| 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) |
|
CCP Rise
C C P
C C P Alliance
4914
   |
Posted - 2015.02.27 10:41:27 -
[1] - Quote
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 cirumstances 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.
@ccp_rise
|
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15245
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 10:48:28 -
[2] - Quote
Death to all capitals
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
DeadDuck
The Legion of Spoon
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
129
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 10:50:14 -
[3] - Quote
Just remove fighter assist. TBH remove Drone assist in all kinds of drones/fighters/fighter bombers. |
Kailen Thorn
Common Sense Ltd
Nulli Secunda
16
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 10:58:45 -
[4] - Quote
Don't remove Fighter warp, it is one of the unique features of carriers. Same as 25 FighterBomber's for supers but you removed that.
As for assignable fighters, make them assignable for cruisers and higher.
Or you cannot assign when close to a POS |
Walextheone
The Red Circle Inc.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
94
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:07:23 -
[5] - Quote
From a small gang roaming perspective it's really annoying not to be able to point / scram/ thoose pesky fighters. |
afkalt
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
758
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:08:10 -
[6] - Quote
I'm happy with warping fighters. |
Sieur NewT
Teutate raiders
DARKNESS.
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:08:39 -
[7] - Quote
i'm against removing fighter assist.
removing it is a bad idea.
if you do that, super cap will be useless
it's BAD
and near force field, supercap is not "safe"
a titan can jump in 1 seconde and DD
it's not safe
it's juste "less dangerous"
i agree to nerf A LITTLE fighter assist, but not HEAVY nerf
i agree to make impossible to assign to inty's
but i think assist super's fighter to carrier MUST stay.
so, please, CCP, don't do that this way. let the super assist to carrier. carrier only if you want.
and for fighter you can warp or not, let them warp when they are assist, and not when they are not assist.
thx you and do the right thing. :) |
Gilbaron
Free-Space-Ranger
Nulli Secunda
1639
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:12:01 -
[8] - Quote
can't you disallow fighter assist from within 50km of a tower instead ? that's gonna produce some lovely killmails
removing fighter warp is completely unnessecarry
Build your empire !
Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist
Contact me for details :)
|
TrickyBlackSteel
Snuff Box
Snuffed Out
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:13:20 -
[9] - Quote
I have an idea,when you assist the fighters,you can make twice weaker in shield/armor structure,like very easy to kill them |
Anthar Thebess
891
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:14:07 -
[10] - Quote
Remove:
- fighter assist.
- fighter follow in warp the target.
Keep:
- fighters warping with the carrier
So you can send fighters only against target on grid.
When the target warps off the grid fighters will NOT follow.
When the carrier warps off the grid fighters will drop aggro and follow the carrier.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
|
|
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
214
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:16:07 -
[11] - Quote
Awesome move!
Keep them tears coming, dear carebears. |
Capqu
Love Squad
Confederation of xXPIZZAXx
998
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:16:21 -
[12] - Quote
impressed at the speed & severity of this change
you're a good man rise
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
|
Aiyshimin
Fistful of Finns
Triumvirate.
404
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:24:27 -
[13] - Quote
Finally!
Please do keep fighter warping though. |
Axloth Okiah
Future Corps
Sleeper Social Club
545
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:25:16 -
[14] - Quote
How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable?
W-Space Realtor
|
baltec1
Bat Country
Goonswarm Federation
15249
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:27:24 -
[15] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable?
I like that.
Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
|
Hopelesshobo
Tactical Nuclear Penguin's
412
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:28:20 -
[16] - Quote
Instead of removing fighter assist, why not create a highslot module called a Fighter Assist Link. This module would allow a certain amount of bandwidth of fighters and bombers to be assigned. They could come in a variety of sizes so small ships might only be able to have 1 fighter assisted to it, while a large one could have several bombers assigned to it.
Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
906
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:42:43 -
[17] - Quote
Gilbaron wrote:can't you disallow fighter assist from within 50km of a tower instead ? that's gonna produce some lovely killmails
removing fighter warp is completely unnessecarry
Disallowing assignment when in proximity of control tower and station structures would pretty much balance out the risk factor without a knock on effect on unrelated carrier use.
Not a fan of removing fighter warping or making them pointable.
I do think fighter should have sig scaling on their damage titan style (though different parameters) so that they can't blap smaller stuff. |
Alvatore DiMarco
Capricious Endeavours Ltd
3529
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:48:26 -
[18] - Quote
Sieur NewT wrote:i'm against removing fighter assist.
removing it is a bad idea.
if you do that, super cap will be useless
it's BAD
Anything and everything that makes supercaps useless is good.
Death to all supers.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
808
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:50:14 -
[19] - Quote
so instead of finding a way to make it so you could not assign a fighter while near a POS or station
(perhaps adding a mode like the D3s have that can only be activated when x distance away from a pos/station)
this would not need fancy code such as what distance from these things fighters can be sent out
and it would not need to add a module to do the same thing just a button
you decided screw it lets just take it out of the game
Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
|
Arla Sarain
319
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 11:59:32 -
[20] - Quote
DeadDuck wrote:Just remove fighter assist.
Just remove drone assist.
Kill skynet, sentries and one man "bothered to target the primary" drone fleets in one go. |
|
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
1006
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:02:21 -
[21] - Quote
fighter warping doesn't provide interesting gameplay at all though. |
Pomponius Sabinus
Loot und Sonstiges
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:03:30 -
[22] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: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.
Well it seems like you realised the problem is risk vs reward while asigning fighters from the edge of a POS FF. But instead of making it more interesting by finding some way to make it more dangerous to asign fighters you sadly take the easy way out and just remove it. It would be way more interesting for the game if you found a way to make carriers that asigned fighters more vulnerable.
The best way to adress this Problem would be to not allow asigning fighters within a certain distance to a POS. This will create a lot of interesting encounters / fights over carier/super carriers that are caught while they asigned fighters.
Concerning fighter warp there is no problem with that. People that don't want it can hit the don't follow button and all is fine. |
Proton Stars
OREfull
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:07:37 -
[23] - Quote
Has any thought gone into this at all?
From an attackers point of view you want to either kill the fighters or the capitals, but people are not going to put these assets on gates so by removing remote assist you remove any chance of them being used!
You need to bother to look at the Risk Vs reward of these changes. You have gone from ALL reward, No risk to NO reward so wont bother to risk.
I like the idea that fighters can be scrambled and killed, i like the idea that carriers must move out of the shields a little bit further (or sit on a station which is very dangerous due to bumping) both of these allow the mechanic to still exist but at a cost.
|
GeeShizzle MacCloud
518
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:09:55 -
[24] - Quote
Considering the changes to cynos on POS's the safety of having assisted fighters whilst skirting the POS shields is badly out of balance in terms of risk/reward, especially as dipping into the shields your fighters come back safely.
A midpoint may be that fighters not on grid don't come back if you dip into POS shields or that being in a POS shield prevents fighters from returning. and instead sit idle and can be killed.
However this midway point would be the continued adoption of current POS shields which i believe CCP wants to replace with something with a lot less caveats and workarounds.
I would also like to say that the manner that fighters 'appear' on grid after warping is also terrible and not consistent to how 'ships' land on grid. As fighters are essentially small ships they should land and be subject to the same mechanics that player warping adheres to, if this assisted fighter mechanic is not deleted outright. |
stubbsie Panala
The Ebil Empire
Defiant Ebil.
9
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:15:44 -
[25] - Quote
Keep fighter assist but make it so there is a minimum distance the carrier has to be from a POS or station of like 15-20 /Km. This still makes viable for drone assisting but at a very high risk cost
Small change for Ship Maintenance Arrays
|
Janeway84
Def Squadron
Pride Before Fall
139
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:23:35 -
[26] - Quote
Wouldn't it be better to make it so you can't assist from to close a range of a pos force field?
But I haven't ran into this special issue myself but whatever.
Also why not make fighters warp scrammable / ewar sensitive like others have suggested? 
There should be higher tier ships that veteran players can use and find fun imo. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
1006
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:27:36 -
[27] - Quote
stubbsie Panala wrote:Keep fighter assist but make it so there is a minimum distance the carrier has to be from a POS or station of like 15-20 /Km. This still makes viable for drone assisting but at a very high risk cost
actually that's still risk-free. just align to a pos or station. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
906
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:35:41 -
[28] - Quote
Its relatively low risk but still a chance of being bumped out of alignment or not paying attention gets you into trouble - unlike now where you can for instance just online the FF and be immediately immune and/or shrug off anyone attacking. |
Arya Regnar
Darwins Right Hand
674
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:38:25 -
[29] - Quote
Just make the fighters pointable and make it so that proximity to a pos (within 50km) makes it impossible to assign them whether the FF is up or not.
EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
|
Worrff
Viziam
Amarr Empire
61
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:43:31 -
[30] - Quote
This
Proton Stars wrote:Has any thought gone into this at all?
From an attackers point of view you want to either kill the fighters or the capitals, but people are not going to put these assets on gates so by removing remote assist you remove any chance of them being used!
You need to bother to look at the Risk Vs reward of these changes. You have gone from ALL reward, No risk to NO reward so wont bother to risk.
And this...
Anthar Thebess wrote:Remove:
- fighter assist.
- fighter follow in warp the target.
Keep:
- fighters warping with the carrier
So you can send fighters only against target on grid.
When the target warps off the grid fighters will NOT follow.
When the carrier warps off the grid fighters will drop aggro and follow the carrier.
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |