|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 2 post(s) |
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
61
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:43:31 -
[1] - 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.
|
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
61
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:41:46 -
[2] - Quote
Anon Nymous wrote:my take on it is to give them sellectable "pursue to warp" setting (where the focus fire checkbox is)
That option is already there.
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
61
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 08:33:24 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Rise............
25 pages of feedback. Do you think it's time for a comment from you yet ?
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
63
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:05:50 -
[4] - Quote
The best bit is that you can tell that CCP Rise has never used fighters from a carrier himself, as he didn't know that there is an option to stop the fighters following a target.
Awesome idea of Devs nerfing things they have no clue about, and no experience with.
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
63
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:10:55 -
[5] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote: I feel like you are asking for some kind of special treatment. Being that this affects all of null, low and WH space (to an extent) how dare you demand a response on page 25. Your over developed sense of entitlement sickens me.
I have posted in many threads, and complained many times about the lack of response of the Devs, so don't be an idiot all the time, take a day off
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
66
|
Posted - 2015.03.01 11:16:43 -
[6] - Quote
Nerd Slayer wrote:CCP Rise wrote:
This thread is for discussing the proposed removal of fighter assist for carriers and super carriers.
I think you mean fighter control delegation and not fighter assist. As one of the key person for executing and communicating this change, I find your inability to use the correct term disturbing.
Doesn't matter. He isn't reading this thread anyway.
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
|
|
|