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) |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10262
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 17:21:00 -
[1261] - Quote
For pve, if they thought Skynet was bad, they ain't seen nothing.
While I haven't done it in months, I used to 'semi-lazy mode' null anoms with a mach and 5 assigned fighters form my carrier that was at a pos. Optimal ratting, hell no, but super easy. I stopped doing it because I realized I made more isk with that alt in an afktar doing different kinds of anoms in another system (and subsequently providing me intel, if the ishtar dies, I know there is someone 1 jump away lol it never did though).
I didn't use the Carrier with the mach because you couldn't 'regular assign' fighters to assist or defend so I would have had to control the fighters manually (can't be arsed) or use sentries which meant a non-moving carrier (screw that). NO I can bring my carrier with me, assign drones from on grid, align the carrier out, and insta-fleet warp it away if something comes in, making that carrier every bit as safe as it was during Skynet...WHILE making MORE isk because instead of 5 fighters, ill be able to assign all 13 (with my fit and skills) to the mach.
CCP, my wallet salutes you! 07 |
Talon Stormcrow
Clan 86 Antesignani Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 17:42:34 -
[1262] - Quote
My solution for fixing the fighter assigning "issue".
New carrier module - allows carrier to go into "Launch mode" (think triage mode). In launch mode a carrier cannot move or warp. Carriers can only launch fighters/bombers in this mode (it can launch drones in any mode). Launch mode cannot be activated within 100k of any FIXED object. Module would have a 60 second activation/deactivation delay. Launch mode allows the carrier to "link" to another ship and receive its targeting data by using a new ship link module. Carrier can then lock targets and send fighters to engage from off grid.
New ship "Link" module - Link module allow a ship the "link with a carrier and send it targeting data. The amount of targets sent cannot exceed the ship/pilot target amount.
If the link ship is destroyed, or other wise lose's its targets because of E-war the carrier lose's its targeting data as well.
This would force a carrier pilot to actively participate in the fight. He would rely on his link ship to feed him data. No more assigning fighters. It would also keep carriers from hanging on a POS bubble. It would make them vulnerable to being scanned down and attacked. With the activation delay carriers would need a group for protection.
This to me fits into the new SOV as it allows mobile groups that can force project fighters and bombers. Carrier pilots have to be active in the fight and they will be more at risk to being scanned down and attacked.
Obviously there are details that would need to be fleshed out. This is just an idea so don't flame me to bad.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4146
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 20:25:46 -
[1263] - Quote
Talon Stormcrow wrote:Obviously there are details that would need to be fleshed out. This is just an idea so don't flame me to bad.
Can't say I'm ecstatic about either. Pass.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Jennifer Maxwell
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
242
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 21:46:33 -
[1264] - Quote
I train up for a carrier specifically to use it for skynetting, because I think that's an awesome mechanic and would love to do it.
They're removing skynetting 2 days before my training finishes.
I almost want my 2-3 months and 900 million for the skill books back. They've removed 80% of the reason I ever wanted a carrier. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
958
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 21:56:37 -
[1265] - Quote
Talon Stormcrow wrote:My solution for fixing the fighter assigning "issue".
New carrier module - allows carrier to go into "Launch mode" (think triage mode). In launch mode a carrier cannot move or warp. Carriers can only launch fighters/bombers in this mode (it can launch drones in any mode). Launch mode cannot be activated within 100k of any FIXED object. Module would have a 60 second activation/deactivation delay. Launch mode allows the carrier to "link" to another ship and receive its targeting data by using a new ship link module. Carrier can then lock targets and send fighters to engage from off grid.
'''
Obviously there are details that would need to be fleshed out. This is just an idea so don't flame me to bad.
A new module for delegation (along similar style to bastion) isn't a terrible idea IMO but carriers should still be able to use fighters (on grid) without having to use it. As per my earlier post it should like bastion give some local tank bonuses, short duration but weapons timer in the same way when activated, it shouldn't give any tracking or damage bonus but a fighter EHP bonus possibly and maybe some other ancillary bonuses either to the carrier or to fighters i.e. bump in carrier scan res not to triage levels) for usage without delegation. |
Necharo Rackham
The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
54
|
Posted - 2015.03.20 22:09:35 -
[1266] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:If deploying fighters in relative safety is the issue then either remove fighter warp ability or make fighter assist an ongrid only thing.
TBH as someone who encounters these things; I'd be happy with making fighter assist ongrid only. I'd be fine with fighters warping - as long as it's possible to point them. I also think that use of fighters should give an aggression timer (which they currently don't).
However, the changes are what they are, so vOv. |
John McCreedy
Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi
180
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 00:05:47 -
[1267] - Quote
I don't know if this has been suggested already but why not just remove the ability to assign drones when you're within XXX KM of a Station/Outpost/POS? You remove the safety net from Carriers and Super Carriers but don't nerf their ability to provide support to smaller ships.
11 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
|
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4149
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 00:19:12 -
[1268] - Quote
Jennifer Maxwell wrote:I train up for a carrier specifically to use it for skynetting, because I think that's an awesome mechanic and would love to do it. It's like anything else in this game: If it gets abused, the nerf bat lurketh.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Jennifer Maxwell
Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate
242
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 00:35:37 -
[1269] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Jennifer Maxwell wrote:I train up for a carrier specifically to use it for skynetting, because I think that's an awesome mechanic and would love to do it. It's like anything else in this game: If it gets abused, the nerf bat lurketh. Just like Ishtars, right?
Oh wait. |
Tyranis Marcus
Bloody Heathens
1412
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 01:03:42 -
[1270] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla.
This thread is for discussing the proposed removal of fighter assist for carriers and super carriers.
This change being largely driven by 'skynetting' which is a tactic where carriers and super carriers can sit in near perfect safety at the edge of starbase shields and assign thousands of DPS worth of fighter drones to their fleet mates who can fly whatever ship they want *) , while wielding an enormous amount of damage. We feel this is not meeting our standards for risk vs reward and therefor would like to remove the ability to assist fighters. More details are covered in this dev blog.
A particular point of feedback that we are interested in surrounds the ability of fighters to warp. We know that in some circumstances it can be frustrating to have your fighters warp off grid to chase a target when you would rather have them move to another target on grid with you instead. We also know that fighter warping is unique and provides some interesting gameplay in some scenarios. 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.
*) *snip* Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal.
What? Rise got snipped by ISD?
:) Dude!
Do not run. We are your friends.
|
|
Erasmus Grant
EVE University Ivy League
21
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 02:35:54 -
[1271] - Quote
Please do not remove skynet for Sov. Null. I think this brings a cool feature to the battlespace to sov. null. If you have to make a structure or deployable that helps enable Skynet in sov null.
Or keep skynet altogether and develop a ship that can block or disrupt the signal going from the carrier to the fighter near that ship. Range or effectiveness depending on skill. Effect stacks with multiple ships.
This could also work with off grid boost. |
Irya Boone
Never Surrender.
448
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 03:25:33 -
[1272] - Quote
Nooooppee remove the assist , remove the warp *
no remove fighters and fighters bombers and remove all dps abilities to supers ( or just remove them from the game already !!
CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails
.... Open that damn door !!
|
Tear Jar
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
324
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 08:25:31 -
[1273] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello
Appreciate all the feedback very much.
Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist.
We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving.
Thanks again.
The problem with removing fighter assist is how absurdly long it takes to lock stuff in a super. Especially now that the fighters themselves have long lock times. Fighters are supposed to be a way to deal with small ships, so they need a way to target them in a reasonable amount of time. |
Tear Jar
Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE.
324
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 08:26:45 -
[1274] - Quote
Phoenix Jones wrote:Nolak Ataru wrote:afkalt wrote:I'm still waiting for even one of these risk averse cowards to explain why, in a world where people are against off grid boosting, they think off grid DPS is somehow "ok"....Cost and training time are not a reason. Man up, put it on grid. If you don't have the fortitude for that risk, stop flying it. Hell you get change out 1.5b for an archon these days. People lose ships worth that on a daily basis. It has been explained countless times in this thread, but we forgive you for not reading. All one has to do is look at the Revenant KM to be able to laugh at anyone saying skynetting is 100% safe, but we are willing to sacrifice a bit; namely, have a bubble around a POS from which you cannot delegate fighters from. Yup. I'll just make sure to have my 700,000,000,000 worth of Titans around to camp the guys log off spot with bubbles and yolo him :-). Also it was a revenant. Skynet or not people want to kill those. 100% is an absolute, nothing is 100%. 99.9 is the correct option :-)
people want to kill Revenants no matter what, but people need a reason to log those Revenants in. |
Laura Agathon
Nothing on Dscan
14
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 12:26:13 -
[1275] - Quote
So the issue is having fighters assignable, and them being able to operate remotely from the carrier...
Removing fighter assist completely voids some use-cases like a smaller ship controlling the fighters while the capital does other stuff on grid, like logistics. Instead of removing fighter assist and warp completely, could we not avoid Skynet by disallowing assisted fighters from warping?
This means that
- Assisted ship has to be on-grid (or within certain range) of carrier
- Carrier is always in "danger" (Would need to ensure that assisting fighters triggers a weapons timer, I'm unsure if this works currently)
- Fighters/Bombers can still follow the carrier across space (keeping in line with the lore, of them being piloted and such)
- Fighters/Bombers can still follow a target across space if manually targeted by their owner.
TL;DR, skynet is dead, and fighters retain their unique functionality that separates them from drones. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
958
|
Posted - 2015.03.21 13:54:54 -
[1276] - Quote
Laura Agathon wrote:So the issue is having fighters assignable, and them being able to operate remotely from the carrier...
The issue is - fighters relatively recently becoming an effective weapons platform against... anything pretty much. Its been possible to assign fighters for years but no one complained when they struggled to hit anything smaller than a battleship - when they can blast the average roaming ship to nothing with ease that is completely unbalanced and the source of 99% of the complaints about skynet that I'm aware of (obviously no one complaining likes the relative safety of the carrier either).
Entirely taking away the bonuses that allow them to have the tracking and speed to make that possible would be a step backwards IMO. There is a "simple" elegant fix but it seems the technical nature of it is beyond most people to understand the implications of it.
The fact that in a typical "skynet" situation the carrier pilot can with the right techniques (the revenant kill has NO bearing on this) make themselves 99% immune to repercussion isn't ideal from a game balance perspective either (irrespective of fixes to reduce fighter effectiveness).
Wholesale removal of a long standing feature due to some overpowered use in edge cases should never be anything but a last resort if there is no other way to fix a game breaking feature. |
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
95
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 00:57:29 -
[1277] - Quote
I found out most people saying ban skynet... Have never actually fought fighters. With the last nerf, fighters take for ever to shoot anything, even a capital ship!
It takes a special type of idiot to get killed by a swarm of fighters when h is in a frigate... |
Laura Agathon
Nothing on Dscan
15
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:25:52 -
[1278] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:I found out most people saying ban skynet... Have never actually fought fighters. With the last nerf, fighters take for ever to shoot anything, even a capital ship!
It takes a special type of idiot to get killed by a swarm of fighters when h is in a frigate...
Yeah, they're just jumping on the nerf-this-OP-ship bandwagon.
|
Donoven Nolen
Trans-Atlantic Industrial Management
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 02:44:09 -
[1279] - Quote
honestly i think that the fighter/ fighter/bomber drones should still be able to assist smaller ships without any lack of the usual bonuses received from the carrier that's using them but they should not be able to assist ships that are off grid. as for the warping and following targets....i believe that they should still be able to do that but only if the carrier itself is the one that had the initial target lock on the ship that warps out, when not locked by the carrier but locked by a drone assisted ship the drones would simply return and orbit. as for the being safe behind a POS shield, just prevent all ships from launching drones while within a POS FF so that you cant do any kind of 'safe' drone sniping. force players to continue to help each other with drone assist when using such fleets but also make it so that they have to avidly defend their drone assistance major or else they loose the assistance all together and are back to just being a small gang outside of a POS shield. if you really want to prevent any kind of 'safe' sniping then make it so that to hit anything inside/outside of a FF you have to be on that side, controlling the POS turrets which would make your actual ship next to useless anyway, or have to destroy the shield first to get at whats inside. then nothing could shoot targets without being shot at unless controlling an already in existence mechanic such as controlling POS turrets. why remove something that makes players work together? why not make them work together even harder to do such things so that those who actually figure out how to do it right profit from it and those who fail just end up as another defeated fleet? why remove more of the uniqueness that makes EVE so special from everything else out there? |
Arthur Aihaken
Narada
4163
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 04:17:11 -
[1280] - Quote
Really, all Drone Assist should be eliminated. Then Fighters and Fighter Bombers can have their sensor/targeting aspects reinstated.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
958
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:49:56 -
[1281] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:I found out most people saying ban skynet... Have never actually fought fighters. With the last nerf, fighters take for ever to shoot anything, even a capital ship!
It takes a special type of idiot to get killed by a swarm of fighters when h is in a frigate...
They don't take all that long if your mwding (with the sig bloom) trying to escape. If your not pointed and/or reasonably close to gate without aggression then great. |
Gevlin
Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic
257
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 05:59:32 -
[1282] - Quote
In 2007 you could have your drones work for you when you were inside the shield... Those were the days.
Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again.
|
Jiro Arcturus
Ascending Angels
0
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 09:57:39 -
[1283] - Quote
I think removing Fighter Assist would solve the issue. Still allow fighters to warp after targets the carrier designates on-grid. Make the fighters a defensive buffer, like bees around a nest, instead of the zero-risk power projection they are now. Also have the fighters 'deactivate' if the carrier crosses back into the POS bubble, forcing them to accept the loss of their fighters in order to abuse the shield's defense. The carriers still get to send their fighters around the system chasing aggressors, but they can't piggy-back them on cheap/fast buddy ships, or have them come trotting home when you cross the shield barrier.
"Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -Albert Einstein
|
Petrified
Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
238
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 10:35:53 -
[1284] - Quote
With the proposed changes to Structures (no Super Soap Bubble), it would make sense to bring back fighter assist with the provision the assisting pilot is uniquely flagged and cannot moor or otherwise dock until the timer ticks off. |
Ruri Dant
Onorata Societa
1
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 18:09:28 -
[1285] - Quote
I suggest that the fighters that we have now have removed the ability to warp, and a new type of "assist fighter" be introduced, less powerful, less ehp and more expendable, (something inbetween a heavy t2 and a fighter) be introduced |
SilentAsTheGrave
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
128
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 18:12:26 -
[1286] - Quote
These tears. My cup, overflowith.
Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with valid a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
|
Nolak Ataru
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
794
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 20:26:05 -
[1287] - Quote
Rroff wrote:They don't take all that long if your mwding (with the sig bloom) trying to escape. If your not pointed and/or reasonably close to gate without aggression then great. If they have people who are 151km+ away, they can warp in and pop you anyways. Most people who use skynet fighters use a frigate-size hull for the high speed and high scan res, which means they're generally weak. |
Lacellas Jameson
StarKnight Security
3
|
Posted - 2015.03.22 22:28:32 -
[1288] - 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.
|
Aeryn Maricadie
Periphery Bound
9
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 03:36:54 -
[1289] - Quote
how about making it so that one, you must be in deadspace to assist, and make it like siege or triage, you can't move while fighters are assigned. |
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
98
|
Posted - 2015.03.23 04:35:12 -
[1290] - Quote
CCP should have done this: Can't assign fighters while near a POS. Assigned fighters use base stats, skill book, modules and ship bonus do not work when assigned. |
|
|
|
|
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 |