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

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)
beakerax Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 43	Posted - 2015.03.01 00:18:12 - [631] - Quote You know, CCP, instead of removing carriers' and supercarriers' ability to provide thousands of dps from off-grid in almost total safety and thereby obliterate a completely legitimate playstyle that we've all worked hard to participate in, you could simply add better counters to them. A few inter-system doomsdays would take care of a Skynet-fit Nyx pretty quick.
Hellion Vlad The Branded Few The Pestilent Legion 2	Posted - 2015.03.01 00:19:38 - [632] - Quote Just do like you do Cynos. If you are closer then 5 or 10 k you can not assist fighters. do not mess with a good thing. The pilots that cry either do not have the skills or fire power to deal with it, so they should not be in that system. Fix **** like Stealth campers, Make them burn liquid ozone to stealth. Put a good amount on it also. Like a full bay would only last you 3 hours. and leave no room for any other ammo. But please do not mess up a good thing. you are starting to dumb this game down. Taking the assist option away would turn a carrier into nothing more then tank on field not a strategic asset.
Liam Inkuras AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 1454	Posted - 2015.03.01 00:23:43 - [633] - Quote Hellion Vlad wrote: Just do like you do Cynos. If you are closer then 5 or 10 k you can not assist fighters. do not mess with a good thing. The pilots that cry either do not have the skills or fire power to deal with it, so they should not be in that system. Fix **** like Stealth campers, Make them burn liquid ozone to stealth. Put a good amount on it also. Like a full bay would only last you 3 hours. and leave no room for any other ammo. But please do not mess up a good thing. you are starting to dumb this game down. Taking the assist option away would turn a carrier into nothing more then tank on field not a strategic asset. Sitting on a gate with 3 Inties and a nyx's dps was dumbing the game down I wear my goggles at night. Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone
Spike Hellthrod Crimson Crusaders Opprimo Vox 1	Posted - 2015.03.01 01:03:12 - [634] - Quote What are you guys doing?!!?? Carriers can barely jump, your removing their ability to assign fighters, and you don't want to let the fighters warp to you if you have to warp off grid?!! Why not just remove the carrier name and call it a 'Capital FreeKM' The role of a carrier is to provide fighter support to the fleet. That's how it works in real life. A carrier assigns fighters to a small special ops force that go in and kill a high value target. That's what they do....force projection. There is plenty of risk for capitals now that they can't jump anywhere! For the love of god stop nerfing them!!
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4092	Posted - 2015.03.01 01:35:42 - [635] - Quote Kill all drone assist (not just fighters). Limit sentry drones to battlecruiser and high hulls. Leave fighter warp mechanics as they are. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
BJK Quam Singulari Northern Associates. 2	Posted - 2015.03.01 02:58:20 - [636] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: carriers and super carriers can sit in near perfect safety at the edge of starbase shields 148B Isk Revenant down: https://zkillboard.com/kill/44917133/ Pretty much one-volley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0VoH3lkOO0 No-one is EVER safe.
Nettoyeur Marl Incorporated 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 03:07:31 - [637] - Quote Considering the amount of time and effort that goes into training to use a Carrier and Fighters, you need to have some perks to them. If you want to stop the tactic of assigning fighters to fast tackle such then you have a few options in my opinion: 1. Remove fighter assist altogether. - yes it stops this tactic full stop, but also removes some creativity of players. - Too easy to do this, best to try some other options first. 2. Have fighter assist dependent of bandwidth of the assisting player. - Fighters currently need 25mbit/s, so this tactic would still work, but limited to larger ships and a few cruisers. - Still doesn't add any more risk to the Carrier pilot. 3. Require carriers to be on grid with the assisting ship. - adds more risk to the carrier pilot - Would still allow fast tackle to be in assistance. I think having a combination of options 2 and 3 would work. If carrier pilots want to assign fighters to another pilot, then make the assisting Pilot stay on grid and a decent amount of bandwidth (125mib/s for 5 fighters) to do so. This would force fleets that want to use this tactic to make sure they have suitable ships for assisting and mean that the carrier pilot can't just hide away and rock up kill-mails. As for fighter warping, well that is not mentioned in the original question, but I can't see why that has to be changed. Its something rather unique and to my knowledge doesn't adversely effect the game right now.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 926	Posted - 2015.03.01 03:13:44 - [638] - Quote BJK wrote: CCP Rise wrote: carriers and super carriers can sit in near perfect safety at the edge of starbase shields 148B Isk Revenant down: https://zkillboard.com/kill/44917133/ Pretty much one-volley: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0VoH3lkOO0 No-one is EVER safe. IIRC he logged in like 20-30km outside the FF.
Bonzair Estamos Solos Corporation Estamos Solos Alliance. 7	Posted - 2015.03.01 04:18:14 - [639] - Quote Don't touch fighters and capitals. You already fix it enough. Next step can kill this class at all. (you fixed drones, you fixed jumps, Stop it! ) If you will remove assist with fighters you'll change balance to mass of crying zerg again. It's not normal that count of players (e.g. in gang) is better than their quality. When you fixed jumps you've already given this problem to small corporations and now you want to do their defence more hard. Are you crazy guys? Stop fix everything that you see. Do something new. Combine DUST and EVE for example. give to us new ships (that can be alternative for ishtars. No. You want to fix. FIX. FIX. You're doing it so long time.
Lucille Laurent Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 04:29:29 - [640] - Quote Besides there is a huge risk still. The guy with the reverent got DD'd by PL. So yeah - bullshit on the risk/reward.
Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 1434	Posted - 2015.03.01 04:42:28 - [641] - Quote Delicious tears. The Tears Must Flow
Nimrodion Lazerhawks 43	Posted - 2015.03.01 04:56:04 - [642] - Quote I believe that fighter warp ability should remain in game, as it allows the attacker to keep projecting power towards the defender even after the later warps out, thinking they were safe. it's little details like this that make EVE special e.g. You hotdrop a capital that's aligning to station, but for some reason lose point while your fighters are applying damage. The target warps off in hull but lands slightly off dock range of the station. While he slowboats towards it fighters land and finish the job The best solution would be to introduce a toggle for fighter warp drives, if it's possible from technical side.
Akami Satou Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 2	Posted - 2015.03.01 05:01:43 - [643] - Quote Remove warp and assist plz. Kthx
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 864	Posted - 2015.03.01 06:47:09 - [644] - Quote malia katain wrote: To Be honest since you nerfed the carriers jump range i just stopped useing carriers fullstop. what your doing is messing with billions of isk worth of ships that people worked the ass's off in game to build, and have rendered them almost useless from their traditional roles. Contant fiddleing and messing with stuff may seem like a great idea to you guys, but all your doing is alienateing people from going into those types of ships. i dont support chages to the way fighters currently work. but whats the point in telling you anyway. if your going to nerf something, you will no matter what the players say. Some of the 'traditional' roles for caps absolutely blow. Example 1 - (known as the soul crushing lag maneuver) - get your 200 archons on grid of choice right after DT, deploy sentries, assist sentries to noob X - kill everything before it loads grid. The ability to do this needs to go. Example 2 - (known as the risk averse nanny nanny boo boo tool maneuver) - nose your carrier out of a POS shield and assist your fighters to noob X. The ability to do this needs to go. There used to be a tradition to burn witches at the stake. Overall it's probably a good thing that we parted with that tradition. If you're the guy that skilled up a carrier to nose out of a POS and assign fighters like a tool - I really want you to tell me all about how you feel when it goes away. I want ALL the details.... self talk, pictures of broken things and tear stained pillow cases... I want it all.
Bo Kong Curvature 1	Posted - 2015.03.01 07:07:43 - [645] - Quote Don't remove fighter's warping ability. IT's kinda of the only reason I started flying carriers at the first time. I like the fun.
UXOR German Angels DARKNESS. 1	Posted - 2015.03.01 07:12:31 - [646] - Quote Remove diversity its a stupid idea. Change it. Simple Solution: 1 active high slot module ... Fighter Assist Link Module Limited to one module per Ship Small Version - Assist max. 1 Fighters (Frigs, Destroyer) Medium Version - Assist max 3 Fighters (Cruiser, Hac) Large Version - Assist max 5 Fighters (BC, Battleships) 1. Its an active Module -- the Ship need cap to activate it 2. Limited Fighter Numbers per ship class 3. is the cap at zero .. the fighter go back to the carrier (neuted frigs lost the fighter) 4. no module fittet = no fighter support (special fit is needed for gangs that will use fighter) 5. invest a high slot to get fighters
Quod Cogitatio Kamelot Inc 1	Posted - 2015.03.01 07:39:12 - [647] - Quote UXOR wrote: Remove diversity its a stupid idea. Change it. Simple Solution: 1 active high slot module ... Fighter Assist Link Module Limited to one module per Ship Small Version - Assist max. 1 Fighters (Frigs, Destroyer) Medium Version - Assist max 3 Fighters (Cruiser, Hac) Large Version - Assist max 5 Fighters (BC, Battleships) 1. Its an active Module -- the Ship need cap to activate it 2. Limited Fighter Numbers per ship class 3. is the cap at zero .. the fighter go back to the carrier (neuted frigs lost the fighter) 4. no module fittet = no fighter support (special fit is needed for gangs that will use fighter) 5. invest a high slot to get fighters As similar solution. 1 modile for carrier/mother. When active - fighters can warp and be assisted, depends on target capability taking assists. Thats all. Must be counted as weapon and can not be activated under POS forcefield. That's all
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 615	Posted - 2015.03.01 07:47:23 - [648] - Quote Katarina The Despoiler wrote: Carriers and Supers should have an option in the Drone Window, whether the fighters/bombers enter warp or not. So you can either sit there and have them stay on grid, or chase the guy fleeing if you don't need the dps on grid at that time. CCP would never do that. Nimrodion wrote: The best solution would be to introduce a toggle for fighter warp drives, if it's possible from technical side. Nope. Not possible. Not at all. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Byson1 Origin Unlimited Natural Selection Initiative 17	Posted - 2015.03.01 08:50:39 - [649] - Quote So a 30bill Mom is safe next to a pos? Is it balanced that a few greifers should be able to dictate how they dont want to face any fighters in their frigs as they warp in to light cynos. What is the use of moms ? none.. good job working to get one.. now go self destruct. thats what they are for. Is this the enjoyment you want? There are a few ships that should be overpowered. If they want to face a fleet with capitals in it they should bring caps. quit listening to cry babies who wine that skynet killed them. A 30bill capital should have benefits over a bunch of frigs. Fighters should be able to be assigned. Capitals should be able to deal out death. let the greifers cry.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 866	Posted - 2015.03.01 08:58:45 - [650] - Quote Byson1 wrote: So a 30bill Mom is safe next to a pos? Is it balanced that a few greifers should be able to dictate how they dont want to face any fighters in their frigs as they warp in to light cynos. What is the use of moms ? none.. good job working to get one.. now go self destruct. thats what they are for. Is this the enjoyment you want? There are a few ships that should be overpowered. If they want to face a fleet with capitals in it they should bring caps. quit listening to cry babies who wine that skynet killed them. A 30bill capital should have benefits over a bunch of frigs. Fighters should be able to be assigned. Capitals should be able to deal out death. let the greifers cry. I'm confused. Could you clarify. Do you feel it's an acceptable practice to nose out of a POS and delegate fighters?
Dean Dewitt Babylon Knights DARKNESS. 17	Posted - 2015.03.01 09:02:21 - [651] - Quote There is something wrong,the way you think CCP, so people can use hyperdunking to suicid gank in high sec? But in 0.0 or low sec they can't use fighter assist? Moreover the fighter won't be able to warp? Stop killing capitals, these ships are one of the most important reason why people want to leave the 0.0. You want to fix something? Make the Rorqual useful, the way he is now it is not. Moreover talking about risk vs reward, the ******* idiot reason you talk about nerfing carrier and mothership. Is it really risky to put a rorqual or an orca in pos to boost his fleet? You know it's not risky but just because people started to cry because it's not risky to assign fighters for a carrier you want to change. Fighter assignement is good as it is, you want to make it more fair to fight, fine, put a big range between POS/ station and carrier/mothership, put a timer, make fighter pointable (and make a killmail because they are pilots after all), I don't know, there are a lot of good ideas in this post if you put it for a carrier don't forget the rorqual/orca in pos which is still cosy inside the pos.
Dean Dewitt Babylon Knights DARKNESS. 17	Posted - 2015.03.01 09:03:33 - [652] - Quote Sorry for double posting
Byson1 Origin Unlimited Natural Selection Initiative 19	Posted - 2015.03.01 09:10:12 - [653] - Quote You want to keep things interesting; Instead of constant nerfs, how about making something new?
Rovinia Exotic Dancers Union SONS of BANE 356	Posted - 2015.03.01 09:18:03 - [654] - Quote I have no problem with removing Fighter Assist, but let them keep their ability to warp. It's what makes a Fighter a Fighter, not just an other oversized drone. It's just a cool feature.
Byson1 Origin Unlimited Natural Selection Initiative 20	Posted - 2015.03.01 09:26:09 - [655] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Byson1 wrote: So a 30bill Mom is safe next to a pos? Is it balanced that a few greifers should be able to dictate how they dont want to face any fighters in their frigs as they warp in to light cynos. What is the use of moms ? none.. good job working to get one.. now go self destruct. thats what they are for. Is this the enjoyment you want? There are a few ships that should be overpowered. If they want to face a fleet with capitals in it they should bring caps. quit listening to cry babies who wine that skynet killed them. A 30bill capital should have benefits over a bunch of frigs. Fighters should be able to be assigned. Capitals should be able to deal out death. let the greifers cry. I'm confused. Could you clarify. Do you feel it's an acceptable practice to nose out of a POS and delegate fighters? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGKP-d15HmA YES! why not? a POS CAN COME DOWN. A carrier should be able to project force. A fleet with one SHOULD BE a force to recon with. It's difficult to deal with them AS IT SHOULD BE. No what i really mean is lets nerf carriers so much that no one uses them. Get rid of all options change all ships so they do the same DPS (EXCEPT the ones ccp and friends are using) then when people figure out which ones those are- change it up. Thats what I mean. yeah sounds good right? that way its fair. they are all the same except the people that count they can have an advantage no matter what you go against. a capital... pfff... its just another ship. everyone should be able to kill them. I know CCP should just hand out carriers for free so everyone can get a carrier kill mail when they are board. maybe pre pointed and can only deploy ecm drones. yeah sounds good. fighters are too scary. please ccp dont make me face fighters thanks.
VolatileVoid ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx 45	Posted - 2015.03.01 09:26:29 - [656] - Quote Removing fighter assist will remove the support for low skilled new members. If this happens don't forget to remane the ships and move the carrier and supercarrier into a ship section that is called Logistics.
Dungspreader Enso Corp Business Alliance of Manufacturers and Miners 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 09:27:59 - [657] - Quote it's a good idea - killing carriers is fun - finding more ways to get carriers out of poses is good. keep the assign nerf but keep fighter warp is my vote.
Schlampa Kids with Catalysts Clockwork Pineapple 5	Posted - 2015.03.01 09:36:17 - [658] - Quote malia katain wrote: i dont support changes to the way fighters currently work. but whats the point in telling you anyway. if your going to nerf something, you will no matter what the players say. Pretty much, every time new changes are announce I think to myself, "I wonder what functionality they're removing from capitals this time around." There are fewer and fewer roles that carriers play now. PL's destruction of a Revenant has proven that even supercarriers sitting on pos shields are not invincible. CCP should be rewarding people who show initiative and put in the time and effort into this game. That includes a years worth of skill training for what are now near useless capital skills. Some of us put in more effort than fitting a warp core stab to our venture.
TrickyBlackSteel Snuff Box Snuffed Out 5	Posted - 2015.03.01 09:41:29 - [659] - Quote Why taking off fighter assign ,they are creating content ,like days ago ,the revenant that got killed,we not gonna see any super around anymore,fu** ,why we gonna need supers if we take an importantt think off
Skia Aumer Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC 128	Posted - 2015.03.01 10:11:15 - [660] - Quote I confirm that assisting fighters is 100% safe. Good job CCP, keep making ships worth 20+ bil isk and years of training even more useless. I'm looking forward for the day when you say "no more structure grinding, now you can claim sov in a noobship!" On the other hand, I confirm that sentry drones on carriers are totally fine. Just look at the graph - they only deal so little damage! Wait a second, maybe there are no idiots who will try to engage with slowcats? Oh, what a heresy - of course there are! And I'm pretty sure CCP kil2 himself would warp his Talos to a bunch of those any day, just to test his tank.

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.