This is ASSIST not ASSIGNING, can we talk about the issue with people who know what they are talking about?

People are using fighters just because of the tracking and damage bonuses from modules. From those modules, the fighters have the ability to project damage to battleships and even cruiser sized hulls.

If you remove those bonuses, along with the fighter delegation, then you have to ask yourself, what is the purpose of the fighter in the first place? People would just stop using them as they did before the fighter buffs.

Why not remove the fighters completely in that case?

This would be more convincing if you weren't defending people who are unwilling to actually deploy their carriers on-grid.

All i hear is cry cry cry. If you want to do something rather than cry,

Hot drop the pos with the carrier. take down the pos. Target fighters. It's doable- why have CCP make carriers pathetic?

Yes everyone wants carriers to warp to gates- GUESS WHAT, Until carriers can really do the damage for 'their risk' aka cost no one is going to do that. IT'S ********.

THE ONLY ONES GOING TO DO might be LARGE ALLIANCES

IS THIS WHAT CCP WANTS? LARGE COALITIONS AND ALLIANCES THE ONLY ONES ABLE TO FIELD CAPS?

What? should we make this so you can fly in with your shuttle and destroy carriers?

Fighters are expensive. More so than most frigs, so to say sticking a few on a frig is no risk is BS.

FIGHTERS CAN POP.

Keep crying, it shows how pathetic you are.

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.

I'm sure someone in the thread has said it, but:

Isn't the obvious answer to "skynet" just to remove the bonuses from the carrier (in the case of the thanatos) and modules when the fighters are assigned to someone? Few pilots used fighter assignment till the skills/module changes were introduced since fighters really are not ideal against small targets without them. You just made fighters viable after years of near uselessness, now you want to nerf them?

I think most everyone agrees fighters warping is fine and should be left alone. It really is a cool feature.

This just in, Mass Carrier and Super carrier pilot Un-subs Coming In Scylla!

Nothing will change and CCP wont listen to me/ this post/ or any of us.
but this rant still needs to happen because its honest feedback.

That said CCP is still a bunch of dumb Phucks...
They over buffed the carriers by allowing DDAs to affect fighters/bombers, then sit here and wonder why its now an issue..

Skynet was NEVER an issue back in the day... But CCP will never admit they screwed up, because they have no spine, no **** and no balls. not a single 1 of them...
OH NOOO... Clearly the solution is to cut someones head off because they have an ear infection, then proceed to say "well the rest of you is fine, you should be happy"

i agree Fighters WERE crappy back then. now they are OP.
all they needed was a 15-25% damage buff.
not a freaking 125% buff from cramming 4+ DDAs in the lows of carriers.

The solution for the carriers/skynet is as follows
1: make it so they cant assign fighters unless 50km from a pos. (this allows a gang with logi and DPS to kill it pretty easily, then warp out. as well as Headshoting from titans)
2: Remove DDAs affecting fighters/fighter bombers.
3: give the supers their 3 fighters per level back.
4: make fighters & fighter bombers more kill able by allowing them to be Warp Jammed by dictors, hictors. and point modules. (they should never of been immune in the 1st place)
5: reset the fighters/bombers DPS to how they were before the carrier changes last year, then add a 15-25% damage buff so they are alittle bit better than heavy drones, and actually have a point..

If you don't remove the fighter assist, and opt instead to implement to above 1-5 changes, and people are still complaining/losing ships in fights because they are to R3tarded to shoot the fighters, than its their fault.


Fighter drones aren't freaking cheap. Each one basically cost a what a blank Tech 1 Tier 1 BattleCruiser Hull does, and their supply is HIGHLY limited.
Plus its not as if they have 3890389019083 of the things like they do with light drones. depending on the carrier/drone bay size, they have 15-20 MAX!
Thats it.... Supers have slightly more obviously but its not an issue.

Carriers, and fighter assist was/is a good force multiplier for the little guys who cant have 39038901231553489023894=23rm3jrj3453 members in a big gay boring skill-less blob to throw into every fight.
On top of that, the way the assist works now makes sense. modern carriers dont move into freaking battleship gun range to launch fighters/bombers at their targets, you never even see the carriers.. thats how it currently works ingame. thats how it works in reality. and that's how it should CONTINUE TO WORK!

as for not providing Gameplay for the carrier pilot??? what are you smoking?

were a small corp, im a carrier pilot i often sit there, giving fighters to corp mates in PVP battle or ratting.
You get a feeling like your in the CIC of battlestar galactica. I LOVE to sit there and feel like an admiral on the flagship of the fleet, while listening to battle chatter on the radio, while also jacking off to the 2nd hand action...

It gives you a sense and feeling of power and action that you cannot get when you're in LITERALLY EVERY OTHER SHIP IN THE GAME, on field and focused on staying alive in a fight.

yet another reason not to do this is because you're literally alienating your customers who spent 1 YEAR of REAL TIME and 240$ on subscriptions to train a decent carrier to do the very game mechanic you are about to remove.. You are literally Phucking them out of the game, and making their work/effort wasted and pointless.

This is something that will ROYALLY p1$$ people off and lose you subscribers.


I won't ever be subbing my alt carrier anymore. and my main will be following it if this change goes through anyway.
you can silence and ban me for speaking out like this, but you will just be doing me a favor anyway, besides you can't silence and ban the truth.

AND IM NOT THE ONLY ONE who feels this way either.



Hey CCP i should work for you, i have some dumb ass ideas too..
how about we make Logi ships not heal anymore because its over powered? and while were at it, we should make T2 cruisers have the same resists, stats and bonuses as t1 cruisers. but still cost like 200M+ for just the hull.

hell lets do that for all t2 and t3 ships.

Recons shouldn't cloak anymore either, because that's over powered, and dumb, and stupid.


Please fire your current roster of Game Devs and Minor management personnel, and replace them with competent people.
Thank you.

://End Feedback/Rant

Forum rules

2. Be respectful toward others at all times.

The purpose of the EVE Online forums is to provide a platform for exchange of ideas, and a venue for the discussion of EVE Online. Occasionally there will be conflicts that arise when people voice opinions. Forum users are expected to be courteous when disagreeing with others.

4. Personal attacks are prohibited.

Commonly known as flaming, personal attacks are posts that are designed to personally berate or insult another forum user. Posts of this nature are not conductive to the community spirit that CCP promotes. As such, this kind of behavior will not be tolerated.

8. Use of profanity is prohibited.

The use of profanity is prohibited on the EVE Online forums. This includes the partial masking of letters using numbers or alternate symbols, and any attempts at bypassing the profanity filter.

31. Abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers is prohibited.

CCP operate a zero tolerance policy on abuse of CCP employees and ISD volunteers. This includes but is not limited to personal attacks, trolling, GÇ£outingGÇ¥ of CCP employee or ISD volunteer player identities, and the use of any former player identities when referring to the aforementioned parties.

Our forums are designed to be a place where players and developers can exchange ideas in a polite and friendly manner for the betterment of EVE Online. Players who attack or abuse employees of CCP, or ISD volunteers, will be permanently banned from the EVE Online forums across all their accounts with no recourse, and may also be subject to action against their game accounts.

There was, of course, a simpler way of solving this problem without nerfing the uniqueness of fighters.

Make aggression rules apply to the ship they're assigned to. Small frigates instalocking ships on gates in lowsec go boom to gate guns the moment any fighters/drones assigned to them aggress something. It should have really been the only solution considered, but instead another element of the sandbox and the nature of EVE in general is killed off in a kneejerk reaction to what really amounts as nothing more than increased forum whining due to an influx of CCP's latest target audience - people who play every other MMO that EVE isn't.

Removed a post.

Its low sec. Can't have gate guns shooting suspects with deadly effect. That would take out 80% of roam groups and stop capsuleer hot pursuit. Plus gate guns would need to be more deadly and proof against just being blown away for convenience. (From the flashing red pod killer outlaws in gate camps I passed I assume they can still be taken out really easily and don't come back until next DT.)

If you change gate guns to shoot suspect small frigates, next you will be wanting to shoot the rare disco BS parked on gates to kill frigates, pods, and bad tanked haulers warping to zero. Gate guns would need to be much more deadly for that.

Instead of removing fighter assist, why not create a highslot module called a Fighter Assist Link. This module would allow a certain amount of bandwidth of fighters and bombers to be assigned. They could come in a variety of sizes so small ships might only be able to have 1 fighter assisted to it, while a large one could have several bombers assigned to it.

mad bro? you can silence me but you cant silence the truth!

There was, of course, a simpler way of solving this problem without nerfing the uniqueness of fighters.

Make aggression rules apply to the ship they're assigned to. Small frigates instalocking ships on gates in lowsec go boom to gate guns the moment any fighters/drones assigned to them aggress something. It should have really been the only solution considered, but instead another element of the sandbox and the nature of EVE in general is killed off in a kneejerk reaction to what really amounts as nothing more than increased forum whining due to an influx of CCP's latest target audience - people who play every other MMO that EVE isn't.

Truth is a religious concept. Come back and try again when you have facts, supported with data and/or citations. GG.