EVE Search - Sticky:[Scylla] Skynet - Removing fighter assist for carriers

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Scylla] Skynet - Removing fighter assist for carriers

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Ben Hump KackarschClubstation 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:19:08 - [511] - Quote Carriers by nature have the capability to launch fighters and bombers to far away targets. Just a look at WW2 Carrier warfare shows that. If you take that away from carriers, then rename the whole class as maybe close support drone boats, as they will not be carriers anymore. I fully agree with Lickem and the others, though some changes might be feasible, the changes you propose make carriers useless, a dinosaur of the past. The exception is, if you then make carriers able to fly in highsec again!!! Do not remove the warp capability of fighters, they need to fight of grid, otherwise it is NOT a carrier. Reduce the numbers of fighters you can assign to an individual ship, so the carrier pilot needs to assign them to more than one pilot. Maybe raise the fighters signature radius, causing the carrier pilot to have to recall his drones and fix them before he can send them out again. Just some random ideas. I fly Carriers and I use them mainly for transport. If the proposed changes occur, I will sell both. As an individual player who occasionally supports corps, I do not have the ISK to have my carriers become more vulnerable and thus useless for their current role. And the issue of carriers sitting near their POS is I think an issue you can change by making them not be able to launch their fighters until they have moved away a certain distance from the safety of their POS. Ben
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 920	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:25:11 - [512] - Quote Worrff wrote: 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. The talk of assist when the feature that causes the problem is assign does raise my concerns - an understandable mistake from people without much carrier experience.
DEATHS PHOENIX Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion 6	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:25:53 - [513] - Quote Leave Carriers alone for now. It takes a long time to get into a Carrier and in most cases even longer to properly use the fit. In many cases we're talking about close to or over a year in skilling time. Those individuals who take that time should see some benefits from their patience and dedication to their goal of getting into one. Besides after all it is a Carrier and ships of that size and majesty should have some unique aspects to their value. Also Drones the size of Frigates should be able to warp to fleet members to give assistance. For Christs sake, its the size of a frigate so let it do what Frigates do and warp. Also recently Carriers underwent a big change not only in how the operate but the possibilities of how they are going to be applied in the future tactically and therefore should be left alone for now. However, if its your goal to Nerf the Carrier over time, considering the changes you've already made recently the plans you are leaning towards now will definitely begin to take you there. Deaths
bonkerss MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:30:17 - [514] - Quote Lugburz wrote: What use is a carrier with fighters if not able to assist exactly? are you just relegating them to triage modes now? Im not overly a fan of cap warfare (though it has its uses) but it just amazes me you 'rebalance' ships simply because they get used a lot; i mean nerfing rails cus 'their popular'.. well yes of course they are, 2 whole factions use them (not including pirate factions) as opposed to one each for the projectile and lazer using factions.. currently there are what.. 2 t1 cruiser variants that are bonused for missiles? probably the same for projectile and lazer cruisers and at least double that for rails... of course their popular; more people can actually use them. How about some scientists (probably caldari) frustrated at their gallente counterparts tactical use of carriers and the like research and design several operational counters to such tactics? Maybe a smartbomb.. oh wait.. how about an ecm burs.. oh nvm... who exactly is whining? its simple. the carrier has to manually lock targets and kill it with fighters. its much like a dread who has to risk its ass on grid to kill shite.
Elg'caress Estanesse HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:37:35 - [515] - Quote bonkerss wrote: Lugburz wrote: What use is a carrier with fighters if not able to assist exactly? are you just relegating them to triage modes now? Im not overly a fan of cap warfare (though it has its uses) but it just amazes me you 'rebalance' ships simply because they get used a lot; i mean nerfing rails cus 'their popular'.. well yes of course they are, 2 whole factions use them (not including pirate factions) as opposed to one each for the projectile and lazer using factions.. currently there are what.. 2 t1 cruiser variants that are bonused for missiles? probably the same for projectile and lazer cruisers and at least double that for rails... of course their popular; more people can actually use them. How about some scientists (probably caldari) frustrated at their gallente counterparts tactical use of carriers and the like research and design several operational counters to such tactics? Maybe a smartbomb.. oh wait.. how about an ecm burs.. oh nvm... who exactly is whining? its simple. the carrier has to manually lock targets and kill it with fighters. its much like a dread who has to risk its ass on grid to kill shite. Yes please, make every single ship the same. No dictors, no logis, no drone ship, lets ALL the ships warp in, lock target press F1 like dreads. Awesome idea, looking forward to it!
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 417	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:39:32 - [516] - Quote So, maybe just extend the cyno block zone around towers to disallow launching fighters as well? Seems like everyone agrees that the safety of POS is the issue, and not assigning itself.
TijsseN NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation 14	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:40:53 - [517] - Quote Removing fighter assists fixes a balance issue where enemy supers assign fighters to tengus to murderzone our fleets without risks. I would certainly recommend to implement this. Making fighters and fighter bombers equal to drones will certainly open roads to a future capital and drone re-balance.
Sodamn In-sane Phorever People 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:43:52 - [518] - Quote in all honesty i think you should remove fighter/drone assignment,purely because you **** caps for pvp so you may aswell them for pve,tbh i really dont think it matters what we say,i think you'll just do it in one way or another, suggestion's REMOVE CAPS COMPLETELY MAKE ALL WEPS CIVILAIN STANDARD (so no one can complain that this ** is overpowered) IMPROVE GRAFFIX AND SOUND MORE (may as well get the lag while listening to music and station spinning because its hardly worth undocking anymore) now so many people trained to get in these ships for the reasons that they had the characteristics at the time of choosing to train them and to have them constantly shat on by ccp,kinda annoying.the adapt or die is attitude now becoming slightly old. you should really be asking your selves ,how can we encourage new players to join a game they will spend untold amounts of money and time on to find they will not be able to use they ship they trained to use,when they trained it. do something constructive for once ccp ban the hub scammers / spammers
Chriss Toronto Svea Rike Fatal Ascension 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:46:15 - [519] - Quote Why don-¦t you guys just ban scamming, set alliances to max 5 corps, concord every one thats fire there gunns or maybe make eve-online a care bear mining game, its been this way A LONG TIME! and assign/assist fighters is a problem now? ***** please, go play wold of warcraft with the other cry babys, if you want to rebalance something make Jump fatigue hull-mass based and not jump distance based. stop waisting your time on people crying becouse thay are camped in a station.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 920	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:46:16 - [520] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: So, maybe just extend the cyno block zone around towers to disallow launching fighters as well? Seems like everyone agrees that the safety of POS is the issue, and not assigning itself. The issue is two fold - I've been following it for awhile and one of the biggest complaints with it is that people can be flying something small and fast, do everything they are "supposed" to do when flying smaller ships, put the utmost skill into what they are doing and might if they are lucky evade a volley or 2 but sooner or later (and usually sooner) get alpha'd by the assisted fighters, the quick and easy fix is to remove assignment but I'm pretty sure it could be balanced with some changes to how fighters work with the tracking formula (as titans already get a variant of this it can't be that much of an ask) and being a capital platform weapon IMO its not a problem to make an exception to the normal for them in that regard. The other complaint is that the carrier/super is to all intents and purposes immune and IMO that is a more complex story as the risk ratio is a different story to flying around in say an ishtar, extending fighter assignment restrictions to the same range as cyno restrictions would definitely make a lot of sense to me on that side of it - its not a complete fix but it removes the most risk free method. EDIT: I'm actually starting to favour some kind of bastion type mode for fighter use* (which includes the only way to do assignment) as this would completely balance the risk aspect of it and give carriers access to something interesting functionality wise beyond triage or non-triage ratting. * Maybe not the exclusive mode for using fighters but the best way to use them for optimal effect.

Elg'caress Estanesse HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded 2	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:49:22 - [521] - Quote TijsseN wrote: Removing fighter assists fixes a balance issue where enemy supers assign fighters to tengus to murderzone our fleets without risks. I would certainly recommend to implement this. Making fighters and fighter bombers equal to drones will certainly open roads to a future capital and drone re-balance. Adress the risk issue than, not the feature itself, ther were a ton of great ideas how to do that. Or do they intend to do the same with the other upcoming fixes? Tengu is too tanky - Adjust subsystem or remove Tengu Rails are overtuned - Adjust railgun stats or Remove railguns Bouncers are overtuned - Adjust stnry drone stats or Remove bouncers Ishtars overpowered and overused - Tone down its bonuses or remove Ishtars Fighter assist is too much reward vs. almost no risk - Introduce some changes and tweaks or Remove the feature alltogether. Is it really hard to see why this is so wrong?
Sodamn In-sane Phorever People 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:56:12 - [522] - Quote Quote: TijsseN wrote: Removing fighter assists fixes a balance issue where enemy supers assign fighters to tengus to murderzone our fleets without risks. I would certainly recommend to implement this. Making fighters and fighter bombers equal to drones will certainly open roads to a future capital and drone re-balance. maybe you should train for tengu? these guys have trained for that and more the point spent money training for that,so if your unable to combat this then train train train like a boss,
Maidas Mulligan Theoretical Heresy Fatal Ascension 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:00:53 - [523] - Quote I have read about half of the pages of this thread, and have gotten a lot of insight on where the history is in this issue. Here's my two cents: Q: Assisting and warping are two completely different things. Why are they in the same thread? A: Because there's only been a small and recent protest to assisting, but we might get people to agree with the post in general by agreeing with how annoying attack & follow can be. Q: Should we mention that we already have a mechanic in game that would resolve the annoying part? A: Absolutely not, the uninformed wouldn't support our other changes then! Also, who let him in here? Q: Skynetting is a conglomeration of a 9-year old mechanic and a 3-month old buff. If the 9-year old coding would be difficult to unravel, wouldn't changing the 3-month old buff be an easier fix? A: Of course! But we buffed to break, so we would be justified in "listening to the player base" by removing the mechanic we didn't want anymore. Q: That kill would've never happened if one of two things hadn't happened. The carrier couldn't assign, or the fighters couldn't hit the atron. Why aren't there kills like this from before the fighter buff? A: I'm pretty sure I answered this with your last question, Maidas. Please, pay attention. We want to do differnt things in the game we oversee, and this little bit of intra-corp proof of a game breaking mechanic was just the straw man we have been waiting for. Once we FINALLY get rid of those characters who have been around forever, we will only have the newbies that don't know any better and we can do whatever we want. Remember the uproar from the introduction of Aurum? Once those that took offense to Eve becoming PFP are gone, we can implement it, and these new players who have been spending all that money in Candy Crush can start spending it here. Q: Why are you such a jerk? A: ...You're fired. Seriously though, Of the two issues,: 1. Fighter warping. The only example given of why CCP Rise brought it up for removal is easily avoided by a mechanic that ALREADY EXISTS. End of concern. 2. Fighter assisting. What I love about Eve is, in order, everyone plays in the same universe, the player driven economy, and the community as a whole working to make the game we love better for everyone as a whole. And in relation to the last one, there are SO many other ways to resolve this issue that simply removing fighter/FB assisting completely seems lazy and selfish. CCP is not the Pope, and we are not (all) Catholic. Come out and say that the fighter buffing was a mistake because it unbalanced one of the things that makes carriers unique. And then, REBALANCE IT. Something along the lines of, :"The upgraded communications between the carrier and its fighters that allow the boosts to follow through require special dedicated electronics on the assisted ship. Ships that already have the robust electronics required for this assisting are as follows: T1 drone boats: (I'm gallente through and through, so apply to other races as it works) The Imicus can support 1 fighter or 0 FB's The Vexor can support 2 fighters or 1 FB The VNI can support 3 or 1 The Dominix can support 3 or 2 The DNI can support 4 or 2 T2 drone boats: The Ishkur can support 2 or 1 The Ishtar can support 3 or 2 Blah blah blah. The three gems in this idea are as follows: 1. Natively, ONLY Command ships can oh.... I don't know, command? 5 fighters or 3 FB's. 2. Create warfare links to allow/increase fighter/FB assisting. 3. Create a mobile drone relay, something rather large, say 50 m3 per fighter or so, that would allow the person deploying it access to fighters. As far as #3 goes, this would nicely scale up ship classes to the number of fighters able to assist, because while some hauling specific frigates could deploy larger ones, they wouldnt instalock or survive very long. I know that the interceptor pilot could just come out in a hauler, deploy a 5 fighter one and then just go reship. Maybe it could go offline after a certain amount of time and require scooping and redeployment? Or it could be more of a defensive measure, like dictor charges. Once deployed, you could be assisted, but it is destroyed after 15 minutes or so? Just ideas. But more thought out and better content generating than nerfbatting.
myxa cyk Expl0rers Darkeshi 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:09:07 - [524] - Quote Sarcasm incoming Yeah. You should remove half of features coz it's easiest way. Why not remove Capital at all? Why not remove all ships except one? It will be so balanced if all would fly on same ships.
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 131	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:13:54 - [525] - Quote a simple fix to fighters is that they should return to base upon 50% shield damage for repairs. once they have returned to base they need to rest and change their pants which takes them 5 mins of combat fatigue. this would allow people to shoot them for a few seconds to force them off field, without removing the feature also to the cryers. most carriers hugging a pos will go into the force field if a hostile ship shows up on grid... forces them into the pos which recalls the fighters. not exactly hard to force them out of the fight
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 921	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:24:16 - [526] - Quote Ncc 1709 wrote: also to the cryers. most carriers hugging a pos will go into the force field if a hostile ship shows up on grid... forces them into the pos which recalls the fighters. not exactly hard to force them out of the fight Most of the complaints stem from small gangs roaming - even solo or just a couple of players, jump in see/find a viable target and engage then suddenly fighters and despite doing everything they are "supposed" to do survival is pretty slim to none - a valid complaint IMO given the combination of the fact that fighters can do damage in scenarios completely out of balance with the game normal when used in a situation that allows the "skynet" fit and that unlike a hotdrop you can't potentially escalate with a counter drop, etc. IMO that doesn't justify essentially cutting off one leg of the carrier as a way to balance it however.
Prester Tom Death By Design Did he say Jump 9	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:27:27 - [527] - Quote It is quite simple. Don't change anything, but make it only applicable within fighter control range. That will make their warp capability more like a jump drive, for fast reaction within a large battle area, and allow them to warp with their carriers if needed. Then the carriers have to be on grid with whatever they assign their fighters to.
Anarkio Mahyisti Tauron Heavy industry Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:30:45 - [528] - Quote 1 - removed the 25 fighters ? 2 - now they cannot transfer it to another ? Conclusion: the ship is not required ! Make then so they could enter the station ! Doing better for pvp, and the fact that some people on them participate in pve not who don't care ? Raise up other ships and then all will be balanced !
Buzz Dura Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 9	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:37:52 - [529] - Quote Drones can be assigned to another player on grid, why should it be different ? Keep assist Remove Warp More caps and supers on GRID, risk vs reward rebalanced End of story ?
Jori McKie TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 212	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:47:27 - [530] - Quote Again for all those skynet pilots read this blog and tell me with a straight face that this isn't OP. http://gorsking.blogspot.de/2015/02/****-skynet.html Info for all those guys who are thinking POS/station are the problem, they aren't: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532655#post5532655 Yep, safespots galore. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar

5pitf1re 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 8	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:50:37 - [531] - Quote This is a great change. Fighter warp, keep it but make them pointable possibly even bubblable.
Vaali Odhin Machiavellian Empire Pornwaffe Federation 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:53:40 - [532] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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 circumstances 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. This is the most pressing risk vs reward area to address??? There are so many bad mechanics in game allowing for little risk vs great reward I am surprised that this has been suggested in such a radical form - killing content in game rather than expanding it! If risk vs reward is such a key issue then look at other more pressing areas of negative gameplay first whilst you develop a better and more tuned fix to skynetting. It smells a little like a nerf to isk making yet again and if that is the case maybe all accounts must be subscribed and drop Plex all together - sometimes you have to wonder if CCP understand their own game or just the $$$ balance it brings...
Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 1434	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:55:35 - [533] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Haha, look at all these mongoloid ratter alliances crying that removing fighter assist will kill off super and carrier use. Lets get real here ladies, you're literally crying wolf because you use it to rat and EVERYBODY reading the thread here knows it. Good job being so completely transparent This thread is a ******** magnet. The Tears Must Flow
BF Guardian HC - Foxx and Mink Division 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:00:27 - [534] - Quote i am EXTREMELY against removing fighter assist. Fighter assistance has so many tactical uses and so many characters are going to be rendered practically pointless if you remove this. Yea carriers near POSes are annoying, but tbh its just more satisfying when you come and bump them off and kill them. :)
Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 1434	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:01:12 - [535] - Quote Jori McKie wrote: Again for all those skynet pilots read this blog and tell me with a straight face that this isn't OP. http://gorsking.blogspot.de/2015/02/****-skynet.html Info for all those guys who are thinking POS/station are the problem, they aren't: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532655#post5532655 Yep, safespots galore. Gorsk is spot on. The Tears Must Flow
Valhal1a turaagaq GANOR INC. 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:06:00 - [536] - 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 :)
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 921	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:12:10 - [537] - Quote Jori McKie wrote: Again for all those skynet pilots read this blog and tell me with a straight face that this isn't OP. http://gorsking.blogspot.de/2015/02/****-skynet.html Info for all those guys who are thinking POS/station are the problem, they aren't: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532655#post5532655 Yep, safespots galore. POS/stations aren't the only problem but they are where the biggest most "game breaking" source of immunity comes from - if your out in space atleast there is a more viable chance you'll screw up, etc. unlike at a POS where even if you get sloppy you can just press the enter button and up FF. Even a carrier hugging the edge of a fight on grid could cyno out if it looks like something is going to tackle it - there is always going to be some less than ideal balances to it. (Or should we just remove carriers to?) Just making it so that fighters struggle to hit smaller faster ships even with the skynet fit would go a huge way to balancing the problem - personally not a fan of fighters losing all bonuses when off grid with their parent carrier as that kind of flies in the face of what fighter carriers are designed to do, sig/damage scaling as far as I can see has the least knock on effects.
Elberet Space Pioneers Odin's Call 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:15:14 - [538] - Quote You want my opinion ? Here it is :P - Don't remove fighters warping. - Remove assist to small ships like sub bc. - Add a minimum distance off Forcefields or stations like 50km to assist fighters. This way you clear out ppl warping around in ceptors and having 5 cruiser sized insta used fighters wtih em. You avoid carriers / supers been used around the protection of force fields - as long they don't expose their ship to the unsafe enviroment outside the "I need 2 secs untill forcefield" range. A lot of carebears won't do it anymore xD However, I'd like to see fighters still warping off when the owner warps off from the same grid.
Bruce Destro Black Serpent Technologies Black Legion. 14	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:20:45 - [539] - Quote Assigned fighters would not benefit from any host ship bonuses, or drone upgrade modules.
Monasucks BLACK SQUADRON. The Bastion 146	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:21:54 - [540] - Quote Dear CCP Assignment was forever in the game - just leave it in. Fix the other problems (your last changes to 00) you have created that a for 10 year working thing becomes a Problem. Fighters and FighterBombers warping was never an issue. Leave it as it makes those ships unique. Fighters chasing their target is I think a pretty balanced and interesting mechanic even from the risk vs. reward speciall for supercapitals, beeing fighterless if they do it wrong and the fighters were killed. Option a) make assignment impossible if within even the grid of a POS or Station impossible. This would lead to some more fun finding those hostile caps unprotected on a savespot etc. Just think of allthat options! Option b) if assigned they will only do the base damage and no mods from the scap/carrier are applied Option c) the Ship, who has the fighters assigned to it get the aggression as well - to carrier and that ship, who as fighters assigned get aggression! Option d) Keep fighters as they are but make them bubble able / point / web - and end of story Other issues I see for the game if you are going to remove this two features (offgrid assignment and warping): - Carriers and Supers will even become more useless - Carriers will be total useless, which leads to less dedicated carrier accounts, which leads to less dreads / carrier / supers / titan on the fields, which leads to even less accounts and old people leaving the game, who have been with your game for many years and are the core of the social ingame live.. - Capitals overall are nerfed nearly to dead - if you are going to kill them, then return the ISK/SP and even reimburs the $/Gé¼ for the playing time.. This guy as well did some great suggestions what to do with the fighters / bombers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532602#post5532602 As well this guey who is basicly saying don't kill the game even more.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532701#post5532701 And even you CCP failed to even proof that skynet was a real problem.. If so give us data! ( or Take for example Option a)) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532703#post5532703 I think this is a good example of how CCP try to fix stuff by nerfing. This comes into play for nearly everything not only capitals! Jenn aSide wrote: Patient: "Hey doc, I was walking around outside barefooted and scraped the side of my big toe, it's not that bad, but do you have a bandaid?" CCP Doctor Rise: "In my opinion we'll have to amputate both legs, your left arm and remove half your ribcage. That should prevent any chance of infection". Patient: "WTF? Can I get a second opinion?" CCP Doctor Fozzie "Better take the other arm, just to be sure". I would kindly ask CCP stop nerfing, try to create new content instead of killing it all! And don'T forget the PVE / Roleplay part of a fighter / fighterbomber - they are designed not a drones more as firgs and bombers: Panther X wrote: Don't forget that fighters and fighter bombers are piloted by a crew. They are frigate sized non-drones. If they hope to make Valkyrie a viable part of the Eve Universe, then do not take away the warping ability. Fighters and Bombers are not dumb drones. They have pilots, and should be able to warp to their mothership if it has to escape the battlespace. I'm still impress how much good feedback CCP get's here and ignores as always. Even the ongrid only I would not go with. But a Range how much you need to be away from a POS / Station or away from the fleet should be discussed. I think fighters should be able to warp out of bubbels as well fighter bombers. Sarrian Calda wrote: Assignment-related suggestions Allow on-grid assignment only, just like drones. Fighters cannot warp with the ship they are assigned to. If assigned ship becomes invalid target to retain assignment, fighters should fly back to owner. Offense-related suggestions Fighters should still be able to "Attack and Follow" (toggled option, as is) ships that they are commanded to attack. If target warps off, fighters should follow and enter warp too. If target becomes invalid after dropping out of warp (destroyed, jumped out of system, entered POS forcefield, docked, logged off successfully somehow, fighters get ECM'ed and unable to acquire lock), the fighters will warp back to owner as soon as they can. Miscellaneous suggestions Fighters should still be able to warp together with the owner when they are deployed and the owner enters warp, as per current mechanics. If a fighter becomes pointed or bubbled when owner warps away, it should keep aligning to the owner's location in space until it is able to warp again (or follow current in-game mechanic if there's already one set up for when fighters are prevented from warping). If the owner docks up, logs off or get destroyed at any time while the fighters are deployed, they become abandoned in space. If they are in-warp when this happens, they should appear at the destination where they were warping to and become abandoned there. (If ships cannot break warp while warping, fighters shouldn't too.) Faithfully Can I haz you're stuff? A good worker is a live worker. Free to live - and work! A bad worker is a dead worker; and vice versa. Don't be a bad worker; bad workers are slaves, and dead. Payday for good workers has been postponed indefinitely. Payday for bad workers is cancelled!



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.