|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1123
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:14:58 -
[1] - Quote
Removing fighter assign is good. Removing fighter warp is bad.
I can't follow a target warping to a safespot in my combat ship, so fighters being able to follow targets continuously is odd.
But I can always warp to a member of my fleet in the same system, and I can fleet warp, so at a minimum, fighters should always be able to warp TO the carriers location when the carriers location, and warp WITH the carrier when the carrier warps.
But feel free to remove the follow aggressed target function, it wouldn't be much of a loss. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1124
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:56:25 -
[2] - Quote
Agent Unknown wrote:Traiori wrote:Make fighter warp a toggleable option (if it isn't already - I haven't flown a DPS carrier in a long time) in drone options. This stops them leaving when you don't want them to, but maintains their individuality.
"Fighter Warp: Y/N" There's a "Attack and Follow" tickbox. This would eliminate the issue CCP brought up with fighters chasing people who warp away while allowing it to be the choice of the pilot. They'll still follow you when you warp regardless of the setting. RIP CCP nerfbatting capitals a month after I invested in one.
Never trust CCP to do the non literal version of what they said. If they said "remove fighter warping", assume until they say otherwise that the blind nerfbat will crush all applications of fighter warping, including returning to the carrier and following carrier in warp.
Best to make absolutely sure they know peoples opinions and to try and pin them down on EXACTLY what their proposal on the topic is.
Again, Remove assist, keep drone warping, even if it's just drones following the carrier in warp. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1126
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 16:11:44 -
[3] - Quote
Caleb Seremshur wrote:How on earth has this garbage topic remained at the top? Just how many afk pvpers and botting ratters are there in this game? It's a sticky you blathering idiot, of course it's at the top.
Also it's a fairly big deal for a lot of people.
I for example use fighters only for ratting (directly controlled by the carrier, so assign change does not effect me) and on grid support for my slowcat, so this change does not effect my PvP, but the warp changes do mean that I am forced to recall fighters 100km+ between each PvE site.
That in turn takes the time it takes for me to run a site from around 7 minutes to 9, dropping my isk per hour by a good 50-60 mil/hour.
If you want to look at "botting ratters", go look at AFKtars, not carriers. |
Anhenka
The Cult of Personality DARKNESS.
1137
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:10:38 -
[4] - Quote
Cpt Patrick Archer wrote:Kane Carnifex wrote: Hello CCP Rise,
I didn't saw any good point against it but many for it. Is it a real problem which small/medium gangs get raped when they search for juice ganks? As this was my first time in a Forum trying to raise my voice i am disappointed neither i got a good discussion running or good feedback about my points. I have the feeling my voice just died under all these small scale pvp player which have a problem with fighters as they search for easy kills.
Why does CCP always thinks in grey zones and in this time you go Black or White and nothing between....
This is the 3rd nerf i see in my capital time and i still don't have the feeling which my capitals are OP.
Thank you for opening this Thread, unfortunately it doesn-Št has any impact if you write in it or not.
This reply is spot-on sir. Couldn't have said it any better.
If your voice was suffocated under the mass of people disagreeing with you, then apparently voices were heard and you were just in the minority.
That's not oppression, that's CCP listening to the feedback of the majority of their players over a whiny minority when it comes to feedback. |
|
|
|