| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9909
   |
Posted - 2015.02.26 22:09:32 -
[1] - Quote
Scipio Artelius wrote:Removing fighter assist mechanic and removing ability for fighters to warp off grid from the carrier.
As someone who has lost ships in TAMA to the fighter assist mechanic, I say, sad to see it go. Just a case of huge whinge within the have-not part of the community, affecting another part of the community. "CCP please fix, because I'm too weak too" .
I stopped using fighter assist in PVE a long time ago because I like Alpha'ing npcs with sentries when I do anoms (and im on grid with the fighters when doing lvl 5 missions).
But arrrrrgggrh this is stupid. CCP removing a very cool and ancient mechanic rather than fixing the actual problem they created when they allowed fighters and FBs to recieve boosts from mods and skills. CCP is slipping back into some old bad thinking patterns here, because they are punishing people for creative use of existing mechanics rather than fixing the actual problem causers or doing more sensible things like keeping carriers from deploying fighters near a POS or station.
CCP won't be happy till creative people are handcuffed completely it seems. And like you said, all because people are too weak to assign someone to find the carrier and force it to dock or go in shields. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9909
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 00:49:59 -
[2] - Quote
I tell you one thing that does suck. In null sec in cases where a cloaky camper would be present I would rat in my tanked Tech1 Hauler with fighters assigned daring the mofo to hotdrop me and had some hilarious results. I started doing that because instead of crying about cloaky campers some of us decide to do something about it. That and things like that will never happen again. This is just another nail...
As I said, so much for creativity, gotta protect those lazy people who don't wanna burn any brain cells in a video game dontcha know. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9909
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 01:29:58 -
[3] - Quote
Ilaister wrote:Rain6637 wrote:I'm wondering why this is being addressed right now, after all this time. A couple things that come to mind are Sov and Drifters. Possibly related.
. Possibly. There has also been a spate of people sitting just outside their POS shields and assigning fighters to frigate camps in lowsec = instadeath for anyone jumping in without a cloak. Aggro was assigned to the carrier, so no gateguns for the frigs to worry about. I fail to see why everyone's so mad. It's a broken mechanic. If you want the effects of your ship to be felt, you should be on grid risking it. Asking every gang who wants to take frigs into low to bring a) enough people and b) the right ships to deal with bumping a carrier into it's POS is missing the point a little. Crappy gameplay for all involved despite the 'imagination' shown by the risk-averse in their caps.
The problem is "standard CCP operating procedure" .
Step one: create a problem that sees an old mechanic that no one complained about become massively overpower in a narrow set of circumstances.
Step 2: Nerf the old mechanic but leave the new stuff THAT CREATED THE PROBLEM completely alone. Don't forget to use a jackhammer to nerf something that only requires a scalpel.
They did it when they nerfed fighter scan res because a few people abused a bug (while not even touching the faulty mechanic/bug), and it's happening again. Not the end of the world, but it's damn annoying to see it happen again and again. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9909
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 02:02:54 -
[4] - Quote
Ilaister wrote:Jenn aSide wrote:
The problem is "standard CCP operating procedure" .
Step one: create a problem that sees an old mechanic that no one complained about become massively overpower in a narrow set of circumstances.
Step 2: Nerf the old mechanic but leave the new stuff THAT CREATED THE PROBLEM completely alone. Don't forget to use a jackhammer to nerf something that only requires a scalpel.
They did it when they nerfed fighter scan res because a few people abused a bug (while not even touching the faulty mechanic/bug), and it's happening again. Not the end of the world, but it's damn annoying to see it happen again and again.
First legit argument I've seen against the changes, I hope you make your argument that well in the post when it goes live. You realise you will be drowned out by all the ouin ouin from those that only ever bought their carrier to rat though. Perhaps it's best we bear in mind with a game this complex, and players this - zealous? - CCP will never be able to see all ends, and we can't see the code that needs reworking to fix it, nor the number of petitions generated etc etc.
My experience with CCP is that they won't listen, by the time they announce a change they've made their mind up. Their game so all good. But you'd think they'd know better by now, taking away fighters ability to warp is going to mean less carrier ratters (some still will, hell I carrier rat sometimes with sentries and an inertia stab fit) and carrier ratters getting caught is the beginning of much hilarious content.
It's like CCP doesn't know how their game 'fits' together. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9910
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 02:28:06 -
[5] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:d0cTeR9 wrote:Actually it has happened... But good try sounding smart. SP has only ever been given back after a skill was removed from the game. Not just because they changed the ship and YOU (Or hell, everyone) think it's not useful anymore. CCP's made significant changes to lots of ships before, most of them had people cursing about how they were destroying it.. once or twice people were right, still, you never got your SP Back. It's not going to happen.
This is true, asking for SP back is a waste of time.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9919
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:30:42 -
[6] - Quote
Brutus Utama wrote:As a fairly new player who has no experience using the "skynet" advantage i disagree with it being removed...
they should have limited it to bandwith as said earlier in this thread per 25mb bandwith you should be able to field 1 assigned fighter so vexor for example can 4 a harbinger can take 2 and most frigates can take 0 etc etc.... this is still a nerf but also not so badly it makes everyone flip their **** and claim caps are useless ( i wouldnt know i dont have the skills to fly one), wasnt the original argument that small ships using the fighters was the issue....? so they remove the biggest advantage of carriers altogether?
also if you know a system has assigned fighters in just ignore it and go elsewhere....there is hundreds of systems out there they dont all have a carrier assigning fighters...
if they are removing off grid fighters then it would only make sense to remove off grid boosters aswell... i have often seen a loki/confessor arrive in system loki cloaks up confessor runs around with huge boosts to speed sig shield etc and the loki is 100% safe whilst cloaked is this not basically the same thing as "skynetting"... getting a bonus from a ship which is 100% safe and not on grid...
Exactly. They have so many options that they could use that would kill the thing they want to kill ("skynet") without totally screwing over carriers and fighters (for pvp and pve), and the option they choose is the one that...totally screws over carrier and fighters for pvp and pve lol.
Limiting fighters to the receiving ship's bandwidth (and I would add player skill, if a player can only deploy 4 drones in a ship that can deploy 5 because of skills, he could only use a max of 4 fighters also) is a great idea that eliminates one of the 2 biggest complaints about 'skynet'.
The other complaint (safety of the carrier/SC) can be fixed by preventing a them from deploying fighters within 250 km of a POS or station.
Hell, they could make a new "Carrier Siege Mod" that a carrier would have to activate if it wanted to send fighters off grid. So you know that any carrier that assigns fighters is locked in place for 5 minutes away from a pos or station so it doesn't matter if they aligned or not.
The above ideas may or may not have merit, but CCP seems to go for the easiest nerf they can, that's not good game development policy IMO. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9954
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 16:45:15 -
[7] - Quote
Ab'del Abu wrote:
That's just a huge pile of bullshyt. Before the fighter/drones balance pass the assign mechanic was barely being used by anyone ... yet, now CCP is totally screwing over super and carrier pilots?
CCP says they don't like it from a design point of view and for once that's a 100% valid call.
See that bolded part. That means the THING THAT ALREADY EXISTED didn't cause the problem, the 'balance pass' did. So if you have 2 things (1 thing that causes a problem and 1 thing that doesn't cause a problem) who in hell does it make sense to change the thing that didn't cause the problem?
Creative people found uses for the fighter delegation mechanic before CCP muffed it up with drone mods/bonuses. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
10002
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 17:53:35 -
[8] - Quote
Steppa Musana wrote:Delt0r Garsk wrote:Holysmokes some of the stuff in this thread is funny.
Cloaked Links, 6000DPS assigned fighter damage etc... (as pointed out if your a TL;DR person, links don't work cloaked, and you can only assign a max of 5 fighters ).
There are clearly some people that believe the only way they die is when the others had a "unfair" advantage.
This is Eve. It is your job to be on the other side of unfair. Yeah they are using capital ship weapons, on subcaps, without putting the capital ships at risk. Id say thats unfair. The subcap ships are all balanced against one another and you throw that all away allowing these kinds of drones to be fielded like that.
And again that wasn't in the least bit a problem when those "capital ship weapons" couldn't hit anything sub-capital sized. The problem wasn't fighter delegation it IS CCP's phoebe fighter changes. Rather than getting rid of cool and unique features, CCP should attack the actual problem, which was their own poor thinking prior to the Phoebe patch when it comes to fighters.
|
| |
|