These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Oblivious Aubaris
Falling Skies Syndicate
#681 - 2015-03-01 14:32:04 UTC
What about an assisted drone bandwidth?

Just as an example. The taranis interceptor has a normal drone bandwidth of 10 Mbit/sec. If that was his assisted drone bandwidth, then he wouldn't even be able to have a fighter assigned to him at all. I'm not saying it should be 10 Mbits/sec. Let say it was 25 Mbits/sec assisted drone bandwidth. That allows the pilot to have the option of 1 fighter or 5 light drones. He could have 1 heavy drone or 2 medium drones and 1 light drone. Obviously this amount would grow exponentially as the ship size goes up. An example being a battleship can have a full 5 fighters assisting him, but he is risking his battleship on grid.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#682 - 2015-03-01 14:41:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Oblivious Aubaris wrote:
What about an assisted drone bandwidth?

Just as an example. The taranis interceptor has a normal drone bandwidth of 10 Mbit/sec. If that was his assisted drone bandwidth, then he wouldn't even be able to have a fighter assigned to him at all. I'm not saying it should be 10 Mbits/sec. Let say it was 25 Mbits/sec assisted drone bandwidth. That allows the pilot to have the option of 1 fighter or 5 light drones. He could have 1 heavy drone or 2 medium drones and 1 light drone. Obviously this amount would grow exponentially as the ship size goes up. An example being a battleship can have a full 5 fighters assisting him, but he is risking his battleship on grid.


^^ People would just start using linked nano phoons ;) (or machariels)

Slightly less flippantly doesn't really solve the problem as there are a few cruisers that have the bandwidth and you still have the factor that triggered a lot of complaints in that those fighters can easily blast ships away that anything else with that kind of firepower would struggle to hit at all.
Commander Rip
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#683 - 2015-03-01 14:42:14 UTC
I see many talking about risk/reward but most don’t take into account the risk of training the skills needed to fly carriers in the first place. The rewards of fighter assist or follow target were base skills of the carriers. In PvP Carriers are essentially team based bonus platforms.

The spirit of these recent changes seems to suggest CCP would like to reduce the capital ship population. You all may as well just add a feature to anchor carriers permanently (POS) because that’s all they will be good for soon. Coming soon #CapitalBoneYards
5mok1ng gun
Moon Of The Pheonix
#684 - 2015-03-01 14:43:28 UTC
octahexx Charante wrote:
this game keeps getting nerfed,it gets duller for ever forced gameplay style,cattleprodding the player base into the next playstyle to then nerf it,the game gets smaller and more dull for every removal of personal choice,nerfing the capitals and supers that is the current trend removes endgame,everytime a doctrine shows to be effective because its the least nerfed ship it gets nerfed.
i cant put the words for it down but it makes the world of eve online smaller and less exciting,i dont want all the ships to be the same and nerfed into a childsafe yellow bumpercar with foampadding...



EVE has been getting nerfed more and more into the child safe environment you know it as now.

BS's get webbed to hell target painted and blaped by dreads so capital guns get a nerf because them getting blaped are not moving, nothing to do with the dread but the utility people use to achieve the blap and the stupidity of the blaped doesn't realise the MWD they are still trying to use is making the BS the size of a small moon.

Now fighters are warping after people and killing them or just killing them you bashed the scan res of them CCP to make them take longer to lock the smaller targets and now ( you have decided in your extensive 1 month ish of new data ) that the problem is now with assignment or warping of fighters.

Fighters are supposed to be a powerful weapon ( what other weapons do carriers have ? ) and now you want to screw over the usability of them by taking away assignment and / or warping after targets with what little data you have acquired since the last change you did to fighters.

You had more long term information on Ishtar trends than you have on the fighter trends since their respective changes but to hell with data right lets just keep bashing capitals because "ENTER REASONS" or "ENTER NOOB COMPLAINTS"


WAHHH capitals are so hard to kill
WAHHH scanning capitals is such a chore
WAHHH ...................
WAHHH ..............................
WAHHH ......................................
Shawn Gallentino
Heaven's Harvesters
#685 - 2015-03-01 15:31:33 UTC
How can it be said that the capital pilot risks nothing? Don't fighters cost isk? Isn't that a risk?

So your answer is to have the carrier on the same grid as the fighter. What will that mean for fighters guarding a ship? won't that be nearly the same thing?

So now you want carriers on the same field as the fighters. If so then you might as well remove fighters altogether since a ton of sentries would do the same job! Fighters will no longer have any relevance whatsoever.

Carriers have no turret hard points, no missile defense. If you're going to force the carrier onto the same grid, then give us something in return. All turret hard points and 3 missile hard points. Then increase the number of deployable drones to give the ship a fighting chance of killing a smaller fleet.

Balance implies a GIVE AND take. All this will do is cause carriers to become less deployed altogether. The issue is that the STRATEGY of skynetting is undesirable. If so then create a counter strategy. Perhaps it's ECM bombs. Perhaps it's anti-fighter torpedoes; something. Once a carrier runs out of of fighters the threat is over.
dapheel Thurogood
TOP DAMAGE Ltd.
Unspoken Alliance.
#686 - 2015-03-01 15:32:33 UTC
I have only recently joined Eve, so I'm a long way off having a carrier yet. In my opinion it seems a shame to remove a unique mechanic like this from the game altogether. I however also think it's broken to be allowed to assign that much DPS to a small ship.

Why not remove Carrier and module buffs (but not pilot skills) from assigned fighters?
They would be able to assist in things like POS attacks and to defend the group they're assigned to from large ships. However they would lack the tracking to be used on smaller ships for activities like gate camping and low-risk ratting.
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#687 - 2015-03-01 15:42:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
Emmilia Deriannice wrote:
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


Can I have your stuff?

To the people saying the cost of the fighters was risk enough that skynet was balanced, you are completely wrong. There's 26 bil of ship taking part in a skynet fight, and if you want to put that dps on grid you should have to risk the ship itself, not 100mil worth of glorified drones.

Didnt really expect the complete removal of fighter warp and, Rise, I think there are probably good aarguments for keeping that. It DOES offer some nice and varied gameplay that after the skynet nerf probably won't be too OP.
JSSix
Lowlife.
Snuffed Out
#688 - 2015-03-01 15:49:14 UTC
How about you just fix the POS Mechanics instead of changing the entire gameplay of Carriers and Supers...

Skynet is a mechanic with use of POS... so Change the POS instead, you guys are just trying to change something that is easier by removing a code rather than changing one.
devian chase
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#689 - 2015-03-01 15:51:45 UTC
Twistedlove the changeTwisted
removing the fighter assist thing is a good thing
removing the fighter follow in warp thingie isnt needed .. just make a button next to the passive / agressive stance where you can set them on follow or stay on grid , so the pilot can deicide

the nice thing about all the complains is that you are kinda thinking 1 ship ( carrier / super carrier ) should be able to do and kill EVERYTHING Shocked

eve should be a bit more rts like . with actual counters to capitals in the form of frigates ( just like the good old bazooka trooper against a tank)
So give us a starwars type force guided missile so i can blow up unsupported capitals


Copy Bird
ZC Industries
Dark Stripes
#690 - 2015-03-01 16:14:09 UTC
if your going to remove fighter assist from supers, can we get normal drones back please.
Moridin Cross
Trinity Collective Co.
DammFam
#691 - 2015-03-01 16:15:05 UTC
I will welcome the end of fighter assignment. The warping mechanic is still something that should be left in place. It adds a needed complexity to using a capital ship. I like the fact that fighters can chase down fleeing targets and I must be concerned about the same if I'm the fleeing ship. Fighters should have an advantage over regular drones, I think the warp out mechanic works well for that.

Without seeing the big picture and all of the data out there I can't give fully informed suggestions for fighter assignment. However, some ideas for the fighter mechanics could include:
Increasing the bandwidth of fighters when assigned. ie: A fighter takes 25 bandwidth when launched by a carrier, but 50 when controlled by a sub cap.
Only allowing ships to control fighters only with the same ability of that individual ship. ie: when a ship only has 25 bandwidth available, it can only control 1 fighter. This would prevent ships such as a T1 frigate, that usually does not have a large amount of dps, from taking on flights of fighters and creating an unfair advantage.

I still would have no problem with killing the fighter assignment all together and think that would be the best course of action. Keep the warping mechanic please. A small UI next to the drone window displaying the drone's target would be nice too.
Carrion Crow
Head Like a Hole.
#692 - 2015-03-01 16:20:19 UTC
One further thought on risk reward.

If fighters / fighter bombers are so powerful, why not de-centralize the risk reward from the carrier to the fighters themselves?

This idea may be too far (I'm not experienced in markets/production at all) but by increasing the cost of fighters/bombers and slightly reducing the cost of the carrier/super carrier hulls more risk is in the fighters themselves?

Combine this with the ability to effectively PVP against the fighters by scramming them and also bringing in killmails for fighters there would be more RISK vs REWARD.

I think something like this would be more favorable than removing a feature and making carriers another generic big pvp ship with drones.
Racadiciu Velea
New Eden Horizons
#693 - 2015-03-01 16:59:18 UTC
Here's my 2 cents.

After reading through the comments, I somewhat agree with statements from both sides of the debate.

I personally own a carrier, but the use for me has been fairly limited as I am still training. I understand people who got abused by fighters assisted in pvp scenarios, with little to no risk involved for the carriers/supercarriers. Fighters assisted to interceptors is definitely the result of a broken mechanic. Shocked

I do however see the use of fighter assistance in PVE scenarios and structure grinding and what-not, where the fighter DPS helps with killing NPCs, structures.

In my opinion, the complete removal of the fighter delegation is just a blow to the versatility of the carrier/supercarrier and the versatility of EVE gameplay in general.Roll

I am pretty sure that some balance in term of risk vs reward can be achieved.

Some players have already suggested limiting the size of the assisted hull to cruiser or battleship, or giving the carrier/super aggression timer and forbidding them to enter stations/POS shields while fighters are delegated, or a mix of those.

Fighters also cost money, and making them more vulnerable might be another perspective to look at.

Pirate

BRING BACK JUKEBOX CCP!!!
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#694 - 2015-03-01 17:07:39 UTC
Racadiciu Velea wrote:
Here's my 2 cents.

After reading through the comments, I somewhat agree with statements from both sides of the debate.

I personally own a carrier, but the use for me has been fairly limited as I am still training. I understand people who got abused by fighters assisted in pvp scenarios, with little to no risk involved for the carriers/supercarriers. Fighters assisted to interceptors is definitely the result of a broken mechanic. Shocked

I do however see the use of fighter assistance in PVE scenarios and structure grinding and what-not, where the fighter DPS helps with killing NPCs, structures.

In my opinion, the complete removal of the fighter delegation is just a blow to the versatility of the carrier/supercarrier and the versatility of EVE gameplay in general.Roll

I am pretty sure that some balance in term of risk vs reward can be achieved.

Some players have already suggested limiting the size of the assisted hull to cruiser or battleship, or giving the carrier/super aggression timer and forbidding them to enter stations/POS shields while fighters are delegated, or a mix of those.

Fighters also cost money, and making them more vulnerable might be another perspective to look at.

Pirate


The thing with PvE exceptions is, the same aargument against PvP skynet applies perfectly fine. Why should you be able yo use a Nyx to increase your ratting speed without having to risk that ship in the combat site itself?

It's the projection of dps off grid that was the problem, the ways it was used and abused just symptoms.
Racadiciu Velea
New Eden Horizons
#695 - 2015-03-01 17:18:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Racadiciu Velea
Quote:
The thing with PvE exceptions is, the same aargument against PvP skynet applies perfectly fine. Why should you be able yo use a Nyx to increase your ratting speed without having to risk that ship in the combat site itself?

It's the projection of dps off grid that was the problem, the ways it was used and abused just symptoms.


Well then, why would you be able to boost off grid to increase your combat capabilities without having to risk that ship itself.
Applied DPS off grid increases your combat capabilities just as well. Why not tune the projection itself instead of gimping a mechanic?

BRING BACK JUKEBOX CCP!!!
Halina Halinawino
Doomheim
#696 - 2015-03-01 17:33:20 UTC
I`m reading you cries about that and I see that people who cry the most are those who lost a ship in pvp against ratting ship which was assisted by fighters.
But the situation when 10 ships gank one ratting ship is fair.
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
#697 - 2015-03-01 17:33:52 UTC
Racadiciu Velea wrote:
Quote:
The thing with PvE exceptions is, the same aargument against PvP skynet applies perfectly fine. Why should you be able yo use a Nyx to increase your ratting speed without having to risk that ship in the combat site itself?

It's the projection of dps off grid that was the problem, the ways it was used and abused just symptoms.


Well then, why would you be able to boost off grid to increase your combat capabilities without having to risk that ship itself.
Applied DPS off grid increases your combat capabilities just as well. Why not tune the projection itself instead of gimping a mechanic?


You shouldn't be able to off grid boost either, I hope they scrap that next.
Jane Philipps
The Black Lagoon Company
#698 - 2015-03-01 17:41:23 UTC
I have started this game in 2009, with 5 accounts.
I have only 2 in activity today.
CCP will kill our game patch after patch !

What we do with Fighter assist, we are doing PVE, and make money.

So PVP Players are not happy because we can defend our system with fighters !!
CCP , could you make statistics of kill with fighter in roaming gang pvp ?

In 2009 there was 65000 people connected each evening , now we are 35 000.
May be it is time to think what do you do ?

We love this game but patch after patch , it seems to be harder for us to stay here.

Think about it
devian chase
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#699 - 2015-03-01 17:54:54 UTC
i thought fighters where **** back in 2009 ^^
so it was perfectly fine to assist back then...
but since fighters get drone damage , nav and tracking bonus they are out of controll ( even more so when the carrier doesnt even have to think about a tank while sitting safely at the edge of a bubble )
as it is now the light on my worm have a harder time killing frigs then the fighters on a nyx :)

we should prolly go back to the good old days when fighters where completly useless
Burrick V'ar
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#700 - 2015-03-01 18:19:33 UTC
Leave fighter warping in. That's what the "attack and follow" toggle is for, isn't it? If you don't want them warping, just toggle it off. Seems like a no-brainer to me.