These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Vaju Enki
Secular Wisdom
#1101 - 2015-03-10 18:09:09 UTC
egyhenger wrote:
how it's started a long, long time ago...
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/carriers-and-motherships-and-also-titans/


One of the biggest mistakes in video game history.

The Tears Must Flow
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#1102 - 2015-03-10 18:24:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Holly Hardcore wrote:
Chanina wrote:
keeping the ability to warp is a good decision, its a unique point of fighters and makes them pretty handsome for having a carrier in PvE where you don't want to scoop drones every time.

So removing drone assignment entirely just because too small ships get too big DPS? Couldn't we just balance it? Make a fighter assignment use 10 Mbit/s of the receiving ship for each fighter. This would keep the availability for PvE use and limit the number of fighters a non drone boat can control.



1. As far as i know you can only delegate 5 fighters to an sub capital ship....
2. Oh no, i want scoop my drones after each site, cause i will do only
60Mill ticks not 70Mill like i do atm... lol

So, that's your problem and ccp is doing right if they care a s..t about that.

But it's an fact that skynet was never a problem before they gave module bonuses
to fighters. So ccp maybe you should see it as a mistake and remove that buff as
It was before.

You cant do that? Ok, than refund the players, give them their invested
Money back and remove the moms entierely from the Game.

Cause skill an super pilot and make the money for a soon worthless multi billion isk ship is a waste of money
and time that many subscribers invested for it.



1) Drones can be assigned up to how many a ship can control. Carriers for example if fully skilled and with DCUs could technically be assigned up to 15 fighters from another carrier. Kind of an odd thing to do, but it works. Only really worth while if you're assigning from a super to a normal carrier.

2) Those 60-70m ticks only occur with super fighters assigned. That amount of income equates to that of a high sec incursion runner who is just as, if not more, safe than the super sitting on the shield edge. Ignore the ratter who is in the anom itself which is always being forgotten in these situations. Then fighter assign goes away those ticks will drop to 20-30m in a carrier or fully deadspace fit BS.


As far as skynet goes, many people have already suggested treating fighter assign like we do module deployment and cynos now on the shield edge. Push the minimum range out and force us to be further out. Make the accepting ship have open bandwidth to accept the fighters. Take away the actual passive bonuses when assigned (leave the module), it only makes sense that those bonuses be tied to the carrier itself and I doubt you'll find many super pilots against this. It was our time and isk invested in these behemoths, and we're willing to play a game of give and take in the name of balance. But this is all take, what are WE getting out of this?


Basically, if they remove fighter assign I DEMAND they re-balance all wealth within the eve universe as a whole. It has gone on far too long! While null sec inhabitants and capital owners alike have been getting shafted patch after patch with no reconciliation for their losses. The cries of high sec and low sec players alike have been heard and their demands met, yet it has not one has made a move to live in null despite their constant "this is why I don't live in null" complaints that have forced these changes upon us. It has gotten so out of balance that I must make comparisons to high sec activities to show how much money is available to the individual player within null. The people of high sec and low obliviously have no real interest in fair play or living in null at all. They want all the isk and none of the risk and cost of living in null space. If you want to make 120m an hour (looking at you high sec incrusioners) come to null and risk your assets to obtain it. If you want to make 800m an hour, well I laugh at you entirely (looking at you faction warfare). WH space... I have less of an issue but god! Stop riding your high horse about no local, your lone system can be put on lockdown be happy with what you got, null is always open to roamers and hot drops.

/endrant

TLDR - balance, don't remove. If you want to go through with this, then your next move better be to re-balance the distribution of wealth within the eve universe as a whole from a player's perspective with risk vs reward like you used to in years past.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1103 - 2015-03-10 20:18:27 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Make the accepting ship have open bandwidth to accept the fighters. Take away the actual passive bonuses when assigned (leave the module), it only makes sense that those bonuses be tied to the carrier itself and I doubt you'll find many super pilots against this.


Doesn't make much sense from the ingame tech perspective - the ship they are assigned to just takes command delegation the parent carrier still does all the normal processing for the fighters hence bonuses.

The main issues relating to skynet "should" (though I could be wrong) be fixable with tweaks to fighter turret sig without having to resort to divesting them of bonuses or other limitations.

As someone who has spent the last few months topping up my carrier pilots skills (multiple chars to carrier V, fighters V, ADI V, etc.) including investing a bit in fighter production (for my own derping around I have no interest in using skynet in PVP) this has put me completely off investing any more time into eve.
Adriana Nolen
Sama Guild
#1104 - 2015-03-10 20:42:28 UTC
Arla Sarain wrote:
DeadDuck wrote:
Just remove fighter assist.

Just remove drone assist.

Kill skynet, sentries and one man "bothered to target the primary" drone fleets in one go.


Drone assist still has it's uses and it's already capped at 50. That's fine. Glad to see bomber assist go away.
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#1105 - 2015-03-10 20:52:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Rroff wrote:
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Make the accepting ship have open bandwidth to accept the fighters. Take away the actual passive bonuses when assigned (leave the module), it only makes sense that those bonuses be tied to the carrier itself and I doubt you'll find many super pilots against this.


Doesn't make much sense from the ingame tech perspective - the ship they are assigned to just takes command delegation the parent carrier still does all the normal processing for the fighters hence bonuses.

The main issues relating to skynet "should" (though I could be wrong) be fixable with tweaks to fighter turret sig without having to resort to divesting them of bonuses or other limitations.

As someone who has spent the last few months topping up my carrier pilots skills (multiple chars to carrier V, fighters V, ADI V, etc.) including investing a bit in fighter production (for my own derping around I have no interest in using skynet in PVP) this has put me completely off investing any more time into eve.



Sorry to say, but the capital ship's role has always been around PVP and structure grinding. While it's nice to use in PvE so the space coffins help flip the bill for the account their sitting on, it wasn't really their intention. And from an ingame tech perspective it does make sense as the super carrier is equip to control the fighters to their utmost capabilities, by assigning them to another vessel it would make sense that they would then lose that bonus.

They already have an attached sig of 125m, making too much larger would make it so they can't hit a cruiser. The entire purpose of fighters are to be anti-sub cap, while bombers are the anti-cap. There is nothing wrong with their current damage application, it's with the types of ships that their power is being assigned to and to what level of safety the super pilot can reasonably expect to maintain while effectively participating in combat from afar.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1106 - 2015-03-10 21:25:35 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:

Sorry to say, but the capital ship's role has always been around PVP and structure grinding. While it's nice to use in PvE so the space coffins help flip the bill for the account their sitting on, it wasn't really their intention. And from an ingame tech perspective it does make sense as the super carrier is equip to control the fighters to their utmost capabilities, by assigning them to another vessel it would make sense that they would then lose that bonus.

They already have an attached sig of 125m, making too much larger would make it so they can't hit a cruiser. The entire purpose of fighters are to be anti-sub cap, while bombers are the anti-cap. There is nothing wrong with their current damage application, it's with the types of ships that their power is being assigned to and to what level of safety the super pilot can reasonably expect to maintain while effectively participating in combat from afar.


Never said I wouldn't use one in PVP (and infact have) I wouldn't be using them (generally) to do skynet type stuff however - I've done it the odd time but thats just derping about shooting silly stuff for lols.

Assign/assist doesn't mean turning over full operation of the fighters to another ship - the parent carrier "still does" all the telemetry, gunnery, navigation, etc. processing, etc. (could debate whether having another ship (that they are assigned to) looped into the command interface has a reduction on efficiency).

I believe their current turret sig res is actually 400 - problem is that the better they are able to track a target (transversal wise) the less significant any discrepancy between their turret sig res and the target sig res becomes - which generally isn't a problem but in outlier cases like with what happened with titans and fighters when you don't have to consider using module slots for anything but buffing fighters (as per skynet) it does things that are way outside the normal - fighters have no problems chasing down and blapping even interceptors with relative ease - I don't disagree with fighters being able to apply damage to sub-capitals but skynet amps that up way too far - using a titan style modifier for sig would have minimal knock on effect in other situations where the target sig/fighter turret sig part of the equation is fully satisfied but stop them able to apply battleship or higher levels of damage to smaller stuff that battleship and bigger can't hit with anything like even remotely the same ease.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1107 - 2015-03-10 21:27:06 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
They already have an attached sig of 125m, making too much larger would make it so they can't hit a cruiser. The entire purpose of fighters are to be anti-sub cap, while bombers are the anti-cap. There is nothing wrong with their current damage application, it's with the types of ships that their power is being assigned to and to what level of safety the super pilot can reasonably expect to maintain while effectively participating in combat from afar.

You're confusing Signature Radius (how big something is on scanners / radar / whatever) and Signature Resolution (m2 of the gun's projectile / beam / whatever. Think of it like a shotgun's spread only it doesnt get bigger as distance increases)
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#1108 - 2015-03-10 21:33:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Nasar Vyron wrote:
They already have an attached sig of 125m, making too much larger would make it so they can't hit a cruiser. The entire purpose of fighters are to be anti-sub cap, while bombers are the anti-cap. There is nothing wrong with their current damage application, it's with the types of ships that their power is being assigned to and to what level of safety the super pilot can reasonably expect to maintain while effectively participating in combat from afar.

You're confusing Signature Radius (how big something is on scanners / radar / whatever) and Signature Resolution (m2 of the gun's projectile / beam / whatever. Think of it like a shotgun's spread only it doesnt get bigger as distance increases)



Nope sig resolution is 125m on einherji. Their scan resolution (not sure if up to date what im looking at) is/was 350mm. Sig radius 100m

That's why they have such a hard time hitting frigates even when fully tracking fit with web and paint. I can see why you thought I was mistaken, it let me put the facts out there on the rest of their stats at least :)

And so we're all on the same page... Einherji
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1109 - 2015-03-10 21:38:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Nasar Vyron wrote:
They already have an attached sig of 125m, making too much larger would make it so they can't hit a cruiser. The entire purpose of fighters are to be anti-sub cap, while bombers are the anti-cap. There is nothing wrong with their current damage application, it's with the types of ships that their power is being assigned to and to what level of safety the super pilot can reasonably expect to maintain while effectively participating in combat from afar.

You're confusing Signature Radius (how big something is on scanners / radar / whatever) and Signature Resolution (m2 of the gun's projectile / beam / whatever. Think of it like a shotgun's spread only it doesnt get bigger as distance increases)



Nope sig resolution is 125m on einherji. Their scan resolution (not sure if up to date what im looking at) is/was 350mm. Sig radius 100m

That's why they have such a hard time hitting frigates even when fully tracking fit with web and paint. I can see why you thought I was mistaken, it let me put the facts out there on the rest of their stats at least :)

And so we're all on the same page... Einherji


Last time I looked at the database (firbolg):

Optimal target sig 400 m, Scan-res 125, signature (how big they are) 100.

Gonna check the recent scan res nerf thread to double check.

EDIT: As per Fozzie's post:

Quote:

Type - Old Scan Res – New Scan Res
Dragonfly - 200 - 100
Einherji - 350 - 175
Firbolg - 250 - 125
Templar - 300 - 150
Ghostly Embers
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#1110 - 2015-03-10 21:44:35 UTC
Oh no! There's a carrier using the pos as cover when it assigns fighters! Oh no! It is outside the shields, it can be attacked, it can be bumped further off the shields! Nothing can be done so that gankers get a super easy kill! The worlds going to end!!! CCP can't have this! Hold the patches!!! This must be fixed NOW!


Solution : CCP comforts gankers and tells old time players your not wanted here anymore. (Hey, how long has it been since the Rorqual pilots were promised a fix after the treatment they got? Now they are not even talked about anymore).

Actual solution : CCP should tell the gankers to take out the POS, and be done with it.

All carrier pilots know, fighters are not hard to blow up and they are not exactly cheap either.

CCP should stop with the death by a thousand cuts, if they don't want us old school players here, say so and be done with us. Other games are starting to look more appealing then inter... oh!!!! Finally!!! My Homeworlds Remastered Collectors Edition got here... shiney! Don't get me started on how overnight air mail turned into a 7 day shipping adventure.
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#1111 - 2015-03-10 21:46:45 UTC
Yes, but that is scan resolution (targeting time), not sig resolution (applying damage). Scan res was nerfed, sig res hasn't been touched.. ever I think.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1112 - 2015-03-10 21:48:51 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
^^ Unless the recent database dump is wrong then their optimal weapon sig is 400m.

Regardless you can still make them toast anything less than a snaked/linked interceptor with ease even without webbing/target painting it.
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#1113 - 2015-03-10 21:52:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Nasar Vyron
Rroff wrote:
^^ Unless the recent database dump is wrong then their optimal weapon sig is 400m.


Alright in that case I am wrong :) I apologize. I had a feeling some of the info on that page was dated.

Doesn't really change the fact that fighters are meant to be anti-sub cap tho and increasing it too much defeats their purpose unless they are to only be anti-BC/BS in the times ahead. Tho that would take one heck of a nerf.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1114 - 2015-03-10 23:00:02 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:

Doesn't really change the fact that fighters are meant to be anti-sub cap tho and increasing it too much defeats their purpose unless they are to only be anti-BC/BS in the times ahead. Tho that would take one heck of a nerf.


Agreed but as things stand skynet type fits allow you to apply crazy amounts of damage to tiny stuff* - IMO they shouldn't be able to apply anything close to full damage to smaller cruisers and down.



* ok this is taking it to the absurd and my only inty pilot has sucky skills but... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUZsKXSEU8M
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#1115 - 2015-03-10 23:29:03 UTC
Oh, I've used "skynet" myself for ratting purposes and have corp mates that love to gate camp with them so I know what it can do. That's why I'm for knocking the power down a peg or two, but removing the ability to assign is foolish and shortsighted. Especially when they are offering nothing in return.

FYI - the second those fighters came at you you should have flown sideways rather than the direction they were flying, you had 0 transferal to them. That's a tip in general, not just for fighters :) screw with fighters even more by orbiting one of them closely as you kill them off. Even the best tracking fits will have a time and a half landing a blow if you drop in for close orbit.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1116 - 2015-03-11 00:03:19 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Nasar Vyron wrote:

FYI - the second those fighters came at you you should have flown sideways rather than the direction they were flying, you had 0 transferal to them. That's a tip in general, not just for fighters :) screw with fighters even more by orbiting one of them closely as you kill them off. Even the best tracking fits will have a time and a half landing a blow if you drop in for close orbit.


Doesn't make any difference against that setup :S flying in any direction with MWD on they will blap you (I've tried heh) they drop out of MWD to shoot so you always go low transversal (unless your snaked and linked you'll still be within range of their damage).

The second bit can work if your just up against 5 assigned to 1 ship but doesn't work if there are more fighters than that as some of them will always be in a position to hit you.

EDIT: That setup I'm using is crazy though - even if you try orbiting with MWD off they will kill that inty within 5 volleys always.
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1117 - 2015-03-11 00:07:32 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Nasar Vyron wrote:

Doesn't really change the fact that fighters are meant to be anti-sub cap tho and increasing it too much defeats their purpose unless they are to only be anti-BC/BS in the times ahead. Tho that would take one heck of a nerf.

Agreed but as things stand skynet type fits allow you to apply crazy amounts of damage to tiny stuff* - IMO they shouldn't be able to apply anything close to full damage to smaller cruisers and down.
* ok this is taking it to the absurd and my only inty pilot has sucky skills but... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUZsKXSEU8M


1) You must sacrifice 99% of your tank in order to achieve that high of DPS, tracking, and speed.
2) There's a reason Huginns, Rapiers, Lokis, and Hyenas are some of the "go-to" ships because they equip webs and painters, making it easier for fighters to apply DPS.
3) That was a compliment of Einherjis from a supercapital, not a simple carrier. Supers have more slots available for adding drone modules, and if players could no longer nudge their nose out of a POS and assign fighters, they'd have to choose between balancing risk for their capital vs reward of some simple killmails, a choice I'm fairly certain not many capital pilot would make lightly.
4) We know nothing about the fit on the Claw or his skills except that he has a MWD and goes not even 4km/s, and all he's doing is attempting to keep at range 1,000km. He doesn't try to warp off, he doesn't overheat his MWD, he doesn't do anything that might save him from being exploded. Attempting to use this single video from the test server as an example of how bad things are is ludicrous as shown by the Revenant killmail.
Nasar Vyron
S0utherN Comfort
#1118 - 2015-03-11 00:08:47 UTC
Never said you'd live Smile just last longer lol
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1119 - 2015-03-11 00:11:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Nolak Ataru wrote:

4) We know nothing about the fit on the Claw or his skills except that he has a MWD and goes not even 4km/s, and all he's doing is attempting to keep at range 1,000km. He doesn't try to warp off, he doesn't overheat his MWD, he doesn't do anything that might save him from being exploded. Attempting to use this single video from the test server as an example of how bad things are is ludicrous as shown by the Revenant killmail.


As I said its taking it to the absurd (and my inty capable alt has rubbish skills - though the fit itself doesn't matter against that you will die no matter the fit and that is far from the max speed you can get out of those einherji) but its purely to illustrate just how easily fighters when amped up can deal with even the smallest ships in eve - the idea wasn't to escape or anything (i.e. you could be trying to run away from another fast ship thats holding long point on you).
Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1120 - 2015-03-11 00:17:07 UTC
Rroff wrote:
Nolak Ataru wrote:

4) We know nothing about the fit on the Claw or his skills except that he has a MWD and goes not even 4km/s, and all he's doing is attempting to keep at range 1,000km. He doesn't try to warp off, he doesn't overheat his MWD, he doesn't do anything that might save him from being exploded. Attempting to use this single video from the test server as an example of how bad things are is ludicrous as shown by the Revenant killmail.


As I said its taking it to the absurd (and my inty alt has rubbish skills - though the fit itself doesn't matter against that you will die no matter the fit and that is far from the max speed you can get out of those einherji) but its purely to illustrate just how easily fighters when amped up can deal with even the smallest ships in eve - the idea wasn't to escape or anything (i.e. you could be trying to run away from another fast ship thats holding long point on you).


Except all you had to do was... warp... away....
If you're trying to outrun a long point, there's a nifty little maneuver called the "slingshot trick".
Again, when the fighters are..... "amped up", as you said, that means he's sacrificed a good amount of tank, which means he's vulnerable to dreads or a Talos fleet.