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)
Numen Anomalie Evedustry Inc. The Kadeshi 4	Posted - 2015.03.04 16:23:33 - [991] - Quote Change is good, Change is dangerous and it takes brave people to make changes to something that is as old as eve online. That said. I do not support removing fighter assignment, even though i never used it myself. The problem is skynet behaviour, not assigning the fighters. Skynet behaviour is indeed a problem with safety from POS. Disable any drone assignment when within 500km of a structure. Interference from the object in space. make a good lore. everybody happy.
helfen Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.03.04 17:23:19 - [992] - Quote After 10 years + of not being listened to by dev threads asking for feedback and blatantly not listening to any thing constructive I'm out, Over 10 years and about 11 chars and I'm done, This game has become a cesspool of unintelligible noobs complaining about things they don't understand, Voting in similarly stupid people to CSM positions. All the while newly elected CSM sit there enjoying all the mail and convo's they get because they are the newly elect, Understanding very little of mails proposing even stupider suggestions to DEV's making the game a rubber padded playground where a sign sits saying " warning sandbox may contain sand " just to watch the guy 2ft away eating the dam stuff. You need to work on your advertising because EVE is not a sandbox, A sandbox is nonlinear and presents players with challenges that can be completed in a number of different sequences but the achievement of SP is linier ( as this is the road to progression within eve, The more SP the more you can do ). You say EVE is a sandbox CCP, Prove it because I'm having trouble placing EVE online into the sandbox it's much more than that it's sitting on the side of the sandbox dreaming of what it once was. EVE online the sandbox is dead, All hail the new revision EVE online but not for much longer because we still can't listen to our customers after how many years........ Like others from many other thread over the years I will take my money and use it for something better like beer or drugs anything better than paying to have a 2nd, 3rd and 4th job for a firm that can never quite figure out exactly what it wants to be.
Bethan Le Troix Krusual Investigation Agency 180	Posted - 2015.03.04 17:59:14 - [993] - Quote I don't have an axe to grind on this issue but it doesn't sound like that much of a problem. It would probably be better to decide on some restrictions of use based on ship size or drone bandwidth. Maybe make it so fighters can only be assigned to battlecruisers, battleships and above. We have these larger ship types that can use fighters and CCP seems to be going from one side directly to the other. A far larger problem at the moment is 'hyper-dunking' in high sec which negates the fifteen minute combat timer and is currently considered to be a legal exploit. At the time of the Bowhead being launched it was pointed out this ship would the suicide gankers wet dream and this has indeed come to pass. Sorry about the sexual references there. So if you want to fix a perceived problem I would suggest you look at 'hyper-dunking' first.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1615	Posted - 2015.03.04 18:10:31 - [994] - Quote Bethan Le Troix wrote: I don't have an axe to grind on this issue but it doesn't sound like that much of a problem. It would probably be better to decide on some restrictions of use based on ship size or drone bandwidth. Maybe make it so fighters can only be assigned to battlecruisers, battleships and above. We have these larger ship types that can use fighters and CCP seems to be going from one side directly to the other. A far larger problem at the moment is 'hyper-dunking' in high sec which negates the fifteen minute combat timer and is currently considered to be a legal exploit. At the time of the Bowhead being launched it was pointed out this ship would the suicide gankers wet dream and this has indeed come to pass. Sorry about the sexual references there. So if you want to fix a perceived problem I would suggest you look at 'hyper-dunking' first. Off topic but hyper-dunking is not a problem.
Terraniel Aurelius High Flyers The Kadeshi 19	Posted - 2015.03.04 18:27:58 - [995] - Quote We need more ways to lose ships, not less. Removing fighter assist because not enough carriers die while using it is a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't make sense after even a moment's rational thought. With the sov changes, capital ships are all but impotent now. Why do we need dreads, carriers, or supers when there is nothing big to shoot anymore? Our counter to enemy caps will be to just blue-ball them and so the content-denial will just continue. Making eve safer for everyone will just make it less interesting. Increase the risk, don't reduce it. Balance the rewards instead. There is always more than one side to an equation.
DerpimusPrime Aihaken Perkone Caldari State 3	Posted - 2015.03.04 18:36:59 - [996] - Quote Just got killed by an astero with templars assisted to it. Athleast remove the option to assist to frigs/destroyers and cruisers athleast. Sucks to be killed from something you cant do nothing about instead of having an actual 1v1.
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 139	Posted - 2015.03.04 19:08:03 - [997] - Quote DerpimusPrime Aihaken wrote: Just got killed by an astero with templars assisted to it. Athleast remove the option to assist to frigs/destroyers and cruisers athleast. Sucks to be killed from something you cant do nothing about instead of having an actual 1v1. how did you not kill an astero's before the fighters targeted you>?
Jason Atavuli BoerWaffe HQ SA BoerWaffe 3	Posted - 2015.03.04 19:42:06 - [998] - Quote WHY IS CCP REALLY DOING THIS Personally I think this is about people plexing, and not spending real $ to sub their accounts. Everything is getting more expensive, including the cost of making and running EVE I've actually read through most of this thread, and most of the risk vs risk averse comments can be spun either way it's all semantics - don't undock what you can't afford to lose, goes for skynet and roamers. Don't be risk averse with your roam ships and cry about risk averse skynet gate campers blapping your roam. Go play WOW if you want to keep all your cookies bro, geez I rat with 2 marauders, any 2 marauders, my toons can fly them all, currently it's 2x T2 fit Paladins, pulse and conflagration L cheap fits, and an untanked Thanatos, all t2 drone damage amps and a nano in the lows, t2 omnis with tracking scripts, and a drone nav computer in the mids putting out +/- 2220 DPS with 10 fighters (about 3335 DPS if I chose to fit for 15), so also a cheap fit, and I delegate control of those 10 fighters to my 2 marauders to the tune of 5 fighters each. I warp the Paladins to the anoms at 0km target everything, alt tab, repeat for second Paladin toon. When I'm done I warp to the next anom and the Templars are always there with their extra DPS, while the carrier is aligned from 1 safe spot to another - pretty standard stuff, but it's always better to explain because everyone has a nose and an opinion, even those who've never owned a carrier. I normally rat forsaken hubs or havens, pretty standard stuff too. I prefer the forsakens personally no irregularities, allows me to keep an eye on intel. Anywhoo this setup makes me about 38 Mil to 44 Mil per tick i.e. every 20 minutes when the bounties pay out. At that rate I can buy 3 or 4 plex at the end of every weekend. I don't play EVE enough to plex my accounts, and I don't care, yearly subbing works out well for me on 3 accounts I'm a nobody, there are guys out there making 10 times what I make, and they play all day at work. Most players I know have not paid to play eve in years... But yeah, I think the whole thing is about reducing nullsec PVE income to increase RL PLEX purchases. Any big drone nerf is about reducing earnings of nullsec PVE ISK farmers because it's always us who are most impacted by the drone changes. Reducing Ti-Di on the last one was just a fringe benefit ;P `.`
Jason Atavuli BoerWaffe HQ SA BoerWaffe 3	Posted - 2015.03.04 19:50:24 - [999] - Quote Terraniel Aurelius wrote: We need more ways to lose ships, not less. Removing fighter assist because not enough carriers die while using it is a knee-jerk reaction that doesn't make sense after even a moment's rational thought. With the sov changes, capital ships are all but impotent now. Why do we need dreads, carriers, or supers when there is nothing big to shoot anymore? Our counter to enemy caps will be to just blue-ball them and so the content-denial will just continue. Making eve safer for everyone will just make it less interesting. Increase the risk, don't reduce it. Balance the rewards instead. There is always more than one side to an equation. Yep I agree, why will we need capitals any more after the sov changes? It not like they can actually deploy properly with the fatigue timers either. It's regress these days, not progress. I can see sov fights happening in the future with 1000 man sveipul fleets LOL `.`
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10060	Posted - 2015.03.04 19:51:06 - [1000] - Quote Jason Atavuli wrote: WHY IS CCP REALLY DOING THIS Personally I think this is about people plexing, and not spending real $ to sub their accounts. Everything is getting more expensive, including the cost of making and running EVE. Sigh, my fingers are le Tired and need to have a nap before firing any missiles, could someone else explain to brilliant bro here that plex costs more than a sub?
FireFrenzy Satan's Unicorns 248	Posted - 2015.03.04 20:04:25 - [1001] - Quote and that plex dont magically spawn in game? They are people giving up heard earned real cash for magical internet spaceboat money?
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 80	Posted - 2015.03.04 20:23:23 - [1002] - Quote DerpimusPrime Aihaken wrote: Just got killed by an astero with templars assisted to it. Athleast remove the option to assist to frigs/destroyers and cruisers athleast. Sucks to be killed from something you cant do nothing about instead of having an actual 1v1. You can't even get a 1v1 in high sec. What with linked multiboxers doing logi and all sorts of other hanky-panky. "But it's only one person running those 23 accounts." Uh-huh, 1v1 indeed. Listen this thread is all about 1 item; and that is removing fighter assist Remember where you are, it's null-sec or lowsec. This is where the big boys play. The risk just undocking is a hundredfold over high sec, let alone running into someone protecting his yard with fighters assisted. The point you made however is a good one, move up the hull class that can support fighters to at minimum battlecruiser. T3s are powerful enough as it is without throwing fighters on top of them. This is one of the better balance suggestions that have been made, and by more than one person, myself included. Balance changes 1) Restrict to hull class X sizer or above. 2) Only pilots who have trained fighters to X level can use assisted fighters 3) No assigned ship bonuses to fighters, only pilot controlling gets Fighters skill bonus, maximum fighters determined by Fighters skill level 4) Carriers/ Supers can not assign fighters within 50km of anchored structures Does this balancing idea not make sense, and is fair to everyone? It keeps fighters assisted, keeps them warping, because they have always had the option to attack and follow anyway, addresses skynet, and keeps the flow of skillbooks going because if you want to have fighters assigned to you, you have to learn how to use them. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Jason Atavuli BoerWaffe HQ SA BoerWaffe 3	Posted - 2015.03.04 20:40:50 - [1003] - Quote FireFrenzy wrote: and that plex dont magically spawn in game? They are people giving up heard earned real cash for magical internet spaceboat money? Yep, and if you buy a plex in game from someone who has bought it for real $ then CCP does not make another plex sale for real $ right now during this financial month, to you. Next month is next month, new page in the ledger. That's 1 of the reasons the world's economy is in it up to it's neck. A sale is a sale even if you just break even. There are always plex for sale and someone is always buying. Oh and CCP can make plex magically spawn, also rocks, rats, t2 BPOs and an NPC nidhog in nullsec, D-P I think it was - renter space near G3D-ZT `.`
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 945	Posted - 2015.03.04 20:58:42 - [1004] - Quote DerpimusPrime Aihaken wrote: Just got killed by an astero with templars assisted to it. Athleast remove the option to assist to frigs/destroyers and cruisers athleast. Sucks to be killed from something you cant do nothing about instead of having an actual 1v1. What I've been saying all along - fighters shouldn't be able to blap an astero with (relative) ease - even just fix that and a large chunk of the problems with skynet go away without having to remove delegation. (Doesn't matter what they are assigned to).
Ereilian Mythic Inc Gentlemen's.Parlor 70	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:04:13 - [1005] - Quote Rroff wrote: DerpimusPrime Aihaken wrote: Just got killed by an astero with templars assisted to it. Athleast remove the option to assist to frigs/destroyers and cruisers athleast. Sucks to be killed from something you cant do nothing about instead of having an actual 1v1. What I've been saying all along - fighters shouldn't be able to blap an astero with (relative) ease - even just fix that and a large chunk of the problems with skynet go away without having to remove delegation. (Doesn't matter what they are assigned to). So you brought a knife to a gun fight. Your bad, stop whining and adapt. HTFU
Jason Atavuli BoerWaffe HQ SA BoerWaffe 3	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:12:47 - [1006] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Jason Atavuli wrote: WHY IS CCP REALLY DOING THIS Personally I think this is about people plexing, and not spending real $ to sub their accounts. Everything is getting more expensive, including the cost of making and running EVE. Sigh, my fingers are le Tired and need to have a nap before firing any missiles, could someone else explain to brilliant bro here that plex costs more than a sub? This is why I sub annually instead of plexing. it costs what? the same as 10 or 10.5 months subbing month to month. Or less, can't remember and don't care. I don't smoke or drink, or waste real $ on junkfood and softdrinks, I have spare change aplenty to not need to budget for EVE, and I don't care to budget in EVE either, as long as I have enough ISK to pay my rent the rest takes care of itself. Yes time is money. Having fun jamming eve costs money / time. So technically plexing costs money / time too, just like mining your own minerals doesn't make them free - now ask me if I care about economics in a game . . . I'm here to shoot the shyte on comms and shoot rats with my space bros, and shoot the occasional new spacefriends that come visiting. Yeah I'm a tiny bit bummed that CCP are making capitals into paperweights that take weeks to move from1 side of new eden to the other, and are less and less useful with every new expansion. When I started playing Eve I missioned in hisec living out of an orca, like a pikey and his caravan. Then I moved to nullsec and there were carriers. Then CCP broke their ability to effectively carry my stuff long distances. If I could name my fighters individually I would, I dig them, they're cute, doing their little barrel rolls and stuff, and now CCP want's to break them too, and that also sux a bit, but there're always other ways to kill stuff in EVE. I'm certainly not going to sit down and make a spreadsheet about it or anything else in EVE. But hey, if you wanna argue and fire missiles after your nap you go right ahead, I'll just be standing over there. I'm listening and stuff, just standing waaaay over there K `.`
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 945	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:21:29 - [1007] - Quote Panther X wrote: Balance changes 1) Restrict to hull class X sizer or above. 2) Only pilots who have trained fighters to X level can use assisted fighters 3) No assigned ship bonuses to fighters, only pilot controlling gets Fighters skill bonus, maximum fighters determined by Fighters skill level 4) Carriers/ Supers can not assign fighters within 50km of anchored structures Does this balancing idea not make sense, and is fair to everyone? It keeps fighters assisted, keeps them warping, because they have always had the option to attack and follow anyway, addresses skynet, and keeps the flow of skillbooks going because if you want to have fighters assigned to you, you have to learn how to use them. If fighters lose their carrier's bonus when assigned then you don't really need to restrict what they can be assigned to as they revert back to being for the most part ineffective against anything sub large battleship sized. Personally I have several characters with fighters V and I doubt I'm alone in that so it doesn't really work much as a balance point. Not being able to delegate fighters within 50km of a POS, etc. pretty much needs to happen IMO regardless if assignment were to stay in the game.
Davir Sometaww Snuff Box Snuffed Out 35	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:25:41 - [1008] - Quote DerpimusPrime Aihaken wrote: Just got killed by an astero with templars assisted to it. Athleast remove the option to assist to frigs/destroyers and cruisers athleast. Sucks to be killed from something you cant do nothing about instead of having an actual 1v1. Also why would you go after an astero in a 1 vs 1? Its obvious that they have a brick tank and low dps. Meaning: buddies! Edit: You learned a lesson; that they skynet - after some scouting you could conceive a tactic like PL did with bait/switch with that reverent.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6550	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:34:41 - [1009] - Quote All the tricks in a 1v1. falcon alt, booster alt, and now assigned fighters ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 945	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:37:40 - [1010] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: All the tricks in a 1v1. falcon alt, booster alt, and now assigned fighters While it always makes me laugh when someone has expectations of a fair 1v1 in eve lol... its one thing to die because someone had friends, you got out played or were in over your head and another to as I guess happened die because the fighters were so amped up they negated and degree of skill or ship attributes on the part of the person they were set on. (Your much more likely to see me assigning fighters than flying a frigate).
Jason Atavuli BoerWaffe HQ SA BoerWaffe 3	Posted - 2015.03.04 21:51:12 - [1011] - Quote Could've been worse DerpimusPrime Aihaken, could've been a Ibis At least it probably won't happen again too often, since CCP is going ahead with their plans to remove "assist" regardless. I'm assuming they actually mean "Delegate Control" is being removed as a control option for fighters. And changed to Assist / Guard like a regular drone? maybe I missed something amongst all the flames... It's going to be difficult to use fighters if they are losing all remote control features. Carrier scan res is not nice, it takes about a 50 count to lock a frigate without a sebo or something. And fighters just got their scan res nerfed as well SIGH `.`
Kalo Askold Sanguis Inceptum 5	Posted - 2015.03.04 22:01:05 - [1012] - Quote About freaking time! Maybe now people won't just inch their cap out of a pos and lowsec gate camp with them. They will actually have to have numbers instead of a mining barge with way too much tank. Next stop, off grid boosting needs to go.
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 80	Posted - 2015.03.04 22:05:00 - [1013] - Quote Rroff wrote: If fighters lose their carrier's bonus when assigned then you don't really need to restrict what they can be assigned to as they revert back to being for the most part ineffective against anything sub large battleship sized. Still it is a balancing factor. You will still get whatever bonus your fighters skill gives you, and whatever drone bonuses that your own ship gives; say you're flying a domi; +10% hp and damage, and whatever drone mods you have actually fitted. It's just a suggestion My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Alyssa Severasse C.Q.B Snuffed Out 9	Posted - 2015.03.04 22:26:03 - [1014] - Quote Given how much I love capital killmails, I'd want to keep Skynet with the sole exception of denying fighter assist on the edge of a POS shield. You can't light a cyno there, why not reuse that exact same code to make sure you can't assist fighters from there? On station is fine as you get an aggression timer. Which is plenty of time to get some dreddz in... I don't agree that removing this will render carriers useless, it will just encourage people to find different ways to (ab)use them. Equally agressing with fighters should cause you to have an aggression timer, same as any other offensive module. This is frankly a defect! There have been a lot of people making both of these suggestions on this thread. Let's hope CCP actually listens to it's player base....
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 61	Posted - 2015.03.04 22:47:52 - [1015] - Quote DerpimusPrime Aihaken wrote: Just got killed by an astero with templars assisted to it. Athleast remove the option to assist to frigs/destroyers and cruisers athleast. Sucks to be killed from something you cant do nothing about instead of having an actual 1v1. Just leave then... You fought a stronger force and lost... It's normal. Warp away, get back to the gate and jump, hide somewhere and cloak.... I'm fine with cruiser and up being assigned fighters too.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 945	Posted - 2015.03.05 00:49:13 - [1016] - Quote d0cTeR9 wrote: DerpimusPrime Aihaken wrote: Just got killed by an astero with templars assisted to it. Athleast remove the option to assist to frigs/destroyers and cruisers athleast. Sucks to be killed from something you cant do nothing about instead of having an actual 1v1. Just leave then... You fought a stronger force and lost... It's normal. Warp away, get back to the gate and jump, hide somewhere and cloak.... I'm fine with cruiser and up being assigned fighters too. Easier said than done - last time I ran into it I was in an old school single non-asb booster Sleipnir (hadn't got around to refitting it) and had to deagress and jump out fairly quickly - if I'd engaged anywhere but on a gate/station or had been further off gate I'd have been dead, very dead. (Might have been able to kill them if I'd been dual asb + linked... maybe...).
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 80	Posted - 2015.03.05 01:39:44 - [1017] - Quote Rroff wrote: d0cTeR9 wrote: DerpimusPrime Aihaken wrote: Just got killed by an astero with templars assisted to it. Athleast remove the option to assist to frigs/destroyers and cruisers athleast. Sucks to be killed from something you cant do nothing about instead of having an actual 1v1. Just leave then... You fought a stronger force and lost... It's normal. Warp away, get back to the gate and jump, hide somewhere and cloak.... I'm fine with cruiser and up being assigned fighters too. Easier said than done - last time I ran into it I was in an old school single non-asb booster Sleipnir (hadn't got around to refitting it) and had to deagress and jump out fairly quickly - if I'd engaged anywhere but on a gate/station or had been further off gate I'd have been dead, very dead. (Might have been able to kill them if I'd been dual asb + linked... maybe...). Well...d-scan would have showed you a carrier in system. You should really know better. Unless you are going for the carrier in an anom, that's your own fault for aggressing something. And really, you weren't 1v1'ing, you were agressing a hostile with backup in system. Whether it was assisted fighters or a fleet of ishtars, that's all on you. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 945	Posted - 2015.03.05 01:55:40 - [1018] - Quote Panther X wrote: Well...d-scan would have showed you a carrier in system. You should really know better. Unless you are going for the carrier in an anom, that's your own fault for aggressing something. And really, you weren't 1v1'ing, you were agressing a hostile with backup in system. Whether it was assisted fighters or a fleet of ishtars, that's all on you. I was aware the carriers were there which is partly why I managed to escape as I was expecting it - as aside though there is nothing to stop the carrier cloaking until needed, etc. as its lock time isn't a factor or just waiting docked up, etc. Not sure about the 1v1 comment I think your confusing me with another poster.
Davir Sometaww Snuff Box Snuffed Out 36	Posted - 2015.03.05 02:13:11 - [1019] - Quote You could always; you know. Research the system you are entering and you would know in a heart beat. You are going into the enemy's turf. Don't cry when something like a carrier or god forbid; a falcon decides to ruin your day. Back on topic: We'll see what CCP decides to do and whether it'll listen to its player base. At this point with 50+ pages - with multiple players suggesting the most efficient fix WHILE making carriers still viable. Or they just give us the finger. Maybe both.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 945	Posted - 2015.03.05 02:41:43 - [1020] - Quote Davir Sometaww wrote: You could always; you know. Research the system you are entering and you would know in a heart beat. Some do it out of the same system a lot - others hop around regions and rarely do it from one place long (especially if they are using supers). The revenant that was killed recently was doing it moving with thera exits.

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.