These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Valorian Amarison
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1381 - 2015-03-30 21:38:02 UTC
My vote would be to keep warp capabilities in tact for fighters... this is my thought.

When warping a carrier to safety, at times, there is little time to recall fighters. With fighters as expensive as they are, it would be a shame to abandon them on the field if they can no longer warp.

Removing assist is one thing, please don't break carriers completely.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1382 - 2015-03-31 00:49:22 UTC
Nasar Vyron wrote:
Rowells wrote:
And stop pretending to speak for the majority. You in no way can try to use the silent majority to bolster your opinion.



I've got news for you buddy, I do speak for the majority of null sec and likely a good chunk of low who have any actual ties to the use of supers. It's you who are in the minority here.

Maybe you don't understand how representation works. Usually you become a representative either by formal designation as a mouthpiece (through voting, force, or coercion) and then you can speak on their opinions. You, however, seem to believe that finding similar opinions in a few posts makes you the (un)official speaker for nullsec, therefore giving your opinions more legitimacy. Because while you claim to represent the majority of nullsec, I could see all of the counter-responses and claim that I represent the majority of Eve players (especially considering rest of eve > nullsec population). Would it mean anything other than me trying to find toothpicks to hold up my opinion? absolutely not.

You represent yourself and only yourself. A good idea or opinion will be good regardless of who you claim is standing behind you. Don't hide behind others and claim yourself strong.
Aeryn Maricadie
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1383 - 2015-03-31 01:01:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Aeryn Maricadie
Arthur Aihaken wrote:

Can we also add that carriers and dreadnoughts basically can't really defend themselves against even a small group of attackers?

they do have a 3% chance to do full damage with every volley no matter what, so if they pick small things they could potentially alpha them. (I am assuming that all dreads have 3 turrrets, i wouldn't know i haven't looked at all of them)

I'm also no statistician but I think there is also a .02% chance of them doing x2 full alpha and .0001% of them doing x3 full alpha with every volley.
Rowells
Blackwater USA Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#1384 - 2015-03-31 01:35:35 UTC
Arthur Aihaken wrote:
Antonia Iskarius wrote:
Lock times from the hulls themselves + nerfed fighter scan res means over a minute from beginning targeting to applying DPS to your target.

Could've left in on-grid assist to alleviate that, but nope. Removing it means there is no reason to fighter rat, and supers which can't field regular drones are now completely useless for both ratting and subcap PVP whether on grid or not.

Can we also add that carriers and dreadnoughts basically can't really defend themselves against even a small group of attackers?

I would argue carriers have he best defense against subcaps amongst al the capitals and depending on drones used better than some battleships.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1385 - 2015-03-31 01:41:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Aeryn Maricadie wrote:
Arthur Aihaken wrote:

Can we also add that carriers and dreadnoughts basically can't really defend themselves against even a small group of attackers?

they do have a 3% chance to do full damage with every volley no matter what, so if they pick small things they could potentially alpha them. (I am assuming that all dreads have 3 turrrets, i wouldn't know i haven't looked at all of them)

I'm also no statistician but I think there is also a .02% chance of them doing x2 full alpha and .0001% of them doing x3 full alpha with every volley.


Some have 2 like the nag.

Wrecking shots seemed a bit broken with fighters - not sure if they really were but was getting more than I normally see when playing around - quite funny when you get 2-3+K alpha from a single fighter against a small target.

Rowells wrote:

I would argue carriers have he best defense against subcaps amongst al the capitals and depending on drones used better than some battleships.


Indeed outside of damage they can also pack a flight of 10-15 neut drones (or ecm drones) which can be quite effective against frigs - with a dread your basically hoping someone goes low transversal or praying for a wrecking shot.
Smoothlezz
4Th Horsman
#1386 - 2015-03-31 03:48:43 UTC
removed fighter assist from carriers
nerfed drones that go good with ishtar
nerfed ishtars
nerfed rails

next in line:

nerf blasters
remove all drone bonuses from carriers and drone boats
give missilee boats drone bonuses with no drone bay space and were set to go

my point:
carriers shouldnt been touched with assist there are many ppl who cry for being suicided why ccp doesnt do anything about it?
risk profit you say? when you get blown on 50 mil ship and get all the cargo from the other ship where is the risk/profit in it?

those who do so risk nothing! they dont fit theyre suicide ships with something expensive neither they use 1 bil or more ships....
lets break carriers....

ahh and there is something i was roaming some day and got dropped by carrier and bs's so plz nerf carriers so they wont get to rep battleship in 2 sec! that way there will be balanced carriers they just wont be able to do nothing.... will be most useless ship in game and can rise a monument in jita in memory of carriers! :D

p.s: YES i Am Furious due to this change
p.s.s: never used "skynettin" for pvp but did delegated control in pve
Swaatybaatch Yesplease
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1387 - 2015-03-31 05:02:02 UTC
with all the carrier nerf going on I found the perfect use for them , carrier mining

http://eve.battleclinic.com/view_loadout.php?id=40021

should be able to out mine a hulk with it , who wants to join for a carrier mining OP ?
Miss Erica
Doomheim
#1388 - 2015-03-31 05:09:09 UTC
You have nurfed titans so bad over the last 5 yrs. no more AOE
Moms were buffed about 5.5 years ago. no more drones and screwed up Fighter bombers.
So now you want to nurf carriers even more? no warp or no assist? How do you expect them to defend themselves?
Nurfed so many good things about eve.
You may as well rename EVE to NURFED.
No rage here just history.

How about adding something that's been missing from the start?
Ship maneuvers , programmed groups of commands selectable.
In what reality would this not exist other than online games... Must be to hard for you to program....

Don't nurf the damn fighters. they cost to much damn money.
When 3-5 frigs and hold down a carrier and kill it.
fighters cant kill a frig as well as the frigs can kill a fighter or carrier. damn shame.
Buff the carriers a lot so more people use them and in turn have more fun trying to kill them...
I don't want to see "s h i t" about support remarks.
Keep your dumbass remarks to yourselves.
Reply to this and prove yourself as the above.Big smile
I know you red coats wont be able to resist. Big smile







Nolak Ataru
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#1389 - 2015-03-31 22:03:56 UTC
Rowells wrote:
If your only options to counter the mechanic are running away or driveby doomsdays (good luck getting enought DPS to kill a carrier before it sucks the shields) then it's a pretty safe mechanic.

Which is WHY WE ASKED FOR A BUBBLE AROUND A POS WHERE YOU COULD NOT DELEGATE FIGHTERS. Additionally, forcing a retreat of a hostile carrier into the POS shields or to dock would be considered a "win" by any reasonable person.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1390 - 2015-04-01 01:12:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Nolak Ataru wrote:
Rowells wrote:
If your only options to counter the mechanic are running away or driveby doomsdays (good luck getting enought DPS to kill a carrier before it sucks the shields) then it's a pretty safe mechanic.

Which is WHY WE ASKED FOR A BUBBLE AROUND A POS WHERE YOU COULD NOT DELEGATE FIGHTERS. Additionally, forcing a retreat of a hostile carrier into the POS shields or to dock would be considered a "win" by any reasonable person.


While I'm not 100% sold on it I think by far the best compromise in that regard would have been to have a bastion type module for delegation - 1 minute cycle time (once its turned off at the end of that cycle fighters automatically warp back) makes the carrier stationary + weapons timer and local (but not remote) tank buff along with maybe a bonus to fighter EHP.

Couple with changes to make fighters inefficient against anything too small and no one would really bother with skynet any more (and where they did - which would be far more rare once fighters were incidental dps in those kind of situations rather than the main source a much better balance of risk) by and large while not almost if not entirely crippling things for people who use fighters entirely unrelated to skynet.
Eoin Donovan
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#1391 - 2015-04-02 12:50:17 UTC
I like the idea of making fighters pointable, for something that is on par with a frigate it makes no sense that you cant.

I also like the idea of you needing to be X distance from a POS in order to be able to assign fighters.
This removes the "Safe" way while still keeping the tactic viable! Everyone wins

Another solution would be to only allow fighters to be assigned to certain ship types.

Or to have assigned drones/fighters take up bandwidth (Or atleast a % of bandwidth) Meaning you cant just assign everything to one person.
Katie Hakoke
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1392 - 2015-04-03 11:53:44 UTC
I think voting on nerfs should only be allowed by people who trained the skills in question. I'm so tired of training up skills only to have them nerfed because of whining from ppl who haven't taken the time or isk to train the skill they complain about. Fighter assist is one of the reasons I trained carrier skills on my main. No fighter nerfs please.
Kernal Pop
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#1393 - 2015-04-03 18:07:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Kernal Pop
This is really stupid in my opinion. Yes, fighters are designed as a support drone out of Carrier class vessels, and their cost and performance reflect that. But to go as far as removing Fighter Assist? That's kind of going over the line. Drones unfair with insta-lockers? How about making it to where if the locking ship isn't the ship that deployed them and is assisting another ship; per say an insta-locker, the drones have their own built-in lock timer (i.e a light drone will require an extra two seconds to lock on to a target after the ship it is assisting begins combat.) Instead of outright nerfing things without providing an actual solution, try a "rebalance."

Problems with skynet? Make drones undeployable from anywhere under 10-15km from any station, pos, etc. If you go within the said perimeter you lose contact with your drones. Fighters warping is kind of their special thing, so I can't see why you would remove that. Chasing targets after they leave the scene? That particular ability could be removed without hurting the fighter drones too much. Introduce a new module that has a percent chance to interfere with a drone and the ship that launched them, making them float uselessly for a period of time kind of like how ECM works on targeting.

Let's try to find actual ways to rebalance things instead of just destroying them.
Iroquoiss Pliskin
9B30FF Labs
#1394 - 2015-04-03 18:16:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Iroquoiss Pliskin
Powercreep going away, one thing at a time. Good. Smile

I am John Connor, If you are listening to this message, you are the Resistance.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1395 - 2015-04-03 19:20:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Katie Hakoke wrote:
I think voting on nerfs should only be allowed by people who trained the skills in question. I'm so tired of training up skills only to have them nerfed because of whining from ppl who haven't taken the time or isk to train the skill they complain about. Fighter assist is one of the reasons I trained carrier skills on my main. No fighter nerfs please.


The writings on the wall I'm afraid and we simply aren't valued as customers.

2 accounts down, one expires in a few hours and 8 days left on Rroff.

(Not playing brinkmanship or emo rage quitting - seems my play style isn't compatible with this game any more).
ITTigerClawIK
Galactic Rangers
#1396 - 2015-04-04 08:45:57 UTC
ok so i dont get this, the problem here is that fighters can be assigned to people from just outside a POS force field so the solution by CCP here is to get rid of the entire mechanic, where in the thread about Removal of Cap jump bridges there is just a denial of use around a POS.... why the hell cant ther be a denial of Fighter assignment just outside a POS for capitals instead of removing the feature entirely?????
Cade Windstalker
#1397 - 2015-04-04 09:00:47 UTC
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
ok so i dont get this, the problem here is that fighters can be assigned to people from just outside a POS force field so the solution by CCP here is to get rid of the entire mechanic, where in the thread about Removal of Cap jump bridges there is just a denial of use around a POS.... why the hell cant ther be a denial of Fighter assignment just outside a POS for capitals instead of removing the feature entirely?????


Watch the Fanfest presentation on ship and module balancing. During the Q and A someone asks something very close to this and the basic answer is that they considered trying to discourage the practice by adding risk or otherwise tweaking things and it basically ended up being too complicated (and, I would assume, therefore exploitable or hard to deal with in the future) and there's a big capital rebalance coming that will hopefully fix a lot of concerns people have with the state of capitals in general.
Holly Hardcore
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#1398 - 2015-04-04 09:53:03 UTC
Ok, so where is the risk for the 20 titans which jumped in to kill the carrier and jump out 2 minutes later?
I'm shure that assigned fighters, or carriers in general, never ever been such a big problem.
But who cares? The party wich could escalate most can still bring supers on field with minimal risk, while all with less numbers could do ship spinning inside their forcefield. Good job ccp.
Rroff
Antagonistic Tendencies
#1399 - 2015-04-04 11:42:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Rroff
Cade Windstalker wrote:
ITTigerClawIK wrote:
ok so i dont get this, the problem here is that fighters can be assigned to people from just outside a POS force field so the solution by CCP here is to get rid of the entire mechanic, where in the thread about Removal of Cap jump bridges there is just a denial of use around a POS.... why the hell cant ther be a denial of Fighter assignment just outside a POS for capitals instead of removing the feature entirely?????


Watch the Fanfest presentation on ship and module balancing. During the Q and A someone asks something very close to this and the basic answer is that they considered trying to discourage the practice by adding risk or otherwise tweaking things and it basically ended up being too complicated (and, I would assume, therefore exploitable or hard to deal with in the future) and there's a big capital rebalance coming that will hopefully fix a lot of concerns people have with the state of capitals in general.


That was painful to watch... (From the perspective of someone who has ~3 years familiarity with flying capitals).

Relevant parts:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqeUqRo0yto#t=1148

www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqeUqRo0yto#t=2416

Stumbling over the most basic terminology (for the 3rd time if you include the opening post and o7) - sorry as much as I love a lot of what Rise has done for the game... how was this person in charge of anything relevant to capital balancing? (Trying to be objective here not hating on Rise but he obviously does NOT have the familiarity with the overall subject required).

Condescending waffle about how he wants us to" feel better about using a capital" while removing 9/10ths of the functionality that someone (assuming they didn't train it to do skynet) spent >300 days and >£100 just on the core skills to fly 15 fighters with some vague promises that it'll all be better in the future... "just wait another 300 odd days" - his answer was completely dismissive that anyone might even use fighters outside of skynet - the drone module changes that allowed "skynet" to become a thing are relatively new changes most people who have the skills trained to use 15 fighters properly would have had to have started training long before they'd even know "skynet" would be possible even assuming they did "skynet" when it became possible.
Khan Wrenth
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1400 - 2015-04-04 11:51:31 UTC
Rroff wrote:
The writings on the wall I'm afraid and we simply aren't valued as customers.

2 accounts down, one expires in a few hours and 8 days left on Rroff.

(Not playing brinkmanship or emo rage quitting - seems my play style isn't compatible with this game any more).


Just remember to contract your stuff to UAE before you go.