These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Haywoud Jablomi
Vay Mining Corporation
#701 - 2015-03-01 18:26:12 UTC
If you engage a target you cant log off, you cant jump gates, and you cant dock in a station..........

Wouldnt the simplest solution be to extend this mentality to POS shields. Make it so you cant be in a shield with an aggression timer.

I mean why own a capital if it suddenly is just another ship in space like all the rest. With the huge training times, HUGE isk cost and everything else. Capitals should have a bit of power to them.

Stop taking the easy way out CCP.

BTW might just be me but linking a blue on blue kill and using that to prove your point seems a bit lame.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)

Racadiciu Velea
New Eden Horizons
#702 - 2015-03-01 18:32:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Racadiciu Velea
Quote:
I mean why own a capital if it suddenly is just another ship in space like all the rest. With the huge training times, HUGE isk cost and everything else. Capitals should have a bit of power to them.


Yeah, but then, God forbid they might sit in a safe spot! Goodness gracious I might even have to scan them down with probes! No way! Just remove any form of assistance! I should not have to do anything to get juicy cap kills that people invest huge time and ISK to build and fly! - Elite Carebear Harasser 2015

BRING BACK JUKEBOX CCP!!!

Nolak Ataru
Singularity Expedition Services
Singularity Syndicate
#703 - 2015-03-01 18:35:10 UTC
Racadiciu Velea wrote:
Quote:
I mean why own a capital if it suddenly is just another ship in space like all the rest. With the huge training times, HUGE isk cost and everything else. Capitals should have a bit of power to them.


Yeah, but then, God forbid they might sit in a safe spot! Goodness gracious I might even have to scan them down with probes! No way! Just remove any form of assistance! I should not have to do anything to get juicy cap kills that people invest huge time and ISK to build and fly!


OK, say you do have a carrier in a safe aligned to a POS. You know where the POS is, and you know the general direction the carrier is. You can bring in a cloaky ship, drop a bubble on the POS, wait for the carrier to panic-warp, then drop a super on it. Ta-da! Instant carrier killmail!
Racadiciu Velea
New Eden Horizons
#704 - 2015-03-01 18:36:49 UTC
Quote:
OK, say you do have a carrier in a safe aligned to a POS. You know where the POS is, and you know the general direction the carrier is. You can bring in a cloaky ship, drop a bubble on the POS, wait for the carrier to panic-warp, then drop a super on it. Ta-da! Instant carrier killmail!


nah, too much work. I would rather cry on the forums.

BRING BACK JUKEBOX CCP!!!

Grace Chang
Tyrannis Enterprises
#705 - 2015-03-01 18:44:17 UTC
I think it can be argued that the current fighter mechanic isn't ideal. However if you remove it, what is the point of having fighters? Their _applied_ dps isn't that great to consider a dps fit carrier to be on field and the fighters are really expensive if you loose them. If you want to dps in a carrier you probably go for sentries, fighters are largely pointless for this. The ONLY plus side of fighters is that they warp and you can assign them, they have no other role.

So the question for me would be: what does CCP plan with fighters if they remove the current mechanic?

If they do not come up with something convincing, carriers will just be fleet logistics (mostly archons, might as well reprocess the thanatos) and the odd mass deployment of slowcats.

The role of carriers is quite lame as it is - if you remove this mechanic it gets even slimmer. At that point you might as well remove the drone/fighter stuff alltogether and refine the overall carrier role.



Kallevra
Divine Angels
Divinity.
#706 - 2015-03-01 19:16:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Kallevra
Capitals in general have already taken the nerf bat the to balls with the overkill jump fatigue timers and stacking. Now CCP is taking the laziest possible way of "fixing" fighter assigning instead of actually doing it properly like they loosely out lined in an earlier post.

http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/balance-changes-coming-in-scylla ,scoll down to the picture of the nyx and read the first line of text. Then continue on in just that first paragraph where it says basiclly says 'screw the data'.

All this change will do is cause even more people to take a look at the accounts that have the carriers and thier carrier pilots and question why they even need to continue to keep that account active. Every person that has a super carrier has a highly skilled pilot locked into that 1 ship that, when these changes come into affect, will effectively remove super carriers from almost any form of game play in eve. Supers will have IHUBs, POCOs, SBUs, TCUs, Stations, and the very rare capital ship to be used against, all of which, in the current game mechanics, are better attacked with dreads that still have the ability to attack POSs.

Yes i do agree that fighter delegation needs to be looked. The ability for a fighter to follow its target to destination to continue the attack, even if the target warps off to a safe/unkown location that even us capsuleers have to scan down is a game/lore breaking mechanic. The ability for the fighters to warp with it's controlling ship (carrier or delegate) is a good thing since fighters travel at the speed of sludge to begin with.

The changes that i have read in the posts before mine that seem to be a mid-ground for both sides of the argument seem to be:

1. Ability to delegate fighters/bombers needs to be moved outside of POS safety/weapons
2. Remove Carrier module bonuses from assigned fighters/bombers
3. Remove the fighters 'magical' ability to follow a target that warps off to an unknown location
4. Only be able to assign the amount of fighters/bombers up to the delegate ship's maximum bandwidth
5. Players need to have the ability to web/scram/tackle/whatever the fighters preventing them from warping off grid

CCP needs to take an actual look at this issue, instead of just a brief glace long enough to line up the nerf bat again.
Draconus Lofwyr
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#707 - 2015-03-01 20:13:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Draconus Lofwyr
So, just what is this intended to fix? The biggest abuses of carrier mechanics? wreckingball or mass sentry use by coalitions? nope, no change there. Or the solo gankers trying to survive in lowsec with the ever impending threat of the previously mentioned coalitions waiting to drop their carrier when they make a mistake? It's not like a carrier or a supercarrier is any different in fighter delegation anymore. they both deploy the same amount of fighters. and delegated fighters do not carry the pilots bonus to the delegatee. Yes, delegated fighters have limited uses, but thanks to all the nerfs, so to do supercarriers.

What needs to change is capital critical mass, but that would require work, research, coding and getting off their asses, instead of throwing a few toggles and looking like they are doing something. If this nerf goes through, can you at least let supercarriers dock up....so we can reprocess or mothball the things so we can use out toon for something useful, like training for a dread.

i see one major drawback if this nerf goes through, it will kill some server nodes as carriers will no longer be able to deploy fighters off grid and warp to battle, instead, now they will land on grid and boom, mass deploy, mass lag.

way to fix one problem only to make another much older issue much worse. i really didnt think tidi lag could get much worse, but leave it to ccp to prove me wrong!
Knight4her
BlackWatch Industrial Group
Northern Coalition.
#708 - 2015-03-01 20:21:17 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.

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.

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


DO NOT REMOVE FIGHTER ASSIST!

I would say removal of fighter assist would kill the current carrier of eve. Be it a super-carrier or a carrier, the ability to assign fighters to other ships in a fleet gives the carriers a purpose on the field.

Removing the remote fighter assist would remove the purpose of the fighters themselves and belittle the use of the carriers.

Carriers already have had their jump range reduced which prevents a majority of their "force projection," removing their ability to assign fighters would reduce their ability to project force even more. Aside from that, carriers seem to be (as far as people I see using them) taking a more defensive role, that is being used to repel hostiles from home systems.

In any event, super carriers can no longer house drones because of their "fighter bay" not being able to handle them. (BS) And if they can no longer assign fighters, then they will be more limited in their use.

At this rate, you might as well just make eve a mmoba and drop everything else. Because the beauty of eve, for me personally, is the shear number of options available to us as the players. This mind-set of "we don't like how players are using this" is BS. Let people play how they want, simple as that.
Daichi Yamato
Jabbersnarks and Wonderglass
#709 - 2015-03-01 20:37:29 UTC
Zhalon wrote:
You removed content, you removed a play style.....please focus on adding content.


yeah! bring AWOXing back.

EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"

Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs

McNoTo
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#710 - 2015-03-01 20:59:54 UTC
hello eve-community and ccp,

you shouldn´t think about removing fighter assist to kick the older players in the ass, who spend a lot of time and isk to get this tool (supers) and to use it in combat situations. the main problem is the aggro-mechanic for players at a gate. you can use assisted fighters and you dont get any aggro and you can jump when ever you want. ccp should fix this.
the idea of removing fighter assist is bad for all smaller corps, cause this change will take away the possibility to fight against larger groups. bye bye content! if you want to use supers in the future with this change, smaller groups are forced to join larger corps or allys to get assist and the feeling of "save", when you bring this toy directly into the fighting area. BUT MANY PLAYERS DONT WANT TO JOIN THE POWERBLOCKS. it looks like, that this idea of change is only for the many paying player who are in such big communitys active and now they can kill more supers while the smaller ones have to warp these types of ships into the fight if they want to use it in the future. the other possibility is that this poor guys can sell the supers and delete the chars, cause for smaller communitys are supers useless. use a super one time away from your pos and pl or a other strong capfleet will be there for the second time. good job ccp.
using supers at a pos isn´t save at all. it´s still really dangerous and you field a lot of isk. also is a group with assigned fighter not unbeatable and it exist enough setups which are able to tank assisted fighters from more than 5 supers. fighters can be also called primary and can die really fast.

change the aggro mechanic! when you use assisted fighters you will get aggro like you use any other weapon.
don´t remove fighter assist for supers and carriers including fighters still should warp.

ccp shouldn´t argue with "...not meeting our standards for risk vs reward...", one accident double klick in space, and you can lose 30bil, 5 seconds too late with approaching the tower after a titan fleet jumps in -> you loose 30bil. cyno lightened directly next to your super and one of the incomming ships bumps you out of FF -> you loose 30bil!

ccp should rewrite it to -> "we just don't want players be able to use their supers if they aren't in one of the big alliances".
Yazzinra
Scorpion Ventures
#711 - 2015-03-01 21:07:09 UTC
I'm sure someone in the thread has said it, but:

Isn't the obvious answer to "skynet" just to remove the bonuses from the carrier (in the case of the thanatos) and modules when the fighters are assigned to someone? Few pilots used fighter assignment till the skills/module changes were introduced since fighters really are not ideal against small targets without them. You just made fighters viable after years of near uselessness, now you want to nerf them?

I think most everyone agrees fighters warping is fine and should be left alone. It really is a cool feature.
DrysonBennington
Eagle's Talon's
#712 - 2015-03-01 21:14:04 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.

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.

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


No fighter warping is essential.

What I think would make fighter and fighter bomber deployment more interesting is if fighter and fighter bomber warping / deployment could be done using a similar technique when placing probes to scan.

A screen similar to the probe scanner would be accessed where the carrier pilot could deploy her or his fighters and fighter bombers to an area of space. Once deployed the carrier pilot could set the fighter craft to patrol an area which would be determined by new skills. When patrolling an area of space the fighter could be set to engage or report the location of the target where the carrier pilot could then broadcast the location of the target to the rest of the fleet for the fleet to warp too.

With this new type of carrier function available I would have to think that a new type of carrier craft would need to be designed that would follow the tradition of World War II PBY Catalina's. The scout craft of the carrier would have larger detection range of the fighter and bombers but would be very slow to warp and would not have any weapons other than a moderate sensor ping that would disrupt targeting locks on ships destroyer sized and under.

http://www.history.com/videos/the-pby-a-plane-that-made-pilots-nervous#the-pby-a-plane-that-made-pilots-nervous
Racadiciu Velea
New Eden Horizons
#713 - 2015-03-01 21:15:44 UTC
Yazzinra wrote:

Isn't the obvious answer to "skynet" just to remove the bonuses from the carrier (in the case of the thanatos) and modules when the fighters are assigned to someone? Few pilots used fighter assignment till the skills/module changes were introduced since fighters really are not ideal against small targets without them. You just made fighters viable after years of near uselessness, now you want to nerf them?


People are using fighters just because of the tracking and damage bonuses from modules. From those modules, the fighters have the ability to project damage to battleships and even cruiser sized hulls.

If you remove those bonuses, along with the fighter delegation, then you have to ask yourself, what is the purpose of the fighter in the first place? People would just stop using them as they did before the fighter buffs.

Why not remove the fighters completely in that case?

BRING BACK JUKEBOX CCP!!!

Byson1
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#714 - 2015-03-01 21:22:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Byson1
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I'm still trying to see why keeping the fighter warp is beneficial. Nobody is saying why.

you obviously dont use carriers.

No one wants to say why cause they dont want to admit the use... And then give CCP a great idea to nerf it..

wait carriers are being used? NERF

For those that dont use carriers:

You have to be completely out of the shields to be able to assign fighters. It's been that way for a while now. There was a time when they could stick their nose out and assign. That time is no longer..

I would suggest maybe slowing carriers down more, lowering aggility, so it takes longer for them to return to shields rather than have to be a minimum distance from pos shields as there is already a min distance -you have to be out of the shields.

Those who are pansies and cant handle fighter aggro should figure out how to handle it rather than complain to CCP for them to change game mechanics to make it easier for them.

HTFU
Ice-King
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#715 - 2015-03-01 22:16:49 UTC
Warp Ability:
Let us toggle whether or not we want our fighters to pursue targets off grid. Being able to warp out without having to wait for your drones to return is a major benefit of using fighters and is a big part of what makes them unique and valuable.

Assigning Fighters:
Only allow fighters to be assigned to ships that are on grid with the carrier. If they leave the grid then control will be returned to the carrier.

Tim Nering
R3d Fire
#716 - 2015-03-01 22:49:21 UTC
im am so sick of 2 interceptors pointing me while getting hammered by fighters.

so yes yes yes yes and yes

no risk, no skill, only reward.

Stop Caring Start Fragging! Join R3D Fire Today!

Kabantik
Accidentally Seriously
#717 - 2015-03-01 22:49:45 UTC
Generally speaking, all capitals need a balance pass to evaluate their current isk/investment to potential usage (I.E. a single Interceptor can hold down dreads and carriers indefinitely) ratio as well as the justification for the title of being a "capital" or "ship of the line".

Removing fighters/fighter assistance or further reducing the viability and versatility of capital class ships is likely not the answer. I would suggest looking into the fundamental mechanics and interface of drones as a whole: damage, health, speed, size, delegation, bandwidth etc... There are so many issues with capitals as a class that not one single feature being removed will yield any popular widespread changes to how all entities use or utilize carriers, dreads, supers....

I feel as though this is a case of treating the patient's symptoms will of course provide relief but only temporarily. To further the analogy, we need to discover the source of the symptoms before treating the patient or else we'll irrecoverably alter the physiology of said patient.

TL;DR: Fighter Assistance is not the problem that will fix the interaction between carriers, supers and sub-capitals.
beakerax
Pator Tech School
#718 - 2015-03-01 23:06:09 UTC
Byson1 wrote:
HTFU

This would be more convincing if you weren't defending people who are unwilling to actually deploy their carriers on-grid.
Dean Dewitt
Les Petits Pedestres
WE FORM BL0B
#719 - 2015-03-01 23:13:39 UTC
Ice-King wrote:

Assigning Fighters:
Only allow fighters to be assigned to ships that are on grid with the carrier. If they leave the grid then control will be returned to the carrier.



This is ASSIST not ASSIGNING, can we talk about the issue with people who know what they are talking about?
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#720 - 2015-03-01 23:16:42 UTC
Byson1 wrote:
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I'm still trying to see why keeping the fighter warp is beneficial. Nobody is saying why.


You have to be completely out of the shields to be able to assign fighters. It's been that way for a while now. There was a time when they could stick their nose out and assign. That time is no longer..

I would suggest maybe slowing carriers down more, lowering aggility, so it takes longer for them to return to shields rather than have to be a minimum distance from pos shields as there is already a min distance -you have to be out of the shields.


Its not just carriers sitting on the edge of the FF :S and even those that are if they are doing it "properly" can get safe without having to move - hence the recommendation of disallowing fighter delegation inline with the cyno restrictions around POSes.

Carriers are supposed to have "over the horizon" capabilities as well as fleet support - taking away fighters being able to warp and be assigned would take away a part of what a carrier actually is.