|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Cpt Patrick Archer
Quam Singulari
Northern Associates.
7
   |
Posted - 2015.03.02 17:00:41 -
[1] - Quote
I've had a quick readthrough of most of the pages and I felt like I had to comment anyway. If only to give more power to the already mentioned points.
It may become a long one, so here's a TL;DR for ya all:
- Killing fighterassists will hurt the new players.
- A lot of effort to get a (super)carrier, especially when you are just starting off. (This is a good thing).
- Combat:
* Attack someone's homesystem with a 5-10 man gang, without a proper scout party you should get raped anyway.
* Easy ways to disengage
* Does not create extra content for 'capital pilots'
- Possible fix:
* I totally agree with the same suggestion that has been posted about 1000 times now, minimum distance from forcefield
* Or capital is not able to move/jump/cloak untill fighters are returned to their own grid (unless they are scrambled maybe?)
For the long one:
Killing fighterassists will hurt the new players.
I spead for our corporation and many others that I know. We use skynet to give new players (1- 4 months) free fighters to help them with ratting and make some extra isk. This way they can start flying ships that are actually meaningfull in small gang nullsec combat and enjoy the game, instead of rotting away on level 4's in highsec.
A lot of effort to get a (super)carrier, especially when you are just starting off. (This is a good thing).
Players have spend years to perfect characters to pilot these awesome capitals, spend billions upon billions to aquire them. And now one of the features that makes a carrier unique is just getting removed. Making the assest, years of training and billions next to useless in quite a few scenario's.
Combat:
* I personally think that if you are roaming with a gang of about 5-10 people (these are apparently the people that actually get 'hurt' by fighter assists) and you are attacking someone's homesystem. You are going to have losses.
* These proposed changes remove content for super accounts, making them less usefull and not important to keep subscribed for quite a number of supercapital owners. I do not think that people will warp supers to gates to kill an Ishtar gang or whatever.
What I do see happening is people warping their damage/tracking fit carrier to the gate, bypassing subcaps completely (apart from a few fasttackle) and remote sensorboosting the carriers for the same effect.
Small gang still gets raped, because they shouldn't be in a position to kill any number of capitals in a 10 man gang anyways.
* The creating extra content agrument is especially missing it's point because nobody in their right mind is going to put their main and only toon in a super. The guys at the gate are usually the mains, so they are not missing content.
I do think that there needs to be more risk involved in assigning fighters because it's a big force multiplier, but removing them completely is outragous, shortsighted and removes an awesome and unique gamemechanic that does not ruin gameplay, but creates it. Otherwise people might choose to blueball.
Possible fix:
* Minimum distance from POS like tons of others have pitched already.
* (Super)caps can't move untill fighters are back on grid with the ship. This increases the risk a lot, and makes a super that is assigning fighters a viable target for a 10-20 man gang without killing this awesome feature. |
Cpt Patrick Archer
Quam Singulari
Northern Associates.
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 10:51:01 -
[2] - Quote
Suitonia wrote:
There is still many exploits you can do without being next to a POS force field.
Such as?
If CCP would make it so that assigning fighters stops your carrier from warping/jump/cloaking and needs to be at least 50km from the pos shield (edit: or station or gate etc), it can easily be killed.
Risk vs. Reward... |
Cpt Patrick Archer
Quam Singulari
Northern Associates.
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 13:24:46 -
[3] - Quote
afkalt wrote:Very much so, if you consider it a carrier only thing.
However....."Gecko V2.0 - Super heavy drone 50m3, can be assigned to off grid fleet mates, battleship only drone".
Same mechanic, cost and skill time irrelevant (as they ought to be)...you honestly think people would go for that? I seriously doubt it.
That discussion is not very relevant I don't think.
The fact is that we have this awesome feature, had it for years. Sure it's not very balanced and definitely needs tweaking, but removing is not the answer. As I hope to God, CCP can guess if they count the replies to this thread.
The problem with the figher assists is that the carrier can't be killed, apart from a very lucky and welltimed drive-by.
If this is changed I think the feature is perfectly balanced.
Sure the fighters will still be powerful, but that is no different than a frigate being less powerful than a well-fit/well-flown destroyer or cruiser that is specifically designed to kill those frigates. |
Cpt Patrick Archer
Quam Singulari
Northern Associates.
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 13:59:38 -
[4] - Quote
It's obvious that something needed to changed, but CCP clearly doesn't have the funds/priority/isn't pro-acitve towards fixing a feature. It's better to remove it completely because that saves a lot of hours/days of programming, and people will stay subscribed nontheless..
It's a damn ******* shame, but at least we've got pretty much 43 pages of people protesting this 'improvement'. If subscriptions decade we can just say "I told you so" even though it probably won't be the cause 
In any case; remote sebo and tracking/dmg thanny's here we come! Add a triage archon and all the infidels coming into my system will still go out in pods. |
Cpt Patrick Archer
Quam Singulari
Northern Associates.
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 14:16:44 -
[5] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
Appreciate all the feedback very much.
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.
I think we are all looking forward to that day.
|
Cpt Patrick Archer
Quam Singulari
Northern Associates.
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 14:36:05 -
[6] - Quote
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. |
Cpt Patrick Archer
Quam Singulari
Northern Associates.
33
|
Posted - 2015.03.03 15:44:19 -
[7] - Quote
afkalt wrote:
This had to die, it really did. Efforts to get some neat ideas together for the rebalance might be a good way to go forward.
I don't agree with you on the first part, but definitely on the second part.
Let's hope they do survey's to query their ideas with the playerbase, on top of the CSM. Since the election proces is so incredibly complicated that hardly anyone bothers to vote. I tried to vote 2 times in a row, maybe i'll get around to it now.
Back on topic, CCP when can we expect carrier changes? Is this included in the nullsec update and building stargates and all that, or is this planned afterwards?
Which means multiple carrier accounts can stay unsubbed untill then?
|
|
|
| |
|