Lacellas Jameson
StarKnight Security
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 22:28:32 -
[1] - Quote
Much as I agree that the current system allows "risk-free fighting" by the carrier captain, I think it's a shame to simply remove the unique flavour of fighter/ carrier combat, and the variety that brings (or could bring) to the game. So, with apologies for a rather lengthy post...
The problem:
- fighters are effectively used to "stack DPS" onto another ship, above and beyond what its hull size should be able to deploy, and,
- the carrier itself is redundant on the grid - there is no incentive to deploy into a hotzone, so there is no reward for risk.
This is being abused, it seems, in large fleet fights (shocker). IGÇÖd rather not see yet another ability of benefit to all EVE players removed as it is over-powering when used by specific groups of min/maxers in certain situations. And there are so many ways to scale the problem back that I think removing the unique abilities of fighters would be a shame. Instead, this could be an opportunity to expand on that flavour, and feed into the upcoming capital-ship rebalancesGǪ
The Lore: In current-day use, and in most Sci-Fi, carrier-borne fighters are used for power projection and escort/ patrol duties. They dramatically extend the combat range of the platform, and its ability to respond with rapidity and agility. TheyGÇÖre basically a flying weapon system. They *should* be powerfulGǪ However, to achieve this power, modern-day carriers have enormous Command and Control (C2) assets as well as Air-Traffic Control (ATC) to manage their fighters. This power is also tempered by maintenance requirements, a lack of longevity (fighters have a limited range and engagement time due to fuel and ammo limits), and high human and financial cost related to their relative fragility.
We could simulate these strengths and weaknesses to limit or remove the problems.
Solutions: DPS Stacking: The easy answer is to note that we donGÇÖt allow hulls to over-fit other weapon systems, so neither should a tiny hull command enormous fighter power. ItGÇÖs hard to argue with that, but a fighter does come with additional overheads - theyGÇÖre rather more expensive to use than many weapon systems, and they need a platform from which they can be launched. If I really love fighters, and IGÇÖm not just min-maxing, IGÇÖd be happy to exchange some of my shipGÇÖs local firepower (guns or launchers) for the command and control infrastructure necessary to command fighters. Due to the extra overheads of fighters, this may be a favourable rate of exchange, but not utterly out-of-control as appears to be the case currently. Like HMS Dauntless (a destroyer) and her much-reported Sampson RadarGÇÖs ATC ability, IGÇÖm suggesting a high-slot module (which probably shouldnGÇÖt be usable in a utility high-slot) which allows some fighter delegation.
The Off-Grid problem: There should be some incentive for the Carrier to fight on-grid. So remove the GÇ£attackGÇ¥ option from assigned fighters, replace it with a GÇ£release/ recallGÇ¥ toggle. This means you have to rely on the drone AI rather than human-called targeting. This, I feel, is a big change, but should allow the fighterGÇÖs local controller enough control to prevent Concordokken-style incidents.
Other opportunities: With the new Sov system, weGÇÖll hopefully see more and smaller fleets. Warfare should swing away from attritionist grind to more agile and tactical manoeuvreist play. This is a great opportunity to revitalise the carrier which has become a gloried ambulance, and reward the enormous training and monetary costs of becoming a carrier captain. IGÇÖd argue that itGÇÖs *not* the time to remove fightersGÇÖ warp ability. LetGÇÖs go the other way insteadGǪ [list] How many times in Sci-Fi (*cough* Valkyrie *cough*) do we see fighters set to escort convoys? Why not allow this behaviour? This would also open up new gameplay Stick that Command and Control suite module in your haulerGÇÖs one or two high slots, and weGÇÖre adding to, rather than removing, the flavour of fighter combat. how about fighters as scouts? Give carriers the ability to assign fighters to a gate, with orders to return/ report or engage on contact (like POS guns)? How about giving them the ability to patrol between a series of waypoints and do the same? Above, I mentioned the maintenance and fuel/ munitions need of fighter craft. If weGÇÖre allowing fighters independent action, these need to be in place GÇô give all fighters a maximum deployment time (like drones) after which they need to return for refuel/re-arm and maintenance. Give them a maintenance timer, which reduces their abilities for every GÇ£XGÇ¥ minutes they are in space (or possibly just in a hostile action), following which they need GÇ£YGÇ¥ minutes of maintenance in a carrier (or POS fighter bay) Give carriers rigs or modules to improve maintenance speed, or loiter time of fighters under it's own control. Make that carrier important! Yes, all this makes fighters powerful, but without the carrier to support them they should be limitedGǪ Off the subject of carriers, structures are being revamped, and POS fighter bays have been mentionedGǪ Maybe those logistics pilots that now need to travel through jump-gates since the hyperspace changes can request a fighter escort from their corpGÇÖs next-gen-POS as they set out...?
We all agree - fighters need some work, and GÇ£the usual suspectsGÇ¥ need to be stopped from abusing a broken game mechanic. But this is an opportunity to improve in several ways, and could really start to return the feel of a (super)carrier as the heart of a roving taskforce in our new landscape of manoeuvreist warfare.
|