These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#901 - 2015-03-03 15:34:27 UTC
If capital pilots are upset about a repeated series of nerfs to capital ships, maybe they should be supporting some form of skill point remapping (like I proposed here) in order to re-allocate those "wasted" skill points.

Remapping only, not buying.

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs
Kane Carnifex
Duty.
Brave Collective
#902 - 2015-03-03 15:35:38 UTC
Rroff wrote:


Not directed at you but on that topic even removing assignment and forcing carriers on grid there is always going to be some cases where they can take advantage of mechanics to reduce the risk to themselves either via grid-fu or just sitting on the edge of the fight and cynoing out if anything threatens them and so on - sure they are a lot less safe than now - what next remove grids :D and cynos :S.



GRID-FU will be the next good option to "assist" fighters without seeing the carrier in a L form.

and solution found to bypass the change.

http://vesuvi.de - EVE & Food Porn in German...
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#903 - 2015-03-03 15:37:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Kane Carnifex wrote:

You found a Problem, now think about a solution.
Try to keep all people busy during the fight don't give time for thinking. I dont know if a pointed/bubbled fighter is able to warp.



Pointing fighters won't stop them warping - this was done on purpose originally due to gameplay reasons don't really have my head in it enough to know if they are still relevant reasons today.

Kane Carnifex wrote:

  • Regarding my experience a proper Pilot is able to kite them, once he is scram/webbed he dies.


    • When I was playing around with it (on SISI I don't do skynet on TQ as its lame) it was possible to make fighters that largely would blap even an inty trying to evade them unwebbed. Even without a full skynet fit they can apply something like 1/3rd of their DPS to an ABing, sig reduction linked, guardian.

    EDIT: Its not a 100% guarantee - sometimes every single fighter will miss 2 volleys in a row - other times most of them will get good hits with the first volley.
    afkalt
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #904 - 2015-03-03 15:38:10 UTC
    Rroff wrote:
    Nolak Ataru wrote:
    afkalt wrote:
    I don't think you know how the mechanic to which I refer actually works.

    Then please do educate me. If you're referring, however, to the instance where an interceptor warps into a gated pocket, burns just out of grid, has the carrier warp to him, slowboat inside the grid, finish the pocket so that the gate despawns, that has been ruled an exploit and will result in one getting banned.


    Not directed at you but on that topic even removing assignment and forcing carriers on grid there is always going to be some cases where they can take advantage of mechanics to reduce the risk to themselves either via grid-fu or just sitting on the edge of the fight and cynoing out if anything threatens them and so on - sure they are a lot less safe than now - what next remove grids :D and cynos :S.


    That's new, last I checked it was ruled ok. GM Consistency™ FTW.

    As I say, I would seriously hope that the rebalance is a) soon and b) takes this new change into account (For example now they are forced on grid, there's no reason to not have really awesome fighter/FB abilities).

    This had to die, it really did. Efforts to get some neat ideas together for the rebalance might be a good way to go forward.
    Kane Carnifex
    Duty.
    Brave Collective
    #905 - 2015-03-03 15:41:07 UTC
    Rroff wrote:


    Pointing fighters won't stop them warping - this was done on purpose originally due to gameplay reasons don't really have my head in it enough to know if they are still relevant reasons today.


    Ok, this would be a point which i would adjust before i go to remove assign. The Option to keep the fighter/bomber on grid and avoid them to leave it whenever they get new assigned. This would give the attacker the option to reduce the damage on field.

    Jeah, i am read only and will post again if needed. Need to setup some buy orders to get some new carriers in 0.0.

    http://vesuvi.de - EVE & Food Porn in German...
    Primary This Rifter
    Mutual Fund of the Something
    #906 - 2015-03-03 15:41:35 UTC
    Bronson Hughes wrote:
    If capital pilots are upset about a repeated series of nerfs to capital ships, maybe they should be supporting some form of skill point remapping (like I proposed here) in order to re-allocate those "wasted" skill points.

    Remapping only, not buying.

    No.
    Cpt Patrick Archer
    I HAVE THE POWER OF GOD AND ANIME ON MY SIDE
    Blue Eyes and Exodia Toon Duelist Kingdom Duelers
    #907 - 2015-03-03 15:44:19 UTC
    afkalt wrote:

    This had to die, it really did. Efforts to get some neat ideas together for the rebalance might be a good way to go forward.


    I don't agree with you on the first part, but definitely on the second part.
    Let's hope they do survey's to query their ideas with the playerbase, on top of the CSM. Since the election proces is so incredibly complicated that hardly anyone bothers to vote. I tried to vote 2 times in a row, maybe i'll get around to it now.

    Back on topic, CCP when can we expect carrier changes? Is this included in the nullsec update and building stargates and all that, or is this planned afterwards?
    Which means multiple carrier accounts can stay unsubbed untill then?
    Nolak Ataru
    Hedion University
    Amarr Empire
    #908 - 2015-03-03 15:44:27 UTC
    afkalt wrote:
    That's new, last I checked it was ruled ok. GM Consistency™ FTW.
    As I say, I would seriously hope that the rebalance is a) soon and b) takes this new change into account (For example now they are forced on grid, there's no reason to not have really awesome fighter/FB abilities).
    This had to die, it really did. Efforts to get some neat ideas together for the rebalance might be a good way to go forward.

    I'd much rather them postpone this for the rebalance so we can see what they're doing overall, and pass judgement then. This feels like they're going to postpone it forever and Soon™ it forever.
    What if they increased the sig radius of fighters, and made scrams affect them? That'd provide a good incentive to not use em.
    Rroff
    Antagonistic Tendencies
    #909 - 2015-03-03 15:52:14 UTC
    Nolak Ataru wrote:

    What if they increased the sig radius of fighters, and made scrams affect them? That'd provide a good incentive to not use em.


    ^^ Its one thing people seem to forget when suggesting shooting fighters - revenant fighters (which in terms of "skynet" are a fair proportion of the use) get a big bonus to sig reduction and a decent bonus to EHP.
    Nolak Ataru
    Hedion University
    Amarr Empire
    #910 - 2015-03-03 16:03:15 UTC
    Rroff wrote:
    Nolak Ataru wrote:

    What if they increased the sig radius of fighters, and made scrams affect them? That'd provide a good incentive to not use em.

    ^^ Its one thing people seem to forget when suggesting shooting fighters - revenant fighters (which in terms of "skynet" are a fair proportion of the use) get a big bonus to sig reduction and a decent bonus to EHP.

    I would say the relative rarity of the Revenant, not to mention the rarity of actually moving it outside of a POS's shields, would balance it's DPS. Additionally, according to my EFT, a Nyx out-DPS's it. I felt that the increase of sig radius, coupled with the ability to turn off a fighter's MWD and pin it down, would lead more carrier pilots to be more careful when assigning drones.
    Belinda HwaFang
    Coreli Corporation
    Pandemic Legion
    #911 - 2015-03-03 16:28:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Belinda HwaFang
    Suitonia wrote:



    The problem with the delegation mechanic is it is incredibly buggy and there still are multiple exploits or "clever use of game mechanics" that you can use to give you a significant advantage while assisting your drones, even if you were prevented from doing it on grid with a station or POS.

    1. It's possible to get a Thanatos to "hard-to-probe" status by using another "hard-to-probe" Tengu with Remote ECCM. Spurs on the Thanatos and use of X-Instinct. (By "hard-to-probe" I mean the requirement of a max skilled covert ops character with some virtue implants required to probe the Thanatos/Tengu pair). Which makes it close to invulnerable and outside repercussions for the vast majority of gangs unless they specifically know what you're doing and bring Virtue Implants or an incredibly specific fit tengu into your space (risking more than your carriers net-worth), even then, it's possible for you to be aligned out to a POS with refit to WCS in your cargo in the event you get tackled, and RLML fitted on your booster Tengu, in a cynojammed system, making a black ops drop from multiple bombers and back-up recons (all of which you can scout) the only realistic means for your death. If you lose the Tengu+Thanatos and your implant set it still comes into around 2 billion isk ballpark if thanatos is uninsured. Which given what the other people have to field to have a fairly realistic chance of actually catching and killing you (which isn't guranteed) is marginal.


    That sounds like more of a reason to rebalance a Thanatos' sensor strength / probing formulae than to provide weight to the argument about fighters.

    Suitonia wrote:
    2. Fighters assigned to ships do not agress the ships using them. Unless CCP manages to bug-fix this aspect, this still makes ridiculous things possible such as fighters assigned to double 1600 plate covert ops, nullified subsystem t3s which sit on a gate with anchored bubbles and never aggress and just put fighters on people, jumping out as soon as they lose their 600,000 EHP to almost complete safety.


    Clearly this needs to be changed, fixed ASAP. If CCP can't fix this, then I agree, remove fighter assignment altogether, but fixing it clearly is preferable.

    Suitonia wrote:
    3. You can take 1) even further by burning a Confessor/Svipul with 10mn MWD in speed mode to the edge of a deadspace pocket in a complex (or a mission in npc 0.0), then setting up there, bringing your carrier 2-3km into the deadspace pocket and requiring even a snaked linked malediction <30minutes to burn to your thanatos if they probe out the plex, which you can easily just type "07 to ur t00nie" into local when it gets below 1000km on dir scanner and warp out.
    [/suitonia]

    This again is talking about probing mechanics and deadspaces. While most people don't know about this stuff, some people do and I agree it's annoying, but it's far from a compelling argument to nerf the Thanatos, it's a much more compelling argument to look at the balance between the hunter and hunted in nullsec anoms/plexing. Also you fail to mention how long it takes the Svipul to burn there, presumably also around 30 minutes?

    [quote=Suitonia]4. Delegated fighters still fight while a Carrier is in warp so you can easily just assist your fighters to ships, then engage in a long warp to a friendly POS and your fighters will continue to fight while you're in warp and in complete invulnerability landing in the center of a safe POS when you land.


    Very good to know, I learnt something. Well, again this needs to be fixed by CCP. 

    5. offline POS can be used (as they are done currently, right now with skynet/supers) with passwords entered and ready to go online to bypass CCP's current forcefield exclusion zone mechanics. [\quote]

    I've never understood why this works the way it does, supposedly it's just a side-effect of how the originally developer wrote the "online_starbase(Password)" function.




    Apparently I can only quote 5 times per message What? so I've used the code tag.

    You make some good points Suitonia but it seems to me that the TL/DR version of your post is:

    1. Fighter assignment gives a lot of power while keeping the carrier too safe due to many broken mechanics (assign continues while carrier in warp, pos insta-onlining by not entering password, assigned subcap doesnt get aggression)

    2. Carriers that are out in space are also pretty safe because people are using unprobability with a Tengu alt or just hiding at the edge of a deadspace.


    Therefore CCP needs to decide if it's going to address these problems by rebalancing the root cause of these problems (which isn't the fighter assignnment itself) or if it just wants to remove it altogether to keep it nice and easy for them workload wise.

    If fighter assignment is kept "on grid only" and that it aggresses the subcap (just like normal drone assist) then I think you would be happy Suitonia, at least as far as Skynet is concerned.
    --
    Fang
    Primary This Rifter
    Mutual Fund of the Something
    #912 - 2015-03-03 16:33:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Primary This Rifter
    Primary This Rifter wrote:
    Rise, consider that this capital rebalance you claim to take seriously might not be very appreciated if everyone's given up flying them by the time you finally get around to it.

    I'd like to revise this post.

    "Rise, consider that nobody's going to ever try your capital rebalance because this game will be dead long before you get to it. See: sov rebalance devblog and comments."

    "Capital rebalance is important to us" CCP has gone even further and made capital ships useless for sov warfare.
    Dictateur Imperator
    KarmaFleet
    Goonswarm Federation
    #913 - 2015-03-03 16:36:16 UTC
    The only thing who make carrier/super carrier can be use in next sov warfare is now remove. GG CCP


    Capital change before June ?XD
    Panther X
    Destructive Influence
    Northern Coalition.
    #914 - 2015-03-03 16:42:04 UTC
    Jenn aSide wrote:
    Yazzinra wrote:
    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.


    Yea, it's been said (a few dozen times now) but can't hurt to say it again.

    That's the part that's really galling to me, it's super easy to see the cause of the problem (CCP's previous buffs to fighters) but rather than just fix what they created the idea here is to nix a unique and ancient game mechanic in and of itself didn't cause the problem.'

    It just keeps happening. For example, in pve you used to be able to reset expedition timers by going to the system and warping to it. A very small number of people abused this by cargo scanning overseers and if they didn't like the loot, they'd just come back the next day and try again (everything resets at down time).

    Was CCP's answer to this? Was it the common sense "make overseers unscannable blockade runners are" (ie the scalpel option)? Nope, it was get rid of the ability to reset all together. So now it don't matter that you get an escalation late into your session and want to come back later and reset so you can do it a couple days later. Now you got 24 hours, period, all because a FEW people abused something.

    It's extremely lazy development policy if you ask me.


    This goes into what I was talking about in the last changes in regards to fighters (the nerf to scan res). Are these changes necessary or is there a better way to fix them? Is it the code or *working as intended* but now its changed because someone doesnt like that mechanic?

    The rebuttals were all about how the best fix is the easiest fix ( and a lazy one at that) rather than fix the spaghetti code or the actual root of the problem.

    But I'm not a coder nor a dev, just an invested party.

    My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
    Necharo Rackham
    The Red Circle Inc.
    Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
    #915 - 2015-03-03 16:44:04 UTC
    Kane Carnifex wrote:

    Try to keep all people busy during the fight don't give time for thinking. I dont know if a pointed/bubbled fighter is able to warp.


    It can, points and bubbles are ineffective against fighters.
    Necharo Rackham
    The Red Circle Inc.
    Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
    #916 - 2015-03-03 16:45:14 UTC
    Kane Carnifex wrote:


    GRID-FU will be the next good option to "assist" fighters without seeing the carrier in a L form.



    You can see everything on an L shaped Grid. Without assist, if the carrier is off grid it won't be able to attack.
    Destra Noo
    RUCA Emperor
    Brothers of Tangra
    #917 - 2015-03-03 16:50:18 UTC
    CCP, do'nt touch carrier's, or you loose more players!
    Carrier's and big carriers make low and null space is very hard for capsulers.
    They must have a good tactics for battle in the systems with carriers.
    You can make game is very easy and boring.
    Please think about it.
    Steelgunner Shadowreaper
    Kitchen Sink Kapitals
    #918 - 2015-03-03 16:58:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Steelgunner Shadowreaper
    Pandorik wrote:
    Dear CCP,

    Removing the Fighter assist and allowable warp is simply appalling Evil. This Risk vs Reward venture of CCPs scope should be focused on High sec so that we may actually fight gankers.

    Either way I am utterly disappointed that CCP is removing content and play styles instead of introducing a mechanic that would allow players to counter. In lay-mans terms we are talking about taking the scissors out of RPS instead of adding a new way to play or a way to counter the "Skynet Problem"; lets just remove it.

    How about removing the skewed dynamics that Gankers use to their advantage and leaves everyone else high and dry? Oh wait they are trading a 4M isk fit for a hauler carrying a few billion isk, that sounds like a really square Risk v Reward dosent it? Then not having any possible way to strike back at them, sounds like everything is in order here, right!? Idea

    Moving forward with this you will see a tremendous decline of Carrier use. Thats on you.

    I say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO to all and any form of changes to the carriers.EvilEvilEvilEvil

    - Panda

    P.s. Your making a mistake.



    LOL careful. they banned our CEO for saying such things just now.

    we musn't disagree with, speak out against. or talk about our CCP over lords, their decisions (bannings and removing of form posts), or the Decisions of their cronies.

    all they needed to do was
    -remove the DDAs affecting fighters (because they over buffed them in the 1st place, but they will never admit they were wrong). -give fighters 10-20% damage buff so they are actually better than heavy drones.
    -add the ability to warp scramble/disrupt/interdict fighters.
    -and Make it so carriers sat 50K from a tower.. thats all they needed to do..

    but nope. they are killing the game. im a carrier pilot and i will be leaving. you wont see me or a penny from me, or my alts till this change is removed or canceled.

    i fully expect to get this post removed by the "Forum filtering Zealot Mods" before a Dev ever sees this constructive criticism/feed back. *tips fedora* GF CCP and Cronies.

    you successfully pvped me out of the game with these repeated crap, back to back updates.
    but i counter PVP your paychecks. i still win ;)
    Panther X
    Destructive Influence
    Northern Coalition.
    #919 - 2015-03-03 17:00:47 UTC
    Destra Noo wrote:
    CCP, do'nt touch carrier's, or you loose more players!
    Carrier's and big carriers make low and null space is very hard for capsulers.
    They must have a good tactics for battle in the systems with carriers.
    You can make game is very easy and boring.
    Please think about it.


    I don't think there will be a massive toilet flush on carrier or super carrier pilots; just a bunch of Chicken Little-ing until we learn how to Adapt and Overcome.

    I personally do not like all this CCP Heavy-Handedness on capitals, but what can we do? ***** and moan about it on the forums until our tongues swell, and then move along, they are forcing it on us anyway. Might as well HTFU and deal with it.

    My Titan smells of rich Corinthian Leather...
    Belinda HwaFang
    Coreli Corporation
    Pandemic Legion
    #920 - 2015-03-03 17:21:10 UTC
    The lowly carrier is the most powerful ship in the game. Not only does it fill its intended use as the game-changing Space Priest, it also allows people to rat, to **** around and gank people using assigned fighters, conveniently move 1M M3 of fitted ships around, and even dominate nullsec fights with a fleet of sentry equipped slowcats. All for the low price of around 2B fitted.

    So a nerf had to come, but is this the solution? No. The correct thing to do is to look at the state of the carrier and all it can do in relation to other ships and give it a full redesign.


    Hopefully CCP will look at it soon Pirate.

    --
    Fang