SINS
#257 - 2015-02-27 17:51:10 UTC
Simple fix without ruinning this unique concept. Just have pos shields interrupt carrier interaction with its fighters on a 100 km radius.

Meaning you can't assign fighters on pos shields
RICO Ramierz
Ortner Engineering Operations
#258 - 2015-02-27 17:52:25 UTC
Cant you not just remove fighter assistance from supers? Fighter drones are pretty much useless against anything smaller than a BC. This for me does not show that fighter drones are op, for instance there is the fact of how badly the atron is fit, the fact that the shuttle has no point the atron could have warped plus it would have died in a nano second to a pvp fit atron, oh and also the risk factor would be fielding 5x 20 mil isk fighters per go. I have always ran in small gangs in low sec, I dont like null sov or hitting F1 when being told to or flying some doctrine i didnt design on a tidi borefest. I feel like this nerf is too harsh on the smaller people just because people in null are going "WAAAA SKYNET WAAAAA"

Does anyone else feel the same or am I just being bad?
RICO Ramierz
Ortner Engineering Operations
#259 - 2015-02-27 17:53:12 UTC
Davir Sometaww wrote:
Simple fix without ruinning this unique concept. Just have pos shields interrupt carrier interaction with its fighters on a 100 km radius.

Meaning you can't assign fighters on pos shields




YES! THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Immortal Chrono Pimpin
Codename-47
Avocado Cartel
#260 - 2015-02-27 17:53:16 UTC
Davir Sometaww wrote:
Simple fix without ruinning this unique concept. Just have pos shields interrupt carrier interaction with its fighters on a 100 km radius.

Meaning you can't assign fighters on pos shields


You can sit in a anchored online pos without the shield up and assist fighters, As soon as you are in real danger you put in a pos pw and shield goes up.