These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Gevlin
Pator Tech School
Minmatar Republic
#81 - 2015-02-27 15:00:50 UTC
I would remove the warping of fighters and keep the Fighter assist. Making the carrier required to be on grid to have their fighters be of use, therefore risk vs reward is kept.

Someday I will have the time to play. For now it is mining afk in High sec. In Cheap ships

Makari Aeron
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#82 - 2015-02-27 15:05:41 UTC
I think fighter assist should stay. Just make it to where you have to be X Km off of a station or POS like with the cyno fields. If you get to close, the fighters instantly return OR deactivate on the field forcing the carrier pilot to go reconnect with them on that grid. As others have stated, fighter assist is one of the coolest features in EVE to me. If I ever decided to fly carriers, that would be the first thing I'd do. Sadly, there's no real point to flying them in Providence.

CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty.

CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP

Holly Hardcore
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#83 - 2015-02-27 15:05:54 UTC
It is good as it is, stop ruin that game !!!!
Aoki Reika
xMONOLITHx
The Gorgon Empire
#84 - 2015-02-27 15:06:38 UTC
Hey CCP drop my SP in Fighter skill to free.
Not needed cuz we have Geckoz.
Jori McKie
African Atomic.
Train Wreck.
#85 - 2015-02-27 15:06:58 UTC
Juan Thang wrote:
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.


Talk to Snuff Box or Shadow Cartel or any bigger entity in lowsec. They're using their caps rather often in a medium sized fight.

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." - Abrazzar

Shinah Myst
Celestial Dragon
#86 - 2015-02-27 15:07:38 UTC
Remove assist completely. It's not constructively useful anyway.
Arkon Olacar
black.listed
#87 - 2015-02-27 15:10:28 UTC
Given how ****** up fighter warp mechanics are, keep the assist but remove the warp ability. Force the carrier/super to be on grid if it wants to assign fighters to another ship, just like every other drone.
Dictateur Imperator
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#88 - 2015-02-27 15:12:35 UTC
I have one question for CCP :

Do you have think to ALL implication of this nerf ? Stop read people who cry . Just use your brain, and said to me you have validate all implication :

-Less mineral/salvage produce
-Less active account (yes carrier alt will be remove, you lost a lot of account).
-Less Capital/Supercapital : Why people use capital after this ? Only to hit structure... but you have already nerf life of structure, so it's useless now. Remote ? maybe. So less carrier means less dread, less carier ad dread, less supecarrier... and less super carrier less titan.
-You kill an important part of the game play. Kill capital means kill long term planification of massive operation (engage a cap/super cap fleet cost a lot, it's easier to engage 1000 frigate as engage 100 carrier.)
-Important pve nerf, less isk inflation.
-Don't change a lot of thing for pvp , people just stop to use carrier, they don't send it on anom, less carrier kill to because people can"t bump and kill carrier/MS who sen fighter in assist. (YES actually you can kill they ... try to cyno some dream and it's magical you kill carrier before he can go on is pos).
- You overpowered afk cloacker ... one of the unique actual counter is to have people with "skynet " on belt/pve to afraid they.




So With all this element, dear CCP i propose you some interesting thing:
Change your indicator. Try to seduce people with only pew pew frigate.cruiser size is bad : at long term people just go to other pvp game. Why eve work ? Because you have community who can plainly long term action with big ship, you can have a true advantage to economical advantage: have big ship, but you want to nerf all big ship. And if big ship can only kill big ship : no interest to produce it.
League of Frigate is the futur name of eve , don't worry be happy.

How yo avoid this ?
- Make a weapon general nerf : if a S class weapon attack M class, degat must be divided by 2. L => 4, XL=> 8
If a M classe weapon attack S =>1, L=>2,XL=4
ect... (and yes suicide banking become more difficult, but you know you have a ship specializes do kill big ship: BOMBER)

Why this change ? To create more pvp strategy and opportunity, YES it are here to tackle not to kill after this. Yes a carrier can't now assign fighter... but you can't kill they just with 30 inty who orbit near.

Remove possibility of perma clocking : You have a clock fatigue: you win 1 sec of cloak fatigue each second cloak. The fatigue is not effective if you don't have 4H of fatigue, when you have 4H of fatigue you can't clock for 4 H.

Remove off grid bonus, and you can't give bonus cloack .

So yes apply my idea and you can remove fighter assist .









Tyr Dolorem
State War Academy
Caldari State
#89 - 2015-02-27 15:13:36 UTC
Fantastic change in my opinion. The ability of fighters/fighter bombers to follow you into warp is great and I would really rather not see it go.

Fighters chasing their target is I think a pretty balanced and interesting mechanic.

Quote:
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.


You already have the option to turn this off so I don't see that being a problem.
Hairpins Blueprint
The Northerners
Northern Coalition.
#90 - 2015-02-27 15:14:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Hairpins Blueprint
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.



I was abusing this my self and also died to this too many times. This is great! some carebears will be dll about it coz they won't be able to asign fighters to theire ratting sub caps any more tho.

But still cool : ) they will not warp into your safe any more and we won't see any trap bait thana with 7k dps scrams and webs ^^

But as much they should not be able to fallow a target in warp they should be able to fallow a carrier/super in warp! so you will not forget those drones in space!! AttentionAttention


All for the better. i like this chane very much Blink
Anhenka
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#91 - 2015-02-27 15:14:58 UTC  |  Edited by: Anhenka
Removing fighter assign is good. Removing fighter warp is bad.

I can't follow a target warping to a safespot in my combat ship, so fighters being able to follow targets continuously is odd.

But I can always warp to a member of my fleet in the same system, and I can fleet warp, so at a minimum, fighters should always be able to warp TO the carriers location when the carrier, and warp WITH the carrier when the carrier warps.

But feel free to remove the follow aggressed target function, it wouldn't be much of a loss.
Jarod Garamonde
Sons of Seyllin
Pirate Lords of War
#92 - 2015-02-27 15:15:45 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.



I'd rather just see a killmail generated for fighters, and call it a day.
Other than not getting a killmail when one dies, fighters are fine the way they are.

That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right...

    [#savethelance]
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd
Pandemic Horde
#93 - 2015-02-27 15:16:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Ncc 1709
Removal of both removes a huge sandbox. it also makes them useless. most people use fighters for their ability to follow. remove that then there's no point in fighters ever.

who would even risk using them in pve if just warping off loses you 200m isk of drones. so people will go back to using sentry drones on carriers, which would then need to be nerfed again.

so please leave the warp at least.

as for assigning... removing that just nerfed my ratting income by 65%, so thanks for that....


removing aggressed follow im ok with. its usually a pain in the ass anyways.
Suitonia
Order of the Red Kestrel
#94 - 2015-02-27 15:16:14 UTC
Inslander Wessette wrote:
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)



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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


The problem isn't so much the ships used. As using a 400k EHP abaddon that never agresses with mwd+mmjd+ecm burst+cloak would still be possible with the beacon mechanic, costing 40 million isk after insurance if it dies, with the very likely possibility that it can escape unless the hostiles have multiple pilots (which you know about in your intel channels, and covert ops cloak capable ships if you see fit to allow the grid to allow it on cruisers). I think the risk should be for the Carrier pilot, not for other ships as it's too easy to mitigate risk on the other ships.

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

Canenald
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#95 - 2015-02-27 15:19:08 UTC
I feel that removing fighter assists and warping would just make carriers more like large versions of subcapital drone boats. There has to be a better way of solving this problem.

Do the assigned fighters give aggression timers to the owner carrier? If they don't, they should. Carrier too tough so it waits out the aggression timer and docks? It's your problem you don't have the power to destroy a carrier before it deagresses. Don't pick a fight with groups that have carriers.

Assigning from the edge of POS shields is more complicated. Maybe prevent them from assigning while they are within certain range of the shields, like the same area in which jump bridges can't be placed.
Kiyak Montizuma
State War Academy
Caldari State
#96 - 2015-02-27 15:19:55 UTC
keep fighter warp and also allow the ability to assist to ships that are on grid.
Tikktokk Tokkzikk
V0LTA
WE FORM V0LTA
#97 - 2015-02-27 15:19:59 UTC
No matter what, keep the warp drive on the fighters and fighter bombers. Huge QoL for carrier pilots and make for some interesting situations.

Fighter assist is overpowered because of skynets at the edge of POS shields. I'm a huge fan of ships being in space (especially expensive ships), so I'd rather skynetting wasn't possible near a POS shield (like cynos?) than it being removed from the game. That being said, I'd much rather see fighter assist be removed from the game than remain at the current state.
Elenahina
No.Mercy
Triumvirate.
#98 - 2015-02-27 15:21:27 UTC
Gevlin wrote:
I would remove the warping of fighters and keep the Fighter assist. Making the carrier required to be on grid to have their fighters be of use, therefore risk vs reward is kept.



But it's not - the two situations are not exactly the same. Carriers have notoriously slow lock times, especially for smaller ships, and fighters do not (last time I used any) auto aggress to new targets, you have to target them individually and click "Sic 'em" for the fighters to go dispense death. Removing the assist feature means that you have to use the carrier's lock time in order to get the benefit of the fighters, not the lock time of an interceptor.

Eve is like an addiction; you can't quit it until it quits you. Also, iderno

Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#99 - 2015-02-27 15:21:39 UTC
Kill all drone assist, regardless. Fighters and standard drones.
Retain fighter warp as this is a unique feature, and can be toggled already.

It's time for the 'Game of Drones' to come to an end.

I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.

Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#100 - 2015-02-27 15:22:41 UTC
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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


The problem isn't so much the ships used. As using a 400k EHP abaddon that never agresses with mwd+mmjd+ecm burst+cloak would still be possible with the beacon mechanic, costing 40 million isk after insurance if it dies, with the very likely possibility that it can escape unless the hostiles have multiple pilots (which you know about in your intel channels, and covert ops cloak capable ships if you see fit to allow the grid to allow it on cruisers). I think the risk should be for the Carrier pilot, not for other ships as it's too easy to mitigate risk on the other ships.


Hence my addition of some changes to the fighters themselves.