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) |
Querns
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
1342
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:09:19 -
[61] - Quote
I like these changes, but allowing carriers to recall fighters if they leave grid would be nice to have.
Say, if a carrier is engaging someone, but then leaves grid, the fighters stop fighting, then follow the carrier in warp.
If fighters could be warp scrambled, that would be cool too.
This post was crafted by the wormhole expert of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal, the foremost authority on Eve: Online economics and gameplay.
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
1098
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:11:34 -
[62] - Quote
don't give in to those wanting to keep the warp ability on fighters, they are just big drones not actual ships
Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists.
ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone/fighter assist mechanic.
Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
|
Sir Constantin
Chiosc Ind
25
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:12:47 -
[63] - Quote
Keep fighters warping because it's a cool mechanic and remove all drone assist.
Removing drone assist it's a positive thing, it promotes active gameplay and also have a impact on multiboxers. |
Anon Nymous
Hedion University Amarr Empire
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:13:24 -
[64] - Quote
my take on it is to give them sellectable "pursue to warp" setting (where the focus fire checkbox is)
This allows people who want them to stay on grid to have their say, and those who want them to pursue can still do so. This also allows them to warp back to a carrier if a carrier warps off grid instead of leaving 21m fighters for the enemy to scoop. |
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
4084
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:13:49 -
[65] - Quote
colera deldios wrote: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. Definitely not. Fighters already received a balance pass, so let's not open Pandora's Box here again.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9924
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:14:40 -
[66] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:don't give in to those wanting to keep the warp ability on fighters, they are just big drones not actual ships
Big drones that no one with any sense will use if you lose a quarter of a billion isk everytime you have to run away from someone. The point of keeping fighter warping is so people keep using fighters. Without fighter warping your better off just using heavy drones, and no one will do that in pvp or pve for a variety of reasons. |
Arthur Aihaken
X A X
4084
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:14:44 -
[67] - Quote
Anon Nymous wrote:my take on it is to give them sellectable "pursue to warp" setting (where the focus fire checkbox is) Apparently that's what "Attack and Follow" does.
I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
|
Arch1bald
Repercussus Goonswarm Federation
24
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:16:12 -
[68] - Quote
The issue here is risk vs reward, not skynet or never skynet again. I really am starting to hate the way you think CCP. Every ship nerfed ever is because something was better then something, so instead of boosting the problem ships, you nerfed the good one.
If you remove the ability to assign fighters, you remove the pvp combat benefits of carriers and motherships.
You want to nerf fighter assign when your real problem is pos mechanics. #StopTheNerfs
The obvious solution should be to disable fighter assign while within 45-50k range of a anchored starbase. THIS would solve the risk vs reward issue. Now you force carriers and supers to be atleast 25k off their pos shields, and even motherships are vulnerable to a bunch of titan DD's, and carriers can be killed with small gangs right on their pos.
Please CCP, for the love of EvE, Stop the nerfing wars. #HireMeForGuidance |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates Forged of Fire
837
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:16:13 -
[69] - Quote
Axloth Okiah wrote:How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable?
I support that.
You could also make it a toggle. Give the player the option to have them warp via a checkbox.
The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
|
OutCast EG
Very Industrial Corp. Legion of xXDEATHXx
20
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:18:44 -
[70] - Quote
You shouldn't remove the whole assignment mechanic just because you overbuffed assigned fighters via mods & skills bonus application change. Assignment was in the game for what, 10 years? And it never was a problem until you started applying each and every drone bonus there is to fighters. Solution: undo this bonus application change for assigned fighters and keep the mechanic itself. If that's not enough - allow assignment to cruisers, even BCs, only. edit: Or you could disallow assignment within 10-20k off a force field. But i'm sure there's some legacy code involved there. But don't remove the unique mechanic that was perfectly fine for years.
As for warping, fighters and FBs 100% must be able to follow you when you leave the field. A choice between losing your super or several hundred mil in FBs is not a good one. Same for carriers and fighters. Fighters following targets is often an annoyance, so a toggle for that would be perfect. |
|
Jenn aSide
Smokin Aces.
9926
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:21:17 -
[71] - Quote
OutCast EG wrote:You shouldn't remove the whole assignment mechanic just because you overbuffed assigned fighters via mods & skills bonus application change. Assignment was in the game for what, 10 years? And it never was a problem until you started applying each and every drone bonus there is to fighters. Solution: undo this bonus application change for assigned fighters and keep the mechanic itself. If that's not enough - allow assignment to cruisers, even BCs, only. But don't remove the unique mechanic that was perfectly fine for years.
As for warping, fighters and FBs 100% must be able to follow you when you leave the field. A choice between losing your super or several hundred mil in FBs is not a good one. Same for carriers and fighters. Fighters following targets is often an annoyance, so a toggle for that would be perfect.
So much this.
|
Altirius Saldiaro
Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire
300
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:22:30 -
[72] - Quote
Leave their ability to warp. Its one of the reasons I wanted to fly a carrier in the first place. I am ok with removing the ability to assist. Hell, I say go as far as removing all drone assist completely from the game. I've heard Mike Azeriah talk about that before and I agree with him. |
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
5886
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:24:55 -
[73] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:Anon Nymous wrote:my take on it is to give them sellectable "pursue to warp" setting (where the focus fire checkbox is) Apparently that's what "Attack and Follow" does.
Yeah, people keep going on about wanting that option. I was pretty sure we already had it.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
|
Inslander Wessette
Killers of Paranoid Souls Universal Paranoia Alliance
11
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:33:22 -
[74] - Quote
Delegating fighters is not equal to drone assist as delegating fighters is a unique mechanism .
Removing the mechanism would result in ships like thanatos (dedicated fighter bonus) being even more useless than they already are .
A really easy fix would be not allowing fighter assist within said radius of the POS force field or station .
A more complex and suggested fix would be to have a highslot module that acts like beacon on the ship to which the fighters will home or tether on to .
Whilst the beacon is on the fighters can be delegated .
With the module having said cpu / powergrid values we can easily screen out the ships that fighters can be delegated to . ( frigates and shuttles etc) |
TheMercenaryKing
StarFleet Enterprises Almost Awesome.
355
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:36:41 -
[75] - Quote
Kailen Thorn wrote:Don't remove Fighter warp, it is one of the unique features of carriers. Same as 25 FighterBomber's for supers but you removed that.
Fighterbombers were the unique feature of supers and not the Fighterbomber's warp mechanics.
Rather than remove the feature, make a mod that cannot be activated within a force field that allows carrier to launch their fighters.
I like the warp mechanic because fighters are expensive (relatively speaking). If you remove the warp mechanic then make fighters cheaper as a lot more will be lost. |
Berial Inglebard
Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda
2
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:37:01 -
[76] - Quote
I agree with of the removal of fighter assisting, and I think we can see a fairly solid consensus on this matter in this topic.
I do not feel that removing fighter warping is necessary however. It is important to have a mechanic that separates them from just being "Ultra Heavy" drones. If anything, having fighters warp off field with the carrier in a mini-fleet warp, or to the carrier when ordered to return from anywhere in system would be an excellent expansion of this feature. Fighters are an expensive investment for a carrier pilot and while it is sensible that they can be lost if shot or smartbombed to death, losing a flight of them because you have to GTFO really doesn't fit with the theme of piloted autonamous drones.
Devs, thanks for your work; the changes in Scylla are looking great! |
Worrff
Viziam Amarr Empire
61
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:41:46 -
[77] - Quote
Anon Nymous wrote:my take on it is to give them sellectable "pursue to warp" setting (where the focus fire checkbox is)
That option is already there.
CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
|
Dirk Morbho
Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn
25
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:51:30 -
[78] - Quote
DO NOT REMOVE Fighter (Bomber) Warp
|
Rroff
Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork
908
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:55:56 -
[79] - Quote
Dirk Morbho wrote:DO NOT REMOVE Fighter (Bomber) Warp
Will have a bit of an impact on solo type use of supers, do you warp away when things get hairy and lose your main offensive capability even though your not necessarily out of the fight yet or disproportionately risk an expensive ship waiting on their return...
I get the feeling the people who came up with this idea don't fly capitals and mainly focused on small gang. |
Juan Thang
Old American Syndicate Silent Infinity
34
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 14:57:06 -
[80] - Quote
Carriers will become useless except for structure bashing, The scan res is being increased, the warp might be removed, and the assist is being removed... so what can I do with my carrier now? Its been sat in my hanger for the past 3 months since I bought it gathering dust, along with my dreadnought. These ships will have little to no application outside of sov warfare now.
CCPlease.
The only way to fix these now would be to remove them from the game cause the only use I can see for them is free reps at pos's or being utterly stupid and ratting with it. |
|
Gevlin
House of the Dead Monkey SpaceMonkey's Alliance
255
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:00:50 -
[81] - Quote
I would remove the warping of fighters and keep the Fighter assist. Making the carrier required to be on grid to have their fighters be of use, therefore risk vs reward is kept.
Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again.
|
Makari Aeron
The Shadow's Of Eve TSOE Consortium
194
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:05:41 -
[82] - Quote
I think fighter assist should stay. Just make it to where you have to be X Km off of a station or POS like with the cyno fields. If you get to close, the fighters instantly return OR deactivate on the field forcing the carrier pilot to go reconnect with them on that grid. As others have stated, fighter assist is one of the coolest features in EVE to me. If I ever decided to fly carriers, that would be the first thing I'd do. Sadly, there's no real point to flying them in Providence.
CCP RedDawn: Ugly people are just playing life on HARD mode. Personally, I'm playing on an INFERNO difficulty.
CCP Goliath: I often believe that the best way to get something done is to shout at the person trying to help you. http://goo.gl/PKGDP
|
Holly Hardcore
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:05:54 -
[83] - Quote
It is good as it is, stop ruin that game !!!! |
Aoki Reika
Cat Is Fine Too
1
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:06:38 -
[84] - Quote
Hey CCP drop my SP in Fighter skill to free. Not needed cuz we have Geckoz. |
Jori McKie
TURN LEFT The Camel Empire
208
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:06:58 -
[85] - Quote
Juan Thang wrote:Carriers will become useless except for structure bashing, The scan res is being increased, the warp might be removed, and the assist is being removed... so what can I do with my carrier now? Its been sat in my hanger for the past 3 months since I bought it gathering dust, along with my dreadnought. These ships will have little to no application outside of sov warfare now.
CCPlease.
The only way to fix these now would be to remove them from the game cause the only use I can see for them is free reps at pos's or being utterly stupid and ratting with it.
Talk to Snuff Box or Shadow Cartel or any bigger entity in lowsec. They're using their caps rather often in a medium sized fight.
"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."
--áAbrazzar
|
Shinah Myst
SoT The Gorgon Empire
33
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:07:38 -
[86] - Quote
Remove assist completely. It's not constructively useful anyway. |
Arkon Olacar
Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective
491
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:10:28 -
[87] - Quote
Given how ****** up fighter warp mechanics are, keep the assist but remove the warp ability. Force the carrier/super to be on grid if it wants to assign fighters to another ship, just like every other drone.
Warping to zero
|
Dictateur Imperator
Babylon Knights DARKNESS.
3
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:12:35 -
[88] - Quote
I have one question for CCP :
Do you have think to ALL implication of this nerf ? Stop read people who cry . Just use your brain, and said to me you have validate all implication :
-Less mineral/salvage produce -Less active account (yes carrier alt will be remove, you lost a lot of account). -Less Capital/Supercapital : Why people use capital after this ? Only to hit structure... but you have already nerf life of structure, so it's useless now. Remote ? maybe. So less carrier means less dread, less carier ad dread, less supecarrier... and less super carrier less titan. -You kill an important part of the game play. Kill capital means kill long term planification of massive operation (engage a cap/super cap fleet cost a lot, it's easier to engage 1000 frigate as engage 100 carrier.) -Important pve nerf, less isk inflation. -Don't change a lot of thing for pvp , people just stop to use carrier, they don't send it on anom, less carrier kill to because people can"t bump and kill carrier/MS who sen fighter in assist. (YES actually you can kill they ... try to cyno some dream and it's magical you kill carrier before he can go on is pos). - You overpowered afk cloacker ... one of the unique actual counter is to have people with "skynet " on belt/pve to afraid they.
So With all this element, dear CCP i propose you some interesting thing: Change your indicator. Try to seduce people with only pew pew frigate.cruiser size is bad : at long term people just go to other pvp game. Why eve work ? Because you have community who can plainly long term action with big ship, you can have a true advantage to economical advantage: have big ship, but you want to nerf all big ship. And if big ship can only kill big ship : no interest to produce it. League of Frigate is the futur name of eve , don't worry be happy.
How yo avoid this ? - Make a weapon general nerf : if a S class weapon attack M class, degat must be divided by 2. L => 4, XL=> 8 If a M classe weapon attack S =>1, L=>2,XL=4 ect... (and yes suicide banking become more difficult, but you know you have a ship specializes do kill big ship: BOMBER)
Why this change ? To create more pvp strategy and opportunity, YES it are here to tackle not to kill after this. Yes a carrier can't now assign fighter... but you can't kill they just with 30 inty who orbit near.
Remove possibility of perma clocking : You have a clock fatigue: you win 1 sec of cloak fatigue each second cloak. The fatigue is not effective if you don't have 4H of fatigue, when you have 4H of fatigue you can't clock for 4 H.
Remove off grid bonus, and you can't give bonus cloack .
So yes apply my idea and you can remove fighter assist .
|
Tyr Dolorem
Snuff Box Snuffed Out
39
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:13:36 -
[89] - Quote
Fantastic change in my opinion. The ability of fighters/fighter bombers to follow you into warp is great and I would really rather not see it go.
Fighters chasing their target is I think a pretty balanced and interesting mechanic.
Quote: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.
You already have the option to turn this off so I don't see that being a problem. |
Hairpins Blueprint
CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans
128
|
Posted - 2015.02.27 15:14:54 -
[90] - 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.
I was abusing this my self and also died to this too many times. This is great! some carebears will be dll about it coz they won't be able to asign fighters to theire ratting sub caps any more tho.
But still cool : ) they will not warp into your safe any more and we won't see any trap bait thana with 7k dps scrams and webs ^^
All for the better. i like this chane very much |
|
|
|
|
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 |