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) |
Lickem Lolly
Achura Solutions
8
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 07:48:22 -
[481] - Quote
If it isn't broken, don't "fix it." Assigning fighters is one of the primary cool features of a carrier. If you remove that, why bother getting a carrier?
This is not used very often to be honest. Don't believe the wankers trolling the forums. Look at the actual use data. Assignment of fighters has been in the game for many years. It is not a problem.
You are creating problems where there are none. Stop breaking our game by nerfing it into oblivion.
Regards |
Xavior Harkonnen
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 08:14:49 -
[482] - Quote
Here is how I think this mechanic should work: 1) I agree that assisting should only happen while carriers are certain distance from a station or POS. It could be chopped up to something like: "The use of long range drone antennas is hazardous to normal and safe operations of nearby structures.". 2) To prevent carriers from just being aligned and warping at the first sign of trouble, that they cant warp until their drones/fighters return. Which to help carrier pilots would happen automatically and would alert the pilot by displaying that the ship is awaiting their return. This could however be overwritten by abandoning them. This would require fighters to have proper warp mechanics. 3) Finally, assisted drones/fighters get no off-grid bonuses.
TL;DR Drone assist needs to be change not removed. Fighter warp should stay but with better warp mechanics. |
Nimrod vanHall
No Vacancies
116
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 08:17:46 -
[483] - Quote
I did not have time to read All the other Posts, but think it would be a good idea to remove fighter or fighter bomber assign mechanics.
I'd regret it if fighters would no longer follow the Carrier that deploys them in warp. Its a defining qualifier that also increases the quality of life for Carrier pilots. Removing it might lead to less people rating with fighter deploying carriers wich would lead to less targets in nulsec space for hunters (Wormhole to kspace hunters, roaming gangs or neighbourhood hot droppers) please consider this in your final fighter revieuw. |
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
61
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 08:33:24 -
[484] - 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.
|
Hegh Batlh
Stille Gewalt Dead Terrorists
17
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 08:37:09 -
[485] - Quote
Xavior Harkonnen wrote:Here is how I think this mechanic should work: 1) I agree that assisting should only happen while carriers are certain distance from a station or POS. It could be chopped up to something like: "The use of long range drone antennas is hazardous to normal and safe operations of nearby structures.". 2) To prevent carriers from just being aligned and warping at the first sign of trouble, that they cant warp until their drones/fighters return. Which to help carrier pilots would happen automatically and would alert the pilot by displaying that the ship is awaiting their return. This could however be overwritten by abandoning them. This would require fighters to have proper warp mechanics. 3) Finally, assisted drones/fighters get no off-grid bonuses.
TL;DR Drone assist needs to be change not removed. Fighter warp should stay but with better warp mechanics.
Thats a good idea.
Another is:
A module like a siege/triage module for fighter assists - when its running you can assists fighters and the meachanic works without changes but you cannot move and become reps for the running time and the module can only be activated XY km from a pos. The running time for the module needs to be balanced in my opinion like 2 mins without overheat. The Module can be overheated to reduce runningtime. Is the module deactiveted the fighter will return to the carrier and can only be assigned on grid.
Warping and following the target or following in warp is a unique skill and shouldn-¦t be removed. Unique skills/features must be preserved as much as possible.
|
Qu jinn
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 08:46:09 -
[486] - Quote
Hey to all Cap pilots,
@ my Point off view i am still fine with the change to assist fighters to very small ships.
But let the carrier pilots the decision between:
Sentries ( Max i$k / per tick and higher risk because of standing still in an anom. )
Fighters ( Less i$k / per tick and still allined to a safe spot. Faster warp off if needed. )
The pay out between these two ratting styles are for me:
With normal T 2 Fittings and all skills @ min lvl 4 and a few @ 5
sentries: 30 m - 45 m / per tick
Fighter: 20 m - 30 m / per tick (fighters lvl 5) for the frigates you have to swith to drones and that ruines the pay out.
So dear CCP if you change the fighters this way their is no reason to rat with fighters anymore.
Why would i risk 10-14 fighters for 25 mill each ( ca.250 mill at all.) When i have to warp off the anom and let the 250 mill behind.
If that happens everyone will use heavys they are much cheaper and it didn-¦t hurt so much if you let them behind.
Or you will only see sentry carriers at all.
Sry for my english ( not my first language )
pls don`t be a wiseacre and tell how much you rat with your carriers ( It was a example and i fly with 2 carriers Chimera / Nid @ the same time. So it can be that i am not fly 100 % effective)
Fly safe
See you in Null space |
Vacant Glare
Ghost Recon Inc
11
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 08:57:57 -
[487] - Quote
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. This
|
Drone Plague
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 09:01:43 -
[488] - Quote
Vacant Glare wrote: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. This Seems very logical and still give the fighter some of its uniqueness whilst not completely screwing over every carrier.
|
luredivino
Star Frontiers Test Alliance Please Ignore
54
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 09:05:42 -
[489] - Quote
Instead of removing fighter delegation, why don't you just make it battleship only and limit it to bandwidth of the assignee. It would keep the uniqueness of fighters and also give more reasons to use battleships in null. |
I Buy ItAll
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 09:07:13 -
[490] - Quote
Crazy Candy wrote:If you support fighter assisting you're literally part of the cancer that is ruining this game. iniq wrote:If CCP Removing Fighter Assist ,pls give my carrier SP back to me ,i dont want use that ship . You trained for something which is broken, it's your own fault for wasting the time to train something as abusable as fighter assisting. That's your fault, not CCP's.
so what in your eyes is not broken in that game if u think assigning fighters or even the carrier itself is a broken meta. if carriers are broken as u say its better to remove them from game entirly, right?? Stupid!!!
its nice all those whiners that complain "i and 10 other friends of mine visited someone in his own space and he killed me bad intruders". defenders should have an upper hand and even if not? why u as intruder dont bring ur own capitals to make u take the win? or just bring 20-30 ppl. cause even a frig, cruise or whatever with fightersupport of a mothership cant stand 20 ppl with a proper composition. |
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
2305
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 09:16:23 -
[491] - Quote
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.
Axloth Okiah wrote:How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable?
These two
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
|
Jonathan Xavier
Discrete Solutions Ltd.
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 09:30:02 -
[492] - Quote
ITT: Lots of people who don't own carriers or supercarriers and are totally unfamiliar with the mechanics of using them. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
859
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 09:31:17 -
[493] - Quote
Worrff wrote:CCP Rise............
25 pages of feedback. Do you think it's time for a comment from you yet ?
Or is it yet another situation where you make an ill-thought out change and just leave it ?
The wh mass/range threads went over 100. We still got the change. It was bad like we said it would be. They won't undo it. They haven't responded to those threads in quite some time. They won't come across w/ any meaningful graphs, charts or anything.
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.
On one hand it's encouraging to see CCP step up and address some long standing issues. On the other, their fixes kind of scare me. I'd like to be cynical and point to the small group of eve players that this helps and cry favoritism, but between this, the bouncers and the ishtar stuff..... there isn't really even a niche group that benefits.
Dearest CCP: Delegating fighters isn't the problem. The carrier just barely nosing out of the pos shield (risk aversion mechanics) is the problem. I don't care if the carrier is off grid at the start of the fight. I care that there is no meaningful way to engage the carrier that is delegating them. If your car stalled every time it rained and I handed you a new set of wiper blades... would you be satisfied?
|
Arcos Vandymion
White Beast Inc.
95
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 09:44:02 -
[494] - Quote
Go to last post by |
Vic Jefferson
The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple
179
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 09:45:29 -
[495] - Quote
Lickem Lolly wrote:If it isn't broken, don't "fix it." Assigning fighters is one of the primary cool features of a carrier. If you remove that, why bother getting a carrier? Drop boots on people and crush your enemies? Triage and be the hero of the day? Go make money in a wormhole? Rat in K-Space or W-Space, I don't know, it does everything!
Lickem Lolly wrote: Assignment of fighters has been in the game for many years. It is not a problem.
...until they made all the drone modules interact with fighters, it wasn't a systemic problem.
Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
|
Elg'caress Estanesse
HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 09:48:04 -
[496] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:Worrff wrote:CCP Rise............
25 pages of feedback. Do you think it's time for a comment from you yet ?
Or is it yet another situation where you make an ill-thought out change and just leave it ? The wh mass/range threads went over 100. We still got the change. It was bad like we said it would be. They won't undo it. They haven't responded to those threads in quite some time. They won't come across w/ any meaningful graphs, charts or anything. 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. On one hand it's encouraging to see CCP step up and address some long standing issues. On the other, their fixes kind of scare me. I'd like to be cynical and point to the small group of eve players that this helps and cry favoritism, but between this, the bouncers and the ishtar stuff..... there isn't really even a niche group that benefits. Dearest CCP: Delegating fighters isn't the problem. The carrier just barely nosing out of the pos shield (risk aversion mechanics) is the problem. I don't care if the carrier is off grid at the start of the fight. I care that there is no meaningful way to engage the carrier that is delegating them. If your car stalled every time it rained and I handed you a new set of wiper blades... would you be satisfied?
This. Even more so: If your car stops every time it rains, do you take it to a car mechanic to fix it or just just blow your car up and travel by bus/train from there on? |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
859
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 09:58:42 -
[497] - Quote
I think the obvious fix would be to have carriers half in a POS shield spit out ishtars which could drop bouncers and then run out to 150km and orbit the 'fight' at just over 3000m/s. |
Asbuster2
Boa Innovations Shadow of xXDEATHXx
2
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 10:24:35 -
[498] - Quote
I would advise against these changes. I understand that carriers fighter assist annoys people alot, but its what makes fighters and carriers unique. This plus the fact that if a carrier is to assist his fleet with fighters, he needs to be undocked and not in POS. Meaning he can be attacked. So a good fleet can scan down the carrier and kill him. |
Jason Atavuli
Ridders van Suid Afrika Northern Associates.
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 10:31:27 -
[499] - Quote
Lickem Lolly wrote:If it isn't broken, don't "fix it." Assigning fighters is one of the primary cool features of a carrier. If you remove that, why bother getting a carrier?
That ^
Also, if you are going to break carriers like you broke the jump system, why not rather make your jobs easier and remove all jump capable capital hulls, the entire jump system can then be done away with, as well as those terrible fighters which have apparently ruined EVE gameplay for everyone living in hisec.
And then you can give us our SP back and fix the jump bridges, there's a game bug that brings up some stupid timer bullsh!t every time I use a JB to attack someone's sov . . .
.
|
Jacob Holland
Weyland-Vulcan Industries
378
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 10:43:30 -
[500] - Quote
Back when I was but a young capsuleer and these new Carriers appeared I recall shipping out from Misaba with a convoy (which was probably the Egg for what became The IAC Distillery... CVA were there to see us off but there had been some pirate activity and noone wanted those nasty pirates to see what we were doing. I recall seeing a couple of the CVA patrol vessels being escorted by a pair of fighters and thinking it was amazingly cool (I believe to the point that my camera drone snapped back to my own ship as they warped out and I realised I should probably be doing something... Did I need to align to something? maybe? (and this was the days of double click aligning)).
Like many other things however the useful force multiplier was picked up and applied to the Nth degree and shifted from cool to problem...
The great strength of carriers (in the real world and in EVE) is that they are uniquely able to project force "beyond the horizon" and I think it would be disappointing to lose that ability entirely. I'd like to retain the "cool" from way back - the small scale projection, the low grade force multiplier - if that is possible. Fighters are long ranged craft, they have their own warp drives and therefore must have their own fluid router communications (which we know are controlled by CONCORD); what if they were limited by the fluid router bandwidth they had access to in any given system - say 20 fighters assigned per system? If fighter assignation were also limited to 2 per ship (like the Guristas vessels) might that significantly reduce the problem of assigned fighters, significantly increase the workload of the assigning character (reducing the chance that two alts would fill the roster 23/7) while not losing the cool factor from the early days of capitals?
Of course people would attempt to lock out hostiles by filling the system cap with their own fighters but should one of their carriers be forced into Triage bandwidth is freed and with every fighter downed the attackers could assign one of their own (if that's their aim). |
|
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
131
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 10:46:25 -
[501] - Quote
How about only allow fighters to be assigned in in systems you have sov 5 in? as a defensive perk to the system |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
920
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 10:54:24 -
[502] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:How about only allow fighters to be assigned in in systems you have sov 5 in? as a defensive perk to the system
People use carriers/assignment in ways and places completely unconnected to skynet or nullsec. |
Valan
S.A.S Pandemic Legion
14
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 10:55:18 -
[503] - Quote
Keep the warp ability, the not assigning ok+¬, but if you also take away the warping you can just remove these ship types entirely |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx
131
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:05:14 -
[504] - Quote
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=27695081
there are simple ways of killing 'skynet' capitals. even the biggest aint safe.
why remove the best (Last) unique feature carriers have? |
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
63
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:05:50 -
[505] - 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 -
[506] - 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.
|
bonkerss
MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:11:55 -
[507] - Quote
its just not fun to get ganked by something that you have no chance of beating because its hiding in a structure somewhere in 100% safety. everything that wants to fight needs to be on the grid! this goes for every ship class. next problem we have to solve is safe spot boosters. they need to be on the grid too. |
Copy Bird
ZC Industries Dark Stripes
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:11:56 -
[508] - Quote
can we just swap to red, blue, green and pink ships and be done with any interesting options or game play. that does seam to be your over all intention with the game these days, dumb it down and make it dull (should really say duller, space aids has ruined the game for the most part in any case).
|
Cpt Buckshot
The Awakened Empire
2
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:16:38 -
[509] - Quote
The more I read about this the more I think this a terrible move, This all seems to stem for angry bloggers crying endless tears about carriers simply because its a great cap. First they nerfed its hangar then its cargo now its fighters. How about GIVE us the option to get Skill points back and isk on those skills???
Maybe CCP means the communist capsuler program where everyone is equal and we should all fly the same ships ???
This is Generation Me!!!! GIMME GIMME GIMME with no time invested
Game use to over 50k pilots on weekends ..... Now look at it CCP you are the next SOE !!!!
You have definitely lost your way CCP.. This is def the beginning of the end of one of the greatest games ever ....... :( sad panda here
|
kabivel
Corporate Scum Brave Collective
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.28 11:17:37 -
[510] - Quote
Make fighters consume Bandwith from the ship Assited |
|
|
|
|
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 |