These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Dean Dewitt
Les Petits Pedestres
WE FORM BL0B
#761 - 2015-03-02 09:51:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Dean Dewitt
Kane Carnifex, you said it bro, nothing more to say :)

Goin Off, people in my alliance don't really move their carrier to make their logistique, I personnaly don't move my carrier to bring some ships from high-sec but yeah old player and new player won't skill for capitals as they are becoming useless and CCP don't like capitals but we players like these ships and skill these ships for a long time. So please CCP don't remove capitals, make them more usefull, may be make them more expensive to product.
Neyko Turama
Nomadic Vanguards
#762 - 2015-03-02 09:53:55 UTC
Where is the poll btw?
Chi'Nane T'Kal
Interminatus
#763 - 2015-03-02 10:01:58 UTC
I must admit to a bit of confusion.

If you at CCP didn't want this situation, whatever made you think that applying the originating carrier's mod bonuses to assigned fighters was a change worth implementing?

Assigned fighters were AFAIK not a huge problem when they were assigned without ship bonuses (specifically damage and tracking).
Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#764 - 2015-03-02 10:09:09 UTC
So the changes to remove the ability to assign fighters I agree with, it can ruin PvP though it does give advantages to a defender which is sometimes needed. This will make it more difficult to rat in contested i.e. camped areas, but thats acceptable, hiding next to a POS shield is kinda meh and I never did it.

Do not remove the ability for fighters to warp, the issue is that fighters are damn expensive and when you carrier rat you have to be ready to get out fast, if you keep leaving fighters behind all the time then its not worth using for the small guy, doing this will damage the smaller guys a lot.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Kane Carnifex
Duty. Joint Harvesting
WE FORM BL0B
#765 - 2015-03-02 10:18:12 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:
So the changes to remove the ability to assign fighters I agree with, it can ruin PvP though it does give advantages to a defender which is sometimes needed. This will make it more difficult to rat in contested i.e. camped areas, but thats acceptable, hiding next to a POS shield is kinda meh and I never did it.
.


Because you do not have a Fleet which is able to kill a Carrier by a drive by? Either you avoid the battle or try to get in advantage by more logistics etc. It doesn´t ruin PvP, you just don't agree ti fight with your disadvantage.



http://vesuvi.de - EVE & Food Porn in German...

Dracvlad
Taishi Combine
Astral Alliance
#766 - 2015-03-02 10:32:42 UTC
Kane Carnifex wrote:
Dracvlad wrote:
So the changes to remove the ability to assign fighters I agree with, it can ruin PvP though it does give advantages to a defender which is sometimes needed. This will make it more difficult to rat in contested i.e. camped areas, but thats acceptable, hiding next to a POS shield is kinda meh and I never did it.
.


Because you do not have a Fleet which is able to kill a Carrier by a drive by? Either you avoid the battle or try to get in advantage by more logistics etc. It doesn´t ruin PvP, you just don't agree ti fight with your disadvantage.



I don't understand what you are trying to say, but there are too many people looking for fights with a carrier ready to assign fighters, that being said it was a mechanic that allowed the smaller group to take on bigger groups without risking too much, which is what I like about it.

The removal of that bait possibility is a positive, but the removal of an ability to fight when out-numbered is a negative, I am not sure whether I am in favour of the removal of skynet or not, if I was to really want to define my position its where the small guy can operate in 0.0, so on that basis I think I am slightly in favour of keeping skynet.

In terms of the warping ability if that is removed for fighters I don't see them being useful for PvE at this point for smaller entities, so am totally against that.

When the going gets tough the Gankers get their CSM rep to change mechanics in their favour.

Blocked: Teckos Pech, Sonya Corvinus, baltec1, Shae Tadaruwa, Wander Prian, Daichi Yamato, Jonah Gravenstein, Merin Ryskin, Linus Gorp

Kane Carnifex
Duty. Joint Harvesting
WE FORM BL0B
#767 - 2015-03-02 10:51:43 UTC
Dracvlad wrote:



I don't understand what you are trying to say, but there are too many people looking for fights with a carrier ready to assign fighters, that being said it was a mechanic that allowed the smaller group to take on bigger groups without risking too much, which is what I like about it.



Exactly the point :)

You could even fight with 3 Skiffs an incoming Gang or likely bait them until you friends from the neighbour hood arrives.

I think it is also funny to fight an incoming cruiser gang with some Assault frigates which using assigned fighter.
Here the attacker have the option to take the fight and may lose some ships but once you kill the assault frigates they also loose the Fighter. Also it would be possible to bring more people which just let you pop the frigates faster.

I have the feeling which the PvP Gangs are complaining of to much defense in the system they want to kill hulks and other shiny ships with a pve tank.

http://vesuvi.de - EVE & Food Porn in German...

Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#768 - 2015-03-02 11:43:22 UTC
Kane Carnifex wrote:


Exactly the point :)

You could even fight with 3 Skiffs an incoming Gang or likely bait them until you friends from the neighbour hood arrives.

I think it is also funny to fight an incoming cruiser gang with some Assault frigates which using assigned fighter.
Here the attacker have the option to take the fight and may lose some ships but once you kill the assault frigates they also loose the Fighter. Also it would be possible to bring more people which just let you pop the frigates faster.

I have the feeling which the PvP Gangs are complaining of to much defense in the system they want to kill hulks and other shiny ships with a pve tank.



This is quite literally what every gang who comes roaming near us wants. you pop out a few defense ships and they run even if they out number you 3:1. and that's without fighters.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#769 - 2015-03-02 11:59:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Kane Carnifex wrote:
Skynet, an overview and suggestions review


Some of your knowledge of this is 6 months behind the curve (atleast taking your post at face value) - people doing this are increasingly moving away from sitting at the edge of the FF towards other ways of using POS mechanics to be safe where they don't need to move back inside the FF to become perfectly safe.

Even a ship with interceptor speed and sig will struggle to kite off fighters unless with a head start let alone a cruiser from what I've seen - many of the original complaints were purely due to people scouting in inties, etc. getting initial tackle for a small gang then getting alpha'd trying to escape when fighters arrived.





The revenant that got killed while it had been involved with doing skynet stuff got caught on login 20-30km outside the POS FF possibly at the spot where he cyno'd in. (which IMO is a good example of why fighter assignment should follow cyno restrictions around a POS).
Savant Alabel
Phoenix Tag.
GF Company
#770 - 2015-03-02 12:58:30 UTC
Removing off-grid fighters assist is very good.
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#771 - 2015-03-02 13:02:56 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
The more I think about this topic, the more it irritates me.

Some things in this game are clearly broken - e.g. POS mechanics. Others are annoying to one very vocal group of people who practice a specific set of kiting tactics and are very successful most of the time with those tactics. Then that group encounters a situation where their tactic doesn't work. Someone has a counter to the fast roaming, kiting gang! Oh the horror! Instead of saying bring a different fleet composition, they complain as loudly as possible to everyone who will listen.

So, the solution is to destroy the depth of the battlefield by essentially making every contributor, except leadership boosts, be on the same grid. Just like that we've gone from something approximating late 20th century naval warfare back to 18th century warfare. Is Eve a better game with tactics from Trafalgar than Midway?

Additionally, I have never used this tactic, but it sounds like the game was working fine. It wasn't broken. It was not invincible. Annoying perhaps, at least for the unprepared. But is it really worse than 200 Archons with sentry drones sitting off a station or IHub? The small roaming gang cannot counter that either. Nor could they counter thirty Dominixes... Or any number of other compositions. If I set up my capitals in one system, what stops you from going around that system?

It is no more annoying than when that same agile roaming gang warps around for fifteen minutes dodging probes, then logs off because you countered their elite PVP one trick pony play style and now have the exit gate locked down.

Does this change mean that CCP really doesn't know what to do with capital ships?

Does this change mean that CCP really cannot think of ways to alter the environment to make this tactic less appealing in some circumstances where it might be more problematic?

I thought it was up to the players to push the edges of the sandbox? Unless we broke the edges, CCP should keep out of it. Particularly when they don't seem to understand it or have good idea where they are going with it.

In short, as someone who has been playing for eight years, I am concerned by this proposal and think it is inelegant and short-sighted at best. If there is a problem with aggro mechanics, fix it.

CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.

Kane Carnifex
Duty. Joint Harvesting
WE FORM BL0B
#772 - 2015-03-02 13:22:05 UTC
Ncc 1709 wrote:


This is quite literally what every gang who comes roaming near us wants. you pop out a few defence ships and they run even if they out number you 3:1. and that's without fighters.


They only fight, if they know for 100% they could win. This opinion doesn't count for all, as i had very nice WH pew pew :)


Rroff wrote:

Some of your knowledge of this is 6 months behind the curve (atleast taking your post at face value) - people doing this are increasingly moving away from sitting at the edge of the FF towards other ways of using POS mechanics to be safe where they don't need to move back inside the FF to become perfectly safe.


Sitting in the middle of you POS guns and dampeners to be safe?
I knew this with a Cyno and a MTU directly on top of an POS.


I am open for new Information :)


Rroff wrote:

Even a ship with interceptor speed and sig will struggle to kite off fighters unless with a head start let alone a cruiser from what I've seen - many of the original complaints were purely due to people scouting in inties, etc. getting initial tackle for a small gang then getting alpha'd trying to escape when fighters arrived.


These people live in this system which allows them to use a Hulk for mining. You don´t start in Jita with a travel hulk to go mining in 0.0. So don´t wonder if a defence less ship is protected. A Procurer/Skiff should fit a scram per default.

Related to you Post the problem is not the assign it is the tracking and dmg which i cannot confirm.
Frigates which are smart fast moving are not hittable.

Rroff wrote:

The revenant that got killed while it had been involved with doing skynet stuff got caught on login 20-30km outside the POS FF possibly at the spot where he cyno'd in. (which IMO is a good example of why fighter assignment should follow cyno restrictions around a POS).


Jeah, we know the problem which you can probe scan a player during login as the ship is quite slow.
But you could also dock in a station if you do not need your ship (If you have a station.)



http://vesuvi.de - EVE & Food Porn in German...

Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#773 - 2015-03-02 13:29:10 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:

Does this change mean that CCP really doesn't know what to do with capital ships?

Does this change mean that CCP really cannot think of ways to alter the environment to make this tactic less appealing in some circumstances where it might be more problematic?


I think it means "everything altering combat coming from off grid will die when they find a way to do it/can be bothered to implement it".
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#774 - 2015-03-02 13:31:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
@Kane Carnifex - one of the becoming common techniques is to set up a few POSes around a region without on-lining the forcefield and sitting right by the control tower itself while assigning fighters - this way if anything does become a threat to you you simply online the forcefield. I believe it also means you can cyno straight to another control tower directly as well without the normal cyno restrictions but I'd not tested that for myself (heard something about "garage dooring" but not looked into it).

There are a couple of other techniques involving POS mods but I'd rather not elaborate on that as they are lesser known and/or while I know its possible to do some of them I've not worked out the steps to reproduce it.


EDIT: While "skynet" enhanced fighters aren't 100% going to blap small fast moving stuff every time it only takes good hits from 2 of them to pop stuff like interceptors and I believe what tends to happen is that as the target MWDs away from them with sig bloomed the fighters (which can easily top 7+KM/s MWD speeds) catch up, then drop out of MWD to orbit/shoot but as the target is still MWDing away transversal drops as they go to shoot and even though the range is picking up due to the fighters slowing down they are still close enough to deal a good bit of their damage and often atleast 1-2 of them are in a good enough position to get good hits.

You could reduce fighter weapon ranges to reduce this but then you'd run into the old problem that made fighters mostly useless back in the day in that their high orbit speed and short optimal range meant they'd often defeat their own tracking.
Death Godess
State War Academy
Caldari State
#775 - 2015-03-02 13:48:27 UTC
If your dumb enough to enter someone's home system and attack them without scouting the system first then you get what you deserve.

If you feel a need to Cry to CCP to nerf a feature that has been around for almost 10 years, I think your playing the wrong game!

Keep Fighters as they are!

Change it because a few scrubs can't handle losing a few ships to prepared defenders, and I will think long and hard about wether CCP still deserves my $15 a month.
Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#776 - 2015-03-02 13:50:41 UTC
Rroff wrote:


You could reduce fighter weapon ranges to reduce this but then you'd run into the old problem that made fighters mostly useless back in the day in that their high orbit speed and short optimal range meant they'd often defeat their own tracking.


Which the receiving ship fixes with webs/target painters/scrams etc.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#777 - 2015-03-02 13:56:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Jenn aSide wrote:
Rroff wrote:


You could reduce fighter weapon ranges to reduce this but then you'd run into the old problem that made fighters mostly useless back in the day in that their high orbit speed and short optimal range meant they'd often defeat their own tracking.


Which the receiving ship fixes with webs/target painters/scrams etc.


As I mentioned before my preferred solution would be to implement the tracking formula for fighters (and sentries as an aside) like titans where the signature component has more weight - with the right parameters it makes it very hard to hit inties, etc. while having minimal (AFAIK) knock on effect to applying damage to say BC sized and larger targets (where the sig component of the chance to hit formula would be satisfied).

There is a bit of a knock on effect to people who might use "skynet" to rat from POS in that they will have to risk something slightly more expensive to regain parity in the efficiency of killing smaller NPC ships but I don't really have a lot of sympathy there as it merely means putting a little more ISK onto the field and still doesn't mean risking the carrier.


EDIT: This makes sense to me anyhow as while fighters are frigate sized craft they have normal pilots rather than pod pilots so wouldn't have the same level of gunnery skills ;)
Karma ChameIeon
You Come and GO
#778 - 2015-03-02 14:04:36 UTC
Death Godess wrote:
If your dumb enough to enter someone's home system and attack them without scouting the system first then you get what you deserve.

If you feel a need to Cry to CCP to nerf a feature that has been around for almost 10 years, I think your playing the wrong game!

Keep Fighters as they are!

Change it because a few scrubs can't handle losing a few ships to prepared defenders, and I will think long and hard about wether CCP still deserves my $15 a month.


I Agree 100%

If you can't ferret out a carrier that is asigning fighters then you should stop trying to play in the deepend of the pond, go back to high sec and gank newbs.

And is it just me or have so many people not understood what "Attack and Follow" means for drone settings, is this a failing on CCP's part in tutorial or wiki pages or are these people just too lazy to look it up? I found out on my first day because I saw it and asked in rookie help!
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#779 - 2015-03-02 14:09:47 UTC
Karma ChameIeon wrote:

And is it just me or have so many people not understood what "Attack and Follow" means for drone settings, is this a failing on CCP's part in tutorial or wiki pages or are these people just too lazy to look it up? I found out on my first day because I saw it and asked in rookie help!


TBH despite flying carriers for more than 3 years I've never experimented with that setting - just left it enabled and micro-managed my fighters, I was aware of of being there and what it was supposed to do however though couldn't say if it actually worked or not heh.
Gypsien Agittain
Gypsy Queens
#780 - 2015-03-02 14:17:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Gypsien Agittain
Figher assist is a mechanic that has been in the game for ten years. Now, it's being abused due to your wonderful power projection nerf which totally destroyed capitals utility and you want to remove one of the few abilities that allow SMALL groups of people to use the capitals they own.

I agree with the primal source of the problem: fighters assisted from within a pos shield. As some fellow capsuleers have suggested, just disallow fighter assistance from an XX distance of a pos.
Lately, reading dev blogs and so on, I'm starting to think you've lost your minds (even more than with jump fatigue). You've a game mechanic which worked perfectly for almost 4000 days and, just because a few abuse of a certain way of using it and another few cry rivers, you totally obliterate it. Absurd, at least.
If you just disallow fighter assistance from certain spots, i.e. poses, near stations, near gates... you would mantain a part of the game which worked PERFECTLY since EVE existed, and grant the whiners an opportunity to kill the people they whine about.

Risk-reward you say: then probe the damn capitals in less than 20seconds (unless you're as bad probing as my grandma) and kill em as it's been done with OGB since god brought light to the universe.


On the warp thing:

There's no single reason to remove fighter's ability to warp. Whatever way you wanna twist reality to deceive vets and justify this: we won't buy it.