These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Bronson Hughes
The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration
#101 - 2015-02-27 15:22:55 UTC
I'm all for removing fighter assist. While the basis behind Skynetting has been "a thing" for a long time, Skynet carriers coupled with revamped fighters I think is a bit much. Valid? Yes. Still risky? Somewhat. But still a bit much.

I think fighters should keep their ability to warp. It sets them apart from other drones and gives carriers a unique capability, and without fighter assist they will already be losing some of their warp utility (i.e. no longer need to warp to their designated ship).

Relatively Notorious By Association

My Many Misadventures

I predicted FAUXs

Phoenix Jones
Small-Arms Fire
#102 - 2015-02-27 15:24:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Phoenix Jones
I've yet to see an actual argument to keeping fighters going to warp besides "please don't nerf they cost me money".

I hate being harsh but I haven't read one yet

Yaay!!!!

Coelomate
Gilliomate Corp
#103 - 2015-02-27 15:24:38 UTC

  • Fighter assist was clearly broken. It's a cool/interesting/fun mechanic, so sad to see it go from the reasonable use cases, but there is no doubt something drastic needed to change.
  • Please keep fighter warping, at least for following the carrier in warp. Fighters are expensive and slow, removing warp will make them even less likely to be used.


Having said that, I'd love it if there were a way to nerf the most broken use cases of fighter assist while keeping it in the game. The two worst offenders being assigning tracking-bonused fighters from a POS to a small ship (usually for PVP) and assigning super carrier fighters from a POS to a regular carrier, allowing all of the super carrier fitting to improve damage and application while the carrier fitting improves tank/cap/rep/align (often for PVE). If you can find a way to stop those, the remaining uses of fighter assign aren't nearly as broken.

Some good ideas have already been presented here, although I imagine there are significant coding challenges to them all.

My biggest concern: what use case do (non-super) carriers and fighters have after this change?

Love,

~Coelomate

Baron Holbach
The Northerners
Northern Coalition.
#104 - 2015-02-27 15:24:56 UTC
Anthar Thebess wrote:
Remove:
- fighter assist.
- fighter follow in warp the target.

Keep:
- fighters warping with the carrier



this
Viserion Pavarius
Hogyoku
Goonswarm Federation
#105 - 2015-02-27 15:25:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Viserion Pavarius
Hey,
plz don't remove the follow in warp function for fighters and escpecially fighter Bombers.

If you lose your FB's on a supercap you lose your primary weapon and you are not able to replace them thanks to the "small" dronebay.
Please think about this again CCP

I just liked the post from that guy in NC. above me. MUST BE A SIGN THAT REMOVING WARPING FIGHTERS IS **** :p
#capslock
Souma12
Starframe Logistics Inc.
#106 - 2015-02-27 15:27:27 UTC
"In general, we want there to be risk associated with power."

Nerf AFK cloaking then, 0 risk and too much power, the design philosophy you have is being affected there!
Xena Jax
Lot Lizzard Holdings
Goonswarm Federation
#107 - 2015-02-27 15:28:45 UTC
On what Fozzie said on the o7 show....

For the purposes of this post, carrier is used to refer to carrier and mothership/super.

@Fozzie

I think, you sir, have not considered all of the consequences of making this change, or if you have, you have decided to ignore those of us who use the cap/fighter platform for other purposes than to attach said fighters to shuttles and interceptors.

Look, I was not happy with the jump changes made to capitals, but I could see how the loss of capability versus the reward to stopping hot drops anywhere anytime was a positive. This crazy idea though is not and I for one am shocked you guys did not publicly ask for feedback from players before you decided to kill something that has been in use since the beginning of the game for other methods besides 'skynet'.

What you should have done sir, is place limits on how they are used. Examples might be:

A) No ability to assign fighters in low sec.
B) Fighters cannot be attached to ship sizes below say a cruiser.
C) Fighters cannot approach a gate within X km. They automatically return and orbit the carrier if its attempted.

Look in the real world larger civilized countries purchase and use air craft carriers for air superiority. By definition (just looking at Iraq as an example), they were used to send fighters to the region they were needed in with no harm to the air craft carrier. The ocean was its POS.

Anyways, back to the point. I think you are making a terrible mistake. When I started playing this game, I was largely enticed by capitals in general. How special and versatile they were. It seems you are taking away all of its beauty every other patch at this point. I mean seriously it is starting to shape up to capitals being nothing better than a subcap with a bit better DPS. Literally it is better to fly them gate to gate now. You are also taking away any other true advantage the platform has and basically pushing its single purpose for large fleet support roles.

You are also pissing on older players many of whom retain well skilled alts simply that can fly carriers/supers for various reasons. I for one will divest myself away from the carrier platform if this change is made and my vote will be felt in CCPs pocket book directly as I will not renew my capital pilot subscription (which I pay for in dollars) after this change goes into effect. I am guessing many others will follow suit.

Are you guys really that adverse to keeping accounts open and therefore keeping CCP financially strong? You are really screwing everyone who has invested a year or more of training into this game because some people complained about a tactic that could be dealt with in so many other ways?

Hey if you make the change fine. I will live with it and adapt.
But I want my *GD* wasted skillpoints back buddy.

Xena
Opner Dresden
H A V O C
Fraternity.
#108 - 2015-02-27 15:29:24 UTC
So fighter assist is a problem of design... don't post any data, because you don't have any data to support it.

But battleship and Battlecruiser usage is only a stats question... nothing is wrong with the fact that absolutely no one is fielding anything larger than a cruiser hull as a primary doctrine for major combat outside of PL... and even then it's only for <5 jump TFIs and destroyer warp speed Machariels.

Can we get some consistency please? If skynetting is a serious problem and not just people annoyed with home systems having some defensive advantage against roaming gangs... show us the numbers.

Better solution, fighters can be scramed and generate killmails... and bubbles while you're at it.



Carriers just received a massive nerf in jump range, severely limiting one of the major perks of owning one (suitcase). Now the uses for ratting and home defense are being crippled (at least in any sort of busy space).
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
#109 - 2015-02-27 15:30:15 UTC
You have two variables you are looking at. Do not make the same mistake you made with jump fatigue and modify both at once. Start with removing the fighter assist if the problem persists, then remove the fighter warping.

Honestly, I do not see how the two are related. As a carrier pilot who use to use their own drones for themselves, being able to let the fighters warp with you is a nice insurance policy for the cap ship and the very expensive fighters.

Primary Test Subject • SmackTalker Elite

Lunarstorm95
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#110 - 2015-02-27 15:31:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Lunarstorm95
No.

Leave fighters alone and work on what needs fixing. You have a list full of game mechanics that need working on and fighters are not on said list. Stop sticking you nose in game mechanics you don't know anything about and start listening to the CSMs. Fighters warping have not been a problem that has no solution. THAT is when a mechanic need fixing. Not because some people would rather complain over finding a hard counter.

As for assisting, i feel it needs some work but i still feel it is not an issue. The ship that gets assigned fighters needs to get aggression as if it was their own drones.

If you remove either of these features fighters become pointless and you will have yet again made a change no one wants.

My 20-40 mil drones should have some extra bells and whistles over some drakes 500k drones.

Fix what needs fixing.


P.S. Have you yet realized you really effed up with the jump changes yes? Can we put a rollback of those changes back on the table?

“You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.” ― Robert A. Heinlein "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." ― Confucius 

drummendejef maaktnietuit
Ramm's RDI
Tactical Narcotics Team
#111 - 2015-02-27 15:31:25 UTC
We were going to start trying out skynet ratting in 2 days :(

I don't see the problem with it really. It's pvp, and alot should be possible. Yes, it's annoying when a frig kills a BS, but they don't always need fighters for that.

Jenn aSide
Worthless Carebears
Pandemic Horde
#112 - 2015-02-27 15:32:10 UTC
Phoenix Jones wrote:
I've yet to see an actual argument to keeping fighters going to warp besides "please don't nerf they cost me money".


No "me" i don't use fighters anymore. What we're saying is that this unnecessary nerf (to fighter warping) means fewer people will use Carriers for PVE in null and low sec. Those PVE carriers are content creation devices, huge battles have started behind one ratting carrier or super carrier that got caught because it was misaligned or got stuck on a structure or something..

Without fighter warping, the financial risk (of losing a quarter bil in fighters) means people just won't do it, ratting is about making isk under acceptable levels of financial risk (which is why afktars or so popular, don't make a lot of isk but not a lot of loss if one dies) not losing it.

Some me will just use sentry carriers but those are dangerous because you can't be aligned, so after a few loses, they too will either switch to Afktars, cheap options like MJD Dominixes/other ships or outside of null sec pve (like faction warfare missions or whatever else) for income. RIP content creating ratting carriers getting caught.
Falnashna Akhiko
State War Academy
Caldari State
#113 - 2015-02-27 15:32:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Falnashna Akhiko
I feel a much more appropriate option would be to make it so that they can still fighter assist, however, there is a maximum range to it. Ideally this would be like 1 AU. The advantage of doing this is that it severely limits where they can have the carrier to assist things in system. If it is in a moon that is right next to a station, I feel that raises the value of both the moon and the station, it would lead towards more conflict over that system (assuming holding alliances aren't massive). However, it doesn't give a blank check on any engages within the system.

Since the range is only 1 AU, say the enemy fleet/individual comes into system, he can quickly figure out the "range bubble" of the assist, and then engage stuff outside of it. This raises the tactics of the carrier, while still maintaining its "carrier-ness". With that said, it may be more reasonable to do it at a shorter range, such as 1000km, so that there can be fleet mechanics wherein you park your carriers just barely off grid, and then you will be able to assist the people that are in combat.

I personally just feel that outright removing a feature is never the way to go, as it removes diversity of play, however, it is appropriate, or more accurately demanded that said features should be balanced.
Punky260
Kriegsmarinewerft
Goonswarm Federation
#114 - 2015-02-27 15:32:23 UTC
Leave fighters warping - maybe with an optout option.
So you could choose in the drones window if your Fighters should be able to leave grid or not.

Why:
The uniqueness of fighters should not only be a bigger damage output, put also a larger range of "utility". Even there are probably only few scenarios where you might end up wanting your fighters warp away from you, it still can be.
And I would want only the smallest change to remove skynet - the fighter assist does provide that, so why do something else? ;)
Asuka Solo
I N E X T R E M I S
Tactical Narcotics Team
#115 - 2015-02-27 15:33:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Asuka Solo
I'm going to put this here so I'm sure you'll read it.

You gave us an UNDER DEVELOPED LINE of singular capital and super capital hulls and told us to go forth and be gods if we could afford to.
You nerfed them and AoE doomsdays because the poor rifter hobos who couldn't afford to be gods got blapped in the first few years.
You nerfed carriers again because fighters did too much damage to small gangs thinking they can take on something 10 times their size and cost.
Then you nerfed them some more because you wanted sub capitals to play a role in whoring on capital killmails with NO RISK from the caps (invalid targeting mechanic, crap scan res for a ship that should by all means have more targeting capabilities than the cheap budget frigates on offer).
Recently you nerfed them again because they traveled across the galaxy, bypassing stargates at insane speeds (LIKE YOU INTENDED from the offset).
Now your relegating carriers to the world of triaging on stargates or the role of dust collectors.

You promised me Incarna. You gave me a prolonged abortion with an eventual dismissal of the concept because some people blew up space statues and unsubbed their cyno alts.

You promised me PI. You gave me connect the dots and forgot about it.


I'm not even going to waste my breath trying to fight you on this, because its just going to get ignored anyway.


SO there's not much for it.

Nerf my capitals with this, and I'll nerf your income by unsubbing whats left of my accounts and hoping for the days that your nigh-wow clone game failscades with headlines of job cuts at CCP or scandalous transfers of disgruntled former Devs to competitor studios.



I did not invest 10 years into this game hoping to fill the Freelancer hole in my heart, for Capital ships in general, Incarna and PI promises to sit back and watch you turn this game into rifters online with no content I like or want, week in, week out... all because of lesser ships and your inability to have fixed all of these design oversights that have cost us the much loved Jesus feature expansions in the first decade.

And i'll be keeping my stuffs thnx

Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!

Suitonia
Order of the Red Kestrel
#116 - 2015-02-27 15:34:19 UTC
Opner Dresden wrote:
So fighter assist is a problem of design... don't post any data, because you don't have any data to support it.

But battleship and Battlecruiser usage is only a stats question... nothing is wrong with the fact that absolutely no one is fielding anything larger than a cruiser hull as a primary doctrine for major combat outside of PL... and even then it's only for <5 jump TFIs and destroyer warp speed Machariels.

Can we get some consistency please? If skynetting is a serious problem and not just people annoyed with home systems having some defensive advantage against roaming gangs... show us the numbers.

Better solution, fighters can be scramed and generate killmails... and bubbles while you're at it.



Carriers just received a massive nerf in jump range, severely limiting one of the major perks of owning one (suitcase). Now the uses for ratting and home defense are being crippled (at least in any sort of busy space).


The advantage that home defense has is the option to reship and counter, more pilots on hand, and the ability to reinforce lost numbers during an engagement, as well as strategic assets like Jump Bridges to cut-off enemy escape routes or bring their own reinforcements in faster, and much better options for a safe retreat like safe stations and friendly structures.

Assigning 4,000 DPS from an invulnerable and intangible target that tracks every single ship in the game perfectly to 2 Stilettos and a Hyena (or t1 fit frigates) is not something which should be in the game.

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

Krell Kroenen
The Devil's Shadow
#117 - 2015-02-27 15:35:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Krell Kroenen
So a unique and interesting feature that’s been around for numerous years is being removed because of an undesirable side effect that has reared its head more often of late due to changes that came in Phoebe. So instead of correcting the side affect you are just going to axe the whole feature.

That’s like having a blemish on your hand and chopping off the whole hand to get rid of it.

*Golf clap* I guess we should be happy you guys are in game design and are not doctors, why not put forth some effort and prevent the undesirable behavior directly instead of taking an easy and sloppy way out?
Arthur Aihaken
CODE.d
#118 - 2015-02-27 15:38:38 UTC
Asuka Solo wrote:
I'm going to put this here so I'm sure you'll read it.

I thoroughly enjoyed the rant. And you're not entirely wrong on most of your points, either. You can also add Combat Battlecruisers and Battleships to the list, too.

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

SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#119 - 2015-02-27 15:40:06 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Axloth Okiah wrote:
How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable?


I like that.

And give us fighter and fighter bomber kill mails.
Falnashna Akhiko
State War Academy
Caldari State
#120 - 2015-02-27 15:41:06 UTC
Falnashna Akhiko wrote:
I feel a much more appropriate option would be to make it so that they can still fighter assist, however, there is a maximum range to it. Ideally this would be like 1 AU. The advantage of doing this is that it severely limits where they can have the carrier to assist things in system. If it is in a moon that is right next to a station, I feel that raises the value of both the moon and the station, it would lead towards more conflict over that system (assuming holding alliances aren't massive). However, it doesn't give a blank check on any engages within the system.

Since the range is only 1 AU, say the enemy fleet/individual comes into system, he can quickly figure out the "range bubble" of the assist, and then engage stuff outside of it. This raises the tactics of the carrier, while still maintaining its "carrier-ness". With that said, it may be more reasonable to do it at a shorter range, such as 1000km, so that there can be fleet mechanics wherein you park your carriers just barely off grid, and then you will be able to assist the people that are in combat.

I personally just feel that outright removing a feature is never the way to go, as it removes diversity of play, however, it is appropriate, or more accurately demanded that said features should be balanced.



Alternatively, what you could just do is set it so that pos's have a secondary "invisibile" bubble that is larger than the pos shield. Its only effect would be that carriers can't launch fighters while inside this invisible bubble. This would force them to trundle out a good deal farther to maintain the behavior, thus forcing them to be more vulnerable.