These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Solairen
Matsuko Holding
#341 - 2015-02-27 21:36:28 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Solairen wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
I don't really care that fighters follow targets in warp. I've never been in a situation where this was actually that helpful.

I don't see why you want to remove it though, but if you must, fine.

What I'm pretty sure is completely unnecessary is removing the ability for fighters to warp after their parent carrier.


Generally problem isn't figthers following a target in warp, it's them being assisted away, and then following the assisted ship into warp. Allowing you to park a carrier on the edge of a POS, while another ship uses the entire DPS of that carrier of grid for a gate camp, or ratting, or whatever. With 0 risk to the carrier and massive bonus for the more expendable ship.

CCP is saying this problem can be fixed by EITHER removing the fighter assist (the current planned change) OR by removing fighter warp (offer to community to decide between the two).

No, you misread the devblog.


No... you did. See the final sentance.

CCP Rise wrote:
As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla.

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.



Clearly says remove warp OR leave it in without assist.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#342 - 2015-02-27 21:38:52 UTC
^^ They can remove assist if they want :D just leave in assignment :P
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#343 - 2015-02-27 21:39:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
Done and gone. Moving on.

Yaay!!!!
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#344 - 2015-02-27 21:39:27 UTC
Komodo Askold wrote:
I can't speak for the drone assist thing. However, I do can provide an idea for the whole "warp or not warp" thing.

In fact I think it is a very simple solution: just add a checkbox on the "Drone Options" menu which forces your fighter(bomber)s to warp or not to warp after their targets. Something like:

[Checkbox] Fighters pursue targets into warp

Hope this helps.

Yeah if only CCP could put such a thing into the game.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#345 - 2015-02-27 21:42:39 UTC
Solairen wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Solairen wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
I don't really care that fighters follow targets in warp. I've never been in a situation where this was actually that helpful.

I don't see why you want to remove it though, but if you must, fine.

What I'm pretty sure is completely unnecessary is removing the ability for fighters to warp after their parent carrier.


Generally problem isn't figthers following a target in warp, it's them being assisted away, and then following the assisted ship into warp. Allowing you to park a carrier on the edge of a POS, while another ship uses the entire DPS of that carrier of grid for a gate camp, or ratting, or whatever. With 0 risk to the carrier and massive bonus for the more expendable ship.

CCP is saying this problem can be fixed by EITHER removing the fighter assist (the current planned change) OR by removing fighter warp (offer to community to decide between the two).

No, you misread the devblog.


No... you did. See the final sentance.

CCP Rise wrote:
As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla.

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.



Clearly says remove warp OR leave it in without assist.

"Additional notes: Removing fighter assist raises the question of whether or not fighters should still warp."
Garnt TheBrobarian
Whole Squid
#346 - 2015-02-27 21:43:14 UTC
Late to the party and not gonna read 18 pages, but wanted to say something.

Please, for the love of all things good and holy, stick to your guns on this one.

Get rid of assign, get rid of warp. Anyone calling them good or interesting mechanics is either entirely disingenuous or hopelessly deluded.

People begging for you to roll back the changes aren't looking for gameplay, they're looking for ways to avoid it.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#347 - 2015-02-27 21:44:56 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I'm still looking for a reason why to keep the warping function with fighters. The only argument that people have come forward with is that they are expensive, and that its unique. is... Is that it?

If you want to explain it to me like I am five, I'll listen. Heck CCP is here ready to listen. So please do.

Why is this ability needed for Carriers and Supers? Why does the capital need a way to chase ships all over the system?


I can see it being a bigger deal with supers as their FBs are their main teeth (if they have fighters its usually just a token amount) unlike carriers where you still have sentries and a myriad of drones to fall back on.
Tiberian Deci
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#348 - 2015-02-27 21:47:23 UTC
Apok Salzak wrote:
Let get this straight. You post a Scope Video about Carriers getting killed by rats and now you are nerfing them?

WTS Useless Cap Pilot.


If your cap pilot is useless without fighter assign you're doing cap pilots wrong m8.
Solairen
Matsuko Holding
#349 - 2015-02-27 21:47:24 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:



"Additional notes: Removing fighter assist raises the question of whether or not fighters should still warp."


I never said they didn't raise it as a question or option. I said they presented is as an either/or. 1 change basically makes the other 1 less useful, so they ask if the community wants it changed, left alone, or something else changed.

I think we are saying same thing but from different perspectives.
Igor Nappi
Doomheim
#350 - 2015-02-27 21:48:06 UTC
Big thumbs up for removing these two game breaking mechanics.

Furthermore, I think that links must be removed from the game.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#351 - 2015-02-27 21:49:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Primary This Rifter
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

There doesn't have to be one, because there hasn't been any actual argument for removing it.
That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.

Solairen wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:



"Additional notes: Removing fighter assist raises the question of whether or not fighters should still warp."


I never said they didn't raise it as a question or option. I said they presented is as an either/or. 1 change basically makes the other 1 less useful, so they ask if the community wants it changed, left alone, or something else changed.

I think we are saying same thing but from different perspectives.

No, they didn't present it as an either/or. It's "we're removing fighter assist, would you also like us to remove fighter warp?" Not, "we're probably going to remove fighter assist, but we might be convinced to remove fighter warp instead."
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#352 - 2015-02-27 21:51:27 UTC
Igor Nappi wrote:
two game breaking mechanics.

[Citation needed]
Davir Sometaww
Spooks On Pings
SE7EN-SINS
#353 - 2015-02-27 21:55:24 UTC
Immortal Chrono Pimpin wrote:
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.


Well guess what? Simple fix;

Carriers anywhere near a anchored online pos / Online pos with shield - can't assign fighters within 100km radius.

Done and done.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#354 - 2015-02-27 21:56:58 UTC
If CCP were actually interested in increasing risk for capital ships, they'd explore alternative methods beyond removing fighter assign.

If you remove a function that a ship has, then people don't use it for that anymore. Those people who were assisting fighters aren't suddenly going to bring their carriers into fights where they were previously assisting - they just won't assist anymore.

If you instead made it so that fighter assist cannot be done within, say, 20 km of POS forcefields, and that fighters automatically warp back to the carrier as soon as it warps or gets within 20 km of the force field, then they'd still assist, they'd just accept more risk in doing so.
Veetor Nara
The Tuskers
The Tuskers Co.
#355 - 2015-02-27 22:00:18 UTC
I'd advise against this, just because I want to try what it's like and I'm just 20days away from it.
Panther X
Destructive Influence
Northern Coalition.
#356 - 2015-02-27 22:00:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Panther X
Igor Nappi wrote:
Big thumbs up for removing these two game breaking mechanics.



How is it "broken"? Explain? Carriers and Super carriers are force projectors. Just because you can't tackle them with your interceptor and pop them solo doesn't mean that it's broken.

The mechanic as it is is controversial at worst. Some hate it, some like it, some are indifferent.

But to say that the mechanic is broken without any explanation is just nonsense..

One thing that does need to be addressed is the fact that there is no sign of a trade off for those of us who are heavily invested in Fighters and Fighter Bombers. It's a logistical nightmare for us super pilots to replenish our stocks without the aid of the largest of industrial ships. If warp is taken away from them, then you need to either

1) change fighter and bomber size again to allow us more flights in the drone bay or
2) change the drone bay size again to allow us more flights in the drone bay or
3) both to give us a "hey sorry we have been kicking your asses with the nerf bat the past couple releases, but here's a bone for ya to show that we do respect you as a subscriber"
4) STOP THE MADNESS

My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
exiik Shardani
Imperial Spacedrill and Logistics
#357 - 2015-02-27 22:01:31 UTC  |  Edited by: exiik Shardani
do not remove that mechanic, just make something like "dust band-witch" it means:

frig can control only one fighter
dessie can contro 1-2
cruiser can control 2-3
BC can control 3-4
BB+ can control 4-5

I think it eliminate frig+skynet gatecamps and still allow use skynets for ratting, or interesting support (I think ppl defending system need have a little off-grid support).

______________________________
edit:
I am FW/lowsec noob ;-)

sry for my English :-(
Igor Nappi
Doomheim
#358 - 2015-02-27 22:05:22 UTC
Forgot to add, the nullbot tears in this thread are absolutely delicious.

Furthermore, I think that links must be removed from the game.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#359 - 2015-02-27 22:07:17 UTC
Igor Nappi wrote:
Forgot to add, the nullbot tears in this thread are absolutely delicious.

Thanks for establishing that you are indeed arguing from emotion.
Iron Skin CoverShell
Fuxi Legion
Fraternity.
#360 - 2015-02-27 22:08:10 UTC
Oh My God , please keep cool headed our boss,
i suggest , you can make a Special Module (like Siege Module) to keep the carrier KEEP 50KM off the POS , and CANNOT CHANGE the SHIP fit.
Just....don't delete our carrier pleaseStraight