These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[March] Balance Tweaks: Fighters, Supercarriers & Burst Projectors

First post First post First post
Author
Cade Windstalker
#321 - 2017-03-12 18:50:33 UTC
Sandra Isu wrote:
This is what you probably didn't understand from the discussion. First you fix bugs and then you can nerf ... erm balance stuff if needed. And carriers were not OP by any means to justify that nerf before fixes.
People are rightfully angry because carriers are not like rest of the ships, where you can just sell it and fly other one. One invested millions of sp to master it, bought very expensive bpo's to be able to produce them and there is little to no point to fly other capitals. What to do with this skills now? I don't want to sell this character or shuffle sp to do something else. I want to fly carrier like I did before.


I understand what is being said. I'm trying to explain that from a design perspective the current behavior of Fighters isn't a bug, it's just the way Fighters behave. Thus from CCP's perspective this change is independent of any changes to Fighter behavior. This change is a result of conditions in the game right now, as they are and an adjustment CCP wants to see to those conditions.

You're also operating under the assumption that what CCP says when they talk about changes to Fighter behavior is what you want those changes to be. It's possible that CCP might not even change fighter behavior so they auto-orbit or keep moving after a command expires, they might just make it possible to queue commands better or something of the sort if they want to limit how little attention someone can safely pay to their Fighters.

Krieg Austern wrote:
You continue to ignore the relevant point here - why bother asking for player feedback if you are not going to listen anyway, and not even say "thanks for your feedback, we have looked at it, but still think our way is better". At least then people know that there is no point in further discussion.

I agree they have no obligation to use it, but then they should not pretend that they actually care/want about feedback. Asking for feedback implies that you are interested, and if people put their time in to give it, at least respond in some way.

You cannot please everyone all the time, no one is naive to believe that, especially in a sandbox like this. But community service is not difficult, especially in a game that lives or dies by its community.


This is a bit of a catch-22 for the devs. Every dev I've talked to, at least at a company that does player feedback on upcoming changes, does actually care about the feedback they get. The problem is that it takes a fair amount of time to respond to stuff, and it's a bit of a tossup whether or not a response helps a thread or just makes it spiral off into more arguments and nitpicking. In this way community service *is* difficult and very time consuming. Remember the balance people aren't just working on the ideas posted here while these ideas are up, they're doing a lot of other stuff behind the scenes, not just watching the forums refresh.

Different devs at CCP have different approaches from what I've seen, but I doubt any of them have the time to address each point brought up in a thread, and a blanket statement saying "we've considered the points in this thread and are going ahead anyway" would A. **** people off more and B. stifle any hope of further productive discussion.

That's why I said it'd be nice if there was a CM guy, or even two, dedicated to acting as a go-between for these forums and the relevant devs. Hopefully the time expense on the devs would be comparable to what it is at present, and the CM who could dedicate his entire time to managing and interacting with these threads would be able to alleviate some of these concerns.

Again, I want to stress that personally I don't think you're wrong here, what you want is just running into the realities of development and community management and right now those are winning, because the alternative costs a fair amount of money.
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks
Requiem Eternal
#322 - 2017-03-12 21:23:52 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:


As for the specific issue with Fighters standing still, I suspect that this is a little more involved of a change than you're expecting it to be. Fighters are probably running on the same old code the drones are, and drones have always stopped when they no longer have a command. Changing that will, at least potentially, be a significant back-end code change. If it's not hopefully we'll get it pretty soon, and with any luck it'll apply to drones as well.



Just to touch on this, it wouldn't be that big of a fix actually. Actual SHIP mechanics have you continue to fly in the direction you're going when an orbit target is lost. This wouldn't take more than a code copy to fix the broken mechanic. Even THIS would be more desirable than standing still, even if it spreads the squadrons apart.
Cade Windstalker
#323 - 2017-03-12 23:21:27 UTC
Juvir wrote:
Just to touch on this, it wouldn't be that big of a fix actually. Actual SHIP mechanics have you continue to fly in the direction you're going when an orbit target is lost. This wouldn't take more than a code copy to fix the broken mechanic. Even THIS would be more desirable than standing still, even if it spreads the squadrons apart.


That assumes that ships and drones are treated the same on the back end. I honestly don't know whether they are or not, or whether the client actually handles keeping your ship going after you stop orbiting. I'd kind of like to think you're right, but with how old the drone code is and how janky code tends to get the older it is I'm not willing to make any assumptions. Just got done being bitten in the ass by something like this at work What?

I think it's also possible CCP may want to change something other than having Fighters/Drones keep moving when they lose a target. Right now we're assuming they'll just have them keep orbiting/moving, but CCP may want to keep the stopping behavior to discourage AFK playstyles and just make it easier to actively keep Fighters moving between targets, though this is also just speculation on my part.

Definitely agreed though that whatever they do I hope it's a high priority for them. I am generally not a fan of "Player VS UI" and this definitely qualifies.
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks
Requiem Eternal
#324 - 2017-03-12 23:34:50 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
Juvir wrote:
Just to touch on this, it wouldn't be that big of a fix actually. Actual SHIP mechanics have you continue to fly in the direction you're going when an orbit target is lost. This wouldn't take more than a code copy to fix the broken mechanic. Even THIS would be more desirable than standing still, even if it spreads the squadrons apart.


That assumes that ships and drones are treated the same on the back end. I honestly don't know whether they are or not, or whether the client actually handles keeping your ship going after you stop orbiting. I'd kind of like to think you're right, but with how old the drone code is and how janky code tends to get the older it is I'm not willing to make any assumptions. Just got done being bitten in the ass by something like this at work What?

I think it's also possible CCP may want to change something other than having Fighters/Drones keep moving when they lose a target. Right now we're assuming they'll just have them keep orbiting/moving, but CCP may want to keep the stopping behavior to discourage AFK playstyles and just make it easier to actively keep Fighters moving between targets, though this is also just speculation on my part.

Definitely agreed though that whatever they do I hope it's a high priority for them. I am generally not a fan of "Player VS UI" and this definitely qualifies.


I don't want the AFK style either, which is why i have been against the idea of fighters auto-aggressing like drones. That being said, with the differences that "are" present between fighters and drones behaviourly, I think it would be relatively safe to assume they don't work off of the same code lines.
Cade Windstalker
#325 - 2017-03-13 01:29:43 UTC
Juvir wrote:
I don't want the AFK style either, which is why i have been against the idea of fighters auto-aggressing like drones. That being said, with the differences that "are" present between fighters and drones behaviourly, I think it would be relatively safe to assume they don't work off of the same code lines.


There's definitely some different code there, yeah. I dunno, the similar general behavior makes me wonder if they're not running on the same base framework though.

Like I said, this is just me speculating, I try not to assume that something will be easy, I just hope it will be. Big smile
Aegon Cadelanne
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#326 - 2017-03-13 08:24:04 UTC
elitatwo wrote:
Archival1 wrote:
Why not wait untill you change how fighters behave before putting in a patch that (in PvE) completely screws them up primarily because of the way the fighters currently behave.
You have identified an issue, that they stop moving when they finish killing something, so why would you make a change that exploits that issue?
Fighters stopping in a PvE site as they kill something is the primary reason me and everyone I know lose fighters, because they stop moving then get 1 volley'd by the whole site, increasing the sig radius just means they will get 1 shot even more often when this happens.Ugh


Yeay carrier ratting tears, best tears!


Kudos CCP, carry on!




Someone too jealous of carrier ratters?
Sandra Isu
Space Cavalry Regiment
#327 - 2017-03-13 13:39:30 UTC
Where did you guys got that drones stop moving after killing target? Because as far as my drones behave, they just slowly return to my ship in orfer to orbit it. And this should be default behaviour for fighters also. They should act excactly like drones in every way except mechanics that are fighters specific and have separate commands. So if you would like to have fighters stand in place after kill there should be separate command for this. It would be less confusing.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#328 - 2017-03-13 15:01:20 UTC
Sandra Isu wrote:
Where did you guys got that drones stop moving after killing target? Because as far as my drones behave, they just slowly return to my ship in orfer to orbit it. And this should be default behaviour for fighters also. They should act excactly like drones in every way except mechanics that are fighters specific and have separate commands. So if you would like to have fighters stand in place after kill there should be separate command for this. It would be less confusing.


Drone stop until they get a new command. Take something like a Gila and kill Frigate rat. It's where it usually is the most visible for me. Every kill will leave the drone standing until the next tick where either the AI will auto-engage something else or it get whatever order you sent them. Fighter do not have the auto-engage feature so they have to wait until your order comes in. Problem is, the order don't always process for fighter. CCP is supposed to be changing a throttling that was applied to fighter commands to ease up the delay between sending a command and having it acknowledged by the fighters and executing it.

Why was there a throttling in place is anybody's guess but I would assume it was in case of high server load situation like large fleet fights.
Juvir
Omega Nebula BattleWorks
Requiem Eternal
#329 - 2017-03-13 15:34:25 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
Sandra Isu wrote:
Where did you guys got that drones stop moving after killing target? Because as far as my drones behave, they just slowly return to my ship in orfer to orbit it. And this should be default behaviour for fighters also. They should act excactly like drones in every way except mechanics that are fighters specific and have separate commands. So if you would like to have fighters stand in place after kill there should be separate command for this. It would be less confusing.


Drone stop until they get a new command. Take something like a Gila and kill Frigate rat. It's where it usually is the most visible for me. Every kill will leave the drone standing until the next tick where either the AI will auto-engage something else or it get whatever order you sent them. Fighter do not have the auto-engage feature so they have to wait until your order comes in. Problem is, the order don't always process for fighter. CCP is supposed to be changing a throttling that was applied to fighter commands to ease up the delay between sending a command and having it acknowledged by the fighters and executing it.

Why was there a throttling in place is anybody's guess but I would assume it was in case of high server load situation like large fleet fights.


Exactly as he said, they either wait for a new command, or they auto-aggress the next target. Fighters don't have an auto-aggress feature, so they sit perfectly still while taking fire. Still doesn't make sense to me considering they are piloted by people. Everyone knows a target that sits still, is a dead target.
kuldar skjiem
Salvge Corner
#330 - 2017-03-13 15:47:22 UTC
can u ccp instead of nerfing figters and make them even more killable just increase their stats instead?? fighters are too easy to jam ....


also u should make squadron of sentry fighters to carriers and suppers ,,,ive never luved the fighters anyway,and never will,,its takes so long time to them to get to the target +they die before they actually get to the target.....
Lothar Mandrake
Mandrake Executor Corp
Mandrake Alliance
#331 - 2017-03-13 16:47:04 UTC
Xanuth wrote:
Do any of you Devs even play, or understand how fighters currently operate in both PvE and PvP?

I mean seriously, wtf are you thinking with these changes? Do you want everyone to stop using carriers totally? Fighters are already easily countered by ECM/Webs and destroyer/frigates/SS and your plan is to make them even worse vs. cruisers/BCs and Rats?

Is your intent to revert them back to pre-carrier changes where no one even undocks them and we either go sub-cap or super blob? I am literally lost as to what went through your minds when proposing the aggro and sig radius changes...



CCP said the Chimera used to be a Water Freighter. Maybe they are screwing us back into using it for that purpose again. Sure can't fight with it now.

-

Que Ess
The Brotherhood.
Tactical Narcotics Team
#332 - 2017-03-13 16:47:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Que Ess
Horrible fighter changes.

Time to sell my cap, even less incentive to use it.

Scanning this thread in some detail, I saw literally 2 people supporting the changes.

The attention given to carriers in this patch could have probably been spent on literally any other ship class, to greater effect when considering both the affected, and overall meta.
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#333 - 2017-03-13 16:59:41 UTC
Juvir wrote:
Cade Windstalker wrote:


As for the specific issue with Fighters standing still, I suspect that this is a little more involved of a change than you're expecting it to be. Fighters are probably running on the same old code the drones are, and drones have always stopped when they no longer have a command. Changing that will, at least potentially, be a significant back-end code change. If it's not hopefully we'll get it pretty soon, and with any luck it'll apply to drones as well.



Just to touch on this, it wouldn't be that big of a fix actually. Actual SHIP mechanics have you continue to fly in the direction you're going when an orbit target is lost. This wouldn't take more than a code copy to fix the broken mechanic. Even THIS would be more desirable than standing still, even if it spreads the squadrons apart.


To add up on that, the reason why drones and fighters don't continue after killing a target might have to do with the fact they never fly just in a direction. They always have a goal. You will never see a drone flying toward nothing. They always fly to reach a player defined point in space. The action "fly in a straight line" probably don't even exist in the drone and fighters code abse as opposed to player ships. What the impact of "just continue in current direction" would have is unknown to us. That's why I'm favoring a "orbit the wreck you just created" approach since it use a command drones already "know".
Trevize Demerzel
#334 - 2017-03-13 17:11:14 UTC
I just think CCP is being pre-mature with the change.

I'd be "more" ok with the change if it included:

#1 - Fighters continuing to MOVE after they kill a target
#2 - reasonable resists and HP for fighters. (they are far to squishy at present)
#3 - Much better ECM resists! 1 solo ship jamming out 27 to 39 fighters.... seriously?
#4 - updated UI to see in real time the health the damaged fighter in the middle of fighter ui circle thing.

This is a knee jerk nerf without a proper fix apparently. Not sure what the "actual" issue here that CCP is trying to solve. ISK made by carriers? I don't buy it.. The isk made is justified by the train time required and the expense of the ship (rvr). Similar isk can be made in incursions in far cheaper ships and far less SP. Carriers/fighters are already extremely easy to ECM leaving carrier pilots easy prey. Is it just that there are solo carrier/capital pilots and it's a nerf to that? I thought this was a sandbox game. Let the players decide how to have fun with the ships?!

Anyway.. My take and opinion for CCP. Do 1-4 above and then implement this nerf.

-

Terminal Insanity
KarmaFleet
Goonswarm Federation
#335 - 2017-03-13 18:10:51 UTC
CCP Larrikin wrote:
Questions & Answers

Q:Regarding the increased fighter signature & bug fix, have you thought about the impact to PvE?
A: Yes, and run many test :) We believe that carrier ratting will continue to be viable after this change. Balanced carrier ratting is part of the goal of this change, and we'll be watching the results of this change closely, ready to iterate as needed.

Q:Could the fighter UI show the HP of the damaged fighter?
A: This won't be coming in March, but it is something we're looking into! :)

Q:Its annoying when fighters stop after killing a target!
A: We recognise that fighter behavior isn't ideal. Its something we'd like to iterate on in the future.


so you know the result is every carrier ratter needs to do 3x more work for the same reward, while still losing expensive fighters if they happen to look away even for half a second. You understand the result is going to just be more rorqual miners because carrier ratting is just too ******?

And you acknowledge the problem of fighter behavior not being "ideal" in combination with the other changes. You know currently fighters come to a complete stop and, with the new signature, the rats will alpha them out of the sky very quickly.

But you're going to rush the change ahead anyway, because apparently the fighter sig "problem", that apparently nobody else was aware of, is far more problematic than what is going to result in the changes? Can we just admit we really hate carrier ratters and want to make their job so painful they stop doing it?

"War declarations are never officially considered griefing and are not a bannable offense, and it has been repeatedly stated by the developers that the possibility for non-consensual PvP is an intended feature." - CCP

Cade Windstalker
#336 - 2017-03-13 19:11:12 UTC
Frostys Virpio wrote:
To add up on that, the reason why drones and fighters don't continue after killing a target might have to do with the fact they never fly just in a direction. They always have a goal. You will never see a drone flying toward nothing. They always fly to reach a player defined point in space. The action "fly in a straight line" probably don't even exist in the drone and fighters code abse as opposed to player ships. What the impact of "just continue in current direction" would have is unknown to us. That's why I'm favoring a "orbit the wreck you just created" approach since it use a command drones already "know".


I'm personally hoping for CCP combining the "approach a point in space" feature with orbiting to orbit the last position of your last target, since Fighters may be used to kill something that doesn't leave a wreck.
GothicNightmare
HC - Hog Hitmen
Hog Hitmen
#337 - 2017-03-13 19:21:17 UTC
I'd like to propose another idea to fighters standing still after target kill...

When you have several targets locked in any other ship, when one dies your guns will point to the next locked target or locked/selected target, I know this plays absolutely no impact on the weapons hitting or anything, but what if your next locked target or selected target the fighters slowboat towards them, if no target start coming back to your ship... even if they moved at half normal cruise speed would be more ideal than standing there picking their noses while NPC or Players ram guns up there and help them pick their brains too
They would still have to activate weapons to lock the next target so you're really not breaking anything and at half speed unless acted on prop mod would at least keep them moving.
Normal drones as it stands as soon as a target drops you can command them to immediatly engage a new target or they can auto aggro the next one attacking you until redirected... I see no reason fighters can't at least act like other weapon systems and 'point' to the next target
Nevase Prometeus
Fuel Blocks for Dante
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#338 - 2017-03-13 20:22:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Nevase Prometeus
Don't fix thing what ain't broken.

Now I know why a lot of dictator hate ....... who diligent . because sooner or later they had to fix thing that gonna be broken .
C0ATL
Renegade Stars
Stellae Renascitur
#339 - 2017-03-13 20:41:57 UTC  |  Edited by: C0ATL
Love it... just love it how CCP will shaft a good portion of their player base without having played the game... without people having complained about a problem... without asking us what we think about it beforehand.

I think I posted the forums 3-4 times in my several years of playing this game, cause that is how many times CCP has ****** my playstyle over completely. Maybe I am one of the lucky ones cause I mostly agree with their changes... but just when I start believing in their logic again and think that they have a head on their shoulders, they smack those beliefs right out of me with another move like this.

CCP... perhaps the overwhelming amount of negative feedback that you received when posting these changes should raise a small alarm in your plans of deploying this patch.

I am not speaking just for the carriers which are getting nerfed to uselessness despite them being the weakest balanced caps by comparison to their peers (dreads/supercarrier/titans - all of these performing either brilliantly in their role or at the very least, still 'good').

I am also referring to other chances in the patch such as the chimera re-design. Do not get me wrong on this... when I first looked at the concept art for how this beautiful ship will look in the future I was blown away. Let me remind you, CCP, of what you said you would change it to: [url]http://content.eveonline.com/www/newssystem/media/67023/1/Chimera_redesign.jpg[/url]. From all of those details that give it debth, scale, majesty and a true feeling that you are commanding a 3km long ship, what was delivered? NOTHING. Just a simple, static hull. No small heat vents when the ship is taking damage to shields/entering warp... no small maintenance drones buzzing around it to give it scale... no point defense weapons to bring it closer to a realistic design. Yes.. I am not talking out of my ass. All of these were in the concept and more and all we got was a damn 3km long shoe box. Shame on you CCP.

Perhaps you do intend to give it those details, later on, but until then it is **** and you should keep it shelved, just like with the changes for fighters, until they get major problems fixed, such as not stopping after they destroy something.
noone kun
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#340 - 2017-03-13 21:19:51 UTC
Cade Windstalker wrote:
CCP may want to keep the stopping behavior to discourage AFK playstyles

imo, no reason to discourage AFK playstyles if peolpe are payng for them.

Cade Windstalker wrote:
and just make it easier to actively keep Fighters moving between targets, though this is also just speculation on my part.

naah, they just want our drones/fighters to get killed, so we must go and buy new ones.