Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Vidya Oncomata
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 06:02:08 -
[1] - Quote
First of all, the recent changed to carriers & fighters are amazing, way to make them relevant again so I would like to thank CCP for these changes.
However with the changes allowing fighters to be more effective in combat some mechanics surrounding their use have become problematic. These mechanics are fighters ability to warp & fighter delegation.
TL;DR: Make fighters able to be warp disrupted preventing them from warping & remove fighter delegation.
Fighter warping & following targets:
The fighters ability to warp is in my opinion the easiest problem to solve. Currently if you are being attacked by fighters and warp off the fighters follow you as long as you remain in system. While there are some issues with this (such as how the hell do the fighter pilots know where to warp to if their demigod capsuleer overlords don't) I think the mechanic is overall a positive one and allows savvy pilots to use this to their advantage in small fleet fights.
However, fighters cannot be warp disrupted, allowing them to simply be recalled to their carrier if they start to take damage and there is nothing the person being attacked can do about that, the fighters return and are instantly able to be assigned to a new target. I propose to allow fighters to be warp scrambled / disrupted the same way ships are, or otherwise to remove this mechanic entirely. This means that having fighters follow their targets becomes somewhat of a risk to the fighters, and with the price of fighters this means that the mechanic is far more balanced in a risk vs reward way.
Fighter Delegation
This is, in my opinion a very broken mechanic. A max skilled thanatos can assign 5 fighters to any ship in system, even one which cannot usually use any drones at all, the carrier can be hugging a station or a pos and be applying dps anywhere in the system with practically no risk to it whatsoever.
For reference a max skilled thanatos with 4 DDA's can assign a total of 1111dps to a frigate, (I have seen this used to an insanely overpowered extent with a daredevil) and can assign a total of 15 fighters (with 5 dda's) to 3 allied ships for 3300 + dps.
While carriers being able to deal this amount of damage is fine, the fact that they (unlike every other ship in the game) can do this from the relative safety of the edge of a pos shield and support a fleet fighting on a gate is ludicrous. Even a supercarrier cannot assign its fighter bombers, why can fighters (which are now highly effective) still be assigned to others within the system.
I propose to remove the delegation of fighters entirely, if a carrier wants to apply its dps to a hostile fleet, it, like every other ship in this game should have to place itself on a battlefield where it is at risk, super carriers cannot assign fighters for a reason, and now with these changes, nor should a carrier. |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
140
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 06:05:11 -
[2] - Quote
I like this idea. carriers using this for both PVP and PVE subverts the intended mechanics that a fight should take place on grid, which is the same argument for people whining about links.
That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did.
|
Tabyll Altol
Breaking.Bad Circle-Of-Two
30
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 06:16:23 -
[3] - Quote
Don-Št see such a need (and no i don-Št fly a carrier).
-1 |
Asuka Solo
Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises
2713
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 07:08:54 -
[4] - Quote
Vidya Oncomata wrote:First of all, the recent changed to carriers & fighters are amazing, way to make them relevant again so I would like to thank CCP for these changes.
However with the changes allowing fighters to be more effective in combat some mechanics surrounding their use have become problematic. These mechanics are fighters ability to warp & fighter delegation.
TL;DR: Make fighters able to be warp disrupted preventing them from warping & remove fighter delegation.
Fighter warping & following targets:
The fighters ability to warp is in my opinion the easiest problem to solve. Currently if you are being attacked by fighters and warp off the fighters follow you as long as you remain in system. While there are some issues with this (such as how the hell do the fighter pilots know where to warp to if their demigod capsuleer overlords don't) I think the mechanic is overall a positive one and allows savvy pilots to use this to their advantage in small fleet fights.
However, fighters cannot be warp disrupted, allowing them to simply be recalled to their carrier if they start to take damage and there is nothing the person being attacked can do about that, the fighters return and are instantly able to be assigned to a new target. I propose to allow fighters to be warp scrambled / disrupted the same way ships are, or otherwise to remove this mechanic entirely. This means that having fighters follow their targets becomes somewhat of a risk to the fighters, and with the price of fighters this means that the mechanic is far more balanced in a risk vs reward way.
Fighter Delegation
This is, in my opinion a very broken mechanic. A max skilled thanatos can assign 5 fighters to any ship in system, even one which cannot usually use any drones at all, the carrier can be hugging a station or a pos and be applying dps anywhere in the system with practically no risk to it whatsoever.
For reference a max skilled thanatos with 4 DDA's can assign a total of 1111dps to a frigate, (I have seen this used to an insanely overpowered extent with a daredevil) and can assign a total of 15 fighters (with 5 dda's) to 3 allied ships for 3300 + dps.
While carriers being able to deal this amount of damage is fine, the fact that they (unlike every other ship in the game) can do this from the relative safety of the edge of a pos shield and support a fleet fighting on a gate is ludicrous. Even a supercarrier cannot assign its fighter bombers, why can fighters (which are now highly effective) still be assigned to others within the system.
I propose to remove the delegation of fighters entirely, if a carrier wants to apply its dps to a hostile fleet, it, like every other ship in this game should have to place itself on a battlefield where it is at risk, super carriers cannot assign fighters for a reason, and now with these changes, nor should a carrier.
1 - What are you smoking. The recent changes have only made carriers worse... their glorified logi boats for gates (depending on what's tackling them) they probably can't gate through.... And their jump drives are now a "use incase of emergancy - solong as your not tackled" single shot option instead of the normal travel mechanic.
2 - Your nerfing carriers even more. They are almost incapable of applying their full damage to moving targets smaller than a bc without sub caps helping them in some way or form.
3 - No. We need the exact opposite of this. Fighters that can warp scram / web / neut / jam targets.... t2 fighters that can actually attack frigates without the need for points or TPs to be applied first.
4 - Delegation is a crap mechanic. Allow fighters to be assigned / guard / assist like normal drones while removing the carriers ability to field normal drones (scout, medium, Heavies and sentries).
Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
|
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
142
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 07:17:42 -
[5] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:Vidya Oncomata wrote:First of all, the recent changed to carriers & fighters are amazing, way to make them relevant again so I would like to thank CCP for these changes.
However with the changes allowing fighters to be more effective in combat some mechanics surrounding their use have become problematic. These mechanics are fighters ability to warp & fighter delegation.
TL;DR: Make fighters able to be warp disrupted preventing them from warping & remove fighter delegation.
Fighter warping & following targets:
The fighters ability to warp is in my opinion the easiest problem to solve. Currently if you are being attacked by fighters and warp off the fighters follow you as long as you remain in system. While there are some issues with this (such as how the hell do the fighter pilots know where to warp to if their demigod capsuleer overlords don't) I think the mechanic is overall a positive one and allows savvy pilots to use this to their advantage in small fleet fights.
However, fighters cannot be warp disrupted, allowing them to simply be recalled to their carrier if they start to take damage and there is nothing the person being attacked can do about that, the fighters return and are instantly able to be assigned to a new target. I propose to allow fighters to be warp scrambled / disrupted the same way ships are, or otherwise to remove this mechanic entirely. This means that having fighters follow their targets becomes somewhat of a risk to the fighters, and with the price of fighters this means that the mechanic is far more balanced in a risk vs reward way.
Fighter Delegation
This is, in my opinion a very broken mechanic. A max skilled thanatos can assign 5 fighters to any ship in system, even one which cannot usually use any drones at all, the carrier can be hugging a station or a pos and be applying dps anywhere in the system with practically no risk to it whatsoever.
For reference a max skilled thanatos with 4 DDA's can assign a total of 1111dps to a frigate, (I have seen this used to an insanely overpowered extent with a daredevil) and can assign a total of 15 fighters (with 5 dda's) to 3 allied ships for 3300 + dps.
While carriers being able to deal this amount of damage is fine, the fact that they (unlike every other ship in the game) can do this from the relative safety of the edge of a pos shield and support a fleet fighting on a gate is ludicrous. Even a supercarrier cannot assign its fighter bombers, why can fighters (which are now highly effective) still be assigned to others within the system.
I propose to remove the delegation of fighters entirely, if a carrier wants to apply its dps to a hostile fleet, it, like every other ship in this game should have to place itself on a battlefield where it is at risk, super carriers cannot assign fighters for a reason, and now with these changes, nor should a carrier. 1 - What are you smoking. The recent changes have only made carriers worse... their glorified logi boats for gates (depending on what's tackling them) they probably can't gate through.... And their jump drives are now a "use incase of emergancy - solong as your not tackled" single shot option instead of the normal travel mechanic. 2 - Your nerfing carriers even more. They are almost incapable of applying their full damage to moving targets smaller than a bc without sub caps helping them in some way or form. 3 - No. We need the exact opposite of this. Fighters that can warp scram / web / neut / jam targets.... t2 fighters that can actually attack frigates without the need for points or TPs to be applied first. 4 - Delegation is a crap mechanic. Allow fighters to be assigned / guard / assist like normal drones while removing the carriers ability to field normal drones (scout, medium, Heavies and sentries).
Carriers are broken. When it is not worth the server load in a major fight to have literally anything smaller than a capital, like at B-R, capitals are broken, and all of them will need to be rebalanced in light of both the drone changes and new drone modules, and the jump changes.
1: While I agree that the jump changes are fairly drastic, being able to move something intended to be a strategic asset at speeds which the fastest ships in the game cannot manage, as a sustained method of travel was asinine to begin with, and made them far too safe.
2: So are battleships, which are at least in the same category. Capitals are not supposed to be an "I WIN" butan to push.
3: Fighters should not be made substantially more powerful, as this effectively replaces every role for your newbies, and accelerates the decline of the game through excessive barrier to entry, toxic attitudes towards anyone not suitably "elite" and mechanics that make sane people wish to defenestrate the originators.
4: I could see removing the ability to field normal drones, or hard capping normal drones at 5, but allowing fighters the full range of options allowed for current "normal" drones is too much at this time.
That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
175
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 07:30:53 -
[6] - Quote
assigning fighters is fine its only broken with the inability to scram as stated and the ability for them to do this right next to a pos or station there was a post a few months back that brought this up. carriers should retain the assist mechanic but they should be unable to do so withing x-rang of a station or pos shield |
James Baboli
Ferrous Infernum
142
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 07:35:42 -
[7] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:assigning fighters is fine its only broken with the inability to scram as stated and the ability for them to do this right next to a pos or station there was a post a few months back that brought this up. carriers should retain the assist mechanic but they should be unable to do so withing x-rang of a station or pos shield How about only being able to push out new targets while on grid? makes it so the carrier has to at least show up for a moment to assign/assist/whathaveyou the fighters and then can warp off if it isn't properly tackled in time.
Means you can pre-assign fighters for a trap, which is good, but can't just use a cheap brick to apply your carrier's DPS to rat.
That crazy bag FC with the silly things on the hull that shouldn't but just did.
|
Vidya Oncomata
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 07:54:54 -
[8] - Quote
James Baboli wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:assigning fighters is fine its only broken with the inability to scram as stated and the ability for them to do this right next to a pos or station there was a post a few months back that brought this up. carriers should retain the assist mechanic but they should be unable to do so withing x-rang of a station or pos shield How about only being able to push out new targets while on grid? makes it so the carrier has to at least show up for a moment to assign/assist/whathaveyou the fighters and then can warp off if it isn't properly tackled in time. Means you can pre-assign fighters for a trap, which is good, but can't just use a cheap brick to apply your carrier's DPS to rat.
I think thats a good point, fighters should be able to continue attacking even if the carrier warps off grid, obviously with the power to be scrammed. but if the target dies, or leaves system, the carrier would have to come back, lock the target and set fighters to attack. That at least increases the risk for the carrier having to physically be on field at least temporarily. |
elitatwo
Congregatio
376
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 08:24:35 -
[9] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote: ... 1 - What are you smoking. The recent changes have only made carriers worse... their glorified logi boats for gates (depending on what's tackling them) they probably can't gate through.... And their jump drives are now a "use incase of emergancy - solong as your not tackled" single shot option instead of the normal travel mechanic.
possibly
Asuka Solo wrote: 2 - Your nerfing carriers even more. They are almost incapable of applying their full damage to moving targets smaller than a bc without sub caps helping them in some way or form.
Hey even with the hictor changes one carrier dumps 7 Geckos on your head and takes the gate
Asuka Solo wrote: 3 - No. We need the exact opposite of this. Fighters that can warp scram / web / neut / jam targets.... t2 fighters that can actually attack frigates without the need for points or TPs to be applied first.
What? Can we hold on a minute or two and wait for ewar-drones to be fixed first? You know the 15 drones a carrier can launch at once do not all need to be of the same type
Asuka Solo wrote: 4 - Delegation is a crap mechanic. Allow fighters to be assigned / guard / assist like normal drones while removing the carriers ability to field normal drones (scout, medium, Heavies and sentries).
True it's lame when you are "fighting a Tristan" and you keep wondering why she doesn't launch drones and all of a sudden 5 very angry looking ships start to orbit you and your ship goes poof.
where did you come from, the d-scan was clear..
signature
|
Bl1SkR1N
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
43
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 09:12:26 -
[10] - Quote
In my humble opinion what carriers need more is revisiting their repping abilities. No1 really cares about fighters these days anyway since sentries. |
|
Vidya Oncomata
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 11:02:45 -
[11] - Quote
Bl1SkR1N wrote:In my humble opinion what carriers need more is revisiting their repping abilities. No1 really cares about fighters these days anyway since sentries.
Someone missed the last upgrade to them.....
Fighters are now affected by drone damage mods, tracking mods, navigation mods etc.. Harder better faster stronger. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
178
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 11:35:12 -
[12] - Quote
Vidya Oncomata wrote:James Baboli wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:assigning fighters is fine its only broken with the inability to scram as stated and the ability for them to do this right next to a pos or station there was a post a few months back that brought this up. carriers should retain the assist mechanic but they should be unable to do so withing x-rang of a station or pos shield How about only being able to push out new targets while on grid? makes it so the carrier has to at least show up for a moment to assign/assist/whathaveyou the fighters and then can warp off if it isn't properly tackled in time. Means you can pre-assign fighters for a trap, which is good, but can't just use a cheap brick to apply your carrier's DPS to rat. I think thats a good point, fighters should be able to continue attacking even if the carrier warps off grid, obviously with the power to be scrammed. but if the target dies, or leaves system, the carrier would have to come back, lock the target and set fighters to attack. That at least increases the risk for the carrier having to physically be on field at least temporarily.
Their ability to send out fighters is one of the things that make these ships unique and similar to their RL counterparts. They ate not hard to scan down and other then the ones sitting on station undock are easy to catch and normal have very little tank to maximize the fighters potential.
Forcing them to show up on grid just to launch and warp off is not only ridiculous but impractical as a strategy. |
Bl1SkR1N
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
43
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 12:54:29 -
[13] - Quote
Vidya Oncomata wrote:Bl1SkR1N wrote:In my humble opinion what carriers need more is revisiting their repping abilities. No1 really cares about fighters these days anyway since sentries. Someone missed the last upgrade to them..... Fighters are now affected by drone damage mods, tracking mods, navigation mods etc.. Harder better faster stronger. made them actually at least a little bit useful :P |
Rowells
Unknown Soldiers Fidelas Constans
1544
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 13:20:13 -
[14] - Quote
Asuka Solo wrote:2 - Your nerfing carriers even more. They are almost incapable of applying their full damage to moving targets smaller than a bc without sub caps helping them in some way or form. you mean fighters or carriers? |
Celthric Kanerian
Ascendance Of New Eden Workers Trade Federation
136
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 14:33:00 -
[15] - Quote
Tabyll Altol wrote:Don-Št see such a need (and no i don-Št fly a carrier).
-1
Then why do you even post anything in this post? You got no experience, therefore your say is completely irrelevant. |
Bl1SkR1N
Euphoria Released Triumvirate.
43
|
Posted - 2014.10.22 16:31:00 -
[16] - Quote
In my opinion carriers are fine with being able to apply their part of dmg. It's fine if carrier is ably to do lot of damage, they are carriers after all...US carriers can do lot of harm when they get into area too. I don't think they should be able to do it while still being very capable logistics ships. There should be some trade off. I personally would remove any repping abilities of carrier while it's not in triage. Or at least limit it considerably...so you can chose between dmg platform and logistics capabilities. |
Vidya Oncomata
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 00:04:46 -
[17] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Vidya Oncomata wrote:James Baboli wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:assigning fighters is fine its only broken with the inability to scram as stated and the ability for them to do this right next to a pos or station there was a post a few months back that brought this up. carriers should retain the assist mechanic but they should be unable to do so withing x-rang of a station or pos shield How about only being able to push out new targets while on grid? makes it so the carrier has to at least show up for a moment to assign/assist/whathaveyou the fighters and then can warp off if it isn't properly tackled in time. Means you can pre-assign fighters for a trap, which is good, but can't just use a cheap brick to apply your carrier's DPS to rat. I think thats a good point, fighters should be able to continue attacking even if the carrier warps off grid, obviously with the power to be scrammed. but if the target dies, or leaves system, the carrier would have to come back, lock the target and set fighters to attack. That at least increases the risk for the carrier having to physically be on field at least temporarily. Their ability to send out fighters is one of the things that make these ships unique and similar to their RL counterparts. They ate not hard to scan down and other then the ones sitting on station undock are easy to catch and normal have very little tank to maximize the fighters potential. Forcing them to show up on grid just to launch and warp off is not only ridiculous but impractical as a strategy.
Most carriers off grid assigning are hugging pos shields or stations, I have yet to ever see one hiding in a safe spot. This mechanic may be unique but it makes little sense (is fighter bombers cannot be remote assigned why can regular fighters) and allowed them to deploy a massive amount of dps with almost no risk to their ship whatsoever. This mechanic was unique and great back when fighters kind of sucked, but now that they are amoung the most powerful weapon systems in the game and this mechanic is massively overpowered, especially when you can have a t1 frigate able to deal 1200+ dps |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
851
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 00:32:44 -
[18] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Their ability to send out fighters is one of the things that make these ships unique and similar to their RL counterparts. They ate not hard to scan down and other then the ones sitting on station undock are easy to catch and normal have very little tank to maximize the fighters potential.
Forcing them to show up on grid just to launch and warp off is not only ridiculous but impractical as a strategy.
If they are hugging station and are fitted out with enough drone mods to make them efficient against subcaps then they will have limited active tank and less EHP than normal plus timer so potentially killable with a few dreads and half a plan. Not so easy on a POS unless you have a setup that can tank POS gun but even there fairly vulnerable to 90% webs and or bumping for those prepared to make the effort. |
Jack Carrigan
Order of the Shadow The Revenant Order
3706
|
Posted - 2014.10.23 00:54:09 -
[19] - Quote
Yeah, Carriers just got needed, let's break them to the point that they are over glorified hangar ornaments to be shown off as a status symbol rather than a viable fleet vessel. **** no.
Please contract all of your stuff and ISK to be and enter the biomass queue which is located over
Seriously, you are asking for an easy way to completely render capital ships useless.
I am the One who exists in Shadow. I am the Demon your parents warned you about.
||CEO: Order of the Shadow||Executor: The Revenant Order||Creator: Tug-class Vessel||
|
Vidya Oncomata
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 08:11:01 -
[20] - Quote
Jack Carrigan wrote:Yeah, Carriers just got needed, let's break them to the point that they are over glorified hangar ornaments to be shown off as a status symbol rather than a viable fleet vessel. **** no. Please contract all of your stuff and ISK to be and enter the biomass queue which is located over Seriously, you are asking for an easy way to completely render capital ships useless.
Lol, any slight change to carriers and "they are overglorified hangar ornaments" hell can we have dreads that can shoot offgrid, what about assigning fighter bombers
|
|
King Fu Hostile
Imperial Collective Unsettled.
189
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 10:45:28 -
[21] - Quote
The first one is a solid suggestion and I see no reason why fighters shouldn't be pointable.
However the second is dubious - can someone actually confirm whether the carrier pilot's skills are actually applied to assigned fighters? AFAIK they are not, and the skills of the assigned ship's pilot are used instead.
|
The Hamilton
Outer Ring Sleeper Collective Illusion of Solitude
66
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 13:27:10 -
[22] - Quote
I'd like it if carriers had to be a certain AU away for fighters to work, this would bring them a little further from the safety of the POS but allow them to avoid being directly on grid. Add in a D-Scan for probes and you'll still be pretty safe. |
Vidya Oncomata
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
6
|
Posted - 2014.10.24 15:32:36 -
[23] - Quote
King Fu Hostile wrote:
However the second is dubious - can someone actually confirm whether the carrier pilot's skills are actually applied to assigned fighters? AFAIK they are not, and the skills of the assigned ship's pilot are used instead.
All the pilots skills, as well as the damage upgrades & tracking / speed bonuses from the mother carrier are applied to the fighters, for all intents and purpose they are considered to be used directly from the carrier, but there is someone else in system controlling them.
As I pointed out, before the changes to fighters allowing them to benefit from drone upgrade modules, fighter assign was no big deal. After the Phoebe changes bringing carriers onto a battlefield will become more possible as people coming from long distances to drop on you will be less common, thus having carriers on field will be a more viable strategy. But with the increased reliance of subcaps (especially for smaller groups, which is how I usually fly) being able to do this becomes problematic for groups attacking hostiles with capitals.
Having the carrier able to deal huge amounts of dps from the relative safety of the edge of a pos shield or on a station does not provide enough risk to the carrier for the amount of dps it can bring to the field (as I pointed out 5 fighters from a thanatos can deal 1k+ dps and be assigned to a ship that could not normally use drones at all).
My proposal is that carrier lose their ability to delegate fighters to other players. Fighters still warp and follow their targets as normal, but can be warp scrambled like any other ships (idk if bubbles should affect them). If a carrier warps out of a fight the fighters can still follow the carrier in warp or remain attacking their target, but the carrier will have to, at least once, lock its target and set drones to attack. (also should not be able to assist like they currently cannot for the exact reasons I have pointed out) Regular drones continue to act as they currently do. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |