These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#821 - 2015-03-02 20:26:56 UTC
Haywoud Jablomi wrote:
Ncc 1709 wrote:
make assisted fighters use ship bandwidth. they use 25 on a carrier so they should also use 25 of the ship there assigned to.
so only frigs like the Tristan and ishkur could run 1 fighter.
Thorax 2, vexor 3. myrmidon 4.

maraudas could only run 1 (2 for kronos)

the only ships that would be able to natively run 5 fighters would be the ships that already use drones as their damage output. so T3's would either run 0 or 1 with proteus at 4

wow a whole page of comments disappeared while typing this



Everything he said.. Do it... DO IT NOW!!!


Doesn't really solve anything though - shuffles the problem around a bit but doesn't address the core issue.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#822 - 2015-03-02 20:43:42 UTC
Byson1 wrote:
Kane Carnifex wrote:
Skynet, an overview and suggestions review

...

Note:
If you cannot kill a carrier with your fleet DPS , you will not have a chance against it on grid or off grid.
[/i]


IMHO

Your 20 men fleet is hunting for everything in a region which doesn’t belong to you. This region knows you and chooses the fight which they could win. Either you travel through a gatecamp and die in the camp as you not able to get to optimal or you will be baited. Nobody would bait you if they are not able to win the isk war or to bring the death to you whole fleet. Due the intel in this region the defender knows more about you than you about his fleet.

You can expect following long before you know the enemy fleet:
- More vessels (more DPS)
- Powerful vessels (fleet multiplier)
- Logistic
- If you only bring stuff from one race, be ready to get jammed.
- Lets cover the jamming under EWAR.
- Skynet Carrier (fleet multiplier)

So you don’t choose the fight, the living people choose the fight and it is not required to have a fair fight. Why should we? It is eve, RL ethics doesn’t work here. This is war, combat it will be unfair for one of the fighting side… the advantage is to let them believe which they could win or have a bigger support fleet in the backhand.

Let’s spin this little bit up. You jump into a system which is heavily camped as it is an pocket entrance. You see fighter drones on grid and decide to first probe out the carrier for a Titan drive by.
You bring a fleet up which supports the titan and a fleet which fights the local gate camp. Unfortunately once the Titan landed in the System it got holded by an hic and the defender brings in more reinforces…. Escalation escalation escalation…

Is there now a Problem?

People build up a POS, Station or make a deep safe spot somewhere in space. They are the defenders which want to defend their space unfortunately CCP doesn’t provide tools for defending space neither a own controlled concord or gate guns or something else to defend it. But you can use carriers to provide a locate defense in this system which allows you to turn a fight to your advantages, yes you also can bring an offgrid booster… I

The Skynet carrier live in 0.0 also with the advantages and disadvantages which this space area brings. Why should a PVP Fleet from Highsec get more advantage… they come to unknown k-space and search for a fight the others just live and defend their space whit it.

Also you can easy kite out the fighter drones with an cruiser as these small medium scale pvp ships are always build for kiting… you will be hard to hit, once you get webbed it is over.

I am starting to spinning around with my points, but I think I made my point clear which I don’t think this is a good decision to remove this function. If you cannot fight it ask you friends for help.

Capitals Ships requires high skills and it also requires high skills to counter it easy or a huge amount of mid skilled player to kill it.


Its my point of view, and yes i am pro skynet :)




Well said.
The whole point of this nerf is -
A CCM and a few with load voices wants the game to be easier. They get CCP to change mechanics for their advantage.

my opinion:
A FLEET WITH A CARRIER should have an advantage. IT SHOULD take effort to hunt it down and kill it at a POS or where ever. LEAVE IT ALONE

you want options:
learn how to target, kite fighters, they are more expensive than your frig ships you bring to greif miners. Risk vs Reward right?
There is nothing wrong with this. It's worked for those who have come before you.

The current mechanics of carrier dps takes more pilots to do a bit of dps, with these mechanics level of work it takes to kill capitals represents the risk reward it should be- rather than carrier pilots have all the risk at a gate and a reward of woot you killed a frig good job.


A fleet with a commited carrier should have an advantage VS a fleet without it. Not a fleet with a carrier 90 AU away.

It worked before because fighter were not as potent as they are now with drone mods affecting them. CCP could technically just remove the drone mods effect but I feel they don't want to do that so they have to go with another solution.
Emmilia Deriannice
Unknown Destination Z
#823 - 2015-03-02 20:53:24 UTC
Kazekage Dono wrote:
Goodbye fighter assist.

OHH NONONONO
Stitch Kaneland
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#824 - 2015-03-02 21:45:57 UTC
Well.. i guess gulm near amamake will finally be free of the skynetting procurer on gates. So thatll be nice.

Fighters not warping with target im alil sad about. I liked when they chased me.. i could just shoot and kill them in peace.
Soldarius
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#825 - 2015-03-02 22:22:22 UTC
I was redirected her from another thread if I wanted to harvest tears. Thread delivers. The number of renters crying about losing skynet is too damn high!

Good change, CCP.

I'm hoping for an AFK Cloaking devblog sometime in the next several months.

http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY

Momiji Sakora
Omni Galactic
Central Omni Galactic Group
#826 - 2015-03-02 22:23:54 UTC
Not sure if this has been suggested already, but how about making fighters only assistable to battle cruiser hulls and above, or a particular ship class? It certainly doesn't feel sensible to have frigates with fighters assisted, or cruisers. But surely a battleship with fighters is decent?
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#827 - 2015-03-02 22:27:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Momiji Sakora wrote:
Not sure if this has been suggested already, but how about making fighters only assistable to battle cruiser hulls and above, or a particular ship class? It certainly doesn't feel sensible to have frigates with fighters assisted, or cruisers. But surely a battleship with fighters is decent?


Even a battleship with (skynet) fighters as is is still a platform that can apply battleship through to capital levels of damage to things that battleships through to capitals can only dream of hitting that effectively.





The last 30 pages of this thread have been constant repeats of the first 10 pages 3x over :( with the same points, misconceptions and counter points being brought up :S
Grace Chang
Tyrannis Enterprises
#828 - 2015-03-02 23:12:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Grace Chang
The main issue is that with the proposed changes a dps carrier with fighters on grid is only usefull as a cyno fitted carrier that is in a blue donut alliance. Other people won't put a dps carrier on grid, because it will just get hotdropped. If you remove cynos, hey i might even consider using my carrier. But like this? Hell no. I guess at least with the training i have a glorified osprey in hangar.
Primary This Rifter
Mutual Fund of the Something
#829 - 2015-03-02 23:57:22 UTC
FT Diomedes wrote:
This whole thing makes me fear something is rotten at the heart of Eve. "We don't have a clue how to fix POS code, or off-grid boosters, or local chat, or really anything except modify a few numbers in some spreadsheets, so let's do that."

CCP is seriously losing steam. They have been for the past couple of years. That's the real problem.
Jezza McWaffle
Suddenly Pineapples.
#830 - 2015-03-03 01:16:58 UTC
Grace Chang wrote:
The main issue is that with the proposed changes a dps carrier with fighters on grid is only usefull as a cyno fitted carrier that is in a blue donut alliance. Other people won't put a dps carrier on grid, because it will just get hotdropped. If you remove cynos, hey i might even consider using my carrier. But like this? Hell no. I guess at least with the training i have a glorified osprey in hangar.


Then go so somewhere where you can do this?

Wormholes worst badass | Checkout my Wormhole blog

h4kun4
The Validus
#831 - 2015-03-03 02:50:50 UTC
I already proposed this in the comments of the devblog itself, but i feel it should actually be here.

Keep the fighter assist mechanic like it is and add the range mechanic from the cynos - basically: no launching fighters within 25km off the forcefield so you have to stay either at a station (where you can't dock when using them in pvp) or on a save where you can be scanned down by a prober.

If you take the safe way (cloaking up/docking up) the fighters will become useless and you dont have any possibility to recollect them without scanning them down later/doing a boomark at their location...so risk vs. reward i'd say.

Risk: Losing hundreds of millions in fighters/losing the carrier

Reward: better ticks in nullsec/more kills in pvp/whatever else
Dictateur Imperator
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#832 - 2015-03-03 03:10:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Dictateur Imperator
Aiyshimin wrote:
Dictateur Imperator wrote:
Aiyshimin wrote:
Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote:
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).


Assigned fighters still aren't a problem, but the fact that you can use them 101% risk-free from the safety of a POS.

EDIT: Let's face it: not a single one of these renter scrubs would use assigned fighters if there was any risk in it. Not a single one.



Have you already play to eve ? You can kill carrier/super near pos. But yes you need to send more is on the gris as he is on anom... and use ship create for it. In fact CCP want allow it's easier to kill with 100 M carrier or 500M/1B on the field super.

Actually engage 2B of ship do for killing cap near pos, you kill carrier, but yes defenser can kill some opponent with help of pos. Engage 15B of ship on a super neat pos, you can kill him same if you play well, bt yes again you can have loss.

This update it's for the moment only for people who cry to have easy KM.


CCP want risk VS reward, but the risk must be in each part of the game, not only for the defense. People who attack must have risk to, they 're reward :good KM.


If your skynet carrier is so easy to kill on pos, why do you use it? Or is it less at risk than if you would be outside the POS?

This question is only for the babies who cry to keep their risk-free skynet.




Personaly i don't use it. Sorry to broke your first argument.
For the second: people do this to make only organized people can kill carrier, and not only the first little roam who arrive. You see same argument as CCP to remove fighter assist: RISK VS REWARD. Agree with this argument: make people who attack have more risk to have good kill mail.

Actually when you read this forum you have 2 great kind of people : People who want do business 100% safe, and people want easy kill mail without any risk. The better solution is 50/50 risk. And sorry to said this but actual carrier do this. If you want you can kill it on pos, but you take risk and you need to send some ISK on field to be sure to kill, not only some inty.

And people who attack have a bigger advantage ; you have PVP fit, you choose when you laugh the attack, you disrupt activity of your opponent, and moreover you can perma cloak /have perfect intel of people you want trap.




This nerf is only the win on bad pvp player who want easy km . Nothing else.
The-Ron-Coyote
Black Scorpions Inc
#833 - 2015-03-03 03:14:12 UTC
I am a sub-cap pilot and the longer I play it appears I will be staying a sub-cap pilot.


The risk/reward of flying a carrier is pretty obvious.

Risk is getting tackled by a single interceptor and praying to God he doesn't have any friends willing to shred your carrier to metal bits nearby. Otherwise anyone piloting a carrier he's ratting with is at the mercy of his corp/alliance to save his huge overly expensive ship as quickly as possible.

Reward is that the carrier pilot gets to rat effortlessly and make decent isk. That isk amount is still reasonably in line with what Battleships and Heavy Assault Cruisers do. It's not out of this world enormous though.

The effect of taking away fighter assist is that this hugely expensive ship which already has a huge weakness. Now has one less thing it does in a fleet. So now it's relatively pointless.

I won't be training carrier anytime soon and if developers plan on continuing with this folly I wonder how much longer I will play. Working your way up into larger ships and owning a system with more complex and diverse ships is what all players do. Why on earth would you want to take this away from established players? Why would you want to take anything away from an already ruined ship? It's a disaster this nonsense of making the big ships useless.

Capitol pilots must scream at every one of these nerfs. Ishtar pilots get a nerf to sentry drones. But the Ishtar is still heads above every other ship in it's class.
Goosius Tal
Bacon Buccaneers League
#834 - 2015-03-03 04:33:07 UTC
On another note, this risk/reward thing is silly. People that are used to their corps/ alliances just handing them carriers and super carriers for fights that see dozens of said ships destroyed seem to forget the amount of effort that goes into creating those ships. Large groups might be able to brush off the losses but smaller alliances and corps have to work hard for each capital ship they get out of the assembly line. For each lost carrier to the smaller guy there is a lot more risk to bringing them out when they have to worry about others just showing up to blob them for the capital kills. Sure it might be a bit of a pain in the ass sometimes if people use tactics like this but there are ways to disrupt them.
Crimsons Storm
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#835 - 2015-03-03 07:07:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimsons Storm
Another idea - perhaps another module one fits to their carrier that allows delegation of fighters as per current mechanics but with the additional caveats:

a ) the module is an active high slot module
b) said module can only be engaged outside of pos shields
c) Said module prevents carriers from moving until the cycle has completed (like a siege module)

Im not sure if this solves the problem in its entirety ...but may this in conjunction with any of the aforementioned ideas (ie said module cant be activated within x m of pos shields) might help spur ideas that don't take niches away from the game.

The above idea in conjunction with others keeps the person in the game (as they have to commit) and lets carriers keep some of their niche abilities.
Crimsons Storm
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#836 - 2015-03-03 07:08:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Crimsons Storm
Double post**
Suitonia
The Bastards
#837 - 2015-03-03 08:10:18 UTC
Grace Chang wrote:
The main issue is that with the proposed changes a dps carrier with fighters on grid is only usefull as a cyno fitted carrier that is in a blue donut alliance. Other people won't put a dps carrier on grid, because it will just get hotdropped. If you remove cynos, hey i might even consider using my carrier. But like this? Hell no. I guess at least with the training i have a glorified osprey in hangar.


It's almost as if 3.2k DPS with Taranis Tracking needs to be balanced in some manner...

Contributer to Eve is Easy:  https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos

Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o

VolatileVoid
Viking Clan
#838 - 2015-03-03 08:22:40 UTC
At the moment the fighters are a little bugged, they werent bugged half a year ago. We randomly loose fighter in space. They arent recoverable in any way. The CCP solution is to make them just normal drones.
Kane Carnifex
Duty.
WE FORM V0LTA
#839 - 2015-03-03 08:32:12 UTC
I saw currently following feedbacks(tears):


My definition of small Gang PvP is which a small group hunting for valid targets like a guerilla task force behind enemy lines. These groups choose their fight as they know of which they are capable. Yes, a System which provides Skynet is not a juice target for them as they could receive heavy losses.

My definition of medium Gang PvP is which a medium sized group hunting for valid targets and fleets like an visible army.Due the possible provided logistic (3x Basi for example) they are capable to fight a skynet supported fleet and may win the battle as they are able to compensate the incomming DPS.

Kane Carnifex wrote:

A Major point is the fact which most PVP actions are based on the idea "Yes, we can win this... lets get them" as the other side is thinking exactly the same like "As we are breaking the Logistic we are gone kill them all"

Which explains again people cry if they see themselves outnumbered by a fleet multiplier.


List against Skynet



    What people says which is against skynet:

  • A.) High DPS from assigned Fighter
  • Based on a full DMG / Tracking fit which gives the Capital no Tank compared to battle Archon.
  • B.) Carrier edge on the POS
  • C.)Carrier online POS withouth FF password
  • D.)Carrier close by Station
  • E.)Carrier unprobable

  • Why i think this is not true!

  • A.) Fighter are not OP, if 10 Fighter attack a Interceptor i have 10x times the chance to hit which increase the chance that i actually hit. If the Ceptor Pilot is using his MWD he increase the possible damage incoming from the Fighter.

  • Yes, you are able to kite Fighters you also can kill them quite fast but it requires knowledge, skill and the right tools.
    It is not impossible but i also don't tell you which it is easy like HS mining.

  • B.) As i already told use a drive by Titan or Super. Instead of an instant blop by a DD from a Titan the supercarrier pilot need some more time to apply his damage with his bombers which gives the skynet carrier some time to move into his pos.

  • C.) This sounds more like a Problem with the POS Mechanic instead of a Carrier Problem. I am not familiar with the POS Mechanics but just add an time which takes 60 Seconds to online a FF if it is not done properly in the first way.

  • D.) It docks up if it is scared, it may waits until all fighter are back but you could try to DD it.

  • E.) With the right Tools,Skills and knowledge you could probe him down.



My feeling in this hot Topic
Because Player don't want to drop a Titan/Super on a skynet carrier doesn't mean they are OP. We still talking about Capital Ships which is an own class for themselves. Capitals fight against other Capitals, this was the idea behind the stone/scissor/paper thingi. Before you point out sub capitals are able to kill Capitals... Yes, you are right but compared to a 1 on 1 or may a 5 on 1 you will be raped by the Carrier.

Above leads us back to the Point which you don't fight if you don't think you can win.
Which again gives a Tactical opportunity for the System owner which can either decide to bait or gatecamp you.
Both will have the effect which the attacker thinks he could win and accept the fight which is also a well known war tactic.

IMHO

I cant understand the Problem, as it is related with the examples which d0cTeR9 showed up:
d0cTeR9 wrote:
So what about AFK cloakers? Intelligence Gathering cloakers? Off-Grid Boosters? Cloak boosters?


My options to counter a AFK Cloaker which may hot drop (looks to Hank Taron) requires the knowledge of the amount of in system bridged black ops. (If you have a scout, you able to know it.) It is possible but again the defender has now a high risk to lose all ships in the battle as he may get unexpected outnumbered.

Another good example is the cloaky nullified Link Tengu! To be honest you are quite safe with this Ship as an good Pilot they wouldn't get you. Did you see this? Again i talked about the tools, skills and knowledge. Once the Link Tengu is in System you only can change the System to get a new chance to kill the Links or to avoid the fights. You have no other Option which is exactly the same Problem with Skynet carrier.

Is it really a Problem or just a game mechanic which people don't like?
It is a game Mechanic which people don't like because they need to put more effort in it to succeed.
You just do not drive by a Titan... if you are prepared you have a backup plan. A good backup plan.

Let me have a look for the Escalation Plan:

Cyno
Titan jumps in and starts DD drive by.
For some Reason the Titan get tackeled by an HIC (Yes, the carrier is already dead)
Now you need to blop/neut him or get your backup fleet, asap into the system.
If you bring more than the others you safe the Titan, you may could jam him out :)

But the Point is you need to have a backup plan as a single titan is useless.

Could somebody from the "against Skynet carrier section give out some arguments which they think it is OP?
Because to disable it at all is in my opinion the wrong way but if we can see which specific parts of the skynetting causing the problem it may could be adjusted. I already heard high incomming DPS from Fighter which i cannot agree as you may deal with 10 to 15 Fighter which increase the chance of a hit by 10x to 15x times ... other facts than my increase the damage you receive as you may run an MWD and blowed up you signature to a Battleship.


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

Kane Carnifex
Duty.
WE FORM V0LTA
#840 - 2015-03-03 08:35:12 UTC
VolatileVoid wrote:
At the moment the fighters are a little bugged, they werent bugged half a year ago. We randomly loose fighter in space. They arent recoverable in any way. The CCP solution is to make them just normal drones.



You can scan them down with combat Scanner, to reconnect you need to be ongrid with the Carrier.

Note:

  • Never shut off the Drone Link unit as long you have drones out. You will lose 1 Drone for each disabled module.
  • Before Downtime get you drones back!
  • Docking, Warp to instadock bookmark and wait until all fighters are back.


Should you lost your Fighters before downtime, you still be able to scan them after downtime :)

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