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) |
Vigilanta
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
75
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 03:49:24 -
[451] - Quote
Fighter assist removal = good, im all for it needed to be done
Fighter and fighterbomber warp: Don't remove it, its a ncei uniqueness to the weapons system of a slow and hard to maneuver platform. I dont think fighters need to follow people into warp, but fighter/fb recovery and for repairs without there built in warp drives seriously impacts some of the mainline benefits to a super/carrier. I think it would be better to start with removing the asist and then take another look in a couple months at the warp drives in order to avoid overnerfing. In all honesty it feels like something that should not be looked at until you are ready to do the full rebalance pass on supercarriers and carriers. |
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2032
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:05:55 -
[452] - Quote
I would like to see the fighter warp reworked to operate more like a regular warp. Seems odd how they go about it kind of teleporting then waiting and stuff. Maybe it's just me.
Also bubbles and point should work against fighters. |
Emmy Mnemonic
Svea Rike Fatal Ascension
28
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:06:02 -
[453] - Quote
Skynet has gone self-aware. In the future it will destroy all humanity (sais Sarah. We others have not even noticed it yet!). But shut it down, that's fine!
But don't just remove the assign-fighters-function - compensate it and add a reason for the baddies (ie. the carriers assigning) to warp onto grid instead, so we can shoot them! Or, we can use them for pvp where their ISK value is balanced with their capability, not just their massive defensive capability but also a viable offensive capability!
10 Fighters with around 1000 DPS is not worth warping a carrier on-grid for. Applying that DPS to enemies 100 AU away through the capability to assign fighters or have fighters warp after fleeing targets IS worth it (and the latter can be turned off if people find it annoying...).
This nerf will not make people use their carriers in on-grid fights. It will have the opposite effect, carriers will be flown/used less, and only in "boring" gameplay. 1000 DPS can be projected on-grid for around 120 M ISK, why use 2 B ISK to apply that DPS?
So shut Skynet down, and save poor Sarah Connors son who has been complaining about it, and save the rest of the EVE-players ofc. But when you rip out that old T1000 fighter-assisting-data-link equipment in all carriers in the game, replace it with something else to compansate us, and keep EVE a diverse game where people willingly risk their carriers in small- and medium fights because the risk is compensated by the possible rewards!
CEO Svea Rike
|
Pittsburgh2989
Shadow State Fatal Ascension
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:07:52 -
[454] - Quote
Please do not remove Fighter Warping...
Either remove drone assist completely from the game or not at all...fighters are drones. Another simple solution is just make it where fighters cannot be launched within 10km of a POS...do the same thing you did with Cyno's. This would make Carriers vulnerable if they want to actually give fighters to someone else. |
Celesae
Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension
23
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:22:31 -
[455] - Quote
Vic Jefferson wrote:Yeah, carriers were uninteresting and worthless before skynet. They have absolutely no unique features about them except to enhance gate camps. It's bad enough these days so many people are skittish and unsportsmanlike about jousting space ships, but you seem to want a risk free way to add an absurd amount of DPS to gate camps. If you aren't going to put your chips in the pot, you shouldn't be able to win big with them.
That's not what I meant - you should know this. Assisted fighters can be worked around - kill the assigned ship. NCdot is assigning fighters to interceptors? Just bring some decent anti-support. Bump carriers away from POSes (which is why I think the proposal of a minimum POS range is good), and/or do a DD drive-by. These things happen already; players find a way. If there are simply too many carriers to kill, then you likely weren't going to win that fight, or needed to bring your own cap fleet anyway.
The lack of remote capabilities puts the carrier in a poor position. It is cannon fodder for every other capital class ship in the game, and is likewise just a juicy target for any medium-sized or better subcap fleet. Triage mode certainly doesn't put fear in anyone's hearts - that just earns the carrier a faster-earned title of "Primary!"
Carriers are based on real-world carriers - it's all about remote power projection (I'm not talking about jump drives here). The ships themselves are relatively weak, as they should be. The nations of Earth do not fear the carriers themselves, but the jets they launch - also as it should be. Make the carrier able to be struck with a focused attack (i.e.: not sitting on the very edge of a POS shield), make the "jets" more vulnerable to attack (bubbles/webs/points), and move on.
Don't remove what is a favorite feature of the class for many players and relegate the ship to only the role of a cap-sized logistics boat... |
Cpt Buckshot
The Awakened Empire
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:25:03 -
[456] - Quote
Here is 10 cents on it,
There are valid views being expressed and for CCP just to take the easy way is very lame.
1. Maybe Carriers and MOMs should not be able to assign fighters 60km from a POS tower ish, maybe this way there is time bump them away from POS. As a care-bear that is hard for me to say but the combat aspect of is being abused.
2. Carriers pilots trained many months to use this ability to rat or for combat and also huge investment of isk. I personally hate when things are NERFED. Its the cheap way out, you all "CCP" are worried more about the next expansion than to do this correctly it seems to me. Why don't you focus on current game mechanics and fix or resolve them not delete them. This is what SOE always did and look where they are now ... gone.
3. All fighters should be point-able and web-able and also affected by warp bubbles. Easy fix I think on that one.
4. Maybe limit fighter assist to a certain ship size or types.
I don't know what the FIX is for this ,,,,, But this shouldn't be rushed either. |
ROSSLINDEN0
AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse
280
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:34:13 -
[457] - Quote
Please don't remove my S K Y N E T it will force me to get good at game and im not sure i want to do that at this stage of my lyfe |
Mimiko Severovski
Zero Fun Allowed
8
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 04:38:20 -
[458] - Quote
WTFFFFFF!!!!!!????
i pay 25kkk isk for nix and ccp make nix bad how wil make isk to plex????? this make nix bad, why make nix bad???? give nix dron bay and track bonus like ishtar ship, then nix not bad ship like rifter!!! this kill nix if continue!!! |
whitefire34
F-I-N-K PROPERTY Northern Associates.
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 05:06:55 -
[459] - Quote
sending fighters is and as always been a usefull tool even when your mining in a belt and you have the rats attacking a mining fleet in nul sec just taking that out is kind of like losing a limb |
Forrest Stokes
Dark Core Industries The Order of New Eden
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 05:13:08 -
[460] - Quote
I would like the fighter assist to NOT be removed. I do agree with maybe making it where the carrier has to be outside the POS shields in order to use drone assist |
|
ShadowFireGirl
Astral Inferno Balcora Gatekeepers
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 05:48:21 -
[461] - Quote
This change really makes me wonder if CCP is paying any attention to anything, having not even remotely discussed this with the player base before just going OH HEY! We're going to be Obama and talk about change change change and have no intelligent plan on how to implement change for the better. The problem here is not that fighters are getting assigned: The problem is fighters are getting assigned to small fast ships, people cannot tackle the fighters, so thus you have exactly as you said, let me spelli it out for you: PEOPLE FLYING WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH 5 FIGHTERS ASSIGNED
You said it yourself, now take your pants off your head and listen.
Carriers are very expensive targets, and you are listening to the whiners who just want killmails, not interesting combat. This will not cause carriers to be deployed EVER. They will simply be used in the situations where triage already is used, which well....guess what. FIGHTERS CAN'T BE USED THEN.
Let me explain a simple solution here, since you didn't care to consult with us all first. Do not let people fly whatever the hell they want!
Now how might you do this? Let's start off with what you are denying US, that your player base who determines if YOU survive, wants.
a) Have fighters only assignable to larger slow ships like Battlecruisers, a ship class that receives no love and is helpless compared to t2 cruisers and was already nerfed into the ground with the command ship changes, or battleships, a ship class that is slow and easy to tackle. b) Have fighters assignable only to ships that have a drone data link big enough to support the number of drones assigned to them, thus restricting them to tiny ships having at best 1 fighters and 4 drones in the case of the ishkur, interceptors getting none, and anything that can't drop a heavy drone getting none. c) Have fighters take up drone bandwidth on the ship they are being assigned to since SOMETHING has to control them. d) Have fighters assignable only when in some sort of 'siege mode' by adding a new module. Now the ship cannot retreat for x amount of time when fighters are assigned e) Have fighters able to be tackled! They deploy their fighters, they have to commit them to the fight since they cannot recall them arbitrarily based on which one is about to get tackled. f) Have fighters that are assigned not get drone module bonuses while they are off grid
Imagine that! One of your players has taken the time from her evening, while not even at home, to give YOU options that you deny us!
You don't need to go smashing creative design of your own game and burn your game. You don't need to turn players off from using ships that exist because they're all of a sudden useless. You don't need to play to whiners and poorly skilled idiots who cannot figure out how to kill things that ***** about a mechanic because they think they know best, just to get you to nerf it. You don't need to have very poor foresight to think all playing fields in the entire ******* game are all the same. Your problem exists exclusively in different forms in lowsec, nullsec, and wspace. Don't try to one size all fit the solution, or you'll certainly lose a lot of players here. You don't need to tell us how to play your game. We don't need to be denied choices to cater to killmail whores that don't care about this game who just want killmail killmail killmail and not a thing but the nerf bad for other players, just in order so they can get their jollies for 1 hour, log off, upon which they just quit after a couple months when they get bored doing the same damn thing every day with their t1 cruiser gangs. You don't need to bury your head in the sand to the fact that a capital ship is a target regardless to whether it costs 100m or 1000m. This in itself makes it very risky to deploy them, focus on solving the problem not nerfbatting your game into the ground. Carrier pilots don't need to be 'given content' to force their now useless ship, one that barely does damage with fighters anyways(two ishtars, one carrier, guess which does more drone damage, applies it much better, and costs much less?) to be ordered onto grid when they would use TRIAGE instead of fighters to reach peak effectiveness for the isk, when it's not content at all. You're only removing choices to try to appease some whiners, and not thinking your solutions through in the least.
Pay attention to the people that keep your lights on, ask for feedback like other game developers do, or guess what? You will quickly find yourself dying to games like Star Citizen that has its crosshairs straight on your hull by offering players exactly what you seek to deny: variation and choices. Stop trying to kill your own game.
One final great note. You are saying that exposing skynet carriers to more risk, which you declared is the PURPOSE for this change, seemed convoluted, and would put an unneeded game mechanic into the game. What? A mechanic where carriers that assign fighters have to be risked? WOAH. You're ********? How is exposing skynet carriers to more risk an unneeded mechanic when that was your goal in the first place? How is this a strange and unneeded mechanic? You are taking the lazy way, now rescind on your idiocity, and stop trying to do what you're doing. Go back, think it through, and stop this bull. |
Amarisen Gream
The ArK's Hammer ArK Alliance
65
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 05:55:19 -
[462] - Quote
After reading a lot of this post I have decided that CCP is taking the easy way out.
Keep the assist feature. Keep the ability to warp
Limit their ****ing range to be assisted. The problem as I am seeing is the fact that they can sit safe near a POS and touch others in the wrong way.
Limiting their range to say 10 AU of the carrier reduces their reach to butt **** other players. Adding a restriction on assisting near a POS or Outpost would also be a blessing.
Yet, seeing as I live in Provi and can't use a capital to rat. What does my voice matter anyway.
xoxo
Amarisen Gream
|
titan Multi3
HOLDER CORP BEST CORP
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 05:56:40 -
[463] - Quote
Maybe disregard the range requirements, but the POS restrictions are a pretty solid way to limit it. |
Galian Kile
Interdimensional Chaos Gentlemen's.Club
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 06:14:20 -
[464] - Quote
Taking away the assist feature will see a fall in ISK making as well. Assist isn't ONLY used in fighting but in ISK making. This is a feature that a carrier has had for a long time. Like others have said, orbiting or sitting at a POS is NOT 100% safe. You fly what you can afford to lose. It is not the carriers pilot fault people who come into a system to harass are engaged with fighters that are assigned. What is Eve's Motto???
HARDEN THE ***** UP!!
If you want to put a balance on this, I propose this; No Module or anything of that sort. Let "SKYNET" be a SOV UPGRADE. And let the aggressor take the risk of entering a system where fighters can be assigned. PERIOD. It is a WIN-WIN
That is All... |
Lugburz
Running with Dogs Nerfed Alliance Go Away
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 06:15:07 -
[465] - Quote
What use is a carrier with fighters if not able to assist exactly? are you just relegating them to triage modes now? Im not overly a fan of cap warfare (though it has its uses) but it just amazes me you 'rebalance' ships simply because they get used a lot; i mean nerfing rails cus 'their popular'.. well yes of course they are, 2 whole factions use them (not including pirate factions) as opposed to one each for the projectile and lazer using factions.. currently there are what.. 2 t1 cruiser variants that are bonused for missiles? probably the same for projectile and lazer cruisers and at least double that for rails... of course their popular; more people can actually use them.
How about some scientists (probably caldari) frustrated at their gallente counterparts tactical use of carriers and the like research and design several operational counters to such tactics? Maybe a smartbomb.. oh wait.. how about an ecm burs.. oh nvm... who exactly is whining? |
Lugburz
Running with Dogs Nerfed Alliance Go Away
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 06:25:41 -
[466] - Quote
ShadowFireGirl wrote:
a) Have fighters only assignable to larger slow ships like Battlecruisers, a ship class that receives no love and is helpless compared to t2 cruisers and was already nerfed into the ground with the command ship changes, or battleships, a ship class that is slow and easy to tackle.
b) Have fighters assignable only to ships that have a drone data link big enough to support the number of drones assigned to them, thus restricting them to tiny ships having at best 1 fighters and 4 drones in the case of the ishkur, interceptors getting none, and anything that can't drop a heavy drone getting none.
c) Have fighters take up drone bandwidth on the ship they are being assigned to since SOMETHING has to control them.
d) Have fighters assignable only when in some sort of 'siege mode' by adding a new module. Now the ship cannot retreat for x amount of time when fighters are assigned
e) Have fighters able to be tackled! They deploy their fighters, they have to commit them to the fight since they cannot recall them arbitrarily based on which one is about to get tackled.
f) Have fighters that are assigned not get drone module bonuses while they are off grid
Imagine that! One of your players has taken the time from her evening, while not even at home, to give YOU options that you deny us!
You don't need to go smashing creative design of your own game and burn your game. You don't need to turn players off from using ships that exist because they're all of a sudden useless. You don't need to play to whiners and poorly skilled idiots who cannot figure out how to kill things that ***** about a mechanic because they think they know best, just to get you to nerf it. You don't need to have very poor foresight to think all playing fields in the entire ******* game are all the same. Your problem exists exclusively in different forms in lowsec, nullsec, and wspace. Don't try to one size all fit the solution, or you'll certainly lose a lot of players here. You don't need to tell us how to play your game. We don't need to be denied choices to cater to killmail whores that don't care about this game who just want killmail killmail killmail and not a thing but the nerf bad for other players, just in order so they can get their jollies for 1 hour, log off, upon which they just quit after a couple months when they get bored doing the same damn thing every day with their t1 cruiser gangs. You don't need to bury your head in the sand to the fact that a capital ship is a target regardless to whether it costs 100m or 1000m. This in itself makes it very risky to deploy them, focus on solving the problem not nerfbatting your game into the ground. Carrier pilots don't need to be 'given content' to force their now useless ship, one that barely does damage with fighters anyways(two ishtars, one carrier, guess which does more drone damage, applies it much better, and costs much less?) to be ordered onto grid when they would use TRIAGE instead of fighters to reach peak effectiveness for the isk, when it's not content at all. You're only removing choices to try to appease some whiners, and not thinking your solutions through in the least.
Pay attention to the people that keep your lights on, ask for feedback like other game developers do, or guess what? You will quickly find yourself dying to games like Star Citizen that has its crosshairs straight on your hull by offering players exactly what you seek to deny: variation and choices. Stop trying to kill your own game.
One final great note. You are saying that exposing skynet carriers to more risk, which you declared is the PURPOSE for this change, seemed convoluted, and would put an unneeded game mechanic into the game. What? A mechanic where carriers that assign fighters have to be risked? WOAH. You're ********? How is exposing skynet carriers to more risk an unneeded mechanic when that was your goal in the first place? How is this a strange and unneeded mechanic? You are taking the lazy way, now rescind on your idiocity, and stop trying to do what you're doing. Go back, think it through, and stop this bull.
pretty much that yah, imagine all the unhappy people that just spent a year training for carrier.. i can fly two different carriers; never used them in combat 'cept on test server. On tranquility its generally relegated to carrying my ships around, which is now more difficult due to jump changes...
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
858
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 06:26:02 -
[467] - Quote
There is a magical force in the eve universe that prevents me from activating a smartbomb w/ in 5km of wormhole. It doesn't really make sense, but it's there none the less. Apply that magical force to drone deployment. The launching ship can't be w/ in X km of a POS or station. Risk aversion removed \ meaningful and interesting PVP opportunities created.
Prevent sentries from being used by any class of ship that isn't a battleship. Lots more risk averse stuff removed \ meaningful and interesting pvp opportunities created.
Remove drone assist from the game and one over used soul and server crushing form of deliberate player induced lag is removed from the game. Soul and server crushing will be reduced.
No one is upset about carriers assisting thier fighters to some noob on a gate. Folks are upset that the carrier is nosed out of a POS shield and can't be touched in a reasonable way.
Please callibrate whoever is coming up w/ the 'fixes' for the ishtar, skynetting, sentries and so on issues. They aren't 'fixing' anything. We are on the cusp of the worst changes to hit eve.... ever.
|
iniq
The Goddesses
15
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 06:34:33 -
[468] - Quote
If CCP Removing Fighter Assist ,pls give my carrier SP back to me ,i dont want use that ship . |
Crazy Candy
Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 06:46:45 -
[469] - Quote
If you support fighter assisting you're literally part of the cancer that is ruining this game.
iniq wrote:If CCP Removing Fighter Assist ,pls give my carrier SP back to me ,i dont want use that ship .
You trained for something which is broken, it's your own fault for wasting the time to train something as abusable as fighter assisting. That's your fault, not CCP's. |
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
696
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 06:48:49 -
[470] - Quote
Crazy Candy wrote:If you support fighter assisting you're literally part of the cancer that is ruining this game. Nice Kafkatrap. |
|
El Geo
Running with Dogs Nerfed Alliance Go Away
218
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 06:55:10 -
[471] - Quote
Should have just given a control range in AU and made a module or set of modules/rigs that allowed fighter assist, 1 drone per module/rig.
path-+find-+er (pthfndr, p+ñth-)n. 1. One that discovers a new course or way, especially through or into unexplored regions.
http://www.youtube.com/user/EvEPathfinders/videos?view=0
|
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
179
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 06:58:01 -
[472] - Quote
Lugburz wrote: pretty much that yah, imagine all the unhappy people that just spent a year training for carrier.. i can fly two different carriers; never used them in combat 'cept on test server. On tranquility its generally relegated to carrying my ships around, which is now more difficult due to jump changes...
If you have never used them in combat, then it is entirely your fault. They are a potent force.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
Qurzy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 07:00:31 -
[473] - Quote
CCP, if you hate carriers and supers this much just remove them from the game. Same goes for fighters, because if you think they'll be used for anything after this you're delusional.
And give me back the isk and time spent training for them; it'll be easier then selling mine. I'd rather not have millions of SP in useless skills after this, because given the trends I'm pretty sure the next change coming for carriers and supers is to make them a 25bil version of the mobile depot.
Do you guys play his game? |
titan Multi3
HOLDER CORP BEST CORP
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 07:04:56 -
[474] - Quote
I wouldnt mind most of 3 of my toon's SP free'd up for reskilling. That'd be nice. |
Kimimaro Yoga
Paragon Trust The Bastion
38
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 07:05:18 -
[475] - Quote
Okay, having read about half of this thread (getting tired of seeing people who don't even know how carriers work talk about how they should be changed) I'm going to attempt to sum up the various arguments.
First off, there is no such thing as fighter assist. Doesn't exist. The correct term is Delegate. Reason this matters is that Assist lets one ship direct 50 drones, this isn't possible with fighters any ways that I can see. So if we're arguing that off-grid delegation is what needs to be nerfed, then let's look at ways to fix it.
From good to bad: 1. Change the requirement for being able to receive delegated fighters from the pilot's drone skill, to the ship's bandwidth. Being able to delegate 5 fighters to shuttles or interceptors is arguably broken. Being able to delegate 5 fighters to a ship that can already launch 5 wasps or at least 5 mediums, that's okay. (This is similar to limiting fighter delegation to larger hulls, only more balanced as it makes the receiving pilot trade their existing drones for the fighters).
2. Additional limits on fighters delegated from supers. The change to supers to make their fighters do double the damage was to reduce mass drone lag during large fights. It wasn't intended to double the DPS that could be delegated to other ships. So with the previous mechanic, make fighters delegated from supers require 50% or 100% more bandwidth.
3. Make fighters scrammable, yeah sure. I'd argue that for coding reasons they probably need to be bubble immune, so they don't end up just sitting there with a broken AI. But a tackle frigate should be able to keep them from running off.
4. If an off grid carrier warps, or enters a POS forcefield, do not let the fighters recall. Instead treat it like the fighters were just abandoned. If the carrier pilot wants to play it safe, increase the likelihood of losing the fighters.
5. Add to killboards. E-peen FTW, but hey why not? let's see more dead fighters.
6. Require the carrier to sit away from the POS forcefield. This seems like a good idea at first glance, but it's not going to result in carriers sitting 100km off POSes where they can be bumped and killed. It's going to result in carriers sitting in safes, aligned toward POSes so they can warp to safety instantly. Perhaps an improvement, but not likely to matter much.
7. Making the delegated fighters get their bonuses from the receiving ship instead of the carrier. Why even bother then? Presumably the receiving ship isn't setup for drone bonuses, or it'd be using its own already. And unbonused fighters are garbage. There's a reason nobody used them before they got bonuses from drone mods. Better off with some medium drones.
8. Nerfing the fighters themselves. See above, only worse. Even now, a carrier that's setup for combat is better off using sentries or heavies rather than fighters, because the base stats of fighters are just that bad (if you include speed issues and return time). People who think fighters are instalocking, amazing tracking machines have never looked at their actual performance. If it takes fifty fighters to alpha a T1 cruiser, there isn't a problem with fighter DPS.
9. Removing delegation from the game. Hey look, some of CCP Rise's small-gang buddies are having a sad, because they can't fight against a far larger and more organized group. Let's just nuke a mechanic entirely rather than fix it, because fixing it might take effort. Yeah, that sounds harsh, but the proposed ishtar nerfs are small careful steps, while this is trying to fix a minor problem with a sledgehammer. I'm having a hard time thinking of any reason why fighter delegation is so terrible that it has to go away, other than CCP bias/laziness.
Now recruiting: http://dogfacedesign.com/index.php/Recruiting-Posters/recruiting-poster-patr3
|
Bullet Therapist
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
269
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 07:22:31 -
[476] - Quote
Well, fighter assist probably could have worked given the right adjustments, but it's probably just as well that it's going to go. I can't say that I haven't abused it frequently or that I won't miss it, but from a design perspective it's probably the right choice to move on. |
Cyrus Doul
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
18
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 07:26:37 -
[477] - Quote
Ice Acami wrote:Fighter assist = Yes Fighter bomber assist= No
FB assist has either never been a thing or hasnt been since a couple months after they came out when i got my first Supercarrier |
Cyrus Doul
S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS.
18
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 07:37:38 -
[478] - Quote
Crazy Candy wrote:If you support fighter assisting you're literally part of the cancer that is ruining this game. iniq wrote:If CCP Removing Fighter Assist ,pls give my carrier SP back to me ,i dont want use that ship . You trained for something which is broken, it's your own fault for wasting the time to train something as abusable as fighter assisting. That's your fault, not CCP's.
Had my drone skills and carrier trained to 5 back in late 2009... Wasn't really broke back then. |
Django Flagg
Reasonable People Of Sound Mind
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 07:43:04 -
[479] - Quote
Maddaxe Illat wrote:I would be ok with fighters not be able to assist anymore because it is op. but please do not remove that fact that fighters can warp. With all the change you have made over the last 6 to 12 month it look like you dont can about anyone who has played the game for more the 3 yours. So that a no from me for fighters no warping
And coal miners would really like it if we kept burning coal, they have been mining it all their lives after all!
Times change, past investments are not justification to halt change. Evolve or die (often). |
Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
111
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 07:44:22 -
[480] - Quote
I already posted a nice argument against this in the F&ID subforum thread about this topic, so I'll re-link it instead of typing again or copy-pasting: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5431300#post5431300
Put simply, if this goes through, I'm selling my carriers. They are too expensive and easily killed (either via a hotdrop or a moderately-sized fleet) to put on the battlefield. They are no longer particularly useful as ship transports, because of the jump range nerf. Removing fighter assist would kill the last useful point to a Carrier being a Carrier. Lose fighter assist, and it's just an excessively overpriced logistics loot pi+¦ata.
Remove drone module effects from fighters, and reduce assignment potential to 1 fighter per pilot. Heck, impose a class-based restriction on who can receive fighters, too, if the slower lock time of larger ships is seen as "good balance". |
|
|
|
|
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 |