This thread is for discussing the proposed removal of fighter assist for carriers and super carriers.

I think you mean fighter control delegation and not fighter assist.

As one of the key person for executing and communicating this change, I find your inability to use the correct term disturbing.

Doesn't matter. He isn't reading this thread anyway.

Keeping the warp drive would be beneficial to almost everyone, whereas removing assist for them would help gameplay tremendously. For instance a nyx and 4 carriers were sitting on the edge of a pos the other day killing a triage. Nothing we could do but watch, becuase if we bump it then it's an exploit etc. If they don't want to risk it on grid then they should stop being pansies, and sitting on the edge of the pos shields. Also, you can't even kill it cause there is not a single way of bumping it when it's half way in the shields anyway.

I'm still trying to see why keeping the fighter warp is beneficial. Nobody is saying why.

So what? You haven't said why it should be removed, and unless you can then it should stay.

Nobody has made any argument as to why it should be removed beyond "only lazy people use it" and "it can be annoying", both of which are stupid because the first isn't a valid reason to remove it, and the second is irrelevant because we can already turn that **** off ourselves if we want to.

So what? You haven't said why it should be removed, and unless you can then it should stay.

Nobody has made any argument as to why it should be removed beyond "only lazy people use it" and "it can be annoying", both of which are stupid because the first isn't a valid reason to remove it, and the second is irrelevant because we can already turn that **** off ourselves if we want to.

I'm thinking about quoting every dilettante with
http://gorsking.blogspot.de/2015/02/****-skynet.html
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532655#post5532655
maybe it will help but i doubt it.

So maybe every new site once so i don't spam this topic?

So a good deal of the concern and worries of people here are perfectly valid; the removal of fighter assist is a good lighting rod for encapsulating the general zeitgeist of dissatisfaction with the way changes are happening these days.

Trend lines are scary both for where they have crossed, but also for where they point to; what else can people expect to have removed because it is a convenient way to address a problem?

Part of the epicness of this game is finally having a training plan pay off, of having goals that aren't reached overnight, or getting that ship you have been aiming for. You are seriously damaging players' will to stay the course, set big goals, or even attempt or care about bigger trains by repeatedly altering bigger ships into absolute impracticality.

Jump fatigue solved a problem. However, it also had collateral damage; relocations, deployments, and wars are all under much heavier constraint, and ships that people had trained for, as in spent valuable time training for, were no longer all that functional. What players are upset about is the appearance of being blaz+¬ about the collateral damage of changes. Lots of people owned carriers to be able to move their ships to where they can actually find content - now this feature is so changed as to not be what people were training towards.

Cap and supercap pilots are frustrated already. Part of this could be pointed to the political structures which keep them inactive, but just as well, this blame is or can be passed on to the sov system that spawned such political structures. Just taking things from players after they have earned them doesn't inspire confidence; people would generally feel better if there was a balance between nerfs and buffs, instead of seeing their SP investment entirely poof into dust in the wind.

Too many bandaids do not fix what requires actual attention.

wouldn't it be better to just put a command line in which a Carrier couldn't put assist on fighter @ less than X km from a station / gate / POS / whatever ?

Skynet would still exist, but Carrier would be Probe-able and in danger cause they get Fighters timers !

What about an assisted drone bandwidth?

Just as an example. The taranis interceptor has a normal drone bandwidth of 10 Mbit/sec. If that was his assisted drone bandwidth, then he wouldn't even be able to have a fighter assigned to him at all. I'm not saying it should be 10 Mbits/sec. Let say it was 25 Mbits/sec assisted drone bandwidth. That allows the pilot to have the option of 1 fighter or 5 light drones. He could have 1 heavy drone or 2 medium drones and 1 light drone. Obviously this amount would grow exponentially as the ship size goes up. An example being a battleship can have a full 5 fighters assisting him, but he is risking his battleship on grid.

this game keeps getting nerfed,it gets duller for ever forced gameplay style,cattleprodding the player base into the next playstyle to then nerf it,the game gets smaller and more dull for every removal of personal choice,nerfing the capitals and supers that is the current trend removes endgame,everytime a doctrine shows to be effective because its the least nerfed ship it gets nerfed.
i cant put the words for it down but it makes the world of eve online smaller and less exciting,i dont want all the ships to be the same and nerfed into a childsafe yellow bumpercar with foampadding...

I just unsubscribe, and will play the free games. It's the same thing, that: Imagine how much time for that would buy a super carrier, for the average player. And now, bleeding and sweat, I finally acquires it. And a month later you want to take the power, to which I have sought for several years? I myself was a victim of this superiority. The only difference is that I did not write the petition for developers. I have steel balls. If I was a victim of persecution fighter that, I did something wrong, and it's my fault. If some pilots lit ass when they are killed delegating fighters, well, you should not fly in zero. On the eve of the empire there, let them live there. Sry for my ENG