Player Features and Ideas Discussion

To be fair to him, the discussions were far from one sided, and got heated at times. Corbexx was active on this, in the way i think you'd have wanted. Didn't win doesn't mean didn't argue.

Would be nice if we had more options than Covops, T3 cruisers or T3 destroyers to combat scan with if it's going to become such a major role in fleets. In small gangs (5-6 people) dropping 1 person for covops is a huge hit. T3 cruisers are way out of my budget as hero scan/tackle and so that leaves me with T3 destroyers.

Don't get me wrong, I love T3 destroyers, but surely we could have some other options.

Edit: Spelling etc.

This is genius, now it doesn't matter if you add Alliance bookmarks any more :D

Obtuse? who knows. I'm still stuck on trying to figure out how you are getting an aspiring FC without skill who is supposed to also be the same guy that would help BNI stand a chance against biitervets like PL. Simply because he was allowed to warp a fleet to a sig. Doesn't really matter what changes you make in any direction. Seems the issue there isnt the FC probing, but the massive skill disparity.

Restricition to content enablers? plenty of fleet jobs just opened up and you're going to tell me thats not content? You have to look at it from both directions. Just because there isnt an easy way to get on top of someone, doesnt mean that the other guys wont see an opportunity here.

And it's funny you mention social interaction as being key, seeing as one man doing the work and flying your ship bypasses that oh so important interaction.[/quote]

Learn 2 read and understand. I said content enablers. Not participants. Taking a role in fleet isn't enabling content anymore than the monkey hitting F1, the person who sets the objective for the fleet and draws people together is the content enabler, the leader. But whatever you seem intent on misunderstanding me, as a fleet is never one persons work anyway. All the people that came together to make that fleet happened worked to be there. From making the ships and mods, moving them, grinding the isk to buy the ship to learning how the doctrine works to being available at the right time. The FC leads that. But according to you they do all the work.

I don't think I can change your mind and nothing you have identified will alter my reasons for seeing this change as a red headed pants on head set on fire level bad.

How about providing a way to launch beacons that become visible on the overview to any bookmark you have. You could let them be destructible, maybe set who they become visible to off grid in a similar fashion as assigning contracts (everyone, specific Corp, specific person, etc.)

Dearest nullsec CSM,

I have jumped through a wormhole and there are krabs (carebears) running sites. To find these krabs running sites launch combat probes and tell Sabres to jump, I then punt them to these krabs whether it be capitals or otherwise, to get initial tackle because krabs get very scared by the new signiture they see, or if they are just in the chain, the combat probes.

With the proposed changes I must combat probe them down, warp on grid, hope I don't get decloacked by a random object, sleeper, or player and then have the fleet warp in. And all the while krabs see the signiture and are able to scuttle away.

"You are so dumb luft we are just nerfing power projection in wh space" as Ccp has said. Well let us look at what they mean by that. Basically that means that krabs will be safer because that is who we as a community are projecting on. And two, that only large groups such as LZHX, HK, QEX, etc are doing this ganking and if you are attempting to slow them down from ganking carebears to keep wormhole space dangerous than that defeats the whole purpose of wormhole space.

Also beyond killing krabs there is warping a fleet to a hole with various classes of ships, triage, guardians, T3s, etc.

But I don't expect you to understand the magnitude of these changes to wormhole space life style, but I sure hope the two "wormhole csm" do.

Excuse typos its 4:20 am (lol) and I wrote this on my phone.

-1

this is a very very bad idea

Fleet warping is a essential part of any FC role. Fleet commanders have a very tough job in the game. Coordinating big groups of people and positioning them all where they need to be is not an easy task, which is why fleet warps are so important to and medium/large fleet PvP. In many large scale fights the Fleet Commanders typically carry combat probes and have many bookmarks saved for moving the fleet around the field quickly and effectively. The combat scanners are also very important to reposition fleets if need be. Its and elegant dance that FC's preform on the battlefield, warping to pings, and warping back into probe results for another exchange of fire. Removing BM warps and Probe warps would take this elegant dance and turn it into a cluster ****.

from reading between the lines of this post and from some of Fozzie's posts, im assuming the real key reason for this change is to nerf bombers. if you want to nerf bombers...nerf bombers, not fleet warping.

also many WH players rely on fleet warps to BM's for PvP. so removing BM warping is a bad idea if you want WH PvP to still be fun for wormholers.

Find people running sites in a c5, warp my scout at range after combat scanning the capitals. BM a wreck. Tell entire fleet to log off and back on so they can see the BM. Or we land 65k away because everyone has to warp to the anom instead of the hostiles, if they are even at an anom.

We're warping into a hostile fleet individually and piecemeal, instead of as a fleet.

Well done CCP. Glad we nerfed all those 50 man bomber fleets that I see so much of in wspace.

Don't create boring space jobs (warpin providers), more kiting and don't make it easier just to farm kills (more stragglers, more fail warps).

Encourage brawling and hull trading, make the game more fun for everyone, not just the perfect organized, perfect skilled players.

This is the type of mature representation the CSM provides. Really, there are plenty of well-reasoned arguments against this change, and a few decent alternatives that would achieve the "stated goals" of this. There is no need to mock opposing views even if you don't agree with them.