These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Querns
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#61 - 2015-02-27 14:09:19 UTC
I like these changes, but allowing carriers to recall fighters if they leave grid would be nice to have.

Say, if a carrier is engaging someone, but then leaves grid, the fighters stop fighting, then follow the carrier in warp.

If fighters could be warp scrambled, that would be cool too.

This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
#62 - 2015-02-27 14:11:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
don't give in to those wanting to keep the warp ability on fighters, they are just big drones not actual ships

T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
Sir Constantin
#63 - 2015-02-27 14:12:47 UTC
Keep fighters warping because it's a cool mechanic and remove all drone assist.

Removing drone assist it's a positive thing, it promotes active gameplay and also have a impact on multiboxers.
Anon Nymous
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#64 - 2015-02-27 14:13:24 UTC
my take on it is to give them sellectable "pursue to warp" setting (where the focus fire checkbox is)

This allows people who want them to stay on grid to have their say, and those who want them to pursue can still do so. This also allows them to warp back to a carrier if a carrier warps off grid instead of leaving 21m fighters for the enemy to scoop.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#65 - 2015-02-27 14:13:49 UTC
colera deldios wrote:
Fighters are not OP when they are not bonuses from drone mods. Why not simply remove drone module effects to assigned Fighters. So when fighters are assigned they only get ship hulls bonus.

Definitely not. Fighters already received a balance pass, so let's not open Pandora's Box here again.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#66 - 2015-02-27 14:14:40 UTC
Harvey James wrote:
don't give in to those wanting to keep the warp ability on fighters, they are just big drones not actual ships


Big drones that no one with any sense will use if you lose a quarter of a billion isk everytime you have to run away from someone. The point of keeping fighter warping is so people keep using fighters. Without fighter warping your better off just using heavy drones, and no one will do that in pvp or pve for a variety of reasons.
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#67 - 2015-02-27 14:14:44 UTC
Anon Nymous wrote:
my take on it is to give them sellectable "pursue to warp" setting (where the focus fire checkbox is)

Apparently that's what "Attack and Follow" does.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Arch1bald
Lightning Squad
Snuffed Out
#68 - 2015-02-27 14:16:12 UTC
The issue here is risk vs reward, not skynet or never skynet again. I really am starting to hate the way you think CCP. Every ship nerfed ever is because something was better then something, so instead of boosting the problem ships, you nerfed the good one.

If you remove the ability to assign fighters, you remove the pvp combat benefits of carriers and motherships.

You want to nerf fighter assign when your real problem is pos mechanics. #StopTheNerfs

The obvious solution should be to disable fighter assign while within 45-50k range of a anchored starbase. THIS would solve the risk vs reward issue. Now you force carriers and supers to be atleast 25k off their pos shields, and even motherships are vulnerable to a bunch of titan DD's, and carriers can be killed with small gangs right on their pos.

Please CCP, for the love of EvE, Stop the nerfing wars.
#HireMeForGuidance
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
#69 - 2015-02-27 14:16:13 UTC  |  Edited by: FT Diomedes
Axloth Okiah wrote:
How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable?



I support that.

You could also make it a toggle. Give the player the option to have them warp via a checkbox. Yes, I know you can already do this via the attack and follow option.

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

OutCast EG
Very Industrial Corp.
#70 - 2015-02-27 14:18:44 UTC  |  Edited by: OutCast EG
You shouldn't remove the whole assignment mechanic just because you overbuffed assigned fighters via mods & skills bonus application change.
Assignment was in the game for what, 10 years? And it never was a problem until you started applying each and every drone bonus there is to fighters.
Solution: undo this bonus application change for assigned fighters and keep the mechanic itself. If that's not enough - allow assignment to cruisers, even BCs, only.
edit: Or you could disallow assignment within 10-20k off a force field. But i'm sure there's some legacy code involved there.
But don't remove the unique mechanic that was perfectly fine for years.

As for warping, fighters and FBs 100% must be able to follow you when you leave the field. A choice between losing your super or several hundred mil in FBs is not a good one. Same for carriers and fighters.
Fighters following targets is often an annoyance, so a toggle for that would be perfect. edit: now i think it might already exist.

edit-moar: i like the scramble-able fighters idea, i actually always thought it was weird that you couldn't hold them from warping.
Jenn aSide
Soul Machines
The Initiative.
#71 - 2015-02-27 14:21:17 UTC
OutCast EG wrote:
You shouldn't remove the whole assignment mechanic just because you overbuffed assigned fighters via mods & skills bonus application change.
Assignment was in the game for what, 10 years? And it never was a problem until you started applying each and every drone bonus there is to fighters.
Solution: undo this bonus application change for assigned fighters and keep the mechanic itself. If that's not enough - allow assignment to cruisers, even BCs, only.
But don't remove the unique mechanic that was perfectly fine for years.

As for warping, fighters and FBs 100% must be able to follow you when you leave the field. A choice between losing your super or several hundred mil in FBs is not a good one. Same for carriers and fighters.
Fighters following targets is often an annoyance, so a toggle for that would be perfect.


So much this.
Altirius Saldiaro
Doomheim
#72 - 2015-02-27 14:22:30 UTC
Leave their ability to warp. Its one of the reasons I wanted to fly a carrier in the first place. I am ok with removing the ability to assist. Hell, I say go as far as removing all drone assist completely from the game. I've heard Mike Azeriah talk about that before and I agree with him.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#73 - 2015-02-27 14:24:55 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Anon Nymous wrote:
my take on it is to give them sellectable "pursue to warp" setting (where the focus fire checkbox is)

Apparently that's what "Attack and Follow" does.


Yeah, people keep going on about wanting that option. I was pretty sure we already had it.

I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Inslander Wessette
Unleashed' Fury
The Initiative.
#74 - 2015-02-27 14:33:22 UTC
Delegating fighters is not equal to drone assist as delegating fighters is a unique mechanism .

Removing the mechanism would result in ships like thanatos (dedicated fighter bonus) being even more useless than they already are .

A really easy fix would be not allowing fighter assist within said radius of the POS force field or station .

A more complex and suggested fix would be to have a highslot module that acts like beacon on the ship to which the fighters will home or tether on to .

Whilst the beacon is on the fighters can be delegated .

With the module having said cpu / powergrid values we can easily screen out the ships that fighters can be delegated to . ( frigates and shuttles etc)
TheMercenaryKing
Collapsed Out
Pandemic Legion
#75 - 2015-02-27 14:36:41 UTC
Kailen Thorn wrote:
Don't remove Fighter warp, it is one of the unique features of carriers. Same as 25 FighterBomber's for supers but you removed that.


Fighterbombers were the unique feature of supers and not the Fighterbomber's warp mechanics.

Rather than remove the feature, make a mod that cannot be activated within a force field that allows carrier to launch their fighters.

I like the warp mechanic because fighters are expensive (relatively speaking). If you remove the warp mechanic then make fighters cheaper as a lot more will be lost.
Berial Inglebard
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#76 - 2015-02-27 14:37:01 UTC
I agree with of the removal of fighter assisting, and I think we can see a fairly solid consensus on this matter in this topic.

I do not feel that removing fighter warping is necessary however. It is important to have a mechanic that separates them from just being "Ultra Heavy" drones. If anything, having fighters warp off field with the carrier in a mini-fleet warp, or to the carrier when ordered to return from anywhere in system would be an excellent expansion of this feature. Fighters are an expensive investment for a carrier pilot and while it is sensible that they can be lost if shot or smartbombed to death, losing a flight of them because you have to GTFO really doesn't fit with the theme of piloted autonamous drones.

Devs, thanks for your work; the changes in Scylla are looking great!
Worrff
Enterprise Holdings
#77 - 2015-02-27 14:41:46 UTC
Anon Nymous wrote:
my take on it is to give them sellectable "pursue to warp" setting (where the focus fire checkbox is)



That option is already there.

CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If it’s broken, leave it alone and break something else.
Dirk Morbho
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#78 - 2015-02-27 14:51:30 UTC
DO NOT REMOVE Fighter (Bomber) Warp
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#79 - 2015-02-27 14:55:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Dirk Morbho wrote:
DO NOT REMOVE Fighter (Bomber) Warp



Will have a bit of an impact on solo type use of supers, do you warp away when things get hairy and lose your main offensive capability even though your not necessarily out of the fight yet or disproportionately risk an expensive ship waiting on their return...

I get the feeling the people who came up with this idea don't fly capitals and mainly focused on small gang.
Juan Thang
Optimistic Wasteland Inc.
Fraternity.
#80 - 2015-02-27 14:57:06 UTC
Carriers will become useless except for structure bashing,
The scan res is being increased, the warp might be removed, and the assist is being removed...
so what can I do with my carrier now?
Its been sat in my hanger for the past 3 months since I bought it gathering dust, along with my dreadnought. These ships will have little to no application outside of sov warfare now.

CCPlease.

The only way to fix these now would be to remove them from the game cause the only use I can see for them is free reps at pos's or being utterly stupid and ratting with it.