| 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) |
Jori McKie
TURN LEFT
The Camel Empire
206
   |
Posted - 2015.02.27 12:43:55 -
[31] - Quote
I like the removal of fighter assist very much.
The reasons to remove warp or not, no idea but i would assume that in PvP it is always better to have fighters on grid and don't waste DPS.
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."
--áAbrazzar
|
Anthar Thebess
895
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:04:38 -
[32] - Quote
Fighters need to be on grid to use fighters.
Forcing them to move more will change almost nothing .
Removing fighters ability to warp with the carrier will make them just another drones, that will be simply to expensive.
Should we bringing back old scan res for fighters and bombers - i think no.
This was because some other broken stuff , and i see current values good one.
Again what we need also is Capital Drone Link Agumentor.
Something that will give 30km range ( faction 35 , officer 40km ) and will have 8000 m3 in size - simply to remove the ability to refit on field.
One module per carrier , and we will also having solved issue in sentry abuse.
Next is to normalize capital reps, something that you have described in my signature.
Those changes will make Carriers similar to Dreads.
Very usefully, but not broken beyond any possible limits.
Capital Remote AID Rebalance
Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
|
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
4083
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:08:16 -
[33] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Would you prefer that we removed the ability for fighters to warp or that we left warping in, despite the absence of assist?
Why not introduce an additional drone setting that can be toggled for fighters and fighter-bombers:
[ ] Enable warp pursuit of targets
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Somatic Neuron
Masterwork Productions Inc
57
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:11:26 -
[34] - Quote
Simple solution, simply remove the ability to Assist off-grid. If the assisted ship leaves your grid, or is destroyed, the fighters return to orbit you.
The only time fighters should warp, is if the on-grid assisted ship, or your carrier, engages fighters against another ship, and that target ship warps. If the assisted ship subsequently dies, or warps off, the fighters return to orbit your carrier.
Carriers should have the option (drone properties, like Aggressive/Passive, and Focus Fire) to turn off following at will....so the options would be "Aggressive", "Passive", checkbox for "Focus FIre" and checkbox for "Fighter Following". |
Peter Johannesen
Strategic Production Operations
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:16:42 -
[35] - Quote
 KEEP THE CURRENT CARRIER MECHANICS!
All this time eve is trying to get people to work together, and this is one of the strongest point in working together especially in WH spaces where it for small corporations provides some level of security and options.
Furthermore this is something that is so unique, and which makes the carrier an interesting choice.
Its seriously horrible too look at all this nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf.. that is primary affected by people sooner or later whining about a feature because they do not have anything better to do. Look at other games where the nerf bat has completely destroyed the games and the uniqness of the gameplay, where it in the end doesn't really matter what you do or what you pick, or where you dont get a choice whatsoever.
I understand fully that eve online is a very complex game with millions of options, but this is seriously just stupid to nerf a game feature that is in every way motivating people to play together. I would strongly assume that this was and is the original idea of the carrier when it was first introduced way back.
You guys at CCP have been doing lot of work on for example the cruisers, where there is one kind for every job. How about instead of picking the easy and quick choice to just nerf an unique ship mechanic, then look into developing some of the features that are unique to eve online, which simply makes the game worth playing together.
If you absolutely have to change mechanics, then at least look into the possibility of introducing more different kind of carriers. For example one that focuses on providing fighter support where the other is the logistic remote repair ship that we know it for.
|
Phoenix Jones
Isogen 5
1101
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:16:49 -
[36] - Quote
It seems the main argument for keeping fighters going to warp is that the carrier pilot may either lose the drone while onfield, or may have to flee too quickly and not be able to recall the drones, leaving fighters just sitting there abandoned when the carrier ran or warped.
I'm ok with that. If you commit a carrier, then have to run, leaving your fighters behind is the least damaging option. Will this annoy pve carriers, sure. They will have to press 2 button and wait a few seconds while fighters recall.
Again, ok with that.
Losing a fighter because you warped away too fast is not a big deal, It's just a part of doing business.
Every other drone boat loses drones whenever they warp off before recalling (those faction drones are not cheap). That's the benefit of forcing the person off field.
Good change.
Yaay!!!!
|
Turbular Knight
Failed Diplomacy
9
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:22:13 -
[37] - Quote
I agree that Fighter assist should remain, it is a uniqe feature that carriers hold. But by all means take away the ability to assign them while sitting at the edge of shields at a deathstar POS which is just ******** and annoying. Not everyone can perform a driveby doomsday, however far too many carrier holders can just sit back and assist their fighters to fastlocking ships camping gates with minimal risks. Also make it so that the pilot in-control of the fighters get a suspect timer when dropping fucktons of hurt upon neutral vessels. |
Liam Inkuras
AQUILA INC
Verge of Collapse
1449
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:24:07 -
[38] - Quote
o7 Skynet, you were a well hated friend.
But I think the warping mechanic for fighters should remain as is.
I wear my goggles at night.
Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5881
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:26:18 -
[39] - Quote
I guess it was too hard to remove ship bonuses from off-grid fighters? Or was that just not nerfy enough?
If I'm reading the post correctly, you're entirely removing drone-assist for fighters and FB? If that's the case, why not just remove all drone assist and be done with it? It's a problematic mechanic, just remove it already.
Please keep the fighter warp ability at least though. There ought to be something unique and interesting about fighters other than the fact that they're slow and have poor tracking. :/
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9920
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:40:56 -
[40] - 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.
The problem isn't caused by fighter assist. The problem is caused by the decision to let fighters benefit from drone mods. Before this, unbonused fighters assigned to small ships were good for exactly one thing" shooting POS guns. and that's it. Fighter Assist is one of the cooler game mechanics EVE has and removing it because some people abused the gift you guys gave them is a terrible idea.
A better idea would be to say "you can assign fighters, but they get no boost at all from carrier bonuses, drone mods or carrier pilot skills".
As for the warp drive, yea, that's complete overkill. It kills the Carrier for fighter based PVE (a ratting of lvl 5 carrier would be risking 200 mil worth of fighters every site if they had to get out quick, or risk being tackled if they wait for the fighters). End result will be some who switch back to Sentries for pve, but others will stop using carriers all together (especially those who switch to sentries, after a few carrier losses, carriers aren't cheap).
This means more people shifting to afktars and the like for isking which is way less interesting content wise, some of the best fights you can get is when a carrier gets tackled in an anom because he got pointed by an npc at the right moment or misclciked and lost alignment , and for them to be out there to be tackled people have to want to use them.
|
|
|
Grytok
KL0NKRIEGER
7
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:41:05 -
[41] - Quote
Simply remove all flavours of drone-assist. |
Literally Space Moses
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
122
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:42:38 -
[42] - Quote
Just remove drone assist
#T2013
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
906
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:43:42 -
[43] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:
I guess it was too hard to remove ship bonuses from off-grid fighters? Or was that just not nerfy enough?
Not really needed IMO the main issue is the ability to pretty much "blap" smaller stuff that they should never be able to touch in the first place realistically (even if they are frigate sized vessels*) and that can be far more elegantly countered with proper sig/damage scaling than slamming them with the nerf bat.
* Not piloted by pod pilots so not as highly skilled at gunnery + gameplay reasons. |
Hiwashi
Jump Drive Appreciation Society
Test Alliance Please Ignore
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:44:01 -
[44] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:
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?
Fighter mechanic that I would be okay with:
You can still assign Fighters, but only if you are on grid with whatever you are assigned the Fighters to. Remove assign entirely if this is too hard to code cause ~Legacy POS code~.
Fighters do not follow their targets in to warp like they currently do. You shouldn't be able to Damage something that isn't on grid with you.
If you warp out, Fighters will follow you.
If you jump out, rip your Fighters.
|
Serrat Nightchill
Royal Amarr Institute
Amarr Empire
5
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:47:03 -
[45] - Quote
I like fighter warping because it's unique to them, maybe limit fighter assisting to just the grid the carrier is on? So they will not warp to get to people they are assisted to. Seems pretty simple and would prevent the sky netting thing unless the carrier is on grid with the fight. |
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9922
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:47:07 -
[46] - Quote
Pomponius Sabinus wrote:
Well it seems like you realised the problem is risk vs reward while asigning fighters from the edge of a POS FF. But instead of making it more interesting by finding some way to make it more dangerous to asign fighters you sadly take the easy way out and just remove it. It would be way more interesting for the game if you found a way to make carriers that asigned fighters more vulnerable.
The best way to adress this Problem would be to not allow asigning fighters within a certain distance to a POS. This will create a lot of interesting encounters / fights over carier/super carriers that are caught while they asigned fighters.
Concerning fighter warp there is no problem with that. People that don't want it can hit the don't follow button and all is fine.
+1
Especially the bolded part. Just spitballing here, but in addition to not being able to deploy fighters near POSs or stations (and taking away bonuses from assigned fighters), maybe a 'siege-like' module that has to be activated for ships to assign fighters, that locks the carrier or SC in place for at least 5 minutes. And/Or 'recieving ship' bandwidth limitations (if a ship has no drone bay, it can't use fighters, if a ship can deploy 5 sentries it can accept 5 fighters etc, which kills small ship 'Skynetting').
I don't know how much of a nightmare that would be from a programming stand point so I offer the above with a big grain of layman's salt lol, but the point is CCP should be making things more interesting, not less.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9922
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:48:02 -
[47] - Quote
Grytok wrote:Simply remove all flavours of drone-assist.
Drone assist is useful in a lot of areas not just pvp. Removing Drone assist is a terrible idea. |
Eveli
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
20
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:48:52 -
[48] - Quote
Remove off grid fighter assign.
Simple.
Follow me on the Twitters : @ThisIsEveli
|
Trafalgar Raw
Star Frontiers
Test Alliance Please Ignore
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:50:48 -
[49] - Quote
Please don't remove fighters delegation.. Just make it such that carriers and super carriers need to be in control range like maybe 5au from where the fighters are going.. And for supers you add a new option "warp to fighter range". So you force carriers out of posses and stations and can be probed down and killed. Make people work for the cookie |
Bluemelon
Genos Occidere
Warlords of the Deep
90
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:51:26 -
[50] - Quote
this change makes me so happy
For all your 3rd party needs join my ingame channel Blue's 3rd Party!
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=365230&find=unread
|
|
|
Morgaine Mighthammer
Rational Chaos Inc.
Phoebe Freeport Republic
10
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:52:27 -
[51] - Quote
personally i think that you shouldn't remove fighter assist, just make it so that when assigned they use up the assignee's drone bandwidth and not just a drone slot.
as an example, we in PFR fly gilas. gilas by themselves only have 20mb of bandwidth allowing 2 super bonused medium drones. as a whole the gila is very nicely balanced right now(thank you to whoever made these drone chages to guristas ships, they happened while i was afk from eve), however, a gila can still have an additional 3 fighters assigned to it with current mechanics. yea, that can be a bit op, awesome, but op. and then there's the whole mess in lowsec with gate camps of inty's having a full 5 fighters each.
so yea, dont remove fighters warp ability, that is a unique game mechanic that i honestly would hate to see removed from the game. but the big one that i think will bring the most balance, just make the fighters use your bandwidth when assigned to you. if you have 50mb you get 2, if you have 25mb you get 1, if you have 15mb, you get zero.
simple as that if you ask me. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
906
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:52:36 -
[52] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:
+1
Especially the bolded part. Just spitballing here, but in addition to not being able to deploy fighters near POSs or stations (and taking away bonuses from assigned fighters), maybe a 'siege-like' module that has to be activated for ships to assign fighters, that locks the carrier or SC in place for at least 5 minutes. And/Or 'recieving ship' bandwidth limitations (if a ship has no drone bay, it can't use fighters, if a ship can deploy 5 sentries it can accept 5 fighters etc, which kills small ship 'Skynetting').
I don't know how much of a nightmare that would be from a programming stand point so I offer the above with a big grain of layman's salt lol, but the point is CCP should be making things more interesting, not less.
Some interesting points there, one down side is that a siege/bastion like module would take away a drone control unit slot but tying fighters to some kind of bastion like mode would make them more interesting and give potential for more balanced ways of making them a little less meh outside of skynet type use.
Having them only get bonuses when assigned by activating some kind of bastion like module would be a solution to a fair few issues without a ridiculous nerf though I'm not hugely in favour of it.
EDIT: I guess as a compromise for off grid use it wouldn't be so bad as you could still fit for 15 fighters when doing stuff ongrid just lose the extra slot when assigning - the game should always be about making a choice and/or compromise not about flat out nerf batting. |
Loken Grimsward
Easy Co.
Fatal Ascension
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:57:05 -
[53] - Quote
I am down with nerfing fighter assist in someway. As to removing it completely, it might be overkill but we can live with it. Nerfing the warp mechanic however would just lead to people using capitals less. I cant see that as being a good thing to be honest. If capitals get nerfed into the ground that will **** alot of people off who spent time training the skills. |
Kat Ayclism
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
324
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 13:58:47 -
[54] - Quote
Just remove assist entirely and leave in Fighter warping. Assist has always been a pretty terrible mechanic anyway.
Carriers and supers are way too slow to make having to chase down abandoned Fighters from warping off anything but a huge hassle, and while it's annoying sometimes if they follow some one off grid it's also a pretty unique and lore-consistent behavior (as they are supposed to essentially be piloted frigates).
If someone doesn't want their fighters to follow, there's already settings for that so no need to remove that from people that occasionally do- whether to score that follow through kill or to make shooting targets within the same system but not grid less annoying. |
Atrol Nalelmir
Sanctuary of Shadows
19
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:00:52 -
[55] - Quote
Skynet is broken, but warping fighters/fighter bombers are cool |
Jayne Fillon
621
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:02:27 -
[56] - Quote
Keep fighter warping.
I've killed more than one off-grid target after they initially escaped and then warped to a celestial.
Quick drone return when fighting something on grid, but hundreds of kilometers away.
Being able to leave grid without having to wait for your fighters to return.
Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5885
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:02:51 -
[57] - Quote
Rroff wrote:War Kitten wrote:
I guess it was too hard to remove ship bonuses from off-grid fighters? Or was that just not nerfy enough?
Not really needed IMO the main issue is the ability to pretty much "blap" smaller stuff that they should never be able to touch in the first place realistically (even if they are frigate sized vessels*) and that can be far more elegantly countered with proper sig/damage scaling than slamming them with the nerf bat. * Not piloted by pod pilots so not as highly skilled at gunnery + gameplay reasons.
The only reason they could blap that small stuff is because they benefited from an overload of tracking and damage mods on the carrier. If those bonuses weren't applied off-grid from the carrier, that couldn't happen any more.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Grookshank
Brave Newbies Inc.
Brave Collective
45
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:04:40 -
[58] - Quote
Just remove the Fighter/Fighter Bomber Assist. I don't see anything broken risk/reward wise with fighters warping and following a target. It just makes them unique in that regard. |
Rroff
Questionable Ethics.
Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
907
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:08:09 -
[59] - Quote
War Kitten wrote:
The only reason they could blap that small stuff is because they benefited from an overload of tracking and damage mods on the carrier. If those bonuses weren't applied off-grid from the carrier, that couldn't happen any more.
People use assigned fighters for other areas of eve not just skynet which would be affected by the loss of bonuses - though only applying the lack of bonus off-grid would have less an effect than a total loss when assigned/assisted.
EDIT: Assist would keep the bonuses ongrid anyhow mind unless that was special cases yet again as its a different mechanic to assigned. |
colera deldios
293
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:08:26 -
[60] - Quote
Fighters are not OP when they are not bonuses from drone mods. Why not simply remove drone module effects to assigned Fighters. So when fighters are assigned they only get ship hulls bonus..
This feels a lot like nerfing out of spite.. Assisting fighters has it's positives it seems wrong to remove a mechanic simply because few incompetent people can't setup a trap. |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| 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 |