These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Nerd Slayer
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#661 - 2015-03-01 10:31:45 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:


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



I think you mean fighter control delegation and not fighter assist.

As one of the key person for executing and communicating this change, I find your inability to use the correct term disturbing.
Bradford Clear
Stain Train
Domain Research and Mining Inst.
#662 - 2015-03-01 11:07:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Bradford Clear
Keeping the warp drive would be beneficial to almost everyone, whereas removing assist for them would help gameplay tremendously. For instance a nyx and 4 carriers were sitting on the edge of a pos the other day killing a triage. Nothing we could do but watch, becuase if we bump it then it's an exploit etc. If they don't want to risk it on grid then they should stop being pansies, and sitting on the edge of the pos shields. Also, you can't even kill it cause there is not a single way of bumping it when it's half way in the shields anyway.

Join : Bradford's 3rd Party Channel For all third party Services, and check out my thread.

Forum Link

Shtangist007
Wolframium
Azure Citizen
#663 - 2015-03-01 11:07:40 UTC
If you remove the warp fighters, instead they will remain only after a hard fat drones.
Worrff
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#664 - 2015-03-01 11:16:43 UTC
Nerd Slayer wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:


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



I think you mean fighter control delegation and not fighter assist.

As one of the key person for executing and communicating this change, I find your inability to use the correct term disturbing.


Doesn't matter. He isn't reading this thread anyway.

CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If it’s broken, leave it alone and break something else.

LT Alter
Optimistic Wasteland Inc.
Fraternity.
#665 - 2015-03-01 11:40:17 UTC
Worrff wrote:
Doesn't matter. He isn't reading this thread anyway.


Obviously you're not familier with the way CCP work. They read their forums more than most other game devs do. Rise is most likely reading this thread, writing down useful feedback (Which by the way your post is not), and then passing it on to talk with other developers on. He will then respond with updated changes and respond to our feedback as needed.

Learn pacience and remember that not only are CCP preparing for the upcoming fanfest, it is also currently the weekend. On top of that this thread is only like 3 days old.
Sanji Ohara
Tempus Edax Rerum.
#666 - 2015-03-01 11:43:13 UTC
I would like to see a set minimum distance from anchored structures for being able to delegate fighter control, not the complete removal of it. Unless you are imagining that every player who delegates fighters will suddenly grow a backbone and throw it into the fight creating more content (right..). Although if this does happen, I look forward to the firesale of carriers out in renter space.
Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#667 - 2015-03-01 11:45:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
I'm still trying to see why keeping the fighter warp is beneficial. Nobody is saying why.

Yaay!!!!

Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#668 - 2015-03-01 11:47:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Primary This Rifter
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I'm still trying to see why keeping the fighter warp is beneficial. Nobody is saying why.

So what? You haven't said why it should be removed, and unless you can then it should stay.

Nobody has made any argument as to why it should be removed beyond "only lazy people use it" and "it can be annoying", both of which are stupid because the first isn't a valid reason to remove it, and the second is irrelevant because we can already turn that **** off ourselves if we want to.
Cleanse Serce
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#669 - 2015-03-01 11:54:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Cleanse Serce
wouldn't it be better to just put a command line in which a Carrier couldn't put assist on fighter @ less than X km from a station / gate / POS / whatever ?

Skynet would still exist, but Carrier would be Probe-able and in danger cause they get Fighters timers !
Qu jinn
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#670 - 2015-03-01 12:16:27 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I'm still trying to see why keeping the fighter warp is beneficial. Nobody is saying why.

So what? You haven't said why it should be removed, and unless you can then it should stay.

Nobody has made any argument as to why it should be removed beyond "only lazy people use it" and "it can be annoying", both of which are stupid because the first isn't a valid reason to remove it, and the second is irrelevant because we can already turn that **** off ourselves if we want to.



You can warp off and did`t left 250 mill in fighters behind.
Emmilia Deriannice
Unknown Destination Z
#671 - 2015-03-01 12:16:58 UTC
I just unsubscribe, and will play the free games. It's the same thing, that: Imagine how much time for that would buy a super carrier, for the average player. And now, bleeding and sweat, I finally acquires it. And a month later you want to take the power, to which I have sought for several years? I myself was a victim of this superiority. The only difference is that I did not write the petition for developers. I have steel balls. If I was a victim of persecution fighter that, I did something wrong, and it's my fault. If some pilots lit ass when they are killed delegating fighters, well, you should not fly in zero. On the eve of the empire there, let them live there. Sry for my ENG
Jori McKie
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#672 - 2015-03-01 12:18:19 UTC
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I'm still trying to see why keeping the fighter warp is beneficial. Nobody is saying why.

So what? You haven't said why it should be removed, and unless you can then it should stay.

Nobody has made any argument as to why it should be removed beyond "only lazy people use it" and "it can be annoying", both of which are stupid because the first isn't a valid reason to remove it, and the second is irrelevant because we can already turn that **** off ourselves if we want to.

I'm thinking about quoting every dilettante with
http://gorsking.blogspot.de/2015/02/****-skynet.html
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532655#post5532655
maybe it will help but i doubt it.

So maybe every new site once so i don't spam this topic?

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar

Vic Jefferson
Stimulus
Rote Kapelle
#673 - 2015-03-01 12:21:57 UTC
So a good deal of the concern and worries of people here are perfectly valid; the removal of fighter assist is a good lighting rod for encapsulating the general zeitgeist of dissatisfaction with the way changes are happening these days.

Trend lines are scary both for where they have crossed, but also for where they point to; what else can people expect to have removed because it is a convenient way to address a problem?

Part of the epicness of this game is finally having a training plan pay off, of having goals that aren't reached overnight, or getting that ship you have been aiming for. You are seriously damaging players' will to stay the course, set big goals, or even attempt or care about bigger trains by repeatedly altering bigger ships into absolute impracticality.

Jump fatigue solved a problem. However, it also had collateral damage; relocations, deployments, and wars are all under much heavier constraint, and ships that people had trained for, as in spent valuable time training for, were no longer all that functional. What players are upset about is the appearance of being blazé about the collateral damage of changes. Lots of people owned carriers to be able to move their ships to where they can actually find content - now this feature is so changed as to not be what people were training towards.

Cap and supercap pilots are frustrated already. Part of this could be pointed to the political structures which keep them inactive, but just as well, this blame is or can be passed on to the sov system that spawned such political structures. Just taking things from players after they have earned them doesn't inspire confidence; people would generally feel better if there was a balance between nerfs and buffs, instead of seeing their SP investment entirely poof into dust in the wind.

Too many bandaids do not fix what requires actual attention.

Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X.....XI.....XII?

Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#674 - 2015-03-01 12:51:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Primary This Rifter
Jori McKie wrote:
Primary This Rifter wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I'm still trying to see why keeping the fighter warp is beneficial. Nobody is saying why.

So what? You haven't said why it should be removed, and unless you can then it should stay.

Nobody has made any argument as to why it should be removed beyond "only lazy people use it" and "it can be annoying", both of which are stupid because the first isn't a valid reason to remove it, and the second is irrelevant because we can already turn that **** off ourselves if we want to.

I'm thinking about quoting every dilettante with
http://gorsking.blogspot.de/2015/02/****-skynet.html
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532655#post5532655
maybe it will help but i doubt it.

So maybe every new site once so i don't spam this topic?

What does this have to do with fighter warping on its own, in the absence of fighter assign?
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#675 - 2015-03-01 12:52:06 UTC
And Gorski Car is dumb for titling his article in such a way that it can't be linked on the main EVE forums.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#676 - 2015-03-01 12:55:23 UTC
Vic Jefferson wrote:
So a good deal of the concern and worries of people here are perfectly valid; the removal of fighter assist is a good lighting rod for encapsulating the general zeitgeist of dissatisfaction with the way changes are happening these days.

Trend lines are scary both for where they have crossed, but also for where they point to; what else can people expect to have removed because it is a convenient way to address a problem?

Part of the epicness of this game is finally having a training plan pay off, of having goals that aren't reached overnight, or getting that ship you have been aiming for. You are seriously damaging players' will to stay the course, set big goals, or even attempt or care about bigger trains by repeatedly altering bigger ships into absolute impracticality.

Jump fatigue solved a problem. However, it also had collateral damage; relocations, deployments, and wars are all under much heavier constraint, and ships that people had trained for, as in spent valuable time training for, were no longer all that functional. What players are upset about is the appearance of being blazé about the collateral damage of changes. Lots of people owned carriers to be able to move their ships to where they can actually find content - now this feature is so changed as to not be what people were training towards.

Cap and supercap pilots are frustrated already. Part of this could be pointed to the political structures which keep them inactive, but just as well, this blame is or can be passed on to the sov system that spawned such political structures. Just taking things from players after they have earned them doesn't inspire confidence; people would generally feel better if there was a balance between nerfs and buffs, instead of seeing their SP investment entirely poof into dust in the wind.

Too many bandaids do not fix what requires actual attention.

I could not have said it better myself.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#677 - 2015-03-01 12:58:47 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Cleanse Serce wrote:
wouldn't it be better to just put a command line in which a Carrier couldn't put assist on fighter @ less than X km from a station / gate / POS / whatever ?

Skynet would still exist, but Carrier would be Probe-able and in danger cause they get Fighters timers !


Alone it doesn't solve the issue (though IMO its a needed step to resolving the issue without removing functionality).

Much of the original complaints stemmed from the fact that in combination with the "skynet" fit fighters were able to apply (unsupported) battleship to dread levels of alpha (and dps) to things that a battleship or dread could only dream of hitting, the fact that the super/carrier that was allowing that to happen was sitting about as safe as you get in this game while doing that was just adding insult to injury. Increasing the weighting of the sig component of the fighter's chance/quality to hit (i.e. similar style to what titan xl turrets use but not quite as extreme) so that they struggle and/or can't hit smaller stuff no matter how many tracking mods, etc. the carrier/super is using would go a long way to addressing that without any other changes and have minimal knock on effect on unrelated areas of eve.


@Vic Jefferson - that is one of the biggest reasons I'm not playing eve today as much as I used to and why changes like this make me sad - I jumped in the game with the intention from the start of training up for dreads - literally within days of finishing my skill queue they removed drone functionality from dreads - on its own not a big deal but when you've into run stuff like that several times it stops you wanting to put any effort into long term plans and not being a flavour of the month type player it leaves me less and less attached to the game (doesn't bother me to go and play something else but that isn't really an optimal outcome).
Etara Silverblade
Morex Group Inc.
Haven.
#678 - 2015-03-01 13:21:52 UTC
Whatever happened to the idea that ships should be on grid to make a difference in a fight? I think that's what is missing from the solution.

How about forcing the ship you assign drones/fighters to to be in your drone control range? When the pilot goes out of your drone control range the drones revert back to you. Following you when you warp would still work and you wouldn't have carriers near a POS, station, or safe spot with fighters out there somewhere since no one would be able to control them without the carriers that make control of fighters possible.

The rest doesn't seem like an issue that needs fixing.

Kazekage Dono
Pertonas Development Inc
#679 - 2015-03-01 14:03:27 UTC
Goodbye fighter assist.
Halina Halinawino
Doomheim
#680 - 2015-03-01 14:17:44 UTC
I am Halina Halinawino i bid You welcome!
We will talk about what CCP has done in the past few year. Let’s begin with what CCP has promised to us on last fanfest and what of it has been fulfilled. Next fanfest is close by and so are new promises.

First thing first where are:
pos fuel consumption based on modules active,
new player build stargates,
sov warfare revmap and many more.

Nothing has been done and all your promises are empty. There are many strange things that are illogical to people who have primary school education. For example You can bump any ship by even smallest thing (capsule bumping an titan) but stations and other things that are smaller than dreadnought or supercarrier are impossible to bump or are they enchanted by an toothfairy so they are impossible to move. Your physics are wrong guys. There are many paradoxes like that in this game. The curious thing is artificially making New Eden smaller by implementing capsuleer exhaustion after each jump (I mean seriously after hundreds of years of jumping and traveling the capsuleer suddenly can’t do it so efficiently anymore). Another thing is chances of getting an escalation for example, in the past you would get 1x 10/10 and it would not be so easy to complete, now you get 10x 10/10 and they are really easy to complete.
Most priceless thing the CCP has done is implementing frequent patches only to make it look like they are doing anything. Who in their right mind implements an patch every month when they did so two times a year. Dont get me going on with “OH MA GAD NEW CONTENT!!!1one” when it is ****** one? I think it is only done so it will be harder to see what promises they made and what they have done. Start working on horrible lags and glitches you get when **** hits the fan and you get more than 250 people fighting on one grid. Game has many bugs, for example getting bumped from an rock that is 3000m away from your ship, no logs of player activity on poses. From what i know normal drones are operated from their mothership and so can they can only be delegated on only on grid, fighters and fighter bombers have their pilots inside them(look at the models they are not drones they are little ships with crew on them) so they can be delegated across the system hence going with the logic of our developers you should forbid players to warp to their fleet commander in combat. This is about idea of making it impossible to fighters and fighter bombers to warp. I am curious how that fight would look like. Why is it our developers won’t fix the bug with carriers sitting in the shields of pos and delegating their fighters to ceptors that are camping the gate. They are simply deleting content instead of fixing it. Cloaky system campers are an problem for past few years and there is nothing or close to nothing was done to fix that problem. All you had to do was that the cloaky guy had to turn off and on his cloak lets say once every 15 minutes. This problem hits small corporations, they can’t fight back against that. Fix would hit players that are doing so trying to hunt ratters. This would help establish balance in game.