Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 50 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Brylan Grey
Scope Works Overload Everything
70
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:14:28 -
[331] - Quote
Keep fighter warp.
Allow fighters to only assist fleet mates that are on-grid with the carrier.
If the fleet mate leaves the grid, the fighters stop assisting. |
Vendettus
Mining Industry Exile Foundation Warlords of the Deep
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:17:38 -
[332] - Quote
even though i only did solo/small scale pvp in eve so far and hence my view on the topic might be a bit limited but from my experience rebalancing some drone mechanics would be a healthy change for the game.
fighter assist: as it works now its a mechanic which almost doesnt scale with piloting skill at all, you can easily get a thanatos to the point where ur fighters move faster then 5k ms while having more then 3k dps in total and unless your ship/fleet is able to tank the dps you will have to retreat, its pretty much a hard counter to every kiting approach, capital sized drones shouldnt be able to deal so easy with frigates/destroyers/cruisers. on top of that fighter assist also scales way to good with having links/snakes, everyone who encountered linked and snaked interceptors or garmurs will know what i mean, very hard to kill on their own but with 1k+ dps assisted absolutely terrifying.
fighter following in warp: whats the point of this anyways ? it takes active dps time from the carrier pilot on the current grid in fleet fights which is bad. in solo/small scale situations you have to re enter or leave the system to get rid of the fighters and to continue playing.
removing drone assist entirely: this would certainly lead to a situation where large/med scale players would be forced to develop more decent piloting skills with drone interaction and situational awareness in order to work efficiently as a fleet. the worst thing about drone assist from my perspective is something else though, any form of camp with a sensor boosted ship which has drones asigned to it is way more efficient then it should be.
maybe you could consider something else about drone assist as well: if you assist your drones to a ship, the drones have their normal lock time + your ships lock time on a target. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
596
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:25:25 -
[333] - Quote
I don't really care that fighters follow targets in warp. I've never been in a situation where this was actually that helpful.
I don't see why you want to remove it though, but if you must, fine.
What I'm pretty sure is completely unnecessary is removing the ability for fighters to warp after their parent carrier.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Rune Scorpio
Volatile Instability Resonance.
29
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:25:42 -
[334] - Quote
Fighter assist is an important mechanic to carriers/supers. Removing that will make them unused by a large number of people that currently do. Just make it so people cant hug a POS and assign them. Please stop removing good features and just fix the cheesy aspects instead. |
Shun Makoto
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District
54
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:26:03 -
[335] - Quote
Create a limitation on how close to a POS a Carrier can be and apply fighter assist.
I don't see the need of removing fighter assist completely. It hampers tactical options of FCs.
Caldari Independant Navy Reserve
Fourth District
Patriot Faction
Former 22nd BRDU - Retired Milita Wing Commander
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
597
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:27:33 -
[336] - Quote
omfg is rise even serious "it can be frustrating to have your fighters warp off grid" Yeah, that's why we have the option to turn this **** off. Come on, man. If you're going to be making balance changes to the game, you should at least understand the ******* mechanics that you're working on.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Solairen
Matsuko Holding
217
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:31:07 -
[337] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:I don't really care that fighters follow targets in warp. I've never been in a situation where this was actually that helpful.
I don't see why you want to remove it though, but if you must, fine.
What I'm pretty sure is completely unnecessary is removing the ability for fighters to warp after their parent carrier.
Generally problem isn't figthers following a target in warp, it's them being assisted away, and then following the assisted ship into warp. Allowing you to park a carrier on the edge of a POS, while another ship uses the entire DPS of that carrier of grid for a gate camp, or ratting, or whatever. With 0 risk to the carrier and massive bonus for the more expendable ship.
CCP is saying this problem can be fixed by EITHER removing the fighter assist (the current planned change) OR by removing fighter warp (offer to community to decide between the two).
Personally i think the community has some better options for fixing the issue. Some suggested removing ability to assist next to a POS. Other make fighters warp, but only to the grid the carrier is on. Similar suggestion, only allow assist of fighters while on grid. To me these are all better suggestions than removing a feature. |
Komodo Askold
No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad
305
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:33:07 -
[338] - Quote
I can't speak for the drone assist thing. However, I do can provide an idea for the whole "warp or not warp" thing.
In fact I think it is a very simple solution: just add a checkbox on the "Drone Options" menu which forces your fighter(bomber)s to warp or not to warp after their targets. Something like:
[Checkbox] Fighters pursue targets into warp
Hope this helps. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
597
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:33:50 -
[339] - Quote
Solairen wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:I don't really care that fighters follow targets in warp. I've never been in a situation where this was actually that helpful.
I don't see why you want to remove it though, but if you must, fine.
What I'm pretty sure is completely unnecessary is removing the ability for fighters to warp after their parent carrier. Generally problem isn't figthers following a target in warp, it's them being assisted away, and then following the assisted ship into warp. Allowing you to park a carrier on the edge of a POS, while another ship uses the entire DPS of that carrier of grid for a gate camp, or ratting, or whatever. With 0 risk to the carrier and massive bonus for the more expendable ship. CCP is saying this problem can be fixed by EITHER removing the fighter assist (the current planned change) OR by removing fighter warp (offer to community to decide between the two). No, you misread the devblog.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Svarii
Acclimatization
67
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:34:35 -
[340] - Quote
If you MUST, fine. Take away assist. But don't take away their warp drive... |
|
Solairen
Matsuko Holding
217
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:36:28 -
[341] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:Solairen wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:I don't really care that fighters follow targets in warp. I've never been in a situation where this was actually that helpful.
I don't see why you want to remove it though, but if you must, fine.
What I'm pretty sure is completely unnecessary is removing the ability for fighters to warp after their parent carrier. Generally problem isn't figthers following a target in warp, it's them being assisted away, and then following the assisted ship into warp. Allowing you to park a carrier on the edge of a POS, while another ship uses the entire DPS of that carrier of grid for a gate camp, or ratting, or whatever. With 0 risk to the carrier and massive bonus for the more expendable ship. CCP is saying this problem can be fixed by EITHER removing the fighter assist (the current planned change) OR by removing fighter warp (offer to community to decide between the two). No, you misread the devblog.
No... you did. See the final sentance.
CCP Rise wrote:As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla.
Would you prefer that we removed the ability for fighters to warp or that we left warping in, despite the absence of assist?
Look forward to your feedback.
Clearly says remove warp OR leave it in without assist. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
913
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:38:52 -
[342] - Quote
^^ They can remove assist if they want :D just leave in assignment :P |
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1104
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:39:12 -
[343] - Quote
Done and gone. Moving on.
Yaay!!!!
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
598
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:39:27 -
[344] - Quote
Komodo Askold wrote:I can't speak for the drone assist thing. However, I do can provide an idea for the whole "warp or not warp" thing.
In fact I think it is a very simple solution: just add a checkbox on the "Drone Options" menu which forces your fighter(bomber)s to warp or not to warp after their targets. Something like:
[Checkbox] Fighters pursue targets into warp
Hope this helps. Yeah if only CCP could put such a thing into the game.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
598
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:42:39 -
[345] - Quote
Solairen wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:Solairen wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:I don't really care that fighters follow targets in warp. I've never been in a situation where this was actually that helpful.
I don't see why you want to remove it though, but if you must, fine.
What I'm pretty sure is completely unnecessary is removing the ability for fighters to warp after their parent carrier. Generally problem isn't figthers following a target in warp, it's them being assisted away, and then following the assisted ship into warp. Allowing you to park a carrier on the edge of a POS, while another ship uses the entire DPS of that carrier of grid for a gate camp, or ratting, or whatever. With 0 risk to the carrier and massive bonus for the more expendable ship. CCP is saying this problem can be fixed by EITHER removing the fighter assist (the current planned change) OR by removing fighter warp (offer to community to decide between the two). No, you misread the devblog. No... you did. See the final sentance. CCP Rise wrote:As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla.
Would you prefer that we removed the ability for fighters to warp or that we left warping in, despite the absence of assist?
Look forward to your feedback. Clearly says remove warp OR leave it in without assist. "Additional notes: Removing fighter assist raises the question of whether or not fighters should still warp."
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Garnt TheBrobarian
Hole Violence Whole Squid
23
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:43:14 -
[346] - Quote
Late to the party and not gonna read 18 pages, but wanted to say something.
Please, for the love of all things good and holy, stick to your guns on this one.
Get rid of assign, get rid of warp. Anyone calling them good or interesting mechanics is either entirely disingenuous or hopelessly deluded.
People begging for you to roll back the changes aren't looking for gameplay, they're looking for ways to avoid it. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
913
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:44:56 -
[347] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:I'm still looking for a reason why to keep the warping function with fighters. The only argument that people have come forward with is that they are expensive, and that its unique. is... Is that it?
If you want to explain it to me like I am five, I'll listen. Heck CCP is here ready to listen. So please do.
Why is this ability needed for Carriers and Supers? Why does the capital need a way to chase ships all over the system?
I can see it being a bigger deal with supers as their FBs are their main teeth (if they have fighters its usually just a token amount) unlike carriers where you still have sentries and a myriad of drones to fall back on. |
Tiberian Deci
Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore
31
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:47:23 -
[348] - Quote
Apok Salzak wrote:Let get this straight. You post a Scope Video about Carriers getting killed by rats and now you are nerfing them?
WTS Useless Cap Pilot.
If your cap pilot is useless without fighter assign you're doing cap pilots wrong m8. |
Solairen
Matsuko Holding
217
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:47:24 -
[349] - Quote
Primary This Rifter wrote:
"Additional notes: Removing fighter assist raises the question of whether or not fighters should still warp."
I never said they didn't raise it as a question or option. I said they presented is as an either/or. 1 change basically makes the other 1 less useful, so they ask if the community wants it changed, left alone, or something else changed.
I think we are saying same thing but from different perspectives. |
Igor Nappi
Perkone Caldari State
99
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:48:06 -
[350] - Quote
Big thumbs up for removing these two game breaking mechanics.
Furthermore, I think that links must be removed from the game.
|
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
598
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:49:11 -
[351] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:I've yet to see an actual argument to keeping fighters going to warp besides "please don't nerf they cost me money".
I hate being harsh but I haven't read one yet There doesn't have to be one, because there hasn't been any actual argument for removing it. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.
Solairen wrote:Primary This Rifter wrote:
"Additional notes: Removing fighter assist raises the question of whether or not fighters should still warp."
I never said they didn't raise it as a question or option. I said they presented is as an either/or. 1 change basically makes the other 1 less useful, so they ask if the community wants it changed, left alone, or something else changed. I think we are saying same thing but from different perspectives. No, they didn't present it as an either/or. It's "we're removing fighter assist, would you also like us to remove fighter warp?" Not, "we're probably going to remove fighter assist, but we might be convinced to remove fighter warp instead."
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
688
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:51:27 -
[352] - Quote
Igor Nappi wrote:two game breaking mechanics. [Citation needed] |
Davir Sometaww
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
21
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:55:24 -
[353] - Quote
Immortal Chrono Pimpin wrote:Davir Sometaww wrote:Simple fix without ruinning this unique concept. Just have pos shields interrupt carrier interaction with its fighters on a 100 km radius.
Meaning you can't assign fighters on pos shields You can sit in a anchored online pos without the shield up and assist fighters, As soon as you are in real danger you put in a pos pw and shield goes up.
Well guess what? Simple fix;
Carriers anywhere near a anchored online pos / Online pos with shield - can't assign fighters within 100km radius.
Done and done. |
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
599
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 21:56:58 -
[354] - Quote
If CCP were actually interested in increasing risk for capital ships, they'd explore alternative methods beyond removing fighter assign.
If you remove a function that a ship has, then people don't use it for that anymore. Those people who were assisting fighters aren't suddenly going to bring their carriers into fights where they were previously assisting - they just won't assist anymore.
If you instead made it so that fighter assist cannot be done within, say, 20 km of POS forcefields, and that fighters automatically warp back to the carrier as soon as it warps or gets within 20 km of the force field, then they'd still assist, they'd just accept more risk in doing so.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Veetor Nara
Jumpstart Academy
21
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 22:00:18 -
[355] - Quote
I'd advise against this, just because I want to try what it's like and I'm just 20days away from it. |
Panther X
High Flyers The Kadeshi
55
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 22:00:57 -
[356] - Quote
Igor Nappi wrote:Big thumbs up for removing these two game breaking mechanics.
How is it "broken"? Explain? Carriers and Super carriers are force projectors. Just because you can't tackle them with your interceptor and pop them solo doesn't mean that it's broken.
The mechanic as it is is controversial at worst. Some hate it, some like it, some are indifferent.
But to say that the mechanic is broken without any explanation is just nonsense..
One thing that does need to be addressed is the fact that there is no sign of a trade off for those of us who are heavily invested in Fighters and Fighter Bombers. It's a logistical nightmare for us super pilots to replenish our stocks without the aid of the largest of industrial ships. If warp is taken away from them, then you need to either
1) change fighter and bomber size again to allow us more flights in the drone bay or 2) change the drone bay size again to allow us more flights in the drone bay or 3) both to give us a "hey sorry we have been kicking your asses with the nerf bat the past couple releases, but here's a bone for ya to show that we do respect you as a subscriber" 4) STOP THE MADNESS
My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
|
exiik Shardani
Terpene Conglomerate
25
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 22:01:31 -
[357] - Quote
do not remove that mechanic, just make something like "dust band-witch" it means:
frig can control only one fighter dessie can contro 1-2 cruiser can control 2-3 BC can control 3-4 BB+ can control 4-5
I think it eliminate frig+skynet gatecamps and still allow use skynets for ratting, or interesting support (I think ppl defending system need have a little off-grid support). |
Igor Nappi
Perkone Caldari State
99
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 22:05:22 -
[358] - Quote
Forgot to add, the nullbot tears in this thread are absolutely delicious.
Furthermore, I think that links must be removed from the game.
|
Primary This Rifter
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
599
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 22:07:17 -
[359] - Quote
Igor Nappi wrote:Forgot to add, the nullbot tears in this thread are absolutely delicious. Thanks for establishing that you are indeed arguing from emotion.
Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
|
Iron Skin CoverShell
Nuwa Foundation Fraternity.
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 22:08:10 -
[360] - Quote
Oh My God , please keep cool headed our boss, i suggest , you can make a Special Module (like Siege Module) to keep the carrier KEEP 50KM off the POS , and CANNOT CHANGE the SHIP fit. Just....don't delete our carrier please |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 [12] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 .. 50 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |