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)

CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 4914	Posted - 2015.02.27 10:41:27 - [1] - Quote 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 cirumstances 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. @ccp_rise

baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15245	Posted - 2015.02.27 10:48:28 - [2] - Quote Death to all capitals Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
DeadDuck The Legion of Spoon Curatores Veritatis Alliance 129	Posted - 2015.02.27 10:50:14 - [3] - Quote Just remove fighter assist. TBH remove Drone assist in all kinds of drones/fighters/fighter bombers.
Kailen Thorn Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda 16	Posted - 2015.02.27 10:58:45 - [4] - Quote 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. As for assignable fighters, make them assignable for cruisers and higher. Or you cannot assign when close to a POS
Walextheone The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 94	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:07:23 - [5] - Quote From a small gang roaming perspective it's really annoying not to be able to point / scram/ thoose pesky fighters.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 758	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:08:10 - [6] - Quote I'm happy with warping fighters.
Sieur NewT Teutate raiders DARKNESS. 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:08:39 - [7] - Quote i'm against removing fighter assist. removing it is a bad idea. if you do that, super cap will be useless it's BAD and near force field, supercap is not "safe" a titan can jump in 1 seconde and DD it's not safe it's juste "less dangerous" i agree to nerf A LITTLE fighter assist, but not HEAVY nerf i agree to make impossible to assign to inty's but i think assist super's fighter to carrier MUST stay. so, please, CCP, don't do that this way. let the super assist to carrier. carrier only if you want. and for fighter you can warp or not, let them warp when they are assist, and not when they are not assist. thx you and do the right thing. :)
Gilbaron Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda 1639	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:12:01 - [8] - Quote can't you disallow fighter assist from within 50km of a tower instead ? that's gonna produce some lovely killmails removing fighter warp is completely unnessecarry Build your empire ! Rent Space in Feythabolis and Omist Contact me for details :)
TrickyBlackSteel Snuff Box Snuffed Out 3	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:13:20 - [9] - Quote I have an idea,when you assist the fighters,you can make twice weaker in shield/armor structure,like very easy to kill them
Anthar Thebess 891	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:14:07 - [10] - Quote Remove: - fighter assist. - fighter follow in warp the target. Keep: - fighters warping with the carrier So you can send fighters only against target on grid. When the target warps off the grid fighters will NOT follow. When the carrier warps off the grid fighters will drop aggro and follow the carrier. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 214	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:16:07 - [11] - Quote Awesome move! Keep them tears coming, dear carebears.
Capqu Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 998	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:16:21 - [12] - Quote impressed at the speed & severity of this change you're a good man rise https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QPntjTPWgKE
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 404	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:24:27 - [13] - Quote Finally! Please do keep fighter warping though.
Axloth Okiah Future Corps Sleeper Social Club 545	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:25:16 - [14] - Quote How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable? W-Space Realtor
baltec1 Bat Country Goonswarm Federation 15249	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:27:24 - [15] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable? I like that. Join Bat Country today and defend the Glorious Socialist Dictatorship
Hopelesshobo Tactical Nuclear Penguin's 412	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:28:20 - [16] - Quote 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. Lowering the average to make you look better since 2012.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 906	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:42:43 - [17] - Quote Gilbaron wrote: can't you disallow fighter assist from within 50km of a tower instead ? that's gonna produce some lovely killmails removing fighter warp is completely unnessecarry Disallowing assignment when in proximity of control tower and station structures would pretty much balance out the risk factor without a knock on effect on unrelated carrier use. Not a fan of removing fighter warping or making them pointable. I do think fighter should have sig scaling on their damage titan style (though different parameters) so that they can't blap smaller stuff.
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3529	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:48:26 - [18] - Quote Sieur NewT wrote: i'm against removing fighter assist. removing it is a bad idea. if you do that, super cap will be useless it's BAD Anything and everything that makes supercaps useless is good. Death to all supers.
Lugh Crow-Slave 808	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:50:14 - [19] - Quote so instead of finding a way to make it so you could not assign a fighter while near a POS or station (perhaps adding a mode like the D3s have that can only be activated when x distance away from a pos/station) this would not need fancy code such as what distance from these things fighters can be sent out and it would not need to add a module to do the same thing just a button you decided screw it lets just take it out of the game Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
Arla Sarain 319	Posted - 2015.02.27 11:59:32 - [20] - Quote DeadDuck wrote: Just remove fighter assist. Just remove drone assist. Kill skynet, sentries and one man "bothered to target the primary" drone fleets in one go.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1006	Posted - 2015.02.27 12:02:21 - [21] - Quote fighter warping doesn't provide interesting gameplay at all though.
Pomponius Sabinus Loot und Sonstiges 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 12:03:30 - [22] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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. Well it seems like you realised the problem is risk vs reward while asigning fighters from the edge of a POS FF. But instead of making it more interesting by finding some way to make it more dangerous to asign fighters you sadly take the easy way out and just remove it. It would be way more interesting for the game if you found a way to make carriers that asigned fighters more vulnerable. The best way to adress this Problem would be to not allow asigning fighters within a certain distance to a POS. This will create a lot of interesting encounters / fights over carier/super carriers that are caught while they asigned fighters. Concerning fighter warp there is no problem with that. People that don't want it can hit the don't follow button and all is fine.
Proton Stars OREfull 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 12:07:37 - [23] - Quote Has any thought gone into this at all? From an attackers point of view you want to either kill the fighters or the capitals, but people are not going to put these assets on gates so by removing remote assist you remove any chance of them being used! You need to bother to look at the Risk Vs reward of these changes. You have gone from ALL reward, No risk to NO reward so wont bother to risk. I like the idea that fighters can be scrambled and killed, i like the idea that carriers must move out of the shields a little bit further (or sit on a station which is very dangerous due to bumping) both of these allow the mechanic to still exist but at a cost.
GeeShizzle MacCloud 518	Posted - 2015.02.27 12:09:55 - [24] - Quote Considering the changes to cynos on POS's the safety of having assisted fighters whilst skirting the POS shields is badly out of balance in terms of risk/reward, especially as dipping into the shields your fighters come back safely. A midpoint may be that fighters not on grid don't come back if you dip into POS shields or that being in a POS shield prevents fighters from returning. and instead sit idle and can be killed. However this midway point would be the continued adoption of current POS shields which i believe CCP wants to replace with something with a lot less caveats and workarounds. I would also like to say that the manner that fighters 'appear' on grid after warping is also terrible and not consistent to how 'ships' land on grid. As fighters are essentially small ships they should land and be subject to the same mechanics that player warping adheres to, if this assisted fighter mechanic is not deleted outright.
stubbsie Panala The Ebil Empire Defiant Ebil. 9	Posted - 2015.02.27 12:15:44 - [25] - Quote Keep fighter assist but make it so there is a minimum distance the carrier has to be from a POS or station of like 15-20 /Km. This still makes viable for drone assisting but at a very high risk cost Small change for Ship Maintenance Arrays
Janeway84 Def Squadron Pride Before Fall 139	Posted - 2015.02.27 12:23:35 - [26] - Quote Wouldn't it be better to make it so you can't assist from to close a range of a pos force field? But I haven't ran into this special issue myself but whatever. Also why not make fighters warp scrammable / ewar sensitive like others have suggested? There should be higher tier ships that veteran players can use and find fun imo.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1006	Posted - 2015.02.27 12:27:36 - [27] - Quote stubbsie Panala wrote: Keep fighter assist but make it so there is a minimum distance the carrier has to be from a POS or station of like 15-20 /Km. This still makes viable for drone assisting but at a very high risk cost actually that's still risk-free. just align to a pos or station.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 906	Posted - 2015.02.27 12:35:41 - [28] - Quote Its relatively low risk but still a chance of being bumped out of alignment or not paying attention gets you into trouble - unlike now where you can for instance just online the FF and be immediately immune and/or shrug off anyone attacking.
Arya Regnar Darwins Right Hand 674	Posted - 2015.02.27 12:38:25 - [29] - Quote Just make the fighters pointable and make it so that proximity to a pos (within 50km) makes it impossible to assign them whether the FF is up or not. EvE-Mail me if you need anything.
Worrff Viziam Amarr Empire 61	Posted - 2015.02.27 12:43:31 - [30] - Quote This Proton Stars wrote: Has any thought gone into this at all? From an attackers point of view you want to either kill the fighters or the capitals, but people are not going to put these assets on gates so by removing remote assist you remove any chance of them being used! You need to bother to look at the Risk Vs reward of these changes. You have gone from ALL reward, No risk to NO reward so wont bother to risk. And this... Anthar Thebess wrote: Remove: - fighter assist. - fighter follow in warp the target. Keep: - fighters warping with the carrier So you can send fighters only against target on grid. When the target warps off the grid fighters will NOT follow. When the carrier warps off the grid fighters will drop aggro and follow the carrier. CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
Jori McKie TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 206	Posted - 2015.02.27 12:43:55 - [31] - Quote I like the removal of fighter assist very much. The reasons to remove warp or not, no idea but i would assume that in PvP it is always better to have fighters on grid and don't waste DPS. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar
Anthar Thebess 895	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:04:38 - [32] - Quote Fighters need to be on grid to use fighters. Forcing them to move more will change almost nothing . Removing fighters ability to warp with the carrier will make them just another drones, that will be simply to expensive. Should we bringing back old scan res for fighters and bombers - i think no. This was because some other broken stuff , and i see current values good one. Again what we need also is Capital Drone Link Agumentor. Something that will give 30km range ( faction 35 , officer 40km ) and will have 8000 m3 in size - simply to remove the ability to refit on field. One module per carrier , and we will also having solved issue in sentry abuse. Next is to normalize capital reps, something that you have described in my signature. Those changes will make Carriers similar to Dreads. Very usefully, but not broken beyond any possible limits. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4083	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:08:16 - [33] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Would you prefer that we removed the ability for fighters to warp or that we left warping in, despite the absence of assist? Why not introduce an additional drone setting that can be toggled for fighters and fighter-bombers: [ ] Enable warp pursuit of targets I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Somatic Neuron Masterwork Productions Inc 57	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:11:26 - [34] - Quote Simple solution, simply remove the ability to Assist off-grid. If the assisted ship leaves your grid, or is destroyed, the fighters return to orbit you. The only time fighters should warp, is if the on-grid assisted ship, or your carrier, engages fighters against another ship, and that target ship warps. If the assisted ship subsequently dies, or warps off, the fighters return to orbit your carrier. Carriers should have the option (drone properties, like Aggressive/Passive, and Focus Fire) to turn off following at will....so the options would be "Aggressive", "Passive", checkbox for "Focus FIre" and checkbox for "Fighter Following".
Peter Johannesen Strategic Production Operations 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:16:42 - [35] - Quote KEEP THE CURRENT CARRIER MECHANICS! All this time eve is trying to get people to work together, and this is one of the strongest point in working together especially in WH spaces where it for small corporations provides some level of security and options. Furthermore this is something that is so unique, and which makes the carrier an interesting choice. Its seriously horrible too look at all this nerf nerf nerf nerf nerf.. that is primary affected by people sooner or later whining about a feature because they do not have anything better to do. Look at other games where the nerf bat has completely destroyed the games and the uniqness of the gameplay, where it in the end doesn't really matter what you do or what you pick, or where you dont get a choice whatsoever. I understand fully that eve online is a very complex game with millions of options, but this is seriously just stupid to nerf a game feature that is in every way motivating people to play together. I would strongly assume that this was and is the original idea of the carrier when it was first introduced way back. You guys at CCP have been doing lot of work on for example the cruisers, where there is one kind for every job. How about instead of picking the easy and quick choice to just nerf an unique ship mechanic, then look into developing some of the features that are unique to eve online, which simply makes the game worth playing together. If you absolutely have to change mechanics, then at least look into the possibility of introducing more different kind of carriers. For example one that focuses on providing fighter support where the other is the logistic remote repair ship that we know it for.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1101	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:16:49 - [36] - Quote It seems the main argument for keeping fighters going to warp is that the carrier pilot may either lose the drone while onfield, or may have to flee too quickly and not be able to recall the drones, leaving fighters just sitting there abandoned when the carrier ran or warped. I'm ok with that. If you commit a carrier, then have to run, leaving your fighters behind is the least damaging option. Will this annoy pve carriers, sure. They will have to press 2 button and wait a few seconds while fighters recall. Again, ok with that. Losing a fighter because you warped away too fast is not a big deal, It's just a part of doing business. Every other drone boat loses drones whenever they warp off before recalling (those faction drones are not cheap). That's the benefit of forcing the person off field. Good change. Yaay!!!!
Turbular Knight Failed Diplomacy 9	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:22:13 - [37] - Quote I agree that Fighter assist should remain, it is a uniqe feature that carriers hold. But by all means take away the ability to assign them while sitting at the edge of shields at a deathstar POS which is just ******** and annoying. Not everyone can perform a driveby doomsday, however far too many carrier holders can just sit back and assist their fighters to fastlocking ships camping gates with minimal risks. Also make it so that the pilot in-control of the fighters get a suspect timer when dropping fucktons of hurt upon neutral vessels.
Liam Inkuras AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 1449	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:24:07 - [38] - Quote o7 Skynet, you were a well hated friend. But I think the warping mechanic for fighters should remain as is. I wear my goggles at night. Any spelling/grammatical errors come complimentary with my typing on a phone
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5881	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:26:18 - [39] - Quote I guess it was too hard to remove ship bonuses from off-grid fighters? Or was that just not nerfy enough? If I'm reading the post correctly, you're entirely removing drone-assist for fighters and FB? If that's the case, why not just remove all drone assist and be done with it? It's a problematic mechanic, just remove it already. Please keep the fighter warp ability at least though. There ought to be something unique and interesting about fighters other than the fact that they're slow and have poor tracking. :/ I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9920	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:40:56 - [40] - 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. 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. The problem isn't caused by fighter assist. The problem is caused by the decision to let fighters benefit from drone mods. Before this, unbonused fighters assigned to small ships were good for exactly one thing" shooting POS guns. and that's it. Fighter Assist is one of the cooler game mechanics EVE has and removing it because some people abused the gift you guys gave them is a terrible idea. A better idea would be to say "you can assign fighters, but they get no boost at all from carrier bonuses, drone mods or carrier pilot skills". As for the warp drive, yea, that's complete overkill. It kills the Carrier for fighter based PVE (a ratting of lvl 5 carrier would be risking 200 mil worth of fighters every site if they had to get out quick, or risk being tackled if they wait for the fighters). End result will be some who switch back to Sentries for pve, but others will stop using carriers all together (especially those who switch to sentries, after a few carrier losses, carriers aren't cheap). This means more people shifting to afktars and the like for isking which is way less interesting content wise, some of the best fights you can get is when a carrier gets tackled in an anom because he got pointed by an npc at the right moment or misclciked and lost alignment , and for them to be out there to be tackled people have to want to use them.
Grytok KL0NKRIEGER 7	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:41:05 - [41] - Quote Simply remove all flavours of drone-assist.
Literally Space Moses GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 122	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:42:38 - [42] - Quote Just remove drone assist #T2013
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 906	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:43:42 - [43] - Quote War Kitten wrote: I guess it was too hard to remove ship bonuses from off-grid fighters? Or was that just not nerfy enough? Not really needed IMO the main issue is the ability to pretty much "blap" smaller stuff that they should never be able to touch in the first place realistically (even if they are frigate sized vessels) and that can be far more elegantly countered with proper sig/damage scaling than slamming them with the nerf bat. Not piloted by pod pilots so not as highly skilled at gunnery + gameplay reasons.
Hiwashi Jump Drive Appreciation Society Test Alliance Please Ignore 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:44:01 - [44] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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? Fighter mechanic that I would be okay with: You can still assign Fighters, but only if you are on grid with whatever you are assigned the Fighters to. Remove assign entirely if this is too hard to code cause ~Legacy POS code~. Fighters do not follow their targets in to warp like they currently do. You shouldn't be able to Damage something that isn't on grid with you. If you warp out, Fighters will follow you. If you jump out, rip your Fighters.
Serrat Nightchill Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 5	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:47:03 - [45] - Quote I like fighter warping because it's unique to them, maybe limit fighter assisting to just the grid the carrier is on? So they will not warp to get to people they are assisted to. Seems pretty simple and would prevent the sky netting thing unless the carrier is on grid with the fight.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9922	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:47:07 - [46] - Quote Pomponius Sabinus wrote: Well it seems like you realised the problem is risk vs reward while asigning fighters from the edge of a POS FF. But instead of making it more interesting by finding some way to make it more dangerous to asign fighters you sadly take the easy way out and just remove it. It would be way more interesting for the game if you found a way to make carriers that asigned fighters more vulnerable. The best way to adress this Problem would be to not allow asigning fighters within a certain distance to a POS. This will create a lot of interesting encounters / fights over carier/super carriers that are caught while they asigned fighters. Concerning fighter warp there is no problem with that. People that don't want it can hit the don't follow button and all is fine. +1 Especially the bolded part. Just spitballing here, but in addition to not being able to deploy fighters near POSs or stations (and taking away bonuses from assigned fighters), maybe a 'siege-like' module that has to be activated for ships to assign fighters, that locks the carrier or SC in place for at least 5 minutes. And/Or 'recieving ship' bandwidth limitations (if a ship has no drone bay, it can't use fighters, if a ship can deploy 5 sentries it can accept 5 fighters etc, which kills small ship 'Skynetting'). I don't know how much of a nightmare that would be from a programming stand point so I offer the above with a big grain of layman's salt lol, but the point is CCP should be making things more interesting, not less.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9922	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:48:02 - [47] - Quote Grytok wrote: Simply remove all flavours of drone-assist. Drone assist is useful in a lot of areas not just pvp. Removing Drone assist is a terrible idea.
Eveli Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 20	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:48:52 - [48] - Quote Remove off grid fighter assign. Simple. Follow me on the Twitters : @ThisIsEveli
Trafalgar Raw Star Frontiers Test Alliance Please Ignore 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:50:48 - [49] - Quote Please don't remove fighters delegation.. Just make it such that carriers and super carriers need to be in control range like maybe 5au from where the fighters are going.. And for supers you add a new option "warp to fighter range". So you force carriers out of posses and stations and can be probed down and killed. Make people work for the cookie
Bluemelon Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 90	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:51:26 - [50] - Quote this change makes me so happy For all your 3rd party needs join my ingame channel Blue's 3rd Party! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=365230&find=unread
Morgaine Mighthammer Rational Chaos Inc. Phoebe Freeport Republic 10	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:52:27 - [51] - Quote personally i think that you shouldn't remove fighter assist, just make it so that when assigned they use up the assignee's drone bandwidth and not just a drone slot. as an example, we in PFR fly gilas. gilas by themselves only have 20mb of bandwidth allowing 2 super bonused medium drones. as a whole the gila is very nicely balanced right now(thank you to whoever made these drone chages to guristas ships, they happened while i was afk from eve), however, a gila can still have an additional 3 fighters assigned to it with current mechanics. yea, that can be a bit op, awesome, but op. and then there's the whole mess in lowsec with gate camps of inty's having a full 5 fighters each. so yea, dont remove fighters warp ability, that is a unique game mechanic that i honestly would hate to see removed from the game. but the big one that i think will bring the most balance, just make the fighters use your bandwidth when assigned to you. if you have 50mb you get 2, if you have 25mb you get 1, if you have 15mb, you get zero. simple as that if you ask me.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 906	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:52:36 - [52] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: +1 Especially the bolded part. Just spitballing here, but in addition to not being able to deploy fighters near POSs or stations (and taking away bonuses from assigned fighters), maybe a 'siege-like' module that has to be activated for ships to assign fighters, that locks the carrier or SC in place for at least 5 minutes. And/Or 'recieving ship' bandwidth limitations (if a ship has no drone bay, it can't use fighters, if a ship can deploy 5 sentries it can accept 5 fighters etc, which kills small ship 'Skynetting'). I don't know how much of a nightmare that would be from a programming stand point so I offer the above with a big grain of layman's salt lol, but the point is CCP should be making things more interesting, not less. Some interesting points there, one down side is that a siege/bastion like module would take away a drone control unit slot but tying fighters to some kind of bastion like mode would make them more interesting and give potential for more balanced ways of making them a little less meh outside of skynet type use. Having them only get bonuses when assigned by activating some kind of bastion like module would be a solution to a fair few issues without a ridiculous nerf though I'm not hugely in favour of it. EDIT: I guess as a compromise for off grid use it wouldn't be so bad as you could still fit for 15 fighters when doing stuff ongrid just lose the extra slot when assigning - the game should always be about making a choice and/or compromise not about flat out nerf batting.
Loken Grimsward Easy Co. Fatal Ascension 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:57:05 - [53] - Quote I am down with nerfing fighter assist in someway. As to removing it completely, it might be overkill but we can live with it. Nerfing the warp mechanic however would just lead to people using capitals less. I cant see that as being a good thing to be honest. If capitals get nerfed into the ground that will **** alot of people off who spent time training the skills.
Kat Ayclism Habitual Euthanasia Pandemic Legion 324	Posted - 2015.02.27 13:58:47 - [54] - Quote Just remove assist entirely and leave in Fighter warping. Assist has always been a pretty terrible mechanic anyway. Carriers and supers are way too slow to make having to chase down abandoned Fighters from warping off anything but a huge hassle, and while it's annoying sometimes if they follow some one off grid it's also a pretty unique and lore-consistent behavior (as they are supposed to essentially be piloted frigates). If someone doesn't want their fighters to follow, there's already settings for that so no need to remove that from people that occasionally do- whether to score that follow through kill or to make shooting targets within the same system but not grid less annoying.
Atrol Nalelmir Sanctuary of Shadows 19	Posted - 2015.02.27 14:00:52 - [55] - Quote Skynet is broken, but warping fighters/fighter bombers are cool
Jayne Fillon 621	Posted - 2015.02.27 14:02:27 - [56] - Quote Keep fighter warping. I've killed more than one off-grid target after they initially escaped and then warped to a celestial. Quick drone return when fighting something on grid, but hundreds of kilometers away. Being able to leave grid without having to wait for your fighters to return. Can't shoot blues if you don't have any. Long Live NPSI.
War Kitten Panda McLegion 5885	Posted - 2015.02.27 14:02:51 - [57] - Quote Rroff wrote: War Kitten wrote: I guess it was too hard to remove ship bonuses from off-grid fighters? Or was that just not nerfy enough? Not really needed IMO the main issue is the ability to pretty much "blap" smaller stuff that they should never be able to touch in the first place realistically (even if they are frigate sized vessels) and that can be far more elegantly countered with proper sig/damage scaling than slamming them with the nerf bat. Not piloted by pod pilots so not as highly skilled at gunnery + gameplay reasons. The only reason they could blap that small stuff is because they benefited from an overload of tracking and damage mods on the carrier. If those bonuses weren't applied off-grid from the carrier, that couldn't happen any more. I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all.
Grookshank Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 45	Posted - 2015.02.27 14:04:40 - [58] - Quote Just remove the Fighter/Fighter Bomber Assist. I don't see anything broken risk/reward wise with fighters warping and following a target. It just makes them unique in that regard.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 907	Posted - 2015.02.27 14:08:09 - [59] - Quote War Kitten wrote: The only reason they could blap that small stuff is because they benefited from an overload of tracking and damage mods on the carrier. If those bonuses weren't applied off-grid from the carrier, that couldn't happen any more. People use assigned fighters for other areas of eve not just skynet which would be affected by the loss of bonuses - though only applying the lack of bonus off-grid would have less an effect than a total loss when assigned/assisted. EDIT: Assist would keep the bonuses ongrid anyhow mind unless that was special cases yet again as its a different mechanic to assigned.
colera deldios 293	Posted - 2015.02.27 14:08:26 - [60] - Quote 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.. This feels a lot like nerfing out of spite.. Assisting fighters has it's positives it seems wrong to remove a mechanic simply because few incompetent people can't setup a trap.
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
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 1123	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:14:58 - [91] - Quote Removing fighter assign is good. Removing fighter warp is bad. I can't follow a target warping to a safespot in my combat ship, so fighters being able to follow targets continuously is odd. But I can always warp to a member of my fleet in the same system, and I can fleet warp, so at a minimum, fighters should always be able to warp TO the carriers location when the carriers location, and warp WITH the carrier when the carrier warps. But feel free to remove the follow aggressed target function, it wouldn't be much of a loss.
Jarod Garamonde Jolly Codgers Get Off My Lawn 2495	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:15:45 - [92] - 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. 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'd rather just see a killmail generated for fighters, and call it a day. Other than not getting a killmail when one dies, fighters are fine the way they are. That moment when you realize the crazy lady with all the cats was right... `[#savethelance]`
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 127	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:16:03 - [93] - Quote Removal of both removes a huge sandbox. it also makes them useless. most people use fighters for their ability to follow. remove that then there's no point in fighters ever. who would even risk using them in pve if just warping off loses you 200m isk of drones. so people will go back to using sentry drones on carriers, which would then need to be nerfed again. so please leave the warp at least. as for assigning... removing that just nerfed my ratting income by 65%, so thanks for that....
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 452	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:16:14 - [94] - Quote Inslander Wessette wrote: 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) The problem with the delegation mechanic is it is incredibly buggy and there still are multiple exploits or "clever use of game mechanics" that you can use to give you a significant advantage while assisting your drones, even if you were prevented from doing it on grid with a station or POS. 1. It's possible to get a Thanatos to "hard-to-probe" status by using another "hard-to-probe" Tengu with Remote ECCM. Spurs on the Thanatos and use of X-Instinct. (By "hard-to-probe" I mean the requirement of a max skilled covert ops character with some virtue implants required to probe the Thanatos/Tengu pair). Which makes it close to invulnerable and outside repercussions for the vast majority of gangs unless they specifically know what you're doing and bring Virtue Implants or an incredibly specific fit tengu into your space (risking more than your carriers net-worth), even then, it's possible for you to be aligned out to a POS with refit to WCS in your cargo in the event you get tackled, and RLML fitted on your booster Tengu, in a cynojammed system, making a black ops drop from multiple bombers and back-up recons (all of which you can scout) the only realistic means for your death. If you lose the Tengu+Thanatos and your implant set it still comes into around 2 billion isk ballpark if thanatos is uninsured. Which given what the other people have to field to have a fairly realistic chance of actually catching and killing you (which isn't guranteed) is marginal. 2. Fighters assigned to ships do not agress the ships using them. Unless CCP manages to bug-fix this aspect, this still makes ridiculous things possible such as fighters assigned to double 1600 plate covert ops, nullified subsystem t3s which sit on a gate with anchored bubbles and never aggress and just put fighters on people, jumping out as soon as they lose their 600,000 EHP to almost complete safety. 3. You can take 1) even further by burning a Confessor/Svipul with 10mn MWD in speed mode to the edge of a deadspace pocket in a complex (or a mission in npc 0.0), then setting up there, bringing your carrier 2-3km into the deadspace pocket and requiring even a snaked linked malediction <30minutes to burn to your thanatos if they probe out the plex, which you can easily just type "07 to ur t00nie" into local when it gets below 1000km on dir scanner and warp out. 4. Delegated fighters still fight while a Carrier is in warp so you can easily just assist your fighters to ships, then engage in a long warp to a friendly POS and your fighters will continue to fight while you're in warp and in complete invulnerability landing in the center of a safe POS when you land. 5. offline POS can be used (as they are done currently, right now with skynet/supers) with passwords entered and ready to go online to bypass CCP's current forcefield exclusion zone mechanics. The problem isn't so much the ships used. As using a 400k EHP abaddon that never agresses with mwd+mmjd+ecm burst+cloak would still be possible with the beacon mechanic, costing 40 million isk after insurance if it dies, with the very likely possibility that it can escape unless the hostiles have multiple pilots (which you know about in your intel channels, and covert ops cloak capable ships if you see fit to allow the grid to allow it on cruisers). I think the risk should be for the Carrier pilot, not for other ships as it's too easy to mitigate risk on the other ships. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Canenald Jump Drive Appreciation Society Test Alliance Please Ignore 46	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:19:08 - [95] - Quote I feel that removing fighter assists and warping would just make carriers more like large versions of subcapital drone boats. There has to be a better way of solving this problem. Do the assigned fighters give aggression timers to the owner carrier? If they don't, they should. Carrier too tough so it waits out the aggression timer and docks? It's your problem you don't have the power to destroy a carrier before it deagresses. Don't pick a fight with groups that have carriers. Assigning from the edge of POS shields is more complicated. Maybe prevent them from assigning while they are within certain range of the shields, like the same area in which jump bridges can't be placed.
Kiyak Montizuma Fault Line Industries Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:19:55 - [96] - Quote keep fighter warp and also allow the ability to assist to ships that are on grid.
Tikktokk Tokkzikk Alekhine's Gun The Periphery 192	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:19:59 - [97] - Quote No matter what, keep the warp drive on the fighters and fighter bombers. Huge QoL for carrier pilots and make for some interesting situations. Fighter assist is overpowered because of skynets at the edge of POS shields. I'm a huge fan of ships being in space (especially expensive ships), so I'd rather skynetting wasn't possible near a POS shield (like cynos?) than it being removed from the game. That being said, I'd much rather see fighter assist be removed from the game than remain at the current state.
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 142	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:21:27 - [98] - Quote Gevlin wrote: 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. But it's not - the two situations are not exactly the same. Carriers have notoriously slow lock times, especially for smaller ships, and fighters do not (last time I used any) auto aggress to new targets, you have to target them individually and click "Sic 'em" for the fighters to go dispense death. Removing the assist feature means that you have to use the carrier's lock time in order to get the benefit of the fighters, not the lock time of an interceptor. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4085	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:21:39 - [99] - Quote Kill all drone assist, regardless. Fighters and standard drones. Retain fighter warp as this is a unique feature, and can be toggled already. It's time for the 'Game of Drones' to come to an end. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 909	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:22:41 - [100] - Quote Suitonia wrote: The problem with the delegation mechanic is it is incredibly buggy and there still are multiple exploits or "clever use of game mechanics" that you can use to give you a significant advantage while assisting your drones, even if you were prevented from doing it on grid with a station or POS. 1. It's possible to get a Thanatos to "hard-to-probe" status by using another "hard-to-probe" Tengu with Remote ECCM. Spurs on the Thanatos and use of X-Instinct. (By "hard-to-probe" I mean the requirement of a max skilled covert ops character with some virtue implants required to probe the Thanatos/Tengu pair). Which makes it close to invulnerable and outside repercussions for the vast majority of gangs unless they specifically know what you're doing and bring Virtue Implants or an incredibly specific fit tengu into your space (risking more than your carriers net-worth), even then, it's possible for you to be aligned out to a POS with refit to WCS in your cargo in the event you get tackled, and RLML fitted on your booster Tengu, in a cynojammed system, making a black ops drop from multiple bombers and back-up recons (all of which you can scout) the only realistic means for your death. If you lose the Tengu+Thanatos and your implant set it still comes into around 2 billion isk ballpark if thanatos is uninsured. Which given what the other people have to field to have a fairly realistic chance of actually catching and killing you (which isn't guranteed) is marginal. 2. Fighters assigned to ships do not agress the ships using them. Unless CCP manages to bug-fix this aspect, this still makes ridiculous things possible such as fighters assigned to double 1600 plate covert ops, nullified subsystem t3s which sit on a gate with anchored bubbles and never aggress and just put fighters on people, jumping out as soon as they lose their 600,000 EHP to almost complete safety. 3. You can take 1) even further by burning a Confessor/Svipul with 10mn MWD in speed mode to the edge of a deadspace pocket in a complex (or a mission in npc 0.0), then setting up there, bringing your carrier 2-3km into the deadspace pocket and requiring even a snaked linked malediction <30minutes to burn to your thanatos if they probe out the plex, which you can easily just type "07 to ur t00nie" into local when it gets below 1000km on dir scanner and warp out. 4. Delegated fighters still fight while a Carrier is in warp so you can easily just assist your fighters to ships, then engage in a long warp to a friendly POS and your fighters will continue to fight while you're in warp and in complete invulnerability landing in the center of a safe POS when you land. 5. offline POS can be used (as they are done currently, right now with skynet/supers) with passwords entered and ready to go online to bypass CCP's current forcefield exclusion zone mechanics. The problem isn't so much the ships used. As using a 400k EHP abaddon that never agresses with mwd+mmjd+ecm burst+cloak would still be possible with the beacon mechanic, costing 40 million isk after insurance if it dies, with the very likely possibility that it can escape unless the hostiles have multiple pilots (which you know about in your intel channels, and covert ops cloak capable ships if you see fit to allow the grid to allow it on cruisers). I think the risk should be for the Carrier pilot, not for other ships as it's too easy to mitigate risk on the other ships. Hence my addition of some changes to the fighters themselves.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 1434	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:22:55 - [101] - Quote I'm all for removing fighter assist. While the basis behind Skynetting has been "a thing" for a long time, Skynet carriers coupled with revamped fighters I think is a bit much. Valid? Yes. Still risky? Somewhat. But still a bit much. I think fighters should keep their ability to warp. It sets them apart from other drones and gives carriers a unique capability, and without fighter assist they will already be losing some of their warp utility (i.e. no longer need to warp to their designated ship). My Many Misadventures Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I seek to create content, not become content.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1101	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:24:01 - [102] - Quote I've yet to see an actual argument to keeping fighters going to warp besides "please don't nerf they cost me money". I hate being harsh but I haven't read one yet. I've read a few about fighters still engaging people while the carrier warps back and forth in between two pos's (haven't tried that actually, does that work?). Yaay!!!!
Coelomate Gilliomate Corp 14	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:24:38 - [103] - Quote Fighter assist was clearly broken. It's a cool/interesting/fun mechanic, so sad to see it go from the reasonable use cases, but there is no doubt something drastic needed to change. Please keep fighter warping, at least for following the carrier in warp. Fighters are expensive and slow, removing warp will make them even less likely to be used. Having said that, I'd love it if there were a way to nerf the most broken use cases of fighter assist while keeping it in the game. The two worst offenders being assigning tracking-bonused fighters from a POS to a small ship (usually for PVP) and assigning super carrier fighters from a POS to a regular carrier, allowing all of the super carrier fitting to improve damage and application while the carrier fitting improves tank/cap/rep/align (often for PVE). If you can find a way to stop those, the remaining uses of fighter assign aren't nearly as broken. Some good ideas have already been presented here, although I imagine there are significant coding challenges to them all. My biggest concern: what use case do (non-super) carriers and fighters have after this change? Love, ~Coelomate
Baron Holbach The Northerners Northern Coalition. 25	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:24:56 - [104] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Remove: - fighter assist. - fighter follow in warp the target. Keep: - fighters warping with the carrier this
Viserion Pavarius RESET. Fatal Ascension 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:25:23 - [105] - Quote Hey, plz don't remove the follow in warp function for fighters and escpecially fighter Bombers. If you lose your FB's on a supercap you lose your primary weapon and you are not able to replace them thanks to the "small" dronebay. Please think about this again CCP I just like the post from a guy in NC. MUST BE A SIGN :p
Souma12 Starframe Logistics Inc. 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:27:27 - [106] - Quote "In general, we want there to be risk associated with power." Nerf AFK cloaking then, 0 risk and too much power, the design philosophy you have is being affected there!
Xena Jax Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:28:45 - [107] - Quote On what Fozzie said on the o7 show.... For the purposes of this post, carrier is used to refer to carrier and mothership/super. @Fozzie I think, you sir, have not considered all of the consequences of making this change, or if you have, you have decided to ignore those of us who use the cap/fighter platform for other purposes than to attach said fighters to shuttles and interceptors. Look, I was not happy with the jump changes made to capitals, but I could see how the loss of capability versus the reward to stopping hot drops anywhere anytime was a positive. This crazy idea though is not and I for one am shocked you guys did not publicly ask for feedback from players before you decided to kill something that has been in use since the beginning of the game for other methods besides 'skynet'. What you should have done sir, is place limits on how they are used. Examples might be: A) No ability to assign fighters in low sec. B) Fighters cannot be attached to ship sizes below say a cruiser. C) Fighters cannot approach a gate within X km. They automatically return and orbit the carrier if its attempted. Look in the real world larger civilized countries purchase and use air craft carriers for air superiority. By definition (just looking at Iraq as an example), they were used to send fighters to the region they were needed in with no harm to the air craft carrier. The ocean was its POS. Anyways, back to the point. I think you are making a terrible mistake. When I started playing this game, I was largely enticed by capitals in general. How special and versatile they were. It seems you are taking away all of its beauty every other patch at this point. I mean seriously it is starting to shape up to capitals being nothing better than a subcap with a bit better DPS. Literally it is better to fly them gate to gate now. You are also taking away any other true advantage the platform has and basically pushing its single purpose for large fleet support roles. You are also pissing on older players many of whom retain well skilled alts simply that can fly carriers/supers for various reasons. I for one will divest myself away from the carrier platform if this change is made and my vote will be felt in CCPs pocket book directly as I will not renew my capital pilot subscription (which I pay for in dollars) after this change goes into effect. I am guessing many others will follow suit. Are you guys really that adverse to keeping accounts open and therefore keeping CCP financially strong? You are really screwing everyone who has invested a year or more of training into this game because some people complained about a tactic that could be dealt with in so many other ways? Hey if you make the change fine. I will live with it and adapt. But I want my GD wasted skillpoints back buddy. Xena
Opner Dresden Lugus Foundry The Explicit Alliance 25	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:29:24 - [108] - Quote So fighter assist is a problem of design... don't post any data, because you don't have any data to support it. But battleship and Battlecruiser usage is only a stats question... nothing is wrong with the fact that absolutely no one is fielding anything larger than a cruiser hull as a primary doctrine for major combat outside of PL... and even then it's only for <5 jump TFIs and destroyer warp speed Machariels. Can we get some consistency please? If skynetting is a serious problem and not just people annoyed with home systems having some defensive advantage against roaming gangs... show us the numbers. Better solution, fighters can be scramed and generate killmails... and bubbles while you're at it. Carriers just received a massive nerf in jump range, severely limiting one of the major perks of owning one (suitcase). Now the uses for ratting and home defense are being crippled (at least in any sort of busy space).
BoBoZoBo Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team 519	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:30:15 - [109] - Quote You have two variables you are looking at. Do not make the same mistake you made with jump fatigue and modify both at once. Start with removing the fighter assist if the problem persists, then remove the fighter warping. Honestly, I do not see how the two are related. As a carrier pilot who use to use their own drones for themselves, being able to let the fighters warp with you is a nice insurance policy for the cap ship and the very expensive fighters. Primary Test Subject GÇó SmackTalker Elite
Lunarstorm95 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Fatal Ascension 5	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:31:13 - [110] - Quote No. Leave fighters alone and work on what needs fixing. You have a list full of game mechanics that need working on and fighters are not on said list. Stop sticking you nose in game mechanics you don't know anything about and start listening to the CSMs. Fighters warping have not been a problem that has no solution. THAT is when a mechanic need fixing. Not because some people would rather complain over finding a hard counter. As for assisting, i feel it needs some work but i still feel it is not an issue. The **** that gets assigned fighters needs to get aggression as if it was their own drones. If you remove either of these features fighters become pointless and you will have yet again made a change no one wants. My 20-40 mil drones should have some extra bells and whistles over some drakes 500k drones. Fix what needs fixing. GÇ£You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.GÇ¥ GÇò Robert A. Heinlein "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." GÇò Confucius-á
drummendejef maaktnietuit Active Fusion 21	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:31:25 - [111] - Quote We were going to start trying out skynet ratting in 2 days :( I don't see the problem with it really. It's pvp, and alot should be possible. Yes, it's annoying when a frig kills a BS, but they don't always need fighters for that.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9936	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:32:10 - [112] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: I've yet to see an actual argument to keeping fighters going to warp besides "please don't nerf they cost me money". No "me" i don't use fighters anymore. What we're saying is that this unnecessary nerf (to fighter warping) means fewer people will use Carriers for PVE in null and low sec. Those PVE carriers are content creation devices, huge battles have started behind one ratting carrier or super carrier that got caught because it was misaligned or got stuck on a structure or something.. Without fighter warping, the financial risk (of losing a quarter bil in fighters) means people just won't do it, ratting is about making isk under acceptable levels of financial risk (which is why afktars or so popular, don't make a lot of isk but not a lot of loss if one dies) not losing it. Some me will just use sentry carriers but those are dangerous because you can't be aligned, so after a few loses, they too will either switch to Afktars, cheap options like MJD Dominixes/other ships or outside of null sec pve (like faction warfare missions or whatever else) for income. RIP content creating ratting carriers getting caught.
Falnashna Akhiko The Flying Pandas 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:32:20 - [113] - Quote I feel a much more appropriate option would be to make it so that they can still fighter assist, however, there is a maximum range to it. Ideally this would be like 1 AU. The advantage of doing this is that it severely limits where they can have the carrier to assist things in system. If it is in a moon that is right next to a station, I feel that raises the value of both the moon and the station, it would lead towards more conflict over that system (assuming holding alliances aren't massive). However, it doesn't give a blank check on any engages within the system. Since the range is only 1 AU, say the enemy fleet/individual comes into system, he can quickly figure out the "range bubble" of the assist, and then engage stuff outside of it. This raises the tactics of the carrier, while still maintaining its "carrier-ness". With that said, it may be more reasonable to do it at a shorter range, such as 1000km, so that there can be fleet mechanics wherein you park your carriers just barely off grid, and then you will be able to assist the people that are in combat. I personally just feel that outright removing a feature is never the way to go, as it removes diversity of play, however, it is appropriate, or more accurately demanded that said features should be balanced.
Punky260 Deutsche Lichtbringer AG Fidelas Constans 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:32:23 - [114] - Quote Leave fighters warping - maybe with an optout option. So you could choose in the drones window if your Fighters should be able to leave grid or not. Why: The uniqueness of fighters should not only be a bigger damage output, put also a larger range of "utility". Even there are probably only few scenarios where you might end up wanting your fighters warp away from you, it still can be. And I would want only the smallest change to remove skynet - the fighter assist does provide that, so why do something else? ;)
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 2760	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:33:12 - [115] - Quote I'm going to put this here so I'm sure you'll read it. You gave us an UNDER DEVELOPED LINE of singular capital and super capital hulls and told us to go forth and be gods if we could afford to. You nerfed them and AoE doomsdays because the poor rifter hobos who couldn't afford to be gods got blapped in the first few years. You nerfed carriers again because fighters did too much damage to small gangs thinking they can take on something 10 times their size and cost. Then you nerfed them some more because you wanted sub capitals to play a role in whoring on capital killmails with NO RISK from the caps (invalid targeting mechanic, crap scan res for a ship that should by all means have more targeting capabilities than the cheap budget frigates on offer). Recently you nerfed them again because they traveled across the galaxy, bypassing stargates at insane speeds (LIKE YOU INTENDED from the offset). Now your relegating carriers to the world of triaging on stargates or the role of dust collectors. You promised me Incarna. You gave me a prolonged abortion with an eventual dismissal of the concept because some people blew up space statues and unsubbed their cyno alts. You promised me PI. You gave me connect the dots and forgot about it. SO there's not much for it. Nerf my capitals with this, and I'll nerf your income by unsubbing whats left of my accounts and hoping for the days that your nigh-wow clone game failscades with headlines of job cuts at CCP or scandalous transfers of disgruntled former Devs to competitor studios. I did not invest 10 years into this game hoping to fill the Freelancer hole in my heart, for Capital ships in general, Incarna and PI promises to sit back and watch you turn this game into rifters online with no content I like or want, week in, week out... all because of lesser ships and your inability to have fixed all of these design oversights that have cost us the much loved Jesus feature expansions in the first decade. And i'll be keeping my stuffs thnx Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 456	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:34:19 - [116] - Quote Opner Dresden wrote: So fighter assist is a problem of design... don't post any data, because you don't have any data to support it. But battleship and Battlecruiser usage is only a stats question... nothing is wrong with the fact that absolutely no one is fielding anything larger than a cruiser hull as a primary doctrine for major combat outside of PL... and even then it's only for <5 jump TFIs and destroyer warp speed Machariels. Can we get some consistency please? If skynetting is a serious problem and not just people annoyed with home systems having some defensive advantage against roaming gangs... show us the numbers. Better solution, fighters can be scramed and generate killmails... and bubbles while you're at it. Carriers just received a massive nerf in jump range, severely limiting one of the major perks of owning one (suitcase). Now the uses for ratting and home defense are being crippled (at least in any sort of busy space). The advantage that home defense has is the option to reship and counter, more pilots on hand, and the ability to reinforce lost numbers during an engagement, as well as strategic assets like Jump Bridges to cut-off enemy escape routes or bring their own reinforcements in faster, and much better options for a safe retreat like safe stations and friendly structures. Assigning 4,000 DPS from an invulnerable and intangible target that tracks every single ship in the game perfectly to 2 Stilettos and a Hyena (or t1 fit frigates) is not something which should be in the game. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Krell Kroenen The Devil's Shadow 230	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:35:49 - [117] - Quote So a unique and interesting feature thatGÇÖs been around for numerous years is being removed because of an undesirable side effect that has reared its head more often of late due to changes that came in Phoebe. So instead of correcting the side affect you are just going to axe the whole feature. ThatGÇÖs like having a blemish on your hand and chopping off the whole hand to get rid of it. Golf clap I guess we should be happy you guys are in game design and are not doctors, why not put forth some effort and prevent the undesirable behavior directly instead of taking easy sloppy way out?
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4086	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:38:38 - [118] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: I'm going to put this here so I'm sure you'll read it. I thoroughly enjoyed the rant. And you're not entirely wrong on most of your points, either. You can also add Combat Battlecruisers and Battleships to the list, too. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 13	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:40:06 - [119] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Axloth Okiah wrote: How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable? I like that. And give us fighter and fighter bomber kill mails.
Falnashna Akhiko The Flying Pandas 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:41:06 - [120] - Quote Falnashna Akhiko wrote: I feel a much more appropriate option would be to make it so that they can still fighter assist, however, there is a maximum range to it. Ideally this would be like 1 AU. The advantage of doing this is that it severely limits where they can have the carrier to assist things in system. If it is in a moon that is right next to a station, I feel that raises the value of both the moon and the station, it would lead towards more conflict over that system (assuming holding alliances aren't massive). However, it doesn't give a blank check on any engages within the system. Since the range is only 1 AU, say the enemy fleet/individual comes into system, he can quickly figure out the "range bubble" of the assist, and then engage stuff outside of it. This raises the tactics of the carrier, while still maintaining its "carrier-ness". With that said, it may be more reasonable to do it at a shorter range, such as 1000km, so that there can be fleet mechanics wherein you park your carriers just barely off grid, and then you will be able to assist the people that are in combat. I personally just feel that outright removing a feature is never the way to go, as it removes diversity of play, however, it is appropriate, or more accurately demanded that said features should be balanced. Alternatively, what you could just do is set it so that pos's have a secondary "invisibile" bubble that is larger than the pos shield. Its only effect would be that carriers can't launch fighters while inside this invisible bubble. This would force them to trundle out a good deal farther to maintain the behavior, thus forcing them to be more vulnerable.
Charadrass Angry Germans 157	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:41:23 - [121] - Quote I don't see the Problem? in the right Corner you have an attacking force with aprox 2-3 Billion worth in ships in the left Corner you have a ship with assisted fighters with aprox 30-40 bilion worth in active ships. why the heck should the right Corner ship get an Advantage over the other one? the second Pilot is fielding much much more isk and risk. but go on. make supers and carriers useless cause some idiot frig pilots are mad at getting killed by fighters. if you are risking more isk, you should have the Advantage. simple as that. dont nerf assist of fighters and dont nerf fighter and bomber warps. if both happens, no one will use supers or carriers again, and you can just delete them of the game instead of nerfing them.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9940	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:41:45 - [122] - Quote Krell Kroenen wrote: So a unique and interesting feature thatGÇÖs been around for numerous years is being removed because of an undesirable side effect that has reared its head more often of late due to changes that came in Phoebe. So instead of correcting the side affect you are just going to axe the whole feature. ThatGÇÖs like having a blemish on your hand and chopping off the whole hand to get rid of it. Golf clap I guess we should be happy you guys are in game design and are not doctors, why not put forth some effort and prevent the undesirable behavior directly instead of taking easy sloppy way out? Patient: "Hey doc, I was walking around outside barefooted and scraped the side of my big toe, it's not that bad, but do you have a bandaid?" CCP Doctor Rise: "In my opinion we'll have to amputate both legs, your left arm and remove half your ribcage. That should prevent any chance of infection". Patient: "WTF? Can I get a second opinion?" CCP Doctor Fozzie "Better take the other arm, just to be sure".
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 456	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:42:06 - [123] - Quote Krell Kroenen wrote: So a unique and interesting feature thatGÇÖs been around for numerous years is being removed because of an undesirable side effect that has reared its head more often of late due to changes that came in Phoebe. So instead of correcting the side affect you are just going to axe the whole feature. ThatGÇÖs like having a blemish on your hand and chopping off the whole hand to get rid of it. Golf clap I guess we should be happy you guys are in game design and are not doctors, why not put forth some effort and prevent the undesirable behavior directly instead of taking easy sloppy way out? What do you suggest then? Fighter Assist was almost a completely unused 'joke' feature before the fighters got the buffed up stats. The feature is laden with terrible bugs which have been in the game for years, it would probably take considerable work and effort to clean up the numerous bugs in the fighter code (which probably hasn't been touched since 2006 when Carriers were introduced, and older features in eve have a history of being poorly documented) to have them at a state where they are balanced (I.e. Fighters don't have any stats from assigning Carriers), it would probably take a programming/QA team considerable to fix, and then at which point, no-one will use them again like before and a team would have spend considerable development time 'balancing' a feature which is then going to go to back to seeing non-existent use. It's much easier for the Design team to simply remove the feature. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Vena Saris GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 16	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:44:01 - [124] - Quote leave the warpy fighter part in.
Gyges Skyeye Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn 19	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:44:30 - [125] - Quote Fighter assist should die. That said, lets consider the other mechanic up for change. Fighter warping; The first time I experienced this mechanic it surprised the heck out of me to see things following me in a warp tunnel. It was an 'oh ****' moment and it was kind of fun. Fighter warping is a very cool gameplay mechanic. However I would contend that fighter warping is not really relevant to the core identity or function of fighters. Fighter bombers and fighters are about hitting large, stationary to slow moving objects that have already been tied down in place on grid. When you reach into your bag of weapons systems for a fighter or a fighter bomber, the assumption is that you are not fighting small nimble things. Fighter warping is a mechanic for hunting down an escaped kill. Hunting down a small fast escapee is not at all core to the fighter's mission of blowing fools up who are stuck in the mud on your grid. I think that fighter warping should be removed and fighters strengthened in their core identity as a capital to battleship targeted weapon system. I would then love to see a new capital class warping drones drawn up that is targeted at harassing and hunting down fleeing enemies. These hunter drones could be balanced around providing effective dps against cruiser/battlecruiser to frigate sized vessels. You could balance and tune these drones to be scrammable, bubbleable, ect without having to worry about regular fighter drones having excess power against an infinitely broad range of targets. tl;dr drone warping's a cool mechanic but do it on a new set of drones instead.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:44:40 - [126] - Quote Charadrass wrote: if both happens, no one will use supers or carriers again, and you can just delete them of the game instead of nerfing them. Like people were supposed to stop using capitals with the jump range limitation and the jump fatigue. I'm totally waiting for that to happen...
Atan Auden Gallasen Order 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:45:31 - [127] - Quote Stop killing the Capitals and breaking the game of the capital pilots. im AGAINST THOSE CHANGES they will ruin the Carrier gameplay. !
Lunarstorm95 Di-Tron Heavy Industries Fatal Ascension 6	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:45:54 - [128] - Quote Suitonia wrote: Opner Dresden wrote: So fighter assist is a problem of design... don't post any data, because you don't have any data to support it. But battleship and Battlecruiser usage is only a stats question... nothing is wrong with the fact that absolutely no one is fielding anything larger than a cruiser hull as a primary doctrine for major combat outside of PL... and even then it's only for <5 jump TFIs and destroyer warp speed Machariels. Can we get some consistency please? If skynetting is a serious problem and not just people annoyed with home systems having some defensive advantage against roaming gangs... show us the numbers. Better solution, fighters can be scramed and generate killmails... and bubbles while you're at it. Carriers just received a massive nerf in jump range, severely limiting one of the major perks of owning one (suitcase). Now the uses for ratting and home defense are being crippled (at least in any sort of busy space). The advantage that home defense has is the option to reship and counter, more pilots on hand, and the ability to reinforce lost numbers during an engagement, as well as strategic assets like Jump Bridges to cut-off enemy escape routes or bring their own reinforcements in faster, and much better options for a safe retreat like safe stations and friendly structures. Assigning 4,000 DPS from an invulnerable and intangible target that tracks every single ship in the game perfectly to 2 Stilettos and a Hyena (or t1 fit frigates) is not something which should be in the game. Wrong. Fighters assigned to a ship will not achieve 4k dps. Only 5 fighters can be assigned and endless it is being done by a max dps thanny you only getting like 600 DPS. Also carriers get aggro form their drone aggression. Bump em off station. Bump em of shields. Drive by doomsday him. This stuff happens all the time. Just because you haven't thought about doesn't mean their is no solution. Or better yet stop expecting you 200 man alliance to be a formidable force to a 3k man alliance with sov. Pick on target you can compete with. GÇ£You can have peace. Or you can have freedom. Don't ever count on having both at once.GÇ¥ GÇò Robert A. Heinlein "Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance." GÇò Confucius-á
Charadrass Angry Germans 157	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:46:39 - [129] - Quote guys. you can assist 5 fighters. not the whole bunch a carrier or super can Launch. thats a 2k dps per ship where you assist 5 of them. a good fitted vindicator with drones can get that too. gonna nerf vindicators right?
xXCha0sDrag0nXx2001xX Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:46:47 - [130] - Quote Atan Auden wrote: Stop killing the Capitals and breaking the game of the capital pilots. im AGAINST THOSE CHANGES they will ruin the Carrier gameplay. ! Oh god please don't let them take away my 40m from a POS Forcefield Gameplay!!
Archetype 66 Association of Commonwealth Enterprises Nulli Secunda 182	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:48:05 - [131] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable? +1 I want my fighters to keep warp ability.
Traiori New Eden Renegades This can only end well 205	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:49:15 - [132] - Quote Make fighter warp a toggleable option (if it isn't already - I haven't flown a DPS carrier in a long time) in drone options. This stops them leaving when you don't want them to, but maintains their individuality. "Fighter Warp: Y/N"
Agent Unknown Night Theifs DamnedNation 35	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:51:13 - [133] - Quote Traiori wrote: Make fighter warp a toggleable option (if it isn't already - I haven't flown a DPS carrier in a long time) in drone options. This stops them leaving when you don't want them to, but maintains their individuality. "Fighter Warp: Y/N" There's a "Attack and Follow" tickbox. This would eliminate the issue CCP brought up with fighters chasing people who warp away while allowing it to be the choice of the pilot. They'll still follow you when you warp regardless of the setting. RIP CCP nerfbatting capitals a month after I invested in one.
xXCha0sDrag0nXx2001xX Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:53:08 - [134] - Quote Charadrass wrote: guys. you can assist 5 fighters. not the whole bunch a carrier or super can Launch. thats a 2k dps per ship. a good fitted vindicator with drones can get that too. gonna nerf vindicators right? at risk of stating the obvious A decent fit Vindicator goes around 1km/s, and costs 700m to lose with rigs/t2 fitting/faction web. It has problems applying damage past 20km. It is vulnerable to tracking disruption/energy warfare, it can be damped, jammed, it can be scrammed/webbed (albiet to the extreme risk of the ship doing that if the Vindicator is not controlled), it can be pointed and killed outside it's web range quite easily by most cruisers in the game if it's unsupported. 2 Stilettos with assisted Einherjis cost 60m to lose (The Einherjis cost 300m but they are incredibly unlikely to die because even scrammed einherjis will instantly disappear if they Stilletto relegates control of them back to the carrier) Einherjis go 6km/s, and the Stilettos do 5km/s, The Einherjis will track frigates perfectly without issue, and can track every single frigate in the game, even linked, unless they have HG snakes. If you lose the 2 Stilettos which have a much more effective weapon system you lose 60m If you lose your vindicator after insurance it costs 500m+ Guess which one is balanced
gto Okaski Crown Solutions TOGETHER WE STAND 2	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:53:37 - [135] - Quote nerf capitals nerf T3s nerf HACs Every time the gamers enjoy and use a ship more than another, you take action. Why do you have such diversity of ships if you do not let one have an advantage in certain field over another ? You might just as well offer the same ship with different names.
Don't Panic Utopian Research I.E.L. 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:53:47 - [136] - Quote well i guess here speaks mostly people who don't have supers, so let me say few words. about RISK firstly, a super carrier who is on edge on POS with delegated fighters risks the same as all other ships involved into pvp. well managed attack and in 3 seconds from super carrier is only a wreck. and various other situations like disconnection with aggression and other sandbox. ( i saw bluemelon was talking in this topic, he can confirm my words as being well experience player in tactical warfare ) about DPS from delegated fighters with huge risk comes huge dps, good balance. you risk not a stupid rupture who-nobody-cares, you risk 30 bil ship. one mistake and shame on you for entire pilot's carrier. having in mind you can get that shame in 3 seconds, i think dps could be even bigger. about FIGHTING STRONG delegating fighters is a nice warfare strategy, which made possible to engage bigger fleet entities having less pilots. td;r you can engage and create pvp situations against much bigger hostile fleets. it's always fun to fight more, right? or should pilots ALWAYS run when incoming 2 x or 3 x more hostiles? about BALANCE pretty much super capital pilots faces that ship class downgrading for long time, really not much love from developers. nerfed that, nerfed this, removed that, removed this. now removing fighter assist? taking one thing you need add other, this is how balance works. when you remove something its not balance. IT'S NOT BALANCE. am even not sure what you need to add to super carrier to balance removed assisting? must be some magic right now, some new capital modules or ship specifications... look if i buy new car and engine not starts ( like now with super carrier, got it for delegating fighters ) i will get fixed for free. so if ccp rise removes assisting, gonna he buy super carrier from me? nwm. Please respect all players in this game, small entities and bigger entities, don't shutdown a variety of warfare and ways of the gameplay.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:54:31 - [137] - Quote Charadrass wrote: guys. you can assist 5 fighters. not the whole bunch a carrier or super can Launch. thats a 2k dps per ship where you assist 5 of them. a good fitted vindicator with drones can get that too. gonna nerf vindicators right? It's 2k dps added to any ships. Crow with 2k dps? Sure why not right.
Stu Pendisdick School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 39	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:55:04 - [138] - Quote Seems simple to me, do not allow assignment of Fighters/Fighter Bombers unless the assigning vessel is (X) kilometers away from a POS or Station. Let them continue to add all the damage they want to distant battles within the system, simply remove mommy's apron that they currently hide behind.
Kreea Jita-Delve-Jita Logistics LowSechnaya Sholupen 2	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:55:48 - [139] - Quote Dear CCP, I'm quite disappointed with your latest nerfs and rebalaces. Why don't you concentrate more on inventing something new in game instead of nerfing or boosting the same things in the game every year. Otherwise, with such a "job" I guess you're trying to justify the money of your investors???
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 231	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:56:16 - [140] - Quote An old, interesting, and cool mechanic is being removed because of people whining about it. You talk about making it better for the small guys and nerfing the power of the big corps, but this is counter-productive. This effectively removes fighters as a mechanic from lowsec outside of large engagements. Sure, deploy a carrier and start shooting a pos or a poco. See how long it takes you until there's 20+ dreadnaughts, carriers, supercarriers and titans on field killing you. Risk vs reward? You're making it so it's either join a big alliance to have a chance of using your carrier, or just don't undock it. So much for helping the small guy. I started training for carriers, but I'm thinking I should just stop now. Might as well train for something I'm gonna use more than once a year, yeah?
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 1124	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:56:25 - [141] - Quote Agent Unknown wrote: Traiori wrote: Make fighter warp a toggleable option (if it isn't already - I haven't flown a DPS carrier in a long time) in drone options. This stops them leaving when you don't want them to, but maintains their individuality. "Fighter Warp: Y/N" There's a "Attack and Follow" tickbox. This would eliminate the issue CCP brought up with fighters chasing people who warp away while allowing it to be the choice of the pilot. They'll still follow you when you warp regardless of the setting. RIP CCP nerfbatting capitals a month after I invested in one. Never trust CCP to do the non literal version of what they said. If they said "remove fighter warping", assume until they say otherwise that the blind nerfbat will crush all applications of fighter warping, including returning to the carrier and following carrier in warp. Best to make absolutely sure they know peoples opinions and to try and pin them down on EXACTLY what their proposal on the topic is. Again, Remove assist, keep drone warping, even if it's just drones following the carrier in warp.
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 50	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:56:46 - [142] - Quote Gilbaron wrote: can't you disallow fighter assist from within 50km of a tower instead ? that's gonna produce some lovely killmails removing fighter warp is completely unnessecarry I endorse this product and/or service. Allow assist, to battlecruiser or higher (I don't necessarily agree with Cruisers), but yes, cannot be within 50kms of an anchored structure (pos, station etc). Assist is a viable mechanic. I don't like frigates being able to control them, but meeting halfway with battlecruisers is a goocdcompromise. Allow subcapital combat to be assisted by supers, but mitigate the battle space by changing the mechanic. Stop swinging the goddamn nerf bat so hard. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Neyko Turama Black Arrows Sev3rance 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:57:33 - [143] - Quote Pomponius Sabinus wrote: CCP Rise wrote: 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. Well it seems like you realised the problem is risk vs reward while asigning fighters from the edge of a POS FF. But instead of making it more interesting by finding some way to make it more dangerous to asign fighters you sadly take the easy way out and just remove it. It would be way more interesting for the game if you found a way to make carriers that asigned fighters more vulnerable. The best way to adress this Problem would be to not allow asigning fighters within a certain distance to a POS. This will create a lot of interesting encounters / fights over carier/super carriers that are caught while they asigned fighters. Concerning fighter warp there is no problem with that. People that don't want it can hit the don't follow button and all is fine. First of all this. and then maybe what about: -Fighters can only be assisted if the carrying vessel is minimum +50km (or even 100km) of any station or structure OR: -Fighters can only be assisted if the carrying vessel is within a certain Range of a maybe called "Mobile Drone Link Enforcer" Module (Mobile Depot-like). Pls CCP, be creative and don-¦t **** this up.
Draco Virpio Journey. Alternate Allegiance 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:57:48 - [144] - Quote I like the ideas of only being able to assign fighters if your a certain distance away from a POS and also make it so you can only assign fighters to Cruisers or Battlecruisers and higher. The idea of taking away fighter assist is absurd at best... if you decide to do this will it come with giving people back the money spent on isk to purchase these Supers? Its starting to feel like CCP is just trying to take away as much ability for people to rat enough to purchase in game isk and forcing users to pay for their accounts. There is a reason why supers are so expensive... you already nurfed fighters enough already. Setting rules for when fighters can be assigned is fine but anything beyond that is complete garbage!
Charadrass Angry Germans 162	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:58:00 - [145] - Quote xXCha0sDrag0nXx2001xX wrote: Charadrass wrote: guys. you can assist 5 fighters. not the whole bunch a carrier or super can Launch. thats a 2k dps per ship. a good fitted vindicator with drones can get that too. gonna nerf vindicators right? at risk of stating the obvious A decent fit Vindicator goes around 1km/s, and costs 700m to lose with rigs/t2 fitting/faction web. It has problems applying damage past 20km. It is vulnerable to tracking disruption/energy warfare, it can be damped, jammed, it can be scrammed/webbed (albiet to the extreme risk of the ship doing that if the Vindicator is not controlled), it can be pointed and killed outside it's web range quite easily by most cruisers in the game if it's unsupported. 2 Stilettos with assisted Einherjis cost 60m to lose (The Einherjis cost 300m but they are incredibly unlikely to die because even scrammed einherjis will instantly disappear if they Stilletto relegates control of them back to the carrier) Einherjis go 6km/s, and the Stilettos do 5km/s, The Einherjis will track frigates perfectly without issue, and can track every single frigate in the game, even linked, unless they have HG snakes. If you lose the 2 Stilettos which have a much more effective weapon system you lose 60m If you lose your vindicator after insurance it costs 500m+ Guess which one is balanced ah. and the assisted Einherjis spawn just in space and wait to get assisted right? you forgot in your calculation the carrier OR supercarrier. you just have to scan him down. bump him away from the pos and kill it. mister iamlookingforaneasykillandgothumiliated...
Charadrass Angry Germans 162	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:59:33 - [146] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Charadrass wrote: guys. you can assist 5 fighters. not the whole bunch a carrier or super can Launch. thats a 2k dps per ship where you assist 5 of them. a good fitted vindicator with drones can get that too. gonna nerf vindicators right? It's 2k dps added to any ships. Crow with 2k dps? Sure why not right. why not? the crow still dies at the same Speed as before. or do the fighters provide the crow some sort of strange defense buff? by the time the crow bites the dust, the fighters are doing nothing.
DNSBLACK Dirt Nap Squad Dirt Nap Squad. 706	Posted - 2015.02.27 15:59:44 - [147] - Quote Don't stop at fighters. Remove drone assist also. The assist mechanic is what is causing issues across many platforms. Hint Ishtars not having to be in targeting range just drone range control range.
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 456	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:00:24 - [148] - Quote Lunarstorm95 wrote: Fighters assigned to a ship will not achieve 4k dps. Only 5 fighters can be assigned and endless it is being done by a max dps thanny you only getting like 600 DPS. Also carriers get aggro form their drone aggression. Bump em off station. Bump em of shields. Drive by doomsday him. This stuff happens all the time. Just because you haven't thought about doesn't mean their is no solution. Or better yet stop expecting you 200 man alliance to be a formidable force to a 3k man alliance with sov. Pick on target you can compete with. A Thanatos with only 5 Fighters assigns 1.1k DPS to a single ship. With 14 Fighters assuming reasonable skills (i.e. can only run 4 DCUs) a Skynet Thanatos can assign 3000 DPS+ over 3 ships. It is not 600 DPS, 600 DPS would be from a completely unfitted Thanatos. This is from an entirely T2 Fit Thanatos. A Nyx can assign over 6000 DPS with the same configuration. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9949	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:02:35 - [149] - Quote As I said in another thread, what really sucks is that nerfs like this limit creativity (while rewarding the uncreative for being...uncreative). I've used fighter delgation to combat cloaky campers. I fit out a tanked T1 haulers and assigned fighters to it and kept right on ratting, daring the camper to hot drop me and my 9 mil isk worth of ship. This rather than running to the forums screaming "CCP, someone is cloaked in my upgraded system, DO SOMETHING!". Without fighter delegation, that's over with. Oh, it's not the end of screwing around with afk cloaky camper's heads (my FoF missile+sentries warp core stabbed ECM busrting MJD Typhoons and Armageddons laugh at your false hot drop threat Mr. Cloaky Camper), but it another nail in the coffin of creativity in this game.
Jack Leo Collapsed Out Overload Everything 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:04:12 - [150] - Quote You said you wanted to increase risk...Instead of removing the game play option completely would it make sense to have some type of inability to enter POS when fighters are deployed / assisting - Another option would be to have limiting siege/triage like timer when deploying fighters - requiring a cool down period after fighters are in drone bay - This keeps game play intact but adds an element of risk. While abandoning fighters might be a last resort when in danger it' would be an expensive option.
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 456	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:04:25 - [151] - Quote Charadrass wrote: xXCha0sDrag0nXx2001xX wrote: Charadrass wrote: guys. you can assist 5 fighters. not the whole bunch a carrier or super can Launch. thats a 2k dps per ship. a good fitted vindicator with drones can get that too. gonna nerf vindicators right? at risk of stating the obvious A decent fit Vindicator goes around 1km/s, and costs 700m to lose with rigs/t2 fitting/faction web. It has problems applying damage past 20km. It is vulnerable to tracking disruption/energy warfare, it can be damped, jammed, it can be scrammed/webbed (albiet to the extreme risk of the ship doing that if the Vindicator is not controlled), it can be pointed and killed outside it's web range quite easily by most cruisers in the game if it's unsupported. 2 Stilettos with assisted Einherjis cost 60m to lose (The Einherjis cost 300m but they are incredibly unlikely to die because even scrammed einherjis will instantly disappear if they Stilletto relegates control of them back to the carrier) Einherjis go 6km/s, and the Stilettos do 5km/s, The Einherjis will track frigates perfectly without issue, and can track every single frigate in the game, even linked, unless they have HG snakes. If you lose the 2 Stilettos which have a much more effective weapon system you lose 60m If you lose your vindicator after insurance it costs 500m+ Guess which one is balanced ah. and the assisted Einherjis spawn just in space and wait to get assisted right? you forgot in your calculation the carrier OR supercarrier. you just have to scan him down. bump him away from the pos and kill it. mister iamlookingforaneasykillandgothumiliated... If you have no idea how skynet works then you probably shouldn't post here. The Carrier is 40m outside a friendly POS, with a heated MWD and agility rigs and can get back into a friendly POS in under 1 second. The Einherjis are assisted to the interceptors from this position. For all intents and purposes it is completely invulnerable. A t2 Fit Thanatos costs around 2b including fighters, but it is an almost invulernable asset. The tangible assets you will lose are the Stilettos in this example on the grid, and probably rarely the fighters if the Stilettos aren't paying attention, and the Vindicator. The assisting Carrier in a proper configuration is at almost no risk what so ever. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Charadrass Angry Germans 162	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:04:28 - [152] - Quote suddenly i feel like seeing the neighbours Boy sitting in the sandbox calling mommy and blaming the 5 year older kid for destroying his plan to world dominance. just like, if i can't kill it quick enough, iam gonna run to mommccp and make them disappear through another way. grow balls. seriously.
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 50	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:05:45 - [153] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: I've yet to see an actual argument to keeping fighters going to warp besides "please don't nerf they cost me money". I hate being harsh but I haven't read one yet Don't forget that fighters and fighter bombers are piloted by a crew. They are frigate sized non-drones. If they hope to make Valkyrie a viable part of the Eve Universe, then do not take away the warping ability. Fighters and Bombers are not dumb drones. They have pilots, and should be able to warp to their mothership if it has to escape the battlespace. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
elitatwo Eve Minions Poopstain Removal Team 579	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:06:13 - [154] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Removing fighter assign is good. Removing fighter warp is bad. I can't follow a target warping to a safespot in my combat ship, so fighters being able to follow targets continuously is odd. But I can always warp to a member of my fleet in the same system, and I can fleet warp, so at a minimum, fighters should always be able to warp TO the carriers location when the carrier, and warp WITH the carrier when the carrier warps. But feel free to remove the follow aggressed target function, it wouldn't be much of a loss. Dear Anhenka, This is what I like about you so much! You always find the right words at the right place to put them in Agreed. signature
Warran Simalia Sanctuary of Shadows 7	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:07:03 - [155] - Quote I support the removal of fighter assignment, but I am opposed to fighters not warping with the carrier when it warps off. I believe that this is something unique to the carrier and to fighters and that it should stay put. Otherwise, fighters are just big and powerful drones. Keep the warp drive on them and make them unique.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9953	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:07:19 - [156] - Quote Suitonia wrote: Charadrass wrote: xXCha0sDrag0nXx2001xX wrote: Charadrass wrote: guys. you can assist 5 fighters. not the whole bunch a carrier or super can Launch. thats a 2k dps per ship. a good fitted vindicator with drones can get that too. gonna nerf vindicators right? at risk of stating the obvious A decent fit Vindicator goes around 1km/s, and costs 700m to lose with rigs/t2 fitting/faction web. It has problems applying damage past 20km. It is vulnerable to tracking disruption/energy warfare, it can be damped, jammed, it can be scrammed/webbed (albiet to the extreme risk of the ship doing that if the Vindicator is not controlled), it can be pointed and killed outside it's web range quite easily by most cruisers in the game if it's unsupported. 2 Stilettos with assisted Einherjis cost 60m to lose (The Einherjis cost 300m but they are incredibly unlikely to die because even scrammed einherjis will instantly disappear if they Stilletto relegates control of them back to the carrier) Einherjis go 6km/s, and the Stilettos do 5km/s, The Einherjis will track frigates perfectly without issue, and can track every single frigate in the game, even linked, unless they have HG snakes. If you lose the 2 Stilettos which have a much more effective weapon system you lose 60m If you lose your vindicator after insurance it costs 500m+ Guess which one is balanced ah. and the assisted Einherjis spawn just in space and wait to get assisted right? you forgot in your calculation the carrier OR supercarrier. you just have to scan him down. bump him away from the pos and kill it. mister iamlookingforaneasykillandgothumiliated... If you have no idea how skynet works then you probably shouldn't post here. The Carrier is 40m outside a friendly POS, with a heated MWD and agility rigs and can get back into a friendly POS in under 1 second. The Einherjis are assisted to the interceptors from this position. For all intents and purposes it is completely invulnerable. A t2 Fit Thanatos costs around 2b including fighters, but it is an almost invulernable asset. The tangible assets you will lose are the Stilettos in this example on the grid, and probably rarely the fighters if the Stilettos aren't paying attention, and the Vindicator. The assisting Carrier in a proper configuration is at almost no risk what so ever. Now expalin to us all how well that works when the fighters don't get bonuses from the carrier/mods/carrier pilot? Which is the entire point. CCP made some not so smart buffs to fighters, that went haywire and the 'fix' is to remove the mechanic that was around before the problem but not the actual things that caused the problem? That doesn't make any damn sense.
Charadrass Angry Germans 162	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:07:35 - [157] - Quote Suitonia wrote: Charadrass wrote: xXCha0sDrag0nXx2001xX wrote: Charadrass wrote: guys. you can assist 5 fighters. not the whole bunch a carrier or super can Launch. thats a 2k dps per ship. a good fitted vindicator with drones can get that too. gonna nerf vindicators right? at risk of stating the obvious A decent fit Vindicator goes around 1km/s, and costs 700m to lose with rigs/t2 fitting/faction web. It has problems applying damage past 20km. It is vulnerable to tracking disruption/energy warfare, it can be damped, jammed, it can be scrammed/webbed (albiet to the extreme risk of the ship doing that if the Vindicator is not controlled), it can be pointed and killed outside it's web range quite easily by most cruisers in the game if it's unsupported. 2 Stilettos with assisted Einherjis cost 60m to lose (The Einherjis cost 300m but they are incredibly unlikely to die because even scrammed einherjis will instantly disappear if they Stilletto relegates control of them back to the carrier) Einherjis go 6km/s, and the Stilettos do 5km/s, The Einherjis will track frigates perfectly without issue, and can track every single frigate in the game, even linked, unless they have HG snakes. If you lose the 2 Stilettos which have a much more effective weapon system you lose 60m If you lose your vindicator after insurance it costs 500m+ Guess which one is balanced ah. and the assisted Einherjis spawn just in space and wait to get assisted right? you forgot in your calculation the carrier OR supercarrier. you just have to scan him down. bump him away from the pos and kill it. mister iamlookingforaneasykillandgothumiliated... If you have no idea how skynet works then you probably shouldn't post here. The Carrier is 40m outside a friendly POS, with a heated MWD and agility rigs and can get back into a friendly POS in under 1 second. The Einherjis are assisted to the interceptors from this position. For all intents and purposes it is completely invulnerable. A t2 Fit Thanatos costs around 2b including fighters, but it is an almost invulernable asset. The tangible assets you will lose are the Stilettos in this example on the grid, and probably rarely the fighters if the Stilettos aren't paying attention, and the Vindicator. The assisting Carrier in a proper configuration is at almost no risk what so ever. so youre telling me, that the thanny Pilot is sitting there, watching the sun all the time and is 100% Aware ? go try telling your Kids that there is santa. an afk ship sitting afk is sitting afk. you probably look over it every 3-4 minutes, but you wont Monitor it all the time. even when it is sitting next to a pos. ive done enough drive bys where my machariel bumped a stupid carrier away from the pos and your fleet can kill it then.
Shorty alt1 Warden Research 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:07:36 - [158] - Quote I would prefer seeing some sort of module created for both carriers and sub capitals that would allow fighter assignment. This module or even a related skill would extend the range at which the fighters could follow. This would pull carriers out of the POS bubbles putting them at risk but at the same time still allows them to be off-grid. It would be less of a hit to the PvE'rs Also would add some diversity to fleet engagements as probers can find the carriers within X range of the fighters. I would limit the module for sub-caps to be only on battleships or t3s. This would stop the problem of interceptors running around with 10k dps, but still allows the fighters to go pew pew. The module might also limit the # of drones assigned. Also the assigned drones could use the drone skills of the assigned pilot.
gto Okaski Crown Solutions TOGETHER WE STAND 3	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:08:07 - [159] - Quote Kreea wrote: Dear CCP, I'm quite disappointed with your latest nerfs and rebalaces. Why don't you concentrate more on inventing something new in game instead of nerfing or boosting the same things in the game every year. Otherwise, with such a "job" I guess you're trying to justify the money of your investors??? Right. I mean, how many fleets were lost against assigned fighters ? A fighter is a 30mil drone which is pretty easy to lose in a battle. 5 fighters means 150 mil isk, almost a par with a HAC but with a lot less features. Isn't that risk enough ?
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9953	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:08:36 - [160] - Quote Charadrass wrote: suddenly i feel like seeing the neighbours Boy sitting in the sandbox calling mommy and blaming the 5 year older kid for destroying his plan to world dominance. just like, if i can't kill it quick enough, iam gonna run to mommccp and make them disappear through another way. grow balls. seriously. Seriously, you just described about half of all Features and Ideas posts lol.
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 457	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:09:30 - [161] - Quote Charadrass wrote: suddenly i feel like seeing the neighbours Boy sitting in the sandbox calling mommy and blaming the 5 year older kid for destroying his plan to world dominance. just like, if i can't kill it quick enough, iam gonna run to mommccp and make them disappear through another way. grow balls. seriously. You could just bring your Carrier on-grid and get the same results, but that would require a tangible level of risk. So please take your Ad-Hominems elsewhere. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Nartel Vortok Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 70	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:09:41 - [162] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Suitonia wrote: Charadrass wrote: xXCha0sDrag0nXx2001xX wrote: Charadrass wrote: guys. you can assist 5 fighters. not the whole bunch a carrier or super can Launch. thats a 2k dps per ship. a good fitted vindicator with drones can get that too. gonna nerf vindicators right? at risk of stating the obvious A decent fit Vindicator goes around 1km/s, and costs 700m to lose with rigs/t2 fitting/faction web. It has problems applying damage past 20km. It is vulnerable to tracking disruption/energy warfare, it can be damped, jammed, it can be scrammed/webbed (albiet to the extreme risk of the ship doing that if the Vindicator is not controlled), it can be pointed and killed outside it's web range quite easily by most cruisers in the game if it's unsupported. 2 Stilettos with assisted Einherjis cost 60m to lose (The Einherjis cost 300m but they are incredibly unlikely to die because even scrammed einherjis will instantly disappear if they Stilletto relegates control of them back to the carrier) Einherjis go 6km/s, and the Stilettos do 5km/s, The Einherjis will track frigates perfectly without issue, and can track every single frigate in the game, even linked, unless they have HG snakes. If you lose the 2 Stilettos which have a much more effective weapon system you lose 60m If you lose your vindicator after insurance it costs 500m+ Guess which one is balanced ah. and the assisted Einherjis spawn just in space and wait to get assisted right? you forgot in your calculation the carrier OR supercarrier. you just have to scan him down. bump him away from the pos and kill it. mister iamlookingforaneasykillandgothumiliated... If you have no idea how skynet works then you probably shouldn't post here. The Carrier is 40m outside a friendly POS, with a heated MWD and agility rigs and can get back into a friendly POS in under 1 second. The Einherjis are assisted to the interceptors from this position. For all intents and purposes it is completely invulnerable. A t2 Fit Thanatos costs around 2b including fighters, but it is an almost invulernable asset. The tangible assets you will lose are the Stilettos in this example on the grid, and probably rarely the fighters if the Stilettos aren't paying attention, and the Vindicator. The assisting Carrier in a proper configuration is at almost no risk what so ever. Now expalin to us all how well that works when the fighters don't get bonuses from the carrier/mods/carrier pilot? Which is the entire point. CCP made some not so smart buffs to fighters, that went haywire and the 'fix' is to remove the mechanic that was around before the problem but not the actual things that caused the problem? That doesn't make any damn sense. They do get bonuses dumpass.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 839	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:11:00 - [163] - Quote Please leave the ability for fighters to warp back to the carrier in the event of the carrier warping out. It would really suck losing 200m ISK fighters every time you get a socket error. Additionally, it gives fighters something unique as opposed to other drones. This also encourages people to rat in carriers. It has been years since I have actually ratted with a carrier, but less than a week since I have helped kill ratting carriers. If rats kill your fighters every time you get a socket error or you lose fighters every time you try to save your carrier, people will either use heavy drones or not rat with the carrier. Additionally, make fighters give killmails and make it so they cannot warp out of bubbles or when pointed. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Alexis Nightwish 95	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:11:47 - [164] - Quote Simply removing it, while effective, probably isn't the best solution. CCP has developed a disturbing track record of simply removing a feature they see as a problem rather than modifying it to a point of balance. For example, there were several clever ideas for how to change medical clone mechanics to maintain the penalty of death while removing the more punishing aspects of it, but instead the feature was simply removed and called a success. Instead of just outright removing fighter assist, why not make it so that: A) Fighters/FBs cannot be assigned if the carrier/SC is within some distance of a forcefield. 100km or something. B) Should a carrier/SC come within that distance, all assigned fighers/FBs return to and orbit their mothership automatically. C) All assigned drones of any type (lights to FBs) lose all bonuses from their parent ship and parent ship's pilot. So no hull bonuses from the ship, no skill bonuses from the pilot, no item bonuses from modules/rigs/etc. They would never be better than their base stats while assigned. Lastly, I hear rumors that you're thinking of removing fighter/FB warp. Carriers/SCs are broken strong and need a rebalance, but fighter/FB warp is not one of the things that are broken. Please don't remove one of the defining features of carriers and super carriers. Whenever a hear a newbro hearing about fighter/FB ability to warp they're always like "Woah, that is ******* cool!" CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9953	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:11:50 - [165] - Quote Nartel Vortok wrote: They do get bonuses dumpass. Classic, you didn't understand what you were reading and somehow I'm the Dumpass. You sir are brilliant.
Agent Unknown Night Theifs DamnedNation 36	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:12:49 - [166] - Quote The whole problem started when DDAs and omnis started working on fighters ...and of course, the supercarrier bonuses to fighters that make them do ~7k DPS. My solution: Make the fighters inherit the bonuses of the assigned ship instead of the carrier or nerf DDAs/Omnis so the bonuses only apply to drones on the same grid.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9953	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:12:49 - [167] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Please leave the ability for fighters to warp back to the carrier in the event of the carrier warping out. It would really suck losing 200m ISK fighters every time you get a socket error. Additionally, it gives fighters something unique as opposed to other drones. This also encourages people to rat in carriers. It has been years since I have actually ratted with a carrier, but less than a week since I have helped kill ratting carriers. If rats kill your fighters every time you get a socket error or you lose fighters every time you try to save your carrier, people will either use heavy drones or not rat with the carrier. Additionally, make fighters give killmails and make it so they cannot warp out of bubbles or when pointed. Exactly this, I didn't even consider disconnects.
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 457	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:13:09 - [168] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Now expalin to us all how well that works when the fighters don't get bonuses from the carrier/mods/carrier pilot? Which is the entire point. CCP made some not so smart buffs to fighters, that went haywire and the 'fix' is to remove the mechanic that was around before the problem but not the actual things that caused the problem? That doesn't make any damn sense. CCP Rise and CCP Fozzie are part of the game design team and are not programmers. The Fighter Assist code has likely not been touched in over 10 years when it was put out in the Red Moon Rising expansion in 2006. There are several bugs in the fighter assist code and since CCP has a problem with applying/deapplying skills/bonuses from other grids in the past (See OGB) and the Brain-In-A-Box project, it would probably take incredible amount of time from the development team to get these bugs fixed. At which point, fighter assist will go back to being a marginalized and rarely used mechanic, of which CCP would have now spent hundreds of development hours on. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Nartel Vortok Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 70	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:13:32 - [169] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Nartel Vortok wrote: They do get bonuses dumpass. Classic, you didn't understand what you were reading and somehow I'm the Dumpass. You sir are brilliant. Assigned fighters do inherit bonuses from the carrier pilot/their ship and the mods fitted.
ScorpionD III Falcoes Peregrinos DARKNESS. 5	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:14:26 - [170] - Quote Somethings in eve are just no sense. Why remove the assist mecanic? Risk x Reward not good enough? But who says it have to be? A man in a tank have a huge advantage against a group of soldiers. I think eve have to be a more scientifical aproach. Make thinks possible like the real world. In same aspects this already happens, then why not expand? I read some stuff about the tatical cruiser being overrated over bs, but anyone has remembered the T3 it's more expensive than a regular bs, then it's just enough to be better, i can fly a BS in a month, and need far more time to train a T3 to use. Why i can't anchor a stationary sentry's, near a station or gate or even alone in space? Why i can't stop a warp in the middle way? Why ships have to change angle to maneauver? Why a ship can still cloacked without using it's own energy? Why a ship can't hide yourself from the communication hub? Why in the vast universe of eve, the ships have only the aproved design? So many questions. I know, i know, the answer to all my questions is game balance, but it is confuse, in one hand CCP want to give freedom to EvE universe, in other, whe don't have really freedom. Finnaly. Answering the main question. I Against the assist nerf. If you want guys make it be necessary to use bandwith from the assisted ship, but atention, if i use my drones to defend a ship that it's not the case, but if i delegate drones, its just enought to have used the bandwith. Remember the fighter in the game lore, have a pilot inside, it's like a frig, than its just enought to have far more freedom.
Ambassador Spock Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn 36	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:14:36 - [171] - Quote Why not add a fighter-warping 'switch', like with the new corp friendly fire? A simple option in the drone menu on whether you want to allow your fighters to warp or not. -á-- -á- Ambassador Spock "Vulcans never bluff."
Agent Unknown Night Theifs DamnedNation 36	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:15:16 - [172] - Quote Ambassador Spock wrote: Why not add a fighter-warping 'switch', like with the new corp friendly fire? A simple option in the drone menu on whether you want to allow your fighters to warp or not. That's the purpose of "Attack and Follow".
Nartel Vortok Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 70	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:15:25 - [173] - Quote ScorpionD III wrote: Somethings in eve are just no sense. Why remove the assist mecanic? Risk x Reward not good enough? But who says it have to be? A man in a tank have a huge advantage against a group of soldiers. I think eve have to be a more scientifical aproach. Make thinks possible like the real world. In same aspects this already happens, then why not expand? I read some stuff about the tatical cruiser being overrated over bs, but anyone has remembered the T3 it's more expensive than a regular bs, then it's just enough to be better, i can fly a BS in a month, and need far more time to train a T3 to use. Why i can't anchor a stationary sentry's, near a station or gate or even alone in space? Why i can't stop a warp in the middle way? Why ships have to change angle to maneauver? Why a ship can still cloacked without using it's own energy? Why a ship can't hide yourself from the communication hub? Why in the vast universe of eve, the ships have only the aproved design? So many questions. I know, i know, the answer to all my questions is game balance, but it is confuse, in one hand CCP want to give freedom to EvE universe, in other, whe don't have really freedom. Finnaly. Answering the main question. I Against the assist nerf. If you want guys make it be necessary to use bandwith from the assisted ship, but atention, if i use my drones to defend a ship that it's not the case, but if i delegate drones, its just enought to have used the bandwith. Remember the fighter in the game lore, have a pilot inside, it's like a frig, than its just enought to have far more freedom. Eve isn't real life, risk vs reward is considered in balance, isk is not.
Admiral Whatever DeepSpace Manufacturers DeepSpace. 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:15:36 - [174] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: As I said in another thread, what really sucks is that nerfs like this limit creativity (while rewarding the uncreative for being...uncreative). I've used fighter delgation to combat cloaky campers. I fit out a tanked T1 hauler and assigned fighters to it and kept right on ratting, daring the camper to hot drop me and my 9 mil isk worth of ship. This rather than running to the forums screaming "CCP, someone is cloaked in my upgraded system, DO SOMETHING!". Without fighter delegation, that's over with. Oh, it's not the end of screwing around with afk cloaky camper's heads (my FoF missile+sentries warp core stabbed ECM busrting MJD Typhoons and Armageddons laugh at your false hot drop threat Mr. Cloaky Camper), but it is yet another nail in the coffin of creativity in this game. lol I think that is the perfect example for showing how goddamn broken fighters are... Not just assigning either, but their EHP, their tracking, their DPS, the fact they warp instantly, and of course, the ZERO goddamn risk which is something CCP has been talking about recently... In terms of "creativity" you can go ahead and get creative with a non-broken game mechanic. mmmmK? NERF FIGHTERS YES
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 457	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:15:56 - [175] - Quote Ambassador Spock wrote: Why not add a fighter-warping 'switch', like with the new corp friendly fire? A simple option in the drone menu on whether you want to allow your fighters to warp or not. You can already do that by just unticking the "fight and follow" (I forgot how it actually appears) button. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9953	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:16:20 - [176] - Quote Suitonia wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Now expalin to us all how well that works when the fighters don't get bonuses from the carrier/mods/carrier pilot? Which is the entire point. CCP made some not so smart buffs to fighters, that went haywire and the 'fix' is to remove the mechanic that was around before the problem but not the actual things that caused the problem? That doesn't make any damn sense. CCP Rise and CCP Fozzie are part of the game design team and are not programmers. The Fighter Assist code has likely not been touched in over 10 years when it was put out in the Red Moon Rising expansion in 2006. There are several bugs in the fighter assist code and since CCP has a problem with applying/deapplying skills/bonuses from other grids in the past (See OGB) and the Brain-In-A-Box project, it would probably take incredible amount of time from the development team to get these bugs fixed. At which point, fighter assist will go back to being a marginalized and rarely used mechanic, of which CCP would have now spent hundreds of development hours on. None of those bug matter is fighters can't hit anything smaller than a Dread. And that's the whole point. Removing fighter delegation because drone mods/bonuses being applied to fighters that can then be delegated is exactly like saying "you robbed a bank and used a car for the get way, I'm going to let you go free and arrest the guy who sold you the car!".
Tung Yoggi SnaiLs aNd FroGs 64	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:16:40 - [177] - Quote Assigning to BC and up, for instance, doesn't make the current mechanic less horrible. You will still have 4k DPS with perfect tracking drones of doom without a sign of any capital on field. Now, since we are talking of broken off-grid gamemechs, it's about time to do something about off-grid boosters. Oh, and don't forget to add some content in the meantime ! It might help when people start rage-cancelling their alts' subs. Much love
sceptiQ Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:17:38 - [178] - Quote removing the warp ability is killing the last non dead caps ... bad idea does ccp buy all the useless carriers? can the carrier pilotes have their skillpoints back?
Jamy Lannister Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:18:17 - [179] - Quote Why not allow Supers to assist drones and not allow normal carriers due to a stronger skynet? Also could you not come up with a RP way of saying communication in assisting fighters in lowsec doesnt work. That the systems have a Electro magnetic pulse that doesnt allow them to be assisted off grid?
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9954	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:19:27 - [180] - Quote Nartel Vortok wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Nartel Vortok wrote: They do get bonuses dumpass. Classic, you didn't understand what you were reading and somehow I'm the Dumpass. You sir are brilliant. Assigned fighters do inherit bonuses from the carrier pilot/their ship and the mods fitted. And where did I say they didn't? Like i said, you don't understand what was posted but decided to jump in and say something stupid anyways. That's a 'you' problem, not a 'me' problem.
Charadrass Angry Germans 163	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:20:12 - [181] - Quote Suitonia wrote: Charadrass wrote: suddenly i feel like seeing the neighbours Boy sitting in the sandbox calling mommy and blaming the 5 year older kid for destroying his plan to world dominance. just like, if i can't kill it quick enough, iam gonna run to mommccp and make them disappear through another way. grow balls. seriously. You could just bring your Carrier on-grid and get the same results, but that would require a tangible level of risk. So please take your Ad-Hominems elsewhere. you are blaming the realworld drone attacks too right? cause sending the soldier hiself on to enemy Terrain is more fair, instead of sending an unmanned drone? the carrier is sitting in a System with a pos. he can be scanned out. even without scanning there are only pos possible at moons, so warping to all moons cloaked shouldnt be a Problem. afterwards. get a bumper ship. a Little fleet, and enjoy the carrier kill. but that is tooooo much work. lets fill out a Petition to remove the reason for the carrier to be online outside of a pos. thats much easier , and sooooo much fun... wait. it is not....
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 457	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:21:04 - [182] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: None of those bug matter is fighters can't hit anything smaller than a Dread. And that's the whole point. Removing fighter delegation because drone mods/bonuses being applied to fighters that can then be delegated is exactly like saying "you robbed a bank and used a car for the get away, I'm going to let you keep the money and go free and arrest the guy who sold you the car!".-Signed, CCP Police Department. Ignoring the bugs, I am suggesting to you that making it so that fighters lose their bonuses off grid is probably going to take a huge amount of development time from CCP for lackluster returns. The usage of assisted fighters before the changes was close to non-existent. Are there actually any tangible uses for assisted fighters if they do not retain the current stats? Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Admiral Whatever DeepSpace Manufacturers DeepSpace. 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:21:26 - [183] - Quote ScorpionD III wrote: Somethings in eve are just no sense. Why remove the assist mecanic? Risk x Reward not good enough? But who says it have to be? So Darkness is where all the CRABS from Xdeath went???? Interesting.
LT Alter Adversity. Psychotic Tendencies. 135	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:21:29 - [184] - Quote Just a small idea that may be hard to implement from a developmental standpoint. What if fighters and fighter bombers did NOT receive drone module bonuses while off-grid from their parent carrier/super-carrier. Such that when fighters warp after a target or are assisted to friendlies they will be drastically less powerful. Just spit-balling an idea. On current implementation and mechanics, removal of sky netting is just fine as far as I'm concerned. On the topic of fighter warping, this as a mechanic should stay. At the very most remove attack and follow if CCP feels this is unbalanced, but allow our fighters to warp after us when we warp away with our carriers/super-carriers.
Myojen Invictae Void.Tech Get Off My Lawn 2	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:21:53 - [185] - Quote Don't scrap fighter assist, it simply removes gameplay aspects without adding anything new to the game. Taking a feature from carriers and supers without adding something means diminishing gameplay not improving or altering it. If fighter assist is removed on the basis of risk/reward for carriers, then an increase in risk should be offset by an increase in reward. If carriers are not meant to sit off a POS bubble and assist fighters make their functionality better when they are on grid (with fighters rather than just being heavy logi boats). Give fighters a new feature, or diversify their utility. Allow them to be pointed, but also allow them to point. Drone skills and rolls do not just have to be about increase in damage, and current fighter mechanics make for some interesting growth directions rather than just reducing them to the point where they are useless.
OutCast EG Very Industrial Corp. Legion of xXDEATHXx 22	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:23:30 - [186] - Quote I have a related question: What is the timeslot for capital/super rebalancing/redesign? Is ship balancing/tiercide initiative still active? When are we going to get it? Release name? Maybe at least a year? This year? Next year? When???
Nartel Vortok Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 70	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:24:13 - [187] - Quote Charadrass wrote: Suitonia wrote: Charadrass wrote: suddenly i feel like seeing the neighbours Boy sitting in the sandbox calling mommy and blaming the 5 year older kid for destroying his plan to world dominance. just like, if i can't kill it quick enough, iam gonna run to mommccp and make them disappear through another way. grow balls. seriously. You could just bring your Carrier on-grid and get the same results, but that would require a tangible level of risk. So please take your Ad-Hominems elsewhere. you are blaming the realworld drone attacks too right? cause sending the soldier hiself on to enemy Terrain is more fair, instead of sending an unmanned drone? the carrier is sitting in a System with a pos. he can be scanned out. even without scanning there are only pos possible at moons, so warping to all moons cloaked shouldnt be a Problem. afterwards. get a bumper ship. a Little fleet, and enjoy the carrier kill. but that is tooooo much work. lets fill out a Petition to remove the reason for the carrier to be online outside of a pos. thats much easier , and sooooo much fun... wait. it is not.... Ignoring the fact that non-retards can get back in the pos long before you bump them.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9954	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:24:22 - [188] - Quote Suitonia wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: None of those bug matter is fighters can't hit anything smaller than a Dread. And that's the whole point. Removing fighter delegation because drone mods/bonuses being applied to fighters that can then be delegated is exactly like saying "you robbed a bank and used a car for the get away, I'm going to let you keep the money and go free and arrest the guy who sold you the car!".-Signed, CCP Police Department. Ignoring the bugs, I am suggesting to you that making it so that fighters lose their bonuses off grid is probably going to take a huge amount of development time from CCP for lackluster returns. The usage of assisted fighters before the changes was close to non-existent. Are there actually any tangible uses for assisted fighters if they do not retain the current stats? The ships that get them assigned have to sacrifice for webs and target painters and such, so yea their is, but not as easy as it is now. And it's for CCP to decide how hard a change is, however eliminating a 10 year old thing rather than reverting a 3 month old change doesn't make sense. If a thing causes a problem you fix that thing, not things that didn't cause the problem.
Kel hound The Desolate Order Brave Collective 114	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:25:36 - [189] - 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. 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. Wasnt this basically the entire bloody point of a carrier from a design standpoint? IRL I mean. Battleships had massive guns that could fire over the horizon, but were defeated by carriers which could strike with aircraft from well beyond the horizon. In EVE that tactical asymmetry was (I thought) represented by fighter assignments, allowing a carrier to delegate fighters to other craft while remaining in relative safety off-grid. Take that away and they're just big fancy logi-boats with high drone damage. Why is this 'Skynet' tactic considered a bad thing anyway? It gives an advantage to those who plan and prepare. Isnt that what you want? Quote: 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? Honestly, if you're going to do this you might as well just make fighters and bombers just regular drones like everything else. Fighters and bombers are too expensive to send them off without supervision. Quote: Look forward to your feedback. I can see the forced smile as you type that from here.
GsyBoy Hooded Underworld Guys Northern Coalition. 12	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:28:39 - [190] - Quote Good change.
kelvin oriley Zero-Kelvin 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:29:06 - [191] - Quote Within hours of the Dev blog you get this reaction I'd say this is pritty much 70%against the idea 20%for the idea and 10% trolls normaly I'm all for change etc but you seem to have given up thinking about things It's about risk adverse behaviour and it's use to make small ships even more over powered Yes stop fighter assist withing X range of a force field this has been an issue for a wile no don't stop it from stations they still have the aggression timer like the rest of us and it's easy enoth to bump a carrier off a station in 60 sec Limit the amount of fighters that can be assigned to a class of ship Frig not possible destroyer gets one cruiser gets two battle cruiser gets three battle ship gets 4 capitals get 5 Please stop thinking so linea some times things arnt as simple as on and off or black and white most of the time it's lots of gray in between that would both please the masses and help the game
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:29:35 - [192] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Suitonia wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: None of those bug matter is fighters can't hit anything smaller than a Dread. And that's the whole point. Removing fighter delegation because drone mods/bonuses being applied to fighters that can then be delegated is exactly like saying "you robbed a bank and used a car for the get away, I'm going to let you keep the money and go free and arrest the guy who sold you the car!".-Signed, CCP Police Department. Ignoring the bugs, I am suggesting to you that making it so that fighters lose their bonuses off grid is probably going to take a huge amount of development time from CCP for lackluster returns. The usage of assisted fighters before the changes was close to non-existent. Are there actually any tangible uses for assisted fighters if they do not retain the current stats? The ships that get them assigned have to sacrifice for webs and target painters and such, so yea their is, but not as easy as it is now. And it's for CCP to decide how hard a change is, however eliminating a 10 year old thing rather than reverting a 3 month old change doesn't make sense. If a thing causes a problem you fix that thing, not things that didn't cause the problem. What if they want to keep the modules affecting bomber/fighter? Did you think that might be the reasons why they didn't just revert back? What if they changed their mind and think projecting damage off a ship own grid is broken just like they want to get rid of OGB but can't for technical reasons? The only real problem with this change right now is we get no answer on why approach X, Y and Z were not used to fix the issue.
Sarrian Calda House of Nim-Lhach Skeleton Crew. 12	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:31:13 - [193] - Quote Assignment-related suggestions Allow on-grid assignment only, just like drones. Fighters cannot warp with the ship they are assigned to. If assigned ship becomes invalid target to retain assignment, fighters should fly back to owner. Offense-related suggestions Fighters should still be able to "Attack and Follow" (toggled option, as is) ships that they are commanded to attack. If target warps off, fighters should follow and enter warp too. If target becomes invalid after dropping out of warp (destroyed, jumped out of system, entered POS forcefield, docked, logged off successfully somehow, fighters get ECM'ed and unable to acquire lock), the fighters will warp back to owner as soon as they can. Miscellaneous suggestions Fighters should still be able to warp together with the owner when they are deployed and the owner enters warp, as per current mechanics. If a fighter becomes pointed or bubbled when owner warps away, it should keep aligning to the owner's location in space until it is able to warp again (or follow current in-game mechanic if there's already one set up for when fighters are prevented from warping). If the owner docks up, logs off or get destroyed at any time while the fighters are deployed, they become abandoned in space. If they are in-warp when this happens, they should appear at the destination where they were warping to and become abandoned there. (If ships cannot break warp while warping, fighters shouldn't too.)
5mok1ng gun Moon Of The Pheonix 4	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:31:16 - [194] - Quote Gilbaron wrote: can't you disallow fighter assist from within 50km of a tower instead ? that's gonna produce some lovely killmails removing fighter warp is completely unnessecarry Totally agree removing fighter warp is completely unnecessary, I would go further with disallowing fighter assist within 400k of a towers shield ( so an attacker can shoot the parent ship without problems from the tower ). Axloth Okiah wrote: How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable? I'm all for pointing fighters and stopping them being recalled. Better still to stop the named "sky net" style just stop them from being assigned to anything below a cruiser, I would also like to bring up the fact that carrier hull bonuses to fighters are not applied to assigned fighters but the modules that augment drone stats ARE passed down to assigned fighters, This needs to be changed before attacking assigning fighters, Fighter warping and so on. Step 1. Remove drone module pass down to ships receiving assigned fighters. Step 2. Restrict fighter assignment to cruisers and above. Step 3. Allow fighters to be scrambled / Disrupted so they don't warp off. Step 4. Restrict carriers from assigning fighters within range of a POS an ideal range would be 110k so the carrier can't warp to the POS or at least that's the least range I would want to see. Leave fighter warping and assignment alone, The problem is with questionable skilled players finding these carriers and killing them, Who knows people that regularly PVP in low / null sec might actually scan something down to kill instead of warping to zero on the best sites to snag an easy one.
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 457	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:32:21 - [195] - Quote Charadrass wrote: you are blaming the realworld drone attacks too right? cause sending the soldier hiself on to enemy Terrain is more fair, instead of sending an unmanned drone? the carrier is sitting in a System with a pos. he can be scanned out. even without scanning there are only pos possible at moons, so warping to all moons cloaked shouldnt be a Problem. afterwards. get a bumper ship. a Little fleet, and enjoy the carrier kill. but that is tooooo much work. lets fill out a Petition to remove the reason for the carrier to be online outside of a pos. thats much easier , and sooooo much fun... wait. it is not.... An attentive carrier pilot is 40m from a POS forcefield, it takes less than <1s for it to make it into the POS. Due to the position of the force field and where the Carrier pilot is, it's very difficult to get a good angle for bumping. Additionally, a Carrier has a significant amount of mass and even a Cloaky 100mn Proteus (which will die in about 20 seconds to POS guns and is absolutely useless to your fleet) will find it difficult to achieve a significant bump, you need to get up to speed to get a worthwhile bump which you cannot do while cloaked, the chance of bumping a Carrier in this manner is incredibly unlikely, I would advise you put this into practice yourself and post the results here. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Andy Koraka Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 51	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:32:22 - [196] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla. 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. As far as the "frustration" of having your fighters warp off chasing someone there's a little checkbox for that in your drone settings to disallow it. Overall fighter warping is a huge quality of life thing. In an Ishtar I don't really care about leaving 5m in sentries behind, but I very much care about abandoning 300m of Fighter bombers on an old grid. In that situation you would either make the whole fleet go back as a group to retrieve the guy's bombers (wasting everyone's time) or you accept that the guy will be defanged (and useless) until he can haul 100,000m3 of Fibos down to deep nullsec.
Sheria Delraneth Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:34:21 - [197] - Quote Instead of removing a potentially useful mechanic from the game entirely, how about narrowing its scope instead? Set it up so that fighters can only be assigned to drone boats and only up to their available bandwidth. We can then see how it works out, and then make a final decision six months down the road instead of removing it completely.
RogueHunteer Perkone Caldari State 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:34:46 - [198] - Quote I don't see point in changing anything with capital until you come up with better plan for them all. nerfing this or that.... your going to end up like you did with back with "Crucible" updates after all users get upset here. So shale we start? titains - need new role dps supers - need new role dps carroprs - logi ? really? dreads - dps again all this dps? we have tone of dps no ewar or roles yet just nerfs again and again... so we remove all current roles until we get nothing at this point? right not awesome for me... sandbox lets mix up the game play it's need for LONG time and no one has yet come to answer of what to do with them.... you went tho all basic ships in eve it's time we do something about capitals.. nerfs not awesome but boring. Let's come up with better ideas how each capital roles are used .....
Ivan Stoner Old American Syndicate Silent Infinity 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:35:11 - [199] - Quote I think its a difficult decision which CCP has to take. Because: - a Carrier isnt a frontline ship - the fighters or fighter bombers doing all the work not the ship itself on the other side i saw how Brave use the Skynet tactic on the receiving end and yeah its annoying. You lost ship but you cant catch the ceptor and if you warp to the carrier POS hes all ready inside or he puts the password in. My opinion is that CCP should only allow Fighter assist only for min. Cruisers or BC and or above. Fighter Bomber assist only to BS and above. They also should limit the Fighter/Fighter Bomber assist to max 5 per assistet ship.
Stageweight Empire Assault Corp Dead Terrorists 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:35:59 - [200] - Quote Rroff wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: +1 Especially the bolded part. Just spitballing here, but in addition to not being able to deploy fighters near POSs or stations (and taking away bonuses from assigned fighters), maybe a 'siege-like' module that has to be activated for ships to assign fighters, that locks the carrier or SC in place for at least 5 minutes. And/Or 'recieving ship' bandwidth limitations (if a ship has no drone bay, it can't use fighters, if a ship can deploy 5 sentries it can accept 5 fighters etc, which kills small ship 'Skynetting'). I don't know how much of a nightmare that would be from a programming stand point so I offer the above with a big grain of layman's salt lol, but the point is CCP should be making things more interesting, not less. Some interesting points there, one down side is that a siege/bastion like module would take away a drone control unit slot but tying fighters to some kind of bastion like mode would make them more interesting and give potential for more balanced ways of making them a little less meh outside of skynet type use. Having them only get bonuses when assigned by activating some kind of bastion like module would be a solution to a fair few issues without a ridiculous nerf though I'm not hugely in favour of it. EDIT: I guess as a compromise for off grid use it wouldn't be so bad as you could still fit for 15 fighters when doing stuff ongrid just lose the extra slot when assigning - the game should always be about making a choice and/or compromise not about flat out nerf batting. EDIT2: i.e. purely for illustration purposes something like: [Fighter Command Processor] - works fairly much like bastion mode including timers and local self rep (can't be fitted with triage), enables fighter assignment, increases fighter tracking (with a corresponding decrease in base), increases durability, can't be activated within x km of POS or station. I kind of like this idea, overall removing fighter assist truely does kill the uniqueness of carriers. The trick is to find a way to increase the risk, but not increase it to the point of killing off the frequency with which it is flown. To edit your Fighter Command Processor you could have the choice between "can't be activated within x km of POS or station", or add "Maximum Velocity Bonus -100% when active" Either way would help reduce the use of Skynet, I just don't think you need both the distance from POS/station limit and the -100% velocity bonus. I think the latter would allow for some very interesting engagements at the edge of POS's though. Think about it, you could be running your fleet, you see a bunch of cruisers that you want to engage and suddenly they have fighters assisted. Your scout gives you a warp in to the POS that the carriers are sitting outside of and they can't move back into the shields until their cycle completes. It forces the carrier to commit to being vulnerable, but still have a chance the flee back into the POS once they come out of siege. Of course while they are sieged you could bump them away from the shield. The question would be how long to make the cycle time.
Theon Severasse Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 127	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:36:47 - [201] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Remove: - fighter assist. - fighter follow in warp the target. Keep: - fighters warping with the carrier So you can send fighters only against target on grid. When the target warps off the grid fighters will NOT follow. When the carrier warps off the grid fighters will drop aggro and follow the carrier. +1 for this idea, balances out the major negatives, but keeps in one of the unique things about carriers/supers.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9954	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:37:48 - [202] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Suitonia wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: None of those bug matter is fighters can't hit anything smaller than a Dread. And that's the whole point. Removing fighter delegation because drone mods/bonuses being applied to fighters that can then be delegated is exactly like saying "you robbed a bank and used a car for the get away, I'm going to let you keep the money and go free and arrest the guy who sold you the car!".-Signed, CCP Police Department. Ignoring the bugs, I am suggesting to you that making it so that fighters lose their bonuses off grid is probably going to take a huge amount of development time from CCP for lackluster returns. The usage of assisted fighters before the changes was close to non-existent. Are there actually any tangible uses for assisted fighters if they do not retain the current stats? The ships that get them assigned have to sacrifice for webs and target painters and such, so yea their is, but not as easy as it is now. And it's for CCP to decide how hard a change is, however eliminating a 10 year old thing rather than reverting a 3 month old change doesn't make sense. If a thing causes a problem you fix that thing, not things that didn't cause the problem. What if they want to keep the modules affecting bomber/fighter? Did you think that might be the reasons why they didn't just revert back? What if they changed their mind and think projecting damage off a ship own grid is broken just like they want to get rid of OGB but can't for technical reasons? The only real problem with this change right now is we get no answer on why approach X, Y and Z were not used to fix the issue. if that's the issue CCP should say so. Still, the change to make fighters use bonuses happened, it can un-happen. I'd much rather see CCP change the thing that created the problem rather than trash can a cool game mechanic that is innocent. It won't be the end of the world if they get rid of fighter delegation (or even fighter warping, though a fighter warping nerf WILL have a more noticeable effect), just the end of a cool aspect of the game that didn't cause any problems.
kelvin oriley Zero-Kelvin 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:38:40 - [203] - Quote kelvin oriley wrote: Within hours of the Dev blog you get this reaction I'd say this is pritty much 70%against the idea 20%for the idea and 10% trolls normaly I'm all for change etc but you seem to have given up thinking about things It's about risk adverse behaviour and it's use to make small ships even more over powered Yes stop fighter assist withing X range of a force field this has been an issue for a wile no don't stop it from stations they still have the aggression timer like the rest of us and it's easy enoth to bump a carrier off a station in 60 sec Limit the amount of fighters that can be assigned to a class of ship Frig not possible destroyer gets one cruiser gets two battle cruiser gets three battle ship gets 4 capitals get 5 Please stop thinking so linea some times things arnt as simple as on and off or black and white most of the time it's lots of gray in between that would both please the masses and help the game Our and as for the warp feature keep it but they should be able to be pointed and Should be effected by warp bubbles etc and I can't belive this was not the case allready
egyhenger FREE GATES Nulli Secunda 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:39:26 - [204] - Quote Just keep warping ability of fighters... no need to remove that feature... that is carriers' wow factor... P.S.: oh and one more thing... bring back the 2-mill wardec fee... then Sephiroth Nahema will return to **** newbies in highsec... :)
ITTigerClawIK Galactic Rangers 466	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:40:17 - [205] - Quote i think removing fighter assist is a bit harsh, tbh the main issue is carriers and supers just sitting outside of POS shields and the solution of having a minimum distance from a POS shield to Assist honestly sounds alot better than complete removal, also i like the idea of having fighters pointable. im also not opposed to the idea of only being able to assign fighters to cruiser sized hulls and above. Edit: alomost forgot, keep fighters abuility to warp after targets, love having ships warp out and thinking there safe... then pop XD
Nightfox BloodRaven State Protectorate Caldari State 30	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:40:30 - [206] - Quote CCP Rise is decision is biased since he is close to a group of "solo" pvp players who cant kill a off grid carrier assign with their 2 off grid link ships and billions of implants.. I ve seen these try hards whine this game mechanic for month because they were butt hurt that they got owned. The same people whine about off grid carrier assign fighter uses 2-3 off grid boosters so please shut up. I have NO PROBLEM WITH THIS CHANGE IF YOU ALSO REMOVE OFF GRID BOOSTING/LINKS has been a problem for years.. talk about reward and risk.. I am solo pilot mostly without links and alts and i have been killed by carrier assign before i thought it was pretty neat and cool mechanic.. and i have no problem with it because if I can do it too if I found a capable gang with the skills. So its NOT OVERPOWERED since ANYONE CAN DO IT. As well, it takes years to train carrier/super carrier skills and billions of isk invested why shouldnt they enjoy the advantage over a bunch of small gang " solo" cruisers or bcs.. If you want to change it set a distance limit from pos dont just kill it entirely and dont pick and chose based on personal connection to a group of players. You can say you are removing it due to overpower and no risk versus reward yet NOT remove off grid boosting which has been a much bigger problems for years. Very biased thinking CCP.
Blastil Aideron Robotics 111	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:40:54 - [207] - Quote How about this: don't remove fighter assist, and instead make fighters pointable. This way, if you let your fighters out of your sight, you might actually lose them for a change. People might consider this when assigning half a billion ISK in fighters to a single frigate that can't keep them safe.
Aliventi Blue Republic RvB - BLUE Republic 830	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:41:05 - [208] - Quote Fighters should not be able to warp after targets, but if you enter warp they should warp after you. To be perfectly honest I have seen lots of ships warp away to a cluster of planets, moons, asteroid belts and occasionally gates. When that happens I have to guess as to specifically where they went. The miracle of fighters following a target is they somehow magically know where the ship is warping to within moments of the ship entering warp. There is nothing in the game that can guarantee 100% perfect knowledge of where a ship is warping to within moments of a ship going into warp... except target following fighters. Because of this target following fighters should be removed. I think that fighters should follow you if you go into warp. That will help maintain some usefulness and uniqueness about fighters. However, if someone is warp disrupting or scramming a fighter it should not be able to follow you when you warp.
Emmy Mnemonic Svea Rike Fatal Ascension 28	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:44:08 - [209] - Quote If fighter-assist capability is removed, carriers will be used less for pvp than they are as of now. There is no reason to warp a carrier into that kind of fight, where you today can assist fighters. Instead people will find other ships/means to buff their fleet DPS, just not by carriers. So, by all means remove the fighter assist capability from carriers, but replace it with something that makes it interesting for people to warp their carriers on-grid! So we get more carriers to kill! CEO Svea Rike
kelvin oriley Zero-Kelvin 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:44:28 - [210] - Quote What were the csm reactions to this
Jamy Lannister Hedion University Amarr Empire 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:44:46 - [211] - Quote Whoever wants this change, obviously doesnt know how to add drones to overview and use their brain.
DaReaper Net 7 1812	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:44:49 - [212] - Quote Fighters should still warp. As a former carrier and super pilot, i really don;t want to lose 200m in fighters cause i had to bail or got disconnected. The fighters cost enough, the ability to GTFO and have your fighters return to you should remain as part of the carrier, it makes it kinda unique. The whole target following, would be nice if you could turn this on or off, but at the very least, have them follow the carrier and return. OMG Comet Mining idea!!! Comet Mining!
Fred3000 Girl Friends Please Ignore Ev0ke 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:46:05 - [213] - Quote "Just make the fighters pointable and make it so that proximity to a pos (within 50km) makes it impossible to assign them whether the FF is up or not." I agree with this. My suggestion: Fighters cannot be deployed while in proximity of structures. And WHILE Fighters are DEPLOYED AND ASSISTED the carrier can not enter warp. Problem Fixed. Fred
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 457	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:46:56 - [214] - Quote Emmy Mnemonic wrote: If fighter-assist capability is removed, carriers will be used less for pvp than they are as of now. There is no reason to warp a carrier into that kind of fight, where you today can assist fighters. Instead people will find other ships/means to buff their fleet DPS, just not by carriers. So, by all means remove the fighter assist capability from carriers, but replace it with something that makes it interesting for people to warp their carriers on-grid! So we get more carriers to kill! The problem with the current fighter assist mechanic is that people were not warping their carriers on grid at all, but instead were 40m from a POS forcefield. Using Throw-Away ships as anchors for the drones. This change will result in more PvP as Carriers will have to come onto grid to achieve the same effect as before (Resulting in more content, escalations and carrier kills). If people use other means than interceptors with Einherjis assigned to them then it will be a welcome change. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:47:21 - [215] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: if that's the issue CCP should say so. Still, the change to make fighters use bonuses happened, it can un-happen. I'd much rather see CCP change the thing that created the problem rather than trash can a cool game mechanic that is innocent. It won't be the end of the world if they get rid of fighter delegation (or even fighter warping, though a fighter warping nerf WILL have a more noticeable effect), just the end of a cool aspect of the game that didn't cause any problems. At this point, all I hope for is a DEV blog about what led to this decision with as much details as possible.
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 457	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:48:24 - [216] - Quote Jamy Lannister wrote: Whoever wants this change, obviously doesnt know how to add drones to overview and use their brain. Use your brain and kill the 6km/s battlecruiser EHP Einherjis with 100m sig that 2 shots every kiting cruiser in the game? that has close to the same damage mitigation as most Assault Frigates in the game? yeah... Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
EvilDoomer Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:49:30 - [217] - 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. 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. OMG, dont remove fighter assist its what a carrier is suppose to do. Game Mechancs work great. U.S.S Aircraft carriers send out fighters to assist ground forces thats why the carrier is there. Not suppose to be on field fighting. IT's a Fighter Carrier platform. The game mechanics works great for the carriers. Other than that FATIQUE bull stuff that I'm still pissed a about. I have been in game since 2003 joined and started playing at the end of beta. Just like many others trained hard and long to get to use a carrier and to jump really far! NERFED. And Now I have to use gates if Im going to use my carrier close so I dont get jump fatique which I did run upto 30days.... Carriers need to stay at a POS and send out warping fighters and they need to warp there as fast as they can!!! Or when they get there all my people are dead and the fighters were useless. Please dont nerf the job the fighter they are doing what they are suppose to do. It would make me sell my carrier cause it would be useless cause of a cry baby that jumped into a .4 and got killed. STAY out of bad neiborhoods and that will not happen. If you do this nerf to carriers you might as well remove carriers from the game. Just like flying freighters in empire ganked. Selling that too. Help keep the seasoned pilots a little happy don't remove what we worked hard to get. Evil.
Nartel Vortok Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 70	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:49:44 - [218] - Quote Jamy Lannister wrote: Whoever wants this change, obviously doesnt know how to add drones to overview and use their brain. They insta teleport away as soon as you realize they're taking damage by returning ownership to the carrier but yeah lmao.
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 457	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:50:05 - [219] - Quote kelvin oriley wrote: What were the csm reactions to this The majority of the CSM members were in complete support of this change. You can read the January minutes. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9954	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:50:22 - [220] - Quote Suitonia wrote: This change will result in more PvP as Carriers will have to come onto grid to achieve the same effect as before (Resulting in more content, escalations and carrier kills). You must be new to EVE if you think this change means people are going to bring carriers on grid for any reason.
gto Okaski Crown Solutions TOGETHER WE STAND 3	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:51:36 - [221] - Quote Kel hound wrote: Wasnt this basically the entire bloody point of a carrier from a design standpoint? IRL I mean. Battleships had massive guns that could fire over the horizon, but were defeated by carriers which could strike with aircraft from well beyond the horizon. lool eve vs rl mechanics comparison is not a good idea... i tried once a similar comparison to understand why a titan is powerless against a hic ( a real life situation would be something like a battleship pinned down by a man with a hook in one of those boats with pedals )
Fred3000 Girl Friends Please Ignore Ev0ke 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:53:54 - [222] - Quote Stageweight wrote: Rroff wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: +1 Especially the bolded part. Just spitballing here, but in addition to not being able to deploy fighters near POSs or stations (and taking away bonuses from assigned fighters), maybe a 'siege-like' module that has to be activated for ships to assign fighters, that locks the carrier or SC in place for at least 5 minutes. And/Or 'recieving ship' bandwidth limitations (if a ship has no drone bay, it can't use fighters, if a ship can deploy 5 sentries it can accept 5 fighters etc, which kills small ship 'Skynetting'). I don't know how much of a nightmare that would be from a programming stand point so I offer the above with a big grain of layman's salt lol, but the point is CCP should be making things more interesting, not less. Some interesting points there, one down side is that a siege/bastion like module would take away a drone control unit slot but tying fighters to some kind of bastion like mode would make them more interesting and give potential for more balanced ways of making them a little less meh outside of skynet type use. Having them only get bonuses when assigned by activating some kind of bastion like module would be a solution to a fair few issues without a ridiculous nerf though I'm not hugely in favour of it. EDIT: I guess as a compromise for off grid use it wouldn't be so bad as you could still fit for 15 fighters when doing stuff ongrid just lose the extra slot when assigning - the game should always be about making a choice and/or compromise not about flat out nerf batting. EDIT2: i.e. purely for illustration purposes something like: [Fighter Command Processor] - works fairly much like bastion mode including timers and local self rep (can't be fitted with triage), enables fighter assignment, increases fighter tracking (with a corresponding decrease in base), increases durability, can't be activated within x km of POS or station. I kind of like this idea, overall removing fighter assist truely does kill the uniqueness of carriers. The trick is to find a way to increase the risk, but not increase it to the point of killing off the frequency with which it is flown. To edit your Fighter Command Processor they could make it so "can't be activated within x km of POS or station", or add "Maximum Velocity Bonus -100% when active" Either way would help reduce the use of Skynet, I just don't think you need both the distance from POS/station limit and the -100% velocity bonus. I think the latter would allow for some very interesting engagements at the edge of POS's though. Think about it, you could be running your fleet, you see a bunch of cruisers that you want to engage and suddenly they have fighters assisted. Your scout gives you a warp in to the POS that the carriers are sitting outside of and they can't move back into the shields until their cycle completes. It forces the carrier to commit to being vulnerable, but still have a chance the flee back into the POS once they come out of siege. Of course while they are sieged you could bump them away from the shield. The question would be how long to make the cycle time. That indeed sounds better than my version. Very well though through. Fred
Reprisa Steel Fleet Gentlemen's.Club 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:55:26 - [223] - Quote Removing fighter assignment virtually kills supercarriers. They cannot pos bash. They cannot jump far without fatigue. They cannot assign fighters... If this move is to kill supercarriers in eve then it would certainly be effective. Removing fighter assignment but allowing supers to be dockable would be a fair compromise imo.
TractionControl The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:56:37 - [224] - Quote This seems like a real half ass way to fix the problem . Suggestions I like Remove module bonuses of carriers when a fighter is assisted to someone, so the dps application of fighters would be less appealing. Remove ability to assist within 15-20 km of a pos shileds or station undock
Charadrass Angry Germans 165	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:57:13 - [225] - Quote Suitonia wrote: Charadrass wrote: you are blaming the realworld drone attacks too right? cause sending the soldier hiself on to enemy Terrain is more fair, instead of sending an unmanned drone? the carrier is sitting in a System with a pos. he can be scanned out. even without scanning there are only pos possible at moons, so warping to all moons cloaked shouldnt be a Problem. afterwards. get a bumper ship. a Little fleet, and enjoy the carrier kill. but that is tooooo much work. lets fill out a Petition to remove the reason for the carrier to be online outside of a pos. thats much easier , and sooooo much fun... wait. it is not.... An attentive carrier pilot is 40m from a POS forcefield, it takes less than <1s for it to make it into the POS. Due to the position of the force field and where the Carrier pilot is, it's very difficult to get a good angle for bumping. Additionally, a Carrier has a significant amount of mass and even a Cloaky 100mn Proteus (which will die in about 20 seconds to POS guns and is absolutely useless to your fleet) will find it difficult to achieve a significant bump, you need to get up to speed to get a worthwhile bump which you cannot do while cloaked, the chance of bumping a Carrier in this manner is incredibly unlikely, I would advise you put this into practice yourself and post the results here. you are pointing out massive investements at the side of the carrier owner. why the heck do you want to get this Thing nerfed? cause you cant kill him because he invested sooooo much isk more than you? come on. so in fact you want the owner of isk getting punished for usage of his isk... am i right?
Swamp Donkee Swamp Donkey's United 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:59:58 - [226] - Quote Since the problem is simply capitals assisting fighters just outside the POS shield, wouldn't a better solution involve something that would make assisting fighters just outside a POS bubble more risky? Solution 1: "The active shield harmonic is interfering with your ability to assist drones at this time. " Solution 2: Add a high slot module that would act in a similar fashion as bastion mode. When active, the carrier is able to assist fighters, however the carrier is immobile and unable to receive logistical assistance. It could have a 20 minute activation cycle or something. Solution 3: Introduce a 'Fighter assist module'. It would be a High slot and allows 1 fighter to be assisted per module. This would reduce the maximum amount of fighters fielded as well. A win-win. Solution 4: Introduce an ECM module which would disable the ability of any ship to assist drones within its effective range. Solution 5: Leave it alone On a side note: I do not engage in capital/POS warfare. In my opinion, I do not think that simply removing functionality of a ship simply because its causing an unfair advantage is an "elegant" solution at all. In fact, its just poor thought. The elegant solution would be to introduce a module which would counter the unfair advantage. This is how all military weapons evolve. Just my .02 ISK
Aureus Ahishatsu Deadspace Knights 84	Posted - 2015.02.27 16:59:59 - [227] - Quote Suitonia wrote: Ignoring the bugs, I am suggesting to you that making it so that fighters lose their bonuses off grid I think this would have actually been a better approach to handling the problem then removing fighter assist. If the fighters loose module bonuses while off grid "skyneting" wouldn't be plausible anyway because aside from capitals the fighters aren't going to hit anything anyways. This would allow them to still be used in some of their current pve applications.
Tsukinosuke Id Est The Volition Cult 30	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:03:33 - [228] - Quote im not sure someone else mentioned about changing "assist" command and limit assisting drones by assisted ship's bandwidth instead of assisted pilot's drones skill level? raw idea, no yelling so harsh.. [u]anti-antagonist[/u]-á "not a friend of enemy of antagonist"
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2708	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:04:08 - [229] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable? Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Immortal Chrono Pimpin Anime Masters Verge of Collapse 121	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:06:32 - [230] - Quote uh can you just make a t2 fighter that can be assigned but it just cost a load of monie? I really wanna keep ratting with nyx fighters making dank isk without warping my nyx to a anom. kk thx
Yuri Fedorov Circle Mercs The Bastion 25	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:08:59 - [231] - Quote Just add an option in the drone window whether or not you want fighters to warp with a target. Let us choose if we want them to stay on grid or follow. edit: Okay it already exists. Keep the warp!!!!
Reprisa Steel Fleet Gentlemen's.Club 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:10:02 - [232] - Quote Make t2 fighters that are assignable that cost a pretty penny with a 25% dmg cut sounds like a fair tradeoff
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 51	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:11:14 - [233] - Quote I dont know if anyone has brought this up yet; but couldn't another way to look at this is: don't allow assigning of fighters to toons with out the fighter skill.at least force a toon to be able to actually use fighters before they can be assigned. That would fall in to the no ship / module bonus from the assigned ship. If you can't use fighters to begin with, how the hell are you able to control them when they are assigned to you? Not a game breaking change, but it will at least force you to learn fighters instead of just having them assigned to a frigate toon. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Freelancer117 so you want to be a Hero 265	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:15:36 - [234] - Quote Removing fighter assist +1 Removing fighters warping -1 Fighters should be able to follow targets around in system. Reasons: - reducing game play mechanics more then needed based on no other presented reason than "feelings" by CCPgames (by nerfing this game mechanic now, you will take sand out of the sandbox and remove any imaginative future applications) - it messes with the lore of the game, one day fighters and it's crew can warp around and the next day not (light, medium, heavy and sentry drones are AI controlled and therefor have to stay in range of the "mothership") - Capsuleers who have spend a lot of money and time into piloting capitals that use fighters should remain to have this option (in eve we always talk about risc vs reward, when you risc so much wealth your rewards should be there) The players will make a better version of the game, then CCP initially plans. http://eve-radio.com//images/photos/3419/223/34afa0d7998f0a9a86f737d6.jpg GÇÖChilde Roland to the Dark Tower came.GÇÖ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nY3oMRLfArU
Drakonius Damnerica The Blood of the Saints Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:16:23 - [235] - Quote Well that just took away all motivation to ever train into a carrier. Thanks CCP!
Sinigr Shadowsong Monkey Attack Squad Goonswarm Federation 134	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:19:21 - [236] - Quote Do not remove fighters ability to warp, instead give carrier pilot more control through "Fighter Settings" tab in the drones menu.
Myrradah Apotheosis of Caledvwich Dirt Nap Squad. 12	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:20:47 - [237] - Quote There is no point to a carrier if you take it away. How can it force project at ranges like a carrier is supposed to? If you take it away, don't call it a carrier anymore. Call it a troop transport or something as that's essentially what it will be. I agree there should be some changes and there are plenty of good ideas here but no reason to remove assist or warping.
handige harrie Hedion University Amarr Empire 289	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:21:10 - [238] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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. There is an Option on your Drone window called Follow in Warp. You can already uncheck it and it stops your fighters from following the target in warp. Do you even play your own game, or search your own wiki for this when you make this stuff up? Wiki Image with Drone settings shown facepalm Baddest poster ever
lexa21 KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 10	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:21:21 - [239] - Quote No need in such capitals. I will unsubscribe 2 accounts if this changes will apear on tranq.
Lenard Nimoy The Desolate Order Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:22:10 - [240] - Quote please leave fighters warpin off grid untouched. its the only reliable way to kill a ratting carrier with minimal dps, if you can reliably take his fighters for a walk. if they stayed on grid that would make it easier for ratting carriers to defend themselves
Emmy Mnemonic Svea Rike Fatal Ascension 28	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:22:11 - [241] - Quote Suitonia wrote: Emmy Mnemonic wrote: If fighter-assist capability is removed, carriers will be used less for pvp than they are as of now. There is no reason to warp a carrier into that kind of fight, where you today can assist fighters. Instead people will find other ships/means to buff their fleet DPS, just not by carriers. So, by all means remove the fighter assist capability from carriers, but replace it with something that makes it interesting for people to warp their carriers on-grid! So we get more carriers to kill! The problem with the current fighter assist mechanic is that people were not warping their carriers on grid at all, but instead were 40m from a POS forcefield. Using Throw-Away ships as anchors for the drones. This change will result in more PvP as Carriers will have to come onto grid to achieve the same effect as before (Resulting in more content, escalations and carrier kills). If people use other means than interceptors with Einherjis assigned to them then it will be a welcome change. Uhmm, nor Sir/Madame it absolutely will not! If you want to add around 1000 DPS, there are many MANY more ISK-efficient ways to do that than to warp your carrier onto the grid. So, it will not happen - which is sad! I (and many with me) WANT more carriers on grid! CEO Svea Rike
Vendrin Stimulus Rote Kapelle 19	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:22:20 - [242] - Quote So instead of taking the time to actually fix something you will just remove something from the game until you get back to it. Yea that is a great idea with ccps proven dedication to returning to features in a timely manner.
Emmy Mnemonic Svea Rike Fatal Ascension 28	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:24:40 - [243] - Quote Reprisa wrote: Removing fighter assignment virtually kills supercarriers. They cannot pos bash. They cannot jump far without fatigue. They cannot assign fighters... If this move is to kill supercarriers in eve then it would certainly be effective. Removing fighter assignment but allowing supers to be dockable would be a fair compromise imo. Has it struck anyones mind that there might not be a need for structure shoots for sov warfare after CCP reveales their new sov mechanics? Also, I have never assigned fighterbombers or fighters from my Super when shooting structures. have I missed something? CEO Svea Rike
BoBoZoBo Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team 520	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:27:19 - [244] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: I've yet to see an actual argument to keeping fighters going to warp besides "please don't nerf they cost me money". I hate being harsh but I haven't read one yet Equally have yet to see an actual argument to kill the warpability either... so there is that. I do not see how the issue of unreasonable drone assist is in ANY WAY related to the ability of fighters to warp. It is not "please don't nerf they cost me money" it is "please don't nerf they cost me money, for no good ****!ng reason" Primary Test Subject GÇó SmackTalker Elite
Lobal Villasail Midget Strippers and Lollipops Gentlemen's.Club 2	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:29:04 - [245] - Quote Really, I understand the ishtar and the tengu changes because in large sub-cap fleets these are HEAVILY used. But why mess with the carrier? Is this simply because people assign while ratting and hang around just outside a POS shield? If so then why would you change it? This is not an OP Pvp issue, HK's might hate it but oh well, find an easier target that warps a cap to an anom. Assigning fighters is one of the few offensive reasons to have a carrier or super. What the hell is the point of having them if they are ineffective to the point of not being worth the isk. I am not in favor of this but what the hell do I know.
Niraia Nocturnal Romance Cynosural Field Theory. 281	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:31:03 - [246] - Quote Removing assist was a very good decision. I don't think that we should be able to apply damage without our ships being at risk (this is why I think your Ishtar nerf doesn't go nearly far enough, and doesn't fix their real problem, which is the ability to continually apply damage while running out of harm's way like a coward). Fighter warping has been nothing but a pain for me. I disable follow, and I haven't yet encountered a situation where I'd have wanted my fighters to warp. I wouldn't miss it, but it's already optional. Niraia EVE Online Hold'Em
159Pinky Under Heavy Fire Mordus Angels 12	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:37:31 - [247] - Quote Rather than removing the option, make it: Only assign fighters to ppl on the same grid. As soon as the person leaves grid the fighters return to your ship?
Iorga Eeta Hekatonkheires Industries 10	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:40:58 - [248] - Quote 1) Make fighters and fighter-bombers affected by points and bubbles. (can't warp into or out of bubbles). 2) Add some sort of visual indication (icon/visual affect) to the drone bunny so there is some indication which ships have drones/sentries/fighters assigned to them.
Flax Volcanus Montezuma's Revenge. Easily Excited 2	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:42:03 - [249] - Quote The idea of removing fighters' ability to warp after having it in game for, what -- seven years? -- is absolutely absurd.
Tiberian Deci Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore 31	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:42:52 - [250] - Quote As someone training Advanced Drone Interfacing V so i could ~elite PvP~ from a POS with my Thanatos like PL, this makes me sad. Overall I think the game will be better if it goes though.
Apo Lyptica Z .. .-.. .. -.- . -... --- --- -... ... 36	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:44:27 - [251] - Quote CCP, this is your chance to gap the space between battleship and carriers and carriers and supers. Right now for dread pilots it goes - Battle ship, Marauder, Dread then titan. The gap between dread and titan have been made closer than it is for carrier and super carrier. Drone changes - Reduce fighter damage slightly, keep everything else the same. Ship changes - Add 'escort carriers' - These go between battleships and carriers. Would fill the battleship logistics role. Can launch 5 fighters and would be around 1k dps goal wise while using all faction damage mods. Can only launch 5 fighters and cannot use DCU's. The hull does not get a damage bonus (except for Gal). These hulls would get the drone control range bonus that carriers do and basically would get all of the logistical bonus that carriers do. The hulls would be generally weak and rely heavily on outside logistical support. These hulls cannot assign fighters. But can assist. Escort carriers could have a T2 variant that would be the carrier version of the Marauder that could fit bastion and be a little more tanky. These ships can go into empire, but warp on the fighters are disabled due to regulations in micro warp field regulations enforced by Concord. Carrier changes - Remove the +1 drone per skill level and instead add a 20% damage bonus per level, the goal with this is to reduce the number of drones but keep carriers at the current level they are at. With the increased reliance on fewer fighters and the current HP variables these become more important to manage and strategic. These hulls should be able to assign fighters but in doing so the fighters lose the bonus of the damage increase UNLESS THE CARRIER IS ON THE SAME GRID. What this does is makes fighters more or less like heavy drones unless the carrier is on the same grid as the fighter. The lore principle could be along the lines that the carriers specialized control systems are LOS reliant. Add 'Heavy carrier' - This hull bridges the gap between carrier and super. These carriers can only use 5 drones, fighters and bombers. These would not get any bonus to fighter/bomber damage (except MAYBE gal). But would fit bastion, bastion would have two more traits added that give 150% bonus to fighters and the missile/tracking bonus would apply to drones. This would make heavy carriers rely only on their own tank and add a strategic aspect. Do you deploy heavy carriers and go into bastion? This also gives a counter that normal pilots can bring to super fights. These hulls would get bonus to medium and heavy drone damage but not sentry. Included with the reduction from 10 (with level 5) to 5 + damage bonus, carriers that go with DCU's would become a strategic asset as well. The extra fighters would increase the damage of the carrier but in turn the utility of the carrier would be restricted to combat only. The introduction of the escort carrier gives a possible great opportunity to introduce faction fighters. As escort carriers could be used in empire (warp disabled for fighters in empire).
Inslander Wessette Killers of Paranoid Souls Universal Paranoia Alliance 14	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:46:04 - [252] - Quote Suitonia wrote: Inslander Wessette wrote: 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) The problem with the delegation mechanic is it is incredibly buggy and there still are multiple exploits or "clever use of game mechanics" that you can use to give you a significant advantage while assisting your drones, even if you were prevented from doing it on grid with a station or POS. 1. It's possible to get a Thanatos to "hard-to-probe" status by using another "hard-to-probe" Tengu with Remote ECCM. Spurs on the Thanatos and use of X-Instinct. (By "hard-to-probe" I mean the requirement of a max skilled covert ops character with some virtue implants required to probe the Thanatos/Tengu pair). Which makes it close to invulnerable and outside repercussions for the vast majority of gangs unless they specifically know what you're doing and bring Virtue Implants or an incredibly specific fit tengu into your space (risking more than your carriers net-worth), even then, it's possible for you to be aligned out to a POS with refit to WCS in your cargo in the event you get tackled, and RLML fitted on your booster Tengu, in a cynojammed system, making a black ops drop from multiple bombers and back-up recons (all of which you can scout) the only realistic means for your death. If you lose the Tengu+Thanatos and your implant set it still comes into around 2 billion isk ballpark if thanatos is uninsured. Which given what the other people have to field to have a fairly realistic chance of actually catching and killing you (which isn't guranteed) is marginal. 2. Fighters assigned to ships do not agress the ships using them. Unless CCP manages to bug-fix this aspect, this still makes ridiculous things possible such as fighters assigned to double 1600 plate covert ops, nullified subsystem t3s which sit on a gate with anchored bubbles and never aggress and just put fighters on people, jumping out as soon as they lose their 600,000 EHP to almost complete safety. 3. You can take 1) even further by burning a Confessor/Svipul with 10mn MWD in speed mode to the edge of a deadspace pocket in a complex (or a mission in npc 0.0), then setting up there, bringing your carrier 2-3km into the deadspace pocket and requiring even a snaked linked malediction <30minutes to burn to your thanatos if they probe out the plex, which you can easily just type "07 to ur t00nie" into local when it gets below 1000km on dir scanner and warp out. 4. Delegated fighters still fight while a Carrier is in warp so you can easily just assist your fighters to ships, then engage in a long warp to a friendly POS and your fighters will continue to fight while you're in warp and in complete invulnerability landing in the center of a safe POS when you land. 5. offline POS can be used (as they are done currently, right now with skynet/supers) with passwords entered and ready to go online to bypass CCP's current forcefield exclusion zone mechanics. The problem isn't so much the ships used. As using a 400k EHP abaddon that never agresses with mwd+mmjd+ecm burst+cloak would still be possible with the beacon mechanic, costing 40 million isk after insurance if it dies, with the very likely possibility that it can escape unless the hostiles have multiple pilots (which you know about in your intel channels, and covert ops cloak capable ships if you see fit to allow the grid to allow it on cruisers). I think the risk should be for the Carrier pilot, not for other ships as it's too easy to mitigate risk on the other ships. Nice read . Think i knew most of it here . Few points i din :) But then again "clever use of game mechanic " is just like hyperdunking or cloak mwd trick on low sec gates . why should one be allowed when the other isnt ? Removing the entire mechanic solves nothing .Let alone makes the thanatos useless other than ratting . if we are talking charts i'd like to see how many thanatos are actually used in pvp over archons . Do we wanna remove the only reason these ships are used in eve atm ? point 1) i am not sure how removing fighter assist is gonna solve ur problem here . lol it may help if the pilot is dumb enuf to recall his fighters over saving his carrier point 2 ) agree with u completely and that timers should be given to the delegated pilot as well . If ur worried about nullified t3's sorry cant help u there . point 3 ) this is an issue with the deadspace pocket mechanics and the pilot using the delegate fighter mechanic to exploit the broken deadspace pocket mechanic . lol this mechanic is very rarely used as well given the amount of time it takes which you and i know cba with . point 4) Agree with you again this is broken in fact i have been on the receiving end of such a crapy system . its needs a fix . Fighter should be called of when the carrier enters warp . point 5) Again ur referring to the broken pos mechanic . Fighter assist is just a bloody bonus . You dont need fighter assist to exploit this mechanic ? P.S staying alinged in a carrier in null sec when ratting or making em hard to probe has nothing to with fighter assist . Fighter assist its jus a causative . not the problem itself . Removing fighter assist dont solve em . only makes me store a 1.2 bil ship away for good
Terraniel Aurelius High Flyers The Kadeshi 17	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:46:32 - [253] - Quote I don't like the idea of removing fighter assist. It's a neat mechanic that yes, could be exploited, but only because of the relative safety of the carrier pilot. In large fleet fights it can be a powerful tool that adds an extra dynamic to a fight. As far as I'm concerned, more dynamics makes for less predictable fights, and that is a good thing. Where this mechanic can be exploited, is as CCP said, in the relative safety of the carrier pilot. So why don't we just make it so the carrier has to be on grid to assist? Problem solved. No more free dps without risk, and if the enemy is on-grid with a POS then so be it. I'm up in the air about fighter warping. I feel like the ships are already slow enough as it is, without having to wait for fighters to return. I assume fighter-bombers are slower, but I don't have direct experience. That being said, usually I can get my fighters back to my thany (with a single drone nav) before I go into warp. However, if the change was made so I would have to be on-grid to assist, then I think figher warping is a fine mechanic. Carrier at risk? Check. Do fighters keep agressing after I dock/POS up? Nope. Is it overpowered? I suppose - but don't you think a carrier fielding a swarm of fighters should be able to take down anything less than another carrier? I do. CCP: stop nerfing big ships just because they blow up smaller ships so well! That's the point for crying out loud. There is nothing wrong with that. If you want more diversity, tune your ships to be better at rock-paper-scissors.
Immortal Chrono Pimpin Anime Masters Verge of Collapse 121	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:47:13 - [254] - Quote Realtalk tho since its getting removed replace the useless fighter control range with something more useful, Maybe something having to do with triage for carriers and idk what for supers tbh.
Elenahina Agony Unleashed Agony Empire 142	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:50:31 - [255] - Quote lexa21 wrote: No need in such capitals. I will unsubscribe 2 accounts if this changes will apear on tranq. Oh no! Please please don't uinsub two accounts! Seriously dude? You basically just resorted to the "I'll take my ball and go home" argument. Guess what? No one cares if you go home. We don't need you, or your ball. Agony Unleashed is Recruiting - Small Gang PvP in Null Sec
Hiroito Hiroito Internation Holding 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:50:43 - [256] - Quote My suggestion A carrier/supercarrier can assign drone at 2 conditions : - He is at 0m/s (any acceleration has one chance on 2 to make the fighter come back, the other chance to loose them) AND if the carrier move while having fighter assign, he became a beacon like a cyno for 2 minutes. - Can't be on the same grid as a protective structure like POS, Gate, Stations (Offline POS count as a POS) AND : - Drone bonus modules doesn't apply if the carrier is not on-grid because off-grid boosting is bad.
Davir Sometaww Snuff Box Snuffed Out 20	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:51:10 - [257] - Quote Simple fix without ruinning this unique concept. Just have pos shields interrupt carrier interaction with its fighters on a 100 km radius. Meaning you can't assign fighters on pos shields
RICO Ramierz The Coven's Spoon Corner Pub 8	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:52:25 - [258] - Quote Cant you not just remove fighter assistance from supers? Fighter drones are pretty much useless against anything smaller than a BC. This for me does not show that fighter drones are op, for instance there is the fact of how badly the atron is fit, the fact that the shuttle has no point the atron could have warped plus it would have died in a nano second to a pvp fit atron, oh and also the risk factor would be fielding 5x 20 mil isk fighters per go. I have always ran in small gangs in low sec, I dont like null sov or hitting F1 when being told to or flying some doctrine i didnt design on a tidi borefest. I feel like this nerf is too harsh on the smaller people just because people in null are going "WAAAA SKYNET WAAAAA" Does anyone else feel the same or am I just being bad?
RICO Ramierz The Coven's Spoon Corner Pub 8	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:53:12 - [259] - Quote Davir Sometaww wrote: Simple fix without ruinning this unique concept. Just have pos shields interrupt carrier interaction with its fighters on a 100 km radius. Meaning you can't assign fighters on pos shields YES! THIS ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Immortal Chrono Pimpin Anime Masters Verge of Collapse 121	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:53:16 - [260] - Quote Davir Sometaww wrote: Simple fix without ruinning this unique concept. Just have pos shields interrupt carrier interaction with its fighters on a 100 km radius. Meaning you can't assign fighters on pos shields You can sit in a anchored online pos without the shield up and assist fighters, As soon as you are in real danger you put in a pos pw and shield goes up.
Apok Salzak Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:55:13 - [261] - Quote Let get this straight. You post a Scope Video about Carriers getting killed by rats and now you are nerfing them? WTS Useless Cap Pilot.
RICO Ramierz The Coven's Spoon Corner Pub 8	Posted - 2015.02.27 17:57:34 - [262] - Quote Immortal Chrono Pimpin wrote: Davir Sometaww wrote: Simple fix without ruinning this unique concept. Just have pos shields interrupt carrier interaction with its fighters on a 100 km radius. Meaning you can't assign fighters on pos shields You can sit in a anchored online pos without the shield up and assist fighters, As soon as you are in real danger you put in a pos pw and shield goes up. I see what your saying but then would you not lose all your drones? and the fact that you are putting your super out in the open even for a small amount of time creates risk of i dunno... someone cyno-ing in a bump mach when your not watching or summit like that?
Carrie Blackshadow Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:00:45 - [263] - Quote Having capital friends and seeing how OP carrier fighters are I agree that they should NOT be assignable unless the carrier is on grid with the rest of the fleet. Now if this is what CCP is has in mind that is fine but keep fighters ability to warp because if a carrier is warping off it doesn't always have time to recall drones and fighters are expensive!!!!! Also if not assignable off grid please let drones be used in triage.
Immortal Chrono Pimpin Anime Masters Verge of Collapse 121	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:01:31 - [264] - Quote RICO Ramierz wrote: Immortal Chrono Pimpin wrote: Davir Sometaww wrote: Simple fix without ruinning this unique concept. Just have pos shields interrupt carrier interaction with its fighters on a 100 km radius. Meaning you can't assign fighters on pos shields You can sit in a anchored online pos without the shield up and assist fighters, As soon as you are in real danger you put in a pos pw and shield goes up. I see what your saying but then would you not lose all your drones? and the fact that you are putting your super out in the open even for a small amount of time creates risk of i dunno... someone cyno-ing in a bump mach when your not watching or summit like that? If you have a super fighter cost means nothing, You are in 0 danger with this method they can cyno in w/e they want to. Pro-tip we have more than one screen or a screen fx from aero of the skynet carrier/super there is never a point that someone competent is not paying attention.
Legion Reaver 9	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:02:47 - [265] - Quote Would it be possible to remove the fighters ability to warp and still set them to assist. This way a carrier could still provide off grid support but they would have to warp in to deploy fighters, set them to assist and then warp away thus exposing the carrier pilot to the risk of being pinned down. Having the fighters unable to warp away would mean that if the person who's designated as the assist warped off then the fighters would be stranded thus risking their destruction unless the carrier returned to retrieve them. This solution would allow the assist mechanic and their remote application to still be used but would force the pilot to expose themselves away from a control tower or station. Also if the fighters can't warp off with the carrier so what no other drones warp off either and get left behind so they should have to recall them just like every thing else does.
Murkar Omaristos The Alabaster Albatross Eternal Pretorian Alliance 88	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:04:18 - [266] - Quote R.I.P. Carriers. The capital graveyard is really starting to full up. Also as others have pointed out - there should be no need for fighters to be recalled for a carrier to warp. It is one of the unique features of fighters!!! Keep it! Maybe it's irritating for them to warp after things, but they should follow the carrier in warp.
Strockhov The Shire 5	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:05:29 - [267] - Quote Remove carrier bonuses from fighter not on grid with the carrier. Decreasing the DPS available unless the carrier is willing to risk it., Ships assisted by fighters are highlighted in the overview or are obvious to others in some fashion. Transfer some of the risk to the pilot being assisted by the fighters. The Assignment of fighters can only happen on grid. The fighters will followed the assigned ship off grid or into warp. The goal here is to force the the assisted ship to initially be on grid with the carrier. This encourages carriers to be on grid to switch who they assist as fast as possible.
Bailian Moxtain North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion 22	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:05:30 - [268] - Quote Fighters shouldnt chase after target, but remain at the "host". This means they still should be able to follow the carrier/sc in warp (cos **** scooping them all the time)
RICO Ramierz The Coven's Spoon Corner Pub 8	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:07:42 - [269] - Quote [/quote] If you have a super fighter cost means nothing, You are in 0 danger with this method they can cyno in w/e they want to. Pro-tip we have more than one screen or a screen fx from aero of the skynet carrier/super there is never a point that someone competent is not paying attention.[/quote] Gotcha. What do you recon about the whole thing?
Immortal Chrono Pimpin Anime Masters Verge of Collapse 121	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:09:56 - [270] - Quote RICO Ramierz wrote: Gotcha. What do you recon about the whole thing? I really dont care tbh, Maybe now carriers can drop that fighter range and get a reduction in fatigue or a second bonus for triage.
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 51	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:14:17 - [271] - Quote Apok Salzak wrote: Let get this straight. You post a Scope Video about Carriers getting killed by rats and now you are nerfing them? WTS Useless Cap Pilot. Yeah when do WE get Drifter Doomsdays to put on Tengus? That's the way to do it, delete Capitals, make everyone fly noobships with doomsdays. PROBLEM SOLVED. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Violet Corvus Malfian Carebears Inc. 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:14:26 - [272] - Quote Make the Fighters assignable from the same grid, just like regular drones. Carrier leaves -> Fighters unassign and follow. This forces the Carrier to stick its neck out a bit and not cower near shields.
Rayzilla Zaraki Tandokuno 283	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:17:17 - [273] - Quote I like that fighters can be assisted to other ships off-grid. It fits with what I think of when I think about carriers: Long damage projection. Rather than being able to task them to any ship in the game, limit the choices to those that make sense. These ships would include other carriers (obviously), command ships and maybe recon ships. Others could include dreadnaughts and maybe titans depending on balance. Along with this, limit how many can be tasked to the different ships, either inherently and/or by new high-slot modules. The recons could maybe handle 3-5, the command ships 5-10 and the capitals could handle more. If you go the module route, one high slot module gives the ability to handle up to 5 fighters, but no more than the class's maximum. Lastly, make a radius limit from shields because shield harmonics interfere with fighter control signals or something. A tasked carrier could also pop up as a warpable signature when it has fighters assisted out because of all its broadcast power being used. With this, we get to keep the unique ability for fighters to warp, there is more risk by having to have more expensive ships on-grid to handle the assisted fighters and the carriers get shoved out further into space with a big "kick me" sign making them vulnerable. Gate campers are just Carebears with anger issues.
Immortal Chrono Pimpin Anime Masters Verge of Collapse 122	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:18:00 - [274] - Quote Violet Corvus wrote: Make the Fighters assignable from the same grid, just like regular drones. Carrier leaves -> Fighters unassign and follow. This forces the Carrier to stick its neck out a bit and not cower near shields. No reason to have assign if you are ongrid tbh Alltho carrier irl project power over great distance and aren't supposed to be a direct danger.] Kind of sad to see ccp killing it how lore and realistic is concerned.
5mok1ng gun Moon Of The Pheonix 4	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:22:29 - [275] - Quote Ivan Stoner wrote: I think its a difficult decision which CCP has to take. Because: - a Carrier isnt a frontline ship - the fighters or fighter bombers doing all the work not the ship itself on the other side i saw how Brave use the Skynet tactic on the receiving end and yeah its annoying. You lost ship but you cant catch the ceptor and if you warp to the carrier POS hes all ready inside or he puts the password in. My opinion is that CCP should only allow Fighter assist only for min. Cruisers or BC and or above. Fighter Bomber assist only to BS and above. They also should limit the Fighter/Fighter Bomber assist to max 5 per assistet ship. From what i recall fighter bombers can't be assigned to another ship and it should stay that way.
Charadrass Angry Germans 166	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:23:02 - [276] - Quote More and more towards Bullshit Online.
J4bb3rw0k Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative 12	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:27:11 - [277] - Quote If you are going to make Carriers fight on grid, make boosters boost on-grid. Risk vs. Reward, right?
Maach Ine Incompertus INC Fatal Ascension 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:30:55 - [278] - Quote Polarized Drone Delegation Unit. Permits a Carrier / Supercarrier to delegate Fighters (only) but reduces all resistances on the ship it is fit on to 0. Without this module fit, (super)carriers cannot delegate fighters. If fighters / FBs warping with a carrier is removed, I would suggest a reduction to the mineral requirements for them...
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 52	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:31:44 - [279] - Quote From just a cursory view of the posts it looks like we have 3 camps, CCP. 1) Kill assist (probably the lowest set) 2) Adjust assist - either to class or range or make tweaks (probably the highest) 3) Leave it alone - as is the mechanic is viable (in the middle) It sounds to me like it's only a small minority who want to kill it, and the majority only sees assist as a minor issue. If someone however would like to do the actual math on that I'd be ok with it. If it turns out that this is true, please do the right thing; take a step back and either leave it alone for now to re-examine later, or do something you have never done before....COMPROMISE. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Bussan Kabukicho 5	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:33:12 - [280] - Quote Removing the assist and the warp will just kill something unique in the game... and most of the other changes to put the carrier more at risk, will just have the same effect. If someone LIKE that kind of playstyle, why have to destroy it? it's not like they will use their carriers in another way to help the others... they will just do something else. Wanna do some changes to reduce a bit some of the problems? Then let the carriers assist fighters to only ships from BC up, for example... so you will see more BC/BS in the field, maybe, and will solve some of the problems addressed. Never understood why the staff have to decide for me that I'm not having fun using some particular ship or game mechanic. If I don't enjoy it, I don't do it. if I just CANNOT do it because you decided it, I'm not happier, just more frustrated. And have to find something else to do (that is NOT for sure something that will make me interact more with others...).
Agent Unknown Night Theifs DamnedNation 37	Posted - 2015.02.27 18:33:13 - [281] - Quote Immortal Chrono Pimpin wrote: Violet Corvus wrote: Make the Fighters assignable from the same grid, just like regular drones. Carrier leaves -> Fighters unassign and follow. This forces the Carrier to stick its neck out a bit and not cower near shields. No reason to have assign if you are ongrid tbh Alltho carrier irl project power over great distance and aren't supposed to be a direct danger.] Kind of sad to see ccp killing it how lore and realistic is concerned. Carriers have crap scanres, so assigning to a fast-locking ship would get the fighters to apply damage faster.
Bruce Destro Black Serpent Technologies Black Legion. 12	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:01:00 - [282] - Quote Instead of just "Delegating control" of fighters, how about the carrier or super pilot takes direct control of the fighters, remotely controlling them, and having the character camera follow the fighters. this will mean force projection throughout a system, but will leave the capital vulnerable because of split attention. Fighters are also expensive, and being flown around without an actual ship makes them targets. using a type of siege module to "assume control" of a squadron of fighters, will add awesome mechanics to the game, making the capital vulnerable to attack. "scenario" Pilot A is flying a navy harbinger, and jumps through a gate into a hostile system. the gate is bubbled but no hostiles are on it, but from D-scan it is clear that the locals are ratting. Pilot B is assisting a corp member with a drone haven, flying a squadron of fighters along side him in the site, ( while his carrier is sitting outside of a pos) Pilot B warps the fighters to the bubbled gate to buy his corp member time to get to safety. As the fighters land on the gate, Pilot A instantly attacks them, quickly destroying several fighters. with his corp member now safe, pilot B warps his squadron back to his carrier, and de-activates the " squadron control module". when the cycle finishes ( lets say 30 second cycle time) his camera is directed back and he resumes control of his carrier, and burns back into the bubble. Pilot A gets a few fighter killmails, while Pilot B takes some losses, ( if 3 fighters die, that's roughly 60 mil ) but his corp mate gets to safety. This leads to more tactics, more gameplay, more risk vs reward. more content for attacking players, as killing fighters gives killmails, and direct pvp. Act like each fighter is a module, where you can either group them or split them up on different targets. Clicking the module icon for a group engages them on that target. This may seem too powerful, but 15 fighters costs around 300 million isk as it is, losing an entire squadron will be costly, and fitted correctly, even a Destroyer can be a threat. In addition, the carrier is completely vulnerable to attack until the remote module cycle time as completed. If the module is ended while a squadron is still out, the squadron will attempt to warp back to the carrier, but if any are tackled, they will auto agress like standard drones we could fit modules on the carrier that give the fighters certain abilities, such as fighter webification support module, giving each fighter a 5% velocity web. or interdiction support module, giving each fighter .1 warp scramble strength, " 10 fighters = 1 point. If this seems too safe, perhaps the remote control module will also set off a beacon in system, allowing anyone to warp to them at any time.
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 52	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:20:40 - [283] - Quote Agent Unknown wrote: Immortal Chrono Pimpin wrote: Violet Corvus wrote: Make the Fighters assignable from the same grid, just like regular drones. Carrier leaves -> Fighters unassign and follow. This forces the Carrier to stick its neck out a bit and not cower near shields. No reason to have assign if you are ongrid tbh Alltho carrier irl project power over great distance and aren't supposed to be a direct danger.] Kind of sad to see ccp killing it how lore and realistic is concerned. Carriers have crap scanres, so assigning to a fast-locking ship would get the fighters to apply damage faster. Actually, fighters and bombers had their own scan res nerfed last release, so.... no matter what your scan res is, the fighters and fb's still have to lock the target themselves. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 52	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:21:56 - [284] - Quote Bruce Destro wrote: Instead of just "Delegating control" of fighters, how about the carrier or super pilot takes direct control of the fighters, remotely controlling them, and having the character camera follow the fighters. this will mean force projection throughout a system, but will leave the capital vulnerable because of split attention. Fighters are also expensive, and being flown around without an actual ship makes them targets. using a type of siege module to "assume control" of a squadron of fighters, will add awesome mechanics to the game, making the capital vulnerable to attack. "scenario" Pilot A is flying a navy harbinger, and jumps through a gate into a hostile system. the gate is bubbled but no hostiles are on it, but from D-scan it is clear that the locals are ratting. Pilot B is assisting a corp member with a drone haven, flying a squadron of fighters along side him in the site, ( while his carrier is sitting outside of a pos) Pilot B warps the fighters to the bubbled gate to buy his corp member time to get to safety. As the fighters land on the gate, Pilot A instantly attacks them, quickly destroying several fighters. with his corp member now safe, pilot B warps his squadron back to his carrier, and de-activates the " squadron control module". when the cycle finishes ( lets say 30 second cycle time) his camera is directed back and he resumes control of his carrier, and burns back into the bubble. Pilot A gets a few fighter killmails, while Pilot B takes some losses, ( if 3 fighters die, that's roughly 60 mil ) but his corp mate gets to safety. This leads to more tactics, more gameplay, more risk vs reward. more content for attacking players, as killing fighters gives killmails, and direct pvp. Act like each fighter is a module, where you can either group them or split them up on different targets. Clicking the module icon for a group engages them on that target. This may seem too powerful, but 15 fighters costs around 300 million isk as it is, losing an entire squadron will be costly, and fitted correctly, even a Destroyer can be a threat. In addition, the carrier is completely vulnerable to attack until the remote module cycle time as completed. If the module is ended while a squadron is still out, the squadron will attempt to warp back to the carrier, but if any are tackled, they will auto agress like standard drones we could fit modules on the carrier that give the fighters certain abilities, such as fighter webification support module, giving each fighter a 5% velocity web. or interdiction support module, giving each fighter .1 warp scramble strength, " 10 fighters = 1 point. If this seems too safe, perhaps the remote control module will also set off a beacon in system, allowing anyone to warp to them at any time. Neat, but talk about extra TIDI? Ouch....annnnd sounds a lot like Valkyrie. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 217	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:22:51 - [285] - Quote Just to get everyone on the same page: carriers are not being nerfed in any way. The ships that fighters are being assigned to are Just because you trained up a pilot and put it in a 30b isk nyx doesn't mean you are entitled to use that 7k dps with virtually zero risk involved oO
Assassn Gallic Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn 19	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:25:54 - [286] - Quote The issues with Skynet is mainly two things : 1. Safety for the carrier/supercarrier assigning 2. Damage bonus to the person they are assigned to. To further expand on both, 1. is a problem because the carrier can sit right beside a pos and slowboat inside at the first sign of trouble. 2. interceptors on gates getting to punch like a small gang, while retaining the ability to kite with close to no counter. In one move you can fix both of these problems : The signals that come from the stargates interfere with the broadcasting link between carrier and its assigner. The same can be used with a pos/forcefield. The shield harmonics interfere with the broadcast between carrier and fighter. As another alternative : Carriers/super carriers when assigning must turn all non essential systems offline, making them unable to move while having fighters assigned. The carrier/super is unable to move until the fighters have warped back to the grid the carrier/super is on. This means atleast 20-40 seconds sitting and waiting assuming you instantly stop assigning if someone enters system and even then you are only JUST allowed to start moving. Potentially you could do both together ( signal interference from a pos + the carrier being unable to move) This makes it risky and leaves the reward. In an unrelated note i believe it is a good time to also mention Fighter scan resolution : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5530344#post5530344 Fighters had their scan resolution lowered to stop the "scoop and redeploy" exploit to try and squeeze more dps out of them making them cycle un-naturally faster. Given the information in the post i believe they are unable to do so realistically post or pre nerf and would lobby to have them brought back to original amounts of scan resolution.
Sofya Semyonova Delusions of Adequacy Get Off My Lawn 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:25:55 - [287] - Quote Since you're already going through with removing fighter assist, they should definitely keep their ability to warp. You're forcing carriers to expose themselves to more risk on the front lines, let them bring their fighters with them if they have to run away. They're significantly more expensive than other drones, and should retain the unique ability to not get left behind if you have to warp your already expensive capital ship off in an emergency.
chanfu Tillistrian Enterprises Northern Associates. 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:26:34 - [288] - Quote i have an idea Assign fighters and fighters warp should not be removed, it will destroy the feeling to fly a carrier. but this skynet thing should be hardly punished or should i say: win equal the risk. how to do that? - Carriers/Super Carriers could assign their fighters to a mate off-grid only when there is a Triage Mode fitted, and the Triage Mode will be automaticly and continuely actived as long as the fighters are off grid. - Carriers/Super Carriers should pay more risk/cost so that their Fighters could warp all through the system without lose the connection. To do that, Carriers have to overload their Drone Control Unit to send a stronger signal (i dont have Carrier, so dont know if the name is right) to stablize the connection when the drone off grid. With this Overloading the Drone Control Unit will naturally take heat damage which will destroy the Drone Control Unit say it in 5-10min. - Due to the stronger Signal broadcasting the Carriers/Supcarriers will be seen as a comic signal in system, which means they could be easily scan down with none-combat probes.
Hashini Pink Fluffy Bunny Slippers Northern Associates. 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:34:36 - [289] - Quote 1. Definitely keep fighter warping. 2. I'd keep assignment too, but just have the assigned drones take up the bandwidth of the ship you are assigning them to.
XavierVE Reasonable People Of Sound Mind 322	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:36:01 - [290] - Quote The carebear tears in here are legendary. 10/10, would read this thread again. Thank you for fixing this garbage, Fighter Assist was ruining roaming completely.
RICO Ramierz The Coven's Spoon Corner Pub 9	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:38:39 - [291] - Quote XavierVE wrote: The carebear tears in here are legendary. 10/10, would read this thread again. Thank you for fixing this garbage, Fighter Assist was ruining roaming completely. How ?
Master CJ Control-Space DARKNESS. 10	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:41:21 - [292] - Quote Simply removing theese features one by one is a bad idea imho, simply because it reduces diversity, instead nerv them, make them more tricky to accomplish, add drawbacks, but do not remove features. Eve is great because of its diversity and complexity, don't remove feature after feature until there is nothing left.
titan Multi3 HOLDER CORP BEST CORP 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:41:58 - [293] - Quote Limiting fighters/fibos to only be assignable to capital ships would seem to get the spirit of " **** sky netting inti's" without completely breaking a lot of legs at the same time. It hurts the mechanism, but keeps it functional within reason.
Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 217	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:42:37 - [294] - Quote chanfu wrote: Assign fighters and fighters warp should not be removed, it will destroy the feeling to fly a carrier. Please do explain how sitting at the edge of a force field feels like flying a carrier Carriers are, first and foremost, a logistics platform. Hence the triage module and boni to remote reps and cap transfers, SMA, fitting services. These features by themselves are well worth the price tags attached to them. Fighter assign is very much like offgrid boosting (to be removed at some time in the future as CCP stated multiple times already) and the cyno-doomsdays of the old days which got removed too ... I for one am happy to see that CCP is trying to establish some kind of consistency in their game design.
titan Multi3 HOLDER CORP BEST CORP 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:44:23 - [295] - Quote Their logistics platform is guess what, dependent on play style. Half/Half split between DPS/triage support. Instead you choose to believe YOUR play style is the only play style.
Baneken Arctic Light Inc. Arctic Light 477	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:47:25 - [296] - Quote Frankly this whole issue was a non issue until you CCP introduced the drone damage modules -> easy solution -> no modules or rigs will effect fighters -> fighter dmg drops back to max. 1200 -> problem solved because no one bothers to assign fighters any more. Or you could had made fighter warp drives behave like other warp drives but that would had been a too elegant solution wouldn't it ?
Tempora Darkbone United Angels of Eden Eve Radio Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:48:11 - [297] - Quote I think the carrier should be left as it is. look at the real world carriers jobs are to sit in the distance and offer fighter support. In EvE they cant equip any weapons other than drone. The fighters being able to warp out with you or warp to thier assist target should be left in the game. a saw a couple people say they shouldnt and its the cost of doing business if you need to make a quick escape, i agree but drones, even T2, dont cost as much as a cruiser to buy. if you want Carrier pilots to be more engage give them the ability to be more combat orientate instead of giving them the role of just logistics so the people flying them feel that putting them in danger is acceptable. Or nerf them and watch carriers just become capita; sized logistic ships and lose 90% of what makes them unique.
James Bessar Voidlight Consortium Interstellar Solutions 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:49:24 - [298] - Quote Why not set a maximum number of fighters that can be dispatched to assist to 5? SkyNet carriers with 15 aboard would become fairly useless naturally. You could also restrict assigning support fighters only to other Capital-ships (ie: an on-grid Dreadnought). If coupled with a requirement that carriers cannot assign fighters within "X" distance of a station or POS Shield, then the carrier is more at risk than it currently is, but still can be used as a strategic, rather than tactical asset, similar to RL carriers on which EVE carriers are based. It would also encourage fleets to assign more emergency cyno ships, and more close-in support of carriers if they were more exposed. Finally, the most intensive option, CCP could insert a ship module, something like a "remote fighter control link", its CPU/PG intensive (and possibly class limited), but allows the ship to receive remote assistance from a carrier. If the ship carrying the module is destroyed, or the link severed (fuel maybe? or cloak) then all fighters disengage and return to the carrier automatically. This would spare the carrier, but make destroying fighter support easier by killing the control ship. Ending fighter assist and fighter warp is not the answer. A balance needs to be achieved, but scratching these things off is just going to kick the can down the road a little ways and cause problems with carriers later.
Amak Boma Dragon Factory 78	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:49:29 - [299] - Quote allow assigning fighters on battleships battlecruisers cruisers , barges and orca/rorqyal dont allow assisting fighters on small ships
Elg'caress Estanesse HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:50:35 - [300] - Quote Hi there, Like a lot of people here, I also think that the planned solution is a cop out. Fighter assist in combination with warp is one of the most creative and unique mechanic in EVE, and outright deletion of this feature is a shame. Is it overpowered as it is now? Probably yes. So here are my thoughts on fixes: Fighter warp ability should not be tuched in any shape or form. Fighter assist nerfs/tweaks/modifications I came up with after a long day of work: 1. As already mentioned several time: no assist in a certain distance of a forcefield/POS. 2.A carrier can only assist a maximum of 5 fighters and/or to a maximum of one other player. 3.Different shipclasses can have different number of fighters assisted: Frigates:1 fighter Destroyers:2 fighters Cruisers:3 fighters Battlecruisers:4 fighters Battleships:5 fighters 4.A highslot module that grats the ability to assist fighters. 5 minutes activation time, 10 minutes recharge (of course numbers are just examples and in no way a thought through calculation). So after activation, for 5 minutes you can assign fighters, but after that they come back to you, and you have to wait 10 minutes to be able to assist the again. And of course 1 module per ship can be fitted. 5.Remote Fighter Communication Array (or some other fancy name :)). A module that allows the carrier pilot to assist one fighter. One additional module per skill level can be fitted to a maximum of five of course. Make it a highslot module to reduce maximum number of fighters (taking the slot from drone control units, reducing maximum fighter firepower by 33%), make it a medium slot module to negate omnidir stacking, make it a low slot module to negate drone damage modules. 6.Some offensive module (targeted or area) that breaks the control of assisted fighters on affected ships for a certain amount of time. Maybe a drone control breaker version for a counter to drone ships. 7.Carriers that are assisting fighters either normally or by the above mentioned modules are unable to move, maybe even after a certain amount of time after they called back their fighters. Or just eny variation of these and/or any other mechanic suggested by others. Ive read some other great ideas: triage mode needed, direct control+different fighter ability modules There are a lot of ways to treat this issue, but this outright removal of the feature is not even a decent one. After force projection nerf (which is a great thing BTW), a carriers logistic capability practicly zero (I mean logistic in the regular real life version, carrying stuff around, not "healing" other ships). Right now they are nailed to a system, so no wonder they are used the way they are (the other reason is orcourse drone mods aplying to fighters). Making through with this change will leave carriers neutered and rarely used beside awesome structure repairing and in capital sligfest serving as cannonfodder for titan DD-s. Right now the proposed change feels like this: You have a burning tooth-ache, so you decide to go to a dentist. The dentist is well known for trying everything he can to save your tooth and pulling it out is only the last option. So you walk into the room and examines your tooth and says: "Well, I can give you some medication, maybe it will help. Than if it wont, I can precicely drill it and aply a dental filling. If the problem is in the roots, it can still be treated with medicine and filling. If necessary I can build up the tooth from scratch. If there is absolutely no chance to save it, and I have to pull it out, we still have options to preserve you perfect smile, even if it wont be cheap." So you sit back in the dentist chair, calm like a well fed baby, and when you open your mouth, the nice doctor says in a troubleing tone: "But you know what? F**k it" - he drops down the precision drill and pick up a sladgehammer. And when you walk out of the room, with half the teeth than you entered in your bleeding ruin of your mouth, before the door hits your back, you hear the ddentist and his assistant shouting at you in a condescending voice: "Adapt or die!"
Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 217	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:51:53 - [301] - Quote titan Multi3 wrote: Their logistics platform is guess what, dependent on play style. Half/Half split between DPS/triage support. Instead you choose to believe YOUR play style is the only play style. You can use your carrier for mining for all I care. This is not about that. It's about a very powerful game mechanic that is hardly balanceable to begin with and very similar to other mechanics that CCP removed already or is committed to remove at some point in the future. Some people say it's a unique feature adding to the diversity of EvE. Be that as it may, though that doesn't make it a good mechanic.
Belinda HwaFang Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi 44	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:53:48 - [302] - Quote Panther X wrote: Agent Unknown wrote: Immortal Chrono Pimpin wrote: Violet Corvus wrote: Make the Fighters assignable from the same grid, just like regular drones. Carrier leaves -> Fighters unassign and follow. This forces the Carrier to stick its neck out a bit and not cower near shields. No reason to have assign if you are ongrid tbh Alltho carrier irl project power over great distance and aren't supposed to be a direct danger.] Kind of sad to see ccp killing it how lore and realistic is concerned. Carriers have crap scanres, so assigning to a fast-locking ship would get the fighters to apply damage faster. Actually, fighters and bombers had their own scan res nerfed last release, so.... no matter what your scan res is, the fighters and fb's still have to lock the target themselves. That is correct, but by assigning fighters to a smaller ship that ship can start this locking process earlier of the fighers therefore allowing damage to be applied earlier. I agree with Violet Corvus, just make it so they can be assigned on the same grid only. If the carrier (or subcap delegated leaves) leaves, they unassign and warp/orbit to follow their carrier. I understand the vision of getting rid of the "lame" fighter assist from a POS gameplay, that currently is best countered by cyno bringing in a Domesday or other very high dps cynoable/bridgable fleet, but by removing assist entirely we lose some of the tactical plays that carrier pilots with the help of subcaps can make in a capital escalation brawl. -- Fang
Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 217	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:54:53 - [303] - Quote Amak Boma wrote: allow assigning fighters on battleships battlecruisers cruisers , barges and orca/rorqyal dont allow assisting fighters on small ships That doesn't fix the problem. Even when using BS as assignee Risk/Reward would still be out of whack.
Gor Thot Illusion of Solitude. 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:56:14 - [304] - Quote Please don't remove Fighter assist It is useful in doing wormhole sites and CCP needs to quit nefing all the **** they put in their games. I'm a carrier pilot myself and I use that function. If they do that there will be a lot of unhappy people.
titan Multi3 HOLDER CORP BEST CORP 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 19:56:55 - [305] - Quote Ab'del Abu wrote: titan Multi3 wrote: Their logistics platform is guess what, dependent on play style. Half/Half split between DPS/triage support. Instead you choose to believe YOUR play style is the only play style. You can use your carrier for mining for all I care. This is not about that. It's about a very powerful game mechanic that is hardly balanceable to begin with and very similar to other mechanics that CCP removed already or is committed to remove at some point in the future. Some people say it's a unique feature adding to the diversity of EvE. Be that as it may, though that doesn't make it a good mechanic. It's powerful because it requires a large investment of isk/time. You need a very well skilled assigning toon, you need to have the capitals, and you still have to setup your own infrastructure. Limiting the mechanic to assigning to another capital class ship ( maybe just other carrier/sc ?) would be a decent way to balance the risk out, and still keep a good mechanic.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:00:40 - [306] - Quote titan Multi3 wrote: It's powerful because it requires a large investment of isk/time. You need a very well skilled assigning toon, you need to have the capitals, and you still have to setup your own infrastructure. Limiting the mechanic to assigning to another capital class ship ( maybe just other carrier/sc ?) would be a decent way to balance the risk out, and still keep a good mechanic. Remote DD and AoE DD required a well trained toon, the capital to do it and to setup an infrastructure if you didn't want to leave your titan without protection and it was removed because it was a **** mechanic.
titan Multi3 HOLDER CORP BEST CORP 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:01:33 - [307] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: titan Multi3 wrote: It's powerful because it requires a large investment of isk/time. You need a very well skilled assigning toon, you need to have the capitals, and you still have to setup your own infrastructure. Limiting the mechanic to assigning to another capital class ship ( maybe just other carrier/sc ?) would be a decent way to balance the risk out, and still keep a good mechanic. Remote DD and AoE DD required a well trained toon, the capital to do it and to setup an infrastructure if you didn't want to leave your titan without protection and it was removed because it was a **** mechanic. Comparing AOE DD's and fighter assist is a TAD of a long stretch.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:03:24 - [308] - Quote titan Multi3 wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: titan Multi3 wrote: It's powerful because it requires a large investment of isk/time. You need a very well skilled assigning toon, you need to have the capitals, and you still have to setup your own infrastructure. Limiting the mechanic to assigning to another capital class ship ( maybe just other carrier/sc ?) would be a decent way to balance the risk out, and still keep a good mechanic. Remote DD and AoE DD required a well trained toon, the capital to do it and to setup an infrastructure if you didn't want to leave your titan without protection and it was removed because it was a **** mechanic. Comparing AOE DD's and fighter assist is a TAD of a long stretch. Remote DD was kind of using a weapon system from off grid no?
titan Multi3 HOLDER CORP BEST CORP 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:05:24 - [309] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: titan Multi3 wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: titan Multi3 wrote: It's powerful because it requires a large investment of isk/time. You need a very well skilled assigning toon, you need to have the capitals, and you still have to setup your own infrastructure. Limiting the mechanic to assigning to another capital class ship ( maybe just other carrier/sc ?) would be a decent way to balance the risk out, and still keep a good mechanic. Remote DD and AoE DD required a well trained toon, the capital to do it and to setup an infrastructure if you didn't want to leave your titan without protection and it was removed because it was a **** mechanic. Comparing AOE DD's and fighter assist is a TAD of a long stretch. Remote DD was kind of using a weapon system from off grid no? That was a broken mechanic, so is sky netting to a much lesser degree. One allows a large DPS boost, the other murders an entire fleet from off grid. It's a tad different.
Kalik Hideo Boa Innovations Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:05:34 - [310] - Quote I think fighter assist should stay and still be able to warp. The thing is to make this risky for the carrier pilot so making it unable to be near a POS shield is a great idea. As soon as combat probes are on the field I doubt many carrier pilots will stay around and so warp back to the POS and hence the fighters will return to the carrier. On another note, fighters are piloted by humans, they are the only ship where you can see them in the cockpit and so don't need to have the carrier around (in theory), so if you do remove the warp feature or be able to be delegated, then your going to have to change all the fighter models as well.....
Lydia Maulerant Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind 8	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:11:18 - [311] - Quote While unpointable nullified, absurd EHP damage machines chasing you around until you cloak or leave system are kind of dumb, fighters being able to warp are pretty cool and should be preserved in some way. Since I assume them being immune to point and bubbles is a technical limitation, is it possible fighters can be made to only warp with their carrier instead of having their ability to warp totally removed? There are some tactical advantages to this, like being able to warp off grid without having to pull your fighters in addition to looking awesome.
Zingr Korsairs 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:11:32 - [312] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Remove: - fighter assist. - fighter follow in warp the target. Keep: - fighters warping with the carrier So you can send fighters only against target on grid. When the target warps off the grid fighters will NOT follow. When the carrier warps off the grid fighters will drop aggro and follow the carrier. +1 to this... except that fighters that are tackled will not and loose their connection...
XavierVE Reasonable People Of Sound Mind 322	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:18:02 - [313] - Quote RICO Ramierz wrote: How ? One Nyx assigning fighters to a single T3 is enough to kill a 20 man AF fleet with logi from the safety of POS shields. If you want to do DPS, be on grid. Pretty simple stuff, there. Fact is, a solid 75% of the people crying in this thread are renters or carebear deep null ratters. Of course they like fighter assist. Makes the game incredibly easy for them. This is EVE, not EVEasy.
EnacheV2 Letitia Dream 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:19:24 - [314] - Quote Remove fighter assist in low sec Make assist possible in 0.0 but only for carrier/assisted ships belonging to the sovereign owning alliance
Alvatore DiMarco Capricious Endeavours Ltd 3534	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:21:16 - [315] - Quote I'm going to post again, a bit more constructively this time. While I'm all for anything and everything that makes supercapitals completely worthless such that nobody would ever want to fly one again (thus effectively removing them from the game as they should be), opening the so-called "pandora's box" of fighter balancing again in order to exempt them from being eligible for drone bonuses (be they from modules or implants or ship bonuses or eel pies) seems like the best way to go and something that should be done with all possible haste. For the lore-junkies out there, fighters and fighter bombers are not drones. They are ships piloted by people. People we give no ***** about, but still not drones.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 910	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:21:59 - [316] - Quote XavierVE wrote: RICO Ramierz wrote: How ? One Nyx assigning fighters to a single T3 is enough to kill a 20 man AF fleet with logi from the safety of POS shields. If you want to do DPS, be on grid. Pretty simple stuff, there. Fact is, a solid 75% of the people crying in this thread are renters or carebear deep null ratters. Of course they like fighter assist. Makes the game incredibly easy for them. This is EVE, not EVEasy. Or you can add (proper) sig/damage scaling so fighters can't blap AFs any longer and sort that side of it far more elegantly without a knock on effect on people who might be peacefully enjoying the use of their carrier in completely unrelated ways. (Obviously it needs more changes than just that but it would be a good start without savaging a long standing feature). And yes I'm crying because its increasingly becoming a thing around here both from player demands and dev changes when something becomes a problem to nerf bat it into the ground rather than find an actual balanced fix - makes me not want to play the game any more because anything I might invest time, effort, etc. into could end up falling foul of something completely unrelated to my use and "dev nulled".
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1605	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:25:30 - [317] - Quote Rroff wrote: And yes I'm crying because its increasingly becoming a thing around here both from player demands and dev changes when something becomes a problem to nerf bat it into the ground rather than find an actual balanced fix - makes me not want to play the game any more because anything I might invest time, effort, etc. into could end up falling foul of something completely unrelated to my use and "dev nulled". You are playing an MMO. If you are not ready for this to happen, you are playing the wrong game.
Maenth The Thirteen Provinces 16	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:39:26 - [318] - Quote I think it wouldn't be good to remove fighter assist, because that's a unique and interesting tactical feature of carriers. Remove that, and we might as well just skip carriers and use dreadnoughts, right? I imagine two things could be done around the 'Skynet' issue, and maybe helping with capital ships in general. I could be mistaken, but when a ship 's mid-point is in the starbase shield then it counts as being inside the shield... but what if that rule was changed slightly? What if that being a single point of interest we had two points of interest for starbase interaction: -A) when a ship's midpoint is inside the starbase shield then its systems become disrupted/negated or whatever and at that point it can't lock targets or operate drones (and in the case of carriers, the fighters also stop or at least lose the carrier's projected ship bonuses) .... and as a ship further enters the forcefield then we eventually reach the second point of interest -B) ships (or at least the gigantic capital ships) don't benefit from forcefield protection until the vessel is entirely within the forcefield, so capital ships can still be hit when that dozen-battleship-sized chunk of themselves is prodruding from the forcefield As for fighter warping, I think it's pretty nifty and again makes carriers cool and different, without really being an overpowered feature IMO since it takes fighters away from the main battle, but adding gameplay for those who would attempt to fleeeee Drones. Drones are a means to an end. An end to the ruthless Caldari 'progress' machines. An end to the barbaric 'redemption' proposed by the Amarr. What they see as chaos shall be my perfect order, merely beyond their comprehension.
HarlyQ Amok. Goonswarm Federation 66	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:42:36 - [319] - Quote I think warping fighters should still be a mechanic.
Ama Atavuli Rolled Out Diplomatic Immunity. 84	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:43:36 - [320] - Quote Yes, remove skynetting, it's insanely broken, allowing subcaps to wield capital sized and bonused weapons is silly. But allowing them to follow both target, and owner in warp makes sense. You at least have to have your carrier on grid with the enemy before your drones will follow them. I can't count the number of times me or someone in my fleet has died to Einherjis from a Nyx or Wyvern, that have followed them in warp despite being camped in a dead-end system, until, without a timer they x-ed their client in warp and STILL died.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 686	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:45:25 - [321] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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. How about you just make it so you can't assist fighters if you're within 10km (or more) of a POS shield? Quote: 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? Er, you do know you can turn fighter warping off, right? It's not 2008 anymore.
Solairen Matsuko Holding 217	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:47:54 - [322] - 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. 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. At least in terms of Gate Camp use of Skynet, you could solve it by just preventing warping off grid. If carriers could still offer assist but it was on grid only then the carrier has to be at risk unless the fight in on the POS anyways. I understand that reclaiming fighters is quite a bit more expensive than drone left behind when you make a quick exit. So if warp was replaced some something of an emergency recall (I.e. they warp to carrier and dock immediately) then it might still work. That would prevent other from getting screwed by removal of the fighters warp.
B33R Specter Syndicate Tactical Narcotics Team 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:48:16 - [323] - Quote removing the fighter and fighter-bomber assist will reduce a lot of the "skynet" problems. The warp is the unique attribute for fighters we should keep. why? cost of the fighter. if you remove warp, make them a lot cheaper and smaller in size.
ScorpionD III Falcoes Peregrinos DARKNESS. 5	Posted - 2015.02.27 20:59:48 - [324] - Quote Admiral Whatever wrote: ScorpionD III wrote: Somethings in eve are just no sense. Why remove the assist mecanic? Risk x Reward not good enough? But who says it have to be? So Darkness is where all the CRABS from Xdeath went???? Interesting. I don't get the point. I can't talk for my alliance. I don't know who or what are this Xdeath. So, if you are trying to be sarcastic, sorry, but don't have worked. And maybe, just maybe your, commentary are off topic, and in this case i think the better is stay silent.
Martin Svendssen Strategic Production Operations 2	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:02:39 - [325] - Quote I think Nerfing the Carrier will be a huge mistake. The Fighters that can warp, is Unique Feature. All the months of training, should give some rewards, to the Owner of the Ship, and this is one of them. Removing it would be a punishing all Carrier Pilots. This is Bad. I Personally think this is a bad direction. Why is it that all the Nerfing is happening in more or less Low/Null, i mean the Jump Fatique, now also the Fighters from the Carrier should be Nerfed? Do not make sense. Let the Carrier Pilots keep there Warping Fighters, please.
Senor Shifty Caldari Provisions Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:04:01 - [326] - Quote So the new seeker NPCs can follow you in warp but your fighters cant follow players? nope I understand the thought process but let them follow in warp! assigning while on grid will fix the safe carrier issue!
raging star Circle Of Chaos 17	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:12:11 - [327] - Quote I suggest not removing fighter assist, not being able to do the assist fighter drones within range of the pos shield would be a better move
w1ndstrike Strange Energy The Bastion 17	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:12:38 - [328] - Quote keep fighter warping with the carrier, remove following a target in warp. fighters are expensive and it would be nice not to lose an entire flight from an FC warping a fleet off the field prematurely. that said, you NEED to do something to make carriers and dreads an attractive training goal again. right now there is very little reason to train for or fly one except as a personal suitcase.
Solairen Matsuko Holding 217	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:13:58 - [329] - Quote Senor Shifty wrote: So the new seeker NPCs can follow you in warp but your fighters cant follow players? nope I understand the thought process but let them follow in warp! assigning while on grid will fix the safe carrier issue! Honest question here, how would you feel about changing that from "let them follow in warp" to "MAKE them follow in warp" ? You still get the benefit of warping fighters that follow you, but you can't drop fighters, assist them, then warp yourself off to the safety of a POS. (Because the fighters are forced to warp after you). If that kind of change was made you wouldn't have to remove the assist any more either (since it would force fighters to remain on grid with the carrier, without forcing the pilot to dock them every time).
Insidious Hax. 6	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:14:01 - [330] - Quote hey ccp heres a good idea "drone modules"......... wondering why ishtars and skynetting is so over powered now? solution nerf the modules and create a smaller medium class of sentries for ishtars... skynet isnt a tactic ive ever used, but out right banning it, is a bit harsh but it is kind of funny
Brylan Grey Scope Works Overload Everything 70	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:14:28 - [331] - Quote Keep fighter warp. Allow fighters to only assist fleet mates that are on-grid with the carrier. If the fleet mate leaves the grid, the fighters stop assisting.
Vendettus Mining Industry Exile Foundation Warlords of the Deep 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:17:38 - [332] - Quote even though i only did solo/small scale pvp in eve so far and hence my view on the topic might be a bit limited but from my experience rebalancing some drone mechanics would be a healthy change for the game. fighter assist: as it works now its a mechanic which almost doesnt scale with piloting skill at all, you can easily get a thanatos to the point where ur fighters move faster then 5k ms while having more then 3k dps in total and unless your ship/fleet is able to tank the dps you will have to retreat, its pretty much a hard counter to every kiting approach, capital sized drones shouldnt be able to deal so easy with frigates/destroyers/cruisers. on top of that fighter assist also scales way to good with having links/snakes, everyone who encountered linked and snaked interceptors or garmurs will know what i mean, very hard to kill on their own but with 1k+ dps assisted absolutely terrifying. fighter following in warp: whats the point of this anyways ? it takes active dps time from the carrier pilot on the current grid in fleet fights which is bad. in solo/small scale situations you have to re enter or leave the system to get rid of the fighters and to continue playing. removing drone assist entirely: this would certainly lead to a situation where large/med scale players would be forced to develop more decent piloting skills with drone interaction and situational awareness in order to work efficiently as a fleet. the worst thing about drone assist from my perspective is something else though, any form of camp with a sensor boosted ship which has drones asigned to it is way more efficient then it should be. maybe you could consider something else about drone assist as well: if you assist your drones to a ship, the drones have their normal lock time + your ships lock time on a target.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 596	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:25:25 - [333] - Quote I don't really care that fighters follow targets in warp. I've never been in a situation where this was actually that helpful. I don't see why you want to remove it though, but if you must, fine. What I'm pretty sure is completely unnecessary is removing the ability for fighters to warp after their parent carrier. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Rune Scorpio Volatile Instability Resonance. 29	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:25:42 - [334] - Quote Fighter assist is an important mechanic to carriers/supers. Removing that will make them unused by a large number of people that currently do. Just make it so people cant hug a POS and assign them. Please stop removing good features and just fix the cheesy aspects instead.
Shun Makoto Caldari Independent Navy Reserve The Fourth District 54	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:26:03 - [335] - Quote Create a limitation on how close to a POS a Carrier can be and apply fighter assist. I don't see the need of removing fighter assist completely. It hampers tactical options of FCs. Caldari Independant Navy Reserve Fourth District Patriot Faction Former 22nd BRDU - Retired Milita Wing Commander
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 597	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:27:33 - [336] - Quote omfg is rise even serious "it can be frustrating to have your fighters warp off grid" Yeah, that's why we have the option to turn this ** off. Come on, man. If you're going to be making balance changes to the game, you should at least understand the ***** mechanics that you're working on. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Solairen Matsuko Holding 217	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:31:07 - [337] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: I don't really care that fighters follow targets in warp. I've never been in a situation where this was actually that helpful. I don't see why you want to remove it though, but if you must, fine. What I'm pretty sure is completely unnecessary is removing the ability for fighters to warp after their parent carrier. Generally problem isn't figthers following a target in warp, it's them being assisted away, and then following the assisted ship into warp. Allowing you to park a carrier on the edge of a POS, while another ship uses the entire DPS of that carrier of grid for a gate camp, or ratting, or whatever. With 0 risk to the carrier and massive bonus for the more expendable ship. CCP is saying this problem can be fixed by EITHER removing the fighter assist (the current planned change) OR by removing fighter warp (offer to community to decide between the two). Personally i think the community has some better options for fixing the issue. Some suggested removing ability to assist next to a POS. Other make fighters warp, but only to the grid the carrier is on. Similar suggestion, only allow assist of fighters while on grid. To me these are all better suggestions than removing a feature.
Komodo Askold No Code of Conduct Fluffeh Bunneh Murder Squad 305	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:33:07 - [338] - Quote I can't speak for the drone assist thing. However, I do can provide an idea for the whole "warp or not warp" thing. In fact I think it is a very simple solution: just add a checkbox on the "Drone Options" menu which forces your fighter(bomber)s to warp or not to warp after their targets. Something like: [Checkbox] Fighters pursue targets into warp Hope this helps.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 597	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:33:50 - [339] - Quote Solairen wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: I don't really care that fighters follow targets in warp. I've never been in a situation where this was actually that helpful. I don't see why you want to remove it though, but if you must, fine. What I'm pretty sure is completely unnecessary is removing the ability for fighters to warp after their parent carrier. Generally problem isn't figthers following a target in warp, it's them being assisted away, and then following the assisted ship into warp. Allowing you to park a carrier on the edge of a POS, while another ship uses the entire DPS of that carrier of grid for a gate camp, or ratting, or whatever. With 0 risk to the carrier and massive bonus for the more expendable ship. CCP is saying this problem can be fixed by EITHER removing the fighter assist (the current planned change) OR by removing fighter warp (offer to community to decide between the two). No, you misread the devblog. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Svarii Acclimatization 67	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:34:35 - [340] - Quote If you MUST, fine. Take away assist. But don't take away their warp drive...
Solairen Matsuko Holding 217	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:36:28 - [341] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Solairen wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: I don't really care that fighters follow targets in warp. I've never been in a situation where this was actually that helpful. I don't see why you want to remove it though, but if you must, fine. What I'm pretty sure is completely unnecessary is removing the ability for fighters to warp after their parent carrier. Generally problem isn't figthers following a target in warp, it's them being assisted away, and then following the assisted ship into warp. Allowing you to park a carrier on the edge of a POS, while another ship uses the entire DPS of that carrier of grid for a gate camp, or ratting, or whatever. With 0 risk to the carrier and massive bonus for the more expendable ship. CCP is saying this problem can be fixed by EITHER removing the fighter assist (the current planned change) OR by removing fighter warp (offer to community to decide between the two). No, you misread the devblog. No... you did. See the final sentance. CCP Rise wrote: As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla. 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. Clearly says remove warp OR leave it in without assist.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 913	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:38:52 - [342] - Quote ^^ They can remove assist if they want :D just leave in assignment :P
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1104	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:39:12 - [343] - Quote Done and gone. Moving on. Yaay!!!!
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 598	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:39:27 - [344] - Quote Komodo Askold wrote: I can't speak for the drone assist thing. However, I do can provide an idea for the whole "warp or not warp" thing. In fact I think it is a very simple solution: just add a checkbox on the "Drone Options" menu which forces your fighter(bomber)s to warp or not to warp after their targets. Something like: [Checkbox] Fighters pursue targets into warp Hope this helps. Yeah if only CCP could put such a thing into the game. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 598	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:42:39 - [345] - Quote Solairen wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Solairen wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: I don't really care that fighters follow targets in warp. I've never been in a situation where this was actually that helpful. I don't see why you want to remove it though, but if you must, fine. What I'm pretty sure is completely unnecessary is removing the ability for fighters to warp after their parent carrier. Generally problem isn't figthers following a target in warp, it's them being assisted away, and then following the assisted ship into warp. Allowing you to park a carrier on the edge of a POS, while another ship uses the entire DPS of that carrier of grid for a gate camp, or ratting, or whatever. With 0 risk to the carrier and massive bonus for the more expendable ship. CCP is saying this problem can be fixed by EITHER removing the fighter assist (the current planned change) OR by removing fighter warp (offer to community to decide between the two). No, you misread the devblog. No... you did. See the final sentance. CCP Rise wrote: As announced last night on the o7 show, we have a list of high-impact balance changes planned for Scylla. 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. Clearly says remove warp OR leave it in without assist. "Additional notes: Removing fighter assist raises the question of whether or not fighters should still warp." Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Garnt TheBrobarian Hole Violence Whole Squid 23	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:43:14 - [346] - Quote Late to the party and not gonna read 18 pages, but wanted to say something. Please, for the love of all things good and holy, stick to your guns on this one. Get rid of assign, get rid of warp. Anyone calling them good or interesting mechanics is either entirely disingenuous or hopelessly deluded. People begging for you to roll back the changes aren't looking for gameplay, they're looking for ways to avoid it.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 913	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:44:56 - [347] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: I'm still looking for a reason why to keep the warping function with fighters. The only argument that people have come forward with is that they are expensive, and that its unique. is... Is that it? If you want to explain it to me like I am five, I'll listen. Heck CCP is here ready to listen. So please do. Why is this ability needed for Carriers and Supers? Why does the capital need a way to chase ships all over the system? I can see it being a bigger deal with supers as their FBs are their main teeth (if they have fighters its usually just a token amount) unlike carriers where you still have sentries and a myriad of drones to fall back on.
Tiberian Deci Sleeper Slumber Party Test Alliance Please Ignore 31	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:47:23 - [348] - Quote Apok Salzak wrote: Let get this straight. You post a Scope Video about Carriers getting killed by rats and now you are nerfing them? WTS Useless Cap Pilot. If your cap pilot is useless without fighter assign you're doing cap pilots wrong m8.
Solairen Matsuko Holding 217	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:47:24 - [349] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: "Additional notes: Removing fighter assist raises the question of whether or not fighters should still warp." I never said they didn't raise it as a question or option. I said they presented is as an either/or. 1 change basically makes the other 1 less useful, so they ask if the community wants it changed, left alone, or something else changed. I think we are saying same thing but from different perspectives.
Igor Nappi Perkone Caldari State 99	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:48:06 - [350] - Quote Big thumbs up for removing these two game breaking mechanics. Furthermore, I think that links must be removed from the game.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 598	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:49:11 - [351] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: I've yet to see an actual argument to keeping fighters going to warp besides "please don't nerf they cost me money". I hate being harsh but I haven't read one yet There doesn't have to be one, because there hasn't been any actual argument for removing it. That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence. Solairen wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: "Additional notes: Removing fighter assist raises the question of whether or not fighters should still warp." I never said they didn't raise it as a question or option. I said they presented is as an either/or. 1 change basically makes the other 1 less useful, so they ask if the community wants it changed, left alone, or something else changed. I think we are saying same thing but from different perspectives. No, they didn't present it as an either/or. It's "we're removing fighter assist, would you also like us to remove fighter warp?" Not, "we're probably going to remove fighter assist, but we might be convinced to remove fighter warp instead." Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 688	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:51:27 - [352] - Quote Igor Nappi wrote: two game breaking mechanics. [Citation needed]
Davir Sometaww Snuff Box Snuffed Out 21	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:55:24 - [353] - Quote Immortal Chrono Pimpin wrote: Davir Sometaww wrote: Simple fix without ruinning this unique concept. Just have pos shields interrupt carrier interaction with its fighters on a 100 km radius. Meaning you can't assign fighters on pos shields You can sit in a anchored online pos without the shield up and assist fighters, As soon as you are in real danger you put in a pos pw and shield goes up. Well guess what? Simple fix; Carriers anywhere near a anchored online pos / Online pos with shield - can't assign fighters within 100km radius. Done and done.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 599	Posted - 2015.02.27 21:56:58 - [354] - Quote If CCP were actually interested in increasing risk for capital ships, they'd explore alternative methods beyond removing fighter assign. If you remove a function that a ship has, then people don't use it for that anymore. Those people who were assisting fighters aren't suddenly going to bring their carriers into fights where they were previously assisting - they just won't assist anymore. If you instead made it so that fighter assist cannot be done within, say, 20 km of POS forcefields, and that fighters automatically warp back to the carrier as soon as it warps or gets within 20 km of the force field, then they'd still assist, they'd just accept more risk in doing so. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Veetor Nara Jumpstart Academy 21	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:00:18 - [355] - Quote I'd advise against this, just because I want to try what it's like and I'm just 20days away from it.
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 55	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:00:57 - [356] - Quote Igor Nappi wrote: Big thumbs up for removing these two game breaking mechanics. How is it "broken"? Explain? Carriers and Super carriers are force projectors. Just because you can't tackle them with your interceptor and pop them solo doesn't mean that it's broken. The mechanic as it is is controversial at worst. Some hate it, some like it, some are indifferent. But to say that the mechanic is broken without any explanation is just nonsense.. One thing that does need to be addressed is the fact that there is no sign of a trade off for those of us who are heavily invested in Fighters and Fighter Bombers. It's a logistical nightmare for us super pilots to replenish our stocks without the aid of the largest of industrial ships. If warp is taken away from them, then you need to either 1) change fighter and bomber size again to allow us more flights in the drone bay or 2) change the drone bay size again to allow us more flights in the drone bay or 3) both to give us a "hey sorry we have been kicking your asses with the nerf bat the past couple releases, but here's a bone for ya to show that we do respect you as a subscriber" 4) STOP THE MADNESS My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
exiik Shardani Terpene Conglomerate 25	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:01:31 - [357] - Quote do not remove that mechanic, just make something like "dust band-witch" it means: frig can control only one fighter dessie can contro 1-2 cruiser can control 2-3 BC can control 3-4 BB+ can control 4-5 I think it eliminate frig+skynet gatecamps and still allow use skynets for ratting, or interesting support (I think ppl defending system need have a little off-grid support).
Igor Nappi Perkone Caldari State 99	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:05:22 - [358] - Quote Forgot to add, the nullbot tears in this thread are absolutely delicious. Furthermore, I think that links must be removed from the game.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 599	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:07:17 - [359] - Quote Igor Nappi wrote: Forgot to add, the nullbot tears in this thread are absolutely delicious. Thanks for establishing that you are indeed arguing from emotion. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Iron Skin CoverShell Nuwa Foundation Fraternity. 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:08:10 - [360] - Quote Oh My God , please keep cool headed our boss, i suggest , you can make a Special Module (like Siege Module) to keep the carrier KEEP 50KM off the POS , and CANNOT CHANGE the SHIP fit. Just....don't delete our carrier please
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 56	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:12:55 - [361] - Quote Igor Nappi wrote: Forgot to add, the nullbot tears in this thread are absolutely delicious. So you assume that anyone who lives in nullsec and has a carrier is a bot? How droll. Please keep the tinfoil hat on. Your argument is invalid because reasons. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 599	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:22:17 - [362] - Quote Panther X wrote: Igor Nappi wrote: Forgot to add, the nullbot tears in this thread are absolutely delicious. So you assume that anyone who lives in nullsec and has a carrier is a bot? How droll. Please keep the tinfoil hat on. Your argument is invalid because reasons. The number of fallacies his like have been committing is pretty high: Appeal to spite: "This hurts nullbears, so I'm all for it." Genetic fallacy: "Nullbears are arguing for it, so it must be bad." Fallacy of composition: "Some people have been known to bot with carriers, so they're all botters." Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
iwasatoad AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing 14	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:27:10 - [363] - Quote here is a real simple fix Leave every thing the way it is now and make it possible to point fighters and make fighters provide kill mails if killed... Let's face it risk Vs reward there is no risk in sending out fighters because even if they die it does not hurt a kill board if they die. get rid of that and now there is reward to killing fighters other than just getting DPS off the field. Removing the ability to send fighters to players will just cause no one to use them in PVP unless large scale any more as the risk it to large for little reward. Not to mention removing this ability only helps larger groups win every time yet again. The numerical advantage of being able to send fighters out is only used because of pesky 3km's ships playing gate games and fast warp games to move non stop an have no risk because they can just keep moving so removing the ability only make them now just warp to a dead safe cause you to scann them down warp there only to have them to warp off once you land on grid. That alone is the only reason to send fighters out so that you can force them to keep moving and or allow your smaller numbers attack larger numbers. because let's face it sending out 10 fighters that have crap tracking against frigs fast cruisers is less useful than putting for example a HAC on the field that will do the same damage but have a better rate of killing them. Witch will only make them warp off and just stay pointed to there next warp out. and then it goes round again scan them down land on grid they warp this change would only lead to less content as i and a lot of others will not put cap's on the field as the risk vs reward then is not there i take huge risk with very little reward even if i get the kill with a huge lock time Simple FIX Make fighters able to be pointed and generate kill mails quite simple fix. send 10 fighters out at 20 mill a pop that's 200 million in kill mails now on the field about equal to putting a HAC on the field but not as effective all the while forcing the target to warp around and not just play the 300km range game to be a pest all day while giving the hostile the ability to warp off land point the fighters and decide if he can take on the fighters witch would be the same as facing a HAC or keep moving on. This would also bring up the point that if this were to be a true idea worth doing then fighters would also need the ability to point targets again risk vs reward you should not be able to point a fighter so it cannot leave but be able to shoot it with out the worry of not being able to warp off. Simply put all you will do by removing the ability to send out fighters to fleet members is cause more scaning warping games that lead's to no content game play as when some one comes in they can just warp off again and again. Witch is how it happens now if you do not have fighters to chase them, and once more on that i know i will never put 2 billion isk on the field if the enemy is all in frigs and cruiser the lock time is to big and i would be much more effective just putting a hack or dom on the field forcing them to warp off or die and will not proceed to play the scan warp game that will never get you a kill unless they are that stupid and not looking at there overview. But this would be some thing that would make game play more viable and it would make since so like most things in the world let's not do it let's nerff capitals even more so that no one ever uses them any more and make it point less to have one because lest face it as of right now it's the only thing they are good at for pvp as a logi fleet cost lest and rep's the same and cost a lot less as well as a hac or even a BC cost less and will give you the same result as putting a capital on the field with a lot less risk unless blobing witch is not the problem coming from the people whining
eiedu Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 13	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:28:48 - [364] - Quote I say, Make fighters a class of normal drones. where off-grid assignment isn't allowed, but on-grid assignment is okay. Then there's the thing where they can warp. You could keep that, but make it so that they only warp where the carrier is warping.
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 56	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:35:13 - [365] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Panther X wrote: Igor Nappi wrote: Forgot to add, the nullbot tears in this thread are absolutely delicious. So you assume that anyone who lives in nullsec and has a carrier is a bot? How droll. Please keep the tinfoil hat on. Your argument is invalid because reasons. The number of fallacies his like have been committing is pretty high: Appeal to spite: "This hurts nullbears, so I'm all for it." Genetic fallacy: "Nullbears are arguing for it, so it must be bad." Fallacy of composition: "Some people have been known to bot with carriers, so they're all botters." +1 See not everyone Grr's Goons.... (Grr Goons) My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 1434	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:37:36 - [366] - Quote Great change. The Tears Must Flow
octahexx Charante Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 82	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:37:38 - [367] - Quote 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...
Shilalasar Dead Sky Inc. 150	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:40:00 - [368] - Quote It is funny how many people come up with "great" ideas to keep this mechanic without thinking 30 seconds about how they do not change anything in the risk department or the added risk is supereasy to circumvent. If you want to use your carriers get them on grid. It is not like they were actually expensive, fragile or defenseless. Do carriers need a little extra for their nontriage role? Probably, but riskfree-dps-projection is not it.
Dedbforucme PH0ENIX COMPANY Phoenix Company Alliance 3	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:41:09 - [369] - Quote Getting rid of Skynet is absurd and makes using super capitals ships (IE Nyx, Aeon, Wyvern, Hel) pointless to fly and you are just sitting an expensive paper weights because they are 20+ billion isk or 550 plus dollars to do nothing with and not worth training towards. Also by getting rid of the ability to have fighters warp just makes carriers (IE: Nidhoggur, Thanatos, Chimera, Archon) not worth using in PVE because every time you have it in a site and a neutral or hostile comes into system chances are you are leaving behind 250-300 mil worth of fighters behind to not lose your 3-4 bil carrier. Instead of getting rid Skynet make it only usable in systems your corp and/or alliance has sov. , or make them only assignable to battleship classes and above if the issue is having them assigned to frigates and cruisers, because making these changes essentially guts all capital ship pilots and their time spent training a waste of time when they could have been training to fly a perfect marauder or something.
RogueHunteer Perkone Caldari State 3	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:50:37 - [370] - Quote CSM said to happen since all nerfs are coming, just remove all capitals and refund the SP. problem solve. no one wants to play with all nerfs roling out...
Balani ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx 2	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:52:41 - [371] - Quote remove scaps and remove Fighters remap all cap + fighter skills _P the game is mutating to a pure pvp sandbox where pve has no room.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 914	Posted - 2015.02.27 22:58:03 - [372] - Quote RogueHunteer wrote: CSM said to happen since all nerfs are coming, just remove all capitals and refund the SP. problem solve. no one wants to play with all nerfs roling out... Not everyone plays flavour of the month, I pretty much got into the game because it was a "sandbox" and I like capitals (and 1-2 other things) a lot of what draws other people to the game leaves me unaffected i.e. flying around in an ishtar or bomber I get no enjoyment from at all.
Raz Destructor Parallax Shift The Periphery 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:03:15 - [373] - Quote Make a Drone Delegation Module that acts like the triage, but allows you to use fighters while in the mode. And have it disable movement like the triage so you can get bumped right out the other side of a POS bubble before you come out of the mode. The idea is to make it riskier, not take away the potential reward of killing one. You don't want to alienate everybody who has a carrier and does Skynetting because they never get to use their carrier otherwise. Maybe you should add some features that make the carrier more fun to use and lose instead of just cutting existing features because it is faster, easier, and cheaper.
RogueHunteer Perkone Caldari State 3	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:06:42 - [374] - Quote Rroff wrote: RogueHunteer wrote: CSM said to happen since all nerfs are coming, just remove all capitals and refund the SP. problem solve. no one wants to play with all nerfs roling out... Not everyone plays flavour of the month, I pretty much got into the game because it was a "sandbox" and I like capitals (and 1-2 other things) a lot of what draws other people to the game leaves me unaffected i.e. flying around in an ishtar or bomber I get no enjoyment from at all. the way ccp is going about nerfing all capitals to the ground and do nothing to correct the problem is clearly better to remove them all. Don't get me wrong i love capital ships, but if nerfs keep rolling out no point. They need to hit it all at once instead of re-blanceing all other ships. It's time it looks at 6 years later. I don't see why we can't sit down brain storm some ideas on roles for current. At this time i do ccp so open it's doors too feed back on capitals. make a TOPIC and let the feedback role in it and see were it can go.
Bertka Gaterau Nuclear Midnight 12	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:09:20 - [375] - Quote Here is something to think about, what if we allow the assignment of fighters but make it dependent on the available drone bandwidth of the ship being assigned. As an example: a domi with 125mbit drone bandwidth. If it has 5 sentries or heavies of its own out, then you cannot assign it any fighters. If it has no drones out, then a full complement of 5 fighters can be assigned. Now if the domi has 5 fighters assigned and decides that it wants to deploy 5 lights to go after frigs, then 1 fighter warps off and goes back to the carrier. Is this perfect, no. Is it interesting, I think so. Could be a way to nerf skynet without killing it completely, and this could also be extended to all drone assigning which would require every person in the fleet to handle their own drones (that was nerfed previously). As a counter to the person who doesnt want to leave fighters on field when warping a carrier off due to neutral while ratting. Warp to the site at range, align to a warp out point, stop your carrier, drop sentries. If you need to leave in a hurry, pull your drones, tell your carrier to warp to your pos or safe spot or whatever, pulse your mwd once. You should be able to get out before you get caught.
NeoShocker Oppose Militancy and Neutralize Invasion. Advent of Fate 207	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:11:41 - [376] - Quote For fighter assist, rather than removing as whole, maybe set it only to work for specific class of ships? Like only battlecruiser ships and above? And I'd like to keep the fighters being able to warp.
Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 176	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:12:16 - [377] - Quote Dedbforucme wrote: Getting rid of Skynet is absurd and makes using super capitals ships (IE Nyx, Aeon, Wyvern, Hel) pointless to fly and you are just sitting an expensive paper weights because they are 20+ billion isk or 550 plus dollars to do nothing with and not worth training towards. Also by getting rid of the ability to have fighters warp just makes carriers (IE: Nidhoggur, Thanatos, Chimera, Archon) not worth using in PVE because every time you have it in a site and a neutral or hostile comes into system chances are you are leaving behind 250-300 mil worth of fighters behind to not lose your 3-4 bil carrier. Instead of getting rid Skynet make it only usable in systems your corp and/or alliance has sov. , or make them only assignable to battleship classes and above if the issue is having them assigned to frigates and cruisers, because making these changes essentially guts all capital ship pilots and their time spent training a waste of time when they could have been training to fly a perfect marauder or something. I am a capital pilot, and I do not feel these changes ruin my experience. Carriers are still extremely powerful. Rather they have the potential to make it a more exciting game - man up and put some assets on the field, you might just have some fun with them. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
Hicksimus Xion Limited Resonance. 543	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:13:11 - [378] - Quote I like that bridging subcap fleets is super safe and effective but instead we're here attacking something that is much more of a niche. Good job CCP! Recruitment Officer: What type of a pilot are you? Me: I've been described as a Ray Charles with Parkinsons and a drinking problem.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 600	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:14:52 - [379] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: I am a capital pilot, and I do not feel these changes ruin my experience. Carriers are still extremely powerful. Rather they have the potential to make it a more exciting game - man up and put some assets on the field, you might just have some fun with them. People who were already doing that will still do it. People who weren't doing it aren't going to start just because you took away fighter assist. In any case, I'll reiterate. I'm fine with removing fighter assist, but once that's removed there seems to be no reason whatsoever to remove fighter warping. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Rattman Van Diemen's Demise Pandemic Legion 36	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:25:43 - [380] - Quote Make them use bandwidth from what they are assigned to. Dont remove the capabilities
VolatileVoid ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx 45	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:28:40 - [381] - Quote I will do some speculation. We got drifter now and they got a anti capital doomsday. With fighter assist it would not be that hard to kill them. The drifter have something todo with future releases. So now fighter assist needs to be removed because ppl. with carrier would have an advantage against the drifter. Doesn't matter that supercarrier render kind of useless because same happened to titans already. We need more speculation on this.
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 236	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:29:38 - [382] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Dedbforucme wrote: Getting rid of Skynet is absurd and makes using super capitals ships (IE Nyx, Aeon, Wyvern, Hel) pointless to fly and you are just sitting an expensive paper weights because they are 20+ billion isk or 550 plus dollars to do nothing with and not worth training towards. Also by getting rid of the ability to have fighters warp just makes carriers (IE: Nidhoggur, Thanatos, Chimera, Archon) not worth using in PVE because every time you have it in a site and a neutral or hostile comes into system chances are you are leaving behind 250-300 mil worth of fighters behind to not lose your 3-4 bil carrier. Instead of getting rid Skynet make it only usable in systems your corp and/or alliance has sov. , or make them only assignable to battleship classes and above if the issue is having them assigned to frigates and cruisers, because making these changes essentially guts all capital ship pilots and their time spent training a waste of time when they could have been training to fly a perfect marauder or something. I am a capital pilot, and I do not feel these changes ruin my experience. Carriers are still extremely powerful. Rather they have the potential to make it a more exciting game - man up and put some assets on the field, you might just have some fun with them. What suggestion would you give to someone who wants to use their carrier, but is not a part of a huge alliance, and is surrounded by other, violent, huge alliances who routinly drop on anything and everything bigger than a battleship with overpowering numbers and probably a couple titans? In that kind of environment, what kind of use is a carrier and fighters?
Bertka Gaterau Nuclear Midnight 13	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:31:15 - [383] - Quote Arent we taught from the beginning not to fly something you cant afford to lose? Just because you live in hostile area doesnt make this any more true.
GothicNightmare Stealth Tactics and Reconnaissance Service Racking Discaprine 3	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:31:28 - [384] - Quote Ok... this... this cannot be. Fighter assist is a unique and viable option and should remain. When the drone bay of supers was nerfed to ONLY fighters and fighterbombers you removed their flexibility to do anything but slap another capital around or take a nap while shooting a stationary object (structure grinding). Titans took a hit when their weapons vs. subcaps was nerfed into the ground. The Phoebe patch took a huge chunk out of roaming and ganking with supers (am I the only one who's noticed its taken longer for caps to show up as the top kills on EVE Kill). What I'm saying is, supers have already lost a lot of usefulness and taken away a lot of fun and diversity and seeing action, to the point its almost not worth owning or logging on. The problem, is not fighter assist, it's what you can assist your fighters to. A fleet of 30 stealth bombers killing a TCU on a gate with a dozen carriers/supers assisting is a little absurd. How about this... no drone bay, no assist. You can already assist 50 drones to any single ship but the ship is on grid and still using your bandwidth. Fighters take 25 bandwidth, use that. If a cruiser only has 25mb drone bay, it can only recieve 1 fighter, a battlecruiser with 50mb can only recieve 2. This diversifies who all can recieve the assist. You already can't assign fighterbombers you have to be on grid to use them, but fighters should remain unique on how they can be used over other drones. This would also reduce the amount of carriers fielding fighters, instead of 1 carrier giving 10 fighters to 2 people, if he has to give his fighters to 3-5 people that heavily reduces the presence of overwhelming dps. Also, I hate to be "that guy" who cries for the little guy but... think of the little guy! A larger corp or alliance can affordd the numbers to not need a defense like that, but smaller ones use whatever force multipliers available (#suddenlyfalcon) to give themselves a fighting chance in gate camps or other attacking forces. You take away fighter assisting and you severely impair any ability to give the little guy a fighting chance in a situation that by normal standards they could not. If you have access to a carrier or a super, enjoy the available options it provides. #NB4Death2AllSupers
XavierVE Reasonable People Of Sound Mind 323	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:32:51 - [385] - Quote Jennifer Maxwell wrote: What suggestion would you give to someone who wants to use their carrier, but is not a part of a huge alliance, and is surrounded by other, violent, huge alliances who routinly drop on anything and everything bigger than a battleship with overpowering numbers and probably a couple titans? In that kind of environment, what kind of use is a carrier and fighters? Use your carrier and fighters to make some friends.
Buzz Kill Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:34:22 - [386] - Quote Removing Assign fighters from carriers is a big mistake you should drop the max assigned to 1 fighter per 25 bandwith so your little ships will only get 1 fighter or none if you really do remove the assign function from carriers you will need to quickly find a new useful way to use carriers as you have totally removed the whole reason I had to own a carrier. they dont qualify for the 90% jump fatigue reduction that JF enjoy but you reduce carriers combat usefulness making them more and more a transport ship. What is wrong with assigning fighters and doing some ratting? NOTHING Thats what why break ratting. I have recently been involved in a fight where the enemy had fighters assigned we still over came their numbers and made kills, telling 40 people to target fighters was a easy way to get the fighters to run to safety. as an added bonus we killed some of their expensive fighters worth more than some of their ships.
Isaac Norduke Mercenarius Mercded 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:41:11 - [387] - Quote Axloth Okiah wrote: How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable? love it. Keep Assist. Learn to love Skynet. However place a range on the assist say 5 AU...?
Galen Dnari Damage Unlimited 22	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:46:44 - [388] - Quote The history of warfare is a history of development of two things: ways to overcome the enemy's "impregnable" defenses (usually via better, more powerful weapons), and ways to counter the enemy's "invincible" weapons. If there's a problem with fighters being too powerful, come with with a weapon or EW system that better deals with the threat. Don't just change the engineering capabilities of the weapon builders (ie., yesterday Mr. fighter builder could build a fighter that can be assigned to assist another ship, today he can't build it, and in fact the ones he already built can suddenly no longer do it. It's like "I pull out my .45 and start shooting at the enemy." "Sorry, but as of today, and forevermore, your .45 only shoots marshmallows." http://eveboard.com/ub/1939472205-31.png
Isaac Norduke Mercenarius Mercded 1	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:48:47 - [389] - Quote Galen Dnari wrote: The history of warfare is a history of development of two things: ways to overcome the enemy's "impregnable" defenses (usually via better, more powerful weapons), and ways to counter the enemy's "invincible" weapons. If there's a problem with fighters being too powerful, come with with a weapon or EW system that better deals with the threat. Don't just change the engineering capabilities of the weapon builders (ie., yesterday Mr. fighter builder could build a fighter that can be assigned to assist another ship, today he can't build it, and in fact the ones he already built can suddenly no longer do it. It's like "I pull out my .45 and start shooting at the enemy." "Sorry, but as of today, and forevermore, your .45 only shoots marshmallows." LOL
Drigo Segvian Black Fox Marauders Spaceship Bebop 8	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:49:22 - [390] - Quote End fighter assist. Down with Sky net.
Adilily Arzi PH0ENIX COMPANY Phoenix Company Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:50:54 - [391] - Quote Drigo Segvian wrote: End fighter assist. Down with Sky net. Down with your mom. heheheh
Saffear Stormrage sleep Deprivation INC. LLC Skeleton Crew. 2	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:52:28 - [392] - Quote Fighters should warp, they , according to lore, are individually piloted, have a place in Valkyrie and should therefore Warp, follow if set too, or keep up with you, after all fighters and their pilots are not as easy to replace,
Nokin Niam Ship Trading Company Fidelas Constans 10	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:53:48 - [393] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Pomponius Sabinus wrote: Well it seems like you realised the problem is risk vs reward while asigning fighters from the edge of a POS FF. But instead of making it more interesting by finding some way to make it more dangerous to asign fighters you sadly take the easy way out and just remove it. It would be way more interesting for the game if you found a way to make carriers that asigned fighters more vulnerable. The best way to adress this Problem would be to not allow asigning fighters within a certain distance to a POS. This will create a lot of interesting encounters / fights over carier/super carriers that are caught while they asigned fighters. Concerning fighter warp there is no problem with that. People that don't want it can hit the don't follow button and all is fine. +1 Especially the bolded part. Just spitballing here, but in addition to not being able to deploy fighters near POSs or stations (and taking away bonuses from assigned fighters), maybe a 'siege-like' module that has to be activated for ships to assign fighters, that locks the carrier or SC in place for at least 5 minutes. And/Or 'recieving ship' bandwidth limitations (if a ship has no drone bay, it can't use fighters, if a ship can deploy 5 sentries it can accept 5 fighters etc, which kills small ship 'Skynetting'). I don't know how much of a nightmare that would be from a programming stand point so I offer the above with a big grain of layman's salt lol, but the point is CCP should be making things more interesting, not less. Again +1 I like this idea... Or just change it to immobile carriers if they assign their Fighters offgrid and moveable if they are on grid with the ship they assist to... Also the idea of having certain distances set to celestials is great! Just removing it would kill a EVE unique and also Carrier unique game mechanic that totally removes the point of carriers^^ Its called carrier for a certain reason and if they are not equipped with a good load of different drone mechanics they are not to be called carriers anymore (One could just call em: Da Real BIG Logistics)
Alexis Nightwish 97	Posted - 2015.02.27 23:59:59 - [394] - Quote A lot of people are suggesting using the assistee ship's bandwidth to determine how many fighters can be assigned. The problem with this idea is the gross disparity of bandwidth amongst ships. The Ishtar and the VNI have 125mb but are cruisers. A Raven has 25mb and is a battleship. We already have problems with the Ishtar and VNI; we don't need more. No, as I stated earlier all drones from lights to fighter bombers should just lose any and all bonuses when they are assigned (dropping down to their base stats), and fighters/FBs should auto recall to the carrier/SC if it comes within a set range of an "escape route" (station, POS, stargate, etc.). I would NOT be opposed to assigned fighters/FBs keeping their host ships' bonuses if the host ship was on grid with them. Risking the parent ship should have a reward attached. CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
Brutus Voss Covert Reconnaissance Inc. 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:01:35 - [395] - Quote How about making carriers/super carriers a system wide beacon to warp to while they have their fighters on assist? It would make them more vulnerable and you could just say that they are easier to detect while brodcasting to their fighters. And maybe give them a small added distance from the forcefield because of interference with the tower communication or some explanation like that.
Garuda Nil Tailender 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:03:19 - [396] - Quote 1) Keep fighter assist 2) Keep fighter warp 3) Make fighters warp disruptable 4) Disable drone assist within 50 km of POS shields Removing fighter assist is an easy and frankly stupid solution to a problem that is not related to Fighters as much as to POS shields. EDIT: Going by the same logic, I would propose making so that Titans can't bridge while being half inside the shields, because they are effectively very safe in that situation, which is very much akin to "skynetting". Don't disappoint me, Rise. Removing fighter assist and warp is a crap way of dealing with this issue.
Celesae Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension 16	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:10:34 - [397] - Quote No. Just no. This is what made carriers unique and interesting to use. I made a dedicated account for carriers. Wasted time and money for me and many others if this happens. Some of the offered solutions are good, like minimal range to a POS before you can off-grid assist (delegate) - you still want to be able to use them if you're fighting on a POS. Stations are a risk for carriers because of bumping, so I'm not keen on a minimal range there - plus if you dock, very good chance you lose your fighters or spend a lot of time probing them down. There are a lot of other issues with gameplay/mechanics that need to be dealt with, with much bigger implications.Why waste your time here with carriers? I really hate how CCP seems to be focused on nerfing the good things rather than strengthening the bad things - for example, you're going after Ishtars (which, hey, could use some tweaking maybe, but whatever) instead of improving the unused HACs/subcaps - when's the last time anyone ever saw a Sacrilege in serious use? Or a Ferox, and so on? Also, the myth that is "balance" is exactly that - these are military ships. There is no balance. The only balance would be if everything were exactly the same. I relish the idea that Amarr came up with a T3 Destroyer first - improvements to all ships should be treated in similar fashion, where each empire (and pirate faction) is trying to one-up or react to the technologies of the others. I like that players come up with innovative solutions, too. That's what keeps this fun; cookie-cutter is NOT fun. Meta changes constantly, but I like it when the PLAYERS drive the meta, not the devs. It's not fun at all when you see something you skilled and spent time and resources to get into, suddenly become worthless, but only because someone changed the code - player vs. dev. Not a game you can win, and quite honestly, not a game I want to play.
Dictateur Imperator Babylon Knights DARKNESS. 4	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:15:33 - [398] - Quote I quote your own devblog : "Carriers and Super Carriers assisting fighters to small, fast ships from the virtually 100% safe edge of starbase shields is becoming more and more common. Victims and perpetrators alike are expressing frustration and itGÇÖs time to take action." Carrier and super carrier are not only use to pvp. "Rather than a data based decision, this one is really about design philosophy. In general, we want there to be risk associated with power. We also want to promote active gameplay as much as possible. We're failing on both with Skynet by having very little risk associated with something rather powerful, and we're also not providing any gameplay to the carrier pilot." So remove perma cloacing, make clocking harder. And boost off grid ? Same logic. "However, this problem quickly leads us down a path of needing to redesign capitals in general (which would be nice but it isnGÇÖt happening just yet). We also have some hesitation about the lost tactical gameplay that comes from larger scale applications of fighter assist. " Agree you want change capital no problem : So Nerf capital WHEN you have the plan to the new capital role. Your game designer have a diploma in game design ? Never nerf a thing and said " we will change this after", when you nerf you make a direct change to avoid to loss player, and create some problem because you have kill a strategical part of your game without offer an other. "Therefore our proposal is to simply remove fighter assist." My proposal : No problem the day who you reducing all capital ship (and if you want i 'm free to help you, i have make some game balance for other game). But change it to change it is not a good solution. Said to people wait and one day your ship can change is a very bad solution in fact ...
Hottspitta jR Knights of Azrael Circle-Of-Two 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:15:47 - [399] - Quote Don't fighters/bombers have a setting called "Attack & Follow"? Does this not work? Why remove warping mechanics when its toggleable?
Matthew Breau Scrum Squad Defiant Ebil. 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:17:24 - [400] - Quote I would like to see fighter assist in a different way. If the carrier warps away the fighters then there optimal range, DPS, tracking speed, and accuracy will change. Meaning it would be better to have the carrier with in range of the fighters. Fighters should still be able to warp. It's part of there charm. Also make it so you can't use fighter assist some distance from a POS. The excuse could be communication with a POS and all ships in a 40 km radius causes problems for fighter assist commands. Earth. A world outgrown. scared by war and burdend with our advances. A world that is no longer ours. A myth, legend. It could now be thriving, or burned to ash, or even ruled by another race.-á
Cyrus Doul S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 14	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:17:58 - [401] - Quote 0) Kind of wish ccp would put a thing in that pulls the poster's character info to see if they have ever actually used the ships we are talking about. Some of the comments like "well add a button that makes it the carriers choice to have the drones warp after someone or not" is hillarious if its actually coming from that many cap pilots. Either just ban the people who don't know what they are talking about but are sad that their tristan got blown up, or put up an icon that says "hey this guy at least has the skills / ship or something" like steam does to prove you own the game you are talking about in the forum. That way we can sort out the people crying. 1) I come from the land of supercapitals, and for all the people complaining about skynet, its one of the few things that we can actually use the ship for. Current options are: Skynet pvp Skynet pve Actual PVP, on grid and what not Actual PVE Sov structure bash get rid of skynet and my poor hel now has to actually go on grid. Thats ok cause its fast and can still wipe dreads off the field quick enough to not die. We get counterdropped and it will probably live due to its speed vs the other three. Unlike a carrier though I don't have that much of a defence against a whole bunch of little things. supercarriers can only drop fighters, and fighter bombers, and do not have enough room to carry a full set of both in the drone bay. They can try to get around this by being damn quick with a mobile depot to move drones around, but thats about it, and you know those are going to get blown up by the fleet while anchoring. If CCP added back the supercarrier's ability to field drones other then fighters and fighter bombers, this would make them quite a bit more viable since they now have to be on the field. Also allows them to be able to beat on towers as neither bombers or fighters can actually hit the stick 2) Leave drone warping alone. If you really really want, take away them chasing enemies, and i do like that they could get pointed. A set of bouncers for an ishtar are like what? 10 -12 million? a set of 10 fighters last time i had to buy them were about 220 million, and bombers around 250. For something in all the lore of the game is supposed to be a piloted ship, sounds really dumb for it to just sit there, when you know they will either get stolen or die in a fire. 3) For the people that are saying "add a siege type module that allows for assign" I kind of like it, especially if it removes the ability to get RR. Force it to be deployed outside of a certain range of the stick too. That way i cant just bowl myself back in. I could bowl myself back out with a sieged dread starbursting from the tower, but then you guys have a dread that you can kill and get the nice 2.5 bil mail 4) For those saying keep it but make the ship have to be outside say 20-50 from the shield. I can be at a safe w few thousand kilometers out, full speed aligned. would work for ratting, and most defense fleets. I see probes and i just warp in. as mc hammer says, can't touch this.
Kossaw Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion 120	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:20:57 - [402] - Quote Getting rid of Assigning Fighters AND Fighters warping is overkill. You only need to do one of these things to kill skynet. Stopping Fighters Warping effectively kills "Skynet". Do this and the Carrier must be on grid with the ship that the fighters are assigned to, and hence at risk. If the fighters are assigned and the carrier warps off, then the carrier should loose contact with the fighters ( just like drones ) and have to return to the grid to reconnect to them. Preventing the Ability to Assign Fighters does NOT mean that they don't require warp drive. Fighters and Fighter Bombers are expensive and the ability to reconnect to them anywhere in system and recall them is important if the carrier or super drops connection. Supers typically warp between targets without recalling drones. The "best" solution would be to prevent fighters from Assisting - ie aggressing any new target - unless the owning carrier is on grid. However, given that this is probably more difficult to code, the preferable solution from a carrier / supercarrier pilots point of view is to remove fighter assist and keep the ability to warp. But yeah, some of the more creative solutions - like a "siege module" - to allow you to assign could be pretty good too. WTB : An image in my signature
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 45	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:28:17 - [403] - Quote Do not remove fighter assign, it's a unique perk to carriers/supercarriers. What you can do, is stop fighters to follow targets in warp. It makes all parties work harder for a kill that way. Only reason carriers/supercarriers are sitting outside POS shields is because of how easy they die now a day. Fix that and then take away fighter assign...
Garuda Nil Tailender 7	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:29:47 - [404] - Quote Cyrus Doul wrote: 4) For those saying keep it but make the ship have to be outside say 20-50 from the shield. I can be at a safe w few thousand kilometers out, full speed aligned. would work for ratting, and most defense fleets. I see probes and i just warp in. as mc hammer says, can't touch this. The fact that you can doesn't mean that you will. People already used alligned, full-speed carriers ratting or doing L5s. Yet they still die in a fire, on a regular basis. If someone probes you down, you 1) Warp inside shields and lose the assist 2) cloak up and lose the assist 3)warp to a bookmark and get probed on landing (happens a lot), 4) warp to a POS and get caught in a drag bubble 5) get distracted by your kids and die in a fire There are plenty of ways in which that scenario can go south. Furthermore, any random ******* can just deploy probes, scare you off and instantly get rid of your fighters.
Alexis Nightwish 99	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:42:02 - [405] - Quote Cyrus Doul wrote: 0) Kind of wish ccp would put a thing in that pulls the poster's character info to see if they have ever actually used the ships we are talking about. Some of the comments like "well add a button that makes it the carriers choice to have the drones warp after someone or not" is hillarious if its actually coming from that many cap pilots. Either just ban the people who don't know what they are talking about but are sad that their tristan got blown up, or put up an icon that says "hey this guy at least has the skills / ship or something" like steam does to prove you own the game you are talking about in the forum. That way we can sort out the people crying. If that was the case then Rise wouldn't be able to comment. CCP Rise wrote: Additional notes: Removing fighter assist raises the question of whether or not fighters should still warp. We would lean towards not, as usually it is undesirable to have your fighters go chasing off grid when you want the damage to stay put. But, once again this chips away at fighter uniqueness. CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
Cyrus Doul S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 16	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:49:49 - [406] - Quote Garuda Nil wrote: Cyrus Doul wrote: 4) For those saying keep it but make the ship have to be outside say 20-50 from the shield. I can be at a safe w few thousand kilometers out, full speed aligned. would work for ratting, and most defense fleets. I see probes and i just warp in. as mc hammer says, can't touch this. The fact that you can doesn't mean that you will. People already used alligned, full-speed carriers ratting or doing L5s. Yet they still die in a fire, on a regular basis. If someone probes you down, you 1) Warp inside shields and lose the assist 2) cloak up and lose the assist 3)warp to a bookmark and get probed on landing (happens a lot), 4) warp to a POS and get caught in a drag bubble 5) get distracted by your kids and die in a fire There are plenty of ways in which that scenario can go south. Thats actually the whole point. To add piles of risk while not stripping major features off a majorly featureless ship. Full align for a carrier is death if anything like a ceptor lands on it. For example my ratting method is to put the 5x dcu hel with all damange stuff off the shield, and I assign to a full tanked 5 dcu archon in the site. I have the hel's damage with the archons brick tank. I might lose the archon to people being dumb, but never the hel. This forces me to endanger both. But for the hel you have to work for it, scan, plus have something bumpy or an actual dictor to hold me. and I have to scramble to get two things to safe. As to your five things you mentioned: 1) happens currently, the only thing on the hels overview, which is about 50 meters out of the shield, pointing inwards, is the stick, i double click it, he enters shields and the PVP fit archon now just deploys his own drones. 2) I would almost never cloak up. Most the time its never even fit since skynet, 5DCU + remote ECM for max damage and because swapping capital mods is a pain. if i get in a bump fest cause you dont have a dictor, im just going to cyno to a system in reach, I have 5 accounts, and each slot knows how to cyno leaving my ratting fleet 13 systems to pick from. 3) nothing changes here. 4) Hard to do, though not impossible, because it requires you to have done one of two things Have to know where the tower is in relation to where i am to drop the bubble, else you can end up having it misaligned and i land in shield, same way as a bad pull bubble on a gate. You also have to know what tower im going to warp to. My ratting system has four alliance and a coalition one i can get into you need something that can bubble, an anchor wont work cause unless item 5) is in effect as I'm paying attention and a mobile's anchor won't have time. 5) Don't have kids. takes too much time away from games, work, social life, and vacations.
Cyrus Doul S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 16	Posted - 2015.02.28 00:55:42 - [407] - Quote Alexis Nightwish wrote: Cyrus Doul wrote: 0) Kind of wish ccp would put a thing in that pulls the poster's character info to see if they have ever actually used the ships we are talking about. Some of the comments like "well add a button that makes it the carriers choice to have the drones warp after someone or not" is hillarious if its actually coming from that many cap pilots. Either just ban the people who don't know what they are talking about but are sad that their tristan got blown up, or put up an icon that says "hey this guy at least has the skills / ship or something" like steam does to prove you own the game you are talking about in the forum. That way we can sort out the people crying. If that was the case then Rise wouldn't be able to comment. CCP Rise wrote: Additional notes: Removing fighter assist raises the question of whether or not fighters should still warp. We would lean towards not, as usually it is undesirable to have your fighters go chasing off grid when you want the damage to stay put. But, once again this chips away at fighter uniqueness. Hah, good catch Hey CCP, I've been playing since 08, have flown everything from titans on down, Heavy industry (I built the vyo station), wormholes, PI. Oh and I've been doing QA for almost 4 years, single, and would love to move to Iceland. Though I'd have to work remote for a few months unless you buy out my lease that ends in 4 months. Can't code at all but that could change. I have leadership experience running two different teams currently, and don't mind the occasional 60+ oh god oh god the devs got this to me three days before release work week.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 690	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:01:38 - [408] - Quote Cyrus Doul wrote: 4) For those saying keep it but make the ship have to be outside say 20-50 from the shield. I can be at a safe w few thousand kilometers out, full speed aligned. would work for ratting, and most defense fleets. I see probes and i just warp in. as mc hammer says, can't touch this. I'll admit I haven't sat in a carrier in a while, but I was under the impression that fighters either returned or were disconnected once a carrier entered a POS. This would open new tactics at catching carriers outside of a POS and BLopsing it to death, or uncloaking on grid and forcing it to panic-warp, which would let you take out the interceptor or whatever he's assigning to with ease as he's left wondering where his DPS went.
IcyMidnight Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind 8	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:02:15 - [409] - Quote Kill Fighter assist. I like the idea of Fighters being able to follow their targets into warp keep it around. I might be good to cap Drone assist to the available bandwidth on the receiving ship and give ships without Drone bays some small amount of Drone bandwidth.
Arun Tadaruwa State War Academy Caldari State 94	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:05:27 - [410] - Quote Cyrus Doul wrote: Thats actually the whole point. To add piles of risk while not stripping major features off a majorly featureless ship. No. The whole point is countering the current abuse of fighter assist. Ratting isn't the primary issue here. The issue is player combat scenarios in which figters are used offensively without the carrier being at risk If they make so that you can't assist drones next to a POS, and you assist your fighters to another ship for combat, that automatically means that you 1) Are far from POS shields with one or (probably more) hostiles in system 2) Can be tackled if you are willing to accept the gamble of being outside with said hostiles in system 3) Are not able to assist **** all of you don't accept the gamble. 4) Can be forced to drop the assist by simply deploying combat probes That's a whole more risk than the current situation, without outright removing entire features and a shitload of possibilities from the game. Alt posting because yes.
ADMIRAL ALLURE Republic University Minmatar Republic 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:06:25 - [411] - Quote Celesae wrote: No. Just no. This is what made carriers unique and interesting to use. I made a dedicated account for carriers. Wasted time and money for me and many others if this happens. Some of the offered solutions are good, like minimal range to a POS before you can off-grid assist (delegate) - you still want to be able to use them if you're fighting on a POS. Stations are a risk for carriers because of bumping, so I'm not keen on a minimal range there - plus if you dock, very good chance you lose your fighters or spend a lot of time probing them down. +1 Minimal POS remote (off-grid) delegate range +1 fighters/bombers being scrammed/webbed/bubbled +1 generating killmails - they cost more than quite a few ships out there There are a lot of other issues with gameplay/mechanics that need to be dealt with, with much bigger implications.Why waste your time here with carriers? I really hate how CCP seems to be focused on nerfing the good things rather than strengthening the bad things - for example, you're going after Ishtars (which, hey, could use some tweaking maybe, but whatever) instead of improving the unused HACs/subcaps - when's the last time anyone ever saw a Sacrilege in serious use? Or a Ferox, and so on? Also, the myth that is "balance" is exactly that - these are military ships. There is no balance. The only balance would be if everything were exactly the same. I relish the idea that Amarr came up with a T3 Destroyer first - improvements to all ships should be treated in similar fashion, where each empire (and pirate faction) is trying to one-up or react to the technologies of the others. I like that players come up with innovative solutions, too. That's what keeps this fun; cookie-cutter is NOT fun. Meta changes constantly, but I like it when the PLAYERS drive the meta, not the devs. It's not fun at all when you see something you skilled and spent time and resources to get into, suddenly become worthless, but only because someone changed the code - player vs. dev. Not a game you can win, and quite honestly, not a game I want to play. This^^ Lots of good points.
Kinborough Relentless Destruction The Fearless Empire 28	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:10:01 - [412] - Quote For once I have no snark to give ya Rise, you done good here. Drone assist is a pretty broken thing in today's EVE. But keep the fighter warp ability, capital stuff is so slow that's just bashing them in the knees after you pants'ed em.
Cyrus Doul S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 16	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:16:22 - [413] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Cyrus Doul wrote: 4) For those saying keep it but make the ship have to be outside say 20-50 from the shield. I can be at a safe w few thousand kilometers out, full speed aligned. would work for ratting, and most defense fleets. I see probes and i just warp in. as mc hammer says, can't touch this. I'll admit I haven't sat in a carrier in a while, but I was under the impression that fighters either returned or were disconnected once a carrier entered a POS. This would open new tactics at catching carriers outside of a POS and BLopsing it to death, or uncloaking on grid and forcing it to panic-warp, which would let you take out the interceptor or whatever he's assigning to with ease as he's left wondering where his DPS went. They dont disconnect, they return to you, Also, remember that I am talking about this stuff from the aspect of a supercarrier. I know you can do skynet from a regular carrier too, and then i would really have to worry about anything landing on me that has a point fit, but from a supercarrier's perspective, which is immune to EWAR and can not be pointed except by a bubble, or a superpoint coming from a scripted heavy interdictor, I can just sit full aligned and not have to warp off at all, even if you guys land next to me. If i know your gang does not have a dictor or hictor, Ill just keep doing my thing, while assigning 15 drones out to my friends. You guys all decide, lets shoot the Hel, i just cyno out after recalling drones. I'm not sure about your guy's alliances since ya'll love to hide behind your alts like some neckbeard with his fedora and his guy fawkes mask. But I have seen darkness skyhook with carriers twice, yet seen it with supers countless.
Tahrl Cabot EVE University Ivy League 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:20:09 - [414] - Quote Combine this idea for highslot fighter assist modules => Hopelesshobo wrote: 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. With this idea restricting carrier bonuses => Jenn aSide wrote: The problem isn't caused by fighter assist. The problem is caused by the decision to let fighters benefit from drone mods. Before this, unbonused fighters assigned to small ships were good for exactly one thing" shooting POS guns. and that's it. Fighter Assist is one of the cooler game mechanics EVE has and removing it because some people abused the gift you guys gave them is a terrible idea. A better idea would be to say "you can assign fighters, but they get no boost at all from carrier bonuses, drone mods or carrier pilot skills". As for the warp drive, yea, that's complete overkill. It kills the Carrier for fighter based PVE (a ratting of lvl 5 carrier would be risking 200 mil worth of fighters every site if they had to get out quick, or risk being tackled if they wait for the fighters). End result will be some who switch back to Sentries for pve, but others will stop using carriers all together (especially those who switch to sentries, after a few carrier losses, carriers aren't cheap). This means more people shifting to afktars and the like for isking which is way less interesting content wise, some of the best fights you can get is when a carrier gets tackled in an anom because he got pointed by an npc at the right moment or misclciked and lost alignment , and for them to be out there to be tackled people have to want to use them. Ships with the highslot fighter assist module will benefit from the carrier bonuses, but are limited in number of assigned fighters by hull size: Small 1, Medium 3, Large 5, other capital 10 (or reasonable numbers that scale dps with hull size). Fighters assigned to ships without a module do not benefit from the mothership's and her pilot's bonuses UNLESS the mothership is on grid. You could also claim that POS shield frequencies interfere with Fighter links in much the same way that cellphone frequencies interfere with airliner navigation systems and therefore require 10km-20km clearance outside a shield.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 693	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:22:10 - [415] - Quote Cyrus Doul wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Cyrus Doul wrote: 4) For those saying keep it but make the ship have to be outside say 20-50 from the shield. I can be at a safe w few thousand kilometers out, full speed aligned. would work for ratting, and most defense fleets. I see probes and i just warp in. as mc hammer says, can't touch this. I'll admit I haven't sat in a carrier in a while, but I was under the impression that fighters either returned or were disconnected once a carrier entered a POS. This would open new tactics at catching carriers outside of a POS and BLopsing it to death, or uncloaking on grid and forcing it to panic-warp, which would let you take out the interceptor or whatever he's assigning to with ease as he's left wondering where his DPS went. They dont disconnect, they return to you, Also, remember that I am talking about this stuff from the aspect of a supercarrier. I know you can do skynet from a regular carrier too, and then i would really have to worry about anything landing on me that has a point fit, but from a supercarrier's perspective, which is immune to EWAR and can not be pointed except by a bubble, or a superpoint coming from a scripted heavy interdictor, I can just sit full aligned and not have to warp off at all, even if you guys land next to me. If i know your gang does not have a dictor or hictor, Ill just keep doing my thing, while assigning 15 drones out to my friends. You guys all decide, lets shoot the Hel, i just cyno out after recalling drones. I'm not sure about your guy's alliances since ya'll love to hide behind your alts like some neckbeard with his fedora and his guy fawkes mask. But I have seen darkness skyhook with carriers twice, yet seen it with supers countless. Nice personal attack. Really makes me consider what you said more carefully. /s Again, bubbles. If the merest hint of a dictor / HIC makes a Skynet carrier/super run for cover, then mission accomplished. Building balance patches around "what if..." is a seriously inept way to make a pass. e: Quote: that cellphone frequencies interfere with airliner navigation systems and therefore require 10km-20km clearance outside a shield. Wasn't this recently debunked?
Cyrus Doul S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 16	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:23:44 - [416] - Quote Arun Tadaruwa wrote: Cyrus Doul wrote: Thats actually the whole point. To add piles of risk while not stripping major features off a majorly featureless ship. No. The whole point is countering the current abuse of fighter assist. Ratting isn't the primary issue here. The issue is player combat scenarios in which figters are used offensively without the carrier being at risk If they make so that you can't assist drones next to a POS, and you assist your fighters to another ship for combat, that automatically means that you 1) Are far from POS shields with one or (probably) more hostiles in system 2) Can be tackled if you are willing to accept the gamble of being outside with said hostiles in system 3) Are not able to assist **** all of you don't accept the gamble. 4) Can be forced to drop the assist by simply deploying combat probes That's a whole more risk than the current situation, without outright removing entire features and a shitload of possibilities from the game. Im going to assume that you either arent the guy that i originally quoted all that to, or you are and you develop severe amnesia from alt posting. As that poster was responding to my fourth point, saying i could for a bit extra risk put myself full aligned from the tower. and he was bringing up how its more dangerous. I then proceded to pretty much agree with him but explained that while yes, i am outside of the shields by a considerable distance, IE not skynetting, I still allow for being able to remote assist while giving you, the offending party, the ability to catch me. We see mails of people in sites and what not dying in a fire all the time, you never see dead skynet.
Luna TheMoonrider The Gritch's Church Equinox Space Technologies 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:24:16 - [417] - Quote Didn't read all posts, sorry about that. What about keep fighter able to warp and assist BUT : 1/ already said many time Disable the assist if Carrier is to close from something (outpost/POS/whatever), and let the fighter come back to him AND 2/ A fighter can't engage en player controlled ship off grid. Exemple : I assign a fighter to a mate for helping him ratting, fighter follow him and help him. But an very bad guy with a very nasty ship warp on him to kill him, the fighter don't engage him because I, the carrier, am not on the grid. But if I was on the grid, the fighter fight back, and follow the bad guy on warp if needed. (and maybe limit the number of assign possible, like greg = 1, destro = 2, cruis = 3, etc...) What do you think about that ? (Sry if I'm not extremely clear, 0220 am here)
Henricks BlackWatch Industrial Group Brothers of Tangra 6	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:25:52 - [418] - Quote To the community of EVE, Greetings fellow plebeians. IGÇÖve heard the newest round of groaning and crying due to more CCP bungling. I understand your pain. I too find myself dismayed by the inept decision makers at CCP. ItGÇÖs almost as though they want to completely run off their entire player base and join the masses in the unemployment line. IGÇÖve already lost too many friends who have quit this game due to CCPGÇÖs self-destructive nature. ItGÇÖs with this utter disgust of CCPGÇÖs seppuku loving nature that I beg the players of Eve to petition CCP to keep the capability of fighters to warp as well as the ability to assign fighter or fb to another capital or sub-cap ship. This keeps a certain level of risk to the capital pilot when they must field capitals vs staying behind the shields of a pos. This is why they are called fighters, because of the ability to warp. I vote: KEEP! I hope that if enough of this community votes to keep the current abilities of fighter and fighter-bomberGÇÖs, that CCP will listen to its community (I wonGÇÖt hold my breath). In addition, if these votes goes beyond my expectations and CCP still does not listen to its community (as they often do) then CCP will continue to lose the faith of the players who are still here. Henricks
Garuda Nil Tailender 9	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:26:33 - [419] - Quote Cyrus Doul wrote: [ ...from a supercarrier's perspective, which is immune to EWAR and can not be pointed except by a bubble, or a superpoint coming from a scripted heavy interdictor, I can just sit full aligned and not have to warp off at all, even if you guys land next to me. If i know your gang does not have a dictor or hictor, Ill just keep doing my thing, while assigning 15 drones out to my friends. You guys all decide, lets shoot the Hel, i just cyno out after recalling drones. I'm not sure about your guy's alliances since ya'll love to hide behind your alts like some neckbeard with his fedora and his guy fawkes mask. But I have seen darkness skyhook with carriers twice, yet seen it with supers countless. There's a thing called bumping. Besides, it won't take much for some dude to watchlist you and start camping you with a hictor. Remember, you aren't inside pos shields any more. If all it takes to scare you off is a hictor in system or a covops warping at 15k from you, a prober and a single battleship in system, mission accomplished. If you decide to cyno out, fighters are gone, problem solved. Alt posting because MUH FREEDOMS!
Ice Acami Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:27:14 - [420] - Quote Fighter assist = Yes Fighter bomber assist= No
Kazaheid Zaknafein Mara's Hounds 2	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:28:53 - [421] - Quote Removing Fighter Assist will kill off most of carrier and super use. Rather than removing it altogether perhaps a limit on it should be put in place. Have a skill that allows the control of a fighter in assistance at +1 per level, and make this skill take a while to train. Limit the range from a tower that any ship can be and still launch drones, if any ship is closer than 50km it cannot launch drones. If a carrier launches then approaches tower have the drones disconnect and idle
Siv Ilian Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:31:05 - [422] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: CCP Rise wrote: 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. How about you just make it so you can't assist fighters if you're within 10km (or more) of a POS shield? Quote: 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? Er, you do know you can turn fighter warping off, right? It's not 2008 anymore. Just this. Please just fix problems when you find them. Don't do a bunch of unnecessary stuff. Post things like "Skynetting is bad!" Then address skynetting. I love EVE, but your entire game smacks of a beta test. I understand you are offering an unfinished product, but please instill some faith in us players that after years and years of this stuff you are getting close to figuring this stuff out. Do we really need Drifters, or do we need you to get your act together and just finish the game you have been making for a decade?
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2032	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:31:13 - [423] - Quote Not sorry to see fighter assist go. However fighters warping is not something I would like to see go just yet.
Cyrus Doul S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 16	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:32:25 - [424] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Cyrus Doul wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Cyrus Doul wrote: 4) For those saying keep it but make the ship have to be outside say 20-50 from the shield. I can be at a safe w few thousand kilometers out, full speed aligned. would work for ratting, and most defense fleets. I see probes and i just warp in. as mc hammer says, can't touch this. I'll admit I haven't sat in a carrier in a while, but I was under the impression that fighters either returned or were disconnected once a carrier entered a POS. This would open new tactics at catching carriers outside of a POS and BLopsing it to death, or uncloaking on grid and forcing it to panic-warp, which would let you take out the interceptor or whatever he's assigning to with ease as he's left wondering where his DPS went. They dont disconnect, they return to you, Also, remember that I am talking about this stuff from the aspect of a supercarrier. I know you can do skynet from a regular carrier too, and then i would really have to worry about anything landing on me that has a point fit, but from a supercarrier's perspective, which is immune to EWAR and can not be pointed except by a bubble, or a superpoint coming from a scripted heavy interdictor, I can just sit full aligned and not have to warp off at all, even if you guys land next to me. If i know your gang does not have a dictor or hictor, Ill just keep doing my thing, while assigning 15 drones out to my friends. You guys all decide, lets shoot the Hel, i just cyno out after recalling drones. I'm not sure about your guy's alliances since ya'll love to hide behind your alts like some neckbeard with his fedora and his guy fawkes mask. But I have seen darkness skyhook with carriers twice, yet seen it with supers countless. Nice personal attack. Really makes me consider what you said more carefully. /s Again, bubbles. If the merest hint of a dictor / HIC makes a Skynet carrier/super run for cover, then mission accomplished. Building balance patches around "what if..." is a seriously inept way to make a pass. e: Quote: that cellphone frequencies interfere with airliner navigation systems and therefore require 10km-20km clearance outside a shield. Wasn't this recently debunked? Wasnt an attack at you, you are posting with a main, or an alt i suspect as its in goonswarm, not some rando corp with 1 player in it or whatever with a forum sig saying something along the lines of "alt poster, cause yes", unlike the others that keep replying. And yeah. bubbles shoul dmake the super have to chose. I'm very much agreeing with you. I was trying to bring up the whole "well supers / carriers could do x" which puts them at risk while still doing what they do. I could see groups getting a competent wing of people that have the sole job of get in there and find these guys. Hell i'd finally have a use for the broadsword sitting around. Also yes, thats why I can now turn on my cell and stuff the entire time of the flight. They still want you in airplane mode. At least in the USA.
Davir Sometaww Snuff Box Snuffed Out 23	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:34:25 - [425] - Quote Immortal Chrono Pimpin wrote: Davir Sometaww wrote: Simple fix without ruinning this unique concept. Just have pos shields interrupt carrier interaction with its fighters on a 100 km radius. Meaning you can't assign fighters on pos shields You can sit in a anchored online pos without the shield up and assist fighters, As soon as you are in real danger you put in a pos pw and shield goes up. Well yeah. Well if you read the above solution fixes it. No offense intended. To translate. Being anywhere near pos offline online shields up or down means you can't assign fighters.
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1409	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:39:47 - [426] - Quote I started to say, "Why not just make the carrier have to be ongrid to assign fighters...", but....well...I backspaced and deleted the rest of my discussion on that, because...I don't know. There's definitely a lot of opportunity for comedy there. It doesn't matter if something is risky or doesn't seem very viable in a lot of situations, someone is going to try it, and maybe even find a way to do it well. Or die horribly trying. :) And don't remove the ability of fighters to warp. Pilots who don't want it can just uncheck "attack and follow". And if they don't, well, that's their problem. Do not run. We are your friends.
Garuda Nil Tailender 9	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:40:23 - [427] - Quote Cyrus Doul wrote: Wasnt an attack at you, you are posting with a main, or an alt i suspect as its in goonswarm, not some rando corp with 1 player in it or whatever with a forum sig saying something along the lines of "alt poster, cause yes", unlike the others that keep replying. It was an attack on me. I'm not ashamed of alt posting. My main can easily be traced to my supercap pilot, holders ad cyno alts, whose identities are (as far as I know) known by pretty much no one bar me, my cat and the possibly the NSA. I care to keep them all off anyone's watchlist. Thus, shameless PI/trader alt posting. Deal with it. Alt posting because MUH FREEDOMS!
Chuckeysbride BlackWatch Industrial Group Brothers of Tangra 15	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:41:38 - [428] - Quote Hey CCP. I have an idea. How about you stop screwing with OUR game. Fighters have been able to warp around with carriers since the beginning and they have been able to assist other players in fleet for at least as long as I have been playing this game. If you're trying to ruin the game, so far, you're doing a great job of it. Keep it up and no one will be playing Eveonline. Chuckeysbride CEO of Aerospace Innovations and member of Broken Toys Alliance.
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1409	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:46:11 - [429] - Quote And don't remove the ability of fighters to warp. Pilots who don't want it can just uncheck "attack and follow". And if they don't, well, that's their problem.[/quote] Well, I guess that doesn't fix the problem of the guy you assigned them too not unchecking the box, if they're assigned out, but...meh...I still think fighters should retain their ability to warp. If i'm even remembering how that works correctly. I don't use caps very often. Do not run. We are your friends.
Austin Ahmburg State Protectorate Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:46:12 - [430] - Quote In regards to the Carrier, the current tactics employed are inline with Carrier Philosophy. ( I.E. That Carriers are not meant to be on the same grid as another hostile ship.) They are meant to operate away from any direct combat. The Link below demonstrates how Carriers are meant to be deployed. If you wish to remove a Carrier's sole role, then remove it from the ship line up, and replace it with something that isn't a Carrier. If not, then keep it the same, and keep in mind the fact that Carriers trumped the Battleship for a reason. http://lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/aircraft-carrier-invulnerability.pdf Regards, Ahmburg
Kaning Olacar The Branded Few The Pestilent Legion 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:46:53 - [431] - Quote 1) Yes something needs to be done 2) No it should not be the complete removal of fighter or drone assist/asignment 3) Just make it so that if the carrier is within 100km of a tower or a station that their fighters cannot be assigned to another ship 4) If you do remove it completely you had better be prepaired to loose a VERY large number of subscriptions 5) another option is keeping small ships from getting fighters (basically only battlecruisers and above.......) Sign Kaning Olacar - Extremely annoyed "brand new" capital pilot
Cyrus Doul S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 17	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:46:58 - [432] - Quote Garuda Nil wrote: Cyrus Doul wrote: [ ...from a supercarrier's perspective, which is immune to EWAR and can not be pointed except by a bubble, or a superpoint coming from a scripted heavy interdictor, I can just sit full aligned and not have to warp off at all, even if you guys land next to me. If i know your gang does not have a dictor or hictor, Ill just keep doing my thing, while assigning 15 drones out to my friends. You guys all decide, lets shoot the Hel, i just cyno out after recalling drones. I'm not sure about your guy's alliances since ya'll love to hide behind your alts like some neckbeard with his fedora and his guy fawkes mask. But I have seen darkness skyhook with carriers twice, yet seen it with supers countless. There's a thing called bumping. Besides, it won't take much for some dude to watchlist you and start camping you with a hictor. Remember, you aren't inside pos shields any more. If all it takes to scare you off is a hictor in system or a covops warping at 15k from you, a prober and a single battleship in system, mission accomplished. If you decide to cyno out, fighters are gone, problem solved. yeah. thats what im talking about, go head and bump me. I wont care. Skynet basically has three configurations for pvp. Home defense: In a border system. The people getting skynetted are generally smaller groups, frigs and what not that are just out on a roam and we have decided to gatecamp with a skynet super. Super in a safe aligned won't generally care and will just sit there all day. even if a dic or two comes in, the gate camp just warps to super, kills pointy guy and then goes on with their lives. Lots of these fights are going to happen on regional borders, and either you'll not have to worry about cynos due to range, or have to lock down that one gate. Also since the changes that were made to the capitals a few patches back, you tend to have this system be the home system of the alliance. IE you have a big beehive just waiting for someone to yell super tackled and they all undock. Home defense random system: something like a situation where a r64 or a CSAA got hit. This is going to be set up in advance and there will be a big fleet over here anyways. if you catch one of the supers, your fleet is going to warp to it and hit it. our fleet will then probably: eat your now unguarded dreads in siege > go to super > kill your points on super while leaving our own logi back to rep tower while you are distracted. Attack Skynet: Lol, will most likely just be the supers entering system either though a cyno on your stick to try and get bumps. or jump though the gate and warp to someone cloaked 10km away from your own skynet to try and get bumps. Then we will just put the supers on field.
Cyrus Doul S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 17	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:49:31 - [433] - Quote Austin Ahmburg wrote: In regards to the Carrier, the current tactics employed are inline with Carrier Philosophy. ( I.E. That Carriers are not meant to be on the same grid as another hostile ship.) They are meant to operate away from any direct combat. The Link below demonstrates how Carriers are meant to be deployed. If you wish to remove a Carrier's sole role, then remove it from the ship line up, and replace it with something that isn't a Carrier. If not, then keep it the same, and keep in mind the fact that Carriers trumped the Battleship for a reason. http://lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/aircraft-carrier-invulnerability.pdf Regards, Ahmburg Another fun fact with aircraft carriers, they are actually the fastest ship in the battlegroup, or at least with the nimitz and the new ford class. Also among the most nimble.
RyujinBlade Shahni Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:53:26 - [434] - Quote i don't want to see fighter warp removed at all in quite a few cases. carrier have a very unique role on the battlefield nowadays. that warping ability makes them separate from all of its capital brothers. carriers become very useful for system defense which is one of the few things they are good at as a capital.
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 228	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:54:36 - [435] - Quote When I occasionally rat in a carrier I'll miss the ability to assign fighters to the miners saying a BS spawn appeared in the belt. There is no reason to remove fighter warping even if the assignment is taken away. Sometimes its nice to know the person warping away from you will still feel pain. The other consideration is project Valkyrie. If you disallow carrier fighters - which are piloted and not drones, to warp, how will that effect the story line of Valkyrie and it's fighters?
Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 179	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:57:32 - [436] - Quote Celesae wrote: No. Just no. This is what made carriers unique and interesting to use. I made a dedicated account for carriers. Wasted time and money for me and many others if this happens. Yeah, carriers were uninteresting and worthless before skynet. They have absolutely no unique features about them except to enhance gate camps. It's bad enough these days so many people are skittish and unsportsmanlike about jousting space ships, but you seem to want a risk free way to add an absurd amount of DPS to gate camps. If you aren't going to put your chips in the pot, you shouldn't be able to win big with them. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
Roo Gryphon Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:57:40 - [437] - Quote while something needs to change regarding assigning drones, it should only applied while on grid, once you go offgrid the drones auto return to carrier. Now for sentrys you have to be with in 5-10km of your drones otherwise they go idle and sentrys can not be assigned.
Verskon Qaual Paragon Trust The Bastion 31	Posted - 2015.02.28 01:58:20 - [438] - Quote I think removing fighter assist is fine. It was a fun, but broken, mechanic... mostly fun because it was broken. I would like for fighters to retain warp ability. More for uniqueness and RP, but also for balance. That's why they're manned... right? If we removed warp-ability, then we would be sacrificing people for something drones could accomplish. By your justification, there shouldn't be power without corresponding risk. Taking a low mobility carrier or super on to the field and attacking on the same grid is pretty risky. Having fighters able to warp follow would give more tactical options and balance out the risk better. After the fighter/fb scan range nerfs, they are more niche then ever.
Austin Ahmburg State Protectorate Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 02:01:04 - [439] - Quote We could just have a Timer on them. Hand wave it as the fighters needing to refuel/ Rearm. That or limited Ammunition. That makes much more sense than anything else. Regards, Ahmburg
Henricks BlackWatch Industrial Group Brothers of Tangra 6	Posted - 2015.02.28 02:05:25 - [440] - Quote Kaning Olacar wrote: 1) Yes something needs to be done 2) No it should not be the complete removal of fighter or drone assist/asignment *3) Just make it so that if the carrier is within 100km of a tower or a station that their fighters cannot be assigned to another ship* 4) If you do remove it completely you had better be prepaired to loose a VERY large number of subscriptions 5) another option is keeping small ships from getting fighters (basically only battlecruisers and above.......) Sign Kaning Olacar - Extremely annoyed "brand new" capital pilot Good Idea mate
Cyrus Doul S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 17	Posted - 2015.02.28 02:15:29 - [441] - Quote Garuda Nil wrote: double post suuuuure it was :) anyways in the context of what it originally said about you being paranoid of us tracing stuff back to your super main and holders cause you are afraid of people knowing who it is. same thing with everyone else having to deal with that means you get to deal with me calling you a whimp for being too afraid we might know who you are. If someone wants to get upset about something i say, locator me, then camp me in or something for it, so be it.
Grath Telkin Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 2709	Posted - 2015.02.28 02:31:03 - [442] - Quote Haha, look at all these mongoloid ratter alliances crying that removing fighter assist will kill off super and carrier use. Lets get real here ladies, you're literally crying wolf because you use it to rat and EVERYBODY reading the thread here knows it. Good job being so completely transparent Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Yroc Jannseen Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 68	Posted - 2015.02.28 02:36:57 - [443] - Quote Roo Gryphon wrote: while something needs to change regarding assigning drones, it should only applied while on grid, once you go offgrid the drones auto return to carrier. Now for sentrys you have to be with in 5-10km of your drones otherwise they go idle and sentrys can not be assigned. If you're on grid just assist them and they can use all ten.
O'nira 13. Enigma Project 54	Posted - 2015.02.28 02:39:10 - [444] - Quote It's about time
Chuck Ursus Shattered Paradigm Eon.Apocalypse 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 02:45:13 - [445] - Quote please keep unique fighter warp feature, do remove delegation.
Maddaxe Illat HIFI INDUSTRIAL The Kadeshi 6	Posted - 2015.02.28 02:57:20 - [446] - Quote I would be ok with fighters not be able to assist anymore because it is op. but please do not remove that fact that fighters can warp. With all the change you have made over the last 6 to 12 month it look like you dont can about anyone who has played the game for more the 3 yours. So that a no from me for fighters no warping
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2032	Posted - 2015.02.28 03:00:02 - [447] - Quote Austin Ahmburg wrote: In regards to the Carrier, the current tactics employed are inline with Carrier Philosophy. ( I.E. That Carriers are not meant to be on the same grid as another hostile ship.) They are meant to operate away from any direct combat. The Link below demonstrates how Carriers are meant to be deployed. If you wish to remove a Carrier's sole role, then remove it from the ship line up, and replace it with something that isn't a Carrier. If not, then keep it the same, and keep in mind the fact that Carriers trumped the Battleship for a reason. http://lexingtoninstitute.org/wp-content/uploads/aircraft-carrier-invulnerability.pdf Regards, Ahmburg Unfortunately this is a game, not real life. Otherwise things would get messy.
Cyrus Doul S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 17	Posted - 2015.02.28 03:05:19 - [448] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Haha, look at all these mongoloid ratter alliances crying that removing fighter assist will kill off super and carrier use. Lets get real here ladies, you're literally crying wolf because you use it to rat and EVERYBODY reading the thread here knows it. Good job being so completely transparent we do, you guys do, everybody does. way of life in the game. we will all adjust reguardless.
Zomgnomnom Royal Black Watch Highlanders DARKNESS. 58	Posted - 2015.02.28 03:38:38 - [449] - Quote Leave assist, just make them have to be on grid. If people want the benefit, they should have to at least place the capitals and supers in harms way.
Kuosu PH0ENIX COMPANY Phoenix Company Alliance 5	Posted - 2015.02.28 03:45:14 - [450] - Quote If we apply this thought process to cloaky camping maybe we should just remove cloaking from the game... its too hard to fix... I'm really upset that the response to a complex problem is to just get rid of the problem. I understand that a lot of things are effected by said changes, but lets face it this is a complex game. If it is so complex you cannot do anything about it without making it that convoluted and complex that should be a sign that it needs more dev time and to hold off for now until more well thought out solutions are ready to be implemented. Now I do agree that assigning five super fighters to a cepter is broken. Though an easy change would be to make delegating a number of fighters dependent upon the receiving ships drone bandwidth. To make effective change I would also propose at the same time increasing the bandwidth requirements of fighters and capacity of carriers and make it so that cruisers could for example support one fighter and maybe battle ships more. Something along those lines. I also agree that sitting on the edge of a pos is kinda silly. I would like to see a distance requirement away from the pos to use/delegate fighters. Now playing devils advocate, the only people I ever hear crying about fighters are those looking for easy kills with miners but not an actual fight. I like having some kind of benefit of owning space where I can have some kind of defensive boon. Nerf it PLEASE. But this goes beyond nerfing beyond re balancing this is removal of gameplay mechanics due to it being a complex problem. Most skilled groups that come by with logi to fight , they like to kill drones and its not even a good idea to send drones after them because drones get webbed and you lose 25 mill a pop. FYI SOME risk is actually present. Also, if removing this gameplay is a priority and fixing/removing cloaky camping is not then you guys are in for a rude awakening when long time players such as myself un sub our carrier pilots. I pay $$$ real money for my subscriptions btw. I dont have time to rat and plex accounts I have a job. It's pretty obvious the disdane CCP holds towards ships that require so much time to skill into properly. This is the end game content it took me more than a year to skill into having the skills to use carriers properly! They should have unique game mechanics and be fairly strong! Its not like I can dock a super up and change to another ship if im fighting goons and risking a super wouldnt make sense. I'm stuck in it. This is like saying an aircraft carrier can only launch fighters and strike targets that are within the carriers eyesight. In real life it is commonplace to have scouts providing coordinates ( warpins) for the carrier to strike on targets that are not even in the freaking ocean (off grid). It is currently over powered but this is somewhat absurd. Remember we are talking about CAPITAL ships. Do we really want to take away unique game play and just make carriers into giant dominix with the ability to field huge heavy drones? Nerf them please but come back with a well thought out solution.
Vigilanta S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 75	Posted - 2015.02.28 03:49:24 - [451] - Quote Fighter assist removal = good, im all for it needed to be done Fighter and fighterbomber warp: Don't remove it, its a ncei uniqueness to the weapons system of a slow and hard to maneuver platform. I dont think fighters need to follow people into warp, but fighter/fb recovery and for repairs without there built in warp drives seriously impacts some of the mainline benefits to a super/carrier. I think it would be better to start with removing the asist and then take another look in a couple months at the warp drives in order to avoid overnerfing. In all honesty it feels like something that should not be looked at until you are ready to do the full rebalance pass on supercarriers and carriers.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2032	Posted - 2015.02.28 04:05:55 - [452] - Quote I would like to see the fighter warp reworked to operate more like a regular warp. Seems odd how they go about it kind of teleporting then waiting and stuff. Maybe it's just me. Also bubbles and point should work against fighters.
Emmy Mnemonic Svea Rike Fatal Ascension 28	Posted - 2015.02.28 04:06:02 - [453] - Quote Skynet has gone self-aware. In the future it will destroy all humanity (sais Sarah. We others have not even noticed it yet!). But shut it down, that's fine! But don't just remove the assign-fighters-function - compensate it and add a reason for the baddies (ie. the carriers assigning) to warp onto grid instead, so we can shoot them! Or, we can use them for pvp where their ISK value is balanced with their capability, not just their massive defensive capability but also a viable offensive capability! 10 Fighters with around 1000 DPS is not worth warping a carrier on-grid for. Applying that DPS to enemies 100 AU away through the capability to assign fighters or have fighters warp after fleeing targets IS worth it (and the latter can be turned off if people find it annoying...). This nerf will not make people use their carriers in on-grid fights. It will have the opposite effect, carriers will be flown/used less, and only in "boring" gameplay. 1000 DPS can be projected on-grid for around 120 M ISK, why use 2 B ISK to apply that DPS? So shut Skynet down, and save poor Sarah Connors son who has been complaining about it, and save the rest of the EVE-players ofc. But when you rip out that old T1000 fighter-assisting-data-link equipment in all carriers in the game, replace it with something else to compansate us, and keep EVE a diverse game where people willingly risk their carriers in small- and medium fights because the risk is compensated by the possible rewards! CEO Svea Rike
Pittsburgh2989 Shadow State Fatal Ascension 7	Posted - 2015.02.28 04:07:52 - [454] - Quote Please do not remove Fighter Warping... Either remove drone assist completely from the game or not at all...fighters are drones. Another simple solution is just make it where fighters cannot be launched within 10km of a POS...do the same thing you did with Cyno's. This would make Carriers vulnerable if they want to actually give fighters to someone else.
Celesae Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension 23	Posted - 2015.02.28 04:22:31 - [455] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: Yeah, carriers were uninteresting and worthless before skynet. They have absolutely no unique features about them except to enhance gate camps. It's bad enough these days so many people are skittish and unsportsmanlike about jousting space ships, but you seem to want a risk free way to add an absurd amount of DPS to gate camps. If you aren't going to put your chips in the pot, you shouldn't be able to win big with them. That's not what I meant - you should know this. Assisted fighters can be worked around - kill the assigned ship. NCdot is assigning fighters to interceptors? Just bring some decent anti-support. Bump carriers away from POSes (which is why I think the proposal of a minimum POS range is good), and/or do a DD drive-by. These things happen already; players find a way. If there are simply too many carriers to kill, then you likely weren't going to win that fight, or needed to bring your own cap fleet anyway. The lack of remote capabilities puts the carrier in a poor position. It is cannon fodder for every other capital class ship in the game, and is likewise just a juicy target for any medium-sized or better subcap fleet. Triage mode certainly doesn't put fear in anyone's hearts - that just earns the carrier a faster-earned title of "Primary!" Carriers are based on real-world carriers - it's all about remote power projection (I'm not talking about jump drives here). The ships themselves are relatively weak, as they should be. The nations of Earth do not fear the carriers themselves, but the jets they launch - also as it should be. Make the carrier able to be struck with a focused attack (i.e.: not sitting on the very edge of a POS shield), make the "jets" more vulnerable to attack (bubbles/webs/points), and move on. Don't remove what is a favorite feature of the class for many players and relegate the ship to only the role of a cap-sized logistics boat...
Cpt Buckshot The Awakened Empire 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 04:25:03 - [456] - Quote Here is 10 cents on it, There are valid views being expressed and for CCP just to take the easy way is very lame. 1. Maybe Carriers and MOMs should not be able to assign fighters 60km from a POS tower ish, maybe this way there is time bump them away from POS. As a care-bear that is hard for me to say but the combat aspect of is being abused. 2. Carriers pilots trained many months to use this ability to rat or for combat and also huge investment of isk. I personally hate when things are NERFED. Its the cheap way out, you all "CCP" are worried more about the next expansion than to do this correctly it seems to me. Why don't you focus on current game mechanics and fix or resolve them not delete them. This is what SOE always did and look where they are now ... gone. 3. All fighters should be point-able and web-able and also affected by warp bubbles. Easy fix I think on that one. 4. Maybe limit fighter assist to a certain ship size or types. I don't know what the FIX is for this ,,,,, But this shouldn't be rushed either.
ROSSLINDEN0 AQUILA INC Verge of Collapse 280	Posted - 2015.02.28 04:34:13 - [457] - Quote Please don't remove my S K Y N E T it will force me to get good at game and im not sure i want to do that at this stage of my lyfe
Mimiko Severovski Zero Fun Allowed 8	Posted - 2015.02.28 04:38:20 - [458] - Quote WTFFFFFF!!!!!!???? i pay 25kkk isk for nix and ccp make nix bad how wil make isk to plex????? this make nix bad, why make nix bad???? give nix dron bay and track bonus like ishtar ship, then nix not bad ship like rifter!!! this kill nix if continue!!!
whitefire34 F-I-N-K PROPERTY Northern Associates. 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 05:06:55 - [459] - Quote sending fighters is and as always been a usefull tool even when your mining in a belt and you have the rats attacking a mining fleet in nul sec just taking that out is kind of like losing a limb
Forrest Stokes Dark Core Industries The Order of New Eden 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 05:13:08 - [460] - Quote I would like the fighter assist to NOT be removed. I do agree with maybe making it where the carrier has to be outside the POS shields in order to use drone assist
ShadowFireGirl Astral Inferno Balcora Gatekeepers 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 05:48:21 - [461] - Quote This change really makes me wonder if CCP is paying any attention to anything, having not even remotely discussed this with the player base before just going OH HEY! We're going to be Obama and talk about change change change and have no intelligent plan on how to implement change for the better. The problem here is not that fighters are getting assigned: The problem is fighters are getting assigned to small fast ships, people cannot tackle the fighters, so thus you have exactly as you said, let me spelli it out for you: PEOPLE FLYING WHATEVER THEY WANT WITH 5 FIGHTERS ASSIGNED You said it yourself, now take your pants off your head and listen. Carriers are very expensive targets, and you are listening to the whiners who just want killmails, not interesting combat. This will not cause carriers to be deployed EVER. They will simply be used in the situations where triage already is used, which well....guess what. FIGHTERS CAN'T BE USED THEN. Let me explain a simple solution here, since you didn't care to consult with us all first. Do not let people fly whatever the hell they want! Now how might you do this? Let's start off with what you are denying US, that your player base who determines if YOU survive, wants. a) Have fighters only assignable to larger slow ships like Battlecruisers, a ship class that receives no love and is helpless compared to t2 cruisers and was already nerfed into the ground with the command ship changes, or battleships, a ship class that is slow and easy to tackle. b) Have fighters assignable only to ships that have a drone data link big enough to support the number of drones assigned to them, thus restricting them to tiny ships having at best 1 fighters and 4 drones in the case of the ishkur, interceptors getting none, and anything that can't drop a heavy drone getting none. c) Have fighters take up drone bandwidth on the ship they are being assigned to since SOMETHING has to control them. d) Have fighters assignable only when in some sort of 'siege mode' by adding a new module. Now the ship cannot retreat for x amount of time when fighters are assigned e) Have fighters able to be tackled! They deploy their fighters, they have to commit them to the fight since they cannot recall them arbitrarily based on which one is about to get tackled. f) Have fighters that are assigned not get drone module bonuses while they are off grid Imagine that! One of your players has taken the time from her evening, while not even at home, to give YOU options that you deny us! You don't need to go smashing creative design of your own game and burn your game. You don't need to turn players off from using ships that exist because they're all of a sudden useless. You don't need to play to whiners and poorly skilled idiots who cannot figure out how to kill things that *** about a mechanic because they think they know best, just to get you to nerf it. You don't need to have very poor foresight to think all playing fields in the entire *** game are all the same. Your problem exists exclusively in different forms in lowsec, nullsec, and wspace. Don't try to one size all fit the solution, or you'll certainly lose a lot of players here. You don't need to tell us how to play your game. We don't need to be denied choices to cater to killmail whores that don't care about this game who just want killmail killmail killmail and not a thing but the nerf bad for other players, just in order so they can get their jollies for 1 hour, log off, upon which they just quit after a couple months when they get bored doing the same damn thing every day with their t1 cruiser gangs. You don't need to bury your head in the sand to the fact that a capital ship is a target regardless to whether it costs 100m or 1000m. This in itself makes it very risky to deploy them, focus on solving the problem not nerfbatting your game into the ground. Carrier pilots don't need to be 'given content' to force their now useless ship, one that barely does damage with fighters anyways(two ishtars, one carrier, guess which does more drone damage, applies it much better, and costs much less?) to be ordered onto grid when they would use TRIAGE instead of fighters to reach peak effectiveness for the isk, when it's not content at all. You're only removing choices to try to appease some whiners, and not thinking your solutions through in the least. Pay attention to the people that keep your lights on, ask for feedback like other game developers do, or guess what? You will quickly find yourself dying to games like Star Citizen that has its crosshairs straight on your hull by offering players exactly what you seek to deny: variation and choices. Stop trying to kill your own game. One final great note. You are saying that exposing skynet carriers to more risk, which you declared is the PURPOSE for this change, seemed convoluted, and would put an unneeded game mechanic into the game. What? A mechanic where carriers that assign fighters have to be risked? WOAH. You're ******? How is exposing skynet carriers to more risk an unneeded mechanic when that was your goal in the first place? How is this a strange and unneeded mechanic? You are taking the lazy way, now rescind on your idiocity, and stop trying to do what you're doing. Go back, think it through, and stop this bull.
Amarisen Gream The ArK's Hammer ArK Alliance 65	Posted - 2015.02.28 05:55:19 - [462] - Quote After reading a lot of this post I have decided that CCP is taking the easy way out. Keep the assist feature. Keep the ability to warp Limit their **ing range to be assisted. The problem as I am seeing is the fact that they can sit safe near a POS and touch others in the wrong way. Limiting their range to say 10 AU of the carrier reduces their reach to butt ** other players. Adding a restriction on assisting near a POS or Outpost would also be a blessing. Yet, seeing as I live in Provi and can't use a capital to rat. What does my voice matter anyway. xoxo Amarisen Gream
titan Multi3 HOLDER CORP BEST CORP 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 05:56:40 - [463] - Quote Maybe disregard the range requirements, but the POS restrictions are a pretty solid way to limit it.
Galian Kile Interdimensional Chaos Gentlemen's.Club 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 06:14:20 - [464] - Quote Taking away the assist feature will see a fall in ISK making as well. Assist isn't ONLY used in fighting but in ISK making. This is a feature that a carrier has had for a long time. Like others have said, orbiting or sitting at a POS is NOT 100% safe. You fly what you can afford to lose. It is not the carriers pilot fault people who come into a system to harass are engaged with fighters that are assigned. What is Eve's Motto??? HARDEN THE ***** UP!! If you want to put a balance on this, I propose this; No Module or anything of that sort. Let "SKYNET" be a SOV UPGRADE. And let the aggressor take the risk of entering a system where fighters can be assigned. PERIOD. It is a WIN-WIN That is All...
Lugburz Running with Dogs Nerfed Alliance Go Away 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 06:15:07 - [465] - Quote What use is a carrier with fighters if not able to assist exactly? are you just relegating them to triage modes now? Im not overly a fan of cap warfare (though it has its uses) but it just amazes me you 'rebalance' ships simply because they get used a lot; i mean nerfing rails cus 'their popular'.. well yes of course they are, 2 whole factions use them (not including pirate factions) as opposed to one each for the projectile and lazer using factions.. currently there are what.. 2 t1 cruiser variants that are bonused for missiles? probably the same for projectile and lazer cruisers and at least double that for rails... of course their popular; more people can actually use them. How about some scientists (probably caldari) frustrated at their gallente counterparts tactical use of carriers and the like research and design several operational counters to such tactics? Maybe a smartbomb.. oh wait.. how about an ecm burs.. oh nvm... who exactly is whining?
Lugburz Running with Dogs Nerfed Alliance Go Away 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 06:25:41 - [466] - Quote ShadowFireGirl wrote: a) Have fighters only assignable to larger slow ships like Battlecruisers, a ship class that receives no love and is helpless compared to t2 cruisers and was already nerfed into the ground with the command ship changes, or battleships, a ship class that is slow and easy to tackle. b) Have fighters assignable only to ships that have a drone data link big enough to support the number of drones assigned to them, thus restricting them to tiny ships having at best 1 fighters and 4 drones in the case of the ishkur, interceptors getting none, and anything that can't drop a heavy drone getting none. c) Have fighters take up drone bandwidth on the ship they are being assigned to since SOMETHING has to control them. d) Have fighters assignable only when in some sort of 'siege mode' by adding a new module. Now the ship cannot retreat for x amount of time when fighters are assigned e) Have fighters able to be tackled! They deploy their fighters, they have to commit them to the fight since they cannot recall them arbitrarily based on which one is about to get tackled. f) Have fighters that are assigned not get drone module bonuses while they are off grid Imagine that! One of your players has taken the time from her evening, while not even at home, to give YOU options that you deny us! You don't need to go smashing creative design of your own game and burn your game. You don't need to turn players off from using ships that exist because they're all of a sudden useless. You don't need to play to whiners and poorly skilled idiots who cannot figure out how to kill things that *** about a mechanic because they think they know best, just to get you to nerf it. You don't need to have very poor foresight to think all playing fields in the entire *** game are all the same. Your problem exists exclusively in different forms in lowsec, nullsec, and wspace. Don't try to one size all fit the solution, or you'll certainly lose a lot of players here. You don't need to tell us how to play your game. We don't need to be denied choices to cater to killmail whores that don't care about this game who just want killmail killmail killmail and not a thing but the nerf bad for other players, just in order so they can get their jollies for 1 hour, log off, upon which they just quit after a couple months when they get bored doing the same damn thing every day with their t1 cruiser gangs. You don't need to bury your head in the sand to the fact that a capital ship is a target regardless to whether it costs 100m or 1000m. This in itself makes it very risky to deploy them, focus on solving the problem not nerfbatting your game into the ground. Carrier pilots don't need to be 'given content' to force their now useless ship, one that barely does damage with fighters anyways(two ishtars, one carrier, guess which does more drone damage, applies it much better, and costs much less?) to be ordered onto grid when they would use TRIAGE instead of fighters to reach peak effectiveness for the isk, when it's not content at all. You're only removing choices to try to appease some whiners, and not thinking your solutions through in the least. Pay attention to the people that keep your lights on, ask for feedback like other game developers do, or guess what? You will quickly find yourself dying to games like Star Citizen that has its crosshairs straight on your hull by offering players exactly what you seek to deny: variation and choices. Stop trying to kill your own game. One final great note. You are saying that exposing skynet carriers to more risk, which you declared is the PURPOSE for this change, seemed convoluted, and would put an unneeded game mechanic into the game. What? A mechanic where carriers that assign fighters have to be risked? WOAH. You're ******? How is exposing skynet carriers to more risk an unneeded mechanic when that was your goal in the first place? How is this a strange and unneeded mechanic? You are taking the lazy way, now rescind on your idiocity, and stop trying to do what you're doing. Go back, think it through, and stop this bull. pretty much that yah, imagine all the unhappy people that just spent a year training for carrier.. i can fly two different carriers; never used them in combat 'cept on test server. On tranquility its generally relegated to carrying my ships around, which is now more difficult due to jump changes...
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 858	Posted - 2015.02.28 06:26:02 - [467] - Quote There is a magical force in the eve universe that prevents me from activating a smartbomb w/ in 5km of wormhole. It doesn't really make sense, but it's there none the less. Apply that magical force to drone deployment. The launching ship can't be w/ in X km of a POS or station. Risk aversion removed \ meaningful and interesting PVP opportunities created. Prevent sentries from being used by any class of ship that isn't a battleship. Lots more risk averse stuff removed \ meaningful and interesting pvp opportunities created. Remove drone assist from the game and one over used soul and server crushing form of deliberate player induced lag is removed from the game. Soul and server crushing will be reduced. No one is upset about carriers assisting thier fighters to some noob on a gate. Folks are upset that the carrier is nosed out of a POS shield and can't be touched in a reasonable way. Please callibrate whoever is coming up w/ the 'fixes' for the ishtar, skynetting, sentries and so on issues. They aren't 'fixing' anything. We are on the cusp of the worst changes to hit eve.... ever.
iniq The Goddesses 15	Posted - 2015.02.28 06:34:33 - [468] - Quote If CCP Removing Fighter Assist ,pls give my carrier SP back to me ,i dont want use that ship .
Crazy Candy Love Squad Confederation of xXPIZZAXx 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 06:46:45 - [469] - Quote If you support fighter assisting you're literally part of the cancer that is ruining this game. iniq wrote: If CCP Removing Fighter Assist ,pls give my carrier SP back to me ,i dont want use that ship . You trained for something which is broken, it's your own fault for wasting the time to train something as abusable as fighter assisting. That's your fault, not CCP's.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 696	Posted - 2015.02.28 06:48:49 - [470] - Quote Crazy Candy wrote: If you support fighter assisting you're literally part of the cancer that is ruining this game. Nice Kafkatrap.
El Geo Running with Dogs Nerfed Alliance Go Away 218	Posted - 2015.02.28 06:55:10 - [471] - Quote Should have just given a control range in AU and made a module or set of modules/rigs that allowed fighter assist, 1 drone per module/rig. path-+find-+er (pthfndr, p+ñth-)n. 1. One that discovers a new course or way, especially through or into unexplored regions. http://www.youtube.com/user/EvEPathfinders/videos?view=0
Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 179	Posted - 2015.02.28 06:58:01 - [472] - Quote Lugburz wrote: pretty much that yah, imagine all the unhappy people that just spent a year training for carrier.. i can fly two different carriers; never used them in combat 'cept on test server. On tranquility its generally relegated to carrying my ships around, which is now more difficult due to jump changes... If you have never used them in combat, then it is entirely your fault. They are a potent force. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
Qurzy Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 07:00:31 - [473] - Quote CCP, if you hate carriers and supers this much just remove them from the game. Same goes for fighters, because if you think they'll be used for anything after this you're delusional. And give me back the isk and time spent training for them; it'll be easier then selling mine. I'd rather not have millions of SP in useless skills after this, because given the trends I'm pretty sure the next change coming for carriers and supers is to make them a 25bil version of the mobile depot. Do you guys play his game?
titan Multi3 HOLDER CORP BEST CORP 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 07:04:56 - [474] - Quote I wouldnt mind most of 3 of my toon's SP free'd up for reskilling. That'd be nice.
Kimimaro Yoga Paragon Trust The Bastion 38	Posted - 2015.02.28 07:05:18 - [475] - Quote Okay, having read about half of this thread (getting tired of seeing people who don't even know how carriers work talk about how they should be changed) I'm going to attempt to sum up the various arguments. First off, there is no such thing as fighter assist. Doesn't exist. The correct term is Delegate. Reason this matters is that Assist lets one ship direct 50 drones, this isn't possible with fighters any ways that I can see. So if we're arguing that off-grid delegation is what needs to be nerfed, then let's look at ways to fix it. From good to bad: 1. Change the requirement for being able to receive delegated fighters from the pilot's drone skill, to the ship's bandwidth. Being able to delegate 5 fighters to shuttles or interceptors is arguably broken. Being able to delegate 5 fighters to a ship that can already launch 5 wasps or at least 5 mediums, that's okay. (This is similar to limiting fighter delegation to larger hulls, only more balanced as it makes the receiving pilot trade their existing drones for the fighters). 2. Additional limits on fighters delegated from supers. The change to supers to make their fighters do double the damage was to reduce mass drone lag during large fights. It wasn't intended to double the DPS that could be delegated to other ships. So with the previous mechanic, make fighters delegated from supers require 50% or 100% more bandwidth. 3. Make fighters scrammable, yeah sure. I'd argue that for coding reasons they probably need to be bubble immune, so they don't end up just sitting there with a broken AI. But a tackle frigate should be able to keep them from running off. 4. If an off grid carrier warps, or enters a POS forcefield, do not let the fighters recall. Instead treat it like the fighters were just abandoned. If the carrier pilot wants to play it safe, increase the likelihood of losing the fighters. 5. Add to killboards. E-peen FTW, but hey why not? let's see more dead fighters. 6. Require the carrier to sit away from the POS forcefield. This seems like a good idea at first glance, but it's not going to result in carriers sitting 100km off POSes where they can be bumped and killed. It's going to result in carriers sitting in safes, aligned toward POSes so they can warp to safety instantly. Perhaps an improvement, but not likely to matter much. 7. Making the delegated fighters get their bonuses from the receiving ship instead of the carrier. Why even bother then? Presumably the receiving ship isn't setup for drone bonuses, or it'd be using its own already. And unbonused fighters are garbage. There's a reason nobody used them before they got bonuses from drone mods. Better off with some medium drones. 8. Nerfing the fighters themselves. See above, only worse. Even now, a carrier that's setup for combat is better off using sentries or heavies rather than fighters, because the base stats of fighters are just that bad (if you include speed issues and return time). People who think fighters are instalocking, amazing tracking machines have never looked at their actual performance. If it takes fifty fighters to alpha a T1 cruiser, there isn't a problem with fighter DPS. 9. Removing delegation from the game. Hey look, some of CCP Rise's small-gang buddies are having a sad, because they can't fight against a far larger and more organized group. Let's just nuke a mechanic entirely rather than fix it, because fixing it might take effort. Yeah, that sounds harsh, but the proposed ishtar nerfs are small careful steps, while this is trying to fix a minor problem with a sledgehammer. I'm having a hard time thinking of any reason why fighter delegation is so terrible that it has to go away, other than CCP bias/laziness. Now recruiting: http://dogfacedesign.com/index.php/Recruiting-Posters/recruiting-poster-patr3
Bullet Therapist Caldari Provisions Caldari State 269	Posted - 2015.02.28 07:22:31 - [476] - Quote Well, fighter assist probably could have worked given the right adjustments, but it's probably just as well that it's going to go. I can't say that I haven't abused it frequently or that I won't miss it, but from a design perspective it's probably the right choice to move on.
Cyrus Doul S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 18	Posted - 2015.02.28 07:26:37 - [477] - Quote Ice Acami wrote: Fighter assist = Yes Fighter bomber assist= No FB assist has either never been a thing or hasnt been since a couple months after they came out when i got my first Supercarrier
Cyrus Doul S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 18	Posted - 2015.02.28 07:37:38 - [478] - Quote Crazy Candy wrote: If you support fighter assisting you're literally part of the cancer that is ruining this game. iniq wrote: If CCP Removing Fighter Assist ,pls give my carrier SP back to me ,i dont want use that ship . You trained for something which is broken, it's your own fault for wasting the time to train something as abusable as fighter assisting. That's your fault, not CCP's. Had my drone skills and carrier trained to 5 back in late 2009... Wasn't really broke back then.
Django Flagg Reasonable People Of Sound Mind 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 07:43:04 - [479] - Quote Maddaxe Illat wrote: I would be ok with fighters not be able to assist anymore because it is op. but please do not remove that fact that fighters can warp. With all the change you have made over the last 6 to 12 month it look like you dont can about anyone who has played the game for more the 3 yours. So that a no from me for fighters no warping And coal miners would really like it if we kept burning coal, they have been mining it all their lives after all! Times change, past investments are not justification to halt change. Evolve or die (often).
Syri Taneka NOVA-CAINE 111	Posted - 2015.02.28 07:44:22 - [480] - Quote I already posted a nice argument against this in the F&ID subforum thread about this topic, so I'll re-link it instead of typing again or copy-pasting: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5431300#post5431300 Put simply, if this goes through, I'm selling my carriers. They are too expensive and easily killed (either via a hotdrop or a moderately-sized fleet) to put on the battlefield. They are no longer particularly useful as ship transports, because of the jump range nerf. Removing fighter assist would kill the last useful point to a Carrier being a Carrier. Lose fighter assist, and it's just an excessively overpriced logistics loot pi+¦ata. Remove drone module effects from fighters, and reduce assignment potential to 1 fighter per pilot. Heck, impose a class-based restriction on who can receive fighters, too, if the slower lock time of larger ships is seen as "good balance".
Lickem Lolly Achura Solutions 8	Posted - 2015.02.28 07:48:22 - [481] - Quote If it isn't broken, don't "fix it." Assigning fighters is one of the primary cool features of a carrier. If you remove that, why bother getting a carrier? This is not used very often to be honest. Don't believe the wankers trolling the forums. Look at the actual use data. Assignment of fighters has been in the game for many years. It is not a problem. You are creating problems where there are none. Stop breaking our game by nerfing it into oblivion. Regards
Xavior Harkonnen Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 08:14:49 - [482] - Quote Here is how I think this mechanic should work: 1) I agree that assisting should only happen while carriers are certain distance from a station or POS. It could be chopped up to something like: "The use of long range drone antennas is hazardous to normal and safe operations of nearby structures.". 2) To prevent carriers from just being aligned and warping at the first sign of trouble, that they cant warp until their drones/fighters return. Which to help carrier pilots would happen automatically and would alert the pilot by displaying that the ship is awaiting their return. This could however be overwritten by abandoning them. This would require fighters to have proper warp mechanics. 3) Finally, assisted drones/fighters get no off-grid bonuses. TL;DR Drone assist needs to be change not removed. Fighter warp should stay but with better warp mechanics.
Nimrod vanHall No Vacancies 116	Posted - 2015.02.28 08:17:46 - [483] - Quote I did not have time to read All the other Posts, but think it would be a good idea to remove fighter or fighter bomber assign mechanics. I'd regret it if fighters would no longer follow the Carrier that deploys them in warp. Its a defining qualifier that also increases the quality of life for Carrier pilots. Removing it might lead to less people rating with fighter deploying carriers wich would lead to less targets in nulsec space for hunters (Wormhole to kspace hunters, roaming gangs or neighbourhood hot droppers) please consider this in your final fighter revieuw.
Worrff Viziam Amarr Empire 61	Posted - 2015.02.28 08:33:24 - [484] - Quote CCP Rise............ 25 pages of feedback. Do you think it's time for a comment from you yet ? CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
Hegh Batlh Stille Gewalt Dead Terrorists 17	Posted - 2015.02.28 08:37:09 - [485] - Quote Xavior Harkonnen wrote: Here is how I think this mechanic should work: 1) I agree that assisting should only happen while carriers are certain distance from a station or POS. It could be chopped up to something like: "The use of long range drone antennas is hazardous to normal and safe operations of nearby structures.". 2) To prevent carriers from just being aligned and warping at the first sign of trouble, that they cant warp until their drones/fighters return. Which to help carrier pilots would happen automatically and would alert the pilot by displaying that the ship is awaiting their return. This could however be overwritten by abandoning them. This would require fighters to have proper warp mechanics. 3) Finally, assisted drones/fighters get no off-grid bonuses. TL;DR Drone assist needs to be change not removed. Fighter warp should stay but with better warp mechanics. Thats a good idea. Another is: A module like a siege/triage module for fighter assists - when its running you can assists fighters and the meachanic works without changes but you cannot move and become reps for the running time and the module can only be activated XY km from a pos. The running time for the module needs to be balanced in my opinion like 2 mins without overheat. The Module can be overheated to reduce runningtime. Is the module deactiveted the fighter will return to the carrier and can only be assigned on grid. Warping and following the target or following in warp is a unique skill and shouldn-¦t be removed. Unique skills/features must be preserved as much as possible.
Qu jinn School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 08:46:09 - [486] - Quote Hey to all Cap pilots, @ my Point off view i am still fine with the change to assist fighters to very small ships. But let the carrier pilots the decision between: Sentries ( Max i$k / per tick and higher risk because of standing still in an anom. ) Fighters ( Less i$k / per tick and still allined to a safe spot. Faster warp off if needed. ) The pay out between these two ratting styles are for me: With normal T 2 Fittings and all skills @ min lvl 4 and a few @ 5 sentries: 30 m - 45 m / per tick Fighter: 20 m - 30 m / per tick (fighters lvl 5) for the frigates you have to swith to drones and that ruines the pay out. So dear CCP if you change the fighters this way their is no reason to rat with fighters anymore. Why would i risk 10-14 fighters for 25 mill each ( ca.250 mill at all.) When i have to warp off the anom and let the 250 mill behind. If that happens everyone will use heavys they are much cheaper and it didn-¦t hurt so much if you let them behind. Or you will only see sentry carriers at all. Sry for my english ( not my first language ) pls don`t be a wiseacre and tell how much you rat with your carriers ( It was a example and i fly with 2 carriers Chimera / Nid @ the same time. So it can be that i am not fly 100 % effective) Fly safe See you in Null space
Vacant Glare Ghost Recon Inc 11	Posted - 2015.02.28 08:57:57 - [487] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Remove: - fighter assist. - fighter follow in warp the target. Keep: - fighters warping with the carrier So you can send fighters only against target on grid. When the target warps off the grid fighters will NOT follow. When the carrier warps off the grid fighters will drop aggro and follow the carrier. This
Drone Plague Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 09:01:43 - [488] - Quote Vacant Glare wrote: Anthar Thebess wrote: Remove: - fighter assist. - fighter follow in warp the target. Keep: - fighters warping with the carrier So you can send fighters only against target on grid. When the target warps off the grid fighters will NOT follow. When the carrier warps off the grid fighters will drop aggro and follow the carrier. This Seems very logical and still give the fighter some of its uniqueness whilst not completely screwing over every carrier.
luredivino Star Frontiers Test Alliance Please Ignore 54	Posted - 2015.02.28 09:05:42 - [489] - Quote Instead of removing fighter delegation, why don't you just make it battleship only and limit it to bandwidth of the assignee. It would keep the uniqueness of fighters and also give more reasons to use battleships in null.
I Buy ItAll Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 09:07:13 - [490] - Quote Crazy Candy wrote: If you support fighter assisting you're literally part of the cancer that is ruining this game. iniq wrote: If CCP Removing Fighter Assist ,pls give my carrier SP back to me ,i dont want use that ship . You trained for something which is broken, it's your own fault for wasting the time to train something as abusable as fighter assisting. That's your fault, not CCP's. so what in your eyes is not broken in that game if u think assigning fighters or even the carrier itself is a broken meta. if carriers are broken as u say its better to remove them from game entirly, right?? Stupid!!! its nice all those whiners that complain "i and 10 other friends of mine visited someone in his own space and he killed me bad intruders". defenders should have an upper hand and even if not? why u as intruder dont bring ur own capitals to make u take the win? or just bring 20-30 ppl. cause even a frig, cruise or whatever with fightersupport of a mothership cant stand 20 ppl with a proper composition.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2305	Posted - 2015.02.28 09:16:23 - [491] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Remove: - fighter assist. - fighter follow in warp the target. Keep: - fighters warping with the carrier So you can send fighters only against target on grid. When the target warps off the grid fighters will NOT follow. When the carrier warps off the grid fighters will drop aggro and follow the carrier. Axloth Okiah wrote: How about keeping their ability to warp but making them pointable? These two EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Jonathan Xavier Discrete Solutions Ltd. 5	Posted - 2015.02.28 09:30:02 - [492] - Quote ITT: Lots of people who don't own carriers or supercarriers and are totally unfamiliar with the mechanics of using them.
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 859	Posted - 2015.02.28 09:31:17 - [493] - Quote Worrff wrote: CCP Rise............ 25 pages of feedback. Do you think it's time for a comment from you yet ? Or is it yet another situation where you make an ill-thought out change and just leave it ? The wh mass/range threads went over 100. We still got the change. It was bad like we said it would be. They won't undo it. They haven't responded to those threads in quite some time. They won't come across w/ any meaningful graphs, charts or anything. I feel like you are asking for some kind of special treatment. Being that this affects all of null, low and WH space (to an extent) how dare you demand a response on page 25. Your over developed sense of entitlement sickens me. On one hand it's encouraging to see CCP step up and address some long standing issues. On the other, their fixes kind of scare me. I'd like to be cynical and point to the small group of eve players that this helps and cry favoritism, but between this, the bouncers and the ishtar stuff..... there isn't really even a niche group that benefits. Dearest CCP: Delegating fighters isn't the problem. The carrier just barely nosing out of the pos shield (risk aversion mechanics) is the problem. I don't care if the carrier is off grid at the start of the fight. I care that there is no meaningful way to engage the carrier that is delegating them. If your car stalled every time it rained and I handed you a new set of wiper blades... would you be satisfied?
Arcos Vandymion White Beast Inc. 95	Posted - 2015.02.28 09:44:02 - [494] - Quote Go to last post by
Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 179	Posted - 2015.02.28 09:45:29 - [495] - Quote Lickem Lolly wrote: If it isn't broken, don't "fix it." Assigning fighters is one of the primary cool features of a carrier. If you remove that, why bother getting a carrier? Drop boots on people and crush your enemies? Triage and be the hero of the day? Go make money in a wormhole? Rat in K-Space or W-Space, I don't know, it does everything! Lickem Lolly wrote: Assignment of fighters has been in the game for many years. It is not a problem. ...until they made all the drone modules interact with fighters, it wasn't a systemic problem. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
Elg'caress Estanesse HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 09:48:04 - [496] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: Worrff wrote: CCP Rise............ 25 pages of feedback. Do you think it's time for a comment from you yet ? Or is it yet another situation where you make an ill-thought out change and just leave it ? The wh mass/range threads went over 100. We still got the change. It was bad like we said it would be. They won't undo it. They haven't responded to those threads in quite some time. They won't come across w/ any meaningful graphs, charts or anything. I feel like you are asking for some kind of special treatment. Being that this affects all of null, low and WH space (to an extent) how dare you demand a response on page 25. Your over developed sense of entitlement sickens me. On one hand it's encouraging to see CCP step up and address some long standing issues. On the other, their fixes kind of scare me. I'd like to be cynical and point to the small group of eve players that this helps and cry favoritism, but between this, the bouncers and the ishtar stuff..... there isn't really even a niche group that benefits. Dearest CCP: Delegating fighters isn't the problem. The carrier just barely nosing out of the pos shield (risk aversion mechanics) is the problem. I don't care if the carrier is off grid at the start of the fight. I care that there is no meaningful way to engage the carrier that is delegating them. If your car stalled every time it rained and I handed you a new set of wiper blades... would you be satisfied? This. Even more so: If your car stops every time it rains, do you take it to a car mechanic to fix it or just just blow your car up and travel by bus/train from there on?
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 859	Posted - 2015.02.28 09:58:42 - [497] - Quote I think the obvious fix would be to have carriers half in a POS shield spit out ishtars which could drop bouncers and then run out to 150km and orbit the 'fight' at just over 3000m/s.
Asbuster2 Boa Innovations Shadow of xXDEATHXx 2	Posted - 2015.02.28 10:24:35 - [498] - Quote I would advise against these changes. I understand that carriers fighter assist annoys people alot, but its what makes fighters and carriers unique. This plus the fact that if a carrier is to assist his fleet with fighters, he needs to be undocked and not in POS. Meaning he can be attacked. So a good fleet can scan down the carrier and kill him.
Jason Atavuli Ridders van Suid Afrika Northern Associates. 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 10:31:27 - [499] - Quote Lickem Lolly wrote: If it isn't broken, don't "fix it." Assigning fighters is one of the primary cool features of a carrier. If you remove that, why bother getting a carrier? That ^ Also, if you are going to break carriers like you broke the jump system, why not rather make your jobs easier and remove all jump capable capital hulls, the entire jump system can then be done away with, as well as those terrible fighters which have apparently ruined EVE gameplay for everyone living in hisec. And then you can give us our SP back and fix the jump bridges, there's a game bug that brings up some stupid timer bullsh!t every time I use a JB to attack someone's sov . . . `.`
Jacob Holland Weyland-Vulcan Industries 378	Posted - 2015.02.28 10:43:30 - [500] - Quote Back when I was but a young capsuleer and these new Carriers appeared I recall shipping out from Misaba with a convoy (which was probably the Egg for what became The IAC Distillery... CVA were there to see us off but there had been some pirate activity and noone wanted those nasty pirates to see what we were doing. I recall seeing a couple of the CVA patrol vessels being escorted by a pair of fighters and thinking it was amazingly cool (I believe to the point that my camera drone snapped back to my own ship as they warped out and I realised I should probably be doing something... Did I need to align to something? maybe? (and this was the days of double click aligning)). Like many other things however the useful force multiplier was picked up and applied to the Nth degree and shifted from cool to problem... The great strength of carriers (in the real world and in EVE) is that they are uniquely able to project force "beyond the horizon" and I think it would be disappointing to lose that ability entirely. I'd like to retain the "cool" from way back - the small scale projection, the low grade force multiplier - if that is possible. Fighters are long ranged craft, they have their own warp drives and therefore must have their own fluid router communications (which we know are controlled by CONCORD); what if they were limited by the fluid router bandwidth they had access to in any given system - say 20 fighters assigned per system? If fighter assignation were also limited to 2 per ship (like the Guristas vessels) might that significantly reduce the problem of assigned fighters, significantly increase the workload of the assigning character (reducing the chance that two alts would fill the roster 23/7) while not losing the cool factor from the early days of capitals? Of course people would attempt to lock out hostiles by filling the system cap with their own fighters but should one of their carriers be forced into Triage bandwidth is freed and with every fighter downed the attackers could assign one of their own (if that's their aim).
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 131	Posted - 2015.02.28 10:46:25 - [501] - Quote How about only allow fighters to be assigned in in systems you have sov 5 in? as a defensive perk to the system
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 920	Posted - 2015.02.28 10:54:24 - [502] - Quote Ncc 1709 wrote: How about only allow fighters to be assigned in in systems you have sov 5 in? as a defensive perk to the system People use carriers/assignment in ways and places completely unconnected to skynet or nullsec.
Valan S.A.S Pandemic Legion 14	Posted - 2015.02.28 10:55:18 - [503] - Quote Keep the warp ability, the not assigning ok+¬, but if you also take away the warping you can just remove these ship types entirely
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 131	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:05:14 - [504] - Quote http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=27695081 there are simple ways of killing 'skynet' capitals. even the biggest aint safe. why remove the best (Last) unique feature carriers have?
Worrff Viziam Amarr Empire 63	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:05:50 - [505] - Quote The best bit is that you can tell that CCP Rise has never used fighters from a carrier himself, as he didn't know that there is an option to stop the fighters following a target. Awesome idea of Devs nerfing things they have no clue about, and no experience with. CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
Worrff Viziam Amarr Empire 63	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:10:55 - [506] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: I feel like you are asking for some kind of special treatment. Being that this affects all of null, low and WH space (to an extent) how dare you demand a response on page 25. Your over developed sense of entitlement sickens me. I have posted in many threads, and complained many times about the lack of response of the Devs, so don't be an idiot all the time, take a day off CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
bonkerss MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:11:55 - [507] - Quote its just not fun to get ganked by something that you have no chance of beating because its hiding in a structure somewhere in 100% safety. everything that wants to fight needs to be on the grid! this goes for every ship class. next problem we have to solve is safe spot boosters. they need to be on the grid too.
Copy Bird ZC Industries Dark Stripes 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:11:56 - [508] - Quote can we just swap to red, blue, green and pink ships and be done with any interesting options or game play. that does seam to be your over all intention with the game these days, dumb it down and make it dull (should really say duller, space aids has ruined the game for the most part in any case).
Cpt Buckshot The Awakened Empire 2	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:16:38 - [509] - Quote The more I read about this the more I think this a terrible move, This all seems to stem for angry bloggers crying endless tears about carriers simply because its a great cap. First they nerfed its hangar then its cargo now its fighters. How about GIVE us the option to get Skill points back and isk on those skills??? Maybe CCP means the communist capsuler program where everyone is equal and we should all fly the same ships ??? This is Generation Me!!!! GIMME GIMME GIMME with no time invested Game use to over 50k pilots on weekends ..... Now look at it CCP you are the next SOE !!!! You have definitely lost your way CCP.. This is def the beginning of the end of one of the greatest games ever ....... :( sad panda here
kabivel Corporate Scum Brave Collective 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:17:37 - [510] - Quote Make fighters consume Bandwith from the ship Assited
Ben Hump KackarschClubstation 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:19:08 - [511] - Quote Carriers by nature have the capability to launch fighters and bombers to far away targets. Just a look at WW2 Carrier warfare shows that. If you take that away from carriers, then rename the whole class as maybe close support drone boats, as they will not be carriers anymore. I fully agree with Lickem and the others, though some changes might be feasible, the changes you propose make carriers useless, a dinosaur of the past. The exception is, if you then make carriers able to fly in highsec again!!! Do not remove the warp capability of fighters, they need to fight of grid, otherwise it is NOT a carrier. Reduce the numbers of fighters you can assign to an individual ship, so the carrier pilot needs to assign them to more than one pilot. Maybe raise the fighters signature radius, causing the carrier pilot to have to recall his drones and fix them before he can send them out again. Just some random ideas. I fly Carriers and I use them mainly for transport. If the proposed changes occur, I will sell both. As an individual player who occasionally supports corps, I do not have the ISK to have my carriers become more vulnerable and thus useless for their current role. And the issue of carriers sitting near their POS is I think an issue you can change by making them not be able to launch their fighters until they have moved away a certain distance from the safety of their POS. Ben
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 920	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:25:11 - [512] - Quote Worrff wrote: The best bit is that you can tell that CCP Rise has never used fighters from a carrier himself, as he didn't know that there is an option to stop the fighters following a target. Awesome idea of Devs nerfing things they have no clue about, and no experience with. The talk of assist when the feature that causes the problem is assign does raise my concerns - an understandable mistake from people without much carrier experience.
DEATHS PHOENIX Zervas Aeronautics The Bastion 6	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:25:53 - [513] - Quote Leave Carriers alone for now. It takes a long time to get into a Carrier and in most cases even longer to properly use the fit. In many cases we're talking about close to or over a year in skilling time. Those individuals who take that time should see some benefits from their patience and dedication to their goal of getting into one. Besides after all it is a Carrier and ships of that size and majesty should have some unique aspects to their value. Also Drones the size of Frigates should be able to warp to fleet members to give assistance. For Christs sake, its the size of a frigate so let it do what Frigates do and warp. Also recently Carriers underwent a big change not only in how the operate but the possibilities of how they are going to be applied in the future tactically and therefore should be left alone for now. However, if its your goal to Nerf the Carrier over time, considering the changes you've already made recently the plans you are leaning towards now will definitely begin to take you there. Deaths
bonkerss MASS A DEATH Mordus Angels 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:30:17 - [514] - Quote Lugburz wrote: What use is a carrier with fighters if not able to assist exactly? are you just relegating them to triage modes now? Im not overly a fan of cap warfare (though it has its uses) but it just amazes me you 'rebalance' ships simply because they get used a lot; i mean nerfing rails cus 'their popular'.. well yes of course they are, 2 whole factions use them (not including pirate factions) as opposed to one each for the projectile and lazer using factions.. currently there are what.. 2 t1 cruiser variants that are bonused for missiles? probably the same for projectile and lazer cruisers and at least double that for rails... of course their popular; more people can actually use them. How about some scientists (probably caldari) frustrated at their gallente counterparts tactical use of carriers and the like research and design several operational counters to such tactics? Maybe a smartbomb.. oh wait.. how about an ecm burs.. oh nvm... who exactly is whining? its simple. the carrier has to manually lock targets and kill it with fighters. its much like a dread who has to risk its ass on grid to kill shite.
Elg'caress Estanesse HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:37:35 - [515] - Quote bonkerss wrote: Lugburz wrote: What use is a carrier with fighters if not able to assist exactly? are you just relegating them to triage modes now? Im not overly a fan of cap warfare (though it has its uses) but it just amazes me you 'rebalance' ships simply because they get used a lot; i mean nerfing rails cus 'their popular'.. well yes of course they are, 2 whole factions use them (not including pirate factions) as opposed to one each for the projectile and lazer using factions.. currently there are what.. 2 t1 cruiser variants that are bonused for missiles? probably the same for projectile and lazer cruisers and at least double that for rails... of course their popular; more people can actually use them. How about some scientists (probably caldari) frustrated at their gallente counterparts tactical use of carriers and the like research and design several operational counters to such tactics? Maybe a smartbomb.. oh wait.. how about an ecm burs.. oh nvm... who exactly is whining? its simple. the carrier has to manually lock targets and kill it with fighters. its much like a dread who has to risk its ass on grid to kill shite. Yes please, make every single ship the same. No dictors, no logis, no drone ship, lets ALL the ships warp in, lock target press F1 like dreads. Awesome idea, looking forward to it!
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 417	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:39:32 - [516] - Quote So, maybe just extend the cyno block zone around towers to disallow launching fighters as well? Seems like everyone agrees that the safety of POS is the issue, and not assigning itself.
TijsseN NED-Clan Goonswarm Federation 14	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:40:53 - [517] - Quote Removing fighter assists fixes a balance issue where enemy supers assign fighters to tengus to murderzone our fleets without risks. I would certainly recommend to implement this. Making fighters and fighter bombers equal to drones will certainly open roads to a future capital and drone re-balance.
Sodamn In-sane Phorever People 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:43:52 - [518] - Quote in all honesty i think you should remove fighter/drone assignment,purely because you **** caps for pvp so you may aswell them for pve,tbh i really dont think it matters what we say,i think you'll just do it in one way or another, suggestion's REMOVE CAPS COMPLETELY MAKE ALL WEPS CIVILAIN STANDARD (so no one can complain that this ** is overpowered) IMPROVE GRAFFIX AND SOUND MORE (may as well get the lag while listening to music and station spinning because its hardly worth undocking anymore) now so many people trained to get in these ships for the reasons that they had the characteristics at the time of choosing to train them and to have them constantly shat on by ccp,kinda annoying.the adapt or die is attitude now becoming slightly old. you should really be asking your selves ,how can we encourage new players to join a game they will spend untold amounts of money and time on to find they will not be able to use they ship they trained to use,when they trained it. do something constructive for once ccp ban the hub scammers / spammers
Chriss Toronto Svea Rike Fatal Ascension 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:46:15 - [519] - Quote Why don-¦t you guys just ban scamming, set alliances to max 5 corps, concord every one thats fire there gunns or maybe make eve-online a care bear mining game, its been this way A LONG TIME! and assign/assist fighters is a problem now? ***** please, go play wold of warcraft with the other cry babys, if you want to rebalance something make Jump fatigue hull-mass based and not jump distance based. stop waisting your time on people crying becouse thay are camped in a station.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 920	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:46:16 - [520] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: So, maybe just extend the cyno block zone around towers to disallow launching fighters as well? Seems like everyone agrees that the safety of POS is the issue, and not assigning itself. The issue is two fold - I've been following it for awhile and one of the biggest complaints with it is that people can be flying something small and fast, do everything they are "supposed" to do when flying smaller ships, put the utmost skill into what they are doing and might if they are lucky evade a volley or 2 but sooner or later (and usually sooner) get alpha'd by the assisted fighters, the quick and easy fix is to remove assignment but I'm pretty sure it could be balanced with some changes to how fighters work with the tracking formula (as titans already get a variant of this it can't be that much of an ask) and being a capital platform weapon IMO its not a problem to make an exception to the normal for them in that regard. The other complaint is that the carrier/super is to all intents and purposes immune and IMO that is a more complex story as the risk ratio is a different story to flying around in say an ishtar, extending fighter assignment restrictions to the same range as cyno restrictions would definitely make a lot of sense to me on that side of it - its not a complete fix but it removes the most risk free method. EDIT: I'm actually starting to favour some kind of bastion type mode for fighter use* (which includes the only way to do assignment) as this would completely balance the risk aspect of it and give carriers access to something interesting functionality wise beyond triage or non-triage ratting. * Maybe not the exclusive mode for using fighters but the best way to use them for optimal effect.
Elg'caress Estanesse HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded 2	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:49:22 - [521] - Quote TijsseN wrote: Removing fighter assists fixes a balance issue where enemy supers assign fighters to tengus to murderzone our fleets without risks. I would certainly recommend to implement this. Making fighters and fighter bombers equal to drones will certainly open roads to a future capital and drone re-balance. Adress the risk issue than, not the feature itself, ther were a ton of great ideas how to do that. Or do they intend to do the same with the other upcoming fixes? Tengu is too tanky - Adjust subsystem or remove Tengu Rails are overtuned - Adjust railgun stats or Remove railguns Bouncers are overtuned - Adjust stnry drone stats or Remove bouncers Ishtars overpowered and overused - Tone down its bonuses or remove Ishtars Fighter assist is too much reward vs. almost no risk - Introduce some changes and tweaks or Remove the feature alltogether. Is it really hard to see why this is so wrong?
Sodamn In-sane Phorever People 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 11:56:12 - [522] - Quote Quote: TijsseN wrote: Removing fighter assists fixes a balance issue where enemy supers assign fighters to tengus to murderzone our fleets without risks. I would certainly recommend to implement this. Making fighters and fighter bombers equal to drones will certainly open roads to a future capital and drone re-balance. maybe you should train for tengu? these guys have trained for that and more the point spent money training for that,so if your unable to combat this then train train train like a boss,
Maidas Mulligan Theoretical Heresy Fatal Ascension 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:00:53 - [523] - Quote I have read about half of the pages of this thread, and have gotten a lot of insight on where the history is in this issue. Here's my two cents: Q: Assisting and warping are two completely different things. Why are they in the same thread? A: Because there's only been a small and recent protest to assisting, but we might get people to agree with the post in general by agreeing with how annoying attack & follow can be. Q: Should we mention that we already have a mechanic in game that would resolve the annoying part? A: Absolutely not, the uninformed wouldn't support our other changes then! Also, who let him in here? Q: Skynetting is a conglomeration of a 9-year old mechanic and a 3-month old buff. If the 9-year old coding would be difficult to unravel, wouldn't changing the 3-month old buff be an easier fix? A: Of course! But we buffed to break, so we would be justified in "listening to the player base" by removing the mechanic we didn't want anymore. Q: That kill would've never happened if one of two things hadn't happened. The carrier couldn't assign, or the fighters couldn't hit the atron. Why aren't there kills like this from before the fighter buff? A: I'm pretty sure I answered this with your last question, Maidas. Please, pay attention. We want to do differnt things in the game we oversee, and this little bit of intra-corp proof of a game breaking mechanic was just the straw man we have been waiting for. Once we FINALLY get rid of those characters who have been around forever, we will only have the newbies that don't know any better and we can do whatever we want. Remember the uproar from the introduction of Aurum? Once those that took offense to Eve becoming PFP are gone, we can implement it, and these new players who have been spending all that money in Candy Crush can start spending it here. Q: Why are you such a jerk? A: ...You're fired. Seriously though, Of the two issues,: 1. Fighter warping. The only example given of why CCP Rise brought it up for removal is easily avoided by a mechanic that ALREADY EXISTS. End of concern. 2. Fighter assisting. What I love about Eve is, in order, everyone plays in the same universe, the player driven economy, and the community as a whole working to make the game we love better for everyone as a whole. And in relation to the last one, there are SO many other ways to resolve this issue that simply removing fighter/FB assisting completely seems lazy and selfish. CCP is not the Pope, and we are not (all) Catholic. Come out and say that the fighter buffing was a mistake because it unbalanced one of the things that makes carriers unique. And then, REBALANCE IT. Something along the lines of, :"The upgraded communications between the carrier and its fighters that allow the boosts to follow through require special dedicated electronics on the assisted ship. Ships that already have the robust electronics required for this assisting are as follows: T1 drone boats: (I'm gallente through and through, so apply to other races as it works) The Imicus can support 1 fighter or 0 FB's The Vexor can support 2 fighters or 1 FB The VNI can support 3 or 1 The Dominix can support 3 or 2 The DNI can support 4 or 2 T2 drone boats: The Ishkur can support 2 or 1 The Ishtar can support 3 or 2 Blah blah blah. The three gems in this idea are as follows: 1. Natively, ONLY Command ships can oh.... I don't know, command? 5 fighters or 3 FB's. 2. Create warfare links to allow/increase fighter/FB assisting. 3. Create a mobile drone relay, something rather large, say 50 m3 per fighter or so, that would allow the person deploying it access to fighters. As far as #3 goes, this would nicely scale up ship classes to the number of fighters able to assist, because while some hauling specific frigates could deploy larger ones, they wouldnt instalock or survive very long. I know that the interceptor pilot could just come out in a hauler, deploy a 5 fighter one and then just go reship. Maybe it could go offline after a certain amount of time and require scooping and redeployment? Or it could be more of a defensive measure, like dictor charges. Once deployed, you could be assisted, but it is destroyed after 15 minutes or so? Just ideas. But more thought out and better content generating than nerfbatting.
myxa cyk Expl0rers Darkeshi 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:09:07 - [524] - Quote Sarcasm incoming Yeah. You should remove half of features coz it's easiest way. Why not remove Capital at all? Why not remove all ships except one? It will be so balanced if all would fly on same ships.
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 131	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:13:54 - [525] - Quote a simple fix to fighters is that they should return to base upon 50% shield damage for repairs. once they have returned to base they need to rest and change their pants which takes them 5 mins of combat fatigue. this would allow people to shoot them for a few seconds to force them off field, without removing the feature also to the cryers. most carriers hugging a pos will go into the force field if a hostile ship shows up on grid... forces them into the pos which recalls the fighters. not exactly hard to force them out of the fight
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 921	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:24:16 - [526] - Quote Ncc 1709 wrote: also to the cryers. most carriers hugging a pos will go into the force field if a hostile ship shows up on grid... forces them into the pos which recalls the fighters. not exactly hard to force them out of the fight Most of the complaints stem from small gangs roaming - even solo or just a couple of players, jump in see/find a viable target and engage then suddenly fighters and despite doing everything they are "supposed" to do survival is pretty slim to none - a valid complaint IMO given the combination of the fact that fighters can do damage in scenarios completely out of balance with the game normal when used in a situation that allows the "skynet" fit and that unlike a hotdrop you can't potentially escalate with a counter drop, etc. IMO that doesn't justify essentially cutting off one leg of the carrier as a way to balance it however.
Prester Tom Death By Design Did he say Jump 9	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:27:27 - [527] - Quote It is quite simple. Don't change anything, but make it only applicable within fighter control range. That will make their warp capability more like a jump drive, for fast reaction within a large battle area, and allow them to warp with their carriers if needed. Then the carriers have to be on grid with whatever they assign their fighters to.
Anarkio Mahyisti Tauron Heavy industry Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:30:45 - [528] - Quote 1 - removed the 25 fighters ? 2 - now they cannot transfer it to another ? Conclusion: the ship is not required ! Make then so they could enter the station ! Doing better for pvp, and the fact that some people on them participate in pve not who don't care ? Raise up other ships and then all will be balanced !
Buzz Dura Hard Knocks Inc. Hard Knocks Citizens 9	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:37:52 - [529] - Quote Drones can be assigned to another player on grid, why should it be different ? Keep assist Remove Warp More caps and supers on GRID, risk vs reward rebalanced End of story ?
Jori McKie TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 212	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:47:27 - [530] - Quote Again for all those skynet pilots read this blog and tell me with a straight face that this isn't OP. http://gorsking.blogspot.de/2015/02/****-skynet.html Info for all those guys who are thinking POS/station are the problem, they aren't: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532655#post5532655 Yep, safespots galore. "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar
5pitf1re 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 8	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:50:37 - [531] - Quote This is a great change. Fighter warp, keep it but make them pointable possibly even bubblable.
Vaali Odhin Machiavellian Empire Pornwaffe Federation 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:53:40 - [532] - 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. 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. This is the most pressing risk vs reward area to address??? There are so many bad mechanics in game allowing for little risk vs great reward I am surprised that this has been suggested in such a radical form - killing content in game rather than expanding it! If risk vs reward is such a key issue then look at other more pressing areas of negative gameplay first whilst you develop a better and more tuned fix to skynetting. It smells a little like a nerf to isk making yet again and if that is the case maybe all accounts must be subscribed and drop Plex all together - sometimes you have to wonder if CCP understand their own game or just the $$$ balance it brings...
Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 1434	Posted - 2015.02.28 12:55:35 - [533] - Quote Grath Telkin wrote: Haha, look at all these mongoloid ratter alliances crying that removing fighter assist will kill off super and carrier use. Lets get real here ladies, you're literally crying wolf because you use it to rat and EVERYBODY reading the thread here knows it. Good job being so completely transparent This thread is a ******** magnet. The Tears Must Flow
BF Guardian HC - Foxx and Mink Division 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:00:27 - [534] - Quote i am EXTREMELY against removing fighter assist. Fighter assistance has so many tactical uses and so many characters are going to be rendered practically pointless if you remove this. Yea carriers near POSes are annoying, but tbh its just more satisfying when you come and bump them off and kill them. :)
Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 1434	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:01:12 - [535] - Quote Jori McKie wrote: Again for all those skynet pilots read this blog and tell me with a straight face that this isn't OP. http://gorsking.blogspot.de/2015/02/****-skynet.html Info for all those guys who are thinking POS/station are the problem, they aren't: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532655#post5532655 Yep, safespots galore. Gorsk is spot on. The Tears Must Flow
Valhal1a turaagaq GANOR INC. 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:06:00 - [536] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Remove: - fighter assist. - fighter follow in warp the target. Keep: - fighters warping with the carrier So you can send fighters only against target on grid. When the target warps off the grid fighters will NOT follow. When the carrier warps off the grid fighters will drop aggro and follow the carrier. This :)
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 921	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:12:10 - [537] - Quote Jori McKie wrote: Again for all those skynet pilots read this blog and tell me with a straight face that this isn't OP. http://gorsking.blogspot.de/2015/02/****-skynet.html Info for all those guys who are thinking POS/station are the problem, they aren't: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532655#post5532655 Yep, safespots galore. POS/stations aren't the only problem but they are where the biggest most "game breaking" source of immunity comes from - if your out in space atleast there is a more viable chance you'll screw up, etc. unlike at a POS where even if you get sloppy you can just press the enter button and up FF. Even a carrier hugging the edge of a fight on grid could cyno out if it looks like something is going to tackle it - there is always going to be some less than ideal balances to it. (Or should we just remove carriers to?) Just making it so that fighters struggle to hit smaller faster ships even with the skynet fit would go a huge way to balancing the problem - personally not a fan of fighters losing all bonuses when off grid with their parent carrier as that kind of flies in the face of what fighter carriers are designed to do, sig/damage scaling as far as I can see has the least knock on effects.
Elberet Space Pioneers Odin's Call 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:15:14 - [538] - Quote You want my opinion ? Here it is :P - Don't remove fighters warping. - Remove assist to small ships like sub bc. - Add a minimum distance off Forcefields or stations like 50km to assist fighters. This way you clear out ppl warping around in ceptors and having 5 cruiser sized insta used fighters wtih em. You avoid carriers / supers been used around the protection of force fields - as long they don't expose their ship to the unsafe enviroment outside the "I need 2 secs untill forcefield" range. A lot of carebears won't do it anymore xD However, I'd like to see fighters still warping off when the owner warps off from the same grid.
Bruce Destro Black Serpent Technologies Black Legion. 14	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:20:45 - [539] - Quote Assigned fighters would not benefit from any host ship bonuses, or drone upgrade modules.
Monasucks BLACK SQUADRON. The Bastion 146	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:21:54 - [540] - Quote Dear CCP Assignment was forever in the game - just leave it in. Fix the other problems (your last changes to 00) you have created that a for 10 year working thing becomes a Problem. Fighters and FighterBombers warping was never an issue. Leave it as it makes those ships unique. Fighters chasing their target is I think a pretty balanced and interesting mechanic even from the risk vs. reward speciall for supercapitals, beeing fighterless if they do it wrong and the fighters were killed. Option a) make assignment impossible if within even the grid of a POS or Station impossible. This would lead to some more fun finding those hostile caps unprotected on a savespot etc. Just think of allthat options! Option b) if assigned they will only do the base damage and no mods from the scap/carrier are applied Option c) the Ship, who has the fighters assigned to it get the aggression as well - to carrier and that ship, who as fighters assigned get aggression! Option d) Keep fighters as they are but make them bubble able / point / web - and end of story Other issues I see for the game if you are going to remove this two features (offgrid assignment and warping): - Carriers and Supers will even become more useless - Carriers will be total useless, which leads to less dedicated carrier accounts, which leads to less dreads / carrier / supers / titan on the fields, which leads to even less accounts and old people leaving the game, who have been with your game for many years and are the core of the social ingame live.. - Capitals overall are nerfed nearly to dead - if you are going to kill them, then return the ISK/SP and even reimburs the $/Gé¼ for the playing time.. This guy as well did some great suggestions what to do with the fighters / bombers: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532602#post5532602 As well this guey who is basicly saying don't kill the game even more.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532701#post5532701 And even you CCP failed to even proof that skynet was a real problem.. If so give us data! ( or Take for example Option a)) https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532703#post5532703 I think this is a good example of how CCP try to fix stuff by nerfing. This comes into play for nearly everything not only capitals! Jenn aSide wrote: Patient: "Hey doc, I was walking around outside barefooted and scraped the side of my big toe, it's not that bad, but do you have a bandaid?" CCP Doctor Rise: "In my opinion we'll have to amputate both legs, your left arm and remove half your ribcage. That should prevent any chance of infection". Patient: "WTF? Can I get a second opinion?" CCP Doctor Fozzie "Better take the other arm, just to be sure". I would kindly ask CCP stop nerfing, try to create new content instead of killing it all! And don'T forget the PVE / Roleplay part of a fighter / fighterbomber - they are designed not a drones more as firgs and bombers: Panther X wrote: Don't forget that fighters and fighter bombers are piloted by a crew. They are frigate sized non-drones. If they hope to make Valkyrie a viable part of the Eve Universe, then do not take away the warping ability. Fighters and Bombers are not dumb drones. They have pilots, and should be able to warp to their mothership if it has to escape the battlespace. I'm still impress how much good feedback CCP get's here and ignores as always. Even the ongrid only I would not go with. But a Range how much you need to be away from a POS / Station or away from the fleet should be discussed. I think fighters should be able to warp out of bubbels as well fighter bombers. Sarrian Calda wrote: Assignment-related suggestions Allow on-grid assignment only, just like drones. Fighters cannot warp with the ship they are assigned to. If assigned ship becomes invalid target to retain assignment, fighters should fly back to owner. Offense-related suggestions Fighters should still be able to "Attack and Follow" (toggled option, as is) ships that they are commanded to attack. If target warps off, fighters should follow and enter warp too. If target becomes invalid after dropping out of warp (destroyed, jumped out of system, entered POS forcefield, docked, logged off successfully somehow, fighters get ECM'ed and unable to acquire lock), the fighters will warp back to owner as soon as they can. Miscellaneous suggestions Fighters should still be able to warp together with the owner when they are deployed and the owner enters warp, as per current mechanics. If a fighter becomes pointed or bubbled when owner warps away, it should keep aligning to the owner's location in space until it is able to warp again (or follow current in-game mechanic if there's already one set up for when fighters are prevented from warping). If the owner docks up, logs off or get destroyed at any time while the fighters are deployed, they become abandoned in space. If they are in-warp when this happens, they should appear at the destination where they were warping to and become abandoned there. (If ships cannot break warp while warping, fighters shouldn't too.) Faithfully Can I haz you're stuff? A good worker is a live worker. Free to live - and work! A bad worker is a dead worker; and vice versa. Don't be a bad worker; bad workers are slaves, and dead. Payday for good workers has been postponed indefinitely. Payday for bad workers is cancelled!
Jori McKie TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 213	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:24:11 - [541] - Quote Rroff wrote: Jori McKie wrote: Again for all those skynet pilots read this blog and tell me with a straight face that this isn't OP. http://gorsking.blogspot.de/2015/02/***-skynet.html Info for all those guys who are thinking POS/station are the problem, they aren't: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5532655#post5532655 Yep, safespots galore. POS/stations aren't the only problem but they are where the biggest most "game breaking" source of immunity comes from - if your out in space atleast there is a more viable chance you'll screw up, etc. unlike at a POS where even if you get sloppy you can just press the enter button and up FF. Even a carrier hugging the edge of a fight on grid could cyno out if it looks like something is going to tackle it - there is always going to be some less than ideal balances to it. (Or should we just remove carriers to?) You are correct i added an "only" to my orignal post "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar
Greylord Kane F-I-N-K PROPERTY Northern Associates. 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:32:55 - [542] - Quote Hmmm as a RL Manager if I changed everything people didn't like in our business.... it would be bad. Please stop trying to change things that actually help make the game unique. Yes people use fighter assist, but we also have to put up with crappy little nuets coming into system and this is not favorable as we defend our miners and industrial side of things. I think taking away fighter assist even in carries /super carriers will end up being a disaster and you'll have more complaints than when you started. Make pirating and roaming harder if anything. People don't roam with carriers they defend. That's like taking cannons from a pirate ship...not good Grey
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 921	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:33:56 - [543] - Quote Jori McKie wrote: You are correct i added an "only" to my orignal post As an aside the rhetoric in my post wasn't aimed at you more a general response to the topic.
Carrion Crow Ready Player 1 2	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:41:53 - [544] - Quote Response: Keep fighter assist exactly as is but, with minor changes Rational: Removing fighter assist destroys a very unique aspect of group team play Fighters are not drones, they are manned ships. They SHOULD have the ability to be sent to support combat away from the carrier Tweaks to avoid OP We've actually fought against a group using these "OP" tactics in their home system twice and had our ass kicked TBH we diddnt feel it was OP or felt the need to nerf their tactics - we just avoided fighting them in that system. However, if there is data to support that this is a major eve-wide issue ( which I really don't think it is ) all that is needed is: More realism added to fighters - they should be warp scramble-able ( I believe they are already affected by bubbles ) The ability to force them off grid as per a previous post ( e.g. at 25% shields each fighter pilot will attempt to leave grid ) However, I don't think any of these changes are worth the effort involved for the impact they will make. CCP - the changes of the last year or so have been amazing, please keep up the good work and ensure that all changes contribute to diversity of game play as opposed to removing something which adds to both story-line, content creation and team play.
Alexander McKeon Blackwater USA Inc. Pandemic Legion 77	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:43:19 - [545] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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. CCP Rise, if you don't want your fighters to warp off-grid, all you need to do is uncheck the little 'attack and follow' box and they won't. Problem solved, zero development work required. Removing the ability of fighters & bombers to warp in the absence of fighter assist wouldn't give any real benefit, and would prevent aligned supercapitals from warping off without de-fanging themselves (insert mandatory death2allsupers comment) which would have genuine implications for their usability. Giving them warp drives also prevents issues where fighters can be kited off-grid (CCP doesn't like talking about grid-fu, but you know about it) and rendered ineffective. Having your Fibos warp back after killing an SBU 210km away is also a rather nice quality-of-life issue, as is the option to have your fighters engage fleeing targets. PS: This will address the problem of skynet carriers putting up a POS shield as a defensive maneuver from an offline stick, but could we please get a restriction on lighting cynos within the bubble radius of an anchored/online control tower one of these days to prevent super-safe capital movements? That shield trick is annoying as hell.
Blind Myst SECURITY SQUAD N.O.B.O.D.Y. 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 13:47:45 - [546] - Quote I tell You what I think: the most stupidiest and the most easiest way for You as game developers is to make some stupid rebalance things thst kill the spirit of EVE-online and do it like: "Hi guys! Look we make a super change in game! We haven't done anything at all GOOD and SMART but we what You to think about us like we've done this!". What Do You want to do with Ishtars nerf it once again? Why? Because new players won't be able to fly on it for a several months and they would get out from EVE and You loose Your profits? And You afraid of losing Your money! That's true You lose Your profits and people who rules CCP lose their bonuses. That's why You do everything in the past 2 years to make the EVE fast-entering game, the game for stupid instead of the game for smart! If You really want to nerf Ishtar make it slower not cut one of his main efforts. I use Ishtar as support ship for tengu to farm lvl5 agents. It is critical for me that it has 10% bonus to damage and drone BSs die of 3 shots. What should I do when You nerf both Ishtar and tengus?! I can farm now several missions without rewarp because of tank with dps from ishtars and tank by shiled from Tengu. After Your "super" rebalance I will need to change the whole tactics of the mission runing or pass them with rewarps and the time will rise to 6 - 15 minutes for 1 mission from 2-4 minutes. I need Tengu's extreme shield amount and resists to fight throug matars missions and even now it is very hard to do that with 10% bonus to shileds! How should I earn ISK if I won't be able to farm missions on tengu any more?! There are a lot of people who think the same way as I do. If You really really have nothing to do and nothing to think about and the only business You've got is to cry: "Give me something to rebalance right now!!!! I need this!!! My children need a wine!! My wife doesn't gives me sex until I rebalance something!!!! So please...." then play with the speed and the signature of the ship. Don't play with the main features of the ship. Ishtars could be strong but slow and that would break some stupid tactics of stupid over blob. I know what I am talking about cause I fly Ishtars in both PVP and PVE. PVP is not the ony use of Ishtars. To the nubes who plays eve: I was nube too and I also was kicked-assed by the more experienced players. LEARN!!!! DON'T YOU CRY!!!! THAT's EVE!!!
Dean Dewitt Babylon Knights DARKNESS. 15	Posted - 2015.02.28 14:21:50 - [547] - Quote Hi, I use fighter assist, I'm pretty sure some people who answered to this post don't use it, they are just the victim. I saw some people use assist fighter without having their carrier or mothership on the grid. We shot the fighters but the owner just call them back. The problem isn't that people are using the assist of their fighter, the problem is fighter CAN'T be destroyed, they should be pointable, we consider them as pilot and not drones. So don't remove them the ability to warp, don't remove the assist. If you remove the assist, there won't be any capitals anymore or just archons and may be chimera. Why would I use a mothership if I use it once every year? Carriers were used to bring ships in 0.0, they can't jump as far as they could, and you can't just every second with the jump fatigue. Now you want to remove the ability to assign fighters? I'll sell my carrier if this is going to happen, and won't skill for more.
Labadiena Candy balls Only For Fun 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 14:24:49 - [548] - Quote Guys, CCP, please boost DPS from motherships and titans (x10 mb vs capitals and supercapitals, arround 150k DPS need). Or start thinking about t2 supercapitals. Warping fighters and fighter bombers please hold. `Candy balls GÇö -¦-+-Ç-+-+-Ç-¦-å-+-Å -+-Ç-+-¦-+-¦-ê-¦-¦-é -¦-+-Å -à-+-é-¦-Ç-+-+-+-¦ -+-+-+-+-é-+-¦: -æ-+-ì-¦-+-+-ü-+-¦, -Ñ-ö, -ó-Ç-+-¦-¦-+-ï-à -É-Ç-à-+-+-+-¦. -ƒ-+ -+-+-¦-+-¦-â -¦-ü-é-â-+-+-¦-+-+-Å -+-¦-à-+-¦-+-é-¦ -¦ -+-¦-Ç-¦ -+-¦ -¦-¦-+-¦-+ Fire in the hall`
Dograzor Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance 68	Posted - 2015.02.28 14:27:43 - [549] - Quote I'm ok with the removal of the assist, it feels broken in risk v.s. reward. However please keep the fighter warp as leaving expensive fighters on a field because you had to warp your capital feels wrong.
raging star Circle Of Chaos 18	Posted - 2015.02.28 14:57:46 - [550] - Quote Suitonia wrote: Jenn aSide wrote: Now expalin to us all how well that works when the fighters don't get bonuses from the carrier/mods/carrier pilot? Which is the entire point. CCP made some not so smart buffs to fighters, that went haywire and the 'fix' is to remove the mechanic that was around before the problem but not the actual things that caused the problem? That doesn't make any damn sense. CCP Rise and CCP Fozzie are part of the game design team and are not programmers. The Fighter Assist code has likely not been touched in over 10 years when it was put out in the Red Moon Rising expansion in 2006. There are several bugs in the fighter assist code and since CCP has a problem with applying/deapplying skills/bonuses from other grids in the past (See OGB) and the Brain-In-A-Box project, it would probably take incredible amount of time from the development team to get these bugs fixed. At which point, fighter assist will go back to being a marginalized and rarely used mechanic, of which CCP would have now spent hundreds of development hours on. I don't want to here this. - ccp has promise to improse POS and sov, nothing yet - like someone mention already, i am "happy" with my connect the dot PI bs. I think that the way we interact with POS structures is the main issue so why not "fix" POS or s****d them up more and stop messing with my carrier, it already got castrated once already with your jump range solution .
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 492	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:01:54 - [551] - Quote How on earth has this garbage topic remained at the top? Just how many afk pvpers and botting ratters are there in this game? Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 492	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:05:17 - [552] - Quote Labadiena wrote: Guys, CCP, please boost DPS from motherships and titans (x10 mb vs capitals and supercapitals, arround 150k DPS need). Or start thinking about t2 supercapitals. Warping fighters and fighter bombers please hold. Oh yes, let's please make another pointless diversion for the coalitions to strive for in the unending onemanupship they must endure to remain at the peak of the game. T2 supercapitals FEH why not reduce supercap hp by 10% first and see how that works out. Titans can probably be left as is for now because they're more of a liability than an asset for most people anyway. Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
ShtirliZZ G0P-ST0P P I R A T 20	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:14:55 - [553] - Quote Don't remove Fighter warp
Antillie Sa'Kan KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 929	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:16:27 - [554] - Quote baltec1 wrote: Death to all capitals This.
Durep Lunar Labs 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:26:20 - [555] - Quote Don't remove fighter assists
SCV'Argos TheMurk 7	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:35:07 - [556] - Quote Just don't remove fighter assist. It's a unique gameplay. For example you made scanning probes automatically return to its user instead of getting lost, and that destroyed the unique w-space scenarios with lost pilots trying to get out of there with talking skills in local, cat-n-mouse hunts, ransoming and betrayals. That was an awful change. And now again you want to delete a unique gameplay by removing fighter assist. Terrible idea.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 9996	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:36:19 - [557] - Quote Ncc 1709 wrote: a simple fix to fighters is that they should return to base upon 50% shield damage for repairs. once they have returned to base they need to rest and change their pants which takes them 5 mins of combat fatigue. oooooh I like that. Now that is a cool idea if I ever saw one.
Ajunta Thor Pwn 'N Play Nulli Secunda 4	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:54:11 - [558] - Quote I don't mind removal of fighter assigning to be honest. Never personally used it much. Fighters should be allowed to warp though and they should be left exactly like they are now in that regard. Whether its fighters chasing targets or simply following the carrier in warp. That is a very unique part of the game and of using Carriers/Supers. IT results in some interesting game play where pilots have to make sure their fighters aren't chasing people of grid and die or simply giving them the ability to kill someone who wasn't paying attention as they warped. The idea of them being made point/scram-able would add another interesting dynamic as well.
Striker 579 Nova Frontiers 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 15:56:04 - [559] - Quote I think fighter assist is a really cool thing in the game so to balance you could make fighters require bandwidth from the ship its assigned too so like each fighter will require 25 Mbit/sec you will need a ship with minimum of 25 Mbit/sec to receive 1 fighter. so only large ships can put out 5 fighters not shuttles. If that wont work I would say at least keep that fighters will warp with the carrier.
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 1126	Posted - 2015.02.28 16:11:44 - [560] - Quote Caleb Seremshur wrote: How on earth has this garbage topic remained at the top? Just how many afk pvpers and botting ratters are there in this game? It's a sticky you blathering idiot, of course it's at the top. Also it's a fairly big deal for a lot of people. I for example use fighters only for ratting (directly controlled by the carrier, so assign change does not effect me) and on grid support for my slowcat, so this change does not effect my PvP, but the warp changes do mean that I am forced to recall fighters 100km+ between each PvE site. That in turn takes the time it takes for me to run a site from around 7 minutes to 9, dropping my isk per hour by a good 50-60 mil/hour. If you want to look at "botting ratters", go look at AFKtars, not carriers.
Arabesca Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 16:21:12 - [561] - Quote Two months ago CCP Fozzie wrote: "I know that some people who are hoping for a major nerf to assigned fighters will be unhappy that this change will only have a small-moderate effect on that activity. We have been keeping a close eye on the way fighters are used ever since our recent rounds of drone rebalancing and we aren't ruling out any potential future changes at this time. However we are not going to rush into any larger changes to fighter mechanics" [url]https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=396274[/url] No comment
Torx Sigma Out-of-Space Fidelas Constans 4	Posted - 2015.02.28 16:34:59 - [562] - Quote My thinking about? - supers are expensive so they should have some specials * supers should be able to asign fighters and fighterbombers, delete this function to carriers - to avoid ratting with assisted fighters or fighterbombers simple forbid that near towers. - to reach this change the drone control unit ---> a dcu is needed to assist fighters or fitherbombers ---> a dcu cant be enabled within range to a forcefield of XXX km - fighters and fighterbombers * both are unique and expensive things so both should be able to have a warpdrive - thats a must have * make it possible to scramb them so that you can defend your self for warping fighters finally: supers should assist fighter and fighterbombers, carriers not! fighters and fighterbombers must have a warpdrive!
Xian Ailux-Gao Red Dawn Mercenaries Forsaken Asylum 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 16:57:43 - [563] - Quote How about making fighters unusable within 100km of towers and stations? Like all the types of deployables. That will still make the carrier usaable for fighters but put a whole lot more risk when using it. Also the guy who gets the fighters assigned should have full responsibility of what the fighters do. That is, if fighters aggro, the assigned pilot will suffer the aggro timers and all, as well as the carrier pilot. Removing assigning fighters will simply render the carrier into a very large logistics ship. I fear that ppl won't use fighters at all, and will only bring out carriers to rep structures when needed. Supers will be completely useless more or less. And tbh, a carrier can not be a carrier in the right sense if it can't sit at very long range deploying fighters.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1019	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:00:13 - [564] - Quote Xian Ailux-Gao wrote: Removing assigning fighters will simply render the carrier into a very large logistics ship. approved, let's remove fighters
Eva Angeli Lost in shadow Brothers of Tangra 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:10:53 - [565] - Quote You are funny at CCP . You delete a defense mechanism of the game that allows a player outnumbered compete with many players with false pretenses and real nuisance in this game represent the ghost campers you will not care completely
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 607	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:11:17 - [566] - Quote Still waiting for an argument for why fighter warp should be removed, since Rise's only argument was already debunked. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Wranglatang Hoover Inc. Pandemic Legion 7	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:16:34 - [567] - Quote I think you should only be able to assist to ships with sufficient done bandwidth. In terms of fighter warping, I think the mechanic should be left in, it's beneficial being able to warp off in a carrier with fighters still out, then recall fighters to join you when you leave warp elsewhere in the system.
Xian Ailux-Gao Red Dawn Mercenaries Forsaken Asylum 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:17:29 - [568] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Xian Ailux-Gao wrote: Removing assigning fighters will simply render the carrier into a very large logistics ship. approved, let's remove fighters in that case, why not just remove Carriers ??
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 607	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:19:57 - [569] - Quote Xian Ailux-Gao wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: Xian Ailux-Gao wrote: Removing assigning fighters will simply render the carrier into a very large logistics ship. approved, let's remove fighters in that case, why not just remove Carriers ?? Just think of how much SP I'll be reimbursed! Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1019	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:25:41 - [570] - Quote Xian Ailux-Gao wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: Xian Ailux-Gao wrote: Removing assigning fighters will simply render the carrier into a very large logistics ship. approved, let's remove fighters in that case, why not just remove Carriers ?? because the very large logistics ship role isn't necessarily invalid, and if expanded on, the ship hangar thing would be interesting if it could have piloted ships inside.
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 492	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:28:10 - [571] - Quote Anhenka wrote: Caleb Seremshur wrote: How on earth has this garbage topic remained at the top? Just how many afk pvpers and botting ratters are there in this game? It's a sticky you blathering idiot, of course it's at the top. Also it's a fairly big deal for a lot of people. I for example use fighters only for ratting (directly controlled by the carrier, so assign change does not effect me) and on grid support for my slowcat, so this change does not effect my PvP, but the warp changes do mean that I am forced to recall fighters 100km+ between each PvE site. That in turn takes the time it takes for me to run a site from around 7 minutes to 9, dropping my isk per hour by a good 50-60 mil/hour. If you want to look at "botting ratters", go look at AFKtars, not carriers. You are a clever dog. Out of.. how many stickies? the one with the most replies stays at the top. Just remember when you point a finger 3 are pointing right back at you idiot. Also I don't need your rundown on how ratting with carriers works CCP Rise wrote: 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? He hasn't said fighter warping will be definitely removed. Your primary concern is the inability to warp between sites with fighters deployed. Since NPCs don't warp between sites it stands to reason that being unable to assign fighters to your alt means that you can't start a new site with the alt and have the drones follow him while your skynet carrier catches up. I think this is totally fine. It doesn't currently lie outside of the functionality of fighters but it soon will. Perhaps in the future you'll deploy sentry drones instead (and consequently get similar amounts of DPS without the travel time). Also hilarious to me is how your income can drop by potentially 60 mil an hour. Because the economy is healthy when built on this rate of income generation, because the economy is healthy with titanic isk generation feasibly being achieved at this rate by a single person multiply by the ratters active in an alliance, pooled in to a coalition. B-R had a very small effect on the economy of the game. IIRC it took far less than 24 hours for trading to stabilise at pre-battle levels. What does this suggest to you? In a macro-economical sense? And furthermore before you reply do consider the implications of the above for smaller entities that lack your particular flavour of grossly disproportionate income. Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
Caleb Seremshur The Atomic Fallout Kids 492	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:33:44 - [572] - Quote Eva Angeli wrote: You are funny at CCP . You delete a defense mechanism of the game that allows a player outnumbered compete with many players with false pretenses and real nuisance in this game represent the ghost campers you will not care completely You yokel, have you ever considered the ramifications of putting up a guerilla POS in someones system, decking it out with literally hundreds of guns and webs and then having a whole fleet of skynet carriers warping to it, then deploying assigned fighters? No. And while I hate AFK cloaking as much as the next man, the real demon is their presence in local, not the fact that they're AFK or cloaked in your system, watching you, learning your patterns, organising a hot-drop fleet gift-wrapped in red tape for your ships. The real problem is that you're scared of schrodingers hotdropper, the potential to be killed by someone who might not even be at the keyboard. And I find it credulous how Rise will tell you that removing combat recons from D-scan makes people take more risks while not implementing removing cloaked people from local. The effect would be largely the same but on a raucously larger scale. Faction warfare pilot and solo/small gang PVP advocate
Zazzel Waterchester Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:34:57 - [573] - Quote So if I understand CCP right here, they would rather castrate capitals again then come up with any thing resembling a well thought out solution. I mean space aids and then they take fighter assist. I have a question for any of the "thinkers" behind this brilliance. "WTF would u do with a cap after this nerf?" - maybe ill gate camp with it or go do lvl 5 and sanctums...?! CCP- think about this long and hard you are going to over-correct again with taking fighter assit from cap pilots i have read at least a dozen more acceptable solutions for fixing your problem with fighters A few that I found were GGRREEAATT!!! -standardize a ship size to assign fighters to. - make a min distance from pos/station -create a new high slot mod that allows for fighter assigning. Brilliant ideas to fix the problem, brought to you by people who actually play the game. Should stop what your doing CCP and take any of the ideas about fixing fighter assigning here because your on your way to making caps useless and as an additional consequence you'd lose all the income those characters accounts generate because... WHY HAVE A CAP IF U CANT USE IT!!!
Judy Mikakka Militaris Industries Northern Coalition. 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:43:57 - [574] - Quote Remove fighter assisting really, perfectly fine, was a little bit over powered, but some have already suggested alternatives to a out right removal of it, but what I wouldn't be happy with was fighter warping, you mention that it's a hassle for your fighters to warp off when the target you are attacking warps off, but if you simply learnt game mechanics and turned attack and follow, you wouldn't say that, so with that out the way, leave fighter warping itself in the game, as it's an important feature for a super carrier, or a carrier.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1021	Posted - 2015.02.28 17:57:59 - [575] - Quote Judy Mikakka wrote: Remove fighter assisting, or review other alternatives to revising the mechanic, and leave fighter warping itself in the game, as it's an important feature for a super carrier, or a carrier. actually it's just an important feature for lazy incompetent pilots
Skydott Burnin plasma ball 23	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:03:33 - [576] - Quote Great! remove fighter assist and give carriers 8highslots with capital turrets hardpoint .
Tagapaz Northstar Cabal Tactical Narcotics Team 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:11:34 - [577] - Quote Please do keep fighter warping .
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 607	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:14:03 - [578] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Judy Mikakka wrote: Remove fighter assisting, or review other alternatives to revising the mechanic, and leave fighter warping itself in the game, as it's an important feature for a super carrier, or a carrier. actually it's just an important feature for lazy incompetent pilots That's not a valid reason to remove it. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Celesae Clan Shadow Wolf Fatal Ascension 26	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:19:27 - [579] - Quote Rroff wrote: Most of the complaints stem from small gangs roaming - even solo or just a couple of players, jump in see/find a viable target and engage then suddenly fighters and despite doing everything they are "supposed" to do survival is pretty slim to none. So: an inferior force engages a superior force without knowing it is superior... Sounds like something straight out of The Art of War. This is poor planning and/or just the way EVE plays when you have a sandbox. Always assume your enemy has a trump card - if you engage, you do so knowing that there's a risk of loss (personally, I like the mantra of, "If I undock it, I've already lost it"). They could have: 1) Used scouts (d-scan!). Having hostiles in system and not-on grid is a good sign you don't have enough intel. 2) Used the in-game map to look for recent cynos 3) Used killboards to look at the hostiles' previous kills and/or recent kills in the particular system 4) Plot revenge. Even if they can't themselves, there are groups that hunt capitals in lowsec - they'd be more than happy to get intel of skynet carriers. If none of those were available at all, at any point, then that was a pretty well-laid trap and I'd say the aggressors were doomed to die regardless. Such is EVE.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1021	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:19:40 - [580] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: Judy Mikakka wrote: Remove fighter assisting, or review other alternatives to revising the mechanic, and leave fighter warping itself in the game, as it's an important feature for a super carrier, or a carrier. actually it's just an important feature for lazy incompetent pilots That's not a valid reason to remove it. feeling pretty trolled right now.
lboogs BLACK SQUADRON. The Bastion 2	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:34:04 - [581] - Quote I for one think it's a terrible idea to nerf the fighter assist. As said before its a feature in the game that make carriers unique ships. If you are going to nerf it anyways, is there a possibility that you would limit the fighter control range to about 5 to 10 Au and add a skill book that would increase that range?
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 925	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:42:06 - [582] - Quote Celesae wrote: So: an inferior force engages a superior force without knowing it is superior... Sounds like something straight out of The Art of War. This is poor planning and/or just the way EVE plays when you have a sandbox. Always assume your enemy has a trump card - if you engage, you do so knowing that there's a risk of loss (personally, I like the mantra of, "If I undock it, I've already lost it"). They could have: 1) Used scouts (d-scan!). Having hostiles in system and not-on grid is a good sign you don't have enough intel. 2) Used the in-game map to look for recent cynos 3) Used killboards to look at the hostiles' previous kills and/or recent kills in the particular system 4) Plot revenge. Even if they can't themselves, there are groups that hunt capitals in lowsec - they'd be more than happy to get intel of skynet carriers. If none of those were available at all, at any point, then that was a pretty well-laid trap and I'd say the aggressors were doomed to die regardless. Such is EVE. EDIT: If we're talking about nullsec, then no one should really be surprised at all when this happens. Null-sov space may have ripe and juicy ratting/mining targets, but those are often guarded by the pilots and ships that helped to win and hold the sov in the first place. Hit-and-fade tactics always carry the risk of being snuffed out by the defending garrisons; it's basically guerrilla warfare and carries the same risks. While I don't exactly disagree - that is an over simplified way to look at it i.e. while some people operate out of the same system doing it over and over some bounce around a region never doing it from one place for very long or as in another case following conflict or other events like thera exits. If the people doing it are using the more common techniques then plotting revenge is largely a waste of time at the most you might force them to move system prematurely though you might catch the more careless ones.
Lord HazMatelio Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:42:21 - [583] - Quote I feel this will need to stay, Why not remove remote shield rep bonus from the scimi to....
Galian Kile Interdimensional Chaos Gentlemen's.Club 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:54:12 - [584] - Quote One of my corp members has this Idea. I proposed a Sov Upgrade. Corp member propsed to have an Anchorable Structure for "SKYNET" This is another tactiful method that can be introduced. You can incap this structure therefore negating Deligation of Fighters in the system. Also, Let's not forget you can ONLY deligate FIGHTERS, not FIGHTER BOMBERS. So therefore, the DPS isn't much. Even with 4 DDM's, You can get more close to that DPS out of an ISHTAR and Battleship or even more. LIke everyone has said, Deligation is a Carrier FEATURE. You take that away because you have players who are complaining they are losing too much isk to that Feature/Tactic? Come one CCP!!. THIS IS EVE! !!!! HARDEN THE F*** UP!!!!
Carrion Crow Ready Player 1 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:56:29 - [585] - Quote With regards to disallowing fighter use in close proximity to a POS. While there are several suggestions for this, I believe that it would remove the ability to use a carrier as part of a genuine POS defense fleet. This would impact smaller corps far harder than large ones. Again, this would also break lore/common sense - if fighters are piloted ships, why can't they operate near a POS? I'm sure a nerf to the ability of fighters to attack and flee/warp away at will, would be considerably better from a game play perspective. I also like the idea of fighter killmails, the more we make them like real ships / improve impact of loss, the better. CC
beakerax Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 41	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:56:54 - [586] - Quote Rise, if you keep on removing everything that is broken and gimmicky about Eve, you will eventually end up with a game that is neither broken nor gimmicky.
ShadowFireGirl Astral Inferno Balcora Gatekeepers 7	Posted - 2015.02.28 18:57:06 - [587] - Quote Galian Kile wrote: Taking away the assist feature will see a fall in ISK making as well. Assist isn't ONLY used in fighting but in ISK making. This is a feature that a carrier has had for a long time. Like others have said, orbiting or sitting at a POS is NOT 100% safe. You fly what you can afford to lose. It is not the carriers pilot fault people who come into a system to harass are engaged with fighters that are assigned. What is Eve's Motto??? HARDEN THE ***** UP!! If you want to put a balance on this, I propose this; No Module or anything of that sort. Let "SKYNET" be a SOV UPGRADE. And let the aggressor take the risk of entering a system where fighters can be assigned. PERIOD. It is a WIN-WIN That is All... This won't work. Many people live in wormholes and use this feature, unless you are proposing that wormholers can use it too somehow, this is just not a good solution.
Ranamar Valkyries of Night Of Sound Mind 81	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:06:49 - [588] - Quote Assigned fighters are pretty ridiculous. It allows adding 500 DPS to any random ship, and two of them at a time from a single carrier, which will double the damage output of most cruisers, never mind smaller tackle stuff. Meanwhile, the carrier is barely at risk. In fact, it's sufficiently not-at-risk that you can afford to fit all damage and tracking mods. Following fighters are the kind of thing that's funny for the user and really not fun for the target. I'm sorta okay with them, but they have warp-following skills that any interceptor pilot would envy, and a few fighters can destroy a cruiser (which they match in warpspeed and always get the right warpin) in only a couple volleys. You can't even warp to a safe because they will find you there. Fighter warping I'm sort of ambivalent about. Given how expensive everything involved is, I like knowing that I can warp off field without having to recall my drones, because they'll catch up with me. On the other hand, I'd understand if you wanted to make "we pulled the warp drives out of the fighters" the explanation for why they can no longer perfectly predict where you're warping to and arriving there with you. I'd prefer keeping that feature, but it's a peace of mind thing, mostly.
Zhalon Forging Industries Silent Infinity 36	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:07:18 - [589] - Quote I'm training an alt to assign perfect fighters for assisting....No need to dual train that character now. I understand things will change and there are no guarantees, but come on... Assigning fighters and their warp mechanic has always made carriers unique. As EVE has evolved we see more ships being adding with SMA built in, fleet hangars, jump capabilities, "seige" type modes but fighters have remained unique for carriers. In my opinion you just broke the uniqueness of carriers. These type of major changes are extremely frustrating when someone skill plans a capital ship that will take more than a year of training....8 months and you negate my whole purpose for the training. To clarify...assigning fighters is valuable in pve, mining, and pvp. PVP is the only source of the complaining. Make a new deployable that disrupts assigned fighter communication or something...
Galian Kile Interdimensional Chaos Gentlemen's.Club 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:07:21 - [590] - Quote ShadowFireGirl wrote: Galian Kile wrote: Taking away the assist feature will see a fall in ISK making as well. Assist isn't ONLY used in fighting but in ISK making. This is a feature that a carrier has had for a long time. Like others have said, orbiting or sitting at a POS is NOT 100% safe. You fly what you can afford to lose. It is not the carriers pilot fault people who come into a system to harass are engaged with fighters that are assigned. What is Eve's Motto??? HARDEN THE ***** UP!! If you want to put a balance on this, I propose this; No Module or anything of that sort. Let "SKYNET" be a SOV UPGRADE. And let the aggressor take the risk of entering a system where fighters can be assigned. PERIOD. It is a WIN-WIN That is All... This won't work. Many people live in wormholes and use this feature, unless you are proposing that wormholers can use it too somehow, this is just not a good solution. This is true. Hence why a corpmate suggested it be a POS Anchorable Structure. Which is usable in WH space as well.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 925	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:09:38 - [591] - Quote Carrion Crow wrote: With regards to disallowing fighter use in close proximity to a POS. While there are several suggestions for this, I believe that it would remove the ability to use a carrier as part of a genuine POS defense fleet. This would impact smaller corps far harder than large ones. Again, this would also break lore/common sense - if fighters are piloted ships, why can't they operate near a POS? I'm sure a nerf to the ability of fighters to attack and flee/warp away at will, would be considerably better from a game play perspective. I also like the idea of fighter killmails, the more we make them like real ships / improve impact of loss, the better. CC Its only assignment within proximity of a POS that should be restricted not fighter use on grid itself of the POS. Which can easily enough be explained by all the systems at the POS causing communication scrambling/distortion/attenuation or something to off grid fighters when a carrier is near the POS.
Mr Coulson S.H.I.E.L.D. HQ Sentinels of Sukanan Alliance 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:09:45 - [592] - Quote I'm not a cap pilot, I haven't fought in Large fleet battles and only know of Fighters and what they do because i found two idle at a gate to high sec once. But from a new player perspective -- someone who has had to change his skill goals so many times because of 'Balance Changes' and new direction of game play. I see many ways to do PvP and combat that older players I have talked to haven't considered because of the forest in the trees problem, New players bring fresh ideas and THAT is where new game play should be coming from . from ideas no one has thought of yet, but using existing mechanics.... I'm in a group of players who brainstorm ways to play, constantly ridiculed by the vets cause 'the game isnt played that way' yet these ideas work and we have fun thinking them up and trying them out. yet I am personally becoming very frustrated over how much time I'm wasting trying to train to be able to use these new combat concepts because over and over -- you make changes which kill the ability to use them before we even get started using them. nipping in the bud the ideas that fresh New players -- who figure out on their own ways to play -- many of which are new -- all just to have it dissapear as you move to satisfy the older veteran players. If your goal is to keep the old player base happy and chase away the newer players with frustration. its achieved, Keep Drone Assisted AS IS, make it even better by allowing those assisted more control of the drones (make it a module on that ship if u must). If having a large cap hide i behind a Pos shield is a problem? then get rid of that problem. Make them come out. They are too easy to find? (or some poor underpaid alt - like me - who sits cloaked at towers for hours on end just to spot a cap go online and calls for BLOP drop) and suddenly a small fight escalates into a bigger fight to kill the carrier? Wahoo YES! K.I.S.S. - Make the caps come out! but think bigger CCP, ADD game play - not continuous TAKE IT AWAY. Right now the lore has in it, a race that has new cloaking tech, find some wreckage and redesign it to a new mod for carriers that allows them to play in normal space. Maybe they will warp to a safe spot after assisting drones and activate it. This mod could scramble combat probes so they cant be found in under 30 seconds, maybe it will only give a warp-in that is like 300-1000k away, so anyone trying to find it will have to slowboat to it. give it a chance to warp off to a new spot. OOooo a capital chase, NICE! Possibly even have the drones go dormant for the time its in warp. OOooo another new combat factor to play with! Fighters warping after ships could get lost and now u have to go salvage them, or the enemy may learn to time jumping a hidden cap at the right moment and it could turn the tide of a battle. OOooo, Wait is that a new combat idea? Using Tactics instead of F1 Blobbing?. Naw it would never fly. GET CREATIVE CCP expand game-play not shrink it ---- and stop killing off all my good fresh and new ideas before I even get a chance to use them.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 925	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:12:46 - [593] - Quote Galian Kile wrote: This is true. Hence why a corpmate suggested it be a POS Anchorable Structure. Which is usable in WH space as well. No one is really going to bother going around incapping them though, the other option I guess would be a module that worked like ecm burst but temporarily disrupted (assigned) fighters in range but that could be used to effortlessly grief without a lot of design work.
Zhalon Forging Industries Silent Infinity 36	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:12:53 - [594] - Quote You removed content, you removed a play style.....please focus on adding content.
SootThis High Flyers The Kadeshi 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:16:49 - [595] - Quote Leave fighters ability to warp after their target alone... as that does provide some often amusing results when a aggressor to a capital, breaks off and runs for the gate, only to realize when he is stuck there on account of aggression while the fighters pummel him
Lavrenti Palych Zima Corp Infinity Space. 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:22:58 - [596] - Quote I'm not sure that such nerf of carriers increase their involvement in pvp (as victims on npc hunt , at best). But I'm sure that is one more step to dominant concept "small and cheap easy kill a large and expensive" - like well-established popular format of the interceptors gangs. So, in these conditions - why do I need (expensive and long time studied) a carrier or supercarrier? Best healing structures or powerblocs mass-pvp with over 4000 local and terrible lags? Oh... No, thanks. Charadrass wrote: guys. you can assist 5 fighters. not the whole bunch a carrier or super can Launch. thats a 2k dps per ship where you assist 5 of them. a good fitted vindicator with drones can get that too. gonna nerf vindicators right? Yep. Next-gen total pvp of EVE: mass fleets of frigates and destroyers - it's fast, cheap and effectively.
SiKong Ma House of Nim-Lhach Skeleton Crew. 7	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:24:51 - [597] - Quote I'm for fighter assist to stay as this unique ability makes the difference between a fleet supported by carriers vs those that are not. It also adds to the gameplay for the opposing fleet to locate the carrier. Further suggest the carriers must be outside the POS (at least 100 km distance from POS) or the fighters will automatically return to the carrier. Suggest give carrier pilots the option to toggle fighters follow targets in warp.
Silent Silhouette Noir. Academy Of Sound Mind 12	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:25:14 - [598] - Quote Why just remove fighter assist? Why not make it so that fighter when assigned to, lets say a vexor, then takes up drone bandwidth on both the carrier and the assigned ship. So the vexor could only be assigned and control 3 fighters(meaning he can't launch his drones, and if his drones are already out they can't be assigned to him) this making coordination within fleets important, instead of lets assign 100 fighter to that interceptor.
CMD CTRL poonswarm 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:26:10 - [599] - Quote What a suprie.. everyone who uses carriers/supers to rat havens are crying about this change. One of the best moves CCP have made in along time, I commend them on their decision- would be alot easier to leave it broken. x
Mr Coulson S.H.I.E.L.D. HQ Sentinels of Sukanan Alliance 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:30:41 - [600] - Quote Silent Silhouette wrote: Why just remove fighter assist? Why not make it so that fighter when assigned to, lets say a vexor, then takes up drone bandwidth on both the carrier and the assigned ship. So the vexor could only be assigned and control 3 fighters(meaning he can't launch his drones, and if his drones are already out they can't be assigned to him) this making coordination within fleets important, instead of lets assign 100 fighter to that interceptor. I Like these ideas too. Also could make it so u can only send drones to assist a ship that has a drone assist control module installed?
Kenshi Eto Uzamaki The Coven's Spoon Corner Pub 5	Posted - 2015.02.28 19:57:16 - [601] - Quote Don't go changing the whole game because a few guys got butthurt about a roam/gank that didn't go there way because of fighter assist, I've fought the little frigs that have fighters assigned to them, if u kill the frig the fighters go away... Stop changing this game so solo guys have a harder time or defending what they have turned into there emergent gameplay. a few guys whining about this current mechanic, should never change how this game works.
Kenshi Eto Uzamaki The Coven's Spoon Corner Pub 5	Posted - 2015.02.28 20:00:56 - [602] - Quote Lord HazMatelio wrote: I feel this will need to stay, Why not remove remote shield rep bonus from the scimi to.... ^^lets change all the things that make this game EVE. +1 to you sir, for illustrating the absurdity
Ele Rebellion Dead Star Syndicate I'd Rather Be Roaming 33	Posted - 2015.02.28 20:01:57 - [603] - Quote I would be in support of cruisers and up only. As well as. -Cruisers may have maximum of 3 fighters assigned. (can still deploy 2 drones of its own) Battlecruisers may have 4 fighters assigned (can still deploy one drone) and battleships may have 5 assigned. -Carrier takes weapons timer upon assigning drones (same as the marauder's timer for using bastion) and timer remains at 1minute until fighters are unassigned (at which time the timer starts counting down) -Carriers cannot assign fighters within 6km of a station or forcefield. -Carriers pilots go suspect w/o standing loss upon assigning drones. -Carriers pilots take standing loss upon assigned fighters attacking neutral target. Also support the ship drones are assigned to going suspect upon telling the drones to engage a target. (under circumstances where the ship would normally go suspect if activating a weapon) Currently carriers have 2 roles in PvP. Triage and Off-grid DPS. With current faction battleship prices I see no reason anyone would field carriers for DPS. Faction battleships cost half of a carrier, cheaper to fit, and easier to field. Fielding carriers is usually reserved for Triage carriers (which cannot use drones or fighters while triaged.)
Glathull Warlock Assassins 965	Posted - 2015.02.28 20:12:57 - [604] - Quote Hmmm. CCP makes very clearly data driven decisions and people are unhappy. Yes, I know you can use data to lie. Data itself doesn't lie, but it will tell you anything you want it to say if you torture it long enough. But that isn't the case here. The analysis is very straightforward. Yet people still whinge about it. I don't understand that. Then in another case, CCP is making a philosophical change: a change based on how they want the game to be played. A change based on some sense of fairness or an idea of what constitutes a reasonable minimum bar for fights being okay. Again, I fail to see the opposition's point. The only thing I find disappointing in this dev-blog is that there isn't enough troll. CCP troll is best troll, usually. But not today. I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon Shut up, Anslo. --everyone
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 609	Posted - 2015.02.28 20:21:05 - [605] - Quote TrouserDeagle wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: TrouserDeagle wrote: Judy Mikakka wrote: Remove fighter assisting, or review other alternatives to revising the mechanic, and leave fighter warping itself in the game, as it's an important feature for a super carrier, or a carrier. actually it's just an important feature for lazy incompetent pilots That's not a valid reason to remove it. feeling pretty trolled right now. Lazy incompetent pilots use autopilot. Should CCP remove autopilot? Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Naomi Anthar 386	Posted - 2015.02.28 20:23:23 - [606] - Quote Now shutdown links and we got game we DESERVE.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 609	Posted - 2015.02.28 20:24:08 - [607] - Quote SootThis wrote: Leave fighters ability to warp after their target alone... as that does provide some often amusing results when a aggressor to a capital, breaks off and runs for the gate, only to realize when he is stuck there on account of aggression while the fighters pummel him Do you not realize how aggro works? Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 609	Posted - 2015.02.28 20:29:14 - [608] - Quote Here's a thought: to go along with suggestions to make fighter assist dependant on assistee ship size: Leave battleships and command ships as the only classes able to be assisted 5 fighters, and allow 10 fighters to marauders in bastion mode (when leaving bastion return the other fighters to the carrier). Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Glathull Warlock Assassins 966	Posted - 2015.02.28 20:32:04 - [609] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Lazy, incompetent pilots use the autopilot mechanic to find gank targets Should CCP remove lazy, incompetent pilots? Fixed quite a number of things there for you. And the answer to your query is no. I honestly feel like I just read fifty shades of dumb. --CCP Falcon Shut up, Anslo. --everyone
Myrona Space Explorer Institute Northern Associates. 6	Posted - 2015.02.28 20:49:04 - [610] - Quote Bad idea, CCP.
MadDog1 Mortis Angelus The Kadeshi 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 21:13:28 - [611] - Quote Horrible plans CCP...much prefer addressing the tactic, rather then nerfing the functionality of the ship. Not being able to assign fighters within 50km of a POS or station or whatever would be the better balance. Stop tacking away ship features, and instead place limits on tactics which use game mechanics to avoid risk.
Tomas Marksson Zima Corp Infinity Space. 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 21:16:41 - [612] - Quote One more time I admit you're ruining the game I like so much. As for me, I don't appreciate it. I strongly recommend not to do that. I've decided to create this 2nd account to learn Thanatos and then give fighters to my Tengu to make some profit on anomalies in Null-sec. But instead of this I should give up this idea and forget about this account (and even the game) forever because you are going to ruin my expectations and the whole game making it boring. Yes, boring. Because for months I've been looking forward to learning and buying a carrier with fighters to increase the amount of ISK I earn. It's my way of developing. But without this there's no develop. Why on earth should I spend months and ISKs I donate to get something I have been promised but I'm not going to get? Developers, just imagine, that you buy something (let it be a notebook) on the Internet and then you receive it with no screen! It works, of course, you can switch it on, but it's useful and now worth the money you've paid. Now you feel the same. I hope you've understand my point of view and you'll make a good decision. Thank you.
Seer Aaron 42 inc. Bora Alis 10	Posted - 2015.02.28 21:37:19 - [613] - Quote I think that the question of balance you need to follow a simple medical principle: do no harm. Because fighters have other problems. If you plan to remove the ability of their warp and delegate control them, then let's increase their optimum range stilbite 30-50 km to figthers could shoot POS the field. I think it would be fair.
warbds Stoli Holdings 11	Posted - 2015.02.28 21:37:21 - [614] - Quote I do understand the reason why you want to remove the assist. However that is something to the nature of a carrier even in real life! So why does this be removed and make carriers in my opinion useless vessels except for the reps. Maybe just maybe the solution would be within 1 au you could support a frigate, whitin 2 au a cruiser within 3 au a bc within 4au a bs within 5 au a capital. Ranges could be discussed and skill in the carrier skill should be considered. An other option would be create the assist skill lvl 1 with a frigate 1 drone 20% effective that would mean with the skill at lvl 5 1 fighther drone 100% effective ranging to capitals and the skill at level 5, 5 fighters at 100% You could even consider a module to be fitted on the assigned ship, which would limit the damage the assisted ship does by it self These would limit the ammount of fighters assigned but keep the carrier intact .
Mark Jervelund Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 21:50:06 - [615] - Quote I think you should do it in a different way, maybe do it so the ship that has gotten the fighters delegated to should require the bandwidth the control them, so an Ishtar can have 5, Algos can have 1 + 2 light Drones and a Tristan can have 1. This would also do so interceptors cannot get fighters since even the Taranis does not have the bandwidth to control one. Mark Jervelund
warbds Stoli Holdings 11	Posted - 2015.02.28 21:53:24 - [616] - Quote Mark Jervelund wrote: I think you should do it in a different way, maybe do it so the ship that has gotten the fighters delegated to should require the bandwidth the control them, so an Ishtar can have 5, Algos can have 1 + 2 light Drones and a Tristan can have 1. This would also do so interceptors cannot get fighters since even the Taranis does not have the bandwidth to control one. Mark Jervelund Sounds good but next to their own drones. Otherwise they can't use their own drones for defense against frigates
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 48	Posted - 2015.02.28 22:02:33 - [617] - Quote Kenshi Eto Uzamaki wrote: Don't go changing the whole game because a few guys got butthurt about a roam/gank that didn't go there way because of fighter assist, I've fought the little frigs that have fighters assigned to them, if u kill the frig the fighters go away... Stop changing this game so solo guys have a harder time or defending what they have turned into there emergent gameplay. a few guys whining about this current mechanic, should never change how this game works. EXACTLY! It's getting absurd. Everyone is going to end up flying a frigate. Especially interceptor's... CCP get a grip, it's getting frustrating now, i have been playing this game since 2004, and now, it seems the moment someone is able to fight off roaming gangs (interceptor roaming gangs are INCREDIBLY OP), NERF IT! Here's some pro-tips to the masses of noobs complaining about skynet: Yes your little roaming gang should be decimated by a defense gang utilizing carrier/supercarrier back-up. Yes your little roaming gang of interceptor can EASILY get away if someone is actually defending their space. Yes you can kill or negate the carrier/supercarrier help (force it into the POS shield, kill the cap/supercap, kill the POS, hot-drop, kill the ship that has fighter's assigned, or... holy ****... kill the fighter's! A AF and a HAC can decimate a fighter so quickly, it's not even funny!). I'm all for stopping fighters to follow targets when engaged, but taking the warp away from fighters... taking the assign option away... that's a pretty big nerf and cuts off gameplay completely for carriers/supercarriers (yet again...).
Mark Jervelund Delta vane Corp. Mordus Angels 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 22:04:18 - [618] - Quote Quote: Sounds good but next to their own drones. Otherwise they can't use their own drones for defense against frigates No there should still be a limit up 5 drones for normal ships and 15 for carriers
Tomas Marksson Zima Corp Infinity Space. 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 22:12:08 - [619] - Quote Kenshi Eto Uzamaki wrote: Don't go changing the whole game because a few guys got butthurt about a roam/gank that didn't go there way because of fighter assist, I've fought the little frigs that have fighters assigned to them, if u kill the frig the fighters go away... Stop changing this game so solo guys have a harder time or defending what they have turned into there emergent gameplay. a few guys whining about this current mechanic, should never change how this game works. I agree. Imagine you are trying to enter somebody's house and its owner meets you with a rifle in his hands. What are you going to do? Call a policeman to disarm the "aggressor"? Nonsence. Even in nature supremacy over the weak is the balance. It makes them develop themselves and do something to become stronger in order to achieve their goals. But what if all the goals are achieved?
Galian Kile Interdimensional Chaos Gentlemen's.Club 3	Posted - 2015.02.28 22:15:05 - [620] - Quote d0cTeR9 wrote: Kenshi Eto Uzamaki wrote: Don't go changing the whole game because a few guys got butthurt about a roam/gank that didn't go there way because of fighter assist, I've fought the little frigs that have fighters assigned to them, if u kill the frig the fighters go away... Stop changing this game so solo guys have a harder time or defending what they have turned into there emergent gameplay. a few guys whining about this current mechanic, should never change how this game works. EXACTLY! It's getting absurd. Everyone is going to end up flying a frigate. Especially interceptor's... CCP get a grip, it's getting frustrating now, i have been playing this game since 2004, and now, it seems the moment someone is able to fight off roaming gangs (interceptor roaming gangs are INCREDIBLY OP), NERF IT! Here's some pro-tips to the masses of noobs complaining about skynet: Yes your little roaming gang should be decimated by a defense gang utilizing carrier/supercarrier back-up. Yes your little roaming gang of interceptor can EASILY get away if someone is actually defending their space. Yes you can kill or negate the carrier/supercarrier help (force it into the POS shield, kill the cap/supercap, kill the POS, hot-drop, kill the ship that has fighter's assigned, or... holy ****... kill the fighter's! A AF and a HAC can decimate a fighter so quickly, it's not even funny!). I'm all for stopping fighters to follow targets when engaged, but taking the warp away from fighters... taking the assign option away... that's a pretty big nerf and cuts off gameplay completely for carriers/supercarriers (yet again...). I approve this message. Thank you. That is all. o7
malia katain Borg Collective Unimatrix Zero 1	Posted - 2015.02.28 22:42:25 - [621] - Quote 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.
O2 jayjay Tit-EE Sprinkles Stratagem. 19	Posted - 2015.02.28 22:53:25 - [622] - Quote +1 I don't think the assist should be completely removed. How about it can assist to caps only and must be on grid just like any other drone boat. Or have the assist to where its only on grid. No more of the safe POS crap That sounds fair. inty can be assist ONLY if the super is on grid with it. That way you know to GTFO and its on par with risk vs reward.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 926	Posted - 2015.02.28 22:57:15 - [623] - Quote d0cTeR9 wrote: EXACTLY! It's getting absurd. Everyone is going to end up flying a frigate. Especially interceptor's... CCP get a grip, it's getting frustrating now, i have been playing this game since 2004, and now, it seems the moment someone is able to fight off roaming gangs (interceptor roaming gangs are INCREDIBLY OP), NERF IT! Here's some pro-tips to the masses of noobs complaining about skynet: Yes your little roaming gang should be decimated by a defense gang utilizing carrier/supercarrier back-up. Yes your little roaming gang of interceptor can EASILY get away if someone is actually defending their space. Yes you can kill or negate the carrier/supercarrier help (force it into the POS shield, kill the cap/supercap, kill the POS, hot-drop, kill the ship that has fighter's assigned, or... holy ****... kill the fighter's! A AF and a HAC can decimate a fighter so quickly, it's not even funny!). I'm all for stopping fighters to follow targets when engaged, but taking the warp away from fighters... taking the assign option away... that's a pretty big nerf and cuts off gameplay completely for carriers/supercarriers (yet again...). As much as I don't want to see fighters lose assignment or warp a lot of that just doesn't apply - a small roaming gang will NOT win the war of attrition by killing fighters as they can be recalled or assigned to another player out of range once they get low health. Bashing the POS will do nothing and you'll be extremely lucky to get into a position to kill or even hot drop the super/carrier unless the pilot gets extremely lazy/sloppy. Trying to get away is easier said than done - skynet fighters can easily blap fast inties, etc. sure if you've got a few players in the gang those not tackled can warp off and try and find the super/carrier but by the time they've done that the player(s) tackled will be long dead and the super/carrier safe. On the flipside I managed to escape easily in a sleipnir and if I'd have had my links alt with me or been dual booster fit probably would have been able to kill them rather than run away - if I had been caught in open space in that instance instead of near a gate though I'd have been dead.
Misha Hartmann Arch Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi 26	Posted - 2015.02.28 22:59:28 - [624] - Quote It is unfortunate to see the ongoing and never ending capital nerf. Its quite simply just ridiculous that capitals have seen nothing but nerfs, even when they dont necessarily deserve it. The fighter assist nerf does not really affect me one way or another, I just find it serious bullshit that capitals are yet again being given the finger. Please stop nerfing capital just because the sub-cap babies cant deal with ships that other people have worked their buts off to get. THEY ARE CAPITAL SHIPS FOR THE LOVE OF GOD. They are meant to be better - THEY ARE EXPENSIVE FOR A REASON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If this keeps on going on the way it is, soon all one will be able to do is buy a 2-3bil capital ship that is worse than a subcap. Not that any dev would care, nerfing caps seems the thing to do these days.
Monasucks BLACK SQUADRON. The Bastion 147	Posted - 2015.02.28 23:13:44 - [625] - Quote Hi CCP another thing.. check ISIS ingame.. Quote: Caital ships able toremote repair and deploy advanced drones to assist allies. [img]http://666kb.com/i/cwiu2frpy9paui8y6.jpg[/img] http://666kb.com/i/cwiu2frpy9paui8y6.jpg Just to remind you for what carriers are intend to.. and what you tell even ingame.. so leave this content and maybe fix it! As many here intended do not allow assignment if close to POS etc. Can I haz you're stuff? A good worker is a live worker. Free to live - and work! A bad worker is a dead worker; and vice versa. Don't be a bad worker; bad workers are slaves, and dead. Payday for good workers has been postponed indefinitely. Payday for bad workers is cancelled!
Jagious The Branded Few The Pestilent Legion 11	Posted - 2015.02.28 23:20:32 - [626] - Quote In IRL and in eve the job of a carrier is to project power anywhere it needs to even beyond its field of view so dont change assigning of fighters. Giving the ability and control fighter warping would rid that problem. As for changing skynetting on the edge of a Pos and assigning. If CCP does this they might and well make T3 cruiser,command ships, Orca's and roquals and all other boosting ships unable to use there ability's near a POS to be fair with the discrimination. Carriers need to stay as a unique and strategic ship in the game like providing REP's for large alliance fights and as a force multiplier for small entity's. However I do favor making it impossible for FRIGATES and DESTROYERS of all types including skiffs, ventures and procurers being unable to receive fighters, which fixes the Remote sensor boosted frigs gate camps.
Smurfette Zoohl Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.02.28 23:32:48 - [627] - Quote Just remove drone modes. Some of them were noble but bad idea
Katarina The Despoiler Domination and Retribution 24	Posted - 2015.02.28 23:38:22 - [628] - Quote 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. Time Will Tell, Sooner or Later, Time Will Tell. Domination & Retribution
Anara Taran Tsunagi Industries 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 00:14:40 - [629] - Quote Removing this from the game is an extremely bad idea. It just makes carriers just a little more useless than they already are. Carriers need this ability to be of any interesting use in the game. Just make it more dangerous please.. increase range from POS where this can be done, and make the carrier maintain this distance, otherwise fighters warp back and dock. Carriers being able to do this is one of the most cool and interesting things you can do in EVE! Remove it, and make the game just a little less interesting as a whole.
Syco Saisima Vector Galactic Did he say Jump 16	Posted - 2015.03.01 00:17:19 - [630] - Quote I think Carriers and Supers should remain how they are as to maintain that special role they were intended for and just change the actual 'skynet' mechanic so they have to stay 1-2km off the edge of a POS shield (think recent cyno changes) in order to maintain connection to their drones. Your proposed change is just a band-aid fix to the wrong thing when the REAL problem is simply how POS shields work. It would also get rid of one of the few 'force projections' that smaller pirate/Faction Warfare groups have currently and their carriers still die sometimes.
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.
Nerd Slayer Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 10:31:45 - [661] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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.
Bradford Clear Collapsed Out Overload Everything 65	Posted - 2015.03.01 11:07:26 - [662] - Quote 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. Join : Bradford's 3rd Party Channel For all third party Services, and check out my thread. Forum Link
Shtangist007 Monkey Attack Squad Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 11:07:40 - [663] - Quote If you remove the warp fighters, instead they will remain only after a hard fat drones.
Worrff Viziam Amarr Empire 66	Posted - 2015.03.01 11:16:43 - [664] - Quote Nerd Slayer wrote: CCP Rise wrote: 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. CCP Philosophy: If it works, break it. If itGÇÖs broken, leave it alone and break something else.
LT Alter Adversity. Psychotic Tendencies. 138	Posted - 2015.03.01 11:40:17 - [665] - Quote Worrff wrote: Doesn't matter. He isn't reading this thread anyway. Obviously you're not familier with the way CCP work. They read their forums more than most other game devs do. Rise is most likely reading this thread, writing down useful feedback (Which by the way your post is not), and then passing it on to talk with other developers on. He will then respond with updated changes and respond to our feedback as needed. Learn pacience and remember that not only are CCP preparing for the upcoming fanfest, it is also currently the weekend. On top of that this thread is only like 3 days old.
Sanji Ohara Perkone Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 11:43:13 - [666] - Quote I would like to see a set minimum distance from anchored structures for being able to delegate fighter control, not the complete removal of it. Unless you are imagining that every player who delegates fighters will suddenly grow a backbone and throw it into the fight creating more content (right..). Although if this does happen, I look forward to the firesale of carriers out in renter space.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1108	Posted - 2015.03.01 11:45:25 - [667] - Quote Bradford Clear wrote: 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. Pretty much this. also, hi Brad!!! Yaay!!!!
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 615	Posted - 2015.03.01 11:47:51 - [668] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: 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. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Cleanse Serce Lonesome Capsuleer 10	Posted - 2015.03.01 11:54:07 - [669] - Quote 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, put Carrier would be Probe-able and in danger cause they get Fighters timers !
Qu jinn School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 12:16:27 - [670] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Phoenix Jones wrote: 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. You can warp off and did`t left 250 mill in fighters behind.
Emmilia Deriannice Death Magnetic. Legion of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 12:16:58 - [671] - Quote 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
Jori McKie TURN LEFT The Camel Empire 216	Posted - 2015.03.01 12:18:19 - [672] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Phoenix Jones wrote: 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. 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? "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths." --áAbrazzar
Vic Jefferson The Greater Goon Clockwork Pineapple 180	Posted - 2015.03.01 12:21:57 - [673] - Quote 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. Vote Vic Jefferson for CSM X
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 616	Posted - 2015.03.01 12:51:10 - [674] - Quote Jori McKie wrote: Primary This Rifter wrote: Phoenix Jones wrote: 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. 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? What does this have to do with fighter warping on its own, in the absence of fighter assign? Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 616	Posted - 2015.03.01 12:52:06 - [675] - Quote And Gorski Car is dumb for titling his article in such a way that it can't be linked on the main EVE forums. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 616	Posted - 2015.03.01 12:55:23 - [676] - Quote Vic Jefferson wrote: 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. I could not have said it better myself. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 928	Posted - 2015.03.01 12:58:47 - [677] - Quote Cleanse Serce wrote: 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 ! Alone it doesn't solve the issue (though IMO its a needed step to resolving the issue without removing functionality). Much of the original complaints stemmed from the fact that in combination with the "skynet" fit fighters were able to apply (unsupported) battleship to dread levels of alpha (and dps) to things that a battleship or dread could only dream of hitting, the fact that the super/carrier that was allowing that to happen was sitting about as safe as you get in this game while doing that was just adding insult to injury. Increasing the weighting of the sig component of the fighter's chance/quality to hit (i.e. similar style to what titan xl turrets use but not quite as extreme) so that they struggle and/or can't hit smaller stuff no matter how many tracking mods, etc. the carrier/super is using would go a long way to addressing that without any other changes and have minimal knock on effect on unrelated areas of eve. @Vic Jefferson - that is one of the biggest reasons I'm not playing eve today as much as I used to and why changes like this make me sad - I jumped in the game with the intention from the start of training up for dreads - literally within days of finishing my skill queue they removed drone functionality from dreads - on its own not a big deal but when you've into run stuff like that several times it stops you wanting to put any effort into long term plans and not being a flavour of the month type player it leaves me less and less attached to the game (doesn't bother me to go and play something else but that isn't really an optimal outcome).
Etara Silverblade Morex Group Inc. Haven. 38	Posted - 2015.03.01 13:21:52 - [678] - Quote Whatever happened to the idea that ships should be on grid to make a difference in a fight? I think that's what is missing from the solution. How about forcing the ship you assign drones/fighters to to be in your drone control range? When the pilot goes out of your drone control range the drones revert back to you. Following you when you warp would still work and you wouldn't have carriers near a POS, station, or safe spot with fighters out there somewhere since no one would be able to control them without the carriers that make control of fighters possible. The rest doesn't seem like an issue that needs fixing.
Kazekage Dono Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 30	Posted - 2015.03.01 14:03:27 - [679] - Quote Goodbye fighter assist.
Halina Halinawino CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 14:17:44 - [680] - Quote I am Halina Halinawino i bid You welcome! We will talk about what CCP has done in the past few year. LetGÇÖs begin with what CCP has promised to us on last fanfest and what of it has been fulfilled. Next fanfest is close by and so are new promises. First thing first where are: pos fuel consumption based on modules active, new player build stargates, sov warfare revmap and many more. Nothing has been done and all your promises are empty. There are many strange things that are illogical to people who have primary school education. For example You can bump any ship by even smallest thing (capsule bumping an titan) but stations and other things that are smaller than dreadnought or supercarrier are impossible to bump or are they enchanted by an toothfairy so they are impossible to move. Your physics are wrong guys. There are many paradoxes like that in this game. The curious thing is artificially making New Eden smaller by implementing capsuleer exhaustion after each jump (I mean seriously after hundreds of years of jumping and traveling the capsuleer suddenly canGÇÖt do it so efficiently anymore). Another thing is chances of getting an escalation for example, in the past you would get 1x 10/10 and it would not be so easy to complete, now you get 10x 10/10 and they are really easy to complete. Most priceless thing the CCP has done is implementing frequent patches only to make it look like they are doing anything. Who in their right mind implements an patch every month when they did so two times a year. Dont get me going on with GÇ£OH MA GAD NEW CONTENT!!!1oneGÇ¥ when it is **** one? I think it is only done so it will be harder to see what promises they made and what they have done. Start working on horrible lags and glitches you get when ** hits the fan and you get more than 250 people fighting on one grid. Game has many bugs, for example getting bumped from an rock that is 3000m away from your ship, no logs of player activity on poses. From what i know normal drones are operated from their mothership and so can they can only be delegated on only on grid, fighters and fighter bombers have their pilots inside them(look at the models they are not drones they are little ships with crew on them) so they can be delegated across the system hence going with the logic of our developers you should forbid players to warp to their fleet commander in combat. This is about idea of making it impossible to fighters and fighter bombers to warp. I am curious how that fight would look like. Why is it our developers wonGÇÖt fix the bug with carriers sitting in the shields of pos and delegating their fighters to ceptors that are camping the gate. They are simply deleting content instead of fixing it. Cloaky system campers are an problem for past few years and there is nothing or close to nothing was done to fix that problem. All you had to do was that the cloaky guy had to turn off and on his cloak lets say once every 15 minutes. This problem hits small corporations, they canGÇÖt fight back against that. Fix would hit players that are doing so trying to hunt ratters. This would help establish balance in game.
Oblivious Aubaris Falling Skies Syndicate 2	Posted - 2015.03.01 14:32:04 - [681] - Quote 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.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 928	Posted - 2015.03.01 14:41:16 - [682] - Quote Oblivious Aubaris wrote: 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. ^^ People would just start using linked nano phoons ;) (or machariels) Slightly less flippantly doesn't really solve the problem as there are a few cruisers that have the bandwidth and you still have the factor that triggered a lot of complaints in that those fighters can easily blast ships away that anything else with that kind of firepower would struggle to hit at all.
Commander Rip Free Galactic Enterprises Nerfed Alliance Go Away 1	Posted - 2015.03.01 14:42:14 - [683] - Quote I see many talking about risk/reward but most donGÇÖt take into account the risk of training the skills needed to fly carriers in the first place. The rewards of fighter assist or follow target were base skills of the carriers. In PvP Carriers are essentially team based bonus platforms. The spirit of these recent changes seems to suggest CCP would like to reduce the capital ship population. You all may as well just add a feature to anchor carriers permanently (POS) because thatGÇÖs all they will be good for soon. Coming soon #CapitalBoneYards
5mok1ng gun Moon Of The Pheonix 4	Posted - 2015.03.01 14:43:28 - [684] - Quote octahexx Charante wrote: 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... EVE has been getting nerfed more and more into the child safe environment you know it as now. BS's get webbed to hell target painted and blaped by dreads so capital guns get a nerf because them getting blaped are not moving, nothing to do with the dread but the utility people use to achieve the blap and the stupidity of the blaped doesn't realise the MWD they are still trying to use is making the BS the size of a small moon. Now fighters are warping after people and killing them or just killing them you bashed the scan res of them CCP to make them take longer to lock the smaller targets and now ( you have decided in your extensive 1 month ish of new data ) that the problem is now with assignment or warping of fighters. Fighters are supposed to be a powerful weapon ( what other weapons do carriers have ? ) and now you want to screw over the usability of them by taking away assignment and / or warping after targets with what little data you have acquired since the last change you did to fighters. You had more long term information on Ishtar trends than you have on the fighter trends since their respective changes but to hell with data right lets just keep bashing capitals because "ENTER REASONS" or "ENTER NOOB COMPLAINTS" WAHHH capitals are so hard to kill WAHHH scanning capitals is such a chore WAHHH ................... WAHHH .............................. WAHHH ......................................
Shawn Gallentino Heaven's Harvesters 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 15:31:33 - [685] - Quote How can it be said that the capital pilot risks nothing? Don't fighters cost isk? Isn't that a risk? So your answer is to have the carrier on the same grid as the fighter. What will that mean for fighters guarding a ship? won't that be nearly the same thing? So now you want carriers on the same field as the fighters. If so then you might as well remove fighters altogether since a ton of sentries would do the same job! Fighters will no longer have any relevance whatsoever. Carriers have no turret hard points, no missile defense. If you're going to force the carrier onto the same grid, then give us something in return. All turret hard points and 3 missile hard points. Then increase the number of deployable drones to give the ship a fighting chance of killing a smaller fleet. Balance implies a GIVE AND take. All this will do is cause carriers to become less deployed altogether. The issue is that the STRATEGY of skynetting is undesirable. If so then create a counter strategy. Perhaps it's ECM bombs. Perhaps it's anti-fighter torpedoes; something. Once a carrier runs out of of fighters the threat is over.
dapheel Thurogood Ophiuchus Inc. Silentia Audientes Societas 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 15:32:33 - [686] - Quote I have only recently joined Eve, so I'm a long way off having a carrier yet. In my opinion it seems a shame to remove a unique mechanic like this from the game altogether. I however also think it's broken to be allowed to assign that much DPS to a small ship. Why not remove Carrier and module buffs (but not pilot skills) from assigned fighters? They would be able to assist in things like POS attacks and to defend the group they're assigned to from large ships. However they would lack the tracking to be used on smaller ships for activities like gate camping and low-risk ratting.
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 95	Posted - 2015.03.01 15:42:14 - [687] - Quote Emmilia Deriannice wrote: 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 Can I have your stuff? To the people saying the cost of the fighters was risk enough that skynet was balanced, you are completely wrong. There's 26 bil of ship taking part in a skynet fight, and if you want to put that dps on grid you should have to risk the ship itself, not 100mil worth of glorified drones. Didnt really expect the complete removal of fighter warp and, Rise, I think there are probably good aarguments for keeping that. It DOES offer some nice and varied gameplay that after the skynet nerf probably won't be too OP.
JSSix CRY.NET Nihilists Social Club 15	Posted - 2015.03.01 15:49:14 - [688] - Quote How about you just fix the POS Mechanics instead of changing the entire gameplay of Carriers and Supers... Skynet is a mechanic with use of POS... so Change the POS instead, you guys are just trying to change something that is easier by removing a code rather than changing one.
devian chase The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 7	Posted - 2015.03.01 15:51:45 - [689] - Quote love the change removing the fighter assist thing is a good thing removing the fighter follow in warp thingie isnt needed .. just make a button next to the passive / agressive stance where you can set them on follow or stay on grid , so the pilot can deicide the nice thing about all the complains is that you are kinda thinking 1 ship ( carrier / super carrier ) should be able to do and kill EVERYTHING eve should be a bit more rts like . with actual counters to capitals in the form of frigates ( just like the good old bazooka trooper against a tank) So give us a starwars type force guided missile so i can blow up unsupported capitals
Copy Bird ZC Industries Dark Stripes 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 16:14:09 - [690] - Quote if your going to remove fighter assist from supers, can we get normal drones back please.
Moridin Cross Honestly We didnt know Unsettled. 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 16:15:05 - [691] - Quote I will welcome the end of fighter assignment. The warping mechanic is still something that should be left in place. It adds a needed complexity to using a capital ship. I like the fact that fighters can chase down fleeing targets and I must be concerned about the same if I'm the fleeing ship. Fighters should have an advantage over regular drones, I think the warp out mechanic works well for that. Without seeing the big picture and all of the data out there I can't give fully informed suggestions for fighter assignment. However, some ideas for the fighter mechanics could include: Increasing the bandwidth of fighters when assigned. ie: A fighter takes 25 bandwidth when launched by a carrier, but 50 when controlled by a sub cap. Only allowing ships to control fighters only with the same ability of that individual ship. ie: when a ship only has 25 bandwidth available, it can only control 1 fighter. This would prevent ships such as a T1 frigate, that usually does not have a large amount of dps, from taking on flights of fighters and creating an unfair advantage. I still would have no problem with killing the fighter assignment all together and think that would be the best course of action. Keep the warping mechanic please. A small UI next to the drone window displaying the drone's target would be nice too.
Carrion Crow Ready Player 1 7	Posted - 2015.03.01 16:20:19 - [692] - Quote One further thought on risk reward. If fighters / fighter bombers are so powerful, why not de-centralize the risk reward from the carrier to the fighters themselves? This idea may be too far (I'm not experienced in markets/production at all) but by increasing the cost of fighters/bombers and slightly reducing the cost of the carrier/super carrier hulls more risk is in the fighters themselves? Combine this with the ability to effectively PVP against the fighters by scramming them and also bringing in killmails for fighters there would be more RISK vs REWARD. I think something like this would be more favorable than removing a feature and making carriers another generic big pvp ship with drones.
Racadiciu Velea University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 16:59:18 - [693] - Quote Here's my 2 cents. After reading through the comments, I somewhat agree with statements from both sides of the debate. I personally own a carrier, but the use for me has been fairly limited as I am still training. I understand people who got abused by fighters assisted in pvp scenarios, with little to no risk involved for the carriers/supercarriers. Fighters assisted to interceptors is definitely the result of a broken mechanic. I do however see the use of fighter assistance in PVE scenarios and structure grinding and what-not, where the fighter DPS helps with killing NPCs, structures. In my opinion, the complete removal of the fighter delegation is just a blow to the versatility of the carrier/supercarrier and the versatility of EVE gameplay in general. I am pretty sure that some balance in term of risk vs reward can be achieved. Some players have already suggested limiting the size of the assisted hull to cruiser or battleship, or giving the carrier/super aggression timer and forbidding them to enter stations/POS shields while fighters are delegated, or a mix of those. Fighters also cost money, and making them more vulnerable might be another perspective to look at.
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 95	Posted - 2015.03.01 17:07:39 - [694] - Quote Racadiciu Velea wrote: Here's my 2 cents. After reading through the comments, I somewhat agree with statements from both sides of the debate. I personally own a carrier, but the use for me has been fairly limited as I am still training. I understand people who got abused by fighters assisted in pvp scenarios, with little to no risk involved for the carriers/supercarriers. Fighters assisted to interceptors is definitely the result of a broken mechanic. I do however see the use of fighter assistance in PVE scenarios and structure grinding and what-not, where the fighter DPS helps with killing NPCs, structures. In my opinion, the complete removal of the fighter delegation is just a blow to the versatility of the carrier/supercarrier and the versatility of EVE gameplay in general. I am pretty sure that some balance in term of risk vs reward can be achieved. Some players have already suggested limiting the size of the assisted hull to cruiser or battleship, or giving the carrier/super aggression timer and forbidding them to enter stations/POS shields while fighters are delegated, or a mix of those. Fighters also cost money, and making them more vulnerable might be another perspective to look at. The thing with PvE exceptions is, the same aargument against PvP skynet applies perfectly fine. Why should you be able yo use a Nyx to increase your ratting speed without having to risk that ship in the combat site itself? It's the projection of dps off grid that was the problem, the ways it was used and abused just symptoms.
Racadiciu Velea University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 17:18:39 - [695] - Quote Quote: The thing with PvE exceptions is, the same aargument against PvP skynet applies perfectly fine. Why should you be able yo use a Nyx to increase your ratting speed without having to risk that ship in the combat site itself? It's the projection of dps off grid that was the problem, the ways it was used and abused just symptoms. Well then, why would you be able to boost off grid to increase your combat capabilities without having to risk that ship itself. Applied DPS off grid increases your combat capabilities just as well. Why not tune the projection itself instead of gimping a mechanic?
Halina Halinawino CBC Interstellar Fidelas Constans 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 17:33:20 - [696] - Quote I`m reading you cries about that and I see that people who cry the most are those who lost a ship in pvp against ratting ship which was assisted by fighters. But the situation when 10 ships gank one ratting ship is fair.
Nors Phlebas Sabelhpsron The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 95	Posted - 2015.03.01 17:33:52 - [697] - Quote Racadiciu Velea wrote: Quote: The thing with PvE exceptions is, the same aargument against PvP skynet applies perfectly fine. Why should you be able yo use a Nyx to increase your ratting speed without having to risk that ship in the combat site itself? It's the projection of dps off grid that was the problem, the ways it was used and abused just symptoms. Well then, why would you be able to boost off grid to increase your combat capabilities without having to risk that ship itself. Applied DPS off grid increases your combat capabilities just as well. Why not tune the projection itself instead of gimping a mechanic? You shouldn't be able to off grid boost either, I hope they scrap that next.
Jane Philipps Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 17:41:23 - [698] - Quote I have started this game in 2009, with 5 accounts. I have only 2 in activity today. CCP will kill our game patch after patch ! What we do with Fighter assist, we are doing PVE, and make money. So PVP Players are not happy because we can defend our system with fighters !! CCP , could you make statistics of kill with fighter in roaming gang pvp ? In 2009 there was 65000 people connected each evening , now we are 35 000. May be it is time to think what do you do ? We love this game but patch after patch , it seems to be harder for us to stay here. Think about it
devian chase The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 7	Posted - 2015.03.01 17:54:54 - [699] - Quote i thought fighters where **** back in 2009 ^^ so it was perfectly fine to assist back then... but since fighters get drone damage , nav and tracking bonus they are out of controll ( even more so when the carrier doesnt even have to think about a tank while sitting safely at the edge of a bubble ) as it is now the light on my worm have a harder time killing frigs then the fighters on a nyx :) we should prolly go back to the good old days when fighters where completly useless
Burrick V'ar Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans 10	Posted - 2015.03.01 18:19:33 - [700] - Quote Leave fighter warping in. That's what the "attack and follow" toggle is for, isn't it? If you don't want them warping, just toggle it off. Seems like a no-brainer to me.
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 54	Posted - 2015.03.01 18:26:12 - [701] - Quote If you engage a target you cant log off, you cant jump gates, and you cant dock in a station.......... Wouldnt the simplest solution be to extend this mentality to POS shields. Make it so you cant be in a shield with an aggression timer. I mean why own a capital if it suddenly is just another ship in space like all the rest. With the huge training times, HUGE isk cost and everything else. Capitals should have a bit of power to them. Stop taking the easy way out CCP. BTW might just be me but linking a blue on blue kill and using that to prove your point seems a bit lame. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Racadiciu Velea University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 18:32:46 - [702] - Quote Quote: I mean why own a capital if it suddenly is just another ship in space like all the rest. With the huge training times, HUGE isk cost and everything else. Capitals should have a bit of power to them. Yeah, but then, God forbid they might sit in a safe spot! Goodness gracious I might even have to scan them down with probes! No way! Just remove any form of assistance! I should not have to do anything to get juicy cap kills that people invest huge time and ISK to build and fly! - Elite Carebear Harasser 2015
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 715	Posted - 2015.03.01 18:35:10 - [703] - Quote Racadiciu Velea wrote: Quote: I mean why own a capital if it suddenly is just another ship in space like all the rest. With the huge training times, HUGE isk cost and everything else. Capitals should have a bit of power to them. Yeah, but then, God forbid they might sit in a safe spot! Goodness gracious I might even have to scan them down with probes! No way! Just remove any form of assistance! I should not have to do anything to get juicy cap kills that people invest huge time and ISK to build and fly! OK, say you do have a carrier in a safe aligned to a POS. You know where the POS is, and you know the general direction the carrier is. You can bring in a cloaky ship, drop a bubble on the POS, wait for the carrier to panic-warp, then drop a super on it. Ta-da! Instant carrier killmail!
Racadiciu Velea University of Caille Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 18:36:49 - [704] - Quote Quote: OK, say you do have a carrier in a safe aligned to a POS. You know where the POS is, and you know the general direction the carrier is. You can bring in a cloaky ship, drop a bubble on the POS, wait for the carrier to panic-warp, then drop a super on it. Ta-da! Instant carrier killmail! nah, too much work. I would rather cry on the forums. BRING BACK JUKEBOX CCP!!!
Grace Chang Black Phoenix Legion The Fourth District 62	Posted - 2015.03.01 18:44:17 - [705] - Quote I think it can be argued that the current fighter mechanic isn't ideal. However if you remove it, what is the point of having fighters? Their _applied_ dps isn't that great to consider a dps fit carrier to be on field and the fighters are really expensive if you loose them. If you want to dps in a carrier you probably go for sentries, fighters are largely pointless for this. The ONLY plus side of fighters is that they warp and you can assign them, they have no other role. So the question for me would be: what does CCP plan with fighters if they remove the current mechanic? If they do not come up with something convincing, carriers will just be fleet logistics (mostly archons, might as well reprocess the thanatos) and the odd mass deployment of slowcats. The role of carriers is quite lame as it is - if you remove this mechanic it gets even slimmer. At that point you might as well remove the drone/fighter stuff alltogether and refine the overall carrier role.
Kallevra From Our Cold Dead Hands The Kadeshi 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 19:16:36 - [706] - Quote Capitals in general have already taken the nerf bat the to balls with the overkill jump fatigue timers and stacking. Now CCP is taking the laziest possible way of "fixing" fighter assigning instead of actually doing it properly like they loosely out lined in an earlier post. http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/balance-changes-coming-in-scylla ,scoll down to the picture of the nyx and read the first line of text. Then continue on in just that first paragraph where it says basiclly says 'screw the data'. All this change will do is cause even more people to take a look at the accounts that have the carriers and thier carrier pilots and question why they even need to continue to keep that account active. Every person that has a super carrier has a highly skilled pilot locked into that 1 ship that, when these changes come into affect, will effectively remove super carriers from almost any form of game play in eve. Supers will have IHUBs, POCOs, SBUs, TCUs, Stations, and the very rare capital ship to be used against, all of which, in the current game mechanics, are better attacked with dreads that still have the ability to attack POSs. Yes i do agree that fighter delegation needs to be looked. The ability for a fighter to follow its target to destination to continue the attack, even if the target warps off to a safe/unkown location that even us capsuleers have to scan down is a game/lore breaking mechanic. The ability for the fighters to warp with it's controlling ship (carrier or delegate) is a good thing since fighters travel at the speed of sludge to begin with. The changes that i have read in the posts before mine that seem to be a mid-ground for both sides of the argument seem to be: 1. Ability to delegate fighters/bombers needs to be moved outside of POS safety/weapons 2. Remove Carrier module bonuses from assigned fighters/bombers 3. Remove the fighters 'magical' ability to follow a target that warps off to an unknown location 4. Only be able to assign the amount of fighters/bombers up to the delegate ship's maximum bandwidth 5. Players need to have the ability to web/scram/tackle/whatever the fighters preventing them from warping off grid CCP needs to take an actual look at this issue, instead of just a brief glace long enough to line up the nerf bat again.
Draconus Lofwyr UK Corp RAZOR Alliance 115	Posted - 2015.03.01 20:13:39 - [707] - Quote So, just what is this intended to fix? The biggest abuses of carrier mechanics? wreckingball or mass sentry use by coalitions? nope, no change there. or the solo gankers trying to survive in lowsec with the ever impending threat of the previously mentioned coalitions waiting to drop their carrier when they make a mistake? It's not like a carrier or a supercarrier is any different in fighter delegation anymore. they both deploy the same amount of fighters. and delegated fighters to not carry the pilots bonus to the delegatee. Yes, delegated fighters have limited uses, but thanks to all the nerfs, so to do supercarriers. What needs to change is capital critical mass, but that would require work, research, coding and getting off their asses, instead of throwing a few toggles and looking like they are doing something. If this nerf goes through, can you at least let supercarriers dock up....so we can reprocess or mothball the things so we can use out toon for something useful, like training for a dread. i see one major drawback if this nerf goes through, it will kill some server nodes as carriers will no longer be able to deploy fighters off grid and warp to battle, instead, now they will land on grid and boom, mass deploy, mass lag. way to fix one problem only to make another much older issue much worse. i really didnt think tidi lag could get much worse, but leave it to ccp to prove me wrong!
Knight4her S-H-I-E-L-D Brothers of Tangra 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 20:21:17 - [708] - 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. 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 would say removal of fighter assist would kill the current carrier of eve. Be it a super-carrier or a carrier, the ability to assign fighters to other ships in a fleet gives the carriers a purpose on the field. Removing the remote fighter assist would remove the purpose of the fighters themselves and belittle the use of the carriers. Carriers already have had their jump range reduced which prevents a majority of their "force projection," removing their ability to assign fighters would reduce their ability to project force even more. Aside from that, carriers seem to be (as far as people I see using them) taking a more defensive role, that is being used to repel hostiles from home systems. In any event, super carriers can no longer house drones because of their "fighter bay" not being able to handle them. (BS) And if they can no longer assign fighters, then they will be more limited in their use. At this rate, you might as well just make eve a mmoba and drop everything else. Because the beauty of eve, for me personally, is the shear number of options available to us as the players. This mind-set of "we don't like how players are using this" is BS. Let people play how they want, simple as that.
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2305	Posted - 2015.03.01 20:37:29 - [709] - Quote Zhalon wrote: You removed content, you removed a play style.....please focus on adding content. yeah! bring AWOXing back. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
McNoTo Gemeinschaft interstellarer Soeldner Suddenly Spaceships. 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 20:59:54 - [710] - Quote hello eve-community and ccp, you shouldn-¦t think about removing fighter assist to kick the older players in the ass, who spend a lot of time and isk to get this tool (supers) and to use it in combat situations. the main problem is the aggro-mechanic for players at a gate. you can use assisted fighters and you dont get any aggro and you can jump when ever you want. ccp should fix this. the idea of removing fighter assist is bad for all smaller corps, cause this change will take away the possibility to fight against larger groups. bye bye content! if you want to use supers in the future with this change, smaller groups are forced to join larger corps or allys to get assist and the feeling of "save", when you bring this toy directly into the fighting area. BUT MANY PLAYERS DONT WANT TO JOIN THE POWERBLOCKS. it looks like, that this idea of change is only for the many paying player who are in such big communitys active and now they can kill more supers while the smaller ones have to warp these types of ships into the fight if they want to use it in the future. the other possibility is that this poor guys can sell the supers and delete the chars, cause for smaller communitys are supers useless. use a super one time away from your pos and pl or a other strong capfleet will be there for the second time. good job ccp. using supers at a pos isn-¦t save at all. it-¦s still really dangerous and you field a lot of isk. also is a group with assigned fighter not unbeatable and it exist enough setups which are able to tank assisted fighters from more than 5 supers. fighters can be also called primary and can die really fast. change the aggro mechanic! when you use assisted fighters you will get aggro like you use any other weapon. don-¦t remove fighter assist for supers and carriers including fighters still should warp. ccp shouldn-¦t argue with "...not meeting our standards for risk vs reward...", one accident double klick in space, and you can lose 30bil, 5 seconds too late with approaching the tower after a titan fleet jumps in -> you loose 30bil. cyno lightened directly next to your super and one of the incomming ships bumps you out of FF -> you loose 30bil! ccp should rewrite it to -> "we just don't want players be able to use their supers if they aren't in one of the big alliances".
Yazzinra Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate 60	Posted - 2015.03.01 21:07:09 - [711] - Quote 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.
DrysonBennington Aliastra Gallente Federation 215	Posted - 2015.03.01 21:14:04 - [712] - 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. 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. No fighter warping is essential. What I think would make fighter and fighter bomber deployment more interesting is if fighter and fighter bomber warping / deployment could be done using a similar technique when placing probes to scan. A screen similar to the probe scanner would be accessed where the carrier pilot could deploy her or his fighters and fighter bombers to an area of space. Once deployed the carrier pilot could set the fighter craft to patrol an area which would be determined by new skills. When patrolling an area of space the fighter could be set to engage or report the location of the target where the carrier pilot could then broadcast the location of the target to the rest of the fleet for the fleet to warp too. With this new type of carrier function available I would have to think that a new type of carrier craft would need to be designed that would follow the tradition of World War II PBY Catalina's. The scout craft of the carrier would have larger detection range of the fighter and bombers but would be very slow to warp and would not have any weapons other than a moderate sensor ping that would disrupt targeting locks on ships destroyer sized and under. http://www.history.com/videos/the-pby-a-plane-that-made-pilots-nervous#the-pby-a-plane-that-made-pilots-nervous
Racadiciu Velea University of Caille Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.01 21:15:44 - [713] - Quote Yazzinra wrote: 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? 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? BRING BACK JUKEBOX CCP!!!
Byson1 Origin Unlimited Natural Selection Initiative 22	Posted - 2015.03.01 21:22:00 - [714] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: I'm still trying to see why keeping the fighter warp is beneficial. Nobody is saying why. you obviously dont use carriers. No one wants to say why cause they dont want to admit the use... And then give CCP a great idea to nerf it.. wait carriers are being used? NERF For those that dont use carriers: You have to be completely out of the shields to be able to assign fighters. It's been that way for a while now. There was a time when they could stick their nose out and assign. That time is no longer.. I would suggest maybe slowing carriers down more, lowering aggility, so it takes longer for them to return to shields rather than have to be a minimum distance from pos shields as there is already a min distance -you have to be out of the shields. Those who are pansies and cant handle fighter aggro should figure out how to handle it rather than complain to CCP for them to change game mechanics to make it easier for them.
Ice-King 420 Enterprises. TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.03.01 22:16:49 - [715] - Quote Warp Ability: Let us toggle whether or not we want our fighters to pursue targets off grid. Being able to warp out without having to wait for your drones to return is a major benefit of using fighters and is a big part of what makes them unique and valuable. Assigning Fighters: Only allow fighters to be assigned to ships that are on grid with the carrier. If they leave the grid then control will be returned to the carrier.
Tim Nering R3d Fire 39	Posted - 2015.03.01 22:49:21 - [716] - Quote im am so sick of 2 interceptors pointing me while getting hammered by fighters. so yes yes yes yes and yes no risk, no skill, only reward.
Kabantik Accidentally Seriously Accidentally The Whole Thing 11	Posted - 2015.03.01 22:49:45 - [717] - Quote Generally speaking, all capitals need a balance pass to evaluate their current isk/investment to potential usage (I.E. a single Interceptor can hold down dreads and carriers indefinitely) ratio as well as the justification for the title of being a "capital" or "ship of the line". Removing fighters/fighter assistance or further reducing the viability and versatility of capital class ships is likely not the answer. I would suggest looking into the fundamental mechanics and interface of drones as a whole: damage, health, speed, size, delegation, bandwidth etc... There are so many issues with capitals as a class that not one single feature being removed will yield any popular widespread changes to how all entities use or utilize carriers, dreads, supers.... I feel as though this is a case of treating the patient's symptoms will of course provide relief but only temporarily. To further the analogy, we need to discover the source of the symptoms before treating the patient or else we'll irrecoverably alter the physiology of said patient. TL;DR: Fighter Assistance is not the problem that will fix the interaction between carriers, supers and sub-capitals.
beakerax Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 43	Posted - 2015.03.01 23:06:09 - [718] - Quote Byson1 wrote: HTFU This would be more convincing if you weren't defending people who are unwilling to actually deploy their carriers on-grid.
Dean Dewitt Babylon Knights DARKNESS. 21	Posted - 2015.03.01 23:13:39 - [719] - Quote Ice-King wrote: Assigning Fighters: Only allow fighters to be assigned to ships that are on grid with the carrier. If they leave the grid then control will be returned to the carrier. This is ASSIST not ASSIGNING, can we talk about the issue with people who know what they are talking about?
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 928	Posted - 2015.03.01 23:16:42 - [720] - Quote Byson1 wrote: Phoenix Jones wrote: I'm still trying to see why keeping the fighter warp is beneficial. Nobody is saying why. You have to be completely out of the shields to be able to assign fighters. It's been that way for a while now. There was a time when they could stick their nose out and assign. That time is no longer.. I would suggest maybe slowing carriers down more, lowering aggility, so it takes longer for them to return to shields rather than have to be a minimum distance from pos shields as there is already a min distance -you have to be out of the shields. Its not just carriers sitting on the edge of the FF :S and even those that are if they are doing it "properly" can get safe without having to move - hence the recommendation of disallowing fighter delegation inline with the cyno restrictions around POSes. Carriers are supposed to have "over the horizon" capabilities as well as fleet support - taking away fighters being able to warp and be assigned would take away a part of what a carrier actually is.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 928	Posted - 2015.03.01 23:18:32 - [721] - Quote Dean Dewitt wrote: This is ASSIST not ASSIGNING, can we talk about the issue with people who know what they are talking about? There needs to be a sticky lol - the number of people bringing up the same wrong misconceptions and/or blatantly incorrect use of the terminology (that is excusable if you've never actually flown a carrier) repeatedly is funny. EDIT: Does anyone know if "attack and follow" actually works? (if disabled) I've always just left it on and micro-managed fighter actions i.e. swapping targets/recalling/reassigning to prevent them warping off after someone.
Kelakh Cynbal Interstellar Racketeering Syndicate 1	Posted - 2015.03.01 23:31:32 - [722] - Quote Greetings, Please leave as is. I am against this change.
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 51	Posted - 2015.03.01 23:45:42 - [723] - Quote So far people asking for 'skynet' to be gone, are people admitting to wanting easy kills... or simply not being prepared and their jack-of-all-trades interceptor isn't powerful enough... They show up in a small-medium gang, in someone's territory, and get kill because suddenly someone is fighting back, and using capital help (in this case, fighter support)... Isn't that the point!? Those roaming gangs simply have to bring some ships to deal with fighters... again, isn't that the point of having different modules/ships/etc? Next up, take away the ability of dreads to shoot anything but POS/Stations!
Yazzinra Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate 60	Posted - 2015.03.01 23:46:31 - [724] - Quote Racadiciu Velea wrote: Yazzinra wrote: 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? 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? We're saying the same thing, I may have just worded it poorly. Trying to use my phone for forums is not ideal.
Byson1 Origin Unlimited Natural Selection Initiative 23	Posted - 2015.03.02 00:27:13 - [725] - Quote beakerax wrote: Byson1 wrote: HTFU 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.**
FleetAdmiralHarper Kitchen Sink Kapitals 35	Posted - 2015.03.02 01:00:51 - [726] - Quote *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 Game Devs and minor management and replace them with competent people. ://End Feedback/Rant
Shodan Of Citadel School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 2	Posted - 2015.03.02 01:24:32 - [727] - Quote leave the **** alone. When carrier sends fighters to someone, that someone needs to have the fighter skill trained up letting them manage 1 fighter per level which is going to mean most you'll see on 1 ceptor is 3-4 fighters so will need to spread their fighters over 3-4 people.
beakerax Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 43	Posted - 2015.03.02 01:34:41 - [728] - Quote Byson1 wrote: beakerax wrote: Byson1 wrote: HTFU 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.** whoa scroll up
Crimsons Storm Pseudonym. Shadow Cartel 7	Posted - 2015.03.02 01:50:25 - [729] - 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. 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. Carriers - which CCP have labelled on several occasions as logistical tools in the past, have first had their jump range kicked in the teethGÇª..and now you propose to kill one of the few things left that they are good for / makes them unique. I agree GÇô skynet is kinda gay, but its not game killingGÇª.i also agree there probably needs to be more risk and I like the idea of not being able to assign fighters within x km of POS shields. Did you even consider that it (thanatos, with maximum skills, fitted for delegation) 1 carrier (15 fighters) still requires 4 actual people (5 fighters per * 3 + the carrier pilot) each of the 3 still only deals ~1000 DPS each + ship DPSGÇª..of which in your crappy example (the shuttle) has none and in most cases is usually ****** frigatesGÇª.and lets also consider the fact that in your example the shuttle didnGÇÖt have a point on the atronGÇª.that kind of rationalization boarders on GÇ£reductio ad absurdumGÇ£ ItGÇÖs all good for you to ask for our opinions but the consensus rarely has any impact on the decisions you guys make, regardless of how much insist that it does (with things like CSM) Sorry for the bluntness but no wonder your subscription numbers and activity seems to be in a state of decline
Keretech Mobius Construct Dreamcatchers. 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 01:59:32 - [730] - Quote Well, my vote is NO please do not completely nerf carrier & motherships without reasonable and maybe creative change to gameplay. If you want to nerf bat something for now just limit delegation to larger ships: - Frigates 0 - Cruisers 3 + 2 normal drones - BC and up 5 fighters Carriers were nerfed several times already, otherwise just cancel this class refund skill points refund ships as dreads and be done with it. Duh. Or Make carriers really carriers -> 1) Carry pilots -> pilot grabs fighter (pbbly improved somehow) and goes to battle, 2) Pilot can dock into carrier in egg only, and then can jump with carrier 3) Carrier cannot 'carry' ships anymore so whoever is on-board cannot bring ship to battlefield. 4) There can be whole tree of different fighters sizes, types etc with skill books etc like for carrier pilot so for fighters pilots I know that opens few cans of worms, but it would make carrier real carrier.....and make game-play more fun. In the mean time please fix POS defense - so it really works, and also rather work on more anchorable structures - space habitats, fortresses, landing platforms. Also please fix funny physics - that bumping million ton ship with paperweight frigate is just weird. Peace!
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10006	Posted - 2015.03.02 02:04:08 - [731] - Quote Yazzinra wrote: 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. Yea, it's been said (a few dozen times now) but can't hurt to say it again. That's the part that's really galling to me, it's super easy to see the cause of the problem (CCP's previous buffs to fighters) but rather than just fix what they created the idea here is to nix a unique and ancient game mechanic in and of itself didn't cause the problem.' It just keeps happening. For example, in pve you used to be able to reset expedition timers by going to the system and warping to it. A very small number of people abused this by cargo scanning overseers and if they didn't like the loot, they'd just come back the next day and try again (everything resets at down time). Was CCP's answer to this? Was it the common sense "make overseers unscannable blockade runners are" (ie the scalpel option)? Nope, it was get rid of the ability to reset all together. So now it don't matter that you get an escalation late into your session and want to come back later and reset so you can do it a couple days later. Now you got 24 hours, period, all because a FEW people abused something. It's extremely lazy development policy if you ask me.
Andriea Chikatilo Down to None 1	Posted - 2015.03.02 02:10:13 - [732] - Quote Well, you have already ruined carriers for jumping and helping to move assets around new Eden. Lets not kill them and make them worthless. Tell your people to take longer coffee breaks to help justify their isk making and leave unbroken stuff alone.
Assassn Gallic Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn 20	Posted - 2015.03.02 02:28:38 - [733] - Quote Before we nerf fighters some more, can we look at some of the things still needing to be fixed? Fighter auto-agression only works on 1 target and then they turn idle. Fighters were (In my opinion wrongly nerfed with scan res) Albeit it, mostly a moot point now, but fighters are unable to be assigned in 0.4 systems (last i checked) Scan res thread : https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5530245#post5530245 Removing content should never be the goal, fix the problem not the mechanic. Eg : Make fighters unable to be assigned if within 50 km of a star gate and Pos. (this goes for after they are assigned also)
Arthur Aihaken X A X 4096	Posted - 2015.03.02 02:35:55 - [734] - Quote So... When are carriers going to be allowed into high-sec? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Nada Spai Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 02:51:03 - [735] - Quote fighters should definitely still warp, as they are more like frigs than drones and it adds a degree of difficulty to using them as well as fighting them. the question you were looking to answer was not "are fighters op" but "how do we stop skynet" so this is the answer i propose. Fighters should be able to be assigned to any other ship to control while ON GRID WITH THE CARRIER/SUPER! Once they leave that grid, they can longer issue an order to the fighters, who would return to the carrier after completed its final orders. Regular drones can be assisted so it isnt reasonable to say fighters have no right to be. A bs can assign drones to a frig to make up for lower scan res, a carrier should be able to do the same. Changing fighter assist to require both ships be on the same grid most definitely includes the amount of risk to a capital as you are intending, and it will lower the overall dominance skynet has over a system by requiring caps to stay more connected to the fight.
Bowboy686 Renalard Scrum Squad Defiant Ebil. 2	Posted - 2015.03.02 04:01:32 - [736] - Quote What if we keep the assist but they wont be able to warp after the target, but if the carrier is controlling the drones then they can warp after who ever they want. This way you can assist fighters but you would have to be on the same grid as the carrier. Problem solved :)
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 54	Posted - 2015.03.02 04:02:34 - [737] - Quote SIMPLEST solutions: Modules do not boost fighters/fighter bombers + fighters/fighter bombers do not follow enemy targets in warp. Makes everyone happy, less dps, carriers/supercarriers still a bit useful... Everyone copy paste to show CCP.
Darmok Tamal Kitchen Sink Kapitals 6	Posted - 2015.03.02 04:23:50 - [738] - Quote FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: *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 One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. One of us. Hey CCP, can you suck my **? I have a nice big black one pointed at you ready to on all of your monitors for ***** with my carrier. Thanks and goodbye o7
Silent Silhouette Noir. Academy Of Sound Mind 13	Posted - 2015.03.02 04:30:15 - [739] - Quote I also the fighter and drones should have their own bays. I think that carrier should have drones but not the near unlimited waves of them.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2525	Posted - 2015.03.02 04:36:37 - [740] - Quote I know this is a hard concept to grasp for some of you. Polite works far better then inarticulate swearing and insults. You are mad, we get that and do not need you to make any sexual references to prove that for you sex and anger are one and the same. You don't like the changes? Some of you have done a fine job of suggesting alternatives or asking for lessening of the changes ot just voicing your concerns. Good. Others, not so much. Me? I am in favour of the change because I never think a person should be able to be totally uninvolved and still be a part of the on field force. I dislike off-grid boosting for the same reason. But the fighters were a mechanic that was fine, for a while, but then became abused more and more. What did you expect? That since it was fine yesterday it must be fine today and always will be? The game changes, for the better or worse will show in the longer run. But if you want to be heard, if you want to have a single iota of a chance to be heard by CCP then keep it civil. If what I said ticked you off . . . well, I am running for CSMX. Vote accordingly. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 6533	Posted - 2015.03.02 04:47:34 - [741] - Quote 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. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Udonor Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 67	Posted - 2015.03.02 04:52:47 - [742] - Quote There really is no wrong change. Sure status quo versus some new strategy yada yada. Somebody wins and someone else is always unhappy. But removing fighter assist and especially warp does tend to make carriers into frontline capitals ships (dreadnaughts) instead of protected off main battle grid assets as they now need to be on-grid to see targets. So triage mode will probably become the normal mode of deployment and thus whoever loses battle will normally lose all carriers they brought, not just some. That in turn may bring the Titan effect to any battle with many carriers at stake (i.e. battles don't break off when who will win overall battle should be clear but continues until one side actually loses all carriers). IDK if that is desirable or not. Probably longer battles but how much I won't guess. Perhaps more players forced to go AFK for work before ship dies. Or maybe EVE will just evolve smaller cheaper carriers and fighters as frontline ships to reduce ISK losses and keep typical battle lengths under control. BUT if you want keep carriers as sometimes distant contributing targets to be hunted off-grid with their own separate battles to destroy/survive to parallel WWII carriers... that rejected interference mechanic between POS shields and carriers fighter operational bandwidth still looks good. Simplified version: knock base POS shields down 10% per fighter in operation within say 150 km of POS. Max fighters equal no base POS shield to help carrier. POS itself left more vulnerable as base points must regenerate after carrier stops fighter ops in range. Would certainly make people hesitate to conduct actual operation of carriers near shields of POS with real non-combat value. Not sure what the break even cost point would be for anchoring combat dedicated POS tower but it might be comparable to prices for better officer resist modules. After all as the number of fighters is reduced to keep more base POS shield, the effectiveness of the carrier DPS falls as well. Alternative forms are possible if you want more spectacular risk-consequence: make that per fighter interference a chance of catastrophic shield energy release turn protection into an area effect bomb!!!
ISD Supogo ISD Community Communications Liaisons 466	Posted - 2015.03.02 04:54:48 - [743] - Quote Removed a post. Quote: 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. ISD Supogo Lieutenant Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Udonor Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 67	Posted - 2015.03.02 05:07:18 - [744] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: 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. 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.
FleetAdmiralHarper Kitchen Sink Kapitals 42	Posted - 2015.03.02 05:08:45 - [745] - Quote ISD Supogo wrote: Removed a post. Quote: 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. mad bro? you can silence me but you cant silence the truth!
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 6534	Posted - 2015.03.02 05:23:25 - [746] - Quote Udonor wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: 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. 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. If you attack someone in lowsec, on a gate, the guns will shoot you if it would be a criminal act in high sec. That is, if you don't have a legal engagement with what you're shooting at. Have you been to low sec lately? Gate guns DO shoot suspect small frigates when said suspect small frigates are flashing yellow as a result of an attack on that gate. That's how it works - attacking someone illegally in low makes you suspect, not criminal. I suggest you visit low and find out for yourself, things are different there than in high sec. The only small ship that can permatank gate guns that I know of is a duel-rep fit Confessor in defence mode (haven't tried the Svipul yet), and if you need fighter assist on a 'fessor, you're doing it wrong. I'm suggesting any ship fighters are assigned to be shot at by gate guns when using assisted fighters to engage on gates. That way, it would be no different than if the ship itself were firing the shots. And here, of course, we see another element of the problem with kneejerk reactionary nerfing - most of the players doing the complaining don't really understand how EVE works, and/or the intricacies of many of the mechanics at play. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Anazuz Aknak BAND of MAGNUS 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 05:23:56 - [747] - Quote Hopelesshobo wrote: 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. Splendid. And what about that people can choose if his fighter go follow/focus or not by just use checkbox?
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 6534	Posted - 2015.03.02 05:27:16 - [748] - Quote FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: mad bro? you can silence me but you cant silence the truth! Truth is a religious concept. Come back and try again when you have facts, supported with data and/or citations. GG. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Udonor Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 67	Posted - 2015.03.02 05:36:37 - [749] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: 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. Now if you don't mind upsetting the status quo in low sec... CCP could create some real fun from predatory antics at gates. That is CONCORD actions are what makes hi-sec instead of low sec. So logically Empire Navies and Police should be what make low sec into low sec instead of null. Therefore any suspect acts committed on the same grid as a gate could have a low chance of generating an Empire NPC Factional "Incursion". After all gate space and activity is likely monitored from the gate structure. Suspect activity at gates could be interpreted as disruptive and interfering with the flow of local Empire faction commerce and economy. Whether NPC owned or not there are tax considerations,e tc. Such Empire Incursions if they occur would lack the surgical precision and certain immediate deadliness of CONCORD responses. They would certainly appear near gate and mobile portions then patrol planets and moon. Thus they might well stumble across suspect carriers at now suspect POS (extending shield aid to carrier) anywhere in system -- or not before suspect timer expires. Of course factional politics would not support factional Navy/Police Incursions lasting more than half an hour without additional suspect activity or NPC Faction kills (local grid escalation too). Repeated suspect activity within a certain time frame (i.e. the moving average of suspect acts per minute) could gradually increase probability and possible size of response. There might even be a mechanism that causes a brief Empire Navy Incursion across the entire constellation.
Udonor Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic 67	Posted - 2015.03.02 05:41:08 - [750] - Quote Remiel Pollard wrote: FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: mad bro? you can silence me but you cant silence the truth! Truth is a religious concept. Come back and try again when you have facts, supported with data and/or citations. GG. The best data is supported by superior firepower (as data can be faked and twisted & the legitimacy of authorities on citations is usually a bigger religious issue than the truth itself). This issue should be decided by a duel between the sides. Name a place and time. Appoint leaders for a battle royale or appoint champions. (LOL probably a battle royale for each side to decide those issues too.) I am protesting that CCP has no Popcorn BPO for my grandstand concession stand.
Yume Mei Khanid Dynamics 5	Posted - 2015.03.02 05:46:46 - [751] - Quote The whole "lack of risk" argument is pretty silly. Fighters are pretty expensive for the performance they offer. I think what it really comes down to is stats. People with fragile egos look at ships lost vs ships destroyed. If it isn't listed it may as well have never happened. Fighter kills wont be listed so they don't count as defender losses, it's obviously not fair. tldr: oh no my killboard stats
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 6534	Posted - 2015.03.02 05:50:17 - [752] - Quote Udonor wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: 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. Now if you don't mind upsetting the status quo in low sec... CCP could create some real fun from predatory antics at gates. That is CONCORD actions are what makes hi-sec instead of low sec. So logically Empire Navies and Police should be what make low sec into low sec instead of null. Therefore any suspect acts committed on the same grid as a gate could have a low chance of generating an Empire NPC Factional "Incursion". After all gate space and activity is likely monitored from the gate structure. Suspect activity at gates could be interpreted as disruptive and interfering with the flow of local Empire faction commerce and economy. Whether NPC owned or not there are tax considerations,e tc. Such Empire Incursions if they occur would lack the surgical precision and certain immediate deadliness of CONCORD responses. They would certainly appear near gate and mobile portions then patrol planets and moon. Thus they might well stumble across suspect carriers at now suspect POS (extending shield aid to carrier) anywhere in system -- or not before suspect timer expires. Of course factional politics would not support factional Navy/Police Incursions lasting more than half an hour without additional suspect activity or NPC Faction kills (local grid escalation too). Repeated suspect activity within a certain time frame (i.e. the moving average of suspect acts per minute) could gradually increase probability and possible size of response. There might even be a mechanism that causes a brief Empire Navy Incursion across the entire constellation. Overly complicated and arbitrarily game-breaking for players who choose to participate in the already-risky life of lowsec compared to just making fighter assist hosts get shot at by gate guns. What you're suggesting is also overly-punitive for what is, essentially, the wild west of New Eden, especially if you're suggesting said Navy response should be capable of taking out a supposed 'suspect' POS. CONCORD actions are not what make high-security space. CONCORD actions are merely an aspect of high-security space, as are Navy responses to low-security and bad-standing/enemy militia players. Again, please learn the mechanics of lowsec before trying to turn it into something it's not. GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Remiel Pollard Shock Treatment Ministries 6534	Posted - 2015.03.02 06:03:11 - [753] - Quote Udonor wrote: Remiel Pollard wrote: FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: mad bro? you can silence me but you cant silence the truth! Truth is a religious concept. Come back and try again when you have facts, supported with data and/or citations. GG. The best data is supported by superior firepower (as data can be faked and twisted & the legitimacy of authorities on citations is usually a bigger religious issue than the truth itself). This issue should be decided by a duel between the sides. Name a place and time. Appoint leaders for a battle royale or appoint champions. (LOL probably a battle royale for each side to decide those issues too.) I am protesting that CCP has no Popcorn BPO for my grandstand concession stand. You'll have to cite your sources on those assertions because at the end of the day, that PC you're using to make them is a direct result of proper academic and scientific endeavour, as is the comfortable first-world life you live that allows you to have one in the first place. As for the 'issue', the subject I was addressing was making personal attacks, subjective assessments of another forum member that he knows nothing about. To call subjective assertions like that 'truth' is a perfect example of what 'truth' means to religiously-minded peoples, 'religiously' in this context meaning ideologically. A perfect example of such ideological mindedness would be flat earthers, who really do exist, but instead of fact-based arguments and evidence, because they have none, they resort to attacking their opposition. At the end of the day, this is little more than a spiteful concession that they have no evidence. You're right, data can be faked. That's why repetition and predictability are required, because that's how you detect fake data. So while data can be faked, it's actually very difficult to hide fake data, which is why we can conclude with reasonable and predictable certainty that the earth is not flat, and that's a fact. But a flat earther will still proclaim that the truth is, the earth is flat. Anyway, in this case, the 'issue' was solved by a forum moderator, who has more 'firepower' than all of us. Clearly, and according to your own 'logic', that makes his truth superior, yes? GÇ£Some capsuleers claim that ECM is 'dishonorable' and 'unfair'. Jam those ones first, and kill them last.GÇ¥ - Jirai 'Fatal' Laitanen, Pithum Nullifier Training Manual c. YC104
Heavy Met4l Queen GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 67	Posted - 2015.03.02 06:10:35 - [754] - Quote FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: Words. In the game of conquest, who cares about the pawns if the king yet reigns?
Dedbforucme PH0ENIX COMPANY Phoenix Company Alliance 5	Posted - 2015.03.02 06:25:03 - [755] - Quote Removing the ability to assign fighters instead of changing because it is too broken, then what is next? CCP going to have to make it so interceptors can't warp through bubbles because it is too broken?
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 719	Posted - 2015.03.02 07:10:29 - [756] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I know this is a hard concept to grasp for some of you. Polite works far better then inarticulate swearing and insults. You are mad, we get that and do not need you to make any sexual references to prove that for you sex and anger are one and the same. You don't like the changes? Some of you have done a fine job of suggesting alternatives or asking for lessening of the changes ot just voicing your concerns. Good. Others, not so much. Me? I am in favour of the change because I never think a person should be able to be totally uninvolved and still be a part of the on field force. I dislike off-grid boosting for the same reason. But the fighters were a mechanic that was fine, for a while, but then became abused more and more. What did you expect? That since it was fine yesterday it must be fine today and always will be? The game changes, for the better or worse will show in the longer run. But if you want to be heard, if you want to have a single iota of a chance to be heard by CCP then keep it civil. If what I said ticked you off . . . well, I am running for CSMX. Vote accordingly. Uh, Mike. I dunno if you didn't notice, but CCP didn't respond to the wormhole threadnaut telling them to reverse the change (btw, we still haven't seen any of the promised graphs yet!). CCP hasn't responded to the ISBoxer thread, especially after that incident where they lied to us about having a meeting, not to mention the fact that CCP is working on a third-party program (in direct violation of their third party policy, I may add) that duplicates one of the very programs they just banned. CCP didn't respond to the hundred-and-one other threads where they put up a sticky, said "too bad, so sad", and then never touched it again. Some of us have suggested changes to many, many of these threads, and we were met with more silence than an uninhabited C1 right after downtime. So you'll have to forgive us if we take this with a grain of salt the size of a Iapetan Titan as some of us don't trust CCP anymore to respond or listen to their playerbase if you don't have a "CSM" tag next to your name. People are tired of being told "we really do want your opinions, honest!" and then watching CCP turn around so fast they get whiplash. You want to do some good in this thread? Post supporting evidence for this change. Engage the people who elected you. Be more than the politicians who promise the moon and the stars for a vote and then never pick up their phone once their in office. Additionally, may be obtain a comment from you telling us how exactly that Revenant was "totally uninvolved"? What part of that lossmail says "I'm safe and untouchable"?
Victini 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 07:20:14 - [757] - Quote skynet is one of the reasons that many supers has been hunted down and killed.. so its not safe as u think it is (espescially when u have few titans ready to jump and DD the ***t out of it So please keep as is .. countering it is not so hard
beakerax Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 46	Posted - 2015.03.02 07:44:45 - [758] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Additionally, may be obtain a comment from you telling us how exactly that Revenant was "totally uninvolved"? What part of that lossmail says "I'm safe and untouchable"? On the killmail, the Waiver of Untouchability is located just to the right of the Notice of Improper Logoff.
Hammering Hank Eve Engineering Logistics Eve Engineering 2	Posted - 2015.03.02 07:46:29 - [759] - Quote Pomponius Sabinus wrote: Well it seems like you realised the problem is risk vs reward while asigning fighters from the edge of a POS FF. But instead of making it more interesting by finding some way to make it more dangerous to asign fighters you sadly take the easy way out and just remove it. It would be way more interesting for the game if you found a way to make carriers that asigned fighters more vulnerable. The best solution is to introduce a Fighter Assist module only for carriers. Like a Triage module, it needs an activation timer and stops all locomotion. It could also increase the Signature Radius of the Carrier (easier to scan down) and not allow any remote boosting. Recommend naming the module T-Meg. The new module allows fighter assist to stay but carriers become more vulnerable.
ISD Supogo ISD Community Communications Liaisons 466	Posted - 2015.03.02 07:50:42 - [760] - Quote Removed another rule-breaking post and those quoting it. Quote: Forum rules 3. Ranting is prohibited. A rant is a post that is often filled with angry and counterproductive comments. A free exchange of ideas is essential to building a strong sense of community and is helpful in development of the game and community. Rants are disruptive, and incite flaming and trolling. Please post your thoughts in a concise and clear manner while avoiding going off on rambling tangents. 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. ISD Supogo Lieutenant Commander Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 722	Posted - 2015.03.02 07:51:01 - [761] - Quote beakerax wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Additionally, may be obtain a comment from you telling us how exactly that Revenant was "totally uninvolved"? What part of that lossmail says "I'm safe and untouchable"? On the killmail, the Waiver of Untouchability is located just to the right of the Notice of Improper Logoff. Of course, how could I miss that? It was right in front of me the whole time! e: And the irony of removing posts for "ranting" when the only thing people have ever wanted in their entire lives on these forums is human interaction from Devs other than "first" and "I support this idea" astounds me. It's no wonder people are upset....
Eessi Murderous Inc 26	Posted - 2015.03.02 07:55:46 - [762] - Quote Solid change and is much needed. Thank you for being bold.
Xavious Kane Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 08:23:54 - [763] - Quote I think that it does need some work, however I think that removing it entirely, or modifying fighter behavior significantly would be a bad thing. Putting the carrier more at risk I think would go a ways to help the problem. A module on the carrier or other ship to receive fighter assistance was an idea I saw in my skim of the discussion so far, but I like the idea of not being able to have them assigned while within X range of a station, gate or POS force field or if the carrier happens to find its self in a warp disruption bubble. Communications and other interference given off by the structures would cause an interruption in the link of the fighters causing them to be immediately recalled or otherwise disconnected. Drones/Fighters not assigned or on grind with the carrier at the time would still behave as they normally do, because the disruption is only in the "long range" of the drone control being disrupted. It would add a bit more risk to the carriers who if caught have to risk more for the service that they provide. And as a side effect of that, there would be more carriers to hunt for those that like to do that sort of thing.
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 08:54:36 - [764] - Quote Skynet, an overview and suggestions review Skynet explanation As already written down, a carrier/super with a drone track & dmg fit sitting on a safe spot. The safe spot is defined as on the edge of the POS, Docking range station, unprobable in space or similar to this. The drone assign function is a so called fleet multiplier like ewar, logistic, on/off grid booster and many more. 5 Fighter/Bombers per Ship with an DPS output against medium/large vessels from around ca. 1000 DPS (all V). We will later have a look into the risk/counter mechanics. Deeper view into the fleet multiplier This DPS amount is similar to another 1-2 Vessels in fight, only for none drone boats. (A Myrmidon without her own drones cannot perform the same damage as a Brutix (Brutix can easily bring 650DPS on field with a decent armor tank) LetGÇÖs find some other mechanics which allows us a possible boosts with less risk or nearly no risk. They are not an problem, as both parties can bring the same boots Off GÇô Grid Booster either in Space or in a POS similar to an orca/raq boost. I am not very familiar with this mechanic but my knowledge says here it is an advantage which is very safe. Counter: Bring your own off grid booster, welcome you are even. But it is not possible to prevent getting the boost or to kill the booster. ## Amor based Fleet with ewar tools in the mid, it doesnGÇÖt matter 10 dampners, 1 to 2 per ships will bring you enemy closer or kills the logistic completely. Counter: You donGÇÖt fight, or you know the fitting of the enemy which you can counter fit. But if you realize this to late you will lose the fight. ## Also very nice is a cloaky camper, you cannot actively counter him. Counter: But you can bait him. I am fine with this mechanic as I love to snack shiny bling covert ops, never was it easier to kill 1 billion per ship. ## The Skynet carrier The difference how to counter it is the location of the Skynet carrier. We know which the carier can be placed near a station, a POS or an unprobable postion in space. Counter You always allowed to bring more logistic to even out the incoming fighter DPS. You can kite the fighter which make it less possible for the fighter to apply dmg. A Carrier near a station can be pushed to dock up, goodbye extra fighter dps and maybe lost in space. As far as I know you need to be on grid with the fighter to reconnect to them nüè. Carrier at a POS Kill the POS. Kill the Carrier faster than he could get back into the FF. You may want to use a titan or a dread fleet. (Yes, this why you install a cyno jammer, as you donGÇÖt like these kind of visits.) Unprobable Carrier I read about this in the forum and it can be countered with the right ship, implants, ***** expensive but you will find you kill itGÇª once you find it there will be no escape. Note: If you cannot kill a carrier with your fleet DPS , you will not have a chance against it on grid or off grid. IMHO Your 20 men fleet is hunting for everything in a region which doesnGÇÖt belong to you. This region knows you and chooses the fight which they could win. Either you travel through a gatecamp and die in the camp as you not able to get to optimal or you will be baited. Nobody would bait you if they are not able to win the isk war or to bring the death to you whole fleet. Due the intel in this region the defender knows more about you than you about his fleet. You can expect following long before you know the enemy fleet: -More vessels (more DPS) -Powerful vessels (fleet multiplier) -Logistic -If you only bring stuff from one race, be ready to get jammed. -Lets cover the jamming under EWAR. -Skynet Carrier (fleet multiplier) So you donGÇÖt choose the fight, the living people choose the fight and it is not required to have a fair fight. Why should we? It is eve, RL ethics doesnGÇÖt work here. This is war, combat it will be unfair for one of the fighting sideGÇª the advantage is to let them believe which they could win or have a bigger support fleet in the backhand. LetGÇÖs spin this little bit up. You jump into a system which is heavily camped as it is an pocket entrance. You see fighter drones on grid and decide to first probe out the carrier for a Titan drive by. You bring a fleet up which supports the titan and a fleet which fights the local gate camp. Unfortunately once the Titan landed in the System it got holded by an hic and the defender brings in more reinforcesGÇª. Escalation escalation escalationGÇª Is there now a Problem?** People build up a POS, Station or make a deep safe spot somewhere in space. They are the defenders which want to defend their space unfortunately CCP doesnGÇÖt provide tools for defending space neither a own controlled concord or gate guns or something else to defend it. But you can use carriers to provide a locate defense in this system which allows you to turn a fight to your advantages, yes you also can bring an offgrid boosterGÇª I The Skynet carrier live in 0.0 also with the advantages and disadvantages which this space area brings. Why should a PVP Fleet from Highsec get more advantageGÇª they come to unknown k-space and search for a fight the others just live and defend their space whit it. Also you can easy kite out the fighter drones with an cruiser as these small medium scale pvp ships are always build for kitingGÇª you will be hard to hit, once you get webbed it is over. I am starting to spinning around with my points, but I think I made my point clear which I donGÇÖt think this is a good decision to remove this function. If you cannot fight it ask you friends for help. Capitals Ships requires high skills and it also requires high skills to counter it easy or a huge amount of mid skilled player to kill it. Its my point of view, and yes i am pro skynet :)
Daichi Yamato Xero Security and Technologies 2306	Posted - 2015.03.02 08:57:01 - [765] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Additionally, may be obtain a comment from you telling us how exactly that Revenant was "totally uninvolved"? What part of that lossmail says "I'm safe and untouchable"? Perhaps logoffski-drive-by-doomsdays aren't a counter practical enough for the masses to consider it good gameplay. EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided" "So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time"
Kira Hizu PH0ENIX COMPANY HOLDINGS Phoenix Company Alliance 10	Posted - 2015.03.02 08:58:56 - [766] - Quote By any more changes to carriers or supers will cause more problems as theirs a use for the fighters. Any change to capitals will make hard feelings as we love our space ship shooter game.
Vlada 636 SPEKTR LINE SYSTEMS 1	Posted - 2015.03.02 09:37:22 - [767] - Quote -¥-ò-Æ-ù-ö-ú-£-É-Ö-ó-ò -P-ó-æ-ÿ-á-É-ó-¼ -É-í-ÿ-í-ó -ö-á-P-¥-P-Æ !!!!! -Æ-½ -Æ-í-ò -ÿ-í-ƒ-P-á-ó-ÿ-ó-ò, -ù-É-º-ò-£ -» -Ü-É-º-É-¢-í-» -¥-É -Ü-É-á-ÿ-ò-á !!!??? -ó-P-ô-ö-É -í-Ü-ÿ-¢-½ -ÿ -ƒ-¢-ò-Ü-í-½ -ƒ-P-ù-Æ-á-É-¬-É-Ö-ó-ò -ƒ-P-ó-á-É-º-ò-¥-¥-½-ò -ù-á-»...
Goin Off Manson Family Advent of Fate 12	Posted - 2015.03.02 09:50:07 - [768] - Quote It's simple, keep fighters as is but prevent capitals that deploy them from assigning them to be anywhere near a pos shield. It would certainly put the carrier/super at risk of being tackled and killed being vulnerable in space and probable. Keeping them balls deep on grid would be a benefit ONLY to the larger alliances because of the numbers the large alliances put up, but, would put the smaller alliances at an extreme disadvantage simply because of numbers. CCP in the last year are doing everything to discourage the ownership/use of capitals in EVE. It's a disservice to all of us older characters with high numbers of skill points that have literally trained and worked for YEARS to to acquire the assets and skills to fly capitals. Examples: 1. Rorqual (Poor Mans Jump Freighter) - NO LONGER VIABLE DUE TO JUMP RANGE NERF! What's left is providing fleet bonuses and compressing ore, MEH. Btw, I own a rorq and can't imagine the concept of a battle rorq except as a setup for a good km. 2. Carriers - Jump range nerf has really complicated null sec logistics for small alliances. The big alliances that CCP continues to suck up to don't care since they typically furnish their cap pilots with carriers wherever they need them to be. CCP is going the wrong way with all of these capital nerfs by listening to all the Intergalactic "WHINERS" that are unwilling to invest the time and effort to fly capital ships, much less risk the ISK invested to buy a capital and fly them.
Dean Dewitt Babylon Knights DARKNESS. 27	Posted - 2015.03.02 09:51:29 - [769] - Quote Kane Carnifex, you said it bro, nothing more to say :) Goin Off, people in my alliance don't really move their carrier to make their logistique, I personnaly don't move my carrier to bring some ships from high-sec but yeah old player and new player won't skill for capitals as they are becoming useless and CCP don't like capitals but we players like these ships and skill these ships for a long time. So please CCP don't remove capitals, make them more usefull, may be make them more expensive to product.
Neyko Turama Black Arrows Sev3rance 2	Posted - 2015.03.02 09:53:55 - [770] - Quote Where is the poll btw?
Chi'Nane T'Kal Interminatus Aeterna Anima 306	Posted - 2015.03.02 10:01:58 - [771] - Quote I must admit to a bit of confusion. If you at CCP didn't want this situation, whatever made you think that applying the originating carrier's mod bonuses to assigned fighters was a change worth implementing? Assigned fighters were AFAIK not a huge problem when they were assigned without ship bonuses (specifically damage and tracking).
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 656	Posted - 2015.03.02 10:09:09 - [772] - Quote So the changes to remove the ability to assign fighters I agree with, it can ruin PvP though it does give advantages to a defender which is sometimes needed. This will make it more difficult to rat in contested i.e. camped areas, but thats acceptable, hiding next to a POS shield is kinda meh and I never did it. Do not remove the ability for fighters to warp, the issue is that fighters are damn expensive and when you carrier rat you have to be ready to get out fast, if you keep leaving fighters behind all the time then its not worth using for the small guy, doing this will damage the smaller guys a lot. Ella's Snack bar
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 4	Posted - 2015.03.02 10:18:12 - [773] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: So the changes to remove the ability to assign fighters I agree with, it can ruin PvP though it does give advantages to a defender which is sometimes needed. This will make it more difficult to rat in contested i.e. camped areas, but thats acceptable, hiding next to a POS shield is kinda meh and I never did it. . Because you do not have a Fleet which is able to kill a Carrier by a drive by? Either you avoid the battle or try to get in advantage by more logistics etc. It doesn-¦t ruin PvP, you just don't agree ti fight with your disadvantage.
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 656	Posted - 2015.03.02 10:32:42 - [774] - Quote Kane Carnifex wrote: Dracvlad wrote: So the changes to remove the ability to assign fighters I agree with, it can ruin PvP though it does give advantages to a defender which is sometimes needed. This will make it more difficult to rat in contested i.e. camped areas, but thats acceptable, hiding next to a POS shield is kinda meh and I never did it. . Because you do not have a Fleet which is able to kill a Carrier by a drive by? Either you avoid the battle or try to get in advantage by more logistics etc. It doesn-¦t ruin PvP, you just don't agree ti fight with your disadvantage. I don't understand what you are trying to say, but there are too many people looking for fights with a carrier ready to assign fighters, that being said it was a mechanic that allowed the smaller group to take on bigger groups without risking too much, which is what I like about it. The removal of that bait possibility is a positive, but the removal of an ability to fight when out-numbered is a negative, I am not sure whether I am in favour of the removal of skynet or not, if I was to really want to define my position its where the small guy can operate in 0.0, so on that basis I think I am slightly in favour of keeping skynet. In terms of the warping ability if that is removed for fighters I don't see them being useful for PvE at this point for smaller entities, so am totally against that. Ella's Snack bar
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 4	Posted - 2015.03.02 10:51:43 - [775] - Quote Dracvlad wrote: I don't understand what you are trying to say, but there are too many people looking for fights with a carrier ready to assign fighters, that being said it was a mechanic that allowed the smaller group to take on bigger groups without risking too much, which is what I like about it. Exactly the point :) You could even fight with 3 Skiffs an incoming Gang or likely bait them until you friends from the neighbour hood arrives. I think it is also funny to fight an incoming cruiser gang with some Assault frigates which using assigned fighter. Here the attacker have the option to take the fight and may lose some ships but once you kill the assault frigates they also loose the Fighter. Also it would be possible to bring more people which just let you pop the frigates faster. I have the feeling which the PvP Gangs are complaining of to much defense in the system they want to kill hulks and other shiny ships with a pve tank.
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 133	Posted - 2015.03.02 11:43:22 - [776] - Quote Kane Carnifex wrote: Exactly the point :) You could even fight with 3 Skiffs an incoming Gang or likely bait them until you friends from the neighbour hood arrives. I think it is also funny to fight an incoming cruiser gang with some Assault frigates which using assigned fighter. Here the attacker have the option to take the fight and may lose some ships but once you kill the assault frigates they also loose the Fighter. Also it would be possible to bring more people which just let you pop the frigates faster. I have the feeling which the PvP Gangs are complaining of to much defense in the system they want to kill hulks and other shiny ships with a pve tank. This is quite literally what every gang who comes roaming near us wants. you pop out a few defense ships and they run even if they out number you 3:1. and that's without fighters.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 930	Posted - 2015.03.02 11:59:51 - [777] - Quote Kane Carnifex wrote: Skynet, an overview and suggestions review Some of your knowledge of this is 6 months behind the curve (atleast taking your post at face value) - people doing this are increasingly moving away from sitting at the edge of the FF towards other ways of using POS mechanics to be safe where they don't need to move back inside the FF to become perfectly safe. Even a ship with interceptor speed and sig will struggle to kite off fighters unless with a head start let alone a cruiser from what I've seen. The revenant that got killed while it had been involved with doing skynet stuff got caught on login 20-30km outside the POS FF possibly at the spot where he cyno'd in. (which IMO is a good example of why fighter assignment should follow cyno restrictions around a POS).
Savant Alabel Locus Signatures 15	Posted - 2015.03.02 12:58:30 - [778] - Quote Removing off-grid fighters assist is very good.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 845	Posted - 2015.03.02 13:02:56 - [779] - Quote The more I think about this topic, the more it irritates me. Some things in this game are clearly broken - e.g. POS mechanics. Others are annoying to one very vocal group of people who practice a specific set of kiting tactics and are very successful most of the time with those tactics. Then that group encounters a situation where their tactic doesn't work. Someone has a counter to the fast roaming, kiting gang! Oh the horror! Instead of saying bring a different fleet composition, they complain as loudly as possible to everyone who will listen. So, the solution is to destroy the depth of the battlefield by essentially making every contributor, except leadership boosts, be on the same grid. Just like that we've gone from something approximating late 20th century naval warfare back to 18th century warfare. Is Eve a better game with tactics from Trafalgar than Midway? Additionally, I have never used this tactic, but it sounds like the game was working fine. It wasn't broken. It was not invincible. Annoying perhaps, at least for the unprepared. But is it really worse than 200 Archons with sentry drones sitting off a station or IHub? The small roaming gang cannot counter that either. Nor could they counter thirty Dominixes... Or any number of other compositions. If I set up my capitals in one system, what stops you from going around that system? Does this change mean that CCP really doesn't know what to do with capital ships? Does this change mean that CCP really cannot think of ways to alter the environment to make this tactic less appealing in some circumstances where it might be more problematic? I thought it was up to the players to push the edges of the sandbox? Unless we broke the edges, CCP should keep out of it. Particularly when they don't seem to understand it or have good idea where they are going with it. In short, as someone who has been playing for eight years, I am concerned by this proposal and think it is inelegant and short-sighted at best. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 4	Posted - 2015.03.02 13:22:05 - [780] - Quote Ncc 1709 wrote: This is quite literally what every gang who comes roaming near us wants. you pop out a few defence ships and they run even if they out number you 3:1. and that's without fighters. They only fight, if they know for 100% they could win. This opinion doesn't count for all, as i had very nice WH pew pew :) Rroff wrote: Some of your knowledge of this is 6 months behind the curve (atleast taking your post at face value) - people doing this are increasingly moving away from sitting at the edge of the FF towards other ways of using POS mechanics to be safe where they don't need to move back inside the FF to become perfectly safe. Sitting in the middle of you POS guns and dampeners to be safe? I knew this with a Cyno and a MTU directly on top of an POS. I am open for new Information :) Rroff wrote: Even a ship with interceptor speed and sig will struggle to kite off fighters unless with a head start let alone a cruiser from what I've seen - many of the original complaints were purely due to people scouting in inties, etc. getting initial tackle for a small gang then getting alpha'd trying to escape when fighters arrived. These people live in this system which allows them to use a Hulk for mining. You don-¦t start in Jita with a travel hulk to go mining in 0.0. So don-¦t wonder if a defence less ship is protected. A Procurer/Skiff should fit a scram per default. Related to you Post the problem is not the assign it is the tracking and dmg which i cannot confirm. Frigates which are smart fast moving are not hittable. Rroff wrote: The revenant that got killed while it had been involved with doing skynet stuff got caught on login 20-30km outside the POS FF possibly at the spot where he cyno'd in. (which IMO is a good example of why fighter assignment should follow cyno restrictions around a POS). Jeah, we know the problem which you can probe scan a player during login as the ship is quite slow. But you could also dock in a station if you do not need your ship (If you have a station.)
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1609	Posted - 2015.03.02 13:29:10 - [781] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: Does this change mean that CCP really doesn't know what to do with capital ships? Does this change mean that CCP really cannot think of ways to alter the environment to make this tactic less appealing in some circumstances where it might be more problematic? I think it means "everything altering combat coming from off grid will die when they find a way to do it/can be bothered to implement it".
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 930	Posted - 2015.03.02 13:31:10 - [782] - Quote @Kane Carnifex - one of the becoming common techniques is to set up a few POSes around a region without on-lining the forcefield and sitting right by the control tower itself while assigning fighters - this way if anything does become a threat to you you simply online the forcefield. I believe it also means you can cyno straight to another control tower directly as well without the normal cyno restrictions but I'd not tested that for myself (heard something about "garage dooring" but not looked into it). There are a couple of other techniques involving POS mods but I'd rather not elaborate on that as they are lesser known and/or while I know its possible to do some of them I've not worked out the steps to reproduce it.
Death Godess Piracy is Our Business and Business is Good 2	Posted - 2015.03.02 13:48:27 - [783] - Quote If your dumb enough to enter someone's home system and attack them without scouting the system first then you get what you deserve. If you feel a need to Cry to CCP to nerf a feature that has been around for almost 10 years, I think your playing the wrong game! Keep Fighters as they are! Change it because a few scrubs can't handle losing a few ships to prepared defenders, and I will think long and hard about wether CCP still deserves my $15 a month.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10008	Posted - 2015.03.02 13:50:41 - [784] - Quote Rroff wrote: You could reduce fighter weapon ranges to reduce this but then you'd run into the old problem that made fighters mostly useless back in the day in that their high orbit speed and short optimal range meant they'd often defeat their own tracking. Which the receiving ship fixes with webs/target painters/scrams etc.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 930	Posted - 2015.03.02 13:56:37 - [785] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Rroff wrote: You could reduce fighter weapon ranges to reduce this but then you'd run into the old problem that made fighters mostly useless back in the day in that their high orbit speed and short optimal range meant they'd often defeat their own tracking. Which the receiving ship fixes with webs/target painters/scrams etc. As I mentioned before my preferred solution would be to implement the tracking formula for fighters (and sentries as an aside) like titans where the signature component has more weight - with the right parameters it makes it very hard to hit inties, etc. while having minimal (AFAIK) knock on effect to applying damage to say BC sized and larger targets (where the sig component of the chance to hit formula would be satisfied). There is a bit of a knock on effect to people who might use "skynet" to rat from POS in that they will have to risk something slightly more expensive to regain parity in the efficiency of killing smaller NPC ships but I don't really have a lot of sympathy there as it merely means putting a little more ISK onto the field and still doesn't mean risking the carrier. EDIT: This makes sense to me anyhow as while fighters are frigate sized craft they have normal pilots rather than pod pilots so wouldn't have the same level of gunnery skills ;)
Karma ChameIeon You Come and GO 5	Posted - 2015.03.02 14:04:36 - [786] - Quote Death Godess wrote: If your dumb enough to enter someone's home system and attack them without scouting the system first then you get what you deserve. If you feel a need to Cry to CCP to nerf a feature that has been around for almost 10 years, I think your playing the wrong game! Keep Fighters as they are! Change it because a few scrubs can't handle losing a few ships to prepared defenders, and I will think long and hard about wether CCP still deserves my $15 a month. I Agree 100% If you can't ferret out a carrier that is asigning fighters then you should stop trying to play in the deepend of the pond, go back to high sec and gank newbs. And is it just me or have so many people not understood what "Attack and Follow" means for drone settings, is this a failing on CCP's part in tutorial or wiki pages or are these people just too lazy to look it up? I found out on my first day because I saw it and asked in rookie help!
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 930	Posted - 2015.03.02 14:09:47 - [787] - Quote Karma ChameIeon wrote: And is it just me or have so many people not understood what "Attack and Follow" means for drone settings, is this a failing on CCP's part in tutorial or wiki pages or are these people just too lazy to look it up? I found out on my first day because I saw it and asked in rookie help! TBH despite flying carriers for more than 3 years I've never experimented with that setting - just left it enabled and micro-managed my fighters, I was aware of of being there and what it was supposed to do however though couldn't say if it actually worked or not heh.
Gypsien Agittain University of Caille Gallente Federation 7	Posted - 2015.03.02 14:17:49 - [788] - Quote Figher assist is a mechanic that has been in the game for ten years. Now, it's being abused due to your wonderful power projection nerf which totally destroyed capitals utility and you want to remove one of the few abilities that allow SMALL groups of people to use the capitals they own. I agree with the primal source of the problem: fighters assisted from within a pos shield. As some fellow capsuleers have suggested, just disallow fighter assistance from an XX distance of a pos. Lately, reading dev blogs and so on, I'm starting to think you've lost your minds (even more than with jump fatigue). You've a game mechanic which worked perfectly for almost 4000 days and, just because a few abuse of a certain way of using it and another few cry rivers, you totally obliterate it. Absurd, at least. If you just disallow fighter assistance from certain spots, i.e. poses, near stations, near gates... you would mantain a part of the game which worked PERFECTLY since EVE existed, and grant the whiners an opportunity to kill the people they whine about. Risk-reward you say: then probe the damn capitals in less than 20seconds (unless you're as bad probing as my grandma) and kill em as it's been done with OGB since god brought light to the universe. On the warp thing: There's no single reason to remove fighter's ability to warp. Whatever way you wanna twist reality to deceive vets and justify this: we won't buy it.
Kamikaze Akenatum Kamikaze Fleet Command Antesignani Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 14:19:42 - [789] - Quote If you remove fighter assist, then we may as well allow Carriers and Supers into high sec space! CCP Rise, Put the Nerfbat away before you hurt your subscription base, and fix some of the other bugged game mechanics first.
Cumbus Kanjus Twinstar Universal Services DARKNESS. 1	Posted - 2015.03.02 14:21:48 - [790] - Quote last time i checked wasn't eve supposed to be a sandbox? therefore its the players task to find solutions for ingame mechanics (what they actually most of the time do). its not CCPs task to fix issues (or fix isues where are none) just because some ppl keep whining and whining and whining! some ppl might see high sec ganking as an issue. so??? did CCP do something about it? no because thats how it should be. ppl should adapt and learn to live with said mechanic. "We also want to promote active gameplay as much as possible. We're failing on both with Skynet by having very little risk associated with something rather powerful, and we're also not providing any gameplay to the carrier pilot" so u wanna say that dual or tripple boxing with carriers and or supers on a FF does not provide gameplay? well thats to be judged by the players doing so and not by CCP, right? "very little risk associated with something rather powerful" it might be powerful, but little risk? if the contra-party just brings enough of their own capitals u can just forget about skynet. and thats exactly how it should be. and party finds a new mechanic or using it, so the opposite party is being forced to counter that mechanic. "very little risk" so building a super/titan and keeping it safe/alive is no risk for CCP, right? so @CCP pls there is not just a "0" or "1". there is more than just "Yes" and "No" im sure there is a solution that will be fine for both sides
Mihascheg NewRingsOrion Northern Associates. 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 14:25:11 - [791] - Quote As always consider only one side of the coin, 1-2 people complained that what that production workers gave putting pvp grief and immediately need something to remove something to alter. And the fact that people are engaged in the production is the only way how you fight off the heap in pozhevitsya flown home system you even does not occur. Many were especially trained and constructed by super only for that would be protected in such a way, these super not rush on systems with small ships they are participating only in the protection of their system. I believe that it is not correct to compare their organization fleets of 50-60 people and the fact that there is a risk of the driver jacket standing at the POS or not how do you will be able to ship this to do something against the 50-60 ships? I do not see in this protection system or of the advantages of their inhabitants.Just simply enough pairs of merchant ships type hugin/loki.If those who do not like the fact that they are given pvp and want what all sat at the stations when they arrive, they may not need to look for this PvP? Why fly to where the hurt?
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1609	Posted - 2015.03.02 14:27:46 - [792] - Quote Cumbus Kanjus wrote: last time i checked wasn't eve supposed to be a sandbox? therefore its the players task to find solutions for ingame mechanics (what they actually most of the time do). its not CCPs task to fix issues (or fix isues where are none) just because some ppl keep whining and whining and whining! some ppl might see high sec ganking as an issue. so??? did CCP do something about it? no because thats how it should be. ppl should adapt and learn to live with said mechanic. "We also want to promote active gameplay as much as possible. We're failing on both with Skynet by having very little risk associated with something rather powerful, and we're also not providing any gameplay to the carrier pilot" so u wanna say that dual or tripple boxing with carriers and or supers on a FF does not provide gameplay? well thats to be judged by the players doing so and not by CCP, right? "very little risk associated with something rather powerful" it might be powerful, but little risk? if the contra-party just brings enough of their own capitals u can just forget about skynet. and thats exactly how it should be. and party finds a new mechanic or using it, so the opposite party is being forced to counter that mechanic. "very little risk" so building a super/titan and keeping it safe/alive is no risk for CCP, right? so @CCP pls there is not just a "0" or "1". there is more than just "Yes" and "No" im sure there is a solution that will be fine for both sides There are a few historical case where CCP were not happy with a mechanic and dealt with it instead of the player having to deal with it. The sandbox rules getting modified is not something never seen before and involved a lot of tears from player using what was getting cut every time and was preceded by a lot of different tears from people on the recieving side of it before just like this.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 421	Posted - 2015.03.02 14:34:59 - [793] - Quote Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote: I must admit to a bit of confusion. If you at CCP didn't want this situation, whatever made you think that applying the originating carrier's mod bonuses to assigned fighters was a change worth implementing? Assigned fighters were AFAIK not a huge problem when they were assigned without ship bonuses (specifically damage and tracking). Assigned fighters still aren't a problem, but the fact that you can use them 101% risk-free from the safety of a POS. EDIT: Let's face it: not a single one of these renter scrubs would use assigned fighters if there was any risk in it. Not a single one.
Dictateur Imperator Babylon Knights DARKNESS. 9	Posted - 2015.03.02 14:43:07 - [794] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote: I must admit to a bit of confusion. If you at CCP didn't want this situation, whatever made you think that applying the originating carrier's mod bonuses to assigned fighters was a change worth implementing? Assigned fighters were AFAIK not a huge problem when they were assigned without ship bonuses (specifically damage and tracking). Assigned fighters still aren't a problem, but the fact that you can use them 101% risk-free from the safety of a POS. EDIT: Let's face it: not a single one of these renter scrubs would use assigned fighters if there was any risk in it. Not a single one. Have you already play to eve ? You can kill carrier/super near pos. But yes you need to send more is on the gris as he is on anom... and use ship create for it. In fact CCP want allow it's easier to kill with 100 M carrier or 500M/1B on the field super. Actually engage 2B of ship do for killing cap near pos, you kill carrier, but yes defenser can kill some opponent with help of pos. Engage 15B of ship on a super neat pos, you can kill him same if you play well, bt yes again you can have loss. This update it's for the moment only for people who cry to have easy KM. CCP want risk VS reward, but the risk must be in each part of the game, not only for the defense. People who attack must have risk to, they 're reward :good KM.
FleetAdmiralHarper Kitchen Sink Kapitals 42	Posted - 2015.03.02 14:54:08 - [795] - Quote WOW did the majority of peoples posts, INCLUDING my own, who were oppose to this, for good reason seriously get removed? **** this game. and its mods, community and devs. i and my corp will be quitting. enjoy your -300 a month from our lack of subs CCP..
Anthar Thebess 940	Posted - 2015.03.02 15:02:03 - [796] - Quote FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: WOW did the majority of peoples posts, INCLUDING my own, who were oppose to this, for good reason seriously get removed? **** this game. and its mods, community and devs. i and my corp will be quitting. enjoy your -300 a month from our lack of subs CCP.. The problem started when you had all skills and all drone modules applying their bonuses to the fighters and fighter bombers. Before this , you could not get fighters moving at 6k m/s and dealing tons of DPS. You did not have cheap nullified ships like ceptors. Many things have changed. Capital Remote AID Rebalance Way to solve important nullsec issue. CSM members do your work.
Mihascheg NewRingsOrion Northern Associates. 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 15:02:17 - [797] - Quote There is one way to make the price of nyx 500-600-million approximately as Ishtar then there will be no need for him to be afraid of losing everything themselves will fly it in pvp, and how it is not fair to require the corporation to risk the ship out of 10 people at 20b it is asked that those who fly the ships 100-200m...
Luna TheMoonrider The Gritch's Church Equinox Space Technologies 4	Posted - 2015.03.02 15:03:34 - [798] - Quote FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: WOW did the majority of peoples posts, INCLUDING my own, who were oppose to this, for good reason seriously get removed? ** this game. and its mods, community and devs. i and my corp will be quitting. enjoy your -300 a month from our lack of subs CCP.. Confirmed Form/mod zealots ABUSE removing large posts with constructive feedback of people who are opposed to this change.** Do you have any clue ? like screenshot ? Don't be afraid to send pm If true, it's sad.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 930	Posted - 2015.03.02 15:14:57 - [799] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: The problem started when you had all skills and all drone modules applying their bonuses to the fighters and fighter bombers. Before this , you could not get fighters moving at 6k m/s and dealing tons of DPS. You did not have cheap nullified ships like ceptors. Many things have changed. Its not a problem from normal combat fit carriers (which are finally in sort of a good place). A lot of the problem stems from the fact that as tracking becomes less of a problem the less significance any sig size discrepancy has between the turret sig res and target sig size which isn't a problem (infact works well) in general gameplay but "skynet" fits allow this side effect to become an issue (same as happened with Titans) they are edge cases but need dealing with none the less. I really don't want to see fighters lose bonuses from drone mods again whether assigned or not. Seeing the discussions over the last few days in regards to carriers, ishtars and sentries I'm starting to think (though testing might prove otherwise) that both sentries and fighters should use titan style tracking formulas as this would do a ton of balancing in one go (giving drone BS a bonus to sentry sig to make them more effective with sentries than cruiser hulls).
FleetAdmiralHarper Kitchen Sink Kapitals 44	Posted - 2015.03.02 15:18:09 - [800] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: WOW did the majority of peoples posts, INCLUDING my own, who were oppose to this, for good reason seriously get removed? **** this game. and its mods, community and devs. i and my corp will be quitting. enjoy your -300 a month from our lack of subs CCP.. The problem started when you had all skills and all drone modules applying their bonuses to the fighters and fighter bombers. Before this , you could not get fighters moving at 6k m/s and dealing tons of DPS. You did not have cheap nullified ships like ceptors. Many things have changed. yes we know and that was covered in the post...
FleetAdmiralHarper Kitchen Sink Kapitals 44	Posted - 2015.03.02 15:20:48 - [801] - Quote Luna TheMoonrider wrote: FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: [...] *Confirmed Form/mod zealots ABUSE removing large posts with constructive feedback of people who are opposed to this change.* Do you have any clue ? like screenshot ? Don't be afraid to send pm If true, it's sad. i honestly wish i did. but this forum was 42 pages 12 hours ago. now its down to 40? i didnt take screen shots, i just assumed i and my post would be ignored not outright deleted with a ton of other people opposed to these changes, besides who would expect official forum mods to act like this? ill be taking screenshots from now on though. my original post and several others have been removed. but i do have this where they removed a 2nd post of mine and i replied https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5540797#post5540797 it should also be noted they didn't even give me warnings for rule breaking. until my 2nd post where i lost my cool and justly outright insulted a CSM member for being a tool. nope just snuffed the posts out. but they went ever further back and removed the big on that was 5 paragraphs. also last night my post was on page 40. now the 3rd one i made in this thread is back on 38. MANY posts have been removed..
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 656	Posted - 2015.03.02 15:24:42 - [802] - Quote After reading what some people said here I have to say that you should not remove the ability to assign fighters, it will hurt smaller entities the most. The idea of not being able to do this within x km of a POS works for me. Ella's Snack bar
Scooter King The Fated Diplomatic Immunity. 2	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:02:33 - [803] - Quote My experience with fighters is that you can actually keep them tied up - IF you know how to do it. Select the furthest point in the solar system from where you are and warp (assuming you can ofc) - they follow you - whilst they are with you they are not doing dps on the field. The further you warp, the longer they take after recall (they have to drop out of warp to come back) the problem is not the warping, but making the assigner more vulnerable - i like the options of only assignable on grid, but if the capital warps off then they should immediately return back to the capital (after completing their own follow warp) within xKm of a pos is not sensible, basically the cap pilot will align to another pos and hover over the warp button - pointless imho - however, if on entering the pos shield then the drones lose all connection and become paperweights (even to the assignee), the cost of that is bourne by the pilot - that might work - if they win the battle, they can always be collected afterwards just my 2 cents Scoot
Lugh Crow-Slave 830	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:04:18 - [804] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I But the fighters were a mechanic that was fine, for a while, but then became abused more and more. What did you expect I expected CCP to put the effort into solving the the abuse of the mechanic rather than just remove it do to one way it is being used. Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1610	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:07:08 - [805] - Quote Lugh Crow-Slave wrote: Mike Azariah wrote: I But the fighters were a mechanic that was fine, for a while, but then became abused more and more. What did you expect I expected CCP to put the effort into solving the the abuse of the mechanic rather than just remove it do to one way it is being used. If only we ever had the real reasoning they use for the decision instead of everybody just guessing what it was we would probably have a much more productive discussion on a TON of changes they implement.
Styphon the Black Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union 5	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:14:12 - [806] - Quote Removing fighter assist and warping is a horrible idea. We use carriers all the time in nullsec and nerfing them this way would make them useless. We need fighter assists.
FleetAdmiralHarper Kitchen Sink Kapitals 46	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:15:48 - [807] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: Luna TheMoonrider wrote: FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: [...] *Confirmed Form/mod zealots ABUSE removing large posts with constructive feedback of people who are opposed to this change.* Do you have any clue ? like screenshot ? Don't be afraid to send pm If true, it's sad. i honestly wish i did. but this forum was 42 pages 12 hours ago. now its down to 40? i didnt take screen shots, i just assumed i and my post would be ignored not outright deleted with a ton of other people opposed to these changes, besides who would expect official forum mods to act like this? ill be taking screenshots from now on though. my original post and several others have been removed. but i do have this where they removed a 2nd post of mine and i replied https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5540797#post5540797 it should also be noted they didn't even give me warnings for rule breaking. until my 2nd post where i lost my cool and justly outright insulted a CSM member for being a tool. nope just snuffed the posts out. but they went ever further back and removed the big on that was 5 paragraphs. also last night my post was on page 40. now the 3rd one i made in this thread is back on 38. MANY posts have been removed.. Anytime you want to read what was removed you may skip over to http://eve-search.com/thread/409271-1/page/1 and see it in all its unmoderated glory. just saying . . . m wow, that is actually very helpful for a change. thank you. my OP was here if anyone wants to read it. http://eve-search.com/thread/409271-1/page/25#726 *and remember kids and CCP.* just because people aren't keeping totally calm and polite DOESN'T mean, what they are saying matters any less. if mass hordes of people are THAT UPSET. foaming at the mouth raging in opposition of this, or ANY change, THAT'S PROBABLY A SIGN you should stop and seriously consider what the heck you are doing. hell sign nothing, that's a Beacon with an airport air traffic controller and glow wands, and strobe lights, telling you this is an AWFUL idea.
ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 3934	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:16:39 - [808] - Quote I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. The Rules: 12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited. The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
FleetAdmiralHarper Kitchen Sink Kapitals 46	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:19:39 - [809] - Quote ISD Ezwal wrote: I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. The Rules: 12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited. The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category. you are an awful forum moderator. either you know full well what you are doing, or you don't understand the seriousness and criticalcality of what you are deleting. people need to see majority of posts you are deleting please stop and let someone else do your job. Besides. you're just a "Vice" admiral. im a "Fleet" admiral.. i out Rank you.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1610	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:22:20 - [810] - Quote FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: wow, that is actually very helpful for a change. thank you. my OP was here if anyone wants to read it. http://eve-search.com/thread/409271-1/page/25#726 *and remember kids and CCP.* just because people aren't keeping totally calm and polite DOESN'T mean, what they are saying matters any less. if mass hordes of people are THAT UPSET. foaming at the mouth raging in opposition of this, or ANY change, THAT'S PROBABLY A SIGN you should stop and seriously consider what the heck you are doing. hell sign nothing, that's a Beacon with an airport air traffic controller and glow wands, and strobe lights, telling you this is an AWFUL idea. You do realise people were more than likely raging and foaming at the mouth about change like removing AoE and remote DD right? People also foamed at the mouth for close to every tiericide changes post. Freighter fitting options were epic too especially when people foamed at the mouth for the fail investement in capital rigs BPOs. People always rage. FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: you are an awful forum moderator. either you know full well what you are doing, or you don't understand the seriousness and criticalcality of what you are deleting. people need to see majority of posts you are deleting please stop and let someone else do your job. Besides. you're just a "Vice" admiral. im a "Fleet" admiral.. i out Rank you. This won't end well.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 421	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:22:34 - [811] - Quote Dictateur Imperator wrote: Aiyshimin wrote: Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote: I must admit to a bit of confusion. If you at CCP didn't want this situation, whatever made you think that applying the originating carrier's mod bonuses to assigned fighters was a change worth implementing? Assigned fighters were AFAIK not a huge problem when they were assigned without ship bonuses (specifically damage and tracking). Assigned fighters still aren't a problem, but the fact that you can use them 101% risk-free from the safety of a POS. EDIT: Let's face it: not a single one of these renter scrubs would use assigned fighters if there was any risk in it. Not a single one. Have you already play to eve ? You can kill carrier/super near pos. But yes you need to send more is on the gris as he is on anom... and use ship create for it. In fact CCP want allow it's easier to kill with 100 M carrier or 500M/1B on the field super. Actually engage 2B of ship do for killing cap near pos, you kill carrier, but yes defenser can kill some opponent with help of pos. Engage 15B of ship on a super neat pos, you can kill him same if you play well, bt yes again you can have loss. This update it's for the moment only for people who cry to have easy KM. CCP want risk VS reward, but the risk must be in each part of the game, not only for the defense. People who attack must have risk to, they 're reward :good KM. If your skynet carrier is so easy to kill on pos, why do you use it? Or is it less at risk than if you would be outside the POS? This question is only for the babies who cry to keep their risk-free skynet.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10008	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:22:46 - [812] - Quote FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: ISD Ezwal wrote: I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. The Rules: 12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited. The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category. you are an awful forum moderator. either you know full well what you are doing, or you don't understand the seriousness and criticalcality of what you are deleting. people need to see majority of posts you are deleting please stop and let someone else do your job. Besides. you're just a "Vice" admiral. im a "Fleet" admiral.. i out Rank you. Someone needs their medication. Now.
Lugh Crow-Slave 832	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:41:26 - [813] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: FleetAdmiralHarper wrote: wow, that is actually very helpful for a change. thank you. my OP was here if anyone wants to read it. http://eve-search.com/thread/409271-1/page/25#726 *and remember kids and CCP.* just because people aren't keeping totally calm and polite DOESN'T mean, what they are saying matters any less. if mass hordes of people are THAT UPSET. foaming at the mouth raging in opposition of this, or ANY change, THAT'S PROBABLY A SIGN you should stop and seriously consider what the heck you are doing. hell sign nothing, that's a Beacon with an airport air traffic controller and glow wands, and strobe lights, telling you this is an AWFUL idea. You do realise people were more than likely raging and foaming at the mouth about change like removing AoE and remote DD right? People also foamed at the mouth for close to every tiericide changes post. Freighter fitting options were epic too especially when people foamed at the mouth for the fail investement in capital rigs BPOs. People always rage. Yes but those changers weren't done because of one abuse of a mechanic while many other people used it in other ways Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
gto Okaski Crown Solutions TOGETHER WE STAND 5	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:56:31 - [814] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: So you'll have to forgive us if we take this with a grain of salt the size of a Iapetan Titan as some of us don't trust CCP anymore to respond or listen to their playerbase if you don't have a "CSM" tag next to your name. People are tired of being told "we really do want your opinions, honest!" and then watching CCP turn around so fast they get whiplash. Can't believe I "liked" a goon post.
Lugh Crow-Slave 832	Posted - 2015.03.02 16:59:17 - [815] - Quote gto Okaski wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: So you'll have to forgive us if we take this with a grain of salt the size of a Iapetan Titan as some of us don't trust CCP anymore to respond or listen to their playerbase if you don't have a "CSM" tag next to your name. People are tired of being told "we really do want your opinions, honest!" and then watching CCP turn around so fast they get whiplash. Can't believe I "liked" a goon post. it's not all of ccp some do seem to do their best to respond to the player base others yes it seams like they will open up a feedback thread and then never even act like the go back and read it fozzi being the worst with this. Fuel block colors? Missiles for Caldari T3?
Cpt Patrick Archer Quam Singulari Northern Associates. 7	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:00:41 - [816] - Quote I've had a quick readthrough of most of the pages and I felt like I had to comment anyway. If only to give more power to the already mentioned points. It may become a long one, so here's a TL;DR for ya all: - Killing fighterassists will hurt the new players. - A lot of effort to get a (super)carrier, especially when you are just starting off. (This is a good thing). - Combat: * Attack someone's homesystem with a 5-10 man gang, without a proper scout party you should get raped anyway. * Easy ways to disengage * Does not create extra content for 'capital pilots' - Possible fix: * I totally agree with the same suggestion that has been posted about 1000 times now, minimum distance from forcefield * Or capital is not able to move/jump/cloak untill fighters are returned to their own grid (unless they are scrambled maybe?) For the long one: Killing fighterassists will hurt the new players. I spead for our corporation and many others that I know. We use skynet to give new players (1- 4 months) free fighters to help them with ratting and make some extra isk. This way they can start flying ships that are actually meaningfull in small gang nullsec combat and enjoy the game, instead of rotting away on level 4's in highsec. A lot of effort to get a (super)carrier, especially when you are just starting off. (This is a good thing). Players have spend years to perfect characters to pilot these awesome capitals, spend billions upon billions to aquire them. And now one of the features that makes a carrier unique is just getting removed. Making the assest, years of training and billions next to useless in quite a few scenario's. Combat: * I personally think that if you are roaming with a gang of about 5-10 people (these are apparently the people that actually get 'hurt' by fighter assists) and you are attacking someone's homesystem. You are going to have losses. * These proposed changes remove content for super accounts, making them less usefull and not important to keep subscribed for quite a number of supercapital owners. I do not think that people will warp supers to gates to kill an Ishtar gang or whatever. What I do see happening is people warping their damage/tracking fit carrier to the gate, bypassing subcaps completely (apart from a few fasttackle) and remote sensorboosting the carriers for the same effect. Small gang still gets raped, because they shouldn't be in a position to kill any number of capitals in a 10 man gang anyways. * The creating extra content agrument is especially missing it's point because nobody in their right mind is going to put their main and only toon in a super. The guys at the gate are usually the mains, so they are not missing content. I do think that there needs to be more risk involved in assigning fighters because it's a big force multiplier, but removing them completely is outragous, shortsighted and removes an awesome and unique gamemechanic that does not ruin gameplay, but creates it. Otherwise people might choose to blueball. Possible fix: * Minimum distance from POS like tons of others have pitched already. * (Super)caps can't move untill fighters are back on grid with the ship. This increases the risk a lot, and makes a super that is assigning fighters a viable target for a 10-20 man gang without killing this awesome feature.
Hammering Hank Eve Engineering Logistics Eve Engineering 2	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:05:07 - [817] - Quote Hammering Hank wrote: Pomponius Sabinus wrote: Well it seems like you realised the problem is risk vs reward while asigning fighters from the edge of a POS FF. But instead of making it more interesting by finding some way to make it more dangerous to asign fighters you sadly take the easy way out and just remove it. It would be way more interesting for the game if you found a way to make carriers that asigned fighters more vulnerable. The best solution is to introduce a Fighter Assist module for carriers. Like a Triage module, it needs an activation timer and stops all locomotion. It could also increase the Signature Radius of the Carrier (easier to scan down) and not allow any remote boosting. Recommend naming the module T-Meg. The new module allows fighter assist to stay but carriers become more vulnerable. The Fighter Assist (T-Meg) could also not be activated within 50k (or 100k) of any FF or gate (or anything using very high energy). Story line being that the Fighter communications systems cannot work around interference.
Zajian Inglorious Gamers Incorporated Legion's. 7	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:15:31 - [818] - Quote I am not against fighter assist, but what i prefer is to make them only usable for cruisers and bigger ships. That removes that ceptor/frigg problems with 1k dps. Fighterassist ist a major feature of carrier/supercarriers and nerves them pretty hard, fighter bomber warp should be still in the game in future.
Lavrenti Palych Zima Corp Infinity Space. 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:20:32 - [819] - Quote One more thing: I hope your next move will be to remove off-grid bonuses including combat and orca/rorqual. Because - you know... Nobody must be safe - like assist fighters carrier on POS....
ISD Ezwal ISD Community Communications Liaisons 3934	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:20:53 - [820] - Quote I have removed some rule breaking posts and those quoting them. Please people, keep it on topic and above all civil! The Rules: 12. Discussion of forum moderation is prohibited. The discussion of EVE Online forum moderation actions generally leads to flaming, trolling and baiting of our ISD CCL moderators. As such, this type of discussion is strictly prohibited under the forum rules. If you have questions regarding the actions of a moderator, please file a support ticket under the Community & Forums Category. ISD Ezwal Vice Admiral Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs) Interstellar Services Department
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 134	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:27:54 - [821] - Quote make assisted fighters use ship bandwidth. they use 25 on a carrier so they should also use 25 of the ship there assigned to. so only frigs like the Tristan and ishkur could run 1 fighter. Thorax 2, vexor 3. myrmidon 4. maraudas could only run 1 (2 for kronos) the only ships that would be able to natively run 5 fighters would be the ships that already use drones as their damage output. so T3's would either run 0 or 1 with proteus at 4 wow a whole page of comments disappeared while typing this
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1611	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:33:46 - [822] - Quote Lavrenti Palych wrote: One more thing: I hope your next move will be to remove off-grid bonuses including combat and orca/rorqual. Because - you know... Nobody must be safe - like assist fighters carrier on POS.... I would love that but up until now, their only "workable" solution would kill the nodes so it was not implemented. I'm not 100% sure but I think it was either said by Fozzie or Veritas.
Lavrenti Palych Zima Corp Infinity Space. 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:44:54 - [823] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: I would love that but up until now, their only "workable" solution would kill the nodes so it was not implemented. I'm not 100% sure but I think it was either said by Fozzie or Veritas. Well, I see their "workable solution": -Man, I have headache! -All right! Hey guys - cut his head off! You know, like Carroll's Queen of Hearts...
Gypsien Agittain University of Caille Gallente Federation 10	Posted - 2015.03.02 17:55:41 - [824] - Quote 41 pages of proposals and 99,99% are more reasonable than removing assist while fixing the skynet problem. Imo CCP Leadership and shareholders should start thinking about whats happening with the team developing the game when even the less gifted capsuleers are able to provide much better solutions to game balance.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 849	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:11:40 - [825] - Quote This whole thing makes me fear something is rotten at the heart of Eve. "We don't have a clue how to fix POS code, or off-grid boosters, or local chat, or really anything except modify a few numbers in some spreadsheets, so let's do that." The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 57	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:23:16 - [826] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I know this is a hard concept to grasp for some of you. Polite works far better then inarticulate swearing and insults. You are mad, we get that and do not need you to make any sexual references to prove that for you sex and anger are one and the same. You don't like the changes? Some of you have done a fine job of suggesting alternatives or asking for lessening of the changes ot just voicing your concerns. Good. Others, not so much. Me? I am in favour of the change because I never think a person should be able to be totally uninvolved and still be a part of the on field force. I dislike off-grid boosting for the same reason. But the fighters were a mechanic that was fine, for a while, but then became abused more and more. What did you expect? That since it was fine yesterday it must be fine today and always will be? The game changes, for the better or worse will show in the longer run. But if you want to be heard, if you want to have a single iota of a chance to be heard by CCP then keep it civil. If what I said ticked you off . . . well, I am running for CSMX. Vote accordingly. m Ignore people that are cursing/insulting and not providing any real feedback, like the rest of us do. Even with CCP's poor history of 'listening to players', we are still trying to provide clear & good feedback to them. So what about AFK cloakers? Intelligence Gathering cloakers? Off-Grid Boosters? Cloak boosters? All of those are the same as skynet, you don't put your ship in danger. Hey, let's force the rorqual in asteroid belts, it's only fair after all... Since you and a few other's missed the message/point, let me make it clear: We are NOT saying it's expecting to be fine for ever, that's why we are suggesting work around like modules not boosting fighters, no fighter assignment near POS, fighters no longer follow hostiles in warp, etc. FT Diomedes wrote: This whole thing makes me fear something is rotten at the heart of Eve. "We don't have a clue how to fix POS code, or off-grid boosters, or local chat, or really anything except modify a few numbers in some spreadsheets, so let's do that." That's how it feels and looks like...
Haywoud Jablomi 1st Stage Alternate Allegiance 56	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:56:25 - [827] - Quote Ncc 1709 wrote: make assisted fighters use ship bandwidth. they use 25 on a carrier so they should also use 25 of the ship there assigned to. so only frigs like the Tristan and ishkur could run 1 fighter. Thorax 2, vexor 3. myrmidon 4. maraudas could only run 1 (2 for kronos) the only ships that would be able to natively run 5 fighters would be the ships that already use drones as their damage output. so T3's would either run 0 or 1 with proteus at 4 wow a whole page of comments disappeared while typing this Everything he said.. Do it... DO IT NOW!!! EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? Yes; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP should be completely avoided" "However if you train cloak, you can avoid it all you want." (Modified)
Liet Ormand Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 22	Posted - 2015.03.02 18:58:31 - [828] - Quote CCP - I am interested in the graph assessing Battlecruiser use. Since this assessment (in the blog) was made based on PvP activities, is the purpose of BCs to engage in PvP activities only? Or if not, is there a similar graph in existence for PvE type use of ships? Ideally, I'd love to get a "sanitized" copy of the numeric data to play with. More generally, all the changes noted in this blog seem to focus around PvP, which is certainly a major portion of the player base and thus worthy of attention. However, I'm certain the designers and developers also know there are PvE types playing as well as businesspeople, miners, etc. Is there a release anywhere on the horizon to address changes/fixes to things like DED and FW complexes, or hacking/relic sites, or some more encouragement for miners to leave high sec? I'm sure I'll get flamed into oblivion for daring to post anything suggesting that developers take any time away from delivering "more important" fixes, but that's the Eve forums for ya.
Darmok Tamal Kitchen Sink Kapitals 8	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:00:03 - [829] - Quote Mods removes people that disagree with fighters being assigned. These forums are too stronk http://meatspin.fr/
FleetAdmiralHarper Kitchen Sink Kapitals 47	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:01:26 - [830] - Quote Darmok Tamal wrote: Mods removes people that disagree with fighters being assigned. These forums are too stronk http://meatspin.fr/ you mean the ones who dissagree with the removal of them? and yeah they do.
TerminalSamurai Sunji Bureau of Explosions 7	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:32:05 - [831] - Quote [Tears] These changes are pretty personal to me unfortunatly, I've litterally injected a racial carrier skill about a week ago and just finished leadership V for the sole purpose of injecting fighters today. And now I feel like it's a moot point to continue training down this path, so for the last 90 days I've been grinding specifically for a carrier and said skills I have been wasting my time. And yes I know a lot of you have invested much more time than I have in these skills. At this point I'd rather just have all of my isk / sp reimbursed. [Opinion] Fighter Assist goes away, fine (Sitting by a pos doesn't have enough risk, I get it). Fighter warping goes away... Whats the theory here? If your not assigning them in the first place then you're putting your carrier at risk. If I have to recall drones every site because my CRUISER sized drones don't have a warp drive, then that's pretty lame. Might as well go back to spider tanking Domis or rattlesnakes which are easiesr to train into anyways. [Theory Mechanic Solutions] Other Eve weapon systems have a reload time, why don't drones? Previous fighter nerfs were due to abusing drones. Is the underlying drone code that ugly that mechanics CANT be added? only removed? If so, then I feel bad for the devs, Every one is now paying the price for code debt. (Not just the frustrated devs)
Pandorik Nordic Demons Inc Warped Intentions 0	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:32:43 - [832] - Quote Dear CCP, Removing the Fighter assist and allowable warp is simply appalling . This Risk vs Reward venture of CCPs scope should be focused on High sec so that we may actually fight gankers. Either way I am utterly disappointed that CCP is removing content and play styles instead of introducing a mechanic that would allow players to counter. In lay-mans terms we are talking about taking the scissors out of RPS instead of adding a new way to play or a way to counter the "Skynet Problem"; lets just remove it. How about removing the skewed dynamics that Gankers use to their advantage and leaves everyone else high and dry? Oh wait they are trading a 4M isk fit for a hauler carrying a few billion isk, that sounds like a really square Risk v Reward dosent it? Then not having any possible way to strike back at them, sounds like everything is in order here, right!? Moving forward with this you will see a tremendous decline of Carrier use. Thats on you. I say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO to all and any form of changes to the carriers. - Panda P.s. Your making a mistake.
Darmok Tamal Kitchen Sink Kapitals 9	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:46:59 - [833] - Quote How long before CCP loses all of it's subscribers? 1 year? 6 months?
Goosius Tal Bacon Buccaneers League 5	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:51:56 - [834] - Quote Removing fighter assist/warp would negativly effect the games expiriance for many. Making people stay on grid to use their carriers would mostly restrict use to alliances that can feild large numbers to support them. If people are "worried" about loosing their fighters because they run off there is a box that says chase target they shouldn't have it clicked. Last i knew fighter bombers didn't warp off any ways. Not every one that uses their carrier for fighter support is hanging out by a pos. I may only occasionaly use my carrier for random stuff but even at this point i have to worry about people jumping a fleet on me as soon as i make use of it. Keeping carriers the way they are or even lowering the damage a bit would atleast keep the versatility and more unique style of play for those of us that have trained for and spent the isk to be able to fly them.
Yazzinra Scorpion Ventures Rim Worlds Protectorate 62	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:53:35 - [835] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: I know this is a hard concept to grasp for some of you. Polite works far better then inarticulate swearing and insults. You are mad, we get that and do not need you to make any sexual references to prove that for you sex and anger are one and the same. m irony, look it up.
Byson1 Origin Unlimited Natural Selection Initiative 29	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:54:10 - [836] - Quote Nada Spai wrote: fighters should definitely still warp, as they are more like frigs than drones and it adds a degree of difficulty to using them as well as fighting them. the question you were looking to answer was not "are fighters op" but "how do we stop skynet" so this is the answer i propose. Fighters should be able to be assigned to any other ship to control while ON GRID WITH THE CARRIER/SUPER! Once they leave that grid, they can longer issue an order to the fighters, who would return to the carrier after completed its final orders. Regular drones can be assisted so it isnt reasonable to say fighters have no right to be. A bs can assign drones to a frig to make up for lower scan res, a carrier should be able to do the same. Changing fighter assist to require both ships be on the same grid most definitely includes the amount of risk to a capital as you are intending, and it will lower the overall dominance skynet has over a system by requiring caps to stay more connected to the fight. Completely useless to only be able to assign fighters while on grid that would be what is considered assist rather than assign.
Langbaobao Tr0pa de elite. Pandemic Legion 46	Posted - 2015.03.02 19:56:00 - [837] - Quote As a capital and supercap pilot, and one who uses them often, I don't have anything against removing fighter assignment to subcaps. I guess people using them for ratting by assigning fighters to a subcap and having the carrier safe at a POS will complain, but I don't really care since I don't get my ISK with ratting. And TBH, if they want to use fighters they should put their carrier or super on the line. With regards to fighters warping, I don't think it's really necessary to remove it. Removing fighter assignment already kills the so-called 'skynet' tactic, so I don't really see the necessity to kill fighter warping. Fighter warping in itself isn't really a problem if they can't be assigned.
Mike Azariah The Scope Gallente Federation 2530	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:14:01 - [838] - Quote d0cTeR9 wrote: So what about AFK cloakers? Intelligence Gathering cloakers? Off-Grid Boosters? Cloak boosters? All of those are the same as skynet, you don't put your ship in danger. Hey, let's force the rorqual in asteroid belts, it's only fair after all... Since you and a few other's missed the message/point, let me make it clear: We are NOT saying it's expecting to be fine for ever, that's why we are suggesting work around like modules not boosting fighters, no fighter assignment near POS, fighters no longer follow hostiles in warp, etc. FT Diomedes wrote: This whole thing makes me fear something is rotten at the heart of Eve. "We don't have a clue how to fix POS code, or off-grid boosters, or local chat, or really anything except modify a few numbers in some spreadsheets, so let's do that." That's how it feels and looks like... I have said before and I will say again. AFK cloakers, off grids boosters, all of those things. If they encourage you to log on and not PLAY they are bad. Intelligence cloaking, where you are there and watching? You are playing, I have no beef with them anymore than I think snipers in the military should wear dayglo orange. m Mike Azariah-á CSM8 and now CSM9
Byson1 Origin Unlimited Natural Selection Initiative 29	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:22:47 - [839] - Quote Kane Carnifex wrote: Skynet, an overview and suggestions review ... Note: If you cannot kill a carrier with your fleet DPS , you will not have a chance against it on grid or off grid. [/i] IMHO Your 20 men fleet is hunting for everything in a region which doesnGÇÖt belong to you. This region knows you and chooses the fight which they could win. Either you travel through a gatecamp and die in the camp as you not able to get to optimal or you will be baited. Nobody would bait you if they are not able to win the isk war or to bring the death to you whole fleet. Due the intel in this region the defender knows more about you than you about his fleet. You can expect following long before you know the enemy fleet: -More vessels (more DPS) -Powerful vessels (fleet multiplier) -Logistic -If you only bring stuff from one race, be ready to get jammed. -Lets cover the jamming under EWAR. -Skynet Carrier (fleet multiplier) So you donGÇÖt choose the fight, the living people choose the fight and it is not required to have a fair fight. Why should we? It is eve, RL ethics doesnGÇÖt work here. This is war, combat it will be unfair for one of the fighting sideGÇª the advantage is to let them believe which they could win or have a bigger support fleet in the backhand. LetGÇÖs spin this little bit up. You jump into a system which is heavily camped as it is an pocket entrance. You see fighter drones on grid and decide to first probe out the carrier for a Titan drive by. You bring a fleet up which supports the titan and a fleet which fights the local gate camp. Unfortunately once the Titan landed in the System it got holded by an hic and the defender brings in more reinforcesGÇª. Escalation escalation escalationGÇª Is there now a Problem? People build up a POS, Station or make a deep safe spot somewhere in space. They are the defenders which want to defend their space unfortunately CCP doesnGÇÖt provide tools for defending space neither a own controlled concord or gate guns or something else to defend it. But you can use carriers to provide a locate defense in this system which allows you to turn a fight to your advantages, yes you also can bring an offgrid boosterGÇª I The Skynet carrier live in 0.0 also with the advantages and disadvantages which this space area brings. Why should a PVP Fleet from Highsec get more advantageGÇª they come to unknown k-space and search for a fight the others just live and defend their space whit it. Also you can easy kite out the fighter drones with an cruiser as these small medium scale pvp ships are always build for kitingGÇª you will be hard to hit, once you get webbed it is over. I am starting to spinning around with my points, but I think I made my point clear which I donGÇÖt think this is a good decision to remove this function. If you cannot fight it ask you friends for help. Capitals Ships requires high skills and it also requires high skills to counter it easy or a huge amount of mid skilled player to kill it. Its my point of view, and yes i am pro skynet :) Well said. The whole point of this nerf is - A CCM and a few with load voices wants the game to be easier. They get CCP to change mechanics for their advantage. my opinion: A FLEET WITH A CARRIER should have an advantage. IT SHOULD take effort to hunt it down and kill it at a POS or where ever. LEAVE IT ALONE you want options: learn how to target, kite fighters, they are more expensive than your frig ships you bring to greif miners. Risk vs Reward right? There is nothing wrong with this. It's worked for those who have come before you. The current mechanics of carrier dps takes more pilots to do a bit of dps, with these mechanics level of work it takes to kill capitals represents the risk reward it should be- rather than carrier pilots have all the risk at a gate and a reward of woot you killed a frig good job.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 931	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:26:56 - [840] - Quote Haywoud Jablomi wrote: Ncc 1709 wrote: make assisted fighters use ship bandwidth. they use 25 on a carrier so they should also use 25 of the ship there assigned to. so only frigs like the Tristan and ishkur could run 1 fighter. Thorax 2, vexor 3. myrmidon 4. maraudas could only run 1 (2 for kronos) the only ships that would be able to natively run 5 fighters would be the ships that already use drones as their damage output. so T3's would either run 0 or 1 with proteus at 4 wow a whole page of comments disappeared while typing this Everything he said.. Do it... DO IT NOW!!! Doesn't really solve anything though - shuffles the problem around a bit but doesn't address the core issue.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1611	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:43:42 - [841] - Quote Byson1 wrote: Kane Carnifex wrote: Skynet, an overview and suggestions review ... Note: If you cannot kill a carrier with your fleet DPS , you will not have a chance against it on grid or off grid. [/i] IMHO Your 20 men fleet is hunting for everything in a region which doesnGÇÖt belong to you. This region knows you and chooses the fight which they could win. Either you travel through a gatecamp and die in the camp as you not able to get to optimal or you will be baited. Nobody would bait you if they are not able to win the isk war or to bring the death to you whole fleet. Due the intel in this region the defender knows more about you than you about his fleet. You can expect following long before you know the enemy fleet: -More vessels (more DPS) -Powerful vessels (fleet multiplier) -Logistic -If you only bring stuff from one race, be ready to get jammed. -Lets cover the jamming under EWAR. -Skynet Carrier (fleet multiplier) So you donGÇÖt choose the fight, the living people choose the fight and it is not required to have a fair fight. Why should we? It is eve, RL ethics doesnGÇÖt work here. This is war, combat it will be unfair for one of the fighting sideGÇª the advantage is to let them believe which they could win or have a bigger support fleet in the backhand. LetGÇÖs spin this little bit up. You jump into a system which is heavily camped as it is an pocket entrance. You see fighter drones on grid and decide to first probe out the carrier for a Titan drive by. You bring a fleet up which supports the titan and a fleet which fights the local gate camp. Unfortunately once the Titan landed in the System it got holded by an hic and the defender brings in more reinforcesGÇª. Escalation escalation escalationGÇª Is there now a Problem? People build up a POS, Station or make a deep safe spot somewhere in space. They are the defenders which want to defend their space unfortunately CCP doesnGÇÖt provide tools for defending space neither a own controlled concord or gate guns or something else to defend it. But you can use carriers to provide a locate defense in this system which allows you to turn a fight to your advantages, yes you also can bring an offgrid boosterGÇª I The Skynet carrier live in 0.0 also with the advantages and disadvantages which this space area brings. Why should a PVP Fleet from Highsec get more advantageGÇª they come to unknown k-space and search for a fight the others just live and defend their space whit it. Also you can easy kite out the fighter drones with an cruiser as these small medium scale pvp ships are always build for kitingGÇª you will be hard to hit, once you get webbed it is over. I am starting to spinning around with my points, but I think I made my point clear which I donGÇÖt think this is a good decision to remove this function. If you cannot fight it ask you friends for help. Capitals Ships requires high skills and it also requires high skills to counter it easy or a huge amount of mid skilled player to kill it. Its my point of view, and yes i am pro skynet :) Well said. The whole point of this nerf is - A CCM and a few with load voices wants the game to be easier. They get CCP to change mechanics for their advantage. my opinion: A FLEET WITH A CARRIER should have an advantage. IT SHOULD take effort to hunt it down and kill it at a POS or where ever. LEAVE IT ALONE you want options: learn how to target, kite fighters, they are more expensive than your frig ships you bring to greif miners. Risk vs Reward right? There is nothing wrong with this. It's worked for those who have come before you. The current mechanics of carrier dps takes more pilots to do a bit of dps, with these mechanics level of work it takes to kill capitals represents the risk reward it should be- rather than carrier pilots have all the risk at a gate and a reward of woot you killed a frig good job. A fleet with a commited carrier should have an advantage VS a fleet without it. Not a fleet with a carrier 90 AU away. It worked before because fighter were not as potent as they are now with drone mods affecting them. CCP could technically just remove the drone mods effect but I feel they don't want to do that so they have to go with another solution.
Emmilia Deriannice Death Magnetic. Legion of xXDEATHXx 3	Posted - 2015.03.02 20:53:24 - [842] - Quote Kazekage Dono wrote: Goodbye fighter assist. OHH NONONONO
Stitch Kaneland Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic 148	Posted - 2015.03.02 21:45:57 - [843] - Quote Well.. i guess gulm near amamake will finally be free of the skynetting procurer on gates. So thatll be nice. Fighters not warping with target im alil sad about. I liked when they chased me.. i could just shoot and kill them in peace.
Soldarius Kosher Nostra The 99 Percent 1151	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:22:22 - [844] - Quote I was redirected her from another thread if I wanted to harvest tears. Thread delivers. The number of renters crying about losing skynet is too damn high! Good change, CCP. I'm hoping for an AFK Cloaking devblog sometime in the next several months. http://youtu.be/YVkUvmDQ3HY
Momiji Sakora Omni Galactic Medical 50	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:23:54 - [845] - Quote Not sure if this has been suggested already, but how about making fighters only assistable to battle cruiser hulls and above, or a particular ship class? It certainly doesn't feel sensible to have frigates with fighters assisted, or cruisers. But surely a battleship with fighters is decent?
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 931	Posted - 2015.03.02 22:27:57 - [846] - Quote Momiji Sakora wrote: Not sure if this has been suggested already, but how about making fighters only assistable to battle cruiser hulls and above, or a particular ship class? It certainly doesn't feel sensible to have frigates with fighters assisted, or cruisers. But surely a battleship with fighters is decent? Even a battleship with fighters as is is still a platform that can apply battleship through to capital levels of damage to things that battleships through to capitals can only dream of hitting that effectively. The last 30 pages of this thread have been constant repeats of the first 10 pages 3x over :( with the same points, misconceptions and counter points being brought up :S
Grace Chang Black Phoenix Legion The Fourth District 66	Posted - 2015.03.02 23:12:44 - [847] - Quote The main issue is that with the proposed changes a dps carrier with fighters on grid is only usefull to a cyno fitted carrier that is in a blue donut alliance. Other people won't put a dps carrier on grid, because it will just get hotdropped. If you remove cynos, hey i might even consider using my carrier. But like this? Hell no. I guess at least with the training i have a glorified osprey in hangar.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 617	Posted - 2015.03.02 23:57:22 - [848] - Quote FT Diomedes wrote: This whole thing makes me fear something is rotten at the heart of Eve. "We don't have a clue how to fix POS code, or off-grid boosters, or local chat, or really anything except modify a few numbers in some spreadsheets, so let's do that." CCP is seriously losing steam. They have been for the past couple of years. That's the real problem. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Jezza McWaffle No Vacancies 179	Posted - 2015.03.03 01:16:58 - [849] - Quote Grace Chang wrote: The main issue is that with the proposed changes a dps carrier with fighters on grid is only usefull as a cyno fitted carrier that is in a blue donut alliance. Other people won't put a dps carrier on grid, because it will just get hotdropped. If you remove cynos, hey i might even consider using my carrier. But like this? Hell no. I guess at least with the training i have a glorified osprey in hangar. Then go so somewhere where you can do this? C6 Wormhole blog http://holelotofwaffle.wordpress.com/
h4kun4 Heeresversuchsanstalt The Bastion 20	Posted - 2015.03.03 02:50:50 - [850] - Quote I already proposed this in the comments of the devblog itself, but i feel it should actually be here. Keep the fighter assist mechanic like it is and add the range mechanic from the cynos - basically: no launching fighters within 25km off the forcefield so you have to stay either at a station (where you can't dock when using them in pvp) or on a save where you can be scanned down by a prober. If you take the safe way (cloaking up/docking up) the fighters will become useless and you dont have any possibility to recollect them without scanning them down later/doing a boomark at their location...so risk vs. reward i'd say. Risk: Losing hundreds of millions in fighters/losing the carrier Reward: better ticks in nullsec/more kills in pvp/whatever else
Dictateur Imperator Babylon Knights DARKNESS. 10	Posted - 2015.03.03 03:10:39 - [851] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: Dictateur Imperator wrote: Aiyshimin wrote: Chi'Nane T'Kal wrote: I must admit to a bit of confusion. If you at CCP didn't want this situation, whatever made you think that applying the originating carrier's mod bonuses to assigned fighters was a change worth implementing? Assigned fighters were AFAIK not a huge problem when they were assigned without ship bonuses (specifically damage and tracking). Assigned fighters still aren't a problem, but the fact that you can use them 101% risk-free from the safety of a POS. EDIT: Let's face it: not a single one of these renter scrubs would use assigned fighters if there was any risk in it. Not a single one. Have you already play to eve ? You can kill carrier/super near pos. But yes you need to send more is on the gris as he is on anom... and use ship create for it. In fact CCP want allow it's easier to kill with 100 M carrier or 500M/1B on the field super. Actually engage 2B of ship do for killing cap near pos, you kill carrier, but yes defenser can kill some opponent with help of pos. Engage 15B of ship on a super neat pos, you can kill him same if you play well, bt yes again you can have loss. This update it's for the moment only for people who cry to have easy KM. CCP want risk VS reward, but the risk must be in each part of the game, not only for the defense. People who attack must have risk to, they 're reward :good KM. If your skynet carrier is so easy to kill on pos, why do you use it? Or is it less at risk than if you would be outside the POS? This question is only for the babies who cry to keep their risk-free skynet. Personaly i don't use it. Sorry to broke your first argument. For the second: people do this to make only organized people can kill carrier, and not only the first little roam who arrive. You see same argument as CCP to remove fighter assist: RISK VS REWARD. Agree with this argument: make people who attack have more risk to have good kill mail. Actually when you read this forum you have 2 great kind of people : People who want do business 100% safe, and people want easy kill mail without any risk. The better solution is 50/50 risk. And sorry to said this but actual carrier do this. If you want you can kill it on pos, but you take risk and you need to send some ISK on field to be sure to kill, not only some inty. And people who attack have a bigger advantage ; you have PVP fit, you choose when you laugh the attack, you disrupt activity of your opponent, and moreover you can perma cloak /have perfect intel of people you want trap. This nerf is only the win on bad pvp player who want easy km . Nothing else.
The-Ron-Coyote Black Scorpions Inc Fidelas Constans 1	Posted - 2015.03.03 03:14:12 - [852] - Quote I am a sub-cap pilot and the longer I play it appears I will be staying a sub-cap pilot. The risk/reward of flying a carrier is pretty obvious. Risk is getting tackled by a single interceptor and praying to God he doesn't have any friends willing to shred your carrier to metal bits nearby. Otherwise anyone piloting a carrier he's ratting with is at the mercy of his corp/alliance to save his huge overly expensive ship as quickly as possible. Reward is that the carrier pilot gets to rat effortlessly and make decent isk. That isk amount is still reasonably in line with what Battleships and Heavy Assault Cruisers do. It's not out of this world enormous though. The effect of taking away fighter assist is that this hugely expensive ship which already has a huge weakness. Now has one less thing it does in a fleet. So now it's relatively pointless. I won't be training carrier anytime soon and if developers plan on continuing with this folly I wonder how much longer I will play. Working your way up into larger ships and owning a system with more complex and diverse ships is what all players do. Why on earth would you want to take this away from established players? Why would you want to take anything away from an already ruined ship? It's a disaster this nonsense of making the big ships useless. Capitol pilots must scream at every one of these nerfs. Ishtar pilots get a nerf to sentry drones. But the Ishtar is still heads above every other ship in it's class.
Goosius Tal Bacon Buccaneers League 6	Posted - 2015.03.03 04:33:07 - [853] - Quote On another note, this risk/reward thing is silly. People that are used to their corps/ alliances just handing them carriers and super carriers for fights that see dozens of said ships destroyed seem to forget the amount of effort that goes into creating those ships. Large groups might be able to brush off the losses but smaller alliances and corps have to work hard for each capital ship they get out of the assembly line. For each lost carrier to the smaller guy there is a lot more risk to bringing them out when they have to worry about others just showing up to blob them for the capital kills. Sure it might be a bit of a pain in the ass sometimes if people use tactics like this but there are ways to disrupt them.
Crimsons Storm Pseudonym. Shadow Cartel 7	Posted - 2015.03.03 07:07:51 - [854] - Quote Another idea - perhaps another module one fits to their carrier that allows delegation of fighters as per current mechanics but with the additional caveats: a ) the module is an active high slot module b) said module can only be engaged outside of pos shields c) Said module prevents carriers from moving until the cycle has completed (like a siege module) Im not sure if this solves the problem in its entirety ...but may this in conjunction with any of the aforementioned ideas (ie said module cant be activated within x m of pos shields) might help spur ideas that don't take niches away from the game. The above idea in conjunction with others keeps the person in the game (as they have to commit) and lets carriers keep some of their niche abilities.
Crimsons Storm Pseudonym. Shadow Cartel 7	Posted - 2015.03.03 07:08:40 - [855] - Quote Double post**
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 464	Posted - 2015.03.03 08:10:18 - [856] - Quote Grace Chang wrote: The main issue is that with the proposed changes a dps carrier with fighters on grid is only usefull as a cyno fitted carrier that is in a blue donut alliance. Other people won't put a dps carrier on grid, because it will just get hotdropped. If you remove cynos, hey i might even consider using my carrier. But like this? Hell no. I guess at least with the training i have a glorified osprey in hangar. It's almost as if 3.2k DPS with Taranis Tracking needs to be balanced in some manner... Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
VolatileVoid ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx 45	Posted - 2015.03.03 08:22:40 - [857] - Quote At the moment the fighters are a little bugged, they werent bugged half a year ago. We randomly loose fighter in space. They arent recoverable in any way. The CCP solution is to make them just normal drones.
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 9	Posted - 2015.03.03 08:32:12 - [858] - Quote I saw currently following feedbacks(tears): My definition of small Gang PvP is which a small group hunting for valid targets like a guerilla task force behind enemy lines. These groups choose their fight as they know of which they are capable. Yes, a System which provides Skynet is not a juice target for them as they could receive heavy losses. My definition of medium Gang PvP is which a medium sized group hunting for valid targets and fleets like an visible army.Due the possible provided logistic (3x Basi for example) they are capable to fight a skynet supported fleet and may win the battle as they are able to compensate the incomming DPS. Kane Carnifex wrote: A Major point is the fact which most PVP actions are based on the idea "Yes, we can win this... lets get them" as the other side is thinking exactly the same like "As we are breaking the Logistic we are gone kill them all" Which explains again people cry if they see themselves outnumbered by a fleet multiplier. List against Skynet What people says which is against skynet: A.) High DPS from assigned Fighter Based on a full DMG / Tracking fit which gives the Capital no Tank compared to battle Archon. B.) Carrier edge on the POS C.)Carrier online POS withouth FF password D.)Carrier close by Station E.)Carrier unprobable Why i think this is not true! A.) Fighter are not OP, if 10 Fighter attack a Interceptor i have 10x times the chance to hit which increase the chance that i actually hit. If the Ceptor Pilot is using his MWD he increase the possible damage incoming from the Fighter. Yes, you are able to kite Fighters you also can kill them quite fast but it requires knowledge, skill and the right tools. It is not impossible but i also don't tell you which it is easy like HS mining. B.) As i already told use a drive by Titan or Super. Instead of an instant blop by a DD from a Titan the supercarrier pilot need some more time to apply his damage with his bombers which gives the skynet carrier some time to move into his pos. C.) This sounds more like a Problem with the POS Mechanic instead of a Carrier Problem. I am not familiar with the POS Mechanics but just add an time which takes 60 Seconds to online a FF if it is not done properly in the first way. D.) It docks up if it is scared, it may waits until all fighter are back but you could try to DD it. E.) With the right Tools,Skills and knowledge you could probe him down. My feeling in this hot Topic Because Player don't want to drop a Titan/Super on a skynet carrier doesn't mean they are OP. We still talking about Capital Ships which is an own class for themselves. Capitals fight against other Capitals, this was the idea behind the stone/scissor/paper thingi. Before you point out sub capitals are able to kill Capitals... Yes, you are right but compared to a 1 on 1 or may a 5 on 1 you will be raped by the Carrier. Above leads us back to the Point which you don't fight if you don't think you can win. Which again gives a Tactical opportunity for the System owner which can either decide to bait or gatecamp you. Both will have the effect which the attacker thinks he could win and accept the fight which is also a well known war tactic. IMHO I cant understand the Problem, as it is related with the examples which d0cTeR9 showed up: d0cTeR9 wrote: So what about AFK cloakers? Intelligence Gathering cloakers? Off-Grid Boosters? Cloak boosters? My options to counter a AFK Cloaker which may hot drop (looks to Hank Taron) requires the knowledge of the amount of in system bridged black ops. (If you have a scout, you able to know it.) It is possible but again the defender has now a high risk to lose all ships in the battle as he may get unexpected outnumbered. Another good example is the cloaky nullified Link Tengu! To be honest you are quite safe with this Ship as an good Pilot they wouldn't get you. Did you see this? Again i talked about the tools, skills and knowledge. Once the Link Tengu is in System you only can change the System to get a new chance to kill the Links or to avoid the fights. You have no other Option which is exactly the same Problem with Skynet carrier. Is it really a Problem or just a game mechanic which people don't like? It is a game Mechanic which people don't like because they need to put more effort in it to succeed. You just do not drive by a Titan... if you are prepared you have a backup plan. A good backup plan. Let me have a look for the Escalation Plan: Cyno Titan jumps in and starts DD drive by. For some Reason the Titan get tackeled by an HIC (Yes, the carrier is already dead) Now you need to blop/neut him or get your backup fleet, asap into the system. If you bring more than the others you safe the Titan, you may could jam him out :) But the Point is you need to have a backup plan as a single titan is useless. Could somebody from the "against Skynet carrier section give out some arguments which they think it is OP? Because to disable it at all is in my opinion the wrong way but if we can see which specific parts of the skynetting causing the problem it may could be adjusted. I already heard high incomming DPS from Fighter which i cannot agree as you may deal with 10 to 15 Fighter which increase the chance of a hit by 10x to 15x times ... other facts than my increase the damage you receive as you may run an MWD and blowed up you signature to a Battleship.
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 9	Posted - 2015.03.03 08:35:12 - [859] - Quote VolatileVoid wrote: At the moment the fighters are a little bugged, they werent bugged half a year ago. We randomly loose fighter in space. They arent recoverable in any way. The CCP solution is to make them just normal drones. You can scan them down with combat Scanner, to reconnect you need to be ongrid with the Carrier. Note: Never shut off the Drone Link unit as long you have drones out. You will lose 1 Drone for each disabled module. Before Downtime get you drones back! Docking, Warp to instadock bookmark and wait until all fighters are back. Should you lost your Fighters before downtime, you still be able to scan them after downtime :)
Chronos Anneto Capital Fusion. Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2015.03.03 08:41:48 - [860] - Quote Just to eccho someone else who thought the same thing. Make it impossible to delegate fighters/fighter bomberinos near pos. For supers that would be very effective. That would mean that supers would have to be at a safe 1000km off aligned to pos. and we all know how easy it would be for a hictor to probe can andd bubble before it got it's fighter bombers back into drone bay.
VolatileVoid ELVE Industries Shadow of xXDEATHXx 45	Posted - 2015.03.03 08:42:22 - [861] - Quote No you can't because they don't exist anymore.
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 10	Posted - 2015.03.03 08:51:08 - [862] - Quote OFFTOPIC VolatileVoid wrote: No you can't because they don't exist anymore. Ok, than i was lucky for unknown reason. But i was scared as eve tired to tell me my 15 Fighters are gone and i actually scanned them 3 AU of the Station. I also saw on the forums which you will not get them back through an support Ticket.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 796	Posted - 2015.03.03 08:52:55 - [863] - Quote I'm still waiting for even one of these risk averse cowards to explain why, in a world where people are against off grid boosting, they think off grid DPS is somehow "ok"....Cost and training time are not a reason. Man up, put it on grid. If you don't have the fortitude for that risk, stop flying it. Hell you get change out 1.5b for an archon these days. People lose ships worth that on a daily basis.
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 10	Posted - 2015.03.03 09:11:02 - [864] - Quote afkalt wrote: ...in a world where people are against off grid boosting, they think off grid DPS is somehow "ok".... I personally don-¦t see a problem with any kind of offgrid support. But (always wait for the but :P) CCP don't provide tools against it. Following are Ideas which solving the problem from another side. These Ideas are ideas and maybe very very OP on their clear facts Stuff which may "help" to solve the "none" existing skynet problem. A anti-drone Module, either by disabling the ability of a single ship to use drones or limit the bandwidth. I have really no idea as i still unable to locate the Problem Other Problems A anti-boosting bubble, all boosts are disabled in this area. (Friendly and unfriendly) Counter Boosts, against other fleets by interfering with something the ship has a malfunction which increase X The point i want to reach with this is there are stuff in the game which you cannot counter and this is maybe good. But as i love complexity i want more features, more tactics possibilities etc..
Kazaheid Zaknafein Mara's Hounds 2	Posted - 2015.03.03 09:20:36 - [865] - Quote Like it has been said before, Removing the ability to assist drones near a pos or station would fix the problem of skynet. Carriers have never been a line of sight weapons platform, historically and for the most part in eve. The advantage a carrier provides is the ability to project damage while staying out of harms way. And the carrier's inherent weakness is its vulnerability without its fighters to protect itself. And for those who complain that there is no counter to the off grid carrier, watch how quickly they dock or run to pos when you launch probes in system. And if that doesn't work, just kill the ship serving as a drone anchor; no more fighter dps then.
Suitonia Genos Occidere Warlords of the Deep 464	Posted - 2015.03.03 10:35:10 - [866] - Quote Kazaheid Zaknafein wrote: Like it has been said before, Removing the ability to assist drones near a pos or station would fix the problem of skynet. Carriers have never been a line of sight weapons platform, historically and for the most part in eve. The advantage a carrier provides is the ability to project damage while staying out of harms way. And the carrier's inherent weakness is its vulnerability without its fighters to protect itself. And for those who complain that there is no counter to the off grid carrier, watch how quickly they dock or run to pos when you launch probes in system. And if that doesn't work, just kill the ship serving as a drone anchor; no more fighter dps then. There is still many exploits you can do without being next to a POS force field. Contributer to Eve is Easy: https://www.youtube.com/user/eveiseasy/videos Solo PvP is possible with a 20 day old character! :) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvOB4KXYk-o
Cpt Patrick Archer Quam Singulari Northern Associates. 33	Posted - 2015.03.03 10:51:01 - [867] - Quote Suitonia wrote: There is still many exploits you can do without being next to a POS force field. Such as? If CCP would make it so that assigning fighters stops your carrier from warping/jump/cloaking and needs to be at least 50km from the pos shield (edit: or station or gate etc), it can easily be killed. Risk vs. Reward...
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 931	Posted - 2015.03.03 11:52:58 - [868] - Quote afkalt wrote: I'm still waiting for even one of these risk averse cowards to explain why, in a world where people are against off grid boosting, they think off grid DPS is somehow "ok"....Cost and training time are not a reason. Man up, put it on grid. If you don't have the fortitude for that risk, stop flying it. Hell you get change out 1.5b for an archon these days. People lose ships worth that on a daily basis. I don't think there is anyone here who supports the mechanics that allow for the skynet thing or a very small number if there is, most people don't want to see another huge feature nerf/removal that affects a wider spread of uses including non-pvp use due to the actions of a few.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 796	Posted - 2015.03.03 12:12:17 - [869] - Quote Nope, but the problem is that game mechanics exist which prevent the carrier ever being at risk even if POS and station did not exist. Fixing all the edge cases that may be manufactured by clever players is probably not even possible much less practical. There have been a great many things in the history of eve destroyed due to the actions of a few - caps are not unique in this respect. Usually I have sympathy for those who lost, but in this case, I've none. Just like I'll have none when links are forced on grid. At the end of the day, people put faction fit marauders/T3/battleship on the line on field on a regular basis, but people are too scared to do the same with a capital which doesnt cost significantly more....because why? Hell people fly in pods with multiple billions in low sec. People need to get over the mental hurdles of committing caps to a fight, on grid. supers being stupid not withstanding
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 12	Posted - 2015.03.03 12:28:02 - [870] - Quote Rroff wrote: I don't think there is anyone here who supports the mechanics that allow for the skynet thing or a very small number if there is, most people don't want to see another huge feature nerf/removal that affects a wider spread of uses including non-pvp use due to the actions of a few. I don-¦t see skynet as an problem. Also the mentioned Risk / Reward is totally ok, as if you want to kill a carrier you either bring a titan,super or a bigger subcap fleet which again comes to the point if nobody of the involved parts sees an advantage where no advantage is there will be no battle. To be clear: The removal of this feature will not increase the amount of battles as the most small gangs are totally unable to kill a carrier or even get through the active tank. So they will run away once they see a capital on Dscan or badphone for more people. Unfortunately only a view people try to address the issue which it looks like there is a huge problem with the POS Mechanics and the Factor to be brave and make a drive by with a titan. Still i have problems to understand the problem with skynet as all features are given to kill a carrier... I think there are much more features which are unreasonable accepted regarding the risk / reward scheme.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 932	Posted - 2015.03.03 12:28:21 - [871] - Quote afkalt wrote: At the end of the day, people put faction fit marauders/T3/battleship on the line on field on a regular basis, but people are too scared to do the same with a capital which doesnt cost significantly more....because why? Hell people fly in pods with multiple billions in low sec. People need to get over the mental hurdles of committing caps to a fight, on grid. supers being stupid not withstanding Somewhat its due to the logistics of replacing a capital and/or for some people a capital is the product of years of training and investment which is generally a higher order than even a pimp marauder. You get over it a bit after losing the first capital - but I've still got my first thanny (survived 5-6 fights) and a bit of attachment to that particular one and while I'm not afraid to risk it on grid and have done so won't just throw it away.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 796	Posted - 2015.03.03 12:37:12 - [872] - Quote Rroff wrote: afkalt wrote: At the end of the day, people put faction fit marauders/T3/battleship on the line on field on a regular basis, but people are too scared to do the same with a capital which doesnt cost significantly more....because why? Hell people fly in pods with multiple billions in low sec. People need to get over the mental hurdles of committing caps to a fight, on grid. supers being stupid not withstanding Somewhat its due to the logistics of replacing a capital and/or for some people a capital is the product of years of training and investment which is generally a higher order than even a pimp marauder. You get over it a bit after losing the first capital - but I've still got my first thanny (survived 5-6 fights) and a bit of attachment to that particular one and while I'm not afraid to risk it on grid and have done so won't just throw it away. There is also the proclivity of the ENTIRE sector to dogpile - which no-one does for a mere pirate battleship. But that's because they are so rare, it becomes self-fulfilling. The problems are psychological. I mean, let's take for example a common RnK hotdrop: 3 nestors, probably deadspace/faction fit. Half a dozen vindis in the same position, various other bits and bobs. I'd be willing to bet that the nestors alone would have an almost comparable cost to "cheaper" (i.e. not pimped) archons but are far squisher. The barriers are purely in players minds - though you're right to mention the logistics of replacement, but that's not the end of the world. I'd understand it more if there was skill point loss, nobody wants to retrain carrier V! For me, I'm looking at it objectively, ignoring the cost and train (because that's NEVER a balance point - perhaps more specifically never a justification to something being broken) - imagine the reaction if high sec mission bears asked to project DPS from offgrid in essentially complete safety (given sufficient planning)? It would be an outrage - and rightly so. The other acid test is - if these didn't exist today but people proposed adding them - what would the reaction be? You and I both know the answer to that.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 933	Posted - 2015.03.03 12:58:13 - [873] - Quote afkalt wrote: The other acid test is - if these didn't exist today but people proposed adding them - what would the reaction be? You and I both know the answer to that. You'd never get an objective response to that proposal today anyhow a good bulk of players have no intention of flying capitals and/or only play eve in a disposable or flavour of the month manner and wouldn't be for anything that wasn't easy prey for an ishtar or stealth bomber.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 796	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:06:24 - [874] - Quote Very much so, if you consider it a carrier only thing. However....."Gecko V2.0 - Super heavy drone 50m3, can be assigned to off grid fleet mates, battleship only drone". Same mechanic, cost and skill time irrelevant (as they ought to be)...you honestly think people would go for that? I seriously doubt it.
Necharo Rackham The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 51	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:23:27 - [875] - Quote Kane Carnifex wrote: The removal of this feature will not increase the amount of battles as the most small gangs are totally unable to kill a carrier or even get through the active tank. So they will run away once they see a capital on Dscan or badphone for more people. I think there are plenty of small gangs that could kill a full gank fit carrier on grid - i mean, if they are unable to kill it, why have it in/near the POS to start with?
Cpt Patrick Archer Quam Singulari Northern Associates. 33	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:24:46 - [876] - Quote afkalt wrote: Very much so, if you consider it a carrier only thing. However....."Gecko V2.0 - Super heavy drone 50m3, can be assigned to off grid fleet mates, battleship only drone". Same mechanic, cost and skill time irrelevant (as they ought to be)...you honestly think people would go for that? I seriously doubt it. That discussion is not very relevant I don't think. The fact is that we have this awesome feature, had it for years. Sure it's not very balanced and definitely needs tweaking, but removing is not the answer. As I hope to God, CCP can guess if they count the replies to this thread. The problem with the figher assists is that the carrier can't be killed, apart from a very lucky and welltimed drive-by. If this is changed I think the feature is perfectly balanced. Sure the fighters will still be powerful, but that is no different than a frigate being less powerful than a well-fit/well-flown destroyer or cruiser that is specifically designed to kill those frigates.

CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 5013	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:33:11 - [877] - Quote Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. @ccp_rise

Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 934	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:40:52 - [878] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. I really wish you actually meant assist. Good job on ignoring everything said here and going along with what you originally planned all along.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1102	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:42:03 - [879] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. boo!!! , always relenting on the tougher decisions, things that just need deleting like drone assist and fighter warping, i mean seriously they are just drones aren't they? why should they warp? what is the point of them being able too warp? 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.
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1110	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:44:48 - [880] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: afkalt wrote: I'm still waiting for even one of these risk averse cowards to explain why, in a world where people are against off grid boosting, they think off grid DPS is somehow "ok"....Cost and training time are not a reason. Man up, put it on grid. If you don't have the fortitude for that risk, stop flying it. Hell you get change out 1.5b for an archon these days. People lose ships worth that on a daily basis. It has been explained countless times in this thread, but we forgive you for not reading. All one has to do is look at the Revenant KM to be able to laugh at anyone saying skynetting is 100% safe, but we are willing to sacrifice a bit; namely, have a bubble around a POS from which you cannot delegate fighters from. Yup. I'll just make sure to have my 700,000,000,000 worth of Titans around to camp the guys log off spot with bubbles and yolo him :-). Also it was a revenant. Skynet or not people want to kill those. 100% is an absolute, nothing is 100%. 99.9 is the correct option :-) Yaay!!!!
Necharo Rackham The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 51	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:46:11 - [881] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. What about being able to point Fighters to prevent them warping?
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1027	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:47:49 - [882] - Quote disappoint
Phoenix Jones Isogen 5 1110	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:47:58 - [883] - Quote Harvey James wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. boo!!! , always relenting on the tougher decisions, things that just need deleting like drone assist and fighter warping, i mean seriously they are just drones aren't they? why should they warp? what is the point of them being able too warp? I can understand why CCP would bend on that. It's a smaller issue to be honest and beyond this sole point, nobody's really complained about it. One side wanted to keep it because it saves them a few hundred million, the otherside saw it as a way to get a few hundred million of lost fighters. Really it's semantics atm. The bigger issue was addressed. If an abusive issue can be found with warping fighters, say your piece (or it should have been said already). We didn't hear it. The only thing I would request is to slow fighter warp if they are warping at the speed of a frigate (battle cruiser warp speed would work for these). That would be the only thing I would change. They keep warp, just warp slower. Yaay!!!!
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 934	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:54:37 - [884] - Quote Necharo Rackham wrote: Kane Carnifex wrote: The removal of this feature will not increase the amount of battles as the most small gangs are totally unable to kill a carrier or even get through the active tank. So they will run away once they see a capital on Dscan or badphone for more people. I think there are plenty of small gangs that could kill a full gank fit carrier on grid - i mean, if they are unable to kill it, why have it in/near the POS to start with? Also means with this change you've gone from having a usually safe carrier (that can occasionally be caught if the user gets lazy/messes up) to the carrier not being there at all with the feature removed... some of the options give a bit more balance where people would continue to use carriers for this kind of thing but with reduced effectiveness and a higher chance of being caught by the prepared :S
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 617	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:54:56 - [885] - Quote I love that people are complaining about Rise not removing fighter warping when literally no good arguments have been presented for doing so. I'd wager that for most of these people, the real reason they want it removed is to spite carrier/supercarrier pilots. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Cpt Patrick Archer Quam Singulari Northern Associates. 33	Posted - 2015.03.03 13:59:38 - [886] - Quote It's obvious that something needed to changed, but CCP clearly doesn't have the funds/priority/isn't pro-acitve towards fixing a feature. It's better to remove it completely because that saves a lot of hours/days of programming, and people will stay subscribed nontheless.. It's a damn ******* shame, but at least we've got pretty much 43 pages of people protesting this 'improvement'. If subscriptions decade we can just say "I told you so" even though it probably won't be the cause In any case; remote sebo and tracking/dmg thanny's here we come! Add a triage archon and all the infidels coming into my system will still go out in pods.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 796	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:00:47 - [887] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: afkalt wrote: I'm still waiting for even one of these risk averse cowards to explain why, in a world where people are against off grid boosting, they think off grid DPS is somehow "ok"....Cost and training time are not a reason. Man up, put it on grid. If you don't have the fortitude for that risk, stop flying it. Hell you get change out 1.5b for an archon these days. People lose ships worth that on a daily basis. It has been explained countless times in this thread, but we forgive you for not reading. All one has to do is look at the Revenant KM to be able to laugh at anyone saying skynetting is 100% safe, but we are willing to sacrifice a bit; namely, have a bubble around a POS from which you cannot delegate fighters from. So because bad players are bad; unbalanced broken mechanics should stay? I assume you're well aware of the deadspace method of protecting supers?
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1613	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:02:02 - [888] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: afkalt wrote: I'm still waiting for even one of these risk averse cowards to explain why, in a world where people are against off grid boosting, they think off grid DPS is somehow "ok"....Cost and training time are not a reason. Man up, put it on grid. If you don't have the fortitude for that risk, stop flying it. Hell you get change out 1.5b for an archon these days. People lose ships worth that on a daily basis. It has been explained countless times in this thread, but we forgive you for not reading. All one has to do is look at the Revenant KM to be able to laugh at anyone saying skynetting is 100% safe, but we are willing to sacrifice a bit; namely, have a bubble around a POS from which you cannot delegate fighters from. Yeah we should totally all setup logoff traps over a week and then wait for our watchlist to go blinky a few days later to hot drop some titans so a roaming gang can jump a gate after their scout got wrecked by assisted fighters...
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 796	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:04:03 - [889] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: afkalt wrote: I'm still waiting for even one of these risk averse cowards to explain why, in a world where people are against off grid boosting, they think off grid DPS is somehow "ok"....Cost and training time are not a reason. Man up, put it on grid. If you don't have the fortitude for that risk, stop flying it. Hell you get change out 1.5b for an archon these days. People lose ships worth that on a daily basis. It has been explained countless times in this thread, but we forgive you for not reading. All one has to do is look at the Revenant KM to be able to laugh at anyone saying skynetting is 100% safe, but we are willing to sacrifice a bit; namely, have a bubble around a POS from which you cannot delegate fighters from. Yeah we should totally all setup logoff traps over a week and then wait for our watchlist to go blinky a few days later to hot drop some titans so a roaming gang can jump a gate after their scout got wrecked by assisted fighters... None of which matters a single iota if the super is 5000km deep in deadspace. But bless, they're really trying to show that because people not doing it properly die, it is therefore balanced.
Cpt Patrick Archer Quam Singulari Northern Associates. 33	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:16:44 - [890] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Appreciate all the feedback very much. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. I think we are all looking forward to that day.
Chi'Nane T'Kal Interminatus Aeterna Anima 311	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:19:32 - [891] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. So, Fighters warping in to do ... WHAT?
Dracvlad Taishi Combine Second-Dawn 660	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:21:19 - [892] - Quote Well I am glad to see fighter warping still in which means carriers will still be viable for PvE, I would have face palmed for 10 minutes if you had removed fighter warping, and my face has only just recovered from the D-scan immunity on combat recons.... EDIT: For those of you who do not understand the issue carriers often warp in and align and the fighters are quite slow and often end up being many KM away, so if you get someone come for you you warp out. Without the warp you would lose 300m of fighters each time which means using a carrier is stupid based on the amount of times that you will have to warp out in the majority of 0.0 space. Ella's Snack bar
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 14	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:22:04 - [893] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. Hello CCP Rise, I didn't saw any good point against it but many for it. Is it a real problem which small/medium gangs get raped when they search for juice ganks? As this was my first time in a Forum trying to raise my voice i am disappointed neither i got a good discussion running or good feedback about my points. I have the feeling my voice just died under all these small scale pvp player which have a problem with fighters as they search for easy kills. Why does CCP always thinks in grey zones and in this time you go Black or White and nothing between.... This is the 3rd nerf i see in my capital time and i still don't have the feeling which my capitals are OP. Thank you for opening this Thread, unfortunately it doesn-¦t has any impact if you write in it or not.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 422	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:26:20 - [894] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. Removing it compeletely is not the right solution. Please spend some actual effort in solving the risk-free aspect of POS skynet, and go ahead with rebalancing capital ships. No reason to wait with that.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 618	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:32:29 - [895] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. Removing it compeletely is not the right solution. Please spend some actual effort in solving the risk-free aspect of POS skynet, and go ahead with rebalancing capital ships. No reason to wait with that. I don't think you understand. Rise only has the ability to change about a dozen values in between releases. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Gypsien Agittain University of Caille Gallente Federation 20	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:33:15 - [896] - Quote Harvey James wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. boo!!! , always relenting on the tougher decisions, things that just need deleting like drone assist and fighter warping, i mean seriously they are just drones aren't they? why should they warp? what is the point of them being able too warp? Because they're drones but more expensive than the average shitp you fly, because on the lore they've pilots, because they're the size of a cruiser, because how they're constructed. You should shut up and keep on flying cruisers John Snow.
Cpt Patrick Archer Quam Singulari Northern Associates. 33	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:36:05 - [897] - Quote Kane Carnifex wrote: Hello CCP Rise, I didn't saw any good point against it but many for it. Is it a real problem which small/medium gangs get raped when they search for juice ganks? As this was my first time in a Forum trying to raise my voice i am disappointed neither i got a good discussion running or good feedback about my points. I have the feeling my voice just died under all these small scale pvp player which have a problem with fighters as they search for easy kills. Why does CCP always thinks in grey zones and in this time you go Black or White and nothing between.... This is the 3rd nerf i see in my capital time and i still don't have the feeling which my capitals are OP. Thank you for opening this Thread, unfortunately it doesn-¦t has any impact if you write in it or not. This reply is spot-on sir. Couldn't have said it any better.
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 17	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:47:12 - [898] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: I don't think you understand. Rise only has the ability to change about a dozen values in between releases. The Value is assign fighter 0 or 1. As i already said this is black and white and i am used from CCP about 50 shades of grey. Cpt Patrick Archer wrote: This reply is spot-on sir. Couldn't have said it any better. Thanks, my last hope are some good arguments from CCP which explains their black/white decisions and helps me to understand. CCP, i appreciate which you allow us to give you a feedback but this is not how i imagine a constructive discussion. IMHO: A lot of people just trolled in this thread and didn-¦t really helped to find a solution.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 796	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:50:58 - [899] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. Removing it compeletely is not the right solution. Please spend some actual effort in solving the risk-free aspect of POS skynet, and go ahead with rebalancing capital ships. No reason to wait with that. Because they'll spend time and money sorting POS mechanics and people will just hide in dead space pockets and nothing will change. They don't do that today because the POS is mechanically easier but if there's one thing we know about EVE players - effort knows no bounds when it gives a stupid advantage. So the list is actually stations, POS AND deadspace - and you can bet your bottom dollar that's some legacy ass code so old it's probably haunted.
Dictateur Imperator Babylon Knights DARKNESS. 12	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:53:28 - [900] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. So i have the solution for you to remove skynet and have all player happy: MAKE CHANGE THE DAY WHO YOU REBALANCE CAPITAL NOT BEFORE. I start to think you don't have a game design diploma... sorry to said this but you want risk vs reward, make this. Proof to me scent is bad on risk vs reward, and i can proof to you is not. Player can kill carrier/super near pos (yes yes they can if they are not just 10 in inty...). So yes they need to have more of 1 is for 10-20 is kill on the grid. I think the more important problem for CCP developer is you see ris vs reward for people who want create ressources... BUT for some people the good ressource is KM. So make more ris vs reward to have a good KM. Player want follow CCP to have more strategical game, so not only more difficult for people who rat/mining/explo, but for ALL player, means bad roam can only trap ship with little value, and people with more preparation better player, who are ready to take risk can have good KM. Really i don't care about player who cry because they die cause of skynet actually. You have a lot of target without skynet. And if you are skynet it's a luck : find the carrier, make into to other roam and go to tackle/kill the carrier near is pos by surprise, nothing else. If you are very little roam : just change system to roam.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 623	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:57:04 - [901] - Quote Rise, consider that this capital rebalance you claim to take seriously might not be very appreciated if everyone's given up flying them by the time you finally get around to it. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 739	Posted - 2015.03.03 14:57:53 - [902] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. Swing and a miss by CCP again. We are not only concerned about a loss of return on investment, but on the increasingly worrying attitude of listening to the whiners and a very vocal minority who demand CCP remove or nerf whatever the FOTM is. I have not seen any good arguments as to why assist should be removed. If you were going to remove assist from the beginning, next time don't lie to us, and say so in your first post. You have not given one reason why the minimum distance from a POS idea would not work or is invalid. Before fighters were affected by drone modules, people would use ships such as a Huginn or Rapier sitting in the middle of a bubble field, as their long-range webs and bonus to paints would go some way towards compensating for th poor performance of fighters. These carriers would be very tanky as they would not have to remove tank for drone application modules, which meant that drive-by DD's were rare. Now that ships are shedding tank faster than someone dropping a hot pan, they are opening themselves up to drive-by DDs, or a single Moros. Why are they being punished for accepting a massive increase in risk? e: afkalt wrote: Because they'll spend time and money sorting POS mechanics and people will just hide in dead space pockets and nothing will change. We already disproved this. If you figure out where in the general system he and the POS are located, you can set up a stop or a drag bubble, wait for him to warp, and then drop him. Hell you only really need a single Armageddon to neut out a carrier now, especially if he's fit for fighter DPS. Toss in a few Talos or torpedo bombers, and you have a newly acquired killmail.
Myrona Space Explorer Institute Northern Associates. 16	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:01:40 - [903] - Quote Fighterassist was a cool option. What about to make FA only for PVE? So its not overpowered but a nice buff, specialy for newbies. If Drones delegated -> PVE If Drones assisted -> Both I think the risk vs reward is here ok. Its less risky to fly anos with a carrier (insured, 1,5 tb, 3600 dps, 1 account) than with a 3 tb marauder with 5 fighters. FA in PVE situations help newbies and make eve more "atractive". Between is a nice option. Please consider that FA was for many people an important purpose to skill a cap/scap. please think again about the decision, very many people like this feature. sorry for my bad english and o7
Dictateur Imperator Babylon Knights DARKNESS. 12	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:02:08 - [904] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Rise, consider that this capital rebalance you claim to take seriously might not be very appreciated if everyone's given up flying them by the time you finally get around to it. Rise use the RISK VS Reward argument : I use the same argument to said make your change you only increase risk for people who create ressources, not for roam. And roam win Reward and loss many risk. So if i follow the risk VS reward : They must rebalance capital in same time they nerf skynet. i want a public/private debat with CCP rise. I thin CCP don't understand a simple fact: player are not against nerf, we want argument of CCP for this nerf. And agree with the devblog they have 0 argument to do this. So why make the balance now, and don't wait the rebalance ?
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 935	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:02:25 - [905] - Quote afkalt wrote: Because they'll spend time and money sorting POS mechanics and people will just hide in dead space pockets and nothing will change. They don't do that today because the POS is mechanically easier but if there's one thing we know about EVE players - effort knows no bounds when it gives a stupid advantage. So the list is actually stations, POS AND deadspace - and you can bet your bottom dollar that's some legacy ass code so old it's probably haunted. The problem isn't just the ways that people can make themselves safer or safe from repercussion - its as much and more so really the fact that skynet fighters can do things that other ships with comparable firepower simply can't ongrid or offgrid - a good start would have been to address that and see how things panned out before other changes that have a far wider reaching impact. Hiding on the edge of DED pockets while shouldn't be possible is far less reliable to do than many other techniques and does atleast mean someone is moving a capital about space which gives chances to catch them at some point - atleast the capital is there with a chance of being caught (and with minimal impact on roaming gangs if my other advice is sound - which I believe it is though can't easily test for myself) unlike this change which means the capital won't be there in the first place even if the problem is gone.
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 17	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:10:08 - [906] - Quote Rroff wrote: really the fact that skynet fighters can do things that other ships with comparable firepower simply can't ongrid or offgrid They are expensive drones which have the ability to warp and chase targets which you pay with 20 Million for around 200DPS per drone. Also they are easy to kill if you want, but doesn't produce a kill mail so not interesting for PVP. Rroff wrote: Hiding on the edge of DED pockets while shouldn't be possible is far less reliable to do than many other techniques and does atleast mean someone is moving a capital about space which gives chances to catch them at some point - atleast the capital is there with a chance of being caught (and with minimal impact on roaming gangs if my other advice is sound - which I believe it is though can't easily test for myself) unlike this change which means the capital won't be there in the first place even if the problem is gone. You pointed it out, there is maybe a Problem with DED Pockets which get miss used. But these player which found this feature... they have my respect.
Anhenka The Cult of Personality DARKNESS. 1137	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:10:38 - [907] - Quote Cpt Patrick Archer wrote: Kane Carnifex wrote: Hello CCP Rise, I didn't saw any good point against it but many for it. Is it a real problem which small/medium gangs get raped when they search for juice ganks? As this was my first time in a Forum trying to raise my voice i am disappointed neither i got a good discussion running or good feedback about my points. I have the feeling my voice just died under all these small scale pvp player which have a problem with fighters as they search for easy kills. Why does CCP always thinks in grey zones and in this time you go Black or White and nothing between.... This is the 3rd nerf i see in my capital time and i still don't have the feeling which my capitals are OP. Thank you for opening this Thread, unfortunately it doesn-¦t has any impact if you write in it or not. This reply is spot-on sir. Couldn't have said it any better. If your voice was suffocated under the mass of people disagreeing with you, then apparently voices were heard and you were just in the minority. That's not oppression, that's CCP listening to the feedback of the majority of their players over a whiny minority when it comes to feedback.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 796	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:11:45 - [908] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: We already disproved this. If you figure out where in the general system he and the POS are located, you can set up a stop or a drag bubble, wait for him to warp, and then drop him. Hell you only really need a single Armageddon to neut out a carrier now, especially if he's fit for fighter DPS. Toss in a few Talos or torpedo bombers, and you have a newly acquired killmail. I don't think you know how the mechanic to which I refer actually works. @Rroff: It is not ideal, I'll fully admit - but it was likely the most pragmatic fix available. I would hope that any capital rebalance is sooner than later and this is taken into account. In many ways, maybe it is better to lose this NOW than after a rebalance. It gives a rebalance a better shot of working well.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 935	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:20:55 - [909] - Quote Kane Carnifex wrote: Rroff wrote: really the fact that skynet fighters can do things that other ships with comparable firepower simply can't ongrid or offgrid They are expensive drones which have the ability to warp and chase targets which you pay with 20 Million for around 200DPS per drone. Also they are easy to kill if you want, but doesn't produce a kill mail so not interesting for PVP. With the skynet fits they can apply levels of alpha even to tiny stuff that is normally the upper end of battleship territory and through to capitals - which should never happen and is to my knowledge (atleast where I first started to see complaints about it) where most complaints about skynet stemmed from - from a properly fit super/rev you only need like 2 of the fighters to get good hits (which they will sooner rather than later in most cases) to kill many smaller frigs - which they can also easily chase down. If they were tweaked so as to be ineffective against sub BC type stuff I believe most of the skynet issues would go away with minimal knock on effect - sure people who use skynet for ratting would have to assign to something a little more expensive on the field to kill frigs and some cruiser NPCs off as quickly as they used to but I have little sympathy in that regard. Killing fighters when assigned to someone isn't that easy if they are on the ball, they can immediately recall them or assign them to another player who is further away.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 739	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:22:01 - [910] - Quote afkalt wrote: I don't think you know how the mechanic to which I refer actually works. Then please do educate me. If you're referring, however, to the instance where an interceptor warps into a gated pocket, burns just out of grid, has the carrier warp to him, slowboat inside the grid, finish the pocket so that the gate despawns, that has been ruled an exploit and will result in one getting banned.
TrouserDeagle Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel 1027	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:22:06 - [911] - Quote 'concerns about the state of capitals' as though capitals aren't all grossly overpowered and in dire need of enormous nerfs all around
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 18	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:23:09 - [912] - Quote Anhenka wrote: That's not oppression, that's CCP listening to the feedback of the majority of their players over a whiny minority when it comes to feedback. Hello Anhenka, I am sorry but i don't agree with you. If 200 People write the Sky is green, do you believe the Sky is green? No, but if the 200 People explain why the Sky is green and you can understand it i would suggest you would change you mind, which the same i would do. I will repeat it again and again the risk vs reward is balanced as there are enough options given to kill a carrier either by a titan or an single dread in a drive by. Unfortunately most people writing here are not capable of an vessel like this neither they have friends in eve which could help them. Also do not forget a CYNO Jammer, which make it impossible to jump in. These people decided to live in 0.0 and own this area, why they are not allowed to have a better defence than some roaming pvp group? Because it is unfair, there are no rules in 0.0.. just bring 4 Basis and your are fine with the incoming dps.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 935	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:27:19 - [913] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: afkalt wrote: I don't think you know how the mechanic to which I refer actually works. Then please do educate me. If you're referring, however, to the instance where an interceptor warps into a gated pocket, burns just out of grid, has the carrier warp to him, slowboat inside the grid, finish the pocket so that the gate despawns, that has been ruled an exploit and will result in one getting banned. Not directed at you but on that topic even removing assignment and forcing carriers on grid there is always going to be some cases where they can take advantage of mechanics to reduce the risk to themselves either via grid-fu or just sitting on the edge of the fight and cynoing out if anything threatens them and so on - sure they are a lot less safe than now - what next remove grids :D and cynos :S.
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 18	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:33:42 - [914] - Quote Rroff wrote: With the skynet fits they can apply levels of alpha even to tiny stuff that is normally the upper end of battleship territory and through to capitals - which should never happen and is to my knowledge (atleast where I first started to see complaints about it) where most complaints about skynet stemmed from - from a properly fit super/rev you only need like 2 of the fighters to get good hits (which they will sooner rather than later in most cases) to kill many smaller frigs - which they can also easily chase down. These fits doesn't provide a Tank, which make it possible to get killed by a single dread (drive by shooting) If there are 3 vessels on grid we talk about 15x Fighter which increases the chance of an hit by 15. Regarding my experience a proper Pilot is able to kite them, once he is scram/webbed he dies. Rroff wrote: If they were tweaked so as to be ineffective against sub BC type stuff I believe most of the skynet issues would go away with minimal knock on effect - sure people who use skynet for ratting would have to assign to something a little more expensive on the field to kill frigs and some cruiser NPCs off as quickly as they used to but I have little sympathy in that regard. They are, but the weak fit make it possible to increase the chance to hit. I would say fighter works perfect against Cruiser and above which can provide enough tank to kill the ship which the drones are assigned before they die. But you will never be perfected suited against Fighter as it is not needed in a small/medium PVP gang. Rroff wrote: Killing fighters when assigned to someone isn't that easy if they are on the ball, they can immediately recall them or assign them to another player who is further away. You found a Problem, now think about a solution. Try to keep all people busy during the fight don't give time for thinking. I dont know if a pointed/bubbled fighter is able to warp.
Bronson Hughes The Knights of the Blessed Mother of Acceleration 1453	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:34:27 - [915] - Quote If capital pilots are upset about a repeated series of nerfs to capital ships, maybe they should be supporting some form of skill point remapping (like I proposed here) in order to re-allocate those "wasted" skill points. Remapping only, not buying. My Many Misadventures Reading Comprehension: so important it deserves it's own skillbook. I seek to create content, not become content.
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 18	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:35:38 - [916] - Quote Rroff wrote: Not directed at you but on that topic even removing assignment and forcing carriers on grid there is always going to be some cases where they can take advantage of mechanics to reduce the risk to themselves either via grid-fu or just sitting on the edge of the fight and cynoing out if anything threatens them and so on - sure they are a lot less safe than now - what next remove grids :D and cynos :S. GRID-FU will be the next good option to "assist" fighters without seeing the carrier in a L form. and solution found to bypass the change.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 935	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:37:29 - [917] - Quote Kane Carnifex wrote: You found a Problem, now think about a solution. Try to keep all people busy during the fight don't give time for thinking. I dont know if a pointed/bubbled fighter is able to warp. Pointing fighters won't stop them warping - this was done on purpose originally due to gameplay reasons don't really have my head in it enough to know if they are still relevant reasons today. Kane Carnifex wrote: Regarding my experience a proper Pilot is able to kite them, once he is scram/webbed he dies. When I was playing around with it (on SISI I don't do skynet on TQ as its lame) it was possible to make fighters that largely would blap even an inty trying to evade them unwebbed. Even without a full skynet fit they can apply something like 1/3rd of their DPS to an ABing, sig reduction linked, guardian. EDIT: Its not a 100% guarantee - sometimes every single fighter will miss 2 volleys in a row - other times most of them will get good hits with the first volley.
afkalt Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 796	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:38:10 - [918] - Quote Rroff wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: afkalt wrote: I don't think you know how the mechanic to which I refer actually works. Then please do educate me. If you're referring, however, to the instance where an interceptor warps into a gated pocket, burns just out of grid, has the carrier warp to him, slowboat inside the grid, finish the pocket so that the gate despawns, that has been ruled an exploit and will result in one getting banned. Not directed at you but on that topic even removing assignment and forcing carriers on grid there is always going to be some cases where they can take advantage of mechanics to reduce the risk to themselves either via grid-fu or just sitting on the edge of the fight and cynoing out if anything threatens them and so on - sure they are a lot less safe than now - what next remove grids :D and cynos :S. That's new, last I checked it was ruled ok. GM ConsistencyGäó FTW. As I say, I would seriously hope that the rebalance is a) soon and b) takes this new change into account (For example now they are forced on grid, there's no reason to not have really awesome fighter/FB abilities). This had to die, it really did. Efforts to get some neat ideas together for the rebalance might be a good way to go forward.
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 18	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:41:07 - [919] - Quote Rroff wrote: Pointing fighters won't stop them warping - this was done on purpose originally due to gameplay reasons don't really have my head in it enough to know if they are still relevant reasons today. Ok, this would be a point which i would adjust before i go to remove assign. The Option to keep the fighter/bomber on grid and avoid them to leave it whenever they get new assigned. This would give the attacker the option to reduce the damage on field. Jeah, i am read only and will post again if needed. Need to setup some buy orders to get some new carriers in 0.0.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 625	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:41:35 - [920] - Quote Bronson Hughes wrote: If capital pilots are upset about a repeated series of nerfs to capital ships, maybe they should be supporting some form of skill point remapping (like I proposed here) in order to re-allocate those "wasted" skill points. Remapping only, not buying. No. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Cpt Patrick Archer Quam Singulari Northern Associates. 33	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:44:19 - [921] - Quote afkalt wrote: This had to die, it really did. Efforts to get some neat ideas together for the rebalance might be a good way to go forward. I don't agree with you on the first part, but definitely on the second part. Let's hope they do survey's to query their ideas with the playerbase, on top of the CSM. Since the election proces is so incredibly complicated that hardly anyone bothers to vote. I tried to vote 2 times in a row, maybe i'll get around to it now. Back on topic, CCP when can we expect carrier changes? Is this included in the nullsec update and building stargates and all that, or is this planned afterwards? Which means multiple carrier accounts can stay unsubbed untill then?
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 739	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:44:27 - [922] - Quote afkalt wrote: That's new, last I checked it was ruled ok. GM ConsistencyGäó FTW. As I say, I would seriously hope that the rebalance is a) soon and b) takes this new change into account (For example now they are forced on grid, there's no reason to not have really awesome fighter/FB abilities). This had to die, it really did. Efforts to get some neat ideas together for the rebalance might be a good way to go forward. I'd much rather them postpone this for the rebalance so we can see what they're doing overall, and pass judgement then. This feels like they're going to postpone it forever and SoonGäó it forever. What if they increased the sig radius of fighters, and made scrams affect them? That'd provide a good incentive to not use em.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 935	Posted - 2015.03.03 15:52:14 - [923] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: What if they increased the sig radius of fighters, and made scrams affect them? That'd provide a good incentive to not use em. ^^ Its one thing people seem to forget when suggesting shooting fighters - revenant fighters (which in terms of "skynet" are a fair proportion of the use) get a big bonus to sig reduction and a decent bonus to EHP.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 739	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:03:15 - [924] - Quote Rroff wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: What if they increased the sig radius of fighters, and made scrams affect them? That'd provide a good incentive to not use em. ^^ Its one thing people seem to forget when suggesting shooting fighters - revenant fighters (which in terms of "skynet" are a fair proportion of the use) get a big bonus to sig reduction and a decent bonus to EHP. I would say the relative rarity of the Revenant, not to mention the rarity of actually moving it outside of a POS's shields, would balance it's DPS. Additionally, according to my EFT, a Nyx out-DPS's it. I felt that the increase of sig radius, coupled with the ability to turn off a fighter's MWD and pin it down, would lead more carrier pilots to be more careful when assigning drones.
Belinda HwaFang Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi 44	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:28:06 - [925] - Quote Suitonia wrote: The problem with the delegation mechanic is it is incredibly buggy and there still are multiple exploits or "clever use of game mechanics" that you can use to give you a significant advantage while assisting your drones, even if you were prevented from doing it on grid with a station or POS. 1. It's possible to get a Thanatos to "hard-to-probe" status by using another "hard-to-probe" Tengu with Remote ECCM. Spurs on the Thanatos and use of X-Instinct. (By "hard-to-probe" I mean the requirement of a max skilled covert ops character with some virtue implants required to probe the Thanatos/Tengu pair). Which makes it close to invulnerable and outside repercussions for the vast majority of gangs unless they specifically know what you're doing and bring Virtue Implants or an incredibly specific fit tengu into your space (risking more than your carriers net-worth), even then, it's possible for you to be aligned out to a POS with refit to WCS in your cargo in the event you get tackled, and RLML fitted on your booster Tengu, in a cynojammed system, making a black ops drop from multiple bombers and back-up recons (all of which you can scout) the only realistic means for your death. If you lose the Tengu+Thanatos and your implant set it still comes into around 2 billion isk ballpark if thanatos is uninsured. Which given what the other people have to field to have a fairly realistic chance of actually catching and killing you (which isn't guranteed) is marginal. That sounds like more of a reason to rebalance a Thanatos' sensor strength / probing formulae than to provide weight to the argument about fighters. Suitonia wrote: 2. Fighters assigned to ships do not agress the ships using them. Unless CCP manages to bug-fix this aspect, this still makes ridiculous things possible such as fighters assigned to double 1600 plate covert ops, nullified subsystem t3s which sit on a gate with anchored bubbles and never aggress and just put fighters on people, jumping out as soon as they lose their 600,000 EHP to almost complete safety. Clearly this needs to be changed, fixed ASAP. If CCP can't fix this, then I agree, remove fighter assignment altogether, but fixing it clearly is preferable. Suitonia wrote: 3. You can take 1) even further by burning a Confessor/Svipul with 10mn MWD in speed mode to the edge of a deadspace pocket in a complex (or a mission in npc 0.0), then setting up there, bringing your carrier 2-3km into the deadspace pocket and requiring even a snaked linked malediction <30minutes to burn to your thanatos if they probe out the plex, which you can easily just type "07 to ur t00nie" into local when it gets below 1000km on dir scanner and warp out. [/suitonia] This again is talking about probing mechanics and deadspaces. While most people don't know about this stuff, some people do and I agree it's annoying, but it's far from a compelling argument to nerf the Thanatos, it's a much more compelling argument to look at the balance between the hunter and hunted in nullsec anoms/plexing. Also you fail to mention how long it takes the Svipul to burn there, presumably also around 30 minutes? [quote=Suitonia]4. Delegated fighters still fight while a Carrier is in warp so you can easily just assist your fighters to ships, then engage in a long warp to a friendly POS and your fighters will continue to fight while you're in warp and in complete invulnerability landing in the center of a safe POS when you land. Very good to know, I learnt something. Well, again this needs to be fixed by CCP. 5. offline POS can be used (as they are done currently, right now with skynet/supers) with passwords entered and ready to go online to bypass CCP's current forcefield exclusion zone mechanics. [\quote] I've never understood why this works the way it does, supposedly it's just a side-effect of how the originally developer wrote the "online_starbase(Password)" function. Apparently I can only quote 5 times per message so I've used the code tag. You make some good points Suitonia but it seems to me that the TL/DR version of your post is: 1. Fighter assignment gives a lot of power while keeping the carrier too safe due to many broken mechanics (assign continues while carrier in warp, pos insta-onlining by not entering password, assigned subcap doesnt get aggression) 2. Carriers that are out in space are also pretty safe because people are using unprobability with a Tengu alt or just hiding at the edge of a deadspace. Therefore CCP needs to decide if it's going to address these problems by rebalancing the root cause of these problems (which isn't the fighter assignnment itself) or if it just wants to remove it altogether to keep it nice and easy for them workload wise. If fighter assignment is kept "on grid only" and that it aggresses the subcap (just like normal drone assist) then I think you would be happy Suitonia, at least as far as Skynet is concerned. -- Fang
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 630	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:33:13 - [926] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Rise, consider that this capital rebalance you claim to take seriously might not be very appreciated if everyone's given up flying them by the time you finally get around to it. I'd like to revise this post. "Rise, consider that nobody's going to ever try your capital rebalance because this game will be dead long before you get to it. See: sov rebalance devblog and comments." "Capital rebalance is important to us" CCP has gone even further and made capital ships useless for sov warfare. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Dictateur Imperator Babylon Knights DARKNESS. 13	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:36:16 - [927] - Quote The only thing who make carrier/super carrier can be use in next sov warfare is now remove. GG CCP Capital change before June ?XD
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 62	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:42:04 - [928] - Quote Jenn aSide wrote: Yazzinra wrote: 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. Yea, it's been said (a few dozen times now) but can't hurt to say it again. That's the part that's really galling to me, it's super easy to see the cause of the problem (CCP's previous buffs to fighters) but rather than just fix what they created the idea here is to nix a unique and ancient game mechanic in and of itself didn't cause the problem.' It just keeps happening. For example, in pve you used to be able to reset expedition timers by going to the system and warping to it. A very small number of people abused this by cargo scanning overseers and if they didn't like the loot, they'd just come back the next day and try again (everything resets at down time). Was CCP's answer to this? Was it the common sense "make overseers unscannable blockade runners are" (ie the scalpel option)? Nope, it was get rid of the ability to reset all together. So now it don't matter that you get an escalation late into your session and want to come back later and reset so you can do it a couple days later. Now you got 24 hours, period, all because a FEW people abused something. It's extremely lazy development policy if you ask me. This goes into what I was talking about in the last changes in regards to fighters (the nerf to scan res). Are these changes necessary or is there a better way to fix them? Is it the code or working as intended but now its changed because someone doesnt like that mechanic? The rebuttals were all about how the best fix is the easiest fix ( and a lazy one at that) rather than fix the spaghetti code or the actual root of the problem. But I'm not a coder nor a dev, just an invested party. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Necharo Rackham The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 51	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:44:04 - [929] - Quote Kane Carnifex wrote: Try to keep all people busy during the fight don't give time for thinking. I dont know if a pointed/bubbled fighter is able to warp. It can, points and bubbles are ineffective against fighters.
Necharo Rackham The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 51	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:45:14 - [930] - Quote Kane Carnifex wrote: GRID-FU will be the next good option to "assist" fighters without seeing the carrier in a L form. You can see everything on an L shaped Grid. Without assist, if the carrier is off grid it won't be able to attack.
Destra Noo Russia Caldari Northern Associates. 3	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:50:18 - [931] - Quote CCP, do'nt touch carrier's, or you loose more players! Carrier's and big carriers make low and null space is very hard for capsulers. They must have a good tactics for battle in the systems with carriers. You can make game is very easy and boring. Please think about it.
Steelgunner Shadowreaper Kitchen Sink Kapitals 0	Posted - 2015.03.03 16:58:01 - [932] - Quote Pandorik wrote: Dear CCP, Removing the Fighter assist and allowable warp is simply appalling . This Risk vs Reward venture of CCPs scope should be focused on High sec so that we may actually fight gankers. Either way I am utterly disappointed that CCP is removing content and play styles instead of introducing a mechanic that would allow players to counter. In lay-mans terms we are talking about taking the scissors out of RPS instead of adding a new way to play or a way to counter the "Skynet Problem"; lets just remove it. How about removing the skewed dynamics that Gankers use to their advantage and leaves everyone else high and dry? Oh wait they are trading a 4M isk fit for a hauler carrying a few billion isk, that sounds like a really square Risk v Reward dosent it? Then not having any possible way to strike back at them, sounds like everything is in order here, right!? Moving forward with this you will see a tremendous decline of Carrier use. Thats on you. I say NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO to all and any form of changes to the carriers. - Panda P.s. Your making a mistake. LOL careful. they banned our CEO for saying such things just now. we musn't disagree with, speak out against. or talk about our CCP over lords, their decisions (bannings and removing of form posts), or the Decisions of their cronies. all they needed to do was -remove the DDAs affecting fighters (because they over buffed them in the 1st place, but they will never admit they were wrong). -give fighters 10-20% damage buff so they are actually better than heavy drones. -add the ability to warp scramble/disrupt/interdict fighters. -and Make it so carriers sat 50K from a tower.. thats all they needed to do.. but nope. they are killing the game. im a carrier pilot and i will be leaving. you wont see me or a penny from me, or my alts till this change is removed or canceled. i fully expect to get this post removed by the "Forum filtering Zealot Mods" before a Dev ever sees this constructive criticism/feed back. tips fedora GF CCP and Cronies. you successfully pvped me out of the game with these repeated crap, back to back updates. but i counter PVP your paychecks. i still win ;)
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 63	Posted - 2015.03.03 17:00:47 - [933] - Quote Destra Noo wrote: CCP, do'nt touch carrier's, or you loose more players! Carrier's and big carriers make low and null space is very hard for capsulers. They must have a good tactics for battle in the systems with carriers. You can make game is very easy and boring. Please think about it. I don't think there will be a massive toilet flush on carrier or super carrier pilots; just a bunch of Chicken Little-ing until we learn how to Adapt and Overcome. I personally do not like all this CCP Heavy-Handedness on capitals, but what can we do? ***** and moan about it on the forums until our tongues swell, and then move along, they are forcing it on us anyway. Might as well HTFU and deal with it. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Belinda HwaFang Coreli Corporation The Kadeshi 44	Posted - 2015.03.03 17:21:10 - [934] - Quote The lowly carrier is the most powerful ship in the game. Not only does it fill its intended use as the game-changing Space Priest, it also allows people to rat, to **** around and gank people using assigned fighters, ~~conveniently move 1M M3 of fitted ships around~~, and even dominate nullsec fights with a fleet of sentry equipped slowcats. All for the low price of around 2B fitted. So a nerf had to come, but is this the solution? No. The correct thing to do is to look at the state of the carrier and all it can do in relation to other ships and give it a full redesign. Hopefully CCP will look at it soon . -- Fang
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 63	Posted - 2015.03.03 17:27:22 - [935] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: afkalt wrote: That's new, last I checked it was ruled ok. GM ConsistencyGäó FTW. As I say, I would seriously hope that the rebalance is a) soon and b) takes this new change into account (For example now they are forced on grid, there's no reason to not have really awesome fighter/FB abilities). This had to die, it really did. Efforts to get some neat ideas together for the rebalance might be a good way to go forward. I'd much rather them postpone this for the rebalance so we can see what they're doing overall, and pass judgement then. This feels like they're going to postpone it forever and SoonGäó it forever. What if they increased the sig radius of fighters, and made scrams affect them? That'd provide a good incentive to not use em. And instead of forcing these major changes down our throats, go back to an annual "Major Release" with minor change and added content with current schedule? Some of these things need to be evaluated and tested thoroughly before they go live. There's not enough people actually on SiSi to qualify these major changes as "tested". A 6 week release schedule hardly does either. Come on CCP slow your roll. You're going far too fast on big changes, and not fast enough on the little things. Like for example, CSPA. Really? It took you 10 years to realize what a useless thing that is? Seriously I figured THAT crap out in 30 seconds. And its a "feature" in Scylla? That should have been a bug patch like 9 years ago. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 63	Posted - 2015.03.03 17:31:33 - [936] - Quote Belinda HwaFang wrote: Hopefully CCP will look at it soon . -- Fang More like Soon(tm) or "Not on Our List of Priorities" (tm) and "Death to ALL Capitals (but don't expect us to admit it or reimburse you the isk and remap your wasted SP" (tm) My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Byson1 Origin Unlimited Natural Selection Initiative 34	Posted - 2015.03.03 17:51:16 - [937] - Quote afkalt wrote: I'm still waiting for even one of these risk averse cowards to explain why, in a world where people are against off grid boosting, they think off grid DPS is somehow "ok"....Cost and training time are not a reason. Man up, put it on grid. If you don't have the fortitude for that risk, stop flying it. Hell you get change out 1.5b for an archon these days. People lose ships worth that on a daily basis. wow there has been several rule breakers, check this one out... you want risk vs reward, a carrier vs a bunch of frigs isn't ballanced.
Nightfox BloodRaven State Protectorate Caldari State 32	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:03:45 - [938] - Quote CCP dont give a fuk about feedback.. MOST of the post were AGAINST the idea of removing it completely instead they going to remove it anyways then why waste people time on a 50 page thread if you dont care about people's opinion but your own?
Gypsien Agittain University of Caille Gallente Federation 25	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:04:40 - [939] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. Given the sov changes announced, I don't have words to describe how offensive and disrespectful is your post to all capital pilots in EVE, whom are condemned to use carriers for ratting, Dreads to shoot poses and Supercarriers ONLY to shoot pocos. We train for years and spend gorilions to get ***** to the deepest part of our ** so kids that fly t1 cruisers are happy. Risk-reward.. ayy lmao.
Anton Menges Saddat Minion Revolution SpaceMonkey's Alliance 76	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:36:39 - [940] - Quote The removal of fighter assist coupled with the just released dev blog on sov changes which removes structure grinding is close to being a bridge too far for me. I spent the whole of the last year training multiple pilots up to supers and grinding out the isk for hulls and fits. Now it seems that my supers are close to useless as they no longer are necessary for structure bashes and can no longer assign fighters, which leaves them with the sole purpose of killing other capitals, which is much more cost effective just using dreads. I personally haven't ever used Skynet as a tactic and I've not encountered the tactic myself when on fleets nor heard complaints from alliance or coalition mates about the practice so this whole idea of it being an epidemic just seems overblown to me. I see a lot of take with no give in regards to capitals being nerfed. There are more elegant solutions to the Skynet question than just out and out removing a decade-old game mechanic. At this point I am getting very frustrated with training characters up on extremely long skill plans just to see them become irrelevant. I am also upset by the fact that our feedback never seems to get taken into account, why even have this thread when you]re not going to listen to the players?
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1613	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:45:29 - [941] - Quote Anton Menges Saddat wrote: The removal of fighter assist coupled with the just released dev blog on sov changes which removes structure grinding is close to being a bridge too far for me. I spent the whole of the last year training multiple pilots up to supers and grinding out the isk for hulls and fits. Now it seems that my supers are close to useless as they no longer are necessary for structure bashes and can no longer assign fighters, which leaves them with the sole purpose of killing other capitals, which is much more cost effective just using dreads. I personally haven't ever used Skynet as a tactic and I've not encountered the tactic myself when on fleets nor heard complaints from alliance or coalition mates about the practice so this whole idea of it being an epidemic just seems overblown to me. I see a lot of take with no give in regards to capitals being nerfed. There are more elegant solutions to the Skynet question than just out and out removing a decade-old game mechanic. At this point I am getting very frustrated with training characters up on extremely long skill plans just to see them become irrelevant. I am also upset by the fact that our feedback never seems to get taken into account, why even have this thread when you]re not going to listen to the players? The fact that there are people against the change does not mean they have to cancel it. They can take your feedback into account but still think their solution is the best one after seeing all the proposed other ideas and argument against their own solution. The problem many people have right now is they think the only way they can take feedback into account is to go with what people said but this is not what it actually mean. Taking things into consideration does not prevent you from not changing your decision.
Dean Dewitt Babylon Knights DARKNESS. 32	Posted - 2015.03.03 18:47:12 - [942] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. Please don't stop taking us for idiots, you make all capitals useless and you say you'll make them usefull one day maybe in a month, a year, may be more than 5 years. Why don't you make them more usefull now? When will you make them usefull?
Anton Menges Saddat Minion Revolution SpaceMonkey's Alliance 78	Posted - 2015.03.03 19:06:57 - [943] - Quote Dean Dewitt wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. Please don't stop taking us for idiots, you make all capitals useless and you say you'll make them usefull one day maybe in a month, a year, may be more than 5 years. Why don't you make them more usefull now? When will you make them usefull? I honestly believe that those words and these topic thread in general are just here to try and appease us. I have seen no indication that the devs ever seriously take our feedback into consideration on the great majority of things, not just this specific issue. While we have had a couple of victories (ie. freighter rigs being changed to lowslots) the majority of the time I get the feeling that the devs have locked down their ideas and just give us this crap as an illusion that our opinions might actually matter. The whole 'we hear the concerns' comes off as completely insincere to me because almost all I have ever seen in regards to capitals is nerf after nerf with little to nothing given back. The one case where they actually gave us a buff by making mods and skills affect fighters ended up with them just completely removing a decade-old mechanic rather than going back and fixing things.
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 2797	Posted - 2015.03.03 19:20:54 - [944] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: The fact that there are people against the change does not mean they have to cancel it. /incarna Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 65	Posted - 2015.03.03 19:23:49 - [945] - Quote Gypsien Agittain wrote: Given the sov changes announced, I don't have words to describe how offensive and disrespectful is your post to all capital pilots in EVE, whom are condemned to use carriers for ratting, Dreads to shoot poses and Supercarriers ONLY to shoot pocos. We train for years and spend gorilions to get ***** to the deepest part of our ** so kids that fly t1 cruisers are happy. Risk-reward.. ayy lmao. Then they say it's tears from us. Well, until they get their way it's their tears. So back and forth with the tear jerking. Until the dust settles and everyone just Adapts and Overcomes. Then someone whines about the next "broken thing that's op and not letting us kill capitals with t1 frigs". Same sh!t, different pile, bigger lumps. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Yagga Farttamann Caldari Provisions Caldari State 12	Posted - 2015.03.03 20:09:24 - [946] - Quote Warp ability for fighters - a unique and very interesting feature of the game mechanics! This ability is necessary to save!
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 742	Posted - 2015.03.03 20:22:51 - [947] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: The fact that there are people against the change does not mean they have to cancel it. Corollary: The fact that CCP introduced said change does not mean they have to go forward / that it's good. Alternate corollary: Just because someone's defending a feature does not mean that feature is inherently bad. That's called a Kafkatrap.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1613	Posted - 2015.03.03 20:44:27 - [948] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: The fact that there are people against the change does not mean they have to cancel it. Corollary: The fact that CCP introduced said change does not mean they have to go forward / that it's good. Alternate corollary: Just because someone's defending a feature does not mean that feature is inherently bad. That's called a Kafkatrap. Yes but trying to call out CCP as not taking the feedback into account is still stupid even if they might be wrong in their final decision.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 943	Posted - 2015.03.03 20:58:34 - [949] - Quote Panther X wrote: You're going far too fast on big changes, and not fast enough on the little things. Like for example, CSPA. Really? It took you 10 years to realize what a useless thing that is? Seriously I figured THAT crap out in 30 seconds. And its a "feature" in Scylla? That should have been a bug patch like 9 years ago. Wait... did someone finally get to fixing CSPA? and they didn't remove ISK as the fix either?
Anton Menges Saddat Minion Revolution SpaceMonkey's Alliance 85	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:00:05 - [950] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: The fact that there are people against the change does not mean they have to cancel it. Corollary: The fact that CCP introduced said change does not mean they have to go forward / that it's good. Alternate corollary: Just because someone's defending a feature does not mean that feature is inherently bad. That's called a Kafkatrap. Yes but trying to call out CCP as not taking the feedback into account is still stupid even if they might be wrong in their final decision. They ask for feedback but then when people actually give it they go ahead and just ignore it. So why the hell even ask for it? There are pages and pages of people saying this is a bad idea and proposing other solutions to the so-called problem and then the devs come in and say thanks but we don't care. It just seems extremely insincere to me, like a calculated PR move to make us think we have a say when we actually don't. I already knew when the devs said they planned to remove assist that the decision was made, I did not for a second think that they would change their minds regardless of our feedback, because I'm not stupid and I've seen this happen before. I will even go a step further and say that I didn't ever think they would remove fighter warp, I am of the opinion that this was never actually planned and they just added that bit and then 'decided against' it to seem like they gave us something.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 749	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:08:47 - [951] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: The fact that there are people against the change does not mean they have to cancel it. Corollary: The fact that CCP introduced said change does not mean they have to go forward / that it's good. Alternate corollary: Just because someone's defending a feature does not mean that feature is inherently bad. That's called a Kafkatrap. Yes but trying to call out CCP as not taking the feedback into account is still stupid even if they might be wrong in their final decision. If they ask for feedback, and just about everyone who's actually taken the time to type out a reasonable response has been in opposition for this change, whereas everyone who came here to support the change shitposts or says "lol tears" or Kafkatraps people, what does that say? And more importantly, what does it say for the future of EVE if CCP refuses to acknowledge any of the valid arguments against the change, or the numerous alternate ideas suggested?
Destoya Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion 375	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:27:13 - [952] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. I'm sure you realize this but supercapitals right now (especially titans) are pretty much the antithesis of exciting and powerful tools. Hoping that you guys take a look at them within at least the next year or so and don't just leave them to languish especially now that their main role has been removed. That chart of PVP damage by ship type was pretty depressing as a titan pilot seeing both mining barges and exhumers do significantly more, even though a single DD is usually 750k-1m raw damage. I just want to use the ship as more than a SMA to haul my subcaps around and more than a threat deterrent against smaller alliances escalating since the PL titan fleet can instantly DD their entire fleet.
mannyman High Flyers The Kadeshi 5	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:39:48 - [953] - Quote Another thing to consider, Its the tracking modules in mid-slot thats the problem with fighters, the active omnis give way better tracking, why not just remove module enhancement to fighters when they are delegated/assisted (or offgrid from super or carrier) ? That makes it harder to track and damage wont get out of proportions
Smoothlezz 4Th Horsman 0	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:41:31 - [954] - Quote if you want feedback here it is: ppl will sell their capital ships if someone will buy them or just warp to anomalies to get their insurance from it with nothing fitted what are the use for a capital ship if it cant assist due to carrier role ingame is = as i get it support so hes supporting other player/alt with fighters or remote repairing/shield boosting my point is with the cutting of jump range for capitals was ok and i said nothing but no use for carriers after sov change in next patches and huge nerf for fighters and their unicness so yeah i guess ill get my insurance after the fighters are gone from game... my point is carrier is a support ship and should stay like that i dont agree with it and never will carriers are unique and should stay like that i think you already noticed its the shiptype i like the most in game :) p.s: plz dont listen to whole those ppl who cry about getting killed by fast ship with fighters or something like that p.s.s: I AND MORE LIKE ME DONT CRY WHEN THEY GET SUICIDED IN HIGH SEC p.s.s.s: short jump range cant assist and soon cant go triage....
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1613	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:46:29 - [955] - Quote Smoothlezz wrote: if you want feedback here it is: ppl will sell their capital ships if someone will buy them or just warp to anomalies to get their insurance from it with nothing fitted what are the use for a capital ship if it cant assist due to carrier role ingame is = as i get it support so hes supporting other player/alt with fighters or remote repairing/shield boosting my point is with the cutting of jump range for capitals was ok and i said nothing but no use for carriers after sov change in next patches and huge nerf for fighters and their unicness so yeah i guess ill get my insurance after the fighters are gone from game... my point is carrier is a support ship and should stay like that i dont agree with it and never will carriers are unique and should stay like that i think you already noticed its the shiptype i like the most in game :) p.s: plz dont listen to whole those ppl who cry about getting killed by fast ship with fighters or something like that p.s.s: I AND MORE LIKE ME DONT CRY WHEN THEY GET SUICIDED IN HIGH SEC p.s.s.s: short jump range cant assist and soon cant go triage.... I though people were selling their capital when the jump range were nerfed. Is it the same people who will again sell their capital because they can't apply thousand of DPS off grid?
Aya Nova Bearded BattleBears Brave Collective 6	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:50:03 - [956] - Quote Fighter Warping - This is a unique mechanic that sets fighters apart from just being "extra heavy drones". It should be preserved. If chasing off-grid is a problem it can be fixed by adding a "Allow fighter warp" checkbox in the drones menu (same one we set Aggressive/Defensive Fighter Assign - Again, a unique mechanic which I think is important to be nerfed but preserved. Why keep it? Variety in what you can do and how you can do it makes for deeper, more interesting, more varied gameplay Strategies which mix multiple roles / ship classes are more interesting than single ship-type blobs Preserves the a facet of the unique abilities of a carrier How? Limit assigning and the quantity of assign to certain classes of ships. These numbers are examples, but something along these lines: Shuttles, frigates, destroyers, T3 cruisers: 0 fighters Cruisers: 1 fighter Battlecruisers: 2 fighters Command ships: 4 fighters Battleships: 4 fighters Carriers/supercarriers: As many as they could control of their own Titans: Any? Assigning to titans isn't an issue, and one could much cheaper field a super instead. Why only cruisers and up? The curent issue with fighter assigned is their use from ships that are very cheap, expendable, fast to assign massive DPS with no risk. Limiting (and scaling) the amount of assign to slower, heavier, more expensive ships eliminates this issue. Maintaining this mechanic can also gives a situational advantage to non-drone ships (current meta numbers are largely based on ishtars and T3s. Amongst battleships the Dominix is the most prevalent). It also provides some pluses to BC/BS ships (which are close to extinct in the PvP meta). Similarly command ships are seen far too little on grid, and being able to control better than their peers is something that fits in the idea of commander. Why no fighters for T3s? - They are a strong ship class that is heavily used in the current meta. Lore-wise, their distinct technology provides an easy explanation for the inability to interface.
Davir Sometaww Snuff Box Snuffed Out 26	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:54:29 - [957] - Quote Can we get an update from a blue on the current stance on this? Its such a simple fix; just like you did with boosters. Removing it would remove a unique style of gameplay.
Smoothlezz 4Th Horsman 0	Posted - 2015.03.03 21:55:09 - [958] - Quote Aya Nova wrote: Why no fighters for T3s? - They are a strong ship class that is heavily used in the current meta. Lore-wise, their distinct technology provides an easy explanation for the inability to interface. T3 to be nurfed aswell....
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 943	Posted - 2015.03.03 22:18:34 - [959] - Quote mannyman wrote: Another thing to consider, Its the tracking modules in mid-slot thats the problem with fighters, the active omnis give way better tracking, why not just remove module enhancement to fighters when they are delegated/assisted (or offgrid from super or carrier) ? That makes it harder to track and damage wont get out of proportions Its been suggested a few times in this and the related threads. It would go a long way to fixing the problem but I kind of like where fighters have finally got to (outside of skynet use) and that takes away from it - albeit maybe it would need to happen but IMO a better fix would be to make the sig component have more weight in the chance to hit so even if the fighter tracking is good enough to bring its damage to smaller stuff it still wouldn't hit reliably due to the difference between the fighter turret sig res and the target signature res. I'm not sure it can really be accomplished just by increasing the turret sig on the fighters or not - more likely to really kill over the top skynet use against smaller roaming gangs it would need to be implemented in similar style to titan's turrets. As an aside I think it would be a good change for sentries too as it would go a long way to balancing ishtars without otherwise shaking them up.
Dean Dewitt Babylon Knights DARKNESS. 37	Posted - 2015.03.03 22:20:25 - [960] - Quote I understood the reason they didn't listen to us (the people who don't want the assignement remove), they don't want us to use the assignement for the next step for the 0.0 sov. It would be too easy to defend the sov with fighter assignement.
Smoothlezz 4Th Horsman 2	Posted - 2015.03.03 22:25:55 - [961] - Quote Dean Dewitt wrote: I understood the reason they didn't listen to us (the people who don't want the assignement remove), they don't want us to use the assignement for the next step for the 0.0 sov. It would be too easy to defend the sov with fighter assignement. ccp said main reason for removal is small ships killin small ships in pvp using fighters not related to next sov changes even so bring carrier to sov fight get other capital ships on youre head:) even if the sov war changes doesnt mean everyone will stop using capital ships altho they dident think they probably remove the dreadnoughts role from the game if sov structures dont need to be atacked...
Dean Dewitt Babylon Knights DARKNESS. 37	Posted - 2015.03.03 22:41:39 - [962] - Quote Yeah but it's in the same package, small and big ships, in the next sov patch, it would be so easy to add fighters dps to any ships. So if people want to use the fighter dps, they will have to put their carrier/mothership on the field, it would have been easy to defend with the assignement. Maybe they didn't think about it either, but they have to make capitals more useful.
Smoothlezz 4Th Horsman 3	Posted - 2015.03.03 22:47:01 - [963] - Quote Dean Dewitt wrote: Yeah but it's in the same package, small and big ships, in the next sov patch, it would be so easy to add fighters dps to any ships. So if people want to use the fighter dps, they will have to put their carrier/mothership on the field, it would have been easy to defend with the assignement. Maybe they didn't think about it either, but they have to make capitals more useful. you probably havent read about new sov changes you will have to change systems for taking control over a system what means to assing fighters as you think as it now they will have to have pos or station in every system so the carriers will be safe in other words the atackers will have to put pos in the whole constalletion prior the atack too much logistics and isk as i see it to take one system and they will have to go though the gates (or jump 1 system at a time = fatigue) what im trying to say is fighter assigment will be harder with the new sov system if you think about it more technically
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 69	Posted - 2015.03.03 23:29:32 - [964] - Quote I mean really, I never used skynet to rat. (not like that clown with the Revenant anyway) If I want to rat with my super, I will. Don't nerf it into the ground so I can't even create content for these lonely lowsec t1 frigates who so insist that it's their right to tackle me with 2 Atrons and an Ibis. Please give them the Drifter Doomsday too, that way they can't complain about Supers being overpowered. Seriously, CCP, please put this on the back burner, for now. Supers and carriers are not the Evil Incarnate (TM) of the game right now. There is a lot more that is broken that needs to be addressed. This is such a small part of the game, that really only a small part of the community b!tches about it. Fix ECM, fix T3's and Ishtars. With so many changes to Null Sov and all the changes to jump drives, our big shinies need a break from the nerf bat. Not to go back to the Real World example of carriers.. ok I have to, but this is a valid example. The US carrier fleets patrolling the oceans around the world are a perfect example of the way that supers and carriers are, right now. Yes, they do their dirty work hundreds of miles from hostile shores, with a near impenetrable bubble of defensive aircraft, Aegis command ships, and support ships. Why would they risk a multi-billion dollar ship by going right into the port of a hostile nation, where every terrorist with an rpg and a Koran can shoot at it with impunity? This is what carriers and supers are designed to do. Attack targets from a safe distance, minimizing risk to such a valuable and terrifying resource. What these lowsec guys are saying is that CCP should strip away the defensive fleet, the Aegis cruisers, the ECM planes, the high powered Ewar on the ship, the CIWS defense, so that Somalian pirates in a Zodiac with ak47s can come and try to sink it. How on Earth or Amarr does that even remotely make sense? My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Dread Operative Snuff Box Snuffed Out 416	Posted - 2015.03.03 23:55:17 - [965] - Quote This is such an EASY fix, don't allow carriers to assign fighters within (X)k of POS shield. They already have the mechanic, siphons, depots, cynos, etc etc. Carriers would continue to be useful while adding tons of vulnerability.
Davir Sometaww Snuff Box Snuffed Out 30	Posted - 2015.03.04 01:04:09 - [966] - Quote Panther X wrote: I mean really, I never used skynet to rat. (not like that clown with the Revenant anyway) If I want to rat with my super, I will. Don't nerf it into the ground so I can't even create content for these lonely lowsec t1 frigates who so insist that it's their right to tackle me with 2 Atrons and an Ibis. Please give them the Drifter Doomsday too, that way they can't complain about Supers being overpowered. Seriously, CCP, please put this on the back burner, for now. Supers and carriers are not the Evil Incarnate (TM) of the game right now. There is a lot more that is broken that needs to be addressed. This is such a small part of the game, that really only a small part of the community b!tches about it. Fix ECM, fix T3's and Ishtars. With so many changes to Null Sov and all the changes to jump drives, our big shinies need a break from the nerf bat. Not to go back to the Real World example of carriers.. ok I have to, but this is a valid example. The US carrier fleets patrolling the oceans around the world are a perfect example of the way that supers and carriers are, right now. Yes, they do their dirty work hundreds of miles from hostile shores, with a near impenetrable bubble of defensive aircraft, Aegis command ships, and support ships. Why would they risk a multi-billion dollar ship by going right into the port of a hostile nation, where every terrorist with an rpg and a Koran can shoot at it with impunity? This is what carriers and supers are designed to do. Attack targets from a safe distance, minimizing risk to such a valuable and terrifying resource. What these lowsec guys are saying is that CCP should strip away the defensive fleet, the Aegis cruisers, the ECM planes, the high powered Ewar on the ship, the CIWS defense, so that Somalian pirates in a Zodiac with ak47s can come and try to sink it. How on Earth or Amarr does that even remotely make sense? QFT -this hits the spot. When I think of carriers; I think of the one game that made me fall in love with space. Wing Commander.
Ramases Purvanen EVEL Tendancies The Methodical Alliance 1	Posted - 2015.03.04 02:19:16 - [967] - Quote Sieur NewT wrote: i'm against removing fighter assist. removing it is a bad idea. if you do that, super cap will be useless it's BAD and near force field, supercap is not "safe" a titan can jump in 1 seconde and DD it's not safe it's juste "less dangerous" i agree to nerf A LITTLE fighter assist, but not HEAVY nerf i agree to make impossible to assign to inty's but i think assist super's fighter to carrier MUST stay. so, please, CCP, don't do that this way. let the super assist to carrier. carrier only if you want. and for fighter you can warp or not, let them warp when they are assist, and not when they are not assist. thx you and do the right thing. :) I concur with this, if CCP goes ahead and removes the feature all together then there isn't much point to owning a carrier except for triage and moving ships long distances in the cargo hold. (maybe i should convert it to a gas miner in wormholes) CCP will be losing multiple monthly paid active subscriptions due to this change and I know of other people who will be doing the same as carriers will be rendered useless! Thanks CCP yet again for screwing up the game... (mainly Rise with the Nerfbat which gets wielded too often!
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 71	Posted - 2015.03.04 02:34:17 - [968] - Quote Dread Operative wrote: This is such an EASY fix, don't allow carriers to assign fighters within (X)k of POS shield. They already have the mechanic already; siphons, depots, cynos, etc etc. Carriers would continue to be useful while adding tons of vulnerability. ...and bingo was his name-o. CCP, take some advice from bittervets on this. The carrier mechanic is working AS INTENDED, really. Carriers and Supers are force projectors. If you force them on-grid because some lowsec jackwagon with a chip on his shoulder cause he can't hold sov says "assists r bad", well you are taking a step towards alienating the bittervets who have put hundreds, even thousands of training hours into these monsterous machinations of death and cosmic destruction. What this change is effectively doing, as so many of my brethren have eloquently (some not so) stated is turning carriers into jump capable Bowheads. Just a bigger truck carrier like you see blocking up your town's main drag while they offload a bunch of Toyotas. Do you really see carriers as a delivery service for Camrys, or as the USS Ranger? A floating city, with the offensive capability to turn any rogue nation's rickety old collection of MIG-29's into so much burning scrap? Carriers are the FedEx of destruction and the UPS of Foreign Policy. Don't turn it into Ted's Bike Couriers. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Trinkets friend Sudden Buggery Prolapse. 2134	Posted - 2015.03.04 03:28:06 - [969] - Quote Rroff wrote: mannyman wrote: Another thing to consider, Its the tracking modules in mid-slot thats the problem with fighters, the active omnis give way better tracking, why not just remove module enhancement to fighters when they are delegated/assisted (or offgrid from super or carrier) ? That makes it harder to track and damage wont get out of proportions Its been suggested a few times in this and the related threads. It would go a long way to fixing the problem but I kind of like where fighters have finally got to (outside of skynet use) and that takes away from it - albeit maybe it would need to happen but IMO a better fix would be to make the sig component have more weight in the chance to hit so even if the fighter tracking is good enough to bring its damage to smaller stuff it still wouldn't hit reliably due to the difference between the fighter turret sig res and the target signature res. I'm not sure it can really be accomplished just by increasing the turret sig on the fighters or not - more likely to really kill over the top skynet use against smaller roaming gangs it would need to be implemented in similar style to titan's turrets. As an aside I think it would be a good change for sentries too as it would go a long way to balancing ishtars without otherwise shaking them up. I have said on the Ishtar thread already that the roblem isn't the ship itself, or its drones, it is the proliferation of drone buff modules. i agree that this needs looking at. The whole tracking and gun res thing is a piece of maths that I agree CCP needs to really get to grips with in some fashion...because sig tanking is basically the only game in town for anything except drone ships, who get a variety of high slot, midslot and low slot modules to jeck up their drone parameters. i mean, look at the typical Skynet carrier - it is entirely tankless and just loaded down with DDA's, omnis, drone control units, tracking links, blah blah blah. Maybe even capital drone rigs if they go all out. What starts as moderately balanced is pushed into a really ludicrous place. The problem with your logic and reasoning is, basically, CCP doesn't do logic and reasoning. Secondly, the players will just adapt with 10MN Daredevils, or Ashimmu, se-bo's HICs, you name it, there will be a way (probably Garmur and Hyena related) to keep Skynet viable...or viable versus a wide variety of cruiser sized targets. The only ways to really stop Skynet is, a) ensure no fighter assign when <40km from a POS shield (a small risk of hotdrop) or remove it entirely. Prolapse. Taking fights since 2014. Sudden Buggery. Got duumb? Hola, Batmanuel! http://www.localectomy.blogspot.com.au
Ramases Purvanen EVEL Tendancies The Methodical Alliance 2	Posted - 2015.03.04 03:41:43 - [970] - Quote Panther X wrote: Dread Operative wrote: This is such an EASY fix, don't allow carriers to assign fighters within (X)k of POS shield. They already have the mechanic already; siphons, depots, cynos, etc etc. Carriers would continue to be useful while adding tons of vulnerability. ...and bingo was his name-o. CCP, take some advice from bittervets on this. The carrier mechanic is working AS INTENDED, really. Carriers and Supers are force projectors. If you force them on-grid because some lowsec jackwagon with a chip on his shoulder cause he can't hold sov says "assists r bad", well you are taking a step towards alienating the bittervets who have put hundreds, even thousands of training hours into these monsterous machinations of death and cosmic destruction. What this change is effectively doing, as so many of my brethren have eloquently (some not so) stated is turning carriers into jump capable Bowheads. Just a bigger truck carrier like you see blocking up your town's main drag while they offload a bunch of Toyotas. Do you really see carriers as a delivery service for Camrys, or as the USS Ranger? A floating city, with the offensive capability to turn any rogue nation's rickety old collection of MIG-29's into so much burning scrap? Carriers are the FedEx of destruction and the UPS of Foreign Policy. Don't turn it into Ted's Bike Couriers. Yours Truly, Panther X You do notice that the only people bitching and whinging for these changes are people who cant fly carriers/never will fly carriers and cant afford carriers. Why alienate the people who do choose to fly them and take the risk of having an expensive ship! Seriously CCP....
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 2800	Posted - 2015.03.04 05:46:09 - [971] - Quote Our solution is simple methinks. Kickstarter: Adam Online. the new home of Capital ships. Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Elg'caress Estanesse HUN Corp. HUN Reloaded 7	Posted - 2015.03.04 06:18:11 - [972] - Quote There are a lot of things in EVE that are almost unavoidable or really hard to counter. Pipebomb, logon trap, hotdrop, (counter hotdrop), offgrid boosters, falcon alts, afk cloaking, the list goes on. Hell, its square and fair to suicide gank a ship worth hundreds of millions with a 2-4 million isk ship... where is the risk/reward and fairness in that? But somehow assisting fighters is the new devil and every other things are just fine... or will they be removed to? And the most frightening thing isnt that assist gets removed: it is that the answer to an issue is the removal of a feature, no effort taken to fix/balance it, no answer given, why the community proposed fixes would not work. Furthermore: After the upcoming sov changes and the forceprojection nerfs plese tell me, what are the purposes of a carrier? Ahh sorry, I get it now: their main and probably only purpose is to satisfy bored titan pilots for a DD driveby...
Matanui1488 VX9 Intergalactic Gaming Inc. Sanctuary Pact 4	Posted - 2015.03.04 06:55:53 - [973] - Quote My two cents on this being a cap pilot and having utilized fighters for other purposes besides skynetting. I believe if your going to put your fighters out of field you yourself should be on grid as well placing the risk/reward out there. Another option that has been mentioned has been to restrict what ship class can receive fighters as well cruisers and above I believe would be a good start point for this with the exception of t3's because of the shear dps and or tank capabilities they have.
Kazaheid Zaknafein Mara's Hounds 7	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:44:00 - [974] - Quote Guess its time to un-sub my fleet of capital toons, wont be needing them for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG while now. If CCP wants to kill caps so bad just remove them from game, would be faster and easier.
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 30	Posted - 2015.03.04 07:57:45 - [975] - Quote Kazaheid Zaknafein wrote: Guess its time to un-sub my fleet of capital toons, wont be needing them for a LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOONG while now. If CCP wants to kill caps so bad just remove them from game, would be faster and easier. Made my day :)
Smoothlezz 4Th Horsman 4	Posted - 2015.03.04 08:47:47 - [976] - Quote Matanui1488 wrote: My two cents on this being a cap pilot and having utilized fighters for other purposes besides skynetting. I believe if your going to put your fighters out of field you yourself should be on grid as well placing the risk/reward out there. risk reward? are you talking about pve? cuz if you talking about solo pvp on a carrier LOL ITS SUPPORT SHIP!!! get it already carrier has a role and it is to support p.s: i few years ago on my main was killed by hotdrop and there was a carrier there who got on field and gone into triage well he fixed a battleship in 2 sec to full hp maby carrier not suppose to go into triage its too POWERFULL!!! @$#@!#$%!!!
Vorstellung CTRL-Q Iron Oxide. 10	Posted - 2015.03.04 09:25:21 - [977] - Quote Sieur NewT wrote: i'm against removing fighter assist. removing it is a bad idea. if you do that, super cap will be useless it's BAD and near force field, supercap is not "safe" a titan can jump in 1 seconde and DD it's not safe it's juste "less dangerous" i agree to nerf A LITTLE fighter assist, but not HEAVY nerf i agree to make impossible to assign to inty's but i think assist super's fighter to carrier MUST stay. so, please, CCP, don't do that this way. let the super assist to carrier. carrier only if you want. and for fighter you can warp or not, let them warp when they are assist, and not when they are not assist. thx you and do the right thing. :) doing a classic QFT !
Flo Skyler Indy Angels Assault Force The Kadeshi 0	Posted - 2015.03.04 09:30:11 - [978] - Quote Im guessing that they would have to remove fighter assist or else it would be too easy to protect your timers with the newly proposed sov system.
Scooter6976 Order of Celestial Knights S I L E N T. 1	Posted - 2015.03.04 10:03:53 - [979] - Quote Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, as there are currently 49 pages to sift through. I just read the original post, and eve news article, and the solution while having minimal gameplay and functionality complaints is so simple and apparent to me. Keep fighter assist. Its one of the primary things that makes carriers and supers something that new players want to fly. Its part of their heritage if you will, without getting too wordy. Im sure others have mentioned all the various pros and cons. I say fighter assist is a keeper. Keep fighter warping. This is what makes fighters special, and obviously allows you to provide some assistance for your mates while at the same time attempting to provide yourself some measure of safety. The goal here seems to be to limit the potential abuses of retaining fighter assist in its current form; ie inty fleets with 5 fighters each. that's just silly. Assigning fighters currently requires that the recipient pilot be able to field drones, and is then limited to only controlling the same # of fighters as the # of drones they are currently trained to be capable of fielding. This does not factor their current ship's drone bandwidth in any way. Fighters require a much greater bandwidth each, and as such no sub-capital ship would ordinarily be able to field even a single fighter. THE SIMPLE SOLUTION:::: Make fighters require 25m bandwidth (same as heavy's for purposes of assisting) be available to the recipient pilots' ship for control purposes. Limit the # of assignable fighters to a given pilot based on the recipient pilots' current ship bandwidth values, after factoring in all skills. Also force abandon the recipient pilots in space drones (if any), and do not allow the recipient pilot to launch any drones beyond their bandwidth limit if they have fighters currently assisting them. Obviously the carrier pilot would still be limited by the current fighter bandwidth requirements vs. ship/skill capabilities for launching purposes themselves. This obviously means that only a couple frig sized ships could receive fighter assistance, and even then would be limited to only 1 or 2 with max skills and no other drones to compliment the fighters. Cruiser class and up would potentially be able to receive the current 5 fighter max limit. Yes I know this would technically be a buff primarily for drone boats, and YES I know drone boats are currently the LEAST in need of a buff..... BUT.... In my humble opinion it should be becoming more apparent than ever to ccp, that they kinda over-buffed gallente. Im not hating; Im a huge gallente ship fan, but I can admit when things are a bit tilted. In fact ccp has already announced changes to rails and the Ishtar/sentries, specifically because ccp wont do broad drone>ship changes. For the record im NOT in favor of making the following suggested changes, just providing an alternative to the "-2.5% this, and -15% to this other" crap that seems to be the new(old) fever @ ccp. Either A: Keep all gallente and related drones/sentries the same, and just buff the drone bays and bandwidth of the other race's ships, OR B: make minor reductions to gallente drone bays and bandwidth I mean these last two suggestions not JUST for gallente drone boats, but all primarily drone related ships. Again, IF they(ccp) insist on doing such adjustments at all. What im certain of, is that they should NOT turn off fighter warping OR fighter assist. Keep both and find another way.
Smoothlezz 4Th Horsman 4	Posted - 2015.03.04 10:20:40 - [980] - Quote Flo Skyler wrote: Im guessing that they would have to remove fighter assist or else it would be too easy to protect your timers with the newly proposed sov system. plz read sov changes prior to posting here or read page 48 with my comment about new sov chages and fighter assist...
Zen BraZen Repercussus Goonswarm Federation 12	Posted - 2015.03.04 10:31:44 - [981] - Quote I'm against removing fighter assist completely. What about having carriers being required to assign fighters only on grid. Fighters will only warp when returning to the carrier if the carrier left grid.
Smoothlezz 4Th Horsman 4	Posted - 2015.03.04 10:37:44 - [982] - Quote Zen BraZen wrote: I'm against removing fighter assist completely. What about having carriers being required to assign fighters only on grid. Fighters will only warp when returning to the carrier if the carrier left grid. you just slapped yoreself... why do i need to assign fighter if im already on grid? and while carrier align you will be able to launch and scoop drones 10 times....
mannyman High Flyers The Kadeshi 10	Posted - 2015.03.04 11:11:26 - [983] - Quote I took the time to read 5 pages oOo.. So to wrap it up: - Empire control of electronics prohibits delegation/assist of fighters in Lowsec. - NullSec is anarchy and player driven, so fighter delegation is allowed in this area. - Fighter delegation to use bandwith, which will preferr drone boats and BS (which needs a buff anyway) - Remove buff from ACTIVE modules in mid slots. It overpowers the tracking entirely, also removes the drone navigation buff. - Most supers can mostly only use 10 drones anyway, restrict each super to max 10 drones by prohibiting the usage of capital Drone Link for supers, while carriers can still use it (as carriers has way lower DPS). - Fighter delegation has to be outside 20km from the Forcefield of any POS. To ensure there is no absolutely safety for delegating, and to ensure super and carrier will have some kind of tank and not overpower the drones in low slots. - Make POS go shields UP automatically when onlining it, so the online stick trick cant be used. too much safety for cyno's and delegated fighters. - Make fighters warp core pointable, so we can actually kill them. - If delegated ship cloak up, fighters return to super/carrier.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 944	Posted - 2015.03.04 11:22:42 - [984] - Quote Having lowsec restrictions is a bit arbitrary. Fighter delegation using bandwidth does nothing to solve the problem just shuffles it around a bit. Removing drone bonuses from assigned fighters would solve most of the core problems but a sad step backwards - IMO a better option exists there (turret sig based tweaks). Reducing fighter amounts doesn't solve anything in regard to skynet. Fighter delegation range around POSes would need fixing. Making fighters warp disruptable would need to be looked at/opened for discussion.
mannyman High Flyers The Kadeshi 10	Posted - 2015.03.04 11:27:13 - [985] - Quote Rroff wrote: Having lowsec restrictions is a bit arbitrary. Fighter delegation using bandwidth does nothing to solve the problem just shuffles it around a bit. Its not arbitrary, its necessary as you can not get bubbled in lowsec, and you will have to do risk vs reward and be on grid. Any HAC a super / carrier can shoot down anyway pretty easy. But a interdictor can tackle for 3 min after it gets shot down with the bubble. Fighter delegation doesnt shuffle it around, with drone bandwith, it ensures small noob ships cant get fighters, and also fast locking interceptors and shuttles and pods.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 944	Posted - 2015.03.04 11:42:32 - [986] - Quote mannyman wrote: Fighter delegation doesnt shuffle it around, with drone bandwith, it ensures small noob ships cant get fighters, and also fast locking interceptors and shuttles and pods. Assuming fighters still have bonuses you still have fighters that can murder small stuff even if there are restrictions on the number you can assign to certain ships, if you remove fighter stats then it doesn't make that much odds as fighters will be back to being not very effective.
Syrix Death Dirt 'n' Glitter 1	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:10:35 - [987] - Quote Goddamnit CCP!!!! Stop removing features just because you failed balancing the mechanics! What about just to tighten the regulations in low sec, like carriers have to be ~10, 20 or 50km of the force field. Thats enough!
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1614	Posted - 2015.03.04 14:29:31 - [988] - Quote Syrix Death wrote: Goddamnit CCP!!!! Stop removing features just because you failed balancing the mechanics! What about just to tighten the regulations in low sec, like carriers have to be ~10, 20 or 50km of the force field. Thats enough! Knowing how most stuff at CCP works, it would prevent other boats from using drones withing those range too. Cyno could be made to not work because it's an activated mod.
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 77	Posted - 2015.03.04 15:52:55 - [989] - Quote Well cynos are a whole other kettle of fish. It looks like the naysayers have given up because they know that this is a bullsh1t move. Why is always that when someone feels they are getting squished, features get removed, rather than fixed or adjusted to reflect a true balance? Balance by definition means to serve as a counterpoise to; counterbalance; offset: Nerf, by video game defintiion is: a nerf is a change to a game that makes something less effective or desirable So let's get terms right; stop calling this hack job "balancing" you aren't making a counter to carriers, you are making them less effective. So what's the plan? Give us some transparency. Do you want to eliminate carriers, supers and titans from the game? Be up front and tell us. Don't just nickle and dime us to death with "making less effective". If you want balance, make other things more effective, to the extent of what you are actually trying to balance. You want to balance "Skynet"? Fine, balance it, the counter to "Skynet" is to force the carrier away from the pos, make is less easily available to turn on pos shields (which i think is a sh1tty tactic anyway). For example, a distance factor; 50km from the tower is a reasonable distance. It takes a long time to slow boat into the shields from that distance (approximately what 15km to edge of shield?) so you force the carrier to be aligned to a safe and to warp to the safe to escape. That's balance. This eliminating features is just pushing capitals out the door. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Erroch STK Scientific 6	Posted - 2015.03.04 15:59:24 - [990] - Quote I think this is a less then optimal way of solving the problem, we're cutting off a limb to remove a blemish. I believe it's the carrier's 'off grid' boosting via mods of the fighters which makes them far more lethal. There is little risk to the carrier, beyond a titan jumping in and firing its doomsday the carrier, as most carriers doing this are on the edge of a pos shield. If this does not go far enough, remove the ability for fighters to warp when assigned, or perhaps require the carrier to keep the ship the fighters are assigned to locked while fighter assist is active.
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.
Ramases Purvanen EVEL Tendancies The Methodical Alliance 4	Posted - 2015.03.05 03:11:40 - [1021] - Quote Davir Sometaww wrote: 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. CCP will show us the finger and then some players like myself will show them the door...
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 62	Posted - 2015.03.05 04:12:18 - [1022] - 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 use a scout, use friends, have a better fit... Heck go back and hot drop the carrier...
Neyko Turama Black Arrows Sev3rance 4	Posted - 2015.03.05 06:24:49 - [1023] - Quote Mike Azariah wrote: Me? I am in favour of the change because I never think a person should be able to be totally uninvolved and still be a part of the on field force. I dislike off-grid boosting for the same reason. But the fighters were a mechanic that was fine, for a while, but then became abused more and more. What did you expect? That since it was fine yesterday it must be fine today and always will be? The game changes, for the better or worse will show in the longer run. But if you want to be heard, if you want to have a single iota of a chance to be heard by CCP then keep it civil. If what I said ticked you off . . . well, I am running for CSMX. Vote accordingly. m Of course you do. As you and the other CSM are just another expression of this pseudo democratic game CCP is playing. Letting the players think their ideas and or attemps would change ANYTHING. Please CCP shut down this thread or give us any proof you are actually caring about the lamentating in here. You didn-¦t tick me off. You amuse me.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1942	Posted - 2015.03.05 06:44:32 - [1024] - Quote Neyko Turama wrote: Of course you do. As you and the other CSM are just another expression of this pseudo democratic game CCP is playing. Letting the players think their ideas and or attemps would change ANYTHING. Please CCP shut down this thread or give us any proof you are actually caring about the lamenting in here. You didn-¦t tick me off. You amuse me. The Laments are just that, Laments. No matter what decision CCP made people were going to lament over some topic. CCP however have to make the call based on value judgements and balance arguments, not pure emotion. So don't like it, work out how to refute CCP's case, which from my view is a very strong case. And do so without mixing in other issues which are unrelated to this particular change even if part of capital balance overall.
Aiyshimin Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 433	Posted - 2015.03.05 07:17:09 - [1025] - Quote d0cTeR9 wrote: Fighters don't instantly appear next to you and kill you. They take time to lock, they also need to travel in warp, etc etc etc... People are complaining about something they do not understand. You should lose when fighting 2-3 guys using capital support. Only reason people want those slow easy to kill capitals on grid is to padd their killboard because they are slow and easy to kill! And the only reason to use skynet is because you want easy killmails without risking anything.
Anton Menges Saddat Minion Revolution SpaceMonkey's Alliance 93	Posted - 2015.03.05 08:57:06 - [1026] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: d0cTeR9 wrote: Fighters don't instantly appear next to you and kill you. They take time to lock, they also need to travel in warp, etc etc etc... People are complaining about something they do not understand. You should lose when fighting 2-3 guys using capital support. Only reason people want those slow easy to kill capitals on grid is to padd their killboard because they are slow and easy to kill! And the only reason to use skynet is because you want easy killmails without risking anything. Yeah, that guy who lost a Revenant skynetting wasn't risking anything at all
Vincintius Agrippa The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology 77	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:02:26 - [1027] - 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. 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. ) snip Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal. ^^^^^^^^^Dumbest collection of words that have ever been assembled. Of all time.^^^^^^^^^ Hmm, fighters with warp drives chase after their untackled targets. Provide the option to have fighters pursue or remain vs. Completely removing fighter warp. Bye bye warp engines I guess. Hmm, prevent carriers from assisting through pos shields vs completely removing assist from the game. The choice is obvious, duh. Remove from game of course. `Only YOU can prevent internet bullying!`
mannyman High Flyers The Kadeshi 11	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:28:09 - [1028] - Quote Vincintius Agrippa wrote: 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. 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. ) snip Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal. ^^^^^^^^^Dumbest collection of words that have ever been assembled. Of all time.^^^^^^^^^ Hmm, fighters with warp drives chase after their untackled targets. Provide the option to have fighters pursue or remain vs. Completely removing fighter warp. Bye bye warp engines I guess. Hmm, prevent carriers from assisting through pos shields vs completely removing assist from the game. The choice is obvious, duh. Remove from game of course. Removing from game when there is different mechanics in null and lowsec regarding this, AND there is ways to do "skynetting" 100% safe with online POS that doesnt have Forcefield. As I mentioned before, ensure POS gets forcefield automatically aft it onlined, AND, remove the delegation/assist from lowsec due to electronical interference from Empires claiming Lowsec. But let this functionality be an option in nullsec, but with limitations on the POS.. offc.. 20km off the Forcefield to expose carrier more.
Kane Carnifex Yard Evolution The Kadeshi 30	Posted - 2015.03.05 09:44:44 - [1029] - Quote Due the planned SOV changes, offer an Module which allows carrier to assign fighter to give an advantage for the owner of the System. Like an IHUB upgrade or an structure which spreads the commands through the systems.
Jacus Noir Accretion Aftermath Headshot Gaming 3	Posted - 2015.03.05 10:14:11 - [1030] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. Ideally a carrier pilot should NEVER be micro managing fighters while trying to take on a logi role. As it stands right now fighters can be assigned to fleet mates and the carrier pilot can focus on actually doing what they should be which is logi not being a giant domi. The better solution would be to require that all pilots who the carrier assigns fighters to be on grid with the carrier. In this way a carrier can assign fighters and then focus on logi while the pilot who gets the fighters would need to be on grid to keep fighters assigned to them. You can still allow fighters to follow targets into warp, but doing returns fighter control to the carrier pilot and away from the pilot on grid. This SHOULD fix skynetting, force carriers to be in the fight, and still allow fighters to be assigned so that the carrier pilot can now focus on keeping his fleet alive.
Wadiest Yong Porcus Volans Sev3rance 6	Posted - 2015.03.05 10:47:21 - [1031] - Quote The mechanic of assigning fighters to other pilots has had its days but is now a thing that should go. Or at least for carriers in a logi role... As to warp capability of fighters, it should stay. It's what sets them apart from drones.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 946	Posted - 2015.03.05 11:57:57 - [1032] - Quote d0cTeR9 wrote: Well use a scout, use friends, have a better fit... Heck go back and hot drop the carrier... People are saying take odd sky net because they want to attack protected areas and have it easy... If anything those systems should be hard to crack... Fighters don't instantly appear next to you and kill you. They take time to lock, they also need to travel in warp, etc etc etc... People are complaining about something they do not understand. You should lose when fighting 2-3 guys using capital support. Only reason people want those slow easy to kill capitals on grid is to padd their killboard because they are slow and easy to kill! I'd agree with what you said if there were tweaks to make hot dropping a more realistic (even if slim) possibility, the revenant died because the pilot was either lazy or stupid - logging in some distance outside the POS FF pretty much handed PL the kill on a plate. For every instance where what you said applies there is another instance where it doesn't with current mechanics and even though I'm not against people utilising skynet none of that excuses fighters that can usually kill even an inty in 2-4 volleys.
helfen Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2015.03.05 12:24:06 - [1033] - Quote Wadiest Yong wrote: The mechanic of assigning fighters to other pilots has had its days but is now a thing that should go. Or at least for carriers in a logi role... As to warp capability of fighters, it should stay. It's what sets them apart from drones. That's the thing CCP can't make their dam mind up what role a carrier should play, If it indeed falls in the logistics role its jump range and fatigue needs altering but that is highly unlikely because of "enter CCP reason here" and the late grey scale narrowing the meaning of carrier to combat because it can use drones, Never mind the fact it's the only ship to use a Triage module that surprise surprise itself is a major LOGISTICAL buff to carriers. CCP I want a job I can't code for crap but I know your own product better than you do since I've been working with it for 10+ years... Rroff wrote: I'd agree with what you said if there were tweaks to make hot dropping a more realistic (even if slim) possibility, the revenant died because the pilot was either lazy or stupid - logging in some distance outside the POS FF pretty much handed PL the kill on a plate. For every instance where what you said applies there is another instance where it doesn't with current mechanics and even though I'm not against people utilising skynet none of that excuses fighters that can usually kill even an inty in 2-4 volleys. If they could actually do their job's correctly this would never have been as a big deal as it is, The drone augmentation modules are being passed down to delegated fighters while all the time the hull bonuses of the carrier are not but I suppose it's easier to remove a right click option in game than it is to FIX THE PROBLEM CCP CREATED. Check the fighter stats Here if you doubt my information about fighters and their delegated damage from the carrier hull being passed down or not
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 946	Posted - 2015.03.05 12:38:53 - [1034] - Quote helfen wrote: Check the fighter stats Here if you doubt my information about fighters and their delegated damage from the carrier hull being passed down or not Have you tested the actual stats? - it could be the show info window is incorrect for the person who has them delegated. Unfortunately don't have the time right now to test. I know there are some issues if for instance you assign a nyx's drones to a thanny who then uses them.
helfen Imperial Academy Amarr Empire 2	Posted - 2015.03.05 12:45:36 - [1035] - Quote Rroff wrote: helfen wrote: Check the fighter stats Here if you doubt my information about fighters and their delegated damage from the carrier hull being passed down or not Have you tested the actual stats? - it could be the show info window is incorrect for the person who has them delegated. Unfortunately don't have the time right now to test. I know there are some issues if for instance you assign a nyx's drones to a thanny who then uses them. The thany in the tests I have done does not get the damage modifier from the Nyx hull making it more viable for the thany itself to launch fighters rather than receive them remotely from the Nyx. It's when you add drone damage modules, Tracking modules and speed modules to the Nyx ( in this example ) that them modules stats ARE passed down.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 946	Posted - 2015.03.05 13:06:03 - [1036] - Quote I know there are issues with super->carrier bonuses - doing a quick test with thanny shooting something then assigning the fighters to something else to shoot the same something showed <5% difference in the averages of the hits from the log file (not really scientific but close enough). Its possible super bonuses got chopped on the quiet due to the other problem rather than fixed :S
RomeStar BOVRIL bOREers Mining CO-OP Brave Collective 573	Posted - 2015.03.05 15:12:45 - [1037] - Quote I have noticed a lot of players selling their thannys in null for cheap prices I am hoping this is a big troll on CCP's part. If not I hope a skill reimbursement is incoming or the reversal of the previous fighter nerf atleast. If nothing well its time to whelp my thannys and sell off my fighters and pos. Signatured removed, CCP Phantom
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 82	Posted - 2015.03.05 15:27:56 - [1038] - Quote Aiyshimin wrote: d0cTeR9 wrote: Fighters don't instantly appear next to you and kill you. They take time to lock, they also need to travel in warp, etc etc etc... People are complaining about something they do not understand. You should lose when fighting 2-3 guys using capital support. Only reason people want those slow easy to kill capitals on grid is to padd their killboard because they are slow and easy to kill! And the only reason to use skynet is because you want easy killmails without risking anything. From my experience living in null for the past 4 or 5 years, most skynet has been for ratting. Assign your fighters to a tengu or other such ratting ship, warp to forsaken hub and blap away. It's only recently that its become an issue for those who want to hunt capitals in null. IF you think that skynet is a real problem, again look at that Revenant kill. Looked like a pretty easy 200b killmail to me. If you want easy kills, go suicide gank noobs in Jita. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Isengrimus LOST IDEA C0VEN 25	Posted - 2015.03.05 15:44:35 - [1039] - Quote Panther X wrote: [quote=Aiyshimin][quote=d0cTeR9] From my experience living in null for the past 4 or 5 years, most skynet has been for ratting. Assign your fighters to a tengu or other such ratting ship, warp to forsaken hub and blap away. It's only recently that its become an issue for those who want to hunt capitals in null. IF you think that skynet is a real problem, again look at that Revenant kill. Looked like a pretty easy 200b killmail to me. If you want easy kills, go suicide gank noobs in Jita. That Reventant was not an "easy kill" FYI, it has been tracked and hunted for MONTHS by at least several groups before it died, where of course PL had the biggest chance to catch him with their immense super fleet staying relatively close to where he dwelled. And to be honest. it died mostly because it was a Revenant, a really worthy prize. Should that be a Thanny or even a Nyx nobody would probably bother. And that's the point - if you want easy kills, go gank noobs in Jita rather than using Thannys on a POS with lowered shields or sticiking to its FF. That's the easiest and safest way to PVP and I am really glad CCP did this. As to the fighters warp ability - it should be kept, but making them pointable (and scrammable) is a good idea.
Mkx pl LOST IDEA C0VEN 0	Posted - 2015.03.05 16:01:41 - [1040] - Quote Super capitals and theirs assists will be possible only to do for other Carriers or Supers. Not allowed for any other small ships. Drone Bandwith for Supers and Carriers will be incerased, also Fighter and Fighter bombers will reques to use much more Drone Bandwith than now. Explain > You can't assist Fighters for any other ship with small Drone Bandwith. Only Supers or Carriers have enought space for keep them Only in this way we can keep Supers and Carriers to be unique, in other way Capitals will be destroyed.
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 82	Posted - 2015.03.05 16:05:39 - [1041] - Quote Isengrimus wrote: Panther X wrote: [quote=Aiyshimin][quote=d0cTeR9] From my experience living in null for the past 4 or 5 years, most skynet has been for ratting. Assign your fighters to a tengu or other such ratting ship, warp to forsaken hub and blap away. It's only recently that its become an issue for those who want to hunt capitals in null. IF you think that skynet is a real problem, again look at that Revenant kill. Looked like a pretty easy 200b killmail to me. If you want easy kills, go suicide gank noobs in Jita. That Reventant was not an "easy kill" FYI, it has been tracked and hunted for MONTHS by at least several groups before it died, where of course PL had the biggest chance to catch him with their immense super fleet staying relatively close to where he dwelled. And to be honest. it died mostly because it was a Revenant, a really worthy prize. Should that be a Thanny or even a Nyx nobody would probably bother. And that's the point - if you want easy kills, go gank noobs in Jita rather than using Thannys on a POS with lowered shields or sticiking to its FF. That's the easiest and safest way to PVP and I am really glad CCP did this. As to the fighters warp ability - it should be kept, but making them pointable (and scrammable) is a good idea. You're not wrong in that there was a great effort in tracking this guy down at the right time and gathering the force to take it on. The actual fight itself didn't last long, and two DD's just made it into so much burning wreckage. In my opinion that's the way every capital kill should be, a Herculean effort, worth the risk of taking one on. Supers and Titans have the drawback of not being able to dock at all, so there should be some mitigating factor in the gargantuan risk in owning one. Carriers can dock but their mass and size hampers their ability to escape, again there's the balance. I point again to my earlier post about small aircraft carriers like the USS Ranger; should it be easily sinkable by Somalian pirates with a Zodiac and rpgs? No; it's a freaking aircraft carrier. But it's only a small one, 60,000 tonnes compared to the current 100,000 tonnes in a Gerald R. FordGÇôclass aircraft carrier (super carrier). To sink one of these bad boys it would take a real fighting force of modern fighters with well trained pilots and land to sea anti-ship missiles, plus probably a submarine force. But in Eve all you need is two Atrons and a n00bship. Sometimes even less. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 82	Posted - 2015.03.05 16:21:41 - [1042] - Quote RomeStar wrote: I have noticed a lot of players selling their thannys in null for cheap prices I am hoping this is a big troll on CCP's part. If not I hope a skill reimbursement is incoming or the reversal of the previous fighter nerf atleast. If nothing well its time to whelp my thannys and sell off my fighters and pos. Good luck with the sp remap or anything like that. Cheap thannys and archons are good though. Buying thanny's for 100mill, contract to me. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Isengrimus LOST IDEA C0VEN 26	Posted - 2015.03.05 16:23:57 - [1043] - Quote Yay, real life military analogies! Is there an incoming Sun Tzu quote as well? But caustic remarks aside - I am not really following your point on how 2 Atrons and a Noobship can kill a Capital in EVE - unless, of course, they are being assisted by a flight of Fighters from a safe Super or Carrier, sitting on a POS. That's exactly my point, thank you for that. Also I believe you are actually reinforcing my key point - two guys in Atrons and a noobship should be an easy kill for a guy in a, say, Vagabond (look at your "it costs more so it should be harder to kill" argument). However, if the said Atrons have ten friends in Carriers in a system, that makes the whole concept of "small PVP" useless and almost totally risk-free for a side using crap ships assisted by fighter - and is EXACTLY what CCP wants to elimante.
Isengrimus LOST IDEA C0VEN 26	Posted - 2015.03.05 16:25:50 - [1044] - Quote Panther X wrote: RomeStar wrote: I have noticed a lot of players selling their thannys in null for cheap prices I am hoping this is a big troll on CCP's part. If not I hope a skill reimbursement is incoming or the reversal of the previous fighter nerf atleast. If nothing well its time to whelp my thannys and sell off my fighters and pos. Good luck with the sp remap or anything like that. Cheap thannys and archons are good though. Buying thanny's for 100mill, contract to me. I'll double that!
mannyman High Flyers The Kadeshi 11	Posted - 2015.03.05 16:33:46 - [1045] - Quote Isengrimus wrote: Yay, real life military analogies! Is there an incoming Sun Tzu quote as well? But caustic remarks aside - I am not really following your point on how 2 Atrons and a Noobship can kill a Capital in EVE - unless, of course, they are being assisted by a flight of Fighters from a safe Super or Carrier, sitting on a POS. That's exactly my point, thank you for that. Also I believe you are actually reinforcing my key point - two guys in Atrons and a noobship should be an easy kill for a guy in a, say, Vagabond (look at your "it costs more so it should be harder to kill" argument). However, if the said Atrons have ten friends in Carriers in a system, that makes the whole concept of "small PVP" useless and almost totally risk-free for a side using crap ships assisted by fighter - and is EXACTLY what CCP wants to elimante. The problem exists of 2 things: 1. the carrier is not exposed enough for a good fight to happen 2. the problem exists more in lowsec and gatecamping There is less of a problem in nullsec as alliances use their toys to defend their own space Therefore, as I have said before, Empires in Lowsec disrupts the electronics system of the carrier so delegation cant be done, AND, the POS onlines automatically, AND delegation can only be done in nullsec atleast 20km away from the POS shields.
Kesthely Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades. 175	Posted - 2015.03.05 16:43:32 - [1046] - Quote Personally i'd like to have the assist revamped to normal drone mechanic roles, but keep the warp ability in reduced form, allow the fighters to warp back to the (super)carrier if there recalled and the fighters are offgrid or more then 150 km away
mannyman High Flyers The Kadeshi 11	Posted - 2015.03.05 16:51:16 - [1047] - Quote Kesthely wrote: Personally i'd like to have the assist revamped to normal drone mechanic roles, but keep the warp ability in reduced form, allow the fighters to warp back to the (super)carrier if there recalled and the fighters are offgrid or more then 150 km away What about the fact that a supercarrier or carrier is tackled 3 minutes after a interdictor dies to the drones in nullsec ? 40m ship that tackles a 30b ship incl fittings for 3 whole minutes. Is it fair ?
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 83	Posted - 2015.03.05 17:06:37 - [1048] - Quote Isengrimus wrote: Yay, real life military analogies! Is there an incoming Sun Tzu quote as well? But caustic remarks aside - I am not really following your point on how 2 Atrons and a Noobship can kill a Capital in EVE - unless, of course, they are being assisted by a flight of Fighters from a safe Super or Carrier, sitting on a POS. That's exactly my point, thank you for that. Also I believe you are actually reinforcing my key point - two guys in Atrons and a noobship should be an easy kill for a guy in a, say, Vagabond (look at your "it costs more so it should be harder to kill" argument). However, if the said Atrons have ten friends in Carriers in a system, that makes the whole concept of "small PVP" useless and almost totally risk-free for a side using crap ships assisted by fighter - and is EXACTLY what CCP wants to elimante. No but I've been doing Hunter S. Thompson ones in skype... You're right I was being facetious, but my comment was more directed at the lowsec guys who believe that they should be able to take on carriers with zero risk for huge rewards. I agree that skynet needs to be adjusted, and more risk involved, but, CCP has gone ballz deep on their fix for it. Capital pilots take a huge risk every time they undock and/or log in supers. And CCP is making it even more of a risk with each passing release. You can tell that by the number of big kills on zkilboard that unfortunately happen to be Kadeshi. But you keep seeing us on there because we know and understand the risks involved in playing the meta. Hey people should be happy that we go big on ratting ships, and we don't play station games with n00bships. Those who are hunting us should be up in arms against these changes so they can continue hunting us. If CCP takes away the use of these ships we won't undock them/log them in and you won't get big juicy kills. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 83	Posted - 2015.03.05 17:11:10 - [1049] - Quote mannyman wrote: Isengrimus wrote: Yay, real life military analogies! Is there an incoming Sun Tzu quote as well? But caustic remarks aside - I am not really following your point on how 2 Atrons and a Noobship can kill a Capital in EVE - unless, of course, they are being assisted by a flight of Fighters from a safe Super or Carrier, sitting on a POS. That's exactly my point, thank you for that. Also I believe you are actually reinforcing my key point - two guys in Atrons and a noobship should be an easy kill for a guy in a, say, Vagabond (look at your "it costs more so it should be harder to kill" argument). However, if the said Atrons have ten friends in Carriers in a system, that makes the whole concept of "small PVP" useless and almost totally risk-free for a side using crap ships assisted by fighter - and is EXACTLY what CCP wants to elimante. The problem exists of 2 things: 1. the carrier is not exposed enough for a good fight to happen 2. the problem exists more in lowsec and gatecamping There is less of a problem in nullsec as alliances use their toys to defend their own space Therefore, as I have said before, Empires in Lowsec disrupts the electronics system of the carrier so delegation cant be done, AND, the POS onlines automatically, AND delegation can only be done in nullsec atleast 20km away from the POS shields. 20k is still marginally in range of shields, so I would be happy with 50km. That's too far to slowboat in, not far enough to warp. One would have to be aligned to a safe and be moving to be safer. That is a perfectly reasonable compromise wouldnt you agree? My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Alexis Nightwish 113	Posted - 2015.03.05 17:19:55 - [1050] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. Translation: Hello We skimmed through the feedback. The gist of which was that you guys want fighter warping to remain, and since it's easy to make no change to it, we're not going to remove it. However, given our limited expertise, and that that any changes we announce aren't actually up for debate (in fact coding to remove delegation was already underway before the dev blog) we are not going to implement any of the creative ideas of the community that would solve the Skynet issue while still retaining one of the trademark aspects of carriers and supercarriers. Despite the valid concerns of players who have spent months training into one of the most SP-intensive ships in the game, we are continuing with our ham-handed 'fix' fully aware that this will, as a side effect, totally remove all of the valid uses of fighter delegation. But don't worry! We will be looking at capitals in the future. No ETA on that and, let's be honest here. You probably won't see any movement on that front for years. However when we do, expect us to axe something else from the game in the name of balance. **** you. CCP only approaches a problem in one of two ways: nudge or cludge EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Davir Sometaww Snuff Box Snuffed Out 38	Posted - 2015.03.05 17:30:47 - [1051] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. Way to dumb down the game. So much to listening to your player base who have spent MONTHS training for these things. The least you can do is make it where only interdictor and heavy interdictor's can point a carrier/dreadnought. Once again; thank you for the finger.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10075	Posted - 2015.03.05 17:55:34 - [1052] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. That's fair, but for the record I think it sucks that you guys would over-buff something, identify it as a problem, then 'fix it' by removing something that wasn't a problem before. Being able to Delegate fighters was just plain cool even before it was overpowered. it's loss isn't a major blow, just a sad chapter in a game that needs cool stuff to be possible.
FireFrenzy Satan's Unicorns 254	Posted - 2015.03.05 18:43:31 - [1053] - Quote Jason Atavuli wrote: 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 Okay explain to me where the magical plex come from please Say I buy 5 plex this month because i want a shiny thing and i sell you 4 plex and use one for my own account. Where does CCP lose money? Especially since i pay more for the plex then i would pay for game time if i just buy it straight up?
Galian Kile Interdimensional Chaos Gentlemen's.Club 9	Posted - 2015.03.05 18:47:22 - [1054] - Quote Davir Sometaww wrote: CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. Way to dumb down the game. So much to listening to your player base who have spent MONTHS training for these things. The least you can do is make it where only interdictor and heavy interdictor's can point a carrier/dreadnought. Once again; thank you for the finger. Looks like this change was going to happen anyway. CCP, you may feel its necessary to completely remove it, but it looks like all the players were looking for an alternative. Thanks for listening to us... ...
mannyman High Flyers The Kadeshi 11	Posted - 2015.03.05 19:05:46 - [1055] - Quote Panther X wrote: mannyman wrote: Isengrimus wrote: Yay, real life military analogies! Is there an incoming Sun Tzu quote as well? But caustic remarks aside - I am not really following your point on how 2 Atrons and a Noobship can kill a Capital in EVE - unless, of course, they are being assisted by a flight of Fighters from a safe Super or Carrier, sitting on a POS. That's exactly my point, thank you for that. Also I believe you are actually reinforcing my key point - two guys in Atrons and a noobship should be an easy kill for a guy in a, say, Vagabond (look at your "it costs more so it should be harder to kill" argument). However, if the said Atrons have ten friends in Carriers in a system, that makes the whole concept of "small PVP" useless and almost totally risk-free for a side using crap ships assisted by fighter - and is EXACTLY what CCP wants to elimante. The problem exists of 2 things: 1. the carrier is not exposed enough for a good fight to happen 2. the problem exists more in lowsec and gatecamping There is less of a problem in nullsec as alliances use their toys to defend their own space Therefore, as I have said before, Empires in Lowsec disrupts the electronics system of the carrier so delegation cant be done, AND, the POS onlines automatically, AND delegation can only be done in nullsec atleast 20km away from the POS shields. 20k is still marginally in range of shields, so I would be happy with 50km. That's too far to slowboat in, not far enough to warp. One would have to be aligned to a safe and be moving to be safer. That is a perfectly reasonable compromise wouldnt you agree? I agree! 20 or 50km doesnt matter, point is, further away than being inside pos shields than 10 seconds.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 946	Posted - 2015.03.05 20:26:15 - [1056] - Quote Mkx pl wrote: Super capitals and theirs assists will be possible only to do for other Carriers or Supers. Not allowed for any other small ships. Drone Bandwith for Supers and Carriers will be incerased, also Fighter and Fighter bombers will reques to use much more Drone Bandwith than now. Explain > You can't assist Fighters for any other ship with small Drone Bandwith. Only Supers or Carriers have enought space for keep them Only in this way we can keep Supers and Carriers to be unique, in other way Capitals will be destroyed. Thing is - from a gameworld tech/mechanisms point of view - assist/assignment doesn't remove the parent ship from the equation - it still handles telemetry, gunnery, navigation systems, etc. only thing that has changed has delegation of command - hence you can assign fighters to well anything regardless of its own drone capabilities. mannyman wrote: I agree! 20 or 50km doesnt matter, point is, further away than being inside pos shields than 10 seconds. Its more than just about slowboating back inside FF if threatened - don't really want to go into all the techniques people use but it needs to be atleast 20-50km outside of the FF radius to prevent the various ways that can be done to make a carrier or super perfectly safe without moving it an inch.
Vandarra Deneroth Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2015.03.05 22:38:32 - [1057] - Quote Set it so Carrier Fighter assist can only happen if the Carrier/Super is on grid. This forces carriers to remain on grid for the fight. Keep fighter warp so they can chase targets and be unique but disable fighter warp when the fighters are assigned.
Decius Severus Ordo Equites Regii Sagittarii 24eme Legion Etrangere 5	Posted - 2015.03.05 22:50:57 - [1058] - Quote IMHO leave it as it is BUT give command ships another role bonus so only they can have fighters assigned. It would be a nice motivation to actually bring them on grid instead of just using them as off-grid boosters.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 759	Posted - 2015.03.06 01:02:28 - [1059] - Quote We still have yet to see a single reason to remove it completely instead of implementing the minimum assist distance from a POS, and making scrams affect drones.
Vandarra Deneroth Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2015.03.06 03:44:39 - [1060] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: We still have yet to see a single reason to remove it completely instead of implementing the minimum assist distance from a POS, and making scrams affect drones. This ^^ Dont remove it .. just make it so they have to be on grid to assist. And/or that you cant enter POS shields while fighters/bombers are deployed.
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 64	Posted - 2015.03.06 04:42:21 - [1061] - Quote CCP Rise has already decided that our feedback isn't worth anything, as per his decision to still implement a complete nerf instead of doing one of the dozen options we have brought forward, like assign fighters at least 150+ km from a POS or something... Well i feel like an idiot wasting my time doing CCP's job in how to fix the game... I feel even more of an idiot wasting all this time and isk owning a supercarrier and multiple dps carriers... This is somewhat equivalent to taking heavy drones and sentry drones away from isthar's... Pretty big nerf...
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels 624	Posted - 2015.03.06 07:31:19 - [1062] - Quote Problem with having a minimum distance from POS is that the carrier will just sit over 200km off the POS and align to the tower. If anything bad is about to happen, instant warp to safety. Therefore minimum distance will change nothing. If anything, POS shields need to go and POS's need to be completely redesigned into modular small starbases. Where is that dead horse thread? Then, it wouldn't matter if you assigned fighters. You'd have a weapons timer and be vulnerable as you wouldn't be able to instantly reach safety.
Decius Severus Ordo Equites Regii Sagittarii 24eme Legion Etrangere 5	Posted - 2015.03.06 08:21:29 - [1063] - Quote Let us try a combination of several ideas that have been brought forward: 1. Fighters can only be assigned to a certain ship type OR to ships having a new module 'fighter control unit' fitted (e.g. role bonus, imho command ship) 2. Fighters can only be assigned, if the carrier is outside of a pos force field with a minimum distance. 3. While fighters are assigned, the carrier is in a mode a little like when a triage modul is activated: no movement, no warping - and it stays like this for at least 5 minutes after fighters return. (Or even only let fighters be assignable IN triage mode ...) With these limitations the rest could stay as it is .... How is this?
X4me1eoH Battletech Technology 170	Posted - 2015.03.06 10:53:20 - [1064] - Quote I think need remove assist ability, but keep warp ability.
X4me1eoH Battletech Technology 170	Posted - 2015.03.06 10:58:12 - [1065] - Quote And all messages with suggestions keep capitals at 10-20-50 km from field for assisting I think wrong. Because capital can be at safe spot with alining to pos.
Decius Severus Ordo Equites Regii Sagittarii 24eme Legion Etrangere 6	Posted - 2015.03.06 11:11:17 - [1066] - Quote X4me1eoH wrote: And all messages with suggestions keep capitals at 10-20-50 km from field for assisting I think wrong. Because capital can be at safe spot with alining to pos. Not if it can't move nor warp ... see my last post.
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 141	Posted - 2015.03.06 11:24:24 - [1067] - Quote Seems people have realised that ccp don't care on this one and are going to force the changes through no matter what
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 946	Posted - 2015.03.06 11:58:58 - [1068] - Quote X4me1eoH wrote: And all messages with suggestions keep capitals at 10-20-50 km from field for assisting I think wrong. Because capital can be at safe spot with alining to pos. See earlier in the thread, while not trivial to do a capital aligned in space is catchable.
Dackota Mindstar Technology Get Off My Lawn 7	Posted - 2015.03.06 12:30:45 - [1069] - Quote Id keep fighter assist for allies on grid. Fighters can warp with carrier. Fighters will not warp with target.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1621	Posted - 2015.03.06 14:00:21 - [1070] - Quote Ncc 1709 wrote: Seems people have realised that ccp don't care on this one and are going to force the changes through no matter what Or they took it into account and decided each suggestion was not enough so they are going ahead with their own idea but I guess that is patently impossible right...
Ncc 1709 Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 143	Posted - 2015.03.06 14:27:10 - [1071] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Ncc 1709 wrote: Seems people have realised that ccp don't care on this one and are going to force the changes through no matter what Or they took it into account and decided each suggestion was not enough so they are going ahead with their own idea but I guess that is patently impossible right... well keeping the feature would be against the policy of dumbing the game down that's been occurring for the past few years. shame really. even im starting to lose interest in eve. everything I train for, spend months grinding for, gets nerfed. its like saving up for something for years to find out its got 90% off the week after.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 763	Posted - 2015.03.06 15:48:34 - [1072] - Quote For all the people whining about "they'll just sit at a safespot aligned", if you force a carrier to warp into a POS and lose his drones, I'd call that mission accomplished, wouldn't you? OTOH, you can just bring a cloaky T3 or something in, probe down the general location of the carrier in relation to the POS, and drop a drag or stop bubble. Once you spook the carrier, he'll warp to the POS only to be caught in the bubble, and you'll have plenty of time to shoot him while he tries to slowboat out of the bubble.
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 91	Posted - 2015.03.06 16:10:22 - [1073] - Quote So with all the capital hate thats going on lately, be it from fighter/bomber scan res nerf, to no more assist, no skynet and warps, give us something to do with our shinies. All you naysayers of capitals and no risk versus reward hear me out... Let caps/supers use acceleration gates and dock. no, no hear me out. 1) Acceleration gates. What were the two main blocks for capitals to go into incursions? I mean other than no capitals in highsec. Cyno jammed systems and acceration gates into deadspace. Well cyno jams are meaningless now, we can just gate to gate into the incursion system. Second is acceleration gates. If CCP allows capitals to use acceleration gates what will that do? It will allow us to do nullsec/lowsec incursions AND escalations. What does that mean for the naysayers? MOAR content. You want more opportunities to hunt ratting carriers? There you go. Carriers in the 3rd room of the Blood 10/10 taking huge amounts of damage from that tower and the mass of battleships will be hard pressed to escape when you come in with your hunting party. HUGE risk. Decent rewards from those 10/10's... Incursions present a different angle, that nullsec mom offers the biggest reward of all, the Revenant BPC. GARGANTUAN Reward GARGANTUAN risk. Throw us a bone CCP, you want to take all the positives away from carriers? OK we can't stop you, but throw me a freakin bone! 2) Docking in station. This is going to gather probably 6000 "No, just plain no" statements. Well again, listen. If you allow capitals to dock, it will allow those space coffin dwellers a chance to get out of them for one thing and be able to pee vee pee in other stuff. But it will also make those station and sov conquer mechanics more valuable wont they? You still have freeport mode, and that gives an attacker an opportunity to bring in their own capital fleet with a place to put them for good fights. Honestly, I would just like an opportunity to let the damn thing rust and not worry about it for awhile. I mean come on, if you are taking away all usefulness of the stupid things let us drydock them and walk away. Either give us something to do with them, or give us a way to walk away. Let the flaming begin. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
LT Alter The Scope Gallente Federation 138	Posted - 2015.03.06 18:30:05 - [1074] - Quote Panther X wrote: So with all the capital hate thats going on lately, be it from fighter/bomber scan res nerf, to no more assist, no skynet and warps, give us something to do with our shinies. All you naysayers of capitals and no risk versus reward hear me out... Let caps/supers use acceleration gates and dock. no, no hear me out. 1) Acceleration gates.... This is off topic and irrelevant to the discussion. On top of that you've already posted about it in a different thread. Grabs a drink while waiting for an ISD to remove the off-topic post
Hunter Anubis The Black Hand Fleet 2	Posted - 2015.03.06 19:56:05 - [1075] - Quote Keep fighter asist as fighters are god damn piloted by PILOTS!!! it makes sence that they do what you tell them to do like a group of newbies in frigs Also regarding carriers fighters they should work while carrier is in siege theres no logical reason for them to stop moving when their PILOTED unlike drones. Remove drone asist or penalize it as you give someone drones and his ship with tiny or none bandwith sudenly has XXXXX DPS from sentrys in one voley. Make those lazy ishtar players target and shoot things if not removing drone asist penalize it for each drone asisted it would take 0,2-1 sec depending on skills to start attacking as the signal or targeting data is transfered to 50 drones that are being asisted
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 946	Posted - 2015.03.06 20:29:49 - [1076] - Quote Hunter Anubis wrote: Also regarding carriers fighters they should work while carrier is in triage theres no logical reason for them to stop moving when their PILOTED unlike drones. Is a bit silly they just stop responding the moment the carrier goes into triage - they should return to the carrier automatically - but understandable you can't use triage and fighters at the same time as in triage mode ostensibly all the ships capabilities are repurposed for triage operation hence the huge boost in local/remote tank.
Hunter Anubis The Black Hand Fleet 2	Posted - 2015.03.06 20:43:18 - [1077] - Quote Rroff wrote: Hunter Anubis wrote: Also regarding carriers fighters they should work while carrier is in triage theres no logical reason for them to stop moving when their PILOTED unlike drones. Is a bit silly they just stop responding the moment the carrier goes into triage - they should return to the carrier automatically - but understandable you can't use triage and fighters at the same time as in triage mode ostensibly all the ships capabilities are repurposed for triage operation hence the huge boost in local/remote tank. but fighters are self suficient warp capable ships with their own pilots. No reason for them to get powered down or return to base
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 92	Posted - 2015.03.06 21:40:45 - [1078] - Quote LT Alter wrote: Panther X wrote: So with all the capital hate thats going on lately, be it from fighter/bomber scan res nerf, to no more assist, no skynet and warps, give us something to do with our shinies. All you naysayers of capitals and no risk versus reward hear me out... Let caps/supers use acceleration gates and dock. no, no hear me out. 1) Acceleration gates.... This is off topic and irrelevant to the discussion. On top of that you've already posted about it in a different thread. Grabs a drink while waiting for an ISD to remove the off-topic post My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
Panther X High Flyers The Kadeshi 92	Posted - 2015.03.06 21:41:41 - [1079] - Quote Hunter Anubis wrote: Rroff wrote: Hunter Anubis wrote: Also regarding carriers fighters they should work while carrier is in triage theres no logical reason for them to stop moving when their PILOTED unlike drones. Is a bit silly they just stop responding the moment the carrier goes into triage - they should return to the carrier automatically - but understandable you can't use triage and fighters at the same time as in triage mode ostensibly all the ships capabilities are repurposed for triage operation hence the huge boost in local/remote tank. but fighters are self suficient warp capable ships with their own pilots. No reason for them to get powered down or return to base It's the way they are; triage requires all drones return to the ship. My super smells of rich Corinthian Leather
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 69	Posted - 2015.03.06 22:40:12 - [1080] - Quote Spugg Galdon wrote: Problem with having a minimum distance from POS is that the carrier will just sit over 200km off the POS and align to the tower. If anything bad is about to happen, instant warp to safety. Therefore minimum distance will change nothing. If anything, POS shields need to go and POS's need to be completely redesigned into modular small starbases. Where is that dead horse thread? Then, it wouldn't matter if you assigned fighters. You'd have a weapons timer and be vulnerable as you wouldn't be able to instantly reach safety. Because capitals on the field don't already do that?... Pretty sure anyone with a bit of brain is aligned and ready to warp... Panther X wrote: So with all the capital hate thats going on lately, be it from fighter/bomber scan res nerf, to no more assist, no skynet and warps, give us something to do with our shinies. All you naysayers of capitals and no risk versus reward hear me out... Let caps/supers use acceleration gates and dock. no, no hear me out. 1) Acceleration gates. What were the two main blocks for capitals to go into incursions? I mean other than no capitals in highsec. Cyno jammed systems and acceration gates into deadspace. Well cyno jams are meaningless now, we can just gate to gate into the incursion system. Second is acceleration gates. If CCP allows capitals to use acceleration gates what will that do? It will allow us to do nullsec/lowsec incursions AND escalations. What does that mean for the naysayers? MOAR content. You want more opportunities to hunt ratting carriers? There you go. Carriers in the 3rd room of the Blood 10/10 taking huge amounts of damage from that tower and the mass of battleships will be hard pressed to escape when you come in with your hunting party. HUGE risk. Decent rewards from those 10/10's... Incursions present a different angle, that nullsec mom offers the biggest reward of all, the Revenant BPC. GARGANTUAN Reward GARGANTUAN risk. Throw us a bone CCP, you want to take all the positives away from carriers? OK we can't stop you, but throw me a freakin bone! 2) Docking in station. This is going to gather probably 6000 "No, just plain no" statements. Well again, listen. If you allow capitals to dock, it will allow those space coffin dwellers a chance to get out of them for one thing and be able to pee vee pee in other stuff. But it will also make those station and sov conquer mechanics more valuable wont they? You still have freeport mode, and that gives an attacker an opportunity to bring in their own capital fleet with a place to put them for good fights. Honestly, I would just like an opportunity to let the damn thing rust and not worry about it for awhile. I mean come on, if you are taking away all usefulness of the stupid things let us drydock them and walk away. Either give us something to do with them, or give us a way to walk away. Let the flaming begin. I'm in for supercarrier to be able to dock and use acceleration gates... at least it gives us something to do LOL
Atomeon The Scope Gallente Federation 21	Posted - 2015.03.07 00:01:26 - [1081] - Quote I would say Fighter Assist would be by Bandwidth on ship, but that would be unfair for some ships. So i will say Fighter Assist would be by the size of ship: 1 frigate 2 destroyer 3 cruiser 4 battlecruiser and 5 Battleship.
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 70	Posted - 2015.03.07 01:30:37 - [1082] - Quote Atomeon wrote: I would say Fighter Assist would be by Bandwidth on ship, but that would be unfair for some ships. So i will say Fighter Assist would be by the size of ship: 1 frigate 2 destroyer 3 cruiser 4 battlecruiser and 5 Battleship. That would actually make it fair... as it stands... no more fighter assign, period... Completely destroys the DPS of carriers and supercarriers... especially for shield tank one's since they would have to sacrifice their tank to fit 3-4 sebo's to be able to lock anything smaller than a BS... How about capital smartbombs, 24km range... for carriers and supercarriers
Lif Hedion University Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.03.07 10:01:24 - [1083] - Quote liking the idea of removing the restriction on low sec and 0.0 acceleration gates for all capitals and super capitals. after removing pretty much every role supers have will give them something to log in for at least
Eldwinn V.O.I.D. Shadow Cartel 291	Posted - 2015.03.07 10:12:29 - [1084] - Quote +1 for removing skynetting. I would be happy to find assisting drones in general be removed from the game. Assisting drones make slowcat fleets a bit OP. However I am in favor of having drones still having the option to warp.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 946	Posted - 2015.03.07 12:23:01 - [1085] - Quote Eldwinn wrote: I am in favor of having fighters and bombers having the ability to warp. A lot of the comments in this thread seem to favor skynetting. This is pretty apparent as a lot of the replies are pressing for weak nerfs and solutions to the "problem" (skynetting) that do not place the carrier in any sort of risk. A lot of the very same comments indicate that the "risk" the carrier undergoes is a simple DD from a titan. Which DD'ing a skynetting carrier makes complete sense. This however only creates further problems. Small to medium groups typically have a harder time on isk income. With titans having such a large price tag it is unrealistic to think a small to medium group would be able to counter this mechanic how it exists now. Additional this would favor SOV holding alliances with large titan production options. tl;dr nerf skynetting and assisting drones into the ground. There are very few people who support skynetting from the pvp perspective (might be some disguised posts) there is a not insignificant number of posters who use drone assignment to make their isk either ratting in null or C4 wormholes (C5 upwards tend to take advantage of capital escalations) hence suggesting weaker nerfs. There is a good way to nerf the worst elements of skynet into the ground with minimal knock on effect or feature removal but I'm beginning to think most people don't understand what I've been suggesting and others only care to see it gone completely whatever the consequences.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 765	Posted - 2015.03.07 14:54:07 - [1086] - Quote Rroff wrote: There are very few people who support skynetting from the pvp perspective [CITATION NEEDED] Quote: there is a not insignificant number of posters who use fighter assignment to make their isk either ratting in null or C4 wormholes (C5 upwards tend to take advantage of capital escalations) hence suggesting weaker nerfs. In C4s you also generally have some caps on the field. Quote: There is a good way to nerf the worst elements of skynet into the ground with minimal knock on effect or feature removal but I'm beginning to think most people don't understand what I've been suggesting and others only care to see it gone completely whatever the consequences. At least this we agree on.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 947	Posted - 2015.03.07 17:06:58 - [1087] - Quote ^^ C5 and upwards caps on field due to the escalation (C4s don't escalate) - C4 people "tend" (its not common but not completely uncommon either) to sit the carrier outside the FF and assign fighters to a marauder (or tengu) in site to speed things up. Its unusual for people to build more than 1 maybe 2 capitals in a C4 due to being unable to extract them. People who do it don't generally make it known they do it so as not to draw attention to their capitals.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 765	Posted - 2015.03.07 19:40:25 - [1088] - Quote Rroff wrote: ^^ C5 and upwards caps on field due to the escalation (C4s don't escalate) - C4 people "tend" (its not common but not completely uncommon either) to sit the carrier outside the FF and assign fighters to a marauder (or tengu) in site to speed things up. Its unusual for people to build more than 1 maybe 2 capitals in a C4 due to being unable to extract them. People who do it don't generally make it known they do it so as not to draw attention to their capitals. Solo Marauder / Tengu C4s, even with Fighters, tend to be much slower than using a standard C5 fleet, or even a 1loki / 1archon / 1dread mini-fleet.
Lamar Muvila DeepSpace Manufacturers DeepSpace. 4	Posted - 2015.03.07 19:57:37 - [1089] - Quote Wouldn't it work to have carriers anchor when they have fighters assigned and combine that with a minimum distance from a pos or station and if that isn't enough limit assigning fighters to cruisers and larger ships. The anchor feature could have a cool down time after the fighters return or are abandoned. I decided I don't like a constantly evolving game anymore..... It requires too much reading!
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 765	Posted - 2015.03.07 21:01:26 - [1090] - Quote Lamar Muvila wrote: Wouldn't it work to have carriers anchor when they have fighters assigned and combine that with a minimum distance from a pos or station and if that isn't enough limit assigning fighters to cruisers and larger ships. The anchor feature could have a cool down time after the fighters return or are abandoned. You mean something like the Fighter Delegation Module mentioned earlier? Same idea as Bastion / Triage / Siege.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 947	Posted - 2015.03.07 21:16:09 - [1091] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Lamar Muvila wrote: Wouldn't it work to have carriers anchor when they have fighters assigned and combine that with a minimum distance from a pos or station and if that isn't enough limit assigning fighters to cruisers and larger ships. The anchor feature could have a cool down time after the fighters return or are abandoned. You mean something like the Fighter Delegation Module mentioned earlier? Same idea as Bastion / Triage / Siege. Actually kind of like the idea of a bastion style (duration/weapons timer) module for fighter delegation - if it included some other bonuses as well (NOT to tracking or damage heh). It would still need to be coupled with some tweaks so fighters couldn't blap smaller ships though.
Azazel The Misanthrope Animadversion Tactical Operations Index Legion of Immortal Corporations 49	Posted - 2015.03.07 23:16:40 - [1092] - Quote I think that "skynetting", just like "hyperdunking" is a legitimate player-made tactic and should remain available to the players. Removing tactical options for people never seems like a good idea. Instead of removing this, a better option seems to lie in making the tactic a riskier practice. Examples of this include, making fighters scrammable, giving them a limited warp range, giving them a fuel time, increasing the distance that this can be done from POSes and stations, and/or decreasing or even removing any bonuses fighters receive from from carriers or supercarriers when not on grid with that carrier.
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 75	Posted - 2015.03.08 01:31:13 - [1093] - Quote Azazel The Misanthrope wrote: I think that "skynetting", just like "hyperdunking" is a legitimate player-made tactic and should remain available to the players. Removing tactical options for people never seems like a good idea. Instead of removing this, a better option seems to lie in making the tactic a riskier practice. Examples of this include, making fighters scrammable, giving them a limited warp range, giving them a fuel time, increasing the distance that this can be done from POSes and stations, and/or decreasing or even removing any bonuses fighters receive from from carriers or supercarriers when not on grid with that carrier. Very true. But you know... infinite bumping freighter's is fine... ceptors that are near-untackable is fine...
Oguma 30plus Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere 0	Posted - 2015.03.08 03:55:48 - [1094] - Quote Remove offgrid assist DO NOT Remove Fighter Warp Fighter warp is the only thing that makes fighers unique. Don't be so eager to swing the nerf bat that you break the game we love.
Cardano Firesnake Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation 175	Posted - 2015.03.08 11:44:37 - [1095] - Quote Dreadnaughts, Carriers, Super Carriers, Titans... All these ships are losing all their interest. It is important to give a function to all these ships. CCP created a spacail UI for Relics and Hecking Sites. Even if I think that the mini game is not very interestening because of it's lacks of strategy (the game is more a matter of luck and skill than tactical refelxion) I think that the idea is excellent. Titans should have a special command UI. The Fleet cammander in the mothership could give his orders from this UI and attribute special bonuses for players that follows the ordders. Dreadnaughts could have its own UI that give them the power to shoot at a bookmark with area effect weapons. The time between shoot and impact depend on the ragne were the dreads are. Super carriers and Carriers could have a special UI to use their fighters and bombers to engage targets that are not on their grid. Smaller ships could design a target that the carriers could attack. Posted - 2010.07.01 11:24:00 - [4] Erase learning skills, remap all SP. That's all.
Amerreto Wafer HC - Thirteen Enterprises 0	Posted - 2015.03.08 12:17:03 - [1096] - Quote GÇ£SKYNETGÇ¥ "Therefore our proposal is to simply remove fighter assist." I would like to propose the creation of a new "warfare link" that could only be used on "Battle cruiser" sized ships that allows a carrier pilot to assist his fighters to the ship which has this link fitted . This would be trained as normal lvl 1-5 , each lvl allowing one fighter to be assisted to the battle cruiser which has this warfare link in its high slot. This warfare link could only be used by Battle cruisers: This warfare link would allow one fighter per lvl to be assisted. This link would still allow fighter's to be assisted and does not mean having to change the mechanic on the captal ships, it also stop's fighters being assisted to very fast ships of smaller classes and will promote the use of battle cruiser sized ships on field.
Kazaheid Zaknafein Mara's Hounds 13	Posted - 2015.03.08 13:05:03 - [1097] - Quote \ CCP created a spacail UI for Relics and Hecking Sites. Even if I think that the mini game is not very interestening because of it's lacks of strategy (the game is more a matter of luck and skill than tactical refelxion) I think that the idea is excellent. Titans should have a special command UI. The Fleet cammander in the mothership could give his orders from this UI and attribute special bonuses for players that follows the ordders. Dreadnoughts could have its own UI that give them the power to shoot at a bookmark with area effect weapons. The time between shoot and impact depend on the range were the dreads are. Super carriers and Carriers could have a special UI to use their fighters and bombers to engage targets that are not on their grid. Smaller ships could design a target that the carriers could attack.[/quote] This sounds good in theory, but in practice would be fairly hard to code; with the exception of the dreadnought one. Being able to bombard off-grid while in siege would be amazing. Carriers should get a module that allows them to receive broadcasted targets, or give a module that allows ships to broadcast targets to fleet after a cycle; requiring cap and a high-slot the whole time. If module is deactivated the lock is lost for all fleet members. Make it function like boosting, where only the leaders can do it. (Huzzah for an on-grid only booster)
Hunter Anubis The Black Hand Fleet 3	Posted - 2015.03.08 14:49:27 - [1098] - Quote Panther X wrote: Hunter Anubis wrote: Rroff wrote: Hunter Anubis wrote: Also regarding carriers fighters they should work while carrier is in triage theres no logical reason for them to stop moving when their PILOTED unlike drones. Is a bit silly they just stop responding the moment the carrier goes into triage - they should return to the carrier automatically - but understandable you can't use triage and fighters at the same time as in triage mode ostensibly all the ships capabilities are repurposed for triage operation hence the huge boost in local/remote tank. but fighters are self suficient warp capable ships with their own pilots. No reason for them to get powered down or return to base It's the way they are; triage requires all drones return to the ship. Fighters are not drones main diference between fighter and drone Fighter - man piloted Drone - remote control So theres no real reason for fighters to stop working moment ship goes in to triage. Carrier requireing bandwith from drones for them to stop working should not affect individual fighter pilots
egyhenger FREE GATES Nulli Secunda 1	Posted - 2015.03.08 20:41:07 - [1099] - Quote how it's started a long, long time ago... http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/carriers-and-motherships-and-also-titans/
Dart Aurel Space Roar Wild Wild West. 2	Posted - 2015.03.08 20:55:36 - [1100] - Quote >Would you prefer that we ... left warping in, despite the absence of assist? This. Even nerfed to the ground fighters should keep something that differs them from being just 'x-large drones'
Ramases Purvanen EVEL Tendancies The Methodical Alliance 6	Posted - 2015.03.09 04:34:32 - [1101] - Quote egyhenger wrote: how it's started a long, long time ago... http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/carriers-and-motherships-and-also-titans/ Hey lets introduce these awesome ships with all these awesome features and after years of enjoying the use of these ships and features we will take them off you! Enjoy... CCP as usual giving us the finger!
Captain Luke Lonestar Dirty Old Bastards Nulli Secunda 0	Posted - 2015.03.09 07:22:08 - [1102] - Quote Admittedly, my stance on this may seem selfish, but understand that I've trained numerous characters for the better part of 12-15 months to have high skills in carriers, BECAUSE THEY WERE UNIQUE! Because they had abilities other ships did not. I understand if you want risk but it's a real crappy play on people that invest time and ISK for expensive skillbooks. Not to mention, if fighter ASSIGNMENT goes away, what about ASSIST? That is not currently an option even while on grid. Are we going to at least be given the option of utilizing a drone bunny like every other drone? Because that's what you're doing. Whether you like to admit it or not. Carriers might as well be sub-capital ships with sub-capital drones. There's ZERO differentiation once this change occurs.
Jessy Andersteen AdAstra. Beach Club 7	Posted - 2015.03.09 14:30:48 - [1103] - Quote Best idea of the year CCP!
Alia Ravenswing DARK HAT 34	Posted - 2015.03.09 22:21:27 - [1104] - Quote Nobody is using capital ships anyways, because of the Cyno nerf, and now you are making them even more useless?
Ramases Purvanen EVEL Tendancies The Methodical Alliance 8	Posted - 2015.03.10 04:48:08 - [1105] - 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. 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. ) snip Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal. ""looks forward to our feedback but doesn't respond to any in game mails"" yeah totes bro
azzimoth batshitCrzy 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 08:48:47 - [1106] - Quote as i read the dev blog I was sure the end result would be some sort of proximity rule .... you're removing gameplay not adding it .... your decision is bad and you should feel bad
Chanina ASGARD HEAVY INDUSTRIES Kadeshians 52	Posted - 2015.03.10 09:39:39 - [1107] - Quote keeping the ability to warp is a good decision, its a unique point of fighters and makes them pretty handsome for having a carrier in PvE where you don't want to scoop drones every time. So removing drone assignment entirely just because too small ships get too big DPS? Couldn't we just balance it? Make a fighter assignment use 10 Mbit/s of the receiving ship for each fighter. This would keep the availability for PvE use and limit the number of fighters a non drone boat can control.
Holly Hardcore School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 8	Posted - 2015.03.10 11:07:47 - [1108] - Quote Chanina wrote: keeping the ability to warp is a good decision, its a unique point of fighters and makes them pretty handsome for having a carrier in PvE where you don't want to scoop drones every time. So removing drone assignment entirely just because too small ships get too big DPS? Couldn't we just balance it? Make a fighter assignment use 10 Mbit/s of the receiving ship for each fighter. This would keep the availability for PvE use and limit the number of fighters a non drone boat can control. 1. As far as i know you can only delegate 5 fighters to an sub capital ship.... 2. Oh no, i want scoop my drones after each site, cause i will do only 60Mill ticks not 70Mill like i do atm... lol So, that's your problem and ccp is doing right if they care a s..t about that. But it's an fact that skynet was never a problem before they gave module bonuses to fighters. So ccp maybe you should see it as a mistake and remove that buff as It was before. You cant do that? Ok, than refund the players, give them their invested Money back and remove the moms entierely from the Game. Cause skill an super pilot and make the money for a soon worthless multi billion isk ship is a waste of money and time that many subscribers invested for it.
Moccasin Bob School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 13:09:19 - [1109] - Quote So what's the status? Where do carrier pilots stand? Can we get details as to what's coming?
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:34:55 - [1110] - Quote Holly Hardcore wrote: 2. Oh no, i want scoop my drones after each site, cause i will do only 60Mill ticks not 70Mill like i do atm... lol The only way you're getting 60-70m ticks is if you're running with a buddy, or if you have a webbing / painting Huginn or Loki with you (which would result in a calculated 30-35m tick for two characters).
K 004 U.K.R.A.I.N.E SOLAR FLEET 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 16:47:38 - [1111] - Quote Make assist dependable on ship's bandwidth (the one receiving assist) and make them (fighters) pointable.
XinPan Zeeh Ministry of War Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 17:51:02 - [1112] - Quote As usual, Eve-on-nerf is back. If you remove fighter's warping, carriers use will drop 99% and no one want this.
Vaju Enki Secular Wisdom 1453	Posted - 2015.03.10 18:09:09 - [1113] - Quote egyhenger wrote: how it's started a long, long time ago... http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/carriers-and-motherships-and-also-titans/ One of the biggest mistakes in video game history. The Tears Must Flow
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 5	Posted - 2015.03.10 18:24:07 - [1114] - Quote Holly Hardcore wrote: Chanina wrote: keeping the ability to warp is a good decision, its a unique point of fighters and makes them pretty handsome for having a carrier in PvE where you don't want to scoop drones every time. So removing drone assignment entirely just because too small ships get too big DPS? Couldn't we just balance it? Make a fighter assignment use 10 Mbit/s of the receiving ship for each fighter. This would keep the availability for PvE use and limit the number of fighters a non drone boat can control. 1. As far as i know you can only delegate 5 fighters to an sub capital ship.... 2. Oh no, i want scoop my drones after each site, cause i will do only 60Mill ticks not 70Mill like i do atm... lol So, that's your problem and ccp is doing right if they care a s..t about that. But it's an fact that skynet was never a problem before they gave module bonuses to fighters. So ccp maybe you should see it as a mistake and remove that buff as It was before. You cant do that? Ok, than refund the players, give them their invested Money back and remove the moms entierely from the Game. Cause skill an super pilot and make the money for a soon worthless multi billion isk ship is a waste of money and time that many subscribers invested for it. 1) Drones can be assigned up to how many a ship can control. Carriers for example if fully skilled and with DCUs could technically be assigned up to 15 fighters from another carrier. Kind of an odd thing to do, but it works. Only really worth while if you're assigning from a super to a normal carrier. 2) Those 60-70m ticks only occur with super fighters assigned. That amount of income equates to that of a high sec incursion runner who is just as, if not more, safe than the super sitting on the shield edge. Ignore the ratter who is in the anom itself which is always being forgotten in these situations. Then fighter assign goes away those ticks will drop to 20-30m in a carrier or fully deadspace fit BS. As far as skynet goes, many people have already suggested treating fighter assign like we do module deployment and cynos now on the shield edge. Push the minimum range out and force us to be further out. Make the accepting ship have open bandwidth to accept the fighters. Take away the actual passive bonuses when assigned (leave the module), it only makes sense that those bonuses be tied to the carrier itself and I doubt you'll find many super pilots against this. It was our time and isk invested in these behemoths, and we're willing to play a game of give and take in the name of balance. But this is all take, what are WE getting out of this? Basically, if they remove fighter assign I DEMAND they re-balance all wealth within the eve universe as a whole. It has gone on far too long! While null sec inhabitants and capital owners alike have been getting shafted patch after patch with no reconciliation for their losses. The cries of high sec and low sec players alike have been heard and their demands met, yet it has not one has made a move to live in null despite their constant "this is why I don't live in null" complaints that have forced these changes upon us. It has gotten so out of balance that I must make comparisons to high sec activities to show how much money is available to the individual player within null. The people of high sec and low obliviously have no real interest in fair play or living in null at all. They want all the isk and none of the risk and cost of living in null space. If you want to make 120m an hour (looking at you high sec incrusioners) come to null and risk your assets to obtain it. If you want to make 800m an hour, well I laugh at you entirely (looking at you faction warfare). WH space... I have less of an issue but god! Stop riding your high horse about no local, your lone system can be put on lockdown be happy with what you got, null is always open to roamers and hot drops. /endrant TLDR - balance, don't remove. If you want to go through with this, then your next move better be to re-balance the distribution of wealth within the eve universe as a whole from a player's perspective with risk vs reward like you used to in years past.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 948	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:18:27 - [1115] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: Make the accepting ship have open bandwidth to accept the fighters. Take away the actual passive bonuses when assigned (leave the module), it only makes sense that those bonuses be tied to the carrier itself and I doubt you'll find many super pilots against this. Doesn't make much sense from the ingame tech perspective - the ship they are assigned to just takes command delegation the parent carrier still does all the normal processing for the fighters hence bonuses. The main issues relating to skynet "should" (though I could be wrong) be fixable with tweaks to fighter turret sig without having to resort to divesting them of bonuses or other limitations. As someone who has spent the last few months topping up my carrier pilots skills (multiple chars to carrier V, fighters V, ADI V, etc.) including investing a bit in fighter production (for my own derping around I have no interest in using skynet in PVP) this has put me completely off investing any more time into eve.
Adriana Nolen Sama Guild 51	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:42:28 - [1116] - Quote Arla Sarain wrote: DeadDuck wrote: Just remove fighter assist. Just remove drone assist. Kill skynet, sentries and one man "bothered to target the primary" drone fleets in one go. Drone assist still has it's uses and it's already capped at 50. That's fine. Glad to see bomber assist go away.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 8	Posted - 2015.03.10 20:52:19 - [1117] - Quote Rroff wrote: Nasar Vyron wrote: Make the accepting ship have open bandwidth to accept the fighters. Take away the actual passive bonuses when assigned (leave the module), it only makes sense that those bonuses be tied to the carrier itself and I doubt you'll find many super pilots against this. Doesn't make much sense from the ingame tech perspective - the ship they are assigned to just takes command delegation the parent carrier still does all the normal processing for the fighters hence bonuses. The main issues relating to skynet "should" (though I could be wrong) be fixable with tweaks to fighter turret sig without having to resort to divesting them of bonuses or other limitations. As someone who has spent the last few months topping up my carrier pilots skills (multiple chars to carrier V, fighters V, ADI V, etc.) including investing a bit in fighter production (for my own derping around I have no interest in using skynet in PVP) this has put me completely off investing any more time into eve. Sorry to say, but the capital ship's role has always been around PVP and structure grinding. While it's nice to use in PvE so the space coffins help flip the bill for the account their sitting on, it wasn't really their intention. And from an ingame tech perspective it does make sense as the super carrier is equip to control the fighters to their utmost capabilities, by assigning them to another vessel it would make sense that they would then lose that bonus. They already have an attached sig of 125m, making too much larger would make it so they can't hit a cruiser. The entire purpose of fighters are to be anti-sub cap, while bombers are the anti-cap. There is nothing wrong with their current damage application, it's with the types of ships that their power is being assigned to and to what level of safety the super pilot can reasonably expect to maintain while effectively participating in combat from afar.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 948	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:25:35 - [1118] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: Sorry to say, but the capital ship's role has always been around PVP and structure grinding. While it's nice to use in PvE so the space coffins help flip the bill for the account their sitting on, it wasn't really their intention. And from an ingame tech perspective it does make sense as the super carrier is equip to control the fighters to their utmost capabilities, by assigning them to another vessel it would make sense that they would then lose that bonus. They already have an attached sig of 125m, making too much larger would make it so they can't hit a cruiser. The entire purpose of fighters are to be anti-sub cap, while bombers are the anti-cap. There is nothing wrong with their current damage application, it's with the types of ships that their power is being assigned to and to what level of safety the super pilot can reasonably expect to maintain while effectively participating in combat from afar. Never said I wouldn't use one in PVP (and infact have) I wouldn't be using them (generally) to do skynet type stuff however - I've done it the odd time but thats just derping about shooting silly stuff for lols. Assign/assist doesn't mean turning over full operation of the fighters to another ship - the parent carrier "still does" all the telemetry, gunnery, navigation, etc. processing, etc. (could debate whether having another ship (that they are assigned to) looped into the command interface has a reduction on efficiency). I believe their current turret sig res is actually 400 - problem is that the better they are able to track a target (transversal wise) the less significant any discrepancy between their turret sig res and the target sig res becomes - which generally isn't a problem but in outlier cases like with what happened with titans and fighters when you don't have to consider using module slots for anything but buffing fighters (as per skynet) it does things that are way outside the normal - fighters have no problems chasing down and blapping even interceptors with relative ease - I don't disagree with fighters being able to apply damage to sub-capitals but skynet amps that up way too far - using a titan style modifier for sig would have minimal knock on effect in other situations where the target sig/fighter turret sig part of the equation is fully satisfied but stop them able to apply battleship or higher levels of damage to smaller stuff that battleship and bigger can't hit with anything like even remotely the same ease.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:27:06 - [1119] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: They already have an attached sig of 125m, making too much larger would make it so they can't hit a cruiser. The entire purpose of fighters are to be anti-sub cap, while bombers are the anti-cap. There is nothing wrong with their current damage application, it's with the types of ships that their power is being assigned to and to what level of safety the super pilot can reasonably expect to maintain while effectively participating in combat from afar. You're confusing Signature Radius (how big something is on scanners / radar / whatever) and Signature Resolution (m2 of the gun's projectile / beam / whatever. Think of it like a shotgun's spread only it doesnt get bigger as distance increases)
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 8	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:33:19 - [1120] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Nasar Vyron wrote: They already have an attached sig of 125m, making too much larger would make it so they can't hit a cruiser. The entire purpose of fighters are to be anti-sub cap, while bombers are the anti-cap. There is nothing wrong with their current damage application, it's with the types of ships that their power is being assigned to and to what level of safety the super pilot can reasonably expect to maintain while effectively participating in combat from afar. You're confusing Signature Radius (how big something is on scanners / radar / whatever) and Signature Resolution (m2 of the gun's projectile / beam / whatever. Think of it like a shotgun's spread only it doesnt get bigger as distance increases) Nope sig resolution is 125m on einherji. Their scan resolution (not sure if up to date what im looking at) is/was 350mm. Sig radius 100m That's why they have such a hard time hitting frigates even when fully tracking fit with web and paint. I can see why you thought I was mistaken, it let me put the facts out there on the rest of their stats at least :)
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 948	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:38:14 - [1121] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Nasar Vyron wrote: They already have an attached sig of 125m, making too much larger would make it so they can't hit a cruiser. The entire purpose of fighters are to be anti-sub cap, while bombers are the anti-cap. There is nothing wrong with their current damage application, it's with the types of ships that their power is being assigned to and to what level of safety the super pilot can reasonably expect to maintain while effectively participating in combat from afar. You're confusing Signature Radius (how big something is on scanners / radar / whatever) and Signature Resolution (m2 of the gun's projectile / beam / whatever. Think of it like a shotgun's spread only it doesnt get bigger as distance increases) Nope sig resolution is 125m on einherji. Their scan resolution (not sure if up to date what im looking at) is/was 350mm. Sig radius 100m That's why they have such a hard time hitting frigates even when fully tracking fit with web and paint. I can see why you thought I was mistaken, it let me put the facts out there on the rest of their stats at least :) And so we're all on the same page... Einherji Last time I looked at the database (firbolg): Optimal target sig 400 m, Scan-res 125, signature (how big they are) 100. Gonna check the recent scan res nerf thread to double check. EDIT: As per Fozzie's post: Quote: Type - Old Scan Res GÇô New Scan Res Dragonfly - 200 - 100 Einherji - 350 - 175 Firbolg - 250 - 125
Ghostly Embers Republic University Minmatar Republic 0	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:44:35 - [1122] - Quote Oh no! There's a carrier using the pos as cover when it assigns fighters! Oh no! It is outside the shields, it can be attacked, it can be bumped further off the shields! Nothing can be done so that gankers get a super easy kill! The worlds going to end!!! CCP can't have this! Hold the patches!!! This must be fixed NOW! Solution : CCP comforts gankers and tells old time players your not wanted here anymore. (Hey, how long has it been since the Rorqual pilots were promised a fix after the treatment they got? Now they are not even talked about anymore). Actual solution : CCP should tell the gankers to take out the POS, and be done with it. All carrier pilots know, fighters are not hard to blow up and they are not exactly cheap either. CCP should stop with the death by a thousand cuts, if they don't want us old school players here, say so and be done with us. Other games are starting to look more appealing then inter... oh!!!! Finally!!! My Homeworlds Remastered Collectors Edition got here... shiney! Don't get me started on how overnight air mail turned into a 7 day shipping adventure.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 8	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:46:45 - [1123] - Quote Yes, but that is scan resolution (targeting time), not sig resolution (applying damage). Scan res was nerfed, sig res hasn't been touched.. ever I think.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 949	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:48:51 - [1124] - Quote ^^ Unless the recent database dump is wrong then their optimal weapon sig is 400m. Regardless you can still make them toast anything less than a snaked/linked interceptor with ease even without webbing/target painting it.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 8	Posted - 2015.03.10 21:52:14 - [1125] - Quote Rroff wrote: ^^ Unless the recent database dump is wrong then their optimal weapon sig is 400m. Alright in that case I am wrong :) I apologize. I had a feeling some of the info on that page was dated. Doesn't really change the fact that fighters are meant to be anti-sub cap tho and increasing it too much defeats their purpose unless they are to only be anti-BC/BS in the times ahead. Tho that would take one heck of a nerf.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 949	Posted - 2015.03.10 23:00:02 - [1126] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: Doesn't really change the fact that fighters are meant to be anti-sub cap tho and increasing it too much defeats their purpose unless they are to only be anti-BC/BS in the times ahead. Tho that would take one heck of a nerf. Agreed but as things stand skynet type fits allow you to apply crazy amounts of damage to tiny stuff* - IMO they shouldn't be able to apply anything close to full damage to smaller cruisers and down. * ok this is taking it to the absurd and my only inty pilot has sucky skills but... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUZsKXSEU8M
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 10	Posted - 2015.03.10 23:29:03 - [1127] - Quote Oh, I've used "skynet" myself for ratting purposes and have corp mates that love to gate camp with them so I know what it can do. That's why I'm for knocking the power down a peg or two, but removing the ability to assign is foolish and shortsighted. Especially when they are offering nothing in return. FYI - the second those fighters came at you you should have flown sideways rather than the direction they were flying, you had 0 transferal to them. That's a tip in general, not just for fighters :) screw with fighters even more by orbiting one of them closely as you kill them off. Even the best tracking fits will have a time and a half landing a blow if you drop in for close orbit.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 949	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:03:19 - [1128] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: FYI - the second those fighters came at you you should have flown sideways rather than the direction they were flying, you had 0 transferal to them. That's a tip in general, not just for fighters :) screw with fighters even more by orbiting one of them closely as you kill them off. Even the best tracking fits will have a time and a half landing a blow if you drop in for close orbit. Doesn't make any difference against that setup :S flying in any direction with MWD on they will blap you (I've tried heh) they drop out of MWD to shoot so you always go low transversal. The second bit can work if your just up against 5 assigned to 1 ship but doesn't work if there are more fighters than that as some of them will always be in a position to hit you. EDIT: That setup I'm using is crazy though - even if you try orbiting with MWD off they will kill that inty within 5 volleys always.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:07:32 - [1129] - Quote Rroff wrote: Nasar Vyron wrote: Doesn't really change the fact that fighters are meant to be anti-sub cap tho and increasing it too much defeats their purpose unless they are to only be anti-BC/BS in the times ahead. Tho that would take one heck of a nerf. Agreed but as things stand skynet type fits allow you to apply crazy amounts of damage to tiny stuff* - IMO they shouldn't be able to apply anything close to full damage to smaller cruisers and down. * ok this is taking it to the absurd and my only inty pilot has sucky skills but... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUZsKXSEU8M 1) You must sacrifice 99% of your tank in order to achieve that high of DPS, tracking, and speed. 2) There's a reason Huginns, Rapiers, Lokis, and Hyenas are some of the "go-to" ships because they equip webs and painters, making it easier for fighters to apply DPS. 3) That was a compliment of Einherjis from a supercapital, not a simple carrier. Supers have more slots available for adding drone modules, and if players could no longer nudge their nose out of a POS and assign fighters, they'd have to choose between balancing risk for their capital vs reward of some simple killmails, a choice I'm fairly certain not many capital pilot would make lightly. 4) We know nothing about the fit on the Claw or his skills except that he has a MWD and goes not even 4km/s, and all he's doing is attempting to keep at range 1,000km. He doesn't try to warp off, he doesn't overheat his MWD, he doesn't do anything that might save him from being exploded. Attempting to use this single video from the test server as an example of how bad things are is ludicrous as shown by the Revenant killmail.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 12	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:08:47 - [1130] - Quote Never said you'd live just last longer lol
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 949	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:11:57 - [1131] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: 4) We know nothing about the fit on the Claw or his skills except that he has a MWD and goes not even 4km/s, and all he's doing is attempting to keep at range 1,000km. He doesn't try to warp off, he doesn't overheat his MWD, he doesn't do anything that might save him from being exploded. Attempting to use this single video from the test server as an example of how bad things are is ludicrous as shown by the Revenant killmail. As I said its taking it to the absurd (and my inty capable alt has rubbish skills - though the fit itself doesn't matter against that you will die no matter the fit and that is far from the max speed you can get out of those einherji) but its purely to illustrate just how easily fighters when amped up can deal with even the smallest ships in eve - the idea wasn't to escape or anything (i.e. you could be trying to run away from another fast ship thats holding long point on you).
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:17:07 - [1132] - Quote Rroff wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: 4) We know nothing about the fit on the Claw or his skills except that he has a MWD and goes not even 4km/s, and all he's doing is attempting to keep at range 1,000km. He doesn't try to warp off, he doesn't overheat his MWD, he doesn't do anything that might save him from being exploded. Attempting to use this single video from the test server as an example of how bad things are is ludicrous as shown by the Revenant killmail. As I said its taking it to the absurd (and my inty alt has rubbish skills - though the fit itself doesn't matter against that you will die no matter the fit and that is far from the max speed you can get out of those einherji) but its purely to illustrate just how easily fighters when amped up can deal with even the smallest ships in eve - the idea wasn't to escape or anything (i.e. you could be trying to run away from another fast ship thats holding long point on you). Except all you had to do was... warp... away.... If you're trying to outrun a long point, there's a nifty little maneuver called the "slingshot trick". Again, when the fighters are..... "amped up", as you said, that means he's sacrificed a good amount of tank, which means he's vulnerable to dreads or a Talos fleet.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 949	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:24:39 - [1133] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Except all you had to do was... warp... away.... If you're trying to outrun a long point, there's a nifty little maneuver called the "slingshot trick". Again, when the fighters are..... "amped up", as you said, that means he's sacrificed a good amount of tank, which means he's vulnerable to dreads or a Talos fleet. Which isn't an issue if they are using some of the techniques people do to keep their super/carrier safe i.e. sitting right by the control tower ready to enter FF password. Sure in that case I could have warped away - easily - though I'd have had to leave system pretty quickly but its not really the point - the point is that those fighters have dread levels of damage (albeit you'd need more than 1 ship on grid to fully assign it) but can easily apply that almost fully potentially even to an interceptor with very little if any assistance (let alone with assistance) - no amount of small ship piloting skills will keep you alive against that setup unless you can warp off or running snakes, etc. (those fighters can be pushed up to beyond 9km/s). I don't have a problem with fighters being used in that way as such but there should never be a situation where they can blap small ships like that (unless your sitting dead still or something).
Reaver Glitterstim Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore 2377	Posted - 2015.03.11 00:32:10 - [1134] - Quote I think fighter assist should not be removed, only nerfed. What if you had to be a certain minimum distance from a starbase field to do it, or you could only assign them to one pilot, or only a few at a time can be sent to assist? What if it took more bandwidth to operate them at a greater distance? Things like this can nerf it in such a way as to discourage abusing the system while keeping the flexibility of capital ships. If fighters needed extra bandwidth to warp, a pilot could prevent them from warping by having all bandwidth used, or allow them to warp by not using all of it. CSM X: Sabriz Adoudel, Mike Azariah, Xander Phoena, Sugar Kyle, Corbexx, Jenshae Chiroptera, Marlona Sky, Tora Bushido Highsec reform thread
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.11 01:03:43 - [1135] - Quote Rroff wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Except all you had to do was... warp... away.... If you're trying to outrun a long point, there's a nifty little maneuver called the "slingshot trick". Again, when the fighters are..... "amped up", as you said, that means he's sacrificed a good amount of tank, which means he's vulnerable to dreads or a Talos fleet. Which isn't an issue if they are using some of the techniques people do to keep their super/carrier safe i.e. sitting right by the control tower ready to enter FF password. Sure in that case I could have warped away - easily - though I'd have had to leave system pretty quickly but its not really the point - the point is that those fighters have dread levels of damage (albeit you'd need more than 1 ship on grid to fully assign it) but can easily apply that almost fully potentially even to an interceptor with very little if any assistance (let alone with assistance) - no amount of small ship piloting skills will keep you alive against that setup unless you can warp off or running snakes, etc. (those fighters can be pushed up to beyond 9km/s). I don't have a problem with fighters being used in that way as such but there should never be a situation where they can blap small ships like that (unless your sitting dead still or something). If they are forced to turn on their control tower and thus lose connection / power to their drones, I'd say that's Op success? I dunno about you, but according to my PYFA my Moros does northwards of 15k DPS. A Nyx does only 7k DPS with 15 Einherji. With 5x Unit W-634 Drone Nav comp, they only go 8.04km/s. Please stop attempting to distribute incorrect facts. It has only 9.42m EHP in PYFA (8.04m Pure explosive DD tank) compared to 18.2m with full tank lowslots (no Slaves). A quick You'd need 1 ship for each 5 fighters on grid, which is a not-insignificant amount of ships on grid (7 according to my math).
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 949	Posted - 2015.03.11 01:41:46 - [1136] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: If they are forced to turn on their control tower and thus lose connection / power to their drones, I'd say that's Op success? I dunno about you, but according to my PYFA my Moros does northwards of 15k DPS. A Nyx does only 7k DPS with 15 Einherji. With 5x Unit W-634 Drone Nav comp, they only go 8.04km/s. Please stop attempting to distribute incorrect facts. It has only 9.42m EHP in PYFA (8.04m Pure explosive DD tank) compared to 18.2m with full tank lowslots (no Slaves). A quick You'd need 1 ship for each 5 fighters on grid, which is a not-insignificant amount of ships on grid (7 according to my math). Sure if you get into that position to force their hand to run to safety - its easier said than done. Sure its entry level dps for dreads but its still ballpark dread dps compared to anything else. My comment on the speed was a generalisation as as you pointed out supers can potentially do far more than the 5.5km/s in my video and the revenant (which is actually used a bit in the context of skynet) gets a bonus to fighter speeds and can top 12km/s. As an aside the revenant also only needs 2 people on grid to do its 7+K dps and with the recent changes to the number of fighters a super can field you only need 3 with those as well.
5mok1ng gun Moon Of The Pheonix 8	Posted - 2015.03.11 01:46:40 - [1137] - Quote My toilet looks better than this nerf and I just took the biggest dump of my life. Nothing else needs saying as it appears the decision has been made and you have all been ignored as I suspected you would be but hay keep bashing your head against the wall it may give. It may give one day...
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.11 02:27:20 - [1138] - Quote Rroff wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: If they are forced to turn on their control tower and thus lose connection / power to their drones, I'd say that's Op success? I dunno about you, but according to my PYFA my Moros does northwards of 15k DPS. A Nyx does only 7k DPS with 15 Einherji. With 5x Unit W-634 Drone Nav comp, they only go 8.04km/s. Please stop attempting to distribute incorrect facts. It has only 9.42m EHP in PYFA (8.04m Pure explosive DD tank) compared to 18.2m with full tank lowslots (no Slaves). A quick You'd need 1 ship for each 5 fighters on grid, which is a not-insignificant amount of ships on grid (7 according to my math). Sure if you get into that position to force their hand to run to safety - its easier said than done. Sure its entry level dps for dreads but its still ballpark dread dps compared to anything else. My comment on the speed was a generalisation as as you pointed out supers can potentially do far more than the 5.5km/s in my video and the revenant (which is actually used a bit in the context of skynet) gets a bonus to fighter speeds and can top 12km/s. As an aside the revenant also only needs 2 people on grid to do its 7+K dps and with the recent changes to the number of fighters a super can field you only need 3 with those as well. I'd like to see the brave Super pilot who doesn't turn on his tower, or warp from his safespot to his tower if we were to implement the minimum assign distance, when an enemy Sabre or Devoter appears on d-scan. It isn't "ballpark" DPS for dreads unless you have a character who finished Siege Module I thirty seconds ago and fit more tank than mag stabs. I PYFA'd their speed to counterpoint your fabled "9km/s" fighters. If you do fit for max speed, you have zero tracking or optimal bonuses from Omnidirectional Links which means if a player takes evasive maneuvers instead of "beelines" it, he'll have a decent chance of avoiding the drones. While your first point about the Revenant is on point regarding the speed, you either fail to see or refuse to see the recent Revenant killmail that just occurred. It was supposedly safe, all it needed to do was just edge back into the shields. But it got blapped by PL before it could. The Revenant's power is balanced by 1) it's rarity and 2) the fact that everyone and their mother would sell their left [REDACTED] to appear on the killmail, even in an Ibis. And again, each player can only "hold" 5 fighters, so the Revenant will still need another supercarrier or two to achieve a Moros's DPS. In short, you're grasping at straws.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 949	Posted - 2015.03.11 03:22:58 - [1139] - Quote That revenant was 20-30km outside the FF IIRC, logged in on that spot (possibly the same spot he'd cyno'd in at) into a trap due to getting sloppy (not to discredit the efforts PL put in). Your taking a lot of what I'm saying to overly specifically, you can pick at technicalities but the point I'm making still stands - fighters when their carrier doesn't need to use modules for anything but enhancing them can apply unassisted battleship through to capital levels of damage to things that anything else with even close to that damage struggles to hit if at all. Getting a hic or dic into position like that is a lot easier said than done especially if the carrier pilots are half on the ball and keep moving systems, etc. and don't log out in bad positions.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.11 03:56:29 - [1140] - Quote Rroff wrote: That revenant was 20-30km outside the FF IIRC, logged in on that spot (possibly the same spot he'd cyno'd in at) into a trap due to getting sloppy (not to discredit the efforts PL put in). Your taking a lot of what I'm saying to overly specifically, you can pick at technicalities but the point I'm making still stands - fighters when their carrier doesn't need to use modules for anything but enhancing them can apply unassisted battleship through to capital levels of damage to things that anything else with even close to that damage struggles to hit if at all. Getting a hic or dic into position like that is a lot easier said than done especially if the carrier pilots are half on the ball and keep moving systems, etc. and don't log out in bad positions. If anyone's been picking at technicalities, it's you. I'm just trying to make sure your math is up to speed with the realities of EFT/PYFA, however those examples we've discussed were very uncommon. For example, for the Revenant to achieve the maximum speed of it's Fighters we mentioned, it would need the top officer modules available in EVE Online, which, according to PYFA, go for 20b in Jita. If a single purple module on a battleship warrants it getting ganked in Niarja, imagine what sort of attention a ship-full will grab? If, for example, we have a minimum of, say, 50km where caps cannot assist fighters, that leaves a nice margin of error for a ship to get bubbled. Additionally, if supers now use "uber safe spots zomg", and you force them to panic warp to a POS, that's mission success, much the same way that Jita duelers / station gamers call it a victory of they force someone else to de-aggress and dock, or to pull out their Nestor and panic-rep.
Honky Lips Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.11 07:43:45 - [1141] - Quote drone assist is bad mkey
Serendipity Lost Repo Industries 871	Posted - 2015.03.11 08:27:36 - [1142] - Quote I can't believe you guys are still arguing about damage amounts. The damage they deal isn't the problem. It's the risk averse chump tactics at the edge of a pos shield / pw entry screen open / on the station undock that are the problem. It's not that they can be delegated, it's that they can be delegated from risk averse chump safety. The lame mechanic is the ability to nose back into the pos, NOT that fighters are delagated. Make the delegating ship actually enter the field of combat in some manner and delegating fighters is just fine. Drone assist is also fine. Sentry assist is broken due to instant dps and no need for drone travel time. It's risk averse chump tactics (pos/docking games) and deliberate pre-meditated player induced server and soul crushing lag (sentries) that are the problem. There is NO DPS ISSUE here. Focus laddies!
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 768	Posted - 2015.03.11 09:12:19 - [1143] - Quote Serendipity Lost wrote: I can't believe you guys are still arguing about damage amounts. The damage they deal isn't the problem. It's the risk averse chump tactics at the edge of a pos shield / pw entry screen open / on the station undock that are the problem. It's not that they can be delegated, it's that they can be delegated from risk averse chump safety. The lame mechanic is the ability to nose back into the pos, NOT that fighters are delagated. 1) If they force a POS shield up, that's a win. 1.5) If the super is forced to run, that's a win. 2) If their fighters aggress, they cannot dock, leaving them vulnerable. 3) You still haven't talked about the idea of a bubble around a POS that disallows delegated fighters. 4) The Revenant really Quote: Sentry assist is broken due to instant dps and no need for drone travel time. What is drone tracking and optimal for 500, Alex? As a fleet engages at longer ranges, tracking starts to affect a given weapon system less and less, and DPS drops off, so you need more people. Quote: It's risk averse chump tactics (pos/docking games) and deliberate pre-meditated player induced server and soul crushing lag (sentries) that are the problem. There is NO DPS ISSUE here. If you think a player, corp, or alliance has purposefully induced server lag, there's a report function.
Altayr555 Enter Ice La Division Bleue 6	Posted - 2015.03.11 11:40:50 - [1144] - Quote +1 for warp fighter and a micro jump drive for capital.....
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 949	Posted - 2015.03.11 11:56:56 - [1145] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: If anyone's been picking at technicalities, it's you. I'm just trying to make sure your math is up to speed with the realities of EFT/PYFA, however those examples we've discussed were very uncommon. For example, for the Revenant to achieve the maximum speed of it's Fighters we mentioned, it would need the top officer modules available in EVE Online, which, according to PYFA, go for 20b in Jita. If a single purple module on a battleship warrants it getting ganked in Niarja, imagine what sort of attention a ship-full will grab? If, for example, we have a minimum of, say, 50km where caps cannot assist fighters, that leaves a nice margin of error for a ship to get bubbled. Additionally, if supers now use "uber safe spots zomg", and you force them to panic warp to a POS, that's mission success, much the same way that Jita duelers / station gamers call it a victory of they force someone else to de-aggress and dock, or to pull out their Nestor and panic-rep. As I said I was generalising (if you look back through the thread I've multiple times expounded on the various capabilities - getting a bit tired of repeating the same replies as this thread is basically the same 10 pages over and over again with the same stuff brought up) - 9+km/s is the top end of what you can manage with a fit that will blap interceptors with ease as fitted on a revenant (its still a super) sure its a little lower on regular carriers/supers my point was its possible to make one way or another fighters that are fast enough to chase down (and track) all but the most extreme interceptor setups never mind stuff like cruisers and that IMO is out of balance regardless of whether there is risk to the parent carrier or not. I've been asking for a minimum distance for fighter delegation from POSes since before this thread even existed infact I believe I was the first person to even post such https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5503882#post5503882 and https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5530584#post5530584 etc.
Kabantik Accidentally Seriously Accidentally The Whole Thing 12	Posted - 2015.03.11 12:21:06 - [1146] - Quote I've been glossing over as many Game Developer, ISD and CSM posts as I can as well as looking at some of the better written forum posts throughout the entirety of the thread and I must say: Ultimately I am greatly disappointed with the decision to remove carrier and super carrier fighter assistance from the game. Of course I had my own rational reasons to disagree with this game-play change which of course doesn't outweigh anyone else's opinions or statements; what bothers me though is that the issue is once again splitting the community in a roughly 50/50 manner. There were some outright rejections of the proposal and welcoming acceptance from some. What I took from most of the posts is that there is a discrepancy between whether this is a black and white issue or a more complicated gray area. Based on how split the community was I would have preferred that the developers would step back from the mechanic and at least wait until other aspects of the game were changed (sentries, T3s, upcoming super secret Jovian tech I think at least, don't quote me bro ) before trying to remove features that may alter the game play of lowsec/nullsec capital engagements. There were many suggestions and alternatives that were proposed and even though they weren't perfect, it showed that the EVE community was prepared to cooperatively work with CCP to find a reasonable and feasible solution over time, even if it meant delaying the fighter changes to the next expansion after Scylla. I would like to see us all take a look back at the history of carriers and fighter deployment over the past 2 sovereignty systems and look forward to the upcoming sovereignty systems and fully evaluate what content we may be losing by removing features. I don't want to write a novel but a few examples: we are going to see less carriers being used as long distance support in systems players work tirelessly to defend (consider the investment, towers, bubbles, fighter costs, possible carrier losses). We are going to see less combat carriers on the field now that titans can liberally doomsday in low-sec (which is a fine trade off for using LS/NS stargates anyways) and therefore less targets, weaker sub cap defense fleets for smaller entities. Again, I can't write a novel but those are some examples. I can see the issue of starbase shield security and saying that carriers are relatively safe but realistically, you're a bump away from losing your delegation fit carrier. Of course I have more examples and some psuedo solutions but that's no longer the issue. Anyways, it is my sincerest request that we hold off on changing fighter delegation for another patch so that we can come up with a true solution to re balancing capital ships in the long run. If you agree with what I say, please just quote me, hopefully we can stop this from happening too soon, just remember the ultimate rule of rebalancing: once a feature is removed, it may never return. Alternatively you can EVE mail me in game to give me your two cents as I'm curious as to what most players truly have to say about the change. Thank you for reading as always. Fly Safe o7
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 770	Posted - 2015.03.11 17:25:46 - [1147] - Quote Rroff wrote: As I said I was generalising (if you look back through the thread I've multiple times expounded on the various capabilities - getting a bit tired of repeating the same replies as this thread is basically the same 10 pages over and over again with the same stuff brought up) - 9+km/s is the top end of what you can manage with a fit that will blap interceptors with ease as fitted on a revenant (its still a super) sure its a little lower on regular carriers/supers my point was its possible to make one way or another fighters that are fast enough to chase down (and track) all but the most extreme interceptor setups never mind stuff like cruisers and that IMO is out of balance regardless of whether there is risk to the parent carrier or not. I've been asking for a minimum distance for fighter delegation from POSes since before this thread even existed infact I believe I was the first person to even post such https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5503882#post5503882 and https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5530584#post5530584 etc. 9km will get you plenty of speed, plenty of damage, but ****-poor tracking, so a single slingshot maneuver means you're free. You keep spouting false facts in an attempt to spread misinformation in a misguided attempt to destroy more capitals, but this is not the way to do it.
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 2802	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:14:29 - [1148] - Quote Fire rise. For bad game design reasons. No data needed. Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 949	Posted - 2015.03.11 20:46:57 - [1149] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: 9km will get you plenty of speed, plenty of damage, but **-poor tracking, so a single slingshot maneuver means you're free. You keep spouting false facts in an attempt to spread misinformation in a misguided attempt to destroy more capitals, but this is not the way to do it. Not that I'd recommend the fit and lol stacking penalties... but 9km/s, 0.877 rad/s tracking and plenty of choice of mixed range and tracking as required (and not an officer mod in sight). Quote:** [Revenant, uhumyeah] Federation Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Federation Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Federation Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Federation Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Dread Guristas Omnidirectional Tracking Enhancer Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Omnidirectional Tracking Link II, Tracking Speed Script Omnidirectional Tracking Link II, Tracking Speed Script Sentient Drone Navigation Computer Sentient Drone Navigation Computer [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Capital Drone Speed Augmentor II Capital Drone Speed Augmentor II Capital Drone Speed Augmentor II Einherji x1 I have 0 interest in seeing capitals destroyed - I have multiple carrier V, fighters V, ADI V, etc. characters - my main interest is in seeing a balanced outcome - I can also see the practical realities of the issue from the perspective of those who like to do more casual roaming.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 773	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:22:42 - [1150] - Quote Rroff wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: 9km will get you plenty of speed, plenty of damage, but ****-poor tracking, so a single slingshot maneuver means you're free. You keep spouting false facts in an attempt to spread misinformation in a misguided attempt to destroy more capitals, but this is not the way to do it. Not that I'd recommend the fit and lol stacking penalties... but 9km/s, 0.877 rad/s tracking and plenty of choice of mixed range and tracking as required (and not an officer mod in sight). [Revenant, uhumyeah] Federation Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Federation Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Federation Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Federation Navy Drone Damage Amplifier Dread Guristas Omnidirectional Tracking Enhancer Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Federation Navy Omnidirectional Tracking Link, Tracking Speed Script Omnidirectional Tracking Link II, Tracking Speed Script Omnidirectional Tracking Link II, Tracking Speed Script Sentient Drone Navigation Computer Sentient Drone Navigation Computer [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] [empty high slot] Capital Drone Speed Augmentor II Capital Drone Speed Augmentor II Capital Drone Speed Augmentor II Einherji x1 I have 0 interest in seeing capitals destroyed - I have multiple carrier V, fighters V, ADI V, etc. characters - my main interest is in seeing a balanced outcome - I can also see the practical realities of the issue from the perspective of those who like to do more casual roaming. First off, nobody in their right mind would put those rigs onto a supercarrier, let alone a Revenant. Second of all, you have 2.8m EHP without Slaves, which means a single Titan and a single dread and you're the proud owner of an all new ALOD. Third of all, nobody would dare fit that sort of supercarrier if they were 50km from a POS, or if they were in some mystical deep safe in system, because Murphy can and will make an entrance, and you can bet your bottom dollar that someone can be persuaded to hand out the PW of a POS that holds a Revenant. As I mentioned before, the sheer rarity of this ship adds some balance to it's power, much like Guardian-Vexors with their 10-drone control are balanced by the fact there's, what, two or three left in the game.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 949	Posted - 2015.03.11 21:32:00 - [1151] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: First off, nobody in their right mind would put those rigs onto a supercarrier, let alone a Revenant. Second of all, you have 2.8m EHP without Slaves, which means a single Titan and a single dread and you're the proud owner of an all new ALOD. Third of all, nobody would dare fit that sort of supercarrier if they were 50km from a POS, or if they were in some mystical deep safe in system, because Murphy can and will make an entrance, and you can bet your bottom dollar that someone can be persuaded to hand out the PW of a POS that holds a Revenant. As I mentioned before, the sheer rarity of this ship adds some balance to it's power, much like Guardian-Vexors with their 10-drone control are balanced by the fact there's, what, two or three left in the game. If your fit for skynet doesn't really make much odds what rigs you have on there - and if your in a position to refit then you can change rigs to - my comments are mostly intended with the scope of how things are now - if there were restriction in place around POSes so that you could only delegate from 50+km away then it would be a different story. In the context (purely) of skynet (partly thanks to one person's prolific use) the revenant isn't so much a rarity and while those stats are taking things towards the absurd end of the scale you can still amp fighters up to some pretty scary capabilities generally even with the other supers and normal carriers.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 773	Posted - 2015.03.11 22:12:20 - [1152] - Quote Rroff wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: First off, nobody in their right mind would put those rigs onto a supercarrier, let alone a Revenant. Second of all, you have 2.8m EHP without Slaves, which means a single Titan and a single dread and you're the proud owner of an all new ALOD. Third of all, nobody would dare fit that sort of supercarrier if they were 50km from a POS, or if they were in some mystical deep safe in system, because Murphy can and will make an entrance, and you can bet your bottom dollar that someone can be persuaded to hand out the PW of a POS that holds a Revenant. As I mentioned before, the sheer rarity of this ship adds some balance to it's power, much like Guardian-Vexors with their 10-drone control are balanced by the fact there's, what, two or three left in the game. If your fit for skynet doesn't really make much odds what rigs you have on there - and if your in a position to refit then you can change rigs to - my comments are mostly intended with the scope of how things are now - if there were restriction in place around POSes so that you could only delegate from 50+km away then it would be a different story. In the context (purely) of skynet (partly thanks to one person's prolific use) the revenant isn't so much a rarity and while those stats are taking things towards the absurd end of the scale you can still amp fighters up to some pretty scary capabilities generally even with the other supers and normal carriers. It wouldn't make much difference if normal supercapital rigs weren't tank rigs, but since they are, you're missing a lot of tank. In terms of absolute rarity, the Rev is rare. Just because the player sent it to a camped system, assigned fighters, and stepped out for an afternoon coffee does not make it a problem. And yes, while you can pimp up drone damage with other carriers and supercaps, the fact of the matter still remains that in order to get "uber 1337" fighters, you must remove something known as "tank" which prevents PL or whoever is your enemy from making an unannounced house-call with a steamroller. That's a balancing factor that I believe is a very powerful incentive against assisting fighters.
BLACK METALL Tauron Heavy industry Shadow of xXDEATHXx 24	Posted - 2015.03.12 07:34:06 - [1153] - Quote You and so cut Superkapitalnye ships to horror, then remove them from the game at all.
C4nobaby Core of Elements 0	Posted - 2015.03.12 08:09:53 - [1154] - Quote You nerv Supers useless for small Corporations and small Alliances. Stop nerv them or remove them finally from the game.
Anarkio Mahyisti Tauron Heavy industry Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.03.12 08:31:34 - [1155] - Quote Stop nerv
Milo Boirelle Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.03.12 08:38:36 - [1156] - Quote HELL NO WE WONT GO! KEEP FIGHTERS ASSIST!
Begpo Bogku Tauron Heavy industry Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.03.12 08:47:45 - [1157] - Quote Ya protestuyu! >:o
Izanagi Alexandra Combat Matous Fleet Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.03.12 09:07:41 - [1158] - Quote This class of drones will lose your chip (unique class), then it makes no sense to use expensive drones and build them, throw full hold T1 or T2 drones, and forget about the fighters. I am personally against it. -ö-¦-+-+-ï-¦ -¦-+-¦-ü-ü -¦-Ç-+-+-+-¦ -é-¦-Ç-Å-¦-é -ü-¦-+-Ä -ä-+-ê-¦-â (-â-+-+-¦-¦-+-î-+-+-ü-é-î -¦-+-¦-ü-ü-¦), -é-+-¦-¦-¦ -ü-+-ï-ü-+-¦ -+-¦-é -+-ü-+-+-+-î-+-+-¦-¦-é-î -¦-+-Ç-+-¦-+-ü-é-+-Å-ë-+-¦ -¦-Ç-+-+-ï -+ -ü-é-Ç-+-+-é-î -+-à, -+-¦-¦-+-+-â-é-î -+-+-+-+-ï-¦ -é-Ç-Ä-+ -é1 -+-+-+ -é2 -¦-Ç-+-+-+-¦, -+ -+-¦-¦-ï-é-î -+ -ä-¦-¦-é-¦-Ç-¦-à. -» -+-+-ç-+-+ -+-Ç-+-é-+-¦.
BlacAngel Aurilen the Black Sun Cartel Shadow of xXDEATHXx 7	Posted - 2015.03.12 09:18:48 - [1159] - Quote I am personally against it
Elissa Antollare Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.03.12 09:19:22 - [1160] - Quote BLACK METALL wrote: You and so cut Superkapitalnye ships to horror, then remove them from the game at all. If you are going to nerf figher assist to make Supercapitals be on-field ships, remove Supercapitals from the game altogether. They are too big, slow, expensive and take too long to build for any small to medium sized corporation to be able to risk losing them. Don't bother nerfing fighter assist unless you plan to remove supercapitals from the game, they are already a big enough target as is. Finally, stop breaking Sovereignty and Supercapitals and start fixing Jove space and these new tactical destroyers.
Still Related Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.03.12 09:24:37 - [1161] - Quote I hope they make fighter assist to capital only ships, this makes still viable to be used but not making it too op that ceptors "solo" battleships.
BlackyJacky Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 1	Posted - 2015.03.12 11:34:07 - [1162] - Quote whow how to wreck a class of ship completely, its like you don't even like null, or small corps or those trying to survive in the wilds. might as well stop construction and head to empire..or low..low is safer. Cheers CCP yet another reason to stop having one of those pilot coffins
Aivlis Eldelbar Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District 57	Posted - 2015.03.12 12:12:26 - [1163] - Quote Oh wow, look at this posting CTA we have here! Shadow of xXDEATHXx must be monitoring that all pilots post at least once XD Fighter assist is broken because it allows a virtually invulnerable carrier to delegate huge amounts of dps to anyone in system, and the fighters can't even be pointed and killed, they just teleport back to the Thanatos at the edge of his pos shield. While I would prefer that this was solved by forcing carriers to be X km away from a forcefield or station before they can assist their fighters, the current mechanics are toxic for the game and must be fixed.
AlexandrBK Combat Matous Fleet Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.03.12 14:30:33 - [1164] - Quote -» -¦-¦-¦-+-+ -+-¦-Ç-¦-Ä -¦ -ì-é-â -+-¦-Ç-â, -+ -+-+-ü-é-+-Å-+-+-+ -+-¦-¦-+-Ä-¦-¦-Ä -¦-Ç-+-¦ -+-¦-¦-+-¦-+-+-î-ü-é-¦-¦ -+-+ -+-é-+-+-ê-¦-+-+-Ä -¦ -ü-â-+-¦-Ç--¦-¦-+-+-é-¦-+-¦-+, -¦ -ç-¦-ü-é-+-+-ü-é-+ -¦ -+-+-ü-+-é-¦-+-Å-+ -¦-Ç-+-+-+-¦. -ú -+-¦-+-Å -ü-¦-+-¦-¦-ï-¦-¦-¦-é-ü-Å -+-+-¦-+-+-¦, -ç-é-+ -+-+-+-¦-+-¦ -+-¦-Ç-+-¦-+ -+-Ç-+-ü-é-+ -+-¦ -à-+-é-Å-é -é-Ç-¦-é-+-é-î -¦-Ç-¦-+-Å -+ -â-ç-+-é-î -ì-é-+ -¦-+-Ç-¦-¦-+-+, -é-Ç-¦-é-+-é-î -¦-¦-+-î-¦-+ -+-¦ -+-+-¦-â-+-¦-â -¦-+-+-¦ -+-¦-¦-ï-¦-+-¦, -+-+ -+-¦-+-î, -+-+-+ -¦-¦-¦-î -+-à-+-é-+-+-¦-+ -+-¦-+-+-+-ç-¦-+, -+ -+-+ -é-¦-¦-+-¦ -¦-+-+-+-+-¦-+-+-ü-é-+ -+-¦-Ç-ï -+-+-+-+-ê-+-+, -¦-+-ü-é-¦-é-+-ç-+-+ T3 -¦-+-Ç-¦-¦-+-Å -+ -¦-ü-æ, -+-â -+ -+-¦-+-+-ü-é-î -+-¦-+-+-ç-+ -ä-Ç-+-¦-¦-é-+-+-¦. -á-¦-+-Ç-¦-¦-+-é-ç-+-¦-+, -¦-ü-+-+ -¦-¦-+ -+-¦ -+-+-é-¦-Ç-¦-ü-+-¦ -¦-+-+-¦-ë-¦ -¦-+-+-å-¦-+-å-+-Å -¦-¦-+-+ -Ç-¦-+-Ç-¦-¦-+-é-¦-+-+-+-¦-+ -+-Ç-+-¦-â-¦-é-¦ -+ -¦-ï -à-+-é-+-é-¦ -ü-¦-¦-é-+-é-î-ü-Å -¦ -¦-é-+-Ç-+-ü-+-Ç-é-+-+-+-â -ê-â-é-¦-Ç-â -+-¦ -+-ü-é-Ç-+-¦-+-é-¦-+-Å-à, -é-+ -¦-¦-+-¦-¦-é-¦ -ç-é-+ -à-+-é-+-é-¦, -+-+ -¦-+-+ -+-¦-Ç-+-+-+-ï-à -¦-+-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-¦ -¦ EVE Online -â-¦-¦ -+-Ç-¦-¦-é-+-ç-¦-ü-¦-+ -+-+-ä, -¦-ï -ü-+-+-ê-¦-+-+ -+-ü-+-¦-¦-+-+-+ -¦-¦-ü-î -¦-¦-+-+-é-¦-+-î-+-ï-¦ -ä-+-+-é, -+-+ -â-¦-¦ -+-¦ -¦-¦-é-â-¦-+-¦-+, -¦ -¦-¦-+-î-ê-¦ -ü-¦-+-+-+-+ -¦-+-¦-ê-¦-é-¦-+-î-ü-é-¦-¦-+-+ -¦-ï -ü-+-¦-ü-¦-+ -â-¦-î-æ-é-¦ -+-à, -¦-ü-¦-¦-+ -à-+-Ç-+-ê-¦-¦-+ -¦-¦-+ -¦ -¦-¦-ê-¦-+ -é-¦-+-Ç-ç-¦-ü-é-¦-¦.
MrRIN5 Tauron Heavy industry Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.03.12 14:50:47 - [1165] - Quote I protest against - Removing Fighter Assist
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 949	Posted - 2015.03.12 15:13:03 - [1166] - Quote Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: Oh wow, look at this posting CTA we have here! Shadow of xXDEATHXx must be monitoring that all pilots post at least once XD I had to smile when I refreshed the thread and saw the CTA style posting lol. Thing is this change does impact a lot deeper than skynet type use (which most people will agree is broken - even those who want fighter assignment to stay like myself).
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1503	Posted - 2015.03.12 15:57:06 - [1167] - Quote AlexandrBK wrote: -» -¦-¦-¦-+-+ -+-¦-Ç-¦-Ä -¦ -ì-é-â -+-¦-Ç-â, -+ -+-+-ü-é-+-Å-+-+-+ -+-¦-¦-+-Ä-¦-¦-Ä -¦-Ç-+-¦ -+-¦-¦-+-¦-+-+-î-ü-é-¦-¦ -+-+ -+-é-+-+-ê-¦-+-+-Ä -¦ -ü-â-+-¦-Ç--¦-¦-+-+-é-¦-+-¦-+, -¦ -ç-¦-ü-é-+-+-ü-é-+ -¦ -+-+-ü-+-é-¦-+-Å-+ -¦-Ç-+-+-+-¦. -ú -+-¦-+-Å -ü-¦-+-¦-¦-ï-¦-¦-¦-é-ü-Å -+-+-¦-+-+-¦, -ç-é-+ -+-+-+-¦-+-¦ -+-¦-Ç-+-¦-+ -+-Ç-+-ü-é-+ -+-¦ -à-+-é-Å-é -é-Ç-¦-é-+-é-î -¦-Ç-¦-+-Å -+ -â-ç-+-é-î -ì-é-+ -¦-+-Ç-¦-¦-+-+, -é-Ç-¦-é-+-é-î -¦-¦-+-î-¦-+ -+-¦ -+-+-¦-â-+-¦-â -¦-+-+-¦ -+-¦-¦-ï-¦-+-¦, -+-+ -+-¦-+-î, -+-+-+ -¦-¦-¦-î -+-à-+-é-+-+-¦-+ -+-¦-+-+-+-ç-¦-+, -+ -+-+ -é-¦-¦-+-¦ -¦-+-+-+-+-¦-+-+-ü-é-+ -+-¦-Ç-ï -+-+-+-+-ê-+-+, -¦-+-ü-é-¦-é-+-ç-+-+ T3 -¦-+-Ç-¦-¦-+-Å -+ -¦-ü-æ, -+-â -+ -+-¦-+-+-ü-é-î -+-¦-+-+-ç-+ -ä-Ç-+-¦-¦-é-+-+-¦. -á-¦-+-Ç-¦-¦-+-é-ç-+-¦-+, -¦-ü-+-+ -¦-¦-+ -+-¦ -+-+-é-¦-Ç-¦-ü-+-¦ -¦-+-+-¦-ë-¦ -¦-+-+-å-¦-+-å-+-Å -¦-¦-+-+ -Ç-¦-+-Ç-¦-¦-+-é-¦-+-+-+-¦-+ -+-Ç-+-¦-â-¦-é-¦ -+ -¦-ï -à-+-é-+-é-¦ -ü-¦-¦-é-+-é-î-ü-Å -¦ -¦-é-+-Ç-+-ü-+-Ç-é-+-+-+-â -ê-â-é-¦-Ç-â -+-¦ -+-ü-é-Ç-+-¦-+-é-¦-+-Å-à, -é-+ -¦-¦-+-¦-¦-é-¦ -ç-é-+ -à-+-é-+-é-¦, -+-+ -¦-+-+ -+-¦-Ç-+-+-+-ï-à -¦-+-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-¦ -¦ EVE Online -â-¦-¦ -+-Ç-¦-¦-é-+-ç-¦-ü-¦-+ -+-+-ä, -¦-ï -ü-+-+-ê-¦-+-+ -+-ü-+-¦-¦-+-+-+ -¦-¦-ü-î -¦-¦-+-+-é-¦-+-î-+-ï-¦ -ä-+-+-é, -+-+ -â-¦-¦ -+-¦ -¦-¦-é-â-¦-+-¦-+, -¦ -¦-¦-+-î-ê-¦ -ü-¦-+-+-+-+ -¦-+-¦-ê-¦-é-¦-+-î-ü-é-¦-¦-+-+ -¦-ï -ü-+-¦-ü-¦-+ -â-¦-î-æ-é-¦ -+-à, -¦-ü-¦-¦-+ -à-+-Ç-+-ê-¦-¦-+ -¦-¦-+ -¦ -¦-¦-ê-¦-+ -é-¦-+-Ç-ç-¦-ü-é-¦-¦. Cleaned-up Google translation: AlexandrBK wrote: I've been playing this game, and constantly watching the cry of discontent towards super-capitals, in particular to drones. I have the impression that many players just do not want to spend time training these ships, nor spend money to buy skill books. They are too lazy, because they are solitary hunters, and they have game features that are redundant enough: T3 ship and everything, well, and trivial little frigates. Developers, if you are not interested at all in the concept you developed for your product and you want to slide into second-class shooters on [missing word], then do whatever you want, but fighting a huge ship in EVE Online is almost a myth. You have weakened all major fleets too much. They are no longer relevant, and with your interventions you really kill them. All the best to you in your work. Google Translate choked on "-+-ü-é-Ç-+-¦-+-é-¦-+-Å-à," and none of my attempts at guesses came close. Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. I voted in CSM X!
Aivlis Eldelbar Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District 57	Posted - 2015.03.12 16:02:04 - [1168] - Quote Quote: Google Translate choked on "-+-ü-é-Ç-+-¦-+-é-¦-+-Å-à," and none of my attempts at guesses came close. -+-ü-é-Ç-¦-¦-+-é-¦-+-î is the correct singular, meaning fighter :)
Savant Alabel Locus Signatures 30	Posted - 2015.03.12 16:29:17 - [1169] - Quote Yeah! Remove fighters assist!
belliar Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 2	Posted - 2015.03.12 16:34:52 - [1170] - Quote against removing fighter assist from carriers. the why is because we players, we happy few, we band of brothers that are doing our thing in nullsec, dont *all have big alliances to rely on. This game was made for all, theres no good solution, but a compromise. We players introduced renters so small groups of players could be introduced to nullsec. Not thanks to CCP. We players introduced freightcontainer mining because we had too. A player solution is the best solution, its like nature u dont mess with the natural balance of things! If CCP are the janitors then forcing us to swallow this nerf would be more like a puppet master trick. If this is the stick wheres the carrot? Yes we are all looking forward of getting a 200 man roam gang showing up in our systems and no way to defend it, because we have been properly nerfed.. copyright ccp. /include emo icons.
Dersen Lowery Drinking in Station 1503	Posted - 2015.03.12 16:48:13 - [1171] - Quote Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: Quote: Google Translate choked on "-+-ü-é-Ç-+-¦-+-é-¦-+-Å-à," and none of my attempts at guesses came close. -+-ü-é-Ç-¦-¦-+-é-¦-+-î is the correct singular, meaning fighter :) OK, so he's taking a pot shot at Valkyrie. Thanks. :-) Otherwise, does it look OK? (I should add that I'm attempting the translation just because--I have no experience on the subject myself, and no opinion.) Proud founder and member of the Belligerent Desirables. I voted in CSM X!
Kardaval Scheinder The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.12 17:14:09 - [1172] - Quote Now i do NOT play at such a level where i encounter fighters. BUT why not allow carrier to assign fighter individualy, with a cap to the amounts of fighter that can be assign based fleet mate ship size For example, if you have a freind ina frigate, or destroyer, they can only have a single fighter assigned to assist them, basically, wingman, if a person is in a cruiser or battlecruiser, allow two fighters to be assigned to them(basically a escort), if a person is in a battlship, allow 3 fighter to be assigned to them (a complimentary wing), remove the ability of bombers to be set to assist (instead force the carriers to be on grid if they wish to use bombers)
Aivlis Eldelbar Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District 57	Posted - 2015.03.12 17:22:56 - [1173] - Quote Dersen Lowery wrote: Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: Quote: Google Translate choked on "-+-ü-é-Ç-+-¦-+-é-¦-+-Å-à," and none of my attempts at guesses came close. -+-ü-é-Ç-¦-¦-+-é-¦-+-î is the correct singular, meaning fighter :) OK, so he's taking a pot shot at Valkyrie. Thanks. :-) Otherwise, does it look OK? (I should add that I'm attempting the translation just because--I have no experience on the subject myself, and no opinion.) It's surprisingly decent, only loses some minor shades of meaning, and some tenses seem to be a bit off ( -¦-ï -ü-+-¦-ü-¦-+ -â-¦-î-æ-é-¦ -+-à >> you will totally kill them). Goolge translate's major failings are in it's inability to pick up common typos and slang, but for a well written text, it's good enough.
RogueHunteer Perkone Caldari State 17	Posted - 2015.03.12 17:27:36 - [1174] - Quote Like I said before CCP is jumping the guns here. Making changes on this front will hurt feelings with more and more changes to capitals.. we need change and would like to see some... stop changing stuff.. just re-role the capitals already... would be nice to see it done with the sov changes coming up....
Secktoid KANTAI HIKAGE Total Absolution 0	Posted - 2015.03.12 18:48:53 - [1175] - Quote Really this update - death to all capitals. Plz dont touch supercapitals.
Pyrasanth Boa Innovations Shadow of xXDEATHXx 10	Posted - 2015.03.12 20:26:30 - [1176] - Quote One of the attractions of the game for me is being able to play in ways to suit either what situations dictate. Sometimes I may choose to use a Marauder & assign fighters with my carrier trucked near a POS or just align & deploy fighters when there are hostiles around giving me the ability for a fast retreat. Every time changes are forced on us which change established mechanics CCP begin to dictate to us how THEY want US to play the game & that removes the choices as to how WE want to play . I have strong opinions already about how useful carriers really are & this will just be another reason why they might just be too much trouble to fly.
Yaros Kor Tauron Heavy industry Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.03.12 22:13:07 - [1177] - Quote Hello evrybody, for sure I against of this! No use for the fighters/bombers.
JlOMEXY3A Tauron Heavy industry Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.03.12 22:15:48 - [1178] - Quote Hell yeah. I am against - shoot me down immidiately! Leave the things like it is.
perpetua Isimazu Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 0	Posted - 2015.03.13 03:28:18 - [1179] - Quote Personally, I'm getting sick to death of the constant nerfs and fiddling by CCP to satisfy the demands of whiners protesting about things being unfair for one reason or another. EvE isn't fair, that's the bottom line. As the saying goes, HTFU. Leave fighter assist alone and go away and rethink your poxy sov ideas CCP. If you really want to aim for proper 'balance', then make everything a level playing field. Take away skill training and give everyone equal skills so there's no advantage for higher skilled toons. Remove isk from the game so there's nobody with a financial advantage. Remove all ship types and modules except one, that way everyone flies the same ship and it's all down to pilot skill. Why not remove all star systems from the game except one while you're at it? All that would be needed is one arena system for folk to get their pew pew on. When you've done all that, sit back and admire your egalitarian, balanced end product and revel in your magnificence.. just don't check how may subs you lose in the process or you might be in for a nasty shock. The tl;dr version : stop screwing around with the game CCP before you screw it up totally.
Xavious Kane Forever Winter Absolute Zero. 1	Posted - 2015.03.13 06:35:37 - [1180] - Quote So far all I have read on this post is leave it as it is or tweak it in some way try to mitigate the problem. The capital haters hate the caps and want to seem the nerfed or broken. Let them hate. Bottom line, try a bandage before you amputate. Keep the feature.
Calexis Atredies Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 9	Posted - 2015.03.13 14:41:57 - [1181] - Quote This thread has more pages than all the other nerf threads combined! I am going to need a bigger bucket for all the tears... brb
Arronicus Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 1456	Posted - 2015.03.13 17:50:15 - [1182] - Quote I'm against removing fighter assist. It's not a huge problem, stop turning Eve into Frigates Online. If skynet is really the problem, block fighter delegation within 50km of a control tower. Problem solved.
Aivlis Eldelbar Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District 57	Posted - 2015.03.13 19:14:07 - [1183] - Quote Arronicus wrote: I'm against removing fighter assist. It's not a huge problem, stop turning Eve into Frigates Online. If skynet is really the problem, block fighter delegation within 50km of a control tower. Problem solved. This is actually not bad idea, but it should also be blocked withing that range of a station. I'm ok with people using fighter drones to help their fleetmates, but getting 1000dps for free from a carrier that can only realistically be killed by a titan doomsdaying it or a spy sneaking into the tower and bumping it out is way too much.
Rachel Balasnari ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 0	Posted - 2015.03.13 19:59:17 - [1184] - Quote Gilbaron wrote: can't you disallow fighter assist from within 50km of a tower instead ? that's gonna produce some lovely killmails removing fighter warp is completely unnessecarry This seems like the best option IMO. If you get within 50km of a tower, then your fighters just auto-return to orbit your carrier or super. Objectively there is nothing wrong with fighter assign, because with the proper implementation it would force carriers or supers out of pos shields to "deal with roamers." While assigning fighters might work the first few times for defenders against un-organized people, it would mean that wh groups can bring in 1 dread to kill a carrier, or they can bring in a fleet that is strong enough to take pos-guns with some bumping ships to go and kill a super/carrier. It also might mean that small-time roamers would start working with bigger groups to trick the defenders into fielding their caps outside of their poses which I think we can all agree just leads to more fun engagements. I personally have seen some amazing camps where someone had a roaming-thanatos that was assigning fighters from a safe-spot. This was great because it caused us to go after them and hunt them down, while it meant a significant force multiplier for them that also had alot of inherent risk because of how easy it is to probe things down nowadays. Preventing fighter assign from 50-100km of a pos STICK would also be great because it would prevent that worthless pos-shield bug where someone sits on a pos stick that is online but doesn't have a shield up yet and just assigns fighters, and if danger ever materializes they just put up the shield by inserting a password.
Rachel Balasnari ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 0	Posted - 2015.03.13 20:00:25 - [1185] - Quote Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: Arronicus wrote: I'm against removing fighter assist. It's not a huge problem, stop turning Eve into Frigates Online. If skynet is really the problem, block fighter delegation within 50km of a control tower. Problem solved. This is actually not bad idea, but it should also be blocked withing that range of a station. I'm ok with people using fighter drones to help their fleetmates, but getting 1000dps for free from a carrier that can only realistically be killed by a titan doomsdaying it or a spy sneaking into the tower and bumping it out is way too much. Station is a good point. 50-100km from a pos stick and 50km from a station would work beautifully.
Rachel Balasnari ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 0	Posted - 2015.03.13 20:06:40 - [1186] - Quote On a personal note, having more capital targets to hunt down would certainly make me want to resub my super pilot for some fishing opportunities to deal with over-confident super/carrier pilots who try to deal with OOC solo-roamer's by assigning fighters 50+km from a pos/station to their inty alts.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 776	Posted - 2015.03.13 20:50:05 - [1187] - Quote Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: Arronicus wrote: I'm against removing fighter assist. It's not a huge problem, stop turning Eve into Frigates Online. If skynet is really the problem, block fighter delegation within 50km of a control tower. Problem solved. This is actually not bad idea, but it should also be blocked withing that range of a station. I'm ok with people using fighter drones to help their fleetmates, but getting 1000dps for free from a carrier that can only realistically be killed by a titan doomsdaying it or a spy sneaking into the tower and bumping it out is way too much. I dunno if you noticed, but fighters generate aggression and weapons timers. A competent 100mn Cynabal, Stabber, or Macharial will be able to send the carrier off the station. A sizable torpedo bomber fleet can break it in under 60 seconds, not to mention a decent Talos fleet can as well. Alternatively, a few Moros can end an Archon quite easily.
Rachel Balasnari ElitistOps Pandemic Legion 1	Posted - 2015.03.13 21:47:40 - [1188] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: Arronicus wrote: I'm against removing fighter assist. It's not a huge problem, stop turning Eve into Frigates Online. If skynet is really the problem, block fighter delegation within 50km of a control tower. Problem solved. This is actually not bad idea, but it should also be blocked withing that range of a station. I'm ok with people using fighter drones to help their fleetmates, but getting 1000dps for free from a carrier that can only realistically be killed by a titan doomsdaying it or a spy sneaking into the tower and bumping it out is way too much. I dunno if you noticed, but fighters generate aggression and weapons timers. A competent 100mn Cynabal, Stabber, or Macharial will be able to send the carrier off the station. A sizable torpedo bomber fleet can break it in under 60 seconds, not to mention a decent Talos fleet can as well. Alternatively, a few Moros can end an Archon quite easily. Not everyone goes roaming with 20 taloses, a 100mn cyna/stabber or a machariel. Forcing the carrier to be 50km off a station solves that problem though,
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 776	Posted - 2015.03.13 23:17:49 - [1189] - Quote Rachel Balasnari wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: Arronicus wrote: I'm against removing fighter assist. It's not a huge problem, stop turning Eve into Frigates Online. If skynet is really the problem, block fighter delegation within 50km of a control tower. Problem solved. This is actually not bad idea, but it should also be blocked withing that range of a station. I'm ok with people using fighter drones to help their fleetmates, but getting 1000dps for free from a carrier that can only realistically be killed by a titan doomsdaying it or a spy sneaking into the tower and bumping it out is way too much. I dunno if you noticed, but fighters generate aggression and weapons timers. A competent 100mn Cynabal, Stabber, or Macharial will be able to send the carrier off the station. A sizable torpedo bomber fleet can break it in under 60 seconds, not to mention a decent Talos fleet can as well. Alternatively, a few Moros can end an Archon quite easily. Not everyone goes roaming with 20 taloses, a 100mn cyna/stabber or a machariel. Forcing the carrier to be 50km off a station solves that problem though, So wait, what were you going to use to kill the carrier? A few Ruptures? I'm missing this piece of information.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 13	Posted - 2015.03.14 00:10:15 - [1190] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: So wait, what were you going to use to kill the carrier? A few Ruptures? I'm missing this piece of information. That's kind of the joke here. They want it to not be safe, yet even if it was on grid they wouldn't know what to do if they caught one. Possibly try to survive an hour on grid with it jamming and bumping it until they can gather enough friends to finally kill it in hopes that the carrier's friends don't arrive first. They are just as risk adverse as the carrier pilot. If they came across a carrier and support on a gate they'd run away - gather enough friends to overwhelm the situation then move in, or avoid it altogether and run here and complain that their little ships couldn't take down a carrier and support ships before they all died. Point is, on or off grid the people who complain are inept to handle the situation they are faced with and would rather see it destroyed. That's much easier than coming up with a counter strategy - or gathering the man power - or avoid the system outright knowing the holders of the sov/system are simply too much for them to stand agaisnt. At this point, more than enough players with supers have chimed in expressing how we would see it balanced to not make it such a 1 sided venture for them. But because it's us saying it they won't accept it as "good enough," same goes with the actual sov changes but that's a whole other thread. The masses appear to have the feeling that those directly involved should have no say in the matter, and it would appear CCP agrees. All I can say is null players control an awfully large number of subbed accounts through alts alone. How many would CCP have to watch unsub before they started to take notice? I can think of more than a few cyno alts that are already gone, mining alts that went away as well, and now a couple super alts to follow. I look at the numbers of active players online each day, and it seems to be slipping. A troll will love the tears, but my tears have long since been shed. I now stand here pissed off at the idea that a company dare still continue to call this a sandbox then turn around and tell it's players which "abused" mechanics are okay and not. Removing some and turning a blind eye to others. Hyperdunking - okay, fighter assign- not okay, bumping to avoid use of warp disruption/aggression- okay, can spam on gate to decloak and catch covops - not okay... There is a massive bias here, mechanics abused in high sec are allowed to fly. Anything developed and used in low/null are quickly destroyed due to the tears of those very same players.
Kazaheid Zaknafein Mara's Hounds 13	Posted - 2015.03.14 03:57:12 - [1191] - Quote And that is the current path ccp is on now, they don't care about player feedback and will go ahead and do what they want. Eve is quickly becoming easy mode. After Scyllia i wonder how many of the Sov alliances will even be around anymore, might not need sov changes at the rate ccp is about to hemorrhage subs.
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 87	Posted - 2015.03.14 04:28:48 - [1192] - Quote All this nerf will accomplish: Carrier/supercarrier pilot will stop using their ship. Carrier/supercarrier pilot will keep using their ship, this time on-grid, with large support (so more blobbing). Roaming gang that catches a carrier/supercarrier on-grid will have to blob it (call for back up), same with the other side (so even more blobbing). A few will lose their ships quickly... because wtf else can they use it for? Might as well lose it in a great ball of fire... Good job CCP... I wonder what was the point of training for carriers/supercarriers and spending billions... In another few months supers won't do any DPS (on or off grid) anyways...
Aivlis Eldelbar Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District 58	Posted - 2015.03.14 14:58:21 - [1193] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: Arronicus wrote: I'm against removing fighter assist. It's not a huge problem, stop turning Eve into Frigates Online. If skynet is really the problem, block fighter delegation within 50km of a control tower. Problem solved. This is actually not bad idea, but it should also be blocked withing that range of a station. I'm ok with people using fighter drones to help their fleetmates, but getting 1000dps for free from a carrier that can only realistically be killed by a titan doomsdaying it or a spy sneaking into the tower and bumping it out is way too much. I dunno if you noticed, but fighters generate aggression and weapons timers. A competent 100mn Cynabal, Stabber, or Macharial will be able to send the carrier off the station. A sizable torpedo bomber fleet can break it in under 60 seconds, not to mention a decent Talos fleet can as well. Alternatively, a few Moros can end an Archon quite easily. I was talking more about the pos version of skynet when I wrote that. I am aware you get timer, as I know that a bomber fleet needs to be over 50 pilots to realistically break a carrier before his friends can react. Bumping depends heavily on the kind of station we're talking about, and a 100mn Stabber or Cynabal won't live long under fighter fire. The machariel is a good point, but then, how often do you see battleship roams nowadays?
Irya Boone Never Surrender. 447	Posted - 2015.03.14 15:23:11 - [1194] - Quote No more fight advantage while being afk , hard to understand ? I hope the expansion when Super are not combat vessels will come soon. in the Other hand cloak should be an active thing too same as boost :) CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!
StarEater9000 Sky Fighters 0	Posted - 2015.03.14 17:04:23 - [1195] - Quote Irya Boone wrote: No more fight advantage while being afk , hard to understand ? I hope the expansion when Super are not combat vessels will come soon. in the Other hand cloak should be an active thing too same as boost :) If the carrier is afk it shouldn't be hard to kill it.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 776	Posted - 2015.03.14 17:16:38 - [1196] - Quote Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: I was talking more about the pos version of skynet when I wrote that. I am aware you get timer, as I know that a bomber fleet needs to be over 50 pilots to realistically break a carrier before his friends can react. Bumping depends heavily on the kind of station we're talking about, and a 100mn Stabber or Cynabal won't live long under fighter fire. The machariel is a good point, but then, how often do you see battleship roams nowadays? Uh, where are you getting 50 pilots from? According to my PYFA, a DPS Purifier does 651 DPS with 2 BCS and Rage torps. The highest tank I can squeeze out of an Archon without green, blue, or purple is 19207 EHP/S with a Triage II module, which means it can't assign fighters, not to mention it has ****-poor DPS. It'll cap out in less than 4 minutes, but it'll still be in a Triage cycle which means it can get cap or reps. Now, assuming a non-Tank version, it has 4090 EHP/S with a single repper and a DC2, which means that you only need 7 torpedo bombers to break it. I'd like to bring your attention to this video of 38 bombers killing a PL Archon, even when it entered Triage. It didn't last very long even with 2x Capital armor reppers. In short, If you stop using 300 DPS bombers and start using 651 DPS Bombers your alliance could smell like the man you've always dreamed of. Everything's possible with 651 DPS Bombers. I'm on a Boat.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 951	Posted - 2015.03.14 17:49:46 - [1197] - Quote To be fair I've been in ~50 man torp bomber fleets where with the mix of skills and different bomber types (some are harder to get good dps out of than others) your probably looking at more like 420 or so dps on average per pilot - still enough to break all but the most pimped/linked carriers pretty quickly though.
Aivlis Eldelbar Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District 59	Posted - 2015.03.14 20:21:14 - [1198] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: ... Uh, where are you getting 50 pilots from? According to my PYFA, a DPS Purifier does 651 DPS with 2 BCS and Rage torps. The highest tank I can squeeze out of an Archon without green, blue, or purple is 19207 EHP/S with a Triage II module, which means it can't assign fighters, not to mention it has ****-poor DPS. It'll cap out in less than 4 minutes, but it'll still be in a Triage cycle which means it can get cap or reps. Now, assuming a non-Tank version, it has 4090 EHP/S with a single repper and a DC2, which means that you only need 7 torpedo bombers to break it. I'd like to bring your attention to this video of 38 bombers killing a PL Archon, even when it entered Triage. It didn't last very long even with 2x Capital armor reppers. In short, If you stop using 300 DPS bombers and start using 651 DPS Bombers your alliance could smell like the man you've always dreamed of. Everything's possible with 651 DPS Bombers. I'm on a Boat. So, it's just 38, ie: almost 40 people to kill an archon without hardeners, shooting mostly into it's resist holes, and it still lived for almost a minute. Pretty much what I'm saying. When assisting fighters from the undock you don't need a triage mod or local repair as much as you need enough buffer to redock, and since that video was made we have recieved some very useful mods called Reactive Armor Hardeners. Combine that with a DCU2 and you've got 1.2m EHP on the thing easily.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 776	Posted - 2015.03.14 20:35:54 - [1199] - Quote Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: ... Uh, where are you getting 50 pilots from? According to my PYFA, a DPS Purifier does 651 DPS with 2 BCS and Rage torps. The highest tank I can squeeze out of an Archon without green, blue, or purple is 19207 EHP/S with a Triage II module, which means it can't assign fighters, not to mention it has ****-poor DPS. It'll cap out in less than 4 minutes, but it'll still be in a Triage cycle which means it can get cap or reps. Now, assuming a non-Tank version, it has 4090 EHP/S with a single repper and a DC2, which means that you only need 7 torpedo bombers to break it. I'd like to bring your attention to this video of 38 bombers killing a PL Archon, even when it entered Triage. It didn't last very long even with 2x Capital armor reppers. In short, If you stop using 300 DPS bombers and start using 651 DPS Bombers your alliance could smell like the man you've always dreamed of. Everything's possible with 651 DPS Bombers. I'm on a Boat. So, it's just 38, ie: almost 40 people to kill an archon without hardeners, shooting mostly into it's resist holes, and it still lived for almost a minute. Pretty much what I'm saying. When assisting fighters from the undock you don't need a triage mod or local repair as much as you need enough buffer to redock, and since that video was made we have recieved some very useful mods called Reactive Armor Hardeners. Combine that with a DCU2 and you've got 1.2m EHP on the thing easily. If you re-read the title, it was 38 "Amarr Militia" bombers. Additionally, if you check the fits (using meta launchers and faction torps) and the toons in question, they weren't "top of the line" bomber pilots and didn't have fantastic DPS. When people generally ping for "need bombers to kill capital", you're not going to go into the specifics of "ok, we only need 8 people", you take whoever joins fleet and undocks in a bomber. And as I mentioned, 1200 DPS Talos fleet is a valid option, and much easier to use than bombers. Or you can just get a Moros or two to mop up the carrier in a matter of seconds. And if the player opts to sacrifice DPS for tank, then that's his prerogative. You can still force him to de-aggress and dock, which would be considered a "win".
Gaan Cathal Angry Mustellid The Periphery 41	Posted - 2015.03.14 20:43:02 - [1200] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: Basically, if they remove fighter assign I DEMAND they re-balance all wealth within the eve universe as a whole. It has gone on far too long! While null sec inhabitants and capital owners alike have been getting shafted patch after patch with no reconciliation for their losses. The cries of high sec and low sec players alike have been heard and their demands met, yet it has not one has made a move to live in null despite their constant "this is why I don't live in null" complaints that have forced these changes upon us. It has gotten so out of balance that I must make comparisons to high sec activities to show how much money is available to the individual player within null. The people of high sec and low obliviously have no real interest in fair play or living in null at all. They want all the isk and none of the risk and cost of living in null space. If you want to make 120m an hour (looking at you high sec incrusioners) come to null and risk your assets to obtain it. If you want to make 800m an hour, well I laugh at you entirely (looking at you faction warfare). WH space... I have less of an issue but god! Stop riding your high horse about no local, your lone system can be put on lockdown be happy with what you got, null is always open to roamers and hot drops. Because Skynetting is just a Nullsec thing, amirite? I dunno if this is actually possible in terms of coding/avoiding legacy codeworms, but I don't see any problem with Carriers assigning fighters from on grid. It simply lets them divest command/control of their fighters to someone with a faster lock speed, whilst splitting them up into 5-fighter parcels that degrade potential alpha so they can concentrate on Pantheoning whatever it is the kids are doing with their highslots these days. The fundamental problem with Skynetting is the old "directly influencing on-grid outcomes from off-grid" issue, not the actual delegation of fighters itself.
Alavaria Fera GoonWaffe 6650	Posted - 2015.03.14 20:51:27 - [1201] - Quote Irya Boone wrote: No more fight advantage while being afk , hard to understand ? I hope the expansion when Super are not combat vessels will come soon. in the Other hand cloak should be an active thing too same as boost :) Is this the part where you start talking about off grid boosts... well, hmm you say they're more active than the carrier skyneting? ^^ Delicious goon ((tech nerf, siphon, drone assist, supercap)) tears. Taking a wrecking ball to the futile hopes and broken dreams of skillless blobbers.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1949	Posted - 2015.03.14 21:46:01 - [1202] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: If you re-read the title, it was 38 "Amarr Militia" bombers. Additionally, if you check the fits (using meta launchers and faction torps) and the toons in question, they weren't "top of the line" bomber pilots and didn't have fantastic DPS. When people generally ping for "need bombers to kill capital", you're not going to go into the specifics of "ok, we only need 8 people", you take whoever joins fleet and undocks in a bomber. And as I mentioned, 1200 DPS Talos fleet is a valid option, and much easier to use than bombers. Or you can just get a Moros or two to mop up the carrier in a matter of seconds. And if the player opts to sacrifice DPS for tank, then that's his prerogative. You can still force him to de-aggress and dock, which would be considered a "win". Except for the small fact it isn't a win, it's at best a draw. And a 1200 DPS Talos fleet is not a valid option for a roaming gang. Nor are the Moros. Sure if you are specifically hunting a known skynetter you can do such things, but not if you are a random roaming gang. On the other hand if you are a random roaming gang and the carrier attempts to engage you at say.... the asteroid belt you chased the ratter to, you can tackle the carrier, concentrate on killing it's fighters off and then wear it down slowly. Without needing to play stupid station games. (Especially if the carrier fits for the max DPS/Tracking while on grid, which makes it a 0 tank target). So the carrier having to be on grid to engage makes a massive difference to the ability of the gang to deal with the carrier compared to it being off grid skynetting.
BLACK METALL Tauron Heavy industry Shadow of xXDEATHXx 25	Posted - 2015.03.14 21:56:57 - [1203] - Quote With each new update, the game more and more killing, it seems that those who are making updates to the game do not even understand its mechanics and principles
Kazaheid Zaknafein Mara's Hounds 13	Posted - 2015.03.15 00:04:38 - [1204] - Quote The carriers; if they are still used, will probably just be in blobs on gates. Who cares if they can assign fighters if there are 10 carriers on gate with 2^ and 2v for reps and cap chain. A single hictor and some paints means the carriers no longer need to deal with fighter delegation, and are now near immovable without dreads or titans. If this is the scenario that carriers are forced to, then just fit them for max tank and kill with sheer number of fighters.
Irya Boone Never Surrender. 447	Posted - 2015.03.15 00:57:40 - [1205] - Quote Alavaria Fera wrote: Irya Boone wrote: No more fight advantage while being afk , hard to understand ? I hope the expansion when Super are not combat vessels will come soon. in the Other hand cloak should be an active thing too same as boost :) Is this the part where you start talking about off grid boosts... well, hmm you say they're more active than the carrier skyneting? no i'm syaing to maintain the cloak effect it should be something " active" not pasive like auto repeat of the cloak module something like 2 min cycle of the module and you have 15 sec to reload "the cloak) before you appear CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 782	Posted - 2015.03.15 14:31:31 - [1206] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Except for the small fact it isn't a win, it's at best a draw. And a 1200 DPS Talos fleet is not a valid option for a roaming gang. Nor are the Moros. Sure if you are specifically hunting a known skynetter you can do such things, but not if you are a random roaming gang. On the other hand if you are a random roaming gang and the carrier attempts to engage you at say.... the asteroid belt you chased the ratter to, you can tackle the carrier, concentrate on killing it's fighters off and then wear it down slowly. Without needing to play stupid station games. (Especially if the carrier fits for the max DPS/Tracking while on grid, which makes it a 0 tank target). So the carrier having to be on grid to engage makes a massive difference to the ability of the gang to deal with the carrier compared to it being off grid skynetting. You are forcing a retreat, that's a win. A draw would be two fleets with enough buffer and logi to keep themselves alive, so they both leave. I fail to see how a Talos fleet is not valid for roaming; those things are a beast. If you encounter a skynetter, you can then pull back to the other side of the gate, call for a bomber hotdrop, and then proceed to obtain a nice carrier killmail. Bombers Bar are always happy to obtain a capital killmail if you lack the skills.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 952	Posted - 2015.03.15 15:08:40 - [1207] - Quote ^^ With things as they are now you won't be bomber hot dropping a carrier used by someone doing "skynet" proper. Never sure with your posts if your meaning as things are now or after a theoretical change to force people to be 50+km off a POS to assign fighters.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 782	Posted - 2015.03.15 15:36:12 - [1208] - Quote Rroff wrote: ^^ With things as they are now you won't be bomber hot dropping a carrier used by someone doing "skynet" proper. Never sure with your posts if your meaning as things are now or after a theoretical change to force people to be 50+km off a POS to assign fighters. I'm not sure what you're saying. What do you think will happen to carriers after this change? If anything, they'll group up on the gate using the Pantheon doctrine and assign heavies or sentries to a Loki or Huginn. You've failed to explain how carriers are somehow immune to damage when they assist fighters on a station.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 952	Posted - 2015.03.15 18:17:09 - [1209] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Rroff wrote: ^^ With things as they are now you won't be bomber hot dropping a carrier used by someone doing "skynet" proper. Never sure with your posts if your meaning as things are now or after a theoretical change to force people to be 50+km off a POS to assign fighters. I'm not sure what you're saying. What do you think will happen to carriers after this change? If anything, they'll group up on the gate using the Pantheon doctrine and assign heavies or sentries to a Loki or Huginn. You've failed to explain how carriers are somehow immune to damage when they assist fighters on a station. My point is that as things are now if people are doing skynet "properly" you aren't going to be bombing them - not sure if your talking from the perspective of after any theoretical changes or not.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 782	Posted - 2015.03.15 18:26:22 - [1210] - Quote Rroff wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Rroff wrote: ^^ With things as they are now you won't be bomber hot dropping a carrier used by someone doing "skynet" proper. Never sure with your posts if your meaning as things are now or after a theoretical change to force people to be 50+km off a POS to assign fighters. I'm not sure what you're saying. What do you think will happen to carriers after this change? If anything, they'll group up on the gate using the Pantheon doctrine and assign heavies or sentries to a Loki or Huginn. You've failed to explain how carriers are somehow immune to damage when they assist fighters on a station. My point is that as things are now if people are doing skynet "properly" you aren't going to be bombing them - not sure if your talking from the perspective of after any theoretical changes or not. Before change: If people are doing skynet "properly" they're using an Aeon or Archon with tank slots in the lows after 3-4 DDA and they're nosed just outside of a POS shield, not on a station. They're vulnerable to a Drive-by DD as seen by the Revenant, and they can be forced back into the shields if a neutral / enemy HIC decloaks anywhere within 14.7km of the gate or their POS. Assigned fighters to an interceptor or other frigate, which can be destroyed. After change: 10+ Archons parked on a gate assigning heavies or sentries to an interceptor or Loki / Huginn. May or may not have Aeon support. Untouchable unless you commit a fleet of dreads, supers, or titans, in which case "Hello B-R!"
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 952	Posted - 2015.03.15 19:58:53 - [1211] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Before change: If people are doing skynet "properly" they're using an Aeon or Archon with tank slots in the lows after 3-4 DDA and they're nosed just outside of a POS shield, not on a station. They're vulnerable to a Drive-by DD as seen by the Revenant, and they can be forced back into the shields if a neutral / enemy HIC decloaks anywhere within 14.7km of the gate or their POS. Assigned fighters to an interceptor or other frigate, which can be destroyed. For those sitting on a station, they're easily targeted by TORPEDO bombers or Talos, or dreads and they can't dock for 60 seconds. Vulnerable to bump stabbers / talos / omen / machs. After change: 10+ Archons parked on a gate assigning heavies or sentries to an interceptor or Loki / Huginn. May or may not have Aeon support. Untouchable unless you commit a fleet of dreads, supers, or titans, in which case "Hello B-R!" Some people are doing it like that... its become increasingly common to do it sitting right by the tower itself with the forcefield down and the password dialog up so they can online the FF and save themselves from any harm without moving. There are also 2 other techniques where they can even sit right outside the FF and be instantly safe without moving at all - no matter how many bombers or titans you drop on them.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 782	Posted - 2015.03.15 20:54:02 - [1212] - Quote Rroff wrote: Some people are doing it like that... its become increasingly common to do it sitting right by the tower itself with the forcefield down and the password dialog up so they can online the FF and save themselves from any harm without moving. There are also 2 other techniques where they can even sit right outside the FF and be instantly safe without moving at all - no matter how many bombers or titans you drop on them. And again, if you force them to turn the shield on, that's a win. And again, we were talking about adding a 50km range around a POS where you can't assign fighters from, which makes your other two points moot at best.
Calexis Atredies Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 9	Posted - 2015.03.16 12:31:07 - [1213] - Quote If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 782	Posted - 2015.03.16 12:55:06 - [1214] - Quote Calexis Atredies wrote: If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned. Not sure if serius or just trolling... Macro use is banned by CCP. But if they were manually bouncing safespots, the warp deceleration coupled with the massive signature radius is a wet dream for any combat scanner.
Calexis Atredies Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 9	Posted - 2015.03.16 14:35:33 - [1215] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Calexis Atredies wrote: If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned. Not sure if serius or just trolling... Macro use is banned by CCP. But if they were manually bouncing safespots, the warp deceleration coupled with the massive signature radius is a wet dream for any combat scanner. Depends entirely on the size of the system, anything over 36 AU in radius is going to be near impossible to chase them through.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 782	Posted - 2015.03.16 17:18:59 - [1216] - Quote Calexis Atredies wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Calexis Atredies wrote: If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned. Not sure if serius or just trolling... Macro use is banned by CCP. But if they were manually bouncing safespots, the warp deceleration coupled with the massive signature radius is a wet dream for any combat scanner. Depends entirely on the size of the system, anything over 36 AU in radius is going to be near impossible to chase them through. Get a better person to scan for you. It isn't impossible to follow a archon moving at, what. 1.5au/s, with scan probes on something other than a five day old toon.
Aivlis Eldelbar Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District 59	Posted - 2015.03.17 01:28:33 - [1217] - Quote Calexis Atredies wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Calexis Atredies wrote: If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned. Not sure if serius or just trolling... Macro use is banned by CCP. But if they were manually bouncing safespots, the warp deceleration coupled with the massive signature radius is a wet dream for any combat scanner. Depends entirely on the size of the system, anything over 36 AU in radius is going to be near impossible to chase them through. Capitals have ludicrous signatures, you can get a warpable hit on very wide scans, and even if you fail, a dps-fit carrier will take so long to align you can just repeat the scan and still land a ceptor on it.
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 2803	Posted - 2015.03.17 14:48:57 - [1218] - Quote Aivlis Eldelbar wrote: Calexis Atredies wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: Calexis Atredies wrote: If the make it so the carriers cannot be parked on a POS the next thing people will do is setup macros to have carriers bounce between safe spots whilst their fighters are assigned. Not sure if serius or just trolling... Macro use is banned by CCP. But if they were manually bouncing safespots, the warp deceleration coupled with the massive signature radius is a wet dream for any combat scanner. Depends entirely on the size of the system, anything over 36 AU in radius is going to be near impossible to chase them through. Capitals have ludicrous signatures, you can get a warpable hit on very wide scans, and even if you fail, a dps-fit carrier will take so long to align you can just repeat the scan and still land a ceptor on it. That in itself is a problem. When scanning was still an art form, there was actual skill involved in finding signatures (ships and sites alike). These days, a blindman can scan something within a few seconds.... Nevermind the fact that somehow, in eve... big ships that by definition and sheer computing power should be able to target smaller - less sophisticated ships faster .... are incapable of doing so despite being big flying pinging dart boards with this crap scan resolution system we have going on..... Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Zhul Chembull Universalis Imperium The Bastion 97	Posted - 2015.03.17 16:49:40 - [1219] - Quote Removing this feature is a bad idea, but my experience is CCP doesn't really listen anyhow. These forums are here just so we have an outlit and they can say they have "listened to us." Well, I wont get too negative here, but let me just ask a simple question of CCP. What do you want us to use these big ships for now ? With the upcoming sov changes I don't see any use to own one anymore. With small ships running around undoing sov, the days of using a capital ship are coming to an end. Perhaps this was the goal all along. Might want to rethink this a bit.
Pedro Minatore 0	Posted - 2015.03.18 17:01:05 - [1220] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: Remove: - fighter assist. - fighter follow in warp the target. Keep: - fighters warping with the carrier So you can send fighters only against target on grid. When the target warps off the grid fighters will NOT follow. When the carrier warps off the grid fighters will drop aggro and follow the carrier. Very much this!!! "[u]The only true wisdom is in knowing you know nothing[/u]." (Socrates)
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 786	Posted - 2015.03.18 19:44:09 - [1221] - Quote Well it was announced that this change is being railroaded through, despite literally everyone here saying it was a bad change. Now, for everyone who told me that CCP would "really truly listen this time", you now owe me 100m isk each.
Antonia Iskarius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 1	Posted - 2015.03.18 20:06:41 - [1222] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Well it was announced that this change is being railroaded through, despite literally everyone here saying it was a bad change. Now, for everyone who told me that CCP would "really truly listen this time", you now owe me 100m isk each. Well colour me surprised It was pretty obvious all along that they had already decided to remove it, no matter what, before this thread was even created. This was just a ploy to make us think we actually had a voice. Almost everyone posting constructively in this thread gave good reasons to keep the feature and other solutions that would be effective in nerfing Skynet. The people in favor of removal were by and large 'death to all supers' and 'lol nullbear tears' trolls.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4132	Posted - 2015.03.18 20:47:12 - [1223] - Quote http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-scylla Quote: Fighters can no longer be assigned to other pilots. The GÇÿDelegate ControlGÇÖ option has been removed and replaced by GÇÿAssistGÇÖ and GÇÿDefendGÇÖ, same as other drones. Fighter 'assist' will apparently function like regular drone assist, with the addition of warp capability (fighters will follow the assisted ship into/out of warp). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 954	Posted - 2015.03.18 20:54:04 - [1224] - Quote "Same as other drones" says it all really...
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 788	Posted - 2015.03.18 20:59:08 - [1225] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-scylla Quote: Fighters can no longer be assigned to other pilots. The GÇÿDelegate ControlGÇÖ option has been removed and replaced by GÇÿAssistGÇÖ and GÇÿDefendGÇÖ, same as other drones. Fighter 'assist' will apparently function like regular drone assist, with the addition of warp capability (fighters will follow the assisted ship into/out of warp). If that means they're removing the 5 fighter assign limit, that might be a nice compromise....
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 955	Posted - 2015.03.18 21:16:08 - [1226] - Quote I'm assuming it'll be exactly the same as normal assist which never had any limits (other than the recent change to 50 or whatever to prevent mass afk blapping).
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4132	Posted - 2015.03.18 21:53:36 - [1227] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: If that means they're removing the 5 fighter assign limit, that might be a nice compromise.... Hard to say. I'm a little surprised (maybe I shouldn't be) that there wasn't any update in this thread prior to the release of the patch notes. This is probably a better compromise than completely neutering carriers at the expense of SkyNet. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Feronix Jade Falcon LLc The Ditanian Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.03.18 23:25:02 - [1228] - Quote Nerfing long held aspects of the game is as about ridiculous as it gets. I just started playing again, and the rash of nerfs that have come down in the last two months just made me not want to play again.
Numen Anomalie Evedustry Inc. The Kadeshi 5	Posted - 2015.03.19 00:09:59 - [1229] - Quote "Reads the patch notes, see's fighter assist removal" "browses the bazaar for what his 1 year training of 9 extra toons to do exactly thAt to give his corp mates extra DPS, out of the safety of a POS, are worth, as they are about 21 days off the archon, but have perfect mining, PI, sentry, armor, gallente ship, transport- ships and logi skills" About 5-8 bil." "does a little math on the isk loss, roughly 90-50 bil" "does a little math on the money loss, since he didnt make it all months to plex them and spent money on it. Roughly 500 euros." "scratches head" "Drinks some coffee" "Does not enjoy eve anymore" "Will train these useless toons to archon, sell them and leave 1 account plexed for 3 years" "Will probably never pay a single dime to this game again, nor do anything else but log on and train the single toon." 07
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4134	Posted - 2015.03.19 01:38:58 - [1230] - Quote Numen Anomalie wrote: "Reads the patch notes, see's fighter assist removal" You still have fighter assist and fighter warp. You just can't assign fighters to attack as before. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 738	Posted - 2015.03.19 02:52:23 - [1231] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-scylla Quote: Fighters can no longer be assigned to other pilots. The GÇÿDelegate ControlGÇÖ option has been removed and replaced by GÇÿAssistGÇÖ and GÇÿDefendGÇÖ, same as other drones. Fighter 'assist' will apparently function like regular drone assist, with the addition of warp capability (fighters will follow the assisted ship into/out of warp). I kind of doubt that. Delegating fighter control essentially meant that calculations of control range were based on the ship which had control at the time. Drone assist still bases control range off of the ship that launched the drones. This means, if I'm right, that the carrier still has to be on grid with the fighters in order for commands (other than return) to be given. So I don't think fighters will follow the assistee into warp. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Primary This Rifter 4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation 738	Posted - 2015.03.19 02:53:20 - [1232] - Quote In any case, though, this is a particularly pleasant surprise. The nuances aren't terribly obvious though, and it'd be really helpful if CCP could clarify exactly how fighters will behave with assisting and defending. Reminder: CCP thinks you have no right to your alliance logos.
Ramases Purvanen EVEL Tendancies The Methodical Alliance 9	Posted - 2015.03.19 05:09:46 - [1233] - Quote Primary This Rifter wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: http://community.eveonline.com/news/patch-notes/patch-notes-for-scylla Quote: Fighters can no longer be assigned to other pilots. The GÇÿDelegate ControlGÇÖ option has been removed and replaced by GÇÿAssistGÇÖ and GÇÿDefendGÇÖ, same as other drones. Fighter 'assist' will apparently function like regular drone assist, with the addition of warp capability (fighters will follow the assisted ship into/out of warp). I kind of doubt that. Delegating fighter control essentially meant that calculations of control range were based on the ship which had control at the time. Drone assist still bases control range off of the ship that launched the drones. This means, if I'm right, that the carrier still has to be on grid with the fighters in order for commands (other than return) to be given. So I don't think fighters will follow the assistee into warp. Yeah I would like to know if the fighters still warp when the carrier warps off grid or if the assisted person warps off grid. CCP TELL US!!!!
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 89	Posted - 2015.03.19 05:48:14 - [1234] - Quote Proof once again CCP does NOT listen to it's customers. Be sure to make lots of noise during fanfest about this bullshit.
Galian Kile Interdimensional Chaos Gentlemen's.Club 12	Posted - 2015.03.19 07:37:49 - [1235] - Quote I have to add something to the new assist mechanic that will be implemented. I was on SISI testing the new ASSIST option on the carrier. If the carrier gets a "CONTROL RANGE" to fighters, if I am assisting fighters, that "CONTROL RANGE" should apply to the assist since the carrier is on GRID. It is currently limited to 56-60km which is the standard Skill Based Control Range and is not including the Carrier Control Range Bonus. So it looks like a broken system is replacing a non-broken game mechanic...
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4138	Posted - 2015.03.19 08:16:51 - [1236] - Quote Galian Kile wrote: I was on SISI testing the new ASSIST option on the carrier. If the carrier gets a "CONTROL RANGE" to fighters, if I am assisting fighters, that "CONTROL RANGE" should apply to the assist since the carrier is on GRID. It is currently limited to 56-60km which is the standard Skill Based Control Range and is not including the Carrier Control Range Bonus. Is this intentional or an oversight? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Rek Seven The Scope Gallente Federation 1968	Posted - 2015.03.19 09:49:27 - [1237] - Quote If deploying fighters in relative safety is the issue then either remove fighter warp ability or make fighter assist an ongrid only thing. If they go ahead with this extreme proposal, then drone assist should just be completely removed from the game. +1
Neyko Turama Black Arrows Sev3rance 5	Posted - 2015.03.19 12:11:21 - [1238] - Quote d0cTeR9 wrote: Proof once again CCP does NOT listen to it's customers. Be sure to make lots of noise during fanfest about this bullshit. Its not like they are just not listening. They tell you to do proposals and bring up your ideas. In normal conversations both sithes of a dispute express themselves. CPPs only expression in this case is the boot with which they hit our opinions in the face. Again and again. Icelandic History X
Dr Aether Celtic Anarchy 0	Posted - 2015.03.19 13:18:04 - [1239] - Quote While I agree that sitting next to a POS and projecting power half-way across the system is kind of crap, I think removing the warp and assignment is perhaps a bit heavy. How about restricting the capability of the receiving ship, perhaps by giving the fighters a drone bandwidth requirement? This would then remove Interceptor assigning, and increase risk by forcing larger more capable ships onto the battlefield that are capable of controlling them. Also, are Fighters too immuned to EW, and should this be reviewed? Just a though :)
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 955	Posted - 2015.03.19 13:32:58 - [1240] - Quote Galian Kile wrote: I have to add something to the new assist mechanic that will be implemented. I was on SISI testing the new ASSIST option on the carrier. If the carrier gets a "CONTROL RANGE" to fighters, if I am assisting fighters, that "CONTROL RANGE" should apply to the assist since the carrier is on GRID. It is currently limited to 56-60km which is the standard Skill Based Control Range and is not including the Carrier Control Range Bonus. So it looks like a broken system is replacing a non-broken game mechanic... Carrier's bonused and enhanced control range would have made it too easy to hide capitals in adjacent grids and as they can't hack grids out the game hence this... whole thing is a bloody hacksaw job and should be put on hold until they can put a competent solution in place.
Tiberizzle Amok. Goonswarm Federation 66	Posted - 2015.03.19 14:31:23 - [1241] - Quote fighter guard on sisi is kind of garbage, guard only guards for one aggressor then they sit there like retards, kind of like their aggressive mode behavior fighters are hitting rock bottom 'not even worth training, 250m lossmail padding in drone bay' status again with the unnecessary scanres and debatable delegation nerfs -- is there any possibility that they can get the 'shoot one thing then sit there like a ******' behavior removed for guard and aggressive modes as consolation for this kneecapping? there is basically no reason to use them over geckos or heavy drones in most situations with the nerf, and there's pretty much no reason for them to behave like this when they are now big normal drones in every other respect.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 957	Posted - 2015.03.19 14:42:04 - [1242] - Quote ^^ It is a bit silly, if they are gonna implement this mess they might as well pull fighters entirely and replace them with a new heavy drone like the gecko but with a bit more firepower to make up the difference and without the other drawbacks of expense and volume, etc. :S
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4139	Posted - 2015.03.19 15:50:17 - [1243] - Quote Tiberizzle wrote: fighter guard on sisi is kind of garbage, guard only guards for one aggressor then they sit there like retards, kind of like their aggressive mode behavior So do Fighters need to be overhauled? ie: less mass and substantially lower cost (allowing carriers to carry and field more) I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 2804	Posted - 2015.03.19 16:20:11 - [1244] - Quote d0cTeR9 wrote: Proof once again CCP does NOT listen to it's customers. Be sure to make lots of noise during fanfest about this bullshit. To the space statues! And unsub some cyno alts! Eve is about Capital ships, WiS, Boobs, PI and Isk!
Antonia Iskarius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 3	Posted - 2015.03.19 16:20:39 - [1245] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Numen Anomalie wrote: "Reads the patch notes, see's fighter assist removal" You still have fighter assist and fighter warp. You just can't assign fighters to attack as before. I'm kind of wondering what is the point if I can't even control the ******* things when assigned. They are just going to sit there all stupid and take damage?
Galian Kile Interdimensional Chaos Gentlemen's.Club 14	Posted - 2015.03.19 17:22:25 - [1246] - Quote Rroff wrote: [quote=Galian Kile]I have to add something to the new assist mechanic that will be implemented. I was on SISI testing the new ASSIST option on the carrier. If the carrier gets a "CONTROL RANGE" to fighters, if I am assisting fighters, that "CONTROL RANGE" should apply to the assist since the carrier is on GRID. It is currently limited to 56-60km which is the standard Skill Based Control Range and is not including the Carrier Control Range Bonus. So it looks like a broken system is replacing a non-broken game mechanic... Carrier's bonused and enhanced control range would have made it too easy to hide capitals in adjacent grids and as they can't chop grids out the game hence this... whole thing is a bloody hacksaw job and should be put on hold until they can put a competent solution in place. I see what you are saying. But a Carrier won't be "offgrid" if control range comes into play. At max skills, your control range would be about 120km's? That is not offgrid... And why would you waste your High slots with DCA's to increase that range slightly? It would still not be offgrid, because as soon as my carrier went "offgrid" fighters warped back to me... This should get fixed...
Sumeragy Brianum Industries and Excavations Gatekeepers Universe 3	Posted - 2015.03.19 18:31:35 - [1247] - Quote So again some PVP guys complains "Uhhh i can-¦t kill him because he got fighter suppport, NERV IT AWAY" CCP decides to remove it or start a diskussion about it? Srsly .... If those ppl have a problem that they can-¦t roam in a System that they got fighter support. They could bring in theyr own carrier to get theyr own fighter. The System as it is, is working and its widly used in EvE. And besides the Only downside is that some PVP guys have to fight off the fighter first or engage the Carrier so it docks or warps save to a pos. If u gona remove Figter Assist just remove assist at all. You are nerving already the Ishtar thats also used in PVE so its match in PVP.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 958	Posted - 2015.03.19 18:37:57 - [1248] - Quote Galian Kile wrote: I see what you are saying. But a Carrier won't be "offgrid" if control range comes into play. At max skills, your control range would be about 120km's? That is not offgrid... And why would you waste your High slots with DCA's to increase that range slightly? It would still not be offgrid, because as soon as my carrier went "offgrid" fighters warped back to me... This should get fixed... You have a point about high slot usage after the change - used to depend on the shape of the grid but not tried it in awhile to be fair so might not still be possible.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 1107	Posted - 2015.03.19 19:23:47 - [1249] - Quote it is curious why they cost so much though? 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 assist mechanic, nerf sentries. Nerf web strength ..... Make the blaster eagle worth using please.
Scout Sergeant Mkoll Twinstar Universal Services DARKNESS. 0	Posted - 2015.03.19 22:08:33 - [1250] - Quote carriers are slow, they have, signature like earth itsself. jump range has been reduced, fatigue set up. If fighters are not to assist and not able to warp anymore, what is the idea about using carriers with fighters in battles? fighters will be nothing else than havy drones and carriers nothing else than useless super-dominix I understand, ccp wants to give better chances to smaller Groups, to survive a battle, but they take the wrong way. former small Groups with strong ships could handle big numbers, in the future big numbers will do, nothing is able to stop them, if others dont have the Tools to deal with it. can I bring a drake? just my 50c
Ramases Purvanen EVEL Tendancies The Methodical Alliance 9	Posted - 2015.03.19 22:54:53 - [1251] - Quote Tiberizzle wrote: fighter guard on sisi is kind of garbage, guard only guards for one aggressor then they sit there like retards, kind of like their aggressive mode behavior fighters are hitting rock bottom 'not even worth training, 250m lossmail padding in drone bay' status again with the unnecessary scanres and debatable delegation nerfs -- is there any possibility that they can get the 'shoot one thing then sit there like a ******' behavior removed for guard and aggressive modes as consolation for this kneecapping? there is basically no reason to use them over geckos or heavy drones in most situations with the nerf, and there's pretty much no reason for them to behave like this when they are now big normal drones in every other respect. Well look at the bright side, at least you can dock your carrier and super carrier and let it rust away as they arent needed anymore! If you had a Nyx, by the time you get it out of station you just might have a Hel instead as its rusted away so bad from not being used...
Lord Christian Fusion Enterprises Ltd Shadow of xXDEATHXx 4	Posted - 2015.03.19 23:26:55 - [1252] - Quote we must have same other defance, we then need point defance guns on capitals
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 92	Posted - 2015.03.20 02:49:08 - [1253] - Quote Ramases Purvanen wrote: Tiberizzle wrote: fighter guard on sisi is kind of garbage, guard only guards for one aggressor then they sit there like retards, kind of like their aggressive mode behavior fighters are hitting rock bottom 'not even worth training, 250m lossmail padding in drone bay' status again with the unnecessary scanres and debatable delegation nerfs -- is there any possibility that they can get the 'shoot one thing then sit there like a ******' behavior removed for guard and aggressive modes as consolation for this kneecapping? there is basically no reason to use them over geckos or heavy drones in most situations with the nerf, and there's pretty much no reason for them to behave like this when they are now big normal drones in every other respect. Well look at the bright side, at least you can dock your carrier and super carrier and let it rust away as they arent needed anymore! If you had a Nyx, by the time you get it out of station you just might have a Hel instead as its rusted away so bad from not being used... You can't dock a supercarrier...
Ramases Purvanen EVEL Tendancies The Methodical Alliance 9	Posted - 2015.03.20 02:52:36 - [1254] - Quote d0cTeR9 wrote: Ramases Purvanen wrote: Tiberizzle wrote: fighter guard on sisi is kind of garbage, guard only guards for one aggressor then they sit there like retards, kind of like their aggressive mode behavior fighters are hitting rock bottom 'not even worth training, 250m lossmail padding in drone bay' status again with the unnecessary scanres and debatable delegation nerfs -- is there any possibility that they can get the 'shoot one thing then sit there like a ******' behavior removed for guard and aggressive modes as consolation for this kneecapping? there is basically no reason to use them over geckos or heavy drones in most situations with the nerf, and there's pretty much no reason for them to behave like this when they are now big normal drones in every other respect. Well look at the bright side, at least you can dock your carrier and super carrier and let it rust away as they arent needed anymore! If you had a Nyx, by the time you get it out of station you just might have a Hel instead as its rusted away so bad from not being used... You can't dock a supercarrier... You will be able to in a few months!! news from fanfest my friend...
drainey0 Charante Mecha Enterprises Fleet 0	Posted - 2015.03.20 04:53:07 - [1255] - Quote I think you guys should just remove the ability to warp to/warp off they should be treated like normal drones it would mae it so carriers would have to put them self's out in a bad spot to help there fleet out.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4146	Posted - 2015.03.20 06:08:33 - [1256] - Quote Ramases Purvanen wrote: You will be able to in a few months!! news from fanfest my friend... That timeframe might be a bit overly optimistic... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Ramases Purvanen EVEL Tendancies The Methodical Alliance 9	Posted - 2015.03.20 06:17:54 - [1257] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Ramases Purvanen wrote: You will be able to in a few months!! news from fanfest my friend... That timeframe might be a bit overly optimistic... Have faith my space friend!
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4146	Posted - 2015.03.20 07:23:18 - [1258] - Quote Ramases Purvanen wrote: Have faith my space friend! !! I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Sumeragy Brianum Industries and Excavations Gatekeepers Universe 5	Posted - 2015.03.20 10:36:09 - [1259] - Quote Patchnotes are out Fighter Asisst remove is confirmed .....yay Wrong move CCP
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4146	Posted - 2015.03.20 14:40:31 - [1260] - Quote Sumeragy wrote: Patchnotes are out Fighter Asisst remove is confirmed Fighters are retaining their warp capability (confirmed). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Jenn aSide Smokin Aces. 10262	Posted - 2015.03.20 17:21:00 - [1261] - Quote For pve, if they thought Skynet was bad, they ain't seen nothing. While I haven't done it in months, I used to 'semi-lazy mode' null anoms with a mach and 5 assigned fighters form my carrier that was at a pos. Optimal ratting, hell no, but super easy. I stopped doing it because I realized I made more isk with that alt in an afktar doing different kinds of anoms in another system (and subsequently providing me intel, if the ishtar dies, I know there is someone 1 jump away lol it never did though). I didn't use the Carrier with the mach because you couldn't 'regular assign' fighters to assist or defend so I would have had to control the fighters manually (can't be arsed) or use sentries which meant a non-moving carrier (screw that). NO I can bring my carrier with me, assign drones from on grid, align the carrier out, and insta-fleet warp it away if something comes in, making that carrier every bit as safe as it was during Skynet...WHILE making MORE isk because instead of 5 fighters, ill be able to assign all 13 (with my fit and skills) to the mach. CCP, my wallet salutes you! 07
Talon Stormcrow Clan 86 Antesignani Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.03.20 17:42:34 - [1262] - Quote My solution for fixing the fighter assigning "issue". New carrier module - allows carrier to go into "Launch mode" (think triage mode). In launch mode a carrier cannot move or warp. Carriers can only launch fighters/bombers in this mode (it can launch drones in any mode). Launch mode cannot be activated within 100k of any FIXED object. Module would have a 60 second activation/deactivation delay. Launch mode allows the carrier to "link" to another ship and receive its targeting data by using a new ship link module. Carrier can then lock targets and send fighters to engage from off grid. New ship "Link" module - Link module allow a ship the "link with a carrier and send it targeting data. The amount of targets sent cannot exceed the ship/pilot target amount. If the link ship is destroyed, or other wise lose's its targets because of E-war the carrier lose's its targeting data as well. This would force a carrier pilot to actively participate in the fight. He would rely on his link ship to feed him data. No more assigning fighters. It would also keep carriers from hanging on a POS bubble. It would make them vulnerable to being scanned down and attacked. With the activation delay carriers would need a group for protection. This to me fits into the new SOV as it allows mobile groups that can force project fighters and bombers. Carrier pilots have to be active in the fight and they will be more at risk to being scanned down and attacked. Obviously there are details that would need to be fleshed out. This is just an idea so don't flame me to bad.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4146	Posted - 2015.03.20 20:25:46 - [1263] - Quote Talon Stormcrow wrote: Obviously there are details that would need to be fleshed out. This is just an idea so don't flame me to bad. Can't say I'm ecstatic about either. Pass. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 242	Posted - 2015.03.20 21:46:33 - [1264] - Quote I train up for a carrier specifically to use it for skynetting, because I think that's an awesome mechanic and would love to do it. They're removing skynetting 2 days before my training finishes. I almost want my 2-3 months and 900 million for the skill books back. They've removed 80% of the reason I ever wanted a carrier.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 958	Posted - 2015.03.20 21:56:37 - [1265] - Quote Talon Stormcrow wrote: My solution for fixing the fighter assigning "issue". New carrier module - allows carrier to go into "Launch mode" (think triage mode). In launch mode a carrier cannot move or warp. Carriers can only launch fighters/bombers in this mode (it can launch drones in any mode). Launch mode cannot be activated within 100k of any FIXED object. Module would have a 60 second activation/deactivation delay. Launch mode allows the carrier to "link" to another ship and receive its targeting data by using a new ship link module. Carrier can then lock targets and send fighters to engage from off grid. ''' Obviously there are details that would need to be fleshed out. This is just an idea so don't flame me to bad. A new module for delegation (along similar style to bastion) isn't a terrible idea IMO but carriers should still be able to use fighters (on grid) without having to use it. As per my earlier post it should like bastion give some local tank bonuses, short duration but weapons timer in the same way when activated, it shouldn't give any tracking or damage bonus but a fighter EHP bonus possibly and maybe some other ancillary bonuses either to the carrier or to fighters i.e. bump in carrier scan res not to triage levels) for usage without delegation.
Necharo Rackham The Red Circle Inc. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 54	Posted - 2015.03.20 22:09:35 - [1266] - Quote Rek Seven wrote: If deploying fighters in relative safety is the issue then either remove fighter warp ability or make fighter assist an ongrid only thing. TBH as someone who encounters these things; I'd be happy with making fighter assist ongrid only. I'd be fine with fighters warping - as long as it's possible to point them. I also think that use of fighters should give an aggression timer (which they currently don't). However, the changes are what they are, so vOv.
John McCreedy Eve Defence Force The Kadeshi 180	Posted - 2015.03.21 00:05:47 - [1267] - Quote I don't know if this has been suggested already but why not just remove the ability to assign drones when you're within XXX KM of a Station/Outpost/POS? You remove the safety net from Carriers and Super Carriers but don't nerf their ability to provide support to smaller ships. 11 years and counting. Eve Defence Force is recruiting.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4149	Posted - 2015.03.21 00:19:12 - [1268] - Quote Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I train up for a carrier specifically to use it for skynetting, because I think that's an awesome mechanic and would love to do it. It's like anything else in this game: If it gets abused, the nerf bat lurketh. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 242	Posted - 2015.03.21 00:35:37 - [1269] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I train up for a carrier specifically to use it for skynetting, because I think that's an awesome mechanic and would love to do it. It's like anything else in this game: If it gets abused, the nerf bat lurketh. Just like Ishtars, right? Oh wait.
Tyranis Marcus Bloody Heathens 1412	Posted - 2015.03.21 01:03:42 - [1270] - 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. 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. ) snip Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal. What? Rise got snipped by ISD? :) Dude! Do not run. We are your friends.
Erasmus Grant EVE University Ivy League 21	Posted - 2015.03.21 02:35:54 - [1271] - Quote Please do not remove skynet for Sov. Null. I think this brings a cool feature to the battlespace to sov. null. If you have to make a structure or deployable that helps enable Skynet in sov null. Or keep skynet altogether and develop a ship that can block or disrupt the signal going from the carrier to the fighter near that ship. Range or effectiveness depending on skill. Effect stacks with multiple ships. This could also work with off grid boost.
Irya Boone Never Surrender. 448	Posted - 2015.03.21 03:25:33 - [1272] - Quote Nooooppee remove the assist , remove the warp * no remove fighters and fighters bombers and remove all dps abilities to supers ( or just remove them from the game already !! CCP it's time to remove Off Grid Boost and Put Them on Killmail too, add Logi on killmails .... Open that damn door !!
Tear Jar Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 324	Posted - 2015.03.21 08:25:31 - [1273] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. The problem with removing fighter assist is how absurdly long it takes to lock stuff in a super. Especially now that the fighters themselves have long lock times. Fighters are supposed to be a way to deal with small ships, so they need a way to target them in a reasonable amount of time.
Tear Jar Glorious Revolutionary Armed Forces of Highsec CODE. 324	Posted - 2015.03.21 08:26:45 - [1274] - Quote Phoenix Jones wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: afkalt wrote: I'm still waiting for even one of these risk averse cowards to explain why, in a world where people are against off grid boosting, they think off grid DPS is somehow "ok"....Cost and training time are not a reason. Man up, put it on grid. If you don't have the fortitude for that risk, stop flying it. Hell you get change out 1.5b for an archon these days. People lose ships worth that on a daily basis. It has been explained countless times in this thread, but we forgive you for not reading. All one has to do is look at the Revenant KM to be able to laugh at anyone saying skynetting is 100% safe, but we are willing to sacrifice a bit; namely, have a bubble around a POS from which you cannot delegate fighters from. Yup. I'll just make sure to have my 700,000,000,000 worth of Titans around to camp the guys log off spot with bubbles and yolo him :-). Also it was a revenant. Skynet or not people want to kill those. 100% is an absolute, nothing is 100%. 99.9 is the correct option :-) people want to kill Revenants no matter what, but people need a reason to log those Revenants in.
Laura Agathon Nothing on Dscan 14	Posted - 2015.03.21 12:26:13 - [1275] - Quote So the issue is having fighters assignable, and them being able to operate remotely from the carrier... Removing fighter assist completely voids some use-cases like a smaller ship controlling the fighters while the capital does other stuff on grid, like logistics. Instead of removing fighter assist and warp completely, could we not avoid Skynet by disallowing assisted fighters from warping? This means that Assisted ship has to be on-grid (or within certain range) of carrier Carrier is always in "danger" (Would need to ensure that assisting fighters triggers a weapons timer, I'm unsure if this works currently) Fighters/Bombers can still follow the carrier across space (keeping in line with the lore, of them being piloted and such) Fighters/Bombers can still follow a target across space if manually targeted by their owner. TL;DR, skynet is dead, and fighters retain their unique functionality that separates them from drones.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 958	Posted - 2015.03.21 13:54:54 - [1276] - Quote Laura Agathon wrote: So the issue is having fighters assignable, and them being able to operate remotely from the carrier... The issue is - fighters relatively recently becoming an effective weapons platform against... anything pretty much. Its been possible to assign fighters for years but no one complained when they struggled to hit anything smaller than a battleship - when they can blast the average roaming ship to nothing with ease that is completely unbalanced and the source of 99% of the complaints about skynet that I'm aware of (obviously no one complaining likes the relative safety of the carrier either). Entirely taking away the bonuses that allow them to have the tracking and speed to make that possible would be a step backwards IMO. There is a "simple" elegant fix but it seems the technical nature of it is beyond most people to understand the implications of it. The fact that in a typical "skynet" situation the carrier pilot can with the right techniques (the revenant kill has NO bearing on this) make themselves 99% immune to repercussion isn't ideal from a game balance perspective either (irrespective of fixes to reduce fighter effectiveness). Wholesale removal of a long standing feature due to some overpowered use in edge cases should never be anything but a last resort if there is no other way to fix a game breaking feature.
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 95	Posted - 2015.03.22 00:57:29 - [1277] - Quote I found out most people saying ban skynet... Have never actually fought fighters. With the last nerf, fighters take for ever to shoot anything, even a capital ship! It takes a special type of idiot to get killed by a swarm of fighters when h is in a frigate...
Laura Agathon Nothing on Dscan 15	Posted - 2015.03.22 02:25:52 - [1278] - Quote d0cTeR9 wrote: I found out most people saying ban skynet... Have never actually fought fighters. With the last nerf, fighters take for ever to shoot anything, even a capital ship! It takes a special type of idiot to get killed by a swarm of fighters when h is in a frigate... Yeah, they're just jumping on the nerf-this-OP-ship bandwagon.
Donoven Nolen Trans-Atlantic Industrial Management 9	Posted - 2015.03.22 02:44:09 - [1279] - Quote honestly i think that the fighter/ fighter/bomber drones should still be able to assist smaller ships without any lack of the usual bonuses received from the carrier that's using them but they should not be able to assist ships that are off grid. as for the warping and following targets....i believe that they should still be able to do that but only if the carrier itself is the one that had the initial target lock on the ship that warps out, when not locked by the carrier but locked by a drone assisted ship the drones would simply return and orbit. as for the being safe behind a POS shield, just prevent all ships from launching drones while within a POS FF so that you cant do any kind of 'safe' drone sniping. force players to continue to help each other with drone assist when using such fleets but also make it so that they have to avidly defend their drone assistance major or else they loose the assistance all together and are back to just being a small gang outside of a POS shield. if you really want to prevent any kind of 'safe' sniping then make it so that to hit anything inside/outside of a FF you have to be on that side, controlling the POS turrets which would make your actual ship next to useless anyway, or have to destroy the shield first to get at whats inside. then nothing could shoot targets without being shot at unless controlling an already in existence mechanic such as controlling POS turrets. why remove something that makes players work together? why not make them work together even harder to do such things so that those who actually figure out how to do it right profit from it and those who fail just end up as another defeated fleet? why remove more of the uniqueness that makes EVE so special from everything else out there?
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4163	Posted - 2015.03.22 04:17:11 - [1280] - Quote Really, all Drone Assist should be eliminated. Then Fighters and Fighter Bombers can have their sensor/targeting aspects reinstated. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 958	Posted - 2015.03.22 05:49:56 - [1281] - Quote d0cTeR9 wrote: I found out most people saying ban skynet... Have never actually fought fighters. With the last nerf, fighters take for ever to shoot anything, even a capital ship! It takes a special type of idiot to get killed by a swarm of fighters when h is in a frigate... They don't take all that long if your mwding (with the sig bloom) trying to escape. If your not pointed and/or reasonably close to gate without aggression then great.
Gevlin Sebiestor Tribe Minmatar Republic 257	Posted - 2015.03.22 05:59:32 - [1282] - Quote In 2007 you could have your drones work for you when you were inside the shield... Those were the days. Some day I will have the internet and be able to play again.
Jiro Arcturus Ascending Angels 0	Posted - 2015.03.22 09:57:39 - [1283] - Quote I think removing Fighter Assist would solve the issue. Still allow fighters to warp after targets the carrier designates on-grid. Make the fighters a defensive buffer, like bees around a nest, instead of the zero-risk power projection they are now. Also have the fighters 'deactivate' if the carrier crosses back into the POS bubble, forcing them to accept the loss of their fighters in order to abuse the shield's defense. The carriers still get to send their fighters around the system chasing aggressors, but they can't piggy-back them on cheap/fast buddy ships, or have them come trotting home when you cross the shield barrier. "Things should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler." -Albert Einstein
Petrified Old and Petrified Syndication TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance 238	Posted - 2015.03.22 10:35:53 - [1284] - Quote With the proposed changes to Structures (no Super Soap Bubble), it would make sense to bring back fighter assist with the provision the assisting pilot is uniquely flagged and cannot moor or otherwise dock until the timer ticks off.
Ruri Dant Onorata Societa 1	Posted - 2015.03.22 18:09:28 - [1285] - Quote I suggest that the fighters that we have now have removed the ability to warp, and a new type of "assist fighter" be introduced, less powerful, less ehp and more expendable, (something inbetween a heavy t2 and a fighter) be introduced
SilentAsTheGrave Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective 128	Posted - 2015.03.22 18:12:26 - [1286] - Quote These tears. My cup, overflowith. Buddy Program: If you sign up with my buddy invite link and subscribe with valid a valid payment method - I will give you 95% of the going rate for PLEX!
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 794	Posted - 2015.03.22 20:26:05 - [1287] - Quote Rroff wrote: They don't take all that long if your mwding (with the sig bloom) trying to escape. If your not pointed and/or reasonably close to gate without aggression then great. If they have people who are 151km+ away, they can warp in and pop you anyways. Most people who use skynet fighters use a frigate-size hull for the high speed and high scan res, which means they're generally weak.
Lacellas Jameson StarKnight Security 3	Posted - 2015.03.22 22:28:32 - [1288] - Quote Much as I agree that the current system allows "risk-free fighting" by the carrier captain, I think it's a shame to simply remove the unique flavour of fighter/ carrier combat, and the variety that brings (or could bring) to the game. So, with apologies for a rather lengthy post... The problem: fighters are effectively used to "stack DPS" onto another ship, above and beyond what its hull size should be able to deploy, and, the carrier itself is redundant on the grid - there is no incentive to deploy into a hotzone, so there is no reward for risk. This is being abused, it seems, in large fleet fights (shocker). IGÇÖd rather not see yet another ability of benefit to all EVE players removed as it is over-powering when used by specific groups of min/maxers in certain situations. And there are so many ways to scale the problem back that I think removing the unique abilities of fighters would be a shame. Instead, this could be an opportunity to expand on that flavour, and feed into the upcoming capital-ship rebalancesGÇª The Lore: In current-day use, and in most Sci-Fi, carrier-borne fighters are used for power projection and escort/ patrol duties. They dramatically extend the combat range of the platform, and its ability to respond with rapidity and agility. TheyGÇÖre basically a flying weapon system. They should be powerfulGÇª However, to achieve this power, modern-day carriers have enormous Command and Control (C2) assets as well as Air-Traffic Control (ATC) to manage their fighters. This power is also tempered by maintenance requirements, a lack of longevity (fighters have a limited range and engagement time due to fuel and ammo limits), and high human and financial cost related to their relative fragility. We could simulate these strengths and weaknesses to limit or remove the problems. Solutions: DPS Stacking: The easy answer is to note that we donGÇÖt allow hulls to over-fit other weapon systems, so neither should a tiny hull command enormous fighter power. ItGÇÖs hard to argue with that, but a fighter does come with additional overheads - theyGÇÖre rather more expensive to use than many weapon systems, and they need a platform from which they can be launched. If I really love fighters, and IGÇÖm not just min-maxing, IGÇÖd be happy to exchange some of my shipGÇÖs local firepower (guns or launchers) for the command and control infrastructure necessary to command fighters. Due to the extra overheads of fighters, this may be a favourable rate of exchange, but not utterly out-of-control as appears to be the case currently. Like HMS Dauntless (a destroyer) and her much-reported Sampson RadarGÇÖs ATC ability, IGÇÖm suggesting a high-slot module (which probably shouldnGÇÖt be usable in a utility high-slot) which allows some fighter delegation. The Off-Grid problem: There should be some incentive for the Carrier to fight on-grid. So remove the GÇ£attackGÇ¥ option from assigned fighters, replace it with a GÇ£release/ recallGÇ¥ toggle. This means you have to rely on the drone AI rather than human-called targeting. This, I feel, is a big change, but should allow the fighterGÇÖs local controller enough control to prevent Concordokken-style incidents. Other opportunities: With the new Sov system, weGÇÖll hopefully see more and smaller fleets. Warfare should swing away from attritionist grind to more agile and tactical manoeuvreist play. This is a great opportunity to revitalise the carrier which has become a gloried ambulance, and reward the enormous training and monetary costs of becoming a carrier captain. IGÇÖd argue that itGÇÖs not the time to remove fightersGÇÖ warp ability. LetGÇÖs go the other way insteadGÇª [list] How many times in Sci-Fi (cough Valkyrie cough) do we see fighters set to escort convoys? Why not allow this behaviour? This would also open up new gameplay Stick that Command and Control suite module in your haulerGÇÖs one or two high slots, and weGÇÖre adding to, rather than removing, the flavour of fighter combat. how about fighters as scouts? Give carriers the ability to assign fighters to a gate, with orders to return/ report or engage on contact (like POS guns)? How about giving them the ability to patrol between a series of waypoints and do the same? Above, I mentioned the maintenance and fuel/ munitions need of fighter craft. If weGÇÖre allowing fighters independent action, these need to be in place GÇô give all fighters a maximum deployment time (like drones) after which they need to return for refuel/re-arm and maintenance. Give them a maintenance timer, which reduces their abilities for every GÇ£XGÇ¥ minutes they are in space (or possibly just in a hostile action), following which they need GÇ£YGÇ¥ minutes of maintenance in a carrier (or POS fighter bay) Give carriers rigs or modules to improve maintenance speed, or loiter time of fighters under it's own control. Make that carrier important! Yes, all this makes fighters powerful, but without the carrier to support them they should be limitedGÇª Off the subject of carriers, structures are being revamped, and POS fighter bays have been mentionedGÇª Maybe those logistics pilots that now need to travel through jump-gates since the hyperspace changes can request a fighter escort from their corpGÇÖs next-gen-POS as they set out...? We all agree - fighters need some work, and GÇ£the usual suspectsGÇ¥ need to be stopped from abusing a broken game mechanic. But this is an opportunity to improve in several ways, and could really start to return the feel of a (super)carrier as the heart of a roving taskforce in our new landscape of manoeuvreist warfare.
Aeryn Maricadie Periphery Bound 9	Posted - 2015.03.23 03:36:54 - [1289] - Quote how about making it so that one, you must be in deadspace to assist, and make it like siege or triage, you can't move while fighters are assigned.
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 98	Posted - 2015.03.23 04:35:12 - [1290] - Quote CCP should have done this: Can't assign fighters while near a POS. Assigned fighters use base stats, skill book, modules and ship bonus do not work when assigned.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 795	Posted - 2015.03.23 04:45:38 - [1291] - Quote d0cTeR9 wrote: CCP should have done this: Can't assign fighters while near a POS. Assigned fighters use base stats, skill book, modules and ship bonus do not work when assigned. IIRC, Fighters already use the fighters skill on the asignee character, not the carrier/super.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 959	Posted - 2015.03.23 12:16:15 - [1292] - Quote The only skill that matters for the person who fighters are assigned to is how many drones (not fighters) they can control.
Zhul Chembull Universalis Imperium The Bastion 104	Posted - 2015.03.23 16:02:38 - [1293] - Quote Irya Boone wrote: Nooooppee remove the assist , remove the warp * no remove fighters and fighters bombers and remove all dps abilities to supers ( or just remove them from the game already !! Spoken like a true derp.
Antonia Iskarius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 8	Posted - 2015.03.23 16:30:45 - [1294] - Quote Fighters can no longer be assigned to other pilots, the GÇÿDelegate ControlGÇÖ option has been removed from right click menus. (Updated on March 23, was originally: "Fighters can no longer be assigned to other pilots. The GÇÿDelegate ControlGÇÖ option has been removed and replaced by GÇÿAssistGÇÖ and GÇÿDefendGÇÖ, same as other drones.") Looking like delegate and assist are removed altogether. So fighters can only be used by the carriers/supers themselves. Hilariously long locking time from the capital and then hilariously long locking time from the fighters themselves. I am not happy with these changes at all. This just seems like overkill. Good way to make it so that nobody uses carriers and especially supercarriers ever for any kind of offense/DPS.
phobos1 Globaltech Industries Yulai Federation 3	Posted - 2015.03.23 18:52:30 - [1295] - 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. 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. ) snip Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal. Why don't you stop messing around with this game ! , in the time I've been on eve you developer's have done nothing but screw up a good game!.
Peter Francisco Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda 11	Posted - 2015.03.24 04:47:54 - [1296] - Quote The current mechanism is very nearly risk free. I've dropped titans on an assigning super. It was in the shields before the DD's landed. We blew all that fuel, and the guy didn't even lose his drones... But this is probably overkill. The assign mechanism is one of the unique things about carrier and supers that makes them worth fielding. What we do need is increased risk: 1) It should be possible to both point and scram fighters (and other drones). The vulnerability of drones is the principle counter to their many advantages as a weapon. Right now, it's just too easy for them to get away, and it is not intuitive that these modules do not work properly on drones. 2) Drone/force field mechanics need some work. a) Drone assign (or even operation) should not be possible when too close to a force field, or -or- b) Drones should be lost when you enter a force field. As for distance from the force field, even 2500m would be sufficient. I'd even go so far as to disallow targeted modules within this range. This would insure that things involving the edge of a pos shield have some risk. A similar mechanism : if force field ranges fluctuated over a larger range, it might create some excitement for lots of normal activities.
Andy Maque ChasingPowerGal Battletoads. 6	Posted - 2015.03.24 06:20:30 - [1297] - Quote I couldn't read all posts, so i just leave it here. Let Carrier deligate fighters on limited range. For example 2 AU. Also there should be new Skill like Drone Avionics. It will increase deligate range from 0 to 0.4 AU per level. So with this skill trained to lvl 5 it will be 2 AU. But.. Actually i'd prefer if it will work like Marketting skill. So 1st lvl gives range like 0.5 AU next levels double it and lvl 5 gives range for whole system.
FT Diomedes The Graduates Forged of Fire 903	Posted - 2015.03.24 06:42:23 - [1298] - Quote I know the changes are coming tomorrow, but what you should have done is allowed Carriers to use Fighters in Triage mode. Then only let them assign Fighters in Triage mode. The Greatest Ship Ever. Credit to Shahfluffers.
Kel hound The Desolate Order Brave Collective 122	Posted - 2015.03.24 08:55:45 - [1299] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: Hello Appreciate all the feedback very much. Based on what you've said here we are planning to leave Fighter warping in, but stick with removing assist. We hear the concerns about the state of capitals and loss of return on investment from training towards them and we absolutely want to make sure that caps of all kinds are not only viable but exciting and powerful. We still feel this change is necessary, but we are looking into ways to improve on the state of capitals and capital balance. No news on that front for now but it's something we are committed to improving. Thanks again. Why are you going ahead with the complete removal of fighter assist instead of something less harsh; such as disabling fighter assist when within X Km of a starbase shield or other relevant structure? Can we expect to see all drone assists removed in the near future as well?
Mercy Given Federation Navy 3rd Fleet To Be Determined Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 12:17:24 - [1300] - Quote So the proposal I just read states that fighter assist "should" go away due to stuff NS Carrier pilots are doing, and that you also want our opinion on the other feature fighters are classicly known for... Warping off to chase down their target. I can't speak for NS, I do not fly there in my carrier. I am a carrier pilot who flies in WH space, so my 2 cents comes from that viewpoint. Here's how I see both proposals... 1. Take away fighter assist: This does take away alot of home court advantages employed defending a hole. Most engagements are small gang in nature, and being able to assign fighters from the POS is an advantage. So yes, I do see this as something worth nerfing. The direct effect it will have in WH's should be making it harder to defend without actually fielding the carrier. -This will definetly create new PvP content, I'm all for it. But this is definetly a nerf. 2. Take away fighter's ability to warp off and chase targets: This is actually something that is good news to carrier pilots on grid, and bad news for peeps fighting against a carrier. A common tactic used against carrier pilots is warping off after fighters engage. This gets carrier DPS off grid, and can stay off grid for a bit if the target continues to bounce around in system while the carrier pilot has no DPS. If they stay on grid, so does my DPS. Thats one less thing to worry about, especially if I am also focusing on reps outside of triage mode. -I would not call this a buff, but I certinly hope this happens. Makes it easier to manage DPS and reps outside of triage. Over all I still see this as a nerf, but not as extreme as the jump changes were. It still requires to actually field the carrier more, which is always risky where I fly. I feel carrier pilots should get something if these changes go into effect. My suggestion, an additional fitting slot. Archon: 1 additional mid Chimera: 1 additional low Thanatos and Nidhoggur: 1 additional mid All this would do, is give alittle more flexibility in fitting. More tank, more DPS, more cap or an added utility. CCP, if you're going to take from a ship class I've come to enjoy and love to fly... at least give me that in return.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 960	Posted - 2015.03.24 12:55:29 - [1301] - Quote ^^ Certainly an interesting one - forcing carriers to fight on grid but without being able to use triage (and fighters) and lacking the buffer, projected ecm, etc. of supers is pretty meh for the regular carrier pilot and/or just encourages mass RR use.
Swaatybaatch Yesplease KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 12:56:16 - [1302] - Quote man I hate posting stuff on the forums meh might as well post something that will be lost in all the other posts :) I have been in and out of eve more times then I would like to count recently I got a bright idea since I love drones and assisting other players , that maybe I should do the dam 60+ day training for a carrier so that I can use the bugger to do stuff with . changing the fighters on carriers seems a bit dull , hell is the point of a carrier / supper carrier not to be able to do these awesome stuff like sending fighters off into space , kind off like a mother ship dropping smaller ships to assist its fleet , sounds awesome . But simply changing it would make carriers something that I would not even bother spending the time to train for , hell if you remove something like that then you might as well remove the dreads main point of DPS as well as remove a titans main point of DPS since that would balance them out as well , while your at it add a red cross drone that bumps other ships . changing carriers in this way will take out all the fun in playing with them , and removing fun from a game meh google dead MMO games and why they died out . I play eve since its fun to play and its the only dam MMO game that seems to last the test of time , removing core stuff to ships not every second w@nker can use seems a bit harsh for he few who put the time into training for them not only that but the time it took them to perfect the use of the ship , anyone can grab a battle ship and go crazy , but it takes a special kind of freak to rip a capital ship out even if its from a more or less save spot and do something with it . changes that sound better are restrictions on where carriers can launch fighters/bombers from , such as right click launch peep peep must be 50KM from structure to launch move thine @ss please . anyhow carriers are awesome , those who scream death to all supers , sure go hunt them down and have fun for the rest of us who like the idea of a mother ship thingy with fighters that allow me to help my friends let us have fun as well , you never see carrier pilots screaming at CCP to nerf all the sub cap ships , it should be simple to ind something that works for everyone , or well something that more or less works as well . hell since I had a look at eve a long long long time ago , when social life was not logging into eve , I have always wanted a carrier just for one reason , the drones , I hate guns and ammo , drones always seem to be the best way for some one like me . Removing the one function that made us drone users drool is the same as removing long range weapons .
Hauler Joe Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 13:19:10 - [1303] - 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. 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. ) snip Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal. Just remove carriers !!! you are killing me and all the training i did for nothing and my game play. remove assist and warping what good is a carrier. REMOTE repper!! Imagine US Carriers Jets only fly withing 250 km from the carrier and see if carrierrs are ever used again. And after you remove my carrier return all the skill points I wasted training #1 to jump my archon 11 ly #2 all the fighter skills. Very disappoint in CCP for letting the noobs crying and ignore the people to actual made this game. im a 2003 player and really is unfair.
Hauler Joe Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 13:25:34 - [1304] - Quote Hopelesshobo wrote: 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. Not a bad idea for once someone thinking
Hauler Joe Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 13:30:44 - [1305] - Quote drainey0 Charante wrote: I think you guys should just remove the ability to warp to/warp off they should be treated like normal drones it would mae it so carriers would have to put them self's out in a bad spot to help there fleet out. Remove carriers then cause nobody is going to put a carrier on field.
Hauler Joe Forced Euthanasia Soviet-Union 1	Posted - 2015.03.24 13:35:55 - [1306] - Quote Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I train up for a carrier specifically to use it for skynetting, because I think that's an awesome mechanic and would love to do it. They're removing skynetting 2 days before my training finishes. I almost want my 2-3 months and 900 million for the skill books back. They've removed 80% of the reason I ever wanted a carrier. Yep they are killing the need or desire for a carrier or super cap. Makes me sad
Fossor Wintersky Ordinus Ursorum Cautorum 15	Posted - 2015.03.24 13:40:28 - [1307] - Quote Yet another useless patch. CCP, Please, remove ALL ships but noobie ships!
Jake Reece Unimatrix003 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 13:44:47 - [1308] - Quote Sieur NewT wrote: i'm against removing fighter assist. removing it is a bad idea. if you do that, super cap will be useless it's BAD and near force field, supercap is not "safe" a titan can jump in 1 seconde and DD it's not safe it's juste "less dangerous" i agree to nerf A LITTLE fighter assist, but not HEAVY nerf i agree to make impossible to assign to inty's but i think assist super's fighter to carrier MUST stay. so, please, CCP, don't do that this way. let the super assist to carrier. carrier only if you want. and for fighter you can warp or not, let them warp when they are assist, and not when they are not assist. thx you and do the right thing. :) I Agree. Assist Fighters feature was unique to them and should stay like that... otherwise they are just oversized Heavies that cost a lot and take a lot of space. The whole idea of cutting fighters / bombers down is just wrong - if you want to redesign capitals / carriers do so - do not do half measures like (I will cut one abilitly off)... All we see here is a NERF! with nothing in return for cost and time to build and skill to use
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 960	Posted - 2015.03.24 13:51:27 - [1309] - Quote Can't even see the assist and defend options with fighters with this update though I only jumped on very quickly to update before getting ready for work.
Jake Reece Unimatrix003 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 14:03:57 - [1310] - Quote Rroff wrote: Can't even see the assist and defend options with fighters with this update though I only jumped on very quickly to update before getting ready for work. They removed all.... 20M figter with less functinality than 4k T1 drone... lovely :)
Greymist Power Absolute Absolute Damage Inc. 8	Posted - 2015.03.24 15:00:03 - [1311] - Quote I am for either removing fighter assist or only allowing it from on grid. if either the carrier or the ship leave grid then the fighters return to the carrier. I am also for removing the ability for carriers to use anything but fighter type drones. I would introduce similar fighter classes comparable to drones but require the carrier to fit modules to allow them to operate them. Example. Ewar fighters would require a module to field them. similar to like triage mode. Another thing would be interesting to see is a command and control carrier. Kind of like a Carrier Command ship. Only one can be operational per fleet and the pilot has to be fleet commander with high skill level and implant AND on GRID with the Fleet. No hiding. It is just something to make the Carriers more viable since much of the cap nerfing that has been done to them. BTW before people start crying. YES I can fly caps. YES I own plenty. NO I do not use them since I chose not to live in null. too boring with all the station games and blob warfare down there for me.
Jake Reece Unimatrix003 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 16:38:53 - [1312] - Quote Antonia Iskarius wrote: Fighters can no longer be assigned to other pilots, the GÇÿDelegate ControlGÇÖ option has been removed from right click menus. (Updated on March 23, was originally: "Fighters can no longer be assigned to other pilots. The GÇÿDelegate ControlGÇÖ option has been removed and replaced by GÇÿAssistGÇÖ and GÇÿDefendGÇÖ, same as other drones.") Looking like delegate and assist are removed altogether. So fighters can only be used by the carriers/supers themselves. Hilariously long locking time from the capital and then hilariously long locking time from the fighters themselves. I am not happy with these changes at all. This just seems like overkill. Good way to make it so that nobody uses carriers and especially supercarriers ever for any kind of offense/DPS. Good comment - it renders them usless in a combat now
Jake Reece Unimatrix003 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 16:44:50 - [1313] - Quote Hauler Joe wrote: 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. 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. ) snip Posting of kill reports outside of the Crime & Punishment forum channel is prohibited. ISD Ezwal. Just remove carriers !!! you are killing me and all the training i did for nothing and my game play. remove assist and warping what good is a carrier. REMOTE repper!! Imagine US Carriers Jets only fly withing 250 km from the carrier and see if carrierrs are ever used again. And after you remove my carrier return all the skill points I wasted training #1 to jump my archon 11 ly #2 all the fighter skills. Very disappoint in CCP for letting the noobs crying and ignore the people to actual made this game. im a 2003 player and really is unfair. I support that claim... The Carrier's support like delegate Fighters should not be removed only because lots of people crying that they are not easy deal with. Carrier and Supercarrier represents significant investment both in skill line and ISK... they should not be easy to counter...
Greymist Power Absolute Absolute Damage Inc. 8	Posted - 2015.03.24 16:54:08 - [1314] - Quote Quote: I support that claim... The Carrier's support like delegate Fighters should not be removed only because lots of people crying that they are not easy deal with. Carrier and Supercarrier represents significant investment both in skill line and ISK... they should not be easy to counter... significant investment in skill line? since when? Everyone and their grandmother can fly them in short time. It is not like back when you had to train racial Battleships to 5..... If nothing else I think they should make the training time longer for carriers and dreads.
Jake Reece Unimatrix003 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 16:56:28 - [1315] - Quote Greymist wrote: Quote: I support that claim... The Carrier's support like delegate Fighters should not be removed only because lots of people crying that they are not easy deal with. Carrier and Supercarrier represents significant investment both in skill line and ISK... they should not be easy to counter... significant investment in skill line? since when? Everyone and their grandmother can fly them in short time. It is not like back when you had to train racial Battleships to 5..... If nothing else I think they should make the training time longer for carriers and dreads. So master it on lvl 5's and you will see how long it take.
Lak'ca Antollare Vengance Inc. Nulli Secunda 1	Posted - 2015.03.24 17:08:20 - [1316] - Quote Not sure this has been mentioned yet because I only got to the second page. My humble opinion: - Make carriers/super-carriers unable to move/warp/activate any modules if they have fighters/fighter bombers delegated. [Edit: Similar to Siege/Triage with the exception of being able to activate modules.] That's the only thing you need to do. Oh, and bring back delegate control. Yes, it really is that simple.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 961	Posted - 2015.03.24 17:38:40 - [1317] - Quote Greymist wrote: Quote: I support that claim... The Carrier's support like delegate Fighters should not be removed only because lots of people crying that they are not easy deal with. Carrier and Supercarrier represents significant investment both in skill line and ISK... they should not be easy to counter... significant investment in skill line? since when? Everyone and their grandmother can fly them in short time. It is not like back when you had to train racial Battleships to 5..... If nothing else I think they should make the training time longer for carriers and dreads. Then add in carrier V, capital local/remote rep skills to V, fighters V, adi V, skills for T2 triage, etc. etc. to actually do something useful.
Austin Ahmburg State Protectorate Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 20:08:04 - [1318] - Quote Best ship is f¦¦r¦¦i¦¦e¦¦n¦¦d¦¦s¦¦h¦¦i¦¦p¦¦ Rookie Ship
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 962	Posted - 2015.03.24 20:44:35 - [1319] - Quote Just reading the other dev responses on this... lols... jokes on me I guess... I've spent quite a bit of the past little while training several characters to fighters V and settings up to be able to produce fighters (and drone control units) for uses completely unrelated to skynet and now I can't even realistically use it even for ongrid PVE due to the lack of assist option... to say this really doesn't cut it doesn't even come close. Blowed if I'm gonna invest any more time or effort into this game.
So riya Lost in shadow Brothers of Tangra 8	Posted - 2015.03.24 20:45:11 - [1320] - Quote Change frighter funtion = remap all our fighter skills ********** i dont want to train for fighter anymore
BSG75 Kiith Paktu Curatores Veritatis Alliance 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 20:49:13 - [1321] - Quote I have been playing the game for some time and I believe I have the answer The solution is literally right under your noses: you know those same sub space warp effects that prevent targeting? well it can be worse than that if you are too close to the docking radius of a station: you take significant penalties to scan resolution as a result of the large structure near you preventing you from targeting and your drone bandwidth is 0 as a result of radio interference from the super massive structure you are sitting next to. If you are a carrier/drone pilot and too close to a POS's shields your drone bandwidth is 0 because massive energy emission signature needed to maintain the shields interfere with drone communication. a short distance ( say 40 km from the POS field) and you can assist but the signal gets too weak when they try to warp and wont do it. get far enough away from the station/POS and you can use your drones in all their assist/warping glory but be wary of the counter attack, just like the way you want it. Incidentally this change gets rid some of the F#@$%ing down syndrome station games that have been ruining this game for YEARS.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 963	Posted - 2015.03.24 20:49:35 - [1322] - Quote So riya wrote: Change frighter funtion = remap all our fighter skills ********** i dont want to train for fighter anymore I've got a ridiculous amount of SP in fighter related stuff :\| over 5m sp per character just on fighters V and ADI V that I wouldn't have bothered with if I knew these changes were coming.
Inquisitor Tyr Phantom Squad Skeleton Crew. 64	Posted - 2015.03.24 21:28:38 - [1323] - Quote If you take away a carriers fighter abilities, why would you ever field one over a dread ? You would essentially turn carriers into an oversized logistic support ship that is vulnerable due its size and horrible agility. The recent trend towards "nerf all the things" is becoming tedious. There will always be a best in class ship - and when you nerf the current one a new one will rise. So will you then nerf that one? Hurricane Fleet Popular: Nerf the cane. Those neuts OP, arty OP -> Domi fleet rises Domi Fleet popular: Nerf the domi. such drones, much OP -> Lets try ishtars. Ishtar fleet popular: Nerf the Ishtar, Ishtar too OP. Bouncers too popular must be OP -> fine, we'll use t3s T3s not balanced: Nerf the tengu, tengu OP. -> Fleet commanders pick a new doctrine. So once the best minds get together and pick a new doctrine: guess what -> EVERYONE in their coalition of 10,000 - 20,000 pilots will buy them, and use them. so 3 months from now when the new "best" ship arrive on scene, are you going to nerf that one too ? So now that I can fly lets see... EVERY ship in the game, due to the constant changes, at least I don't have to worry about not being able to fly in the fleet due to lasking SP. Sucks to be a newbro - but hey, always need more rifters in fleet :p When I see a new patch is coming out my first thought is "I wonder what they are going to nerf this time" or "I wonder how much more work its going to take me to support my corp mates after this change". Go back to content creation - you've messed with systems enough. The last year of changes have made the game more work to play and less enjoyable unless you have 40 hours a week to play EVE (that doesn't fit your target market of working middle and upper income earners). There have been a couple nice additions though but they are outweighed in my mind by the loss of ones I previously enjoyed. Unless you remove capital ships altogether - the reality of low/null space will always be one where capitals are required. And they will have to be moved - so pilots will have to spend time spinning their ships waiting for fatigue. Do you have metrics on how many hours people spend sitting in a station staring at a jump fatigue timer? Does that fit into the category of "not enjoyable or quality content" you keep talking about in all your dev blogs? Or is it simply okay to punish your longest serving most valuable customers? And then there's your other favorite line "not enough risk". Tell me what that means exactly - do you have any idea how vulnerable a capital ship actually is? And if you loose it : guess what -> Go Rat for the next few days to pay for it. If you want people to spend their whole day shooting eachother, you need to make it EASY for people to replace their ships. Recent changes are not increasing the WorkforShip : FlyShip ratio. Maybe you should adopt this as a metric. More time having fun, less time trying to earn isk to fly the spaceships.
Antonia Iskarius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 14	Posted - 2015.03.24 21:57:38 - [1324] - Quote The 8 accounts I had subbed are going offline. Maybe they come back after the rebalance, whenever that happens, if the new roles are good enough. I know I'm not the only one in the same boat who is tired of getting ****** over and shitted on. Keep pissing off your vet playerbase CCP as if it won't have consequences. I'm going to go play Elite Dangerous instead.
GhostPilotRex Capts Deranged Cavaliers Gentlemen's.Club 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 23:13:47 - [1325] - Quote cutting boosting tengus? they provide off-grid bonuses... Orcas? Rorquals? remove fighter assist because they provide off-grid dps bonus?
Veronica MetalHeart Science and Trade Institute Caldari State 0	Posted - 2015.03.24 23:22:58 - [1326] - Quote If fighters are given an edge to warp to target (like a regular ship) then to balance things out targets also need to be given tools & mechanics to defend themselves against them (just like against a regular ship).
So riya Lost in shadow Brothers of Tangra 9	Posted - 2015.03.25 01:25:45 - [1327] - Quote I am not sure than 10 % of eve players want retired drone assist I got a idee ....just email to all active acount and let them vote. ..... do the CCP are the Democracy man ? Or they r russian man ! Lol
Symoriah Realm-Enterprises 0	Posted - 2015.03.25 01:55:44 - [1328] - Quote I am currently training for super carriers. I have one thing to say about the warping of fighters and nearly safe zone of POS shields. I have trained to construct the carriers and have all BP's for all factions. I would not have taken the time and spent the Isk to do so, only to have them nerfed due to players grief. Please take a long hard look at what is actually the driving factor for the proposed changes.
Mr BeeMonster The Scope Gallente Federation 0	Posted - 2015.03.25 03:36:08 - [1329] - Quote give carriers a Mode that they have to be in to give assist, like a massive control tower pops up, cant move but gives fighters ability to move about the system, maybe even have the Mode look like the prob map and u can send fighters where u want in space, kinda like a real time strategy game. the carrier couldnt move and that pilot would be busy looking at the map to notice any attach coming at him
Ostor LightDust SUPERFLUOUS WANDERLUST Gentlemen's.Club 1	Posted - 2015.03.25 03:50:48 - [1330] - Quote I absolutely love the no notice decision to change the wording on fighters. Oh you're getting assist and gaurdon fighters? Ok we can make this work. Literally less than 12 hours notice before the update after we'd all bought fighters in preparation for the changes you remove assist and guard. What the hell guys?
eX0rc1st The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1	Posted - 2015.03.25 04:47:56 - [1331] - Quote Don't take away their warping but do make it so you can point them.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4214	Posted - 2015.03.25 05:39:59 - [1332] - Quote Do fighters still warp or is that toast as well? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Jake Reece Unimatrix003 5	Posted - 2015.03.25 08:17:22 - [1333] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Do fighters still warp or is that toast as well? They do ATM
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4214	Posted - 2015.03.25 08:36:04 - [1334] - Quote Jake Reece wrote: They do ATM Well, at least there's that (the ability to follow targets into warp as well as recover them if you leave any behind). I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
So riya Lost in shadow Brothers of Tangra 11	Posted - 2015.03.26 13:57:58 - [1335] - Quote damit i prefere the ccp put patch once per year or once per 10 years=ƒÿè
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 248	Posted - 2015.03.26 16:39:06 - [1336] - Quote I think we can stop complaining about this change now, guys. Between wanting our input, disregarding that input and going ahead with most of the changes they wanted to do anyways, then "typo"ing the bit about letting us assign fighters like drones on field in the last minute before the patch released and before anyone could argue, I think it's safe to say that when it comes to capitals and fighters, they didn't really want our opinions in the first place. Not to be a doomsayer, but don't stay too attached to your fighter's ability to warp at all; it was probably just too complex to remove before the patch's launch day, and they're working hard on taking it out as fast as they can. Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it.
Jake Reece Unimatrix003 15	Posted - 2015.03.26 16:44:34 - [1337] - Quote Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I think we can stop complaining about this change now, guys. Between wanting our input, disregarding that input and going ahead with most of the changes they wanted to do anyways, then "typo"ing the bit about letting us assign fighters like drones on field in the last minute before the patch released and before anyone could argue, I think it's safe to say that when it comes to capitals and fighters, they didn't really want our opinions in the first place. Not to be a doomsayer, but don't stay too attached to your fighter's ability to warp at all; it was probably just too complex to remove before the patch's launch day, and they're working hard on taking it out as fast as they can. Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it. Clearly they don't care about our input and do whatever they deem right. The thread on the wall is just 'pro forma' to make appear that we have some say in what is about to happen
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 248	Posted - 2015.03.26 17:00:17 - [1338] - Quote Jake Reece wrote: Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I think we can stop complaining about this change now, guys. Between wanting our input, disregarding that input and going ahead with most of the changes they wanted to do anyways, then "typo"ing the bit about letting us assign fighters like drones on field in the last minute before the patch released and before anyone could argue, I think it's safe to say that when it comes to capitals and fighters, they didn't really want our opinions in the first place. Not to be a doomsayer, but don't stay too attached to your fighter's ability to warp at all; it was probably just too complex to remove before the patch's launch day, and they're working hard on taking it out as fast as they can. Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it. Clearly they don't care about our input and do whatever they deem right. The thread on the wall is just 'pro forma' to make appear that we have some say in what is about to happen I'll give them this; they do listen to our opinions, and do honestly take them into consideration. When they legitimately want them about something. But if they've already made up their mind about something, why even ask us?
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 988	Posted - 2015.03.26 19:37:19 - [1339] - Quote Jennifer Maxwell wrote: Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it. Rorqual is awesome (I'm possibly one of the few people who've clocked up >100 hours of actual use in one) - when used in roles totally unintended - we used to use one as a repping platform when my old corp lived in a C5 pulsar as unlike other capitals they don't trigger an escalation wave - so we could drop in dreads and use the rorqual to support the webbing ships without the extra carrier waves on top of that. Always had a soft spot for that ship as it could be pressed into out the box use i.e. troll tank bait fits.
Antonia Iskarius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 20	Posted - 2015.03.26 20:30:25 - [1340] - Quote Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I think we can stop complaining about this change now, guys. Between wanting our input, disregarding that input and going ahead with most of the changes they wanted to do anyways, then "typo"ing the bit about letting us assign fighters like drones on field in the last minute before the patch released and before anyone could argue, I think it's safe to say that when it comes to capitals and fighters, they didn't really want our opinions in the first place. Not to be a doomsayer, but don't stay too attached to your fighter's ability to warp at all; it was probably just too complex to remove before the patch's launch day, and they're working hard on taking it out as fast as they can. Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it. Oh yes. I'm done with the feedback stage. I've moved on to the action stage. Minus 8 monthly subscriptions for CCP due to their extreme disregard for the input of paying customers and the bait and switch to rub it in. I was of the opinion all along that this thread was just for show and they would do the changes regardless of how we felt. They confirmed it in a blatant way.
Yun Kuai Justified Chaos Spaceship Bebop 243	Posted - 2015.03.27 10:02:25 - [1341] - Quote Antonia Iskarius wrote: Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I think we can stop complaining about this change now, guys. Between wanting our input, disregarding that input and going ahead with most of the changes they wanted to do anyways, then "typo"ing the bit about letting us assign fighters like drones on field in the last minute before the patch released and before anyone could argue, I think it's safe to say that when it comes to capitals and fighters, they didn't really want our opinions in the first place. Not to be a doomsayer, but don't stay too attached to your fighter's ability to warp at all; it was probably just too complex to remove before the patch's launch day, and they're working hard on taking it out as fast as they can. Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it. Oh yes. I'm done with the feedback stage. I've moved on to the action stage. Minus 8 monthly subscriptions for CCP due to their extreme disregard for the input of paying customers and the bait and switch to rub it in. I was of the opinion all along that this thread was just for show and they would do the changes regardless of how we felt. They confirmed it in a blatant way. Minus 8 montly subscriptions? Did you biomass them? If not, your words have no meaning. Screenshot or gtfo. Also, give me your stuff. If you fail to recognize how broken skynet was (invicible fighters through warp scram immunity, 99.99% safety for the carrier through wanky POS mechanics, the exponential force multiplier of having fighter be able to track boosted, AB frigs that weren't webbed, etc) then you're better off being out of the game. Eve is complex, but having a "iWin button" isn't good for eve...it never has been. Have fun back in WoW [insert other game you play], etc. --------------------------------------------------------::::::::::::--:::-----:::---::::::::::::--------------:::----------:::----:::---:::----------------------:::::::-------:::---:::----::::::-------------------:::-----------:::--:::----:::---------------------::::::::::::----:::::::----:::::::::::::-------
Calexis Atredies Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 9	Posted - 2015.03.27 10:42:48 - [1342] - Quote Antonia Iskarius wrote: Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I think we can stop complaining about this change now, guys. Between wanting our input, disregarding that input and going ahead with most of the changes they wanted to do anyways, then "typo"ing the bit about letting us assign fighters like drones on field in the last minute before the patch released and before anyone could argue, I think it's safe to say that when it comes to capitals and fighters, they didn't really want our opinions in the first place. Not to be a doomsayer, but don't stay too attached to your fighter's ability to warp at all; it was probably just too complex to remove before the patch's launch day, and they're working hard on taking it out as fast as they can. Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it. Oh yes. I'm done with the feedback stage. I've moved on to the action stage. Minus 8 monthly subscriptions for CCP due to their extreme disregard for the input of paying customers and the bait and switch to rub it in. I was of the opinion all along that this thread was just for show and they would do the changes regardless of how we felt. They confirmed it in a blatant way. Post with your main + proof, or this is simply a poor attempt at trolling coming from an NPC corp scrub.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 990	Posted - 2015.03.27 14:02:47 - [1343] - Quote Yun Kuai wrote: Minus 8 montly subscriptions? Did you biomass them? If not, your words have no meaning. Screenshot or gtfo. Also, give me your stuff. If you fail to recognize how broken skynet was (invicible fighters through warp scram immunity, 99.99% safety for the carrier through wanky POS mechanics, the exponential force multiplier of having fighter be able to track boosted, AB frigs that weren't webbed, etc) then you're better off being out of the game. Eve is complex, but having a "iWin button" isn't good for eve...it never has been. Have fun back in WoW [insert other game you play], etc. Its not about recognizing how broken skynet was - pretty much everyone in this thread (1-2 exceptions aside) recognise how broken skynet was including most actual capital pilots - there were plenty of ways to render skynet ineffective without completely making fighters useless. I'm not going to biomass my characters but none of my accounts will be continuing to be subscribed beyond the current 6-10 days left on them unless there is a significant shift in attitude on matters like this from CCP - smacking long standing features into oblivion with no real dialogue with affected players - the larger proportion of whom are completely unrelated to the edge case where it was a problem just doesn't cut it - if it was really so game breaking it couldn't go unaddressed (which somewhat applies) and there really was no alternative for fixing it but to take extremely drastic measures that amount to feature removal most people can accept that but it really wasn't the case here and that is very bad game development. If thats the way CCP want to go forward then that is their prerogative but it isn't compatible with me personally when playing this kind of game where you can spend months and months working towards a goal.
Oakatsura The BlackHand Order The Bloc 0	Posted - 2015.03.27 15:03:30 - [1344] - Quote This is a tough subject do you remove a Drone Mechanic offered only to Carriers as a way of aiding allies from a distance but at the same time protecting the carrier in the eventuality that an enemy comes to you, much like Station games but the Carrier can easily pop in and out of a POS / Starbases Shields with little to no risk unless a large body fleet comes to bash each of the POS / Starbase they are in, and even then can still sit on a Reinforced POS with the same level of safety / more do the POS being untargetable. Fighters really need to have additional mechanics in order to work away from their carriers / super carriers that are operating them. Consequently I believe Fighters should only be able to warp off to their target if they are on the same field as the Carrier and attempt to leave. Basically a Tab / Check box in addition to Drone Aggression, for Fighter Engagement. Basically the Carrier Pilot selects the box and is aware that any fighters he has currently on the field that he has deployed will warp off if the target runs away. This way the Warp Mechanic is still available but limits it to the target the carrier selects in the field where the carrier was. Drone / Fighter / Bomber Assist remains but I think we need to add another mechanic to this to both assisting for not just Carriers and Supers but also Frigates / Destroyers / Cruisers, etc. Basically in order to assist drones to a target it must be targeted and selected. This will help by limiting assists on field as well as preventing fighters and drones from following their targets once they have left the immediate field. While the drones will still attack a target assisted to another pilot in an engagement, drone bandwidth and the targeting range would still dictate where the drones are on the field. Once a pilot exceeds anothers targeting range, the target disappears from the redicle and any drones assisted return back to or remain stationary where the target left targeting range.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 805	Posted - 2015.03.27 15:46:09 - [1345] - Quote Yun Kuai wrote: f you fail to recognize how broken skynet was (invicible fighters through warp scram immunity, 99.99% safety for the carrier through wanky POS mechanics, the exponential force multiplier of having fighter be able to track boosted, AB frigs that weren't webbed, etc) then you're better off being out of the game. Eve is complex, but having a "iWin button" isn't good for eve...it never has been. Have fun back in WoW [insert other game you play], etc. CCP removed the iWin button ages ago. It was called the AoE DD. Assigned fighters to something like an interceptor means the weak link is the inty. Pop that, and you're fine. For something larger, his weak spot is his scan resolution. You have failed to mention the changes proposed in this thread (scrammable fighters, 50km bubble on the POS) so if anyone should leave, it would be you. Don't post without reading the thread.
Jennifer Maxwell Crimson Serpent Syndicate Heiian Conglomerate 251	Posted - 2015.03.27 15:46:53 - [1346] - Quote Yun Kuai wrote: Antonia Iskarius wrote: Jennifer Maxwell wrote: I think we can stop complaining about this change now, guys. Between wanting our input, disregarding that input and going ahead with most of the changes they wanted to do anyways, then "typo"ing the bit about letting us assign fighters like drones on field in the last minute before the patch released and before anyone could argue, I think it's safe to say that when it comes to capitals and fighters, they didn't really want our opinions in the first place. Not to be a doomsayer, but don't stay too attached to your fighter's ability to warp at all; it was probably just too complex to remove before the patch's launch day, and they're working hard on taking it out as fast as they can. Here's hoping that when they do decide to make capitals awesome again a year or two down the road, probably around the same time they fix heavy missiles and give the Rorqual a purpose again, they do a really good job. Writing on the wall says we're not gonna have a part in it. Oh yes. I'm done with the feedback stage. I've moved on to the action stage. Minus 8 monthly subscriptions for CCP due to their extreme disregard for the input of paying customers and the bait and switch to rub it in. I was of the opinion all along that this thread was just for show and they would do the changes regardless of how we felt. They confirmed it in a blatant way. Minus 8 montly subscriptions? Did you biomass them? If not, your words have no meaning. Screenshot or gtfo. Also, give me your stuff. If you fail to recognize how broken skynet was (invicible fighters through warp scram immunity, 99.99% safety for the carrier through wanky POS mechanics, the exponential force multiplier of having fighter be able to track boosted, AB frigs that weren't webbed, etc) then you're better off being out of the game. Eve is complex, but having a "iWin button" isn't good for eve...it never has been. Have fun back in WoW [insert other game you play], etc. You guys skynetted in Nenn a few times, if I remember right. Tell me, how often did a fleet simply leave? Did you jump your skynetting carrier through the gate to go after them? Probably not. How about going into plexes? Do fighters take gates? Last I heard, they don't. Were your fighters station at every gate into the system? Constantly? So let's see; powerful but restricted to one system, highly mobile but barred from 3 very popular battlegrounds, can bring a lot of firepower to bear but requires more than one person, and that second person can ONLY provide the dps, no Ewar, no point, no logi, nothing but dps. In FW space, it seems rather balanced to me. The enemy has an asset you can't counter? Avoid them. Don't take the fight. It's the same as running across a huge fleet and you're out on a small 3-8 man gang roam. You don't take what you can't fight. Except this huge fleet can't follow you without putting themselves at large risk. And in the kind of environment that lowsec is, especially Black Rise, a capital sitting ANYWHERE not either on station or a few meters out of a pos shield is in a LOT of danger. Earlier, someone had the great idea to go on a roam with their Enyo, Proteus and repping Thanatos. We tackled them on Okkamon gate in Reitsato, and started trying to get our barely at keyboard fleet into something that can take these guys. About 4 minutes into this happening, a 35-50 man bomber/BC/whatever gang dropped on the Thanatos and murerized it. Let's also consider that random carriers get doomsdayed on station in the area too. Or how about Spectre fleet HKs roaming the constellations constantly. I know one person who used to skynet in the area. After the 3nd time he did it, he was noticing Snuff and PL alts logging on in system literally seconds after he would. To the point where he just stopped logging the character on cause it was way too hot. Yeah, that sounds like 99.99% safety.
Crow Talon THE BOARD OF EDUCATION 0	Posted - 2015.03.27 15:51:26 - [1347] - Quote Hello Everyone and CCP. I have played Eve since '09 this is my first post. CCP I hope you read this and listen to what I say. My tone may be a bit harsh, but thats how I roll, I am a pirate after all YAAAAAR!!! Some of us are REALLY getting tired of the re balancing and constant shifting and adjusting and in general mucking about with our sand box. (some changes have been needed ofc but now I fear its getting out of hand. You need to hop off the rebalanced bus mmmkay??? Just stop it really. Instead of focusing you energy on making every ship and gun and drone just like the others in the name of "diversity" (Karl Marx would be proud of that one ) might I suggest you spend you time instead on fixing bugs and making better eye candy and ease of play such as the interface and stream line the process and logging in/ switching between multiple toons, Also if you could really put some effort into reducing "click pollution" my hand and wrist would really 'precate it very much. Crow Talon Merikan Redneck Pirate since '09
Lord O Shady Star Inc. 0	Posted - 2015.03.27 18:13:56 - [1348] - Quote Why not simply add a module? Skill: Fighter Control Module: Reduce Cpu Need for Fighter control module High Slot Mod Frigate mod allows control of 1 fighter Cruiser mod allows control of 2-3 fighters Battleship mod allows control of 5 fighters Seems that would fix the issues that are being addressed.
Antonia Iskarius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 26	Posted - 2015.03.27 18:41:20 - [1349] - Quote Yun Kuai wrote: Minus 8 montly subscriptions? Did you biomass them? If not, your words have no meaning. Screenshot or gtfo. Also, give me your stuff. If you fail to recognize how broken skynet was (invicible fighters through warp scram immunity, 99.99% safety for the carrier through wanky POS mechanics, the exponential force multiplier of having fighter be able to track boosted, AB frigs that weren't webbed, etc) then you're better off being out of the game. Eve is complex, but having a "iWin button" isn't good for eve...it never has been. Have fun back in WoW [insert other game you play], etc. All of those things were addressed by people in here with solutions to fix them without completely removing delegation, much less giving us assist/guard only to stealth remove it hours before patch hit. And Skynet was never an iwin button. It was never this fullproof and safe method. If you tried doing it more than a handful of times you'd notice alts coming into local and logging off in safes and logging back in immediately when the skynet carrier would sign on. People could easily set up traps, bait and kill a Skynet carrier or super. Seeing as they fit zero tank, just one or two dreads or doomsdays would pop them. The problem wasn't really Skynet, it was lazy and risk adverse people thinking they should just remove an enitre gameplay mechanism because they felt entitled to kill **** with minimal work using frigs and cruisers in small gangs. I refuse to reward devs who coddle those kinds of players to the exclusion of vets who have invested significant training time and isk into acquiring their assets.
Aeryn Maricadie Periphery Bound 15	Posted - 2015.03.27 19:06:01 - [1350] - Quote the whole point of a carrier is damage projection from far away, removing that entirely kinda ruins the class. hopefully in the future they will come up with some sort of middle ground. I say this as an aspiring Archon pilot, I would certainly like to do something with the carrier aside from logi.
Aktaviala Keepers of Balance Legion of xXDEATHXx 33	Posted - 2015.03.27 20:15:09 - [1351] - Quote Don't remove anything. Solution: 1. Just limit the quantity of fighters that can be assisted to one ship (interceptor in your case). 2. Add new skill A, that increases the limits of fighters, that can be accepted in assist. 3. Add new skill B, that allow to give fighter in assist.
Ab'del Abu Atlantis Ascendant 239	Posted - 2015.03.27 20:35:45 - [1352] - Quote It's done. Get over it now.
Antonia Iskarius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 30	Posted - 2015.03.27 23:22:53 - [1353] - Quote Ab'del Abu wrote: It's done. Get over it now. No, it doesn't work that way. We pay for this game, we get to have an opinion on how it works.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 993	Posted - 2015.03.27 23:38:02 - [1354] - Quote Antonia Iskarius wrote: And Skynet was never an iwin button. It was never this fullproof and safe method. If you tried doing it more than a handful of times you'd notice alts coming into local and logging off in safes and logging back in immediately when the skynet carrier would sign on. People could easily set up traps, bait and kill a Skynet carrier or super. Seeing as they fit zero tank, just one or two dreads or doomsdays would pop them. The problem wasn't really Skynet, it was lazy and risk adverse people thinking they should just remove an enitre gameplay mechanism because they felt entitled to kill **** with minimal work using frigs and cruisers in small gangs. I refuse to reward devs who coddle those kinds of players to the exclusion of vets who have invested significant training time and isk into acquiring their assets. You have to be pretty bad at this game to lose a ship sitting at a POS... (I am meaning this glibly as no doubt if I continued playing I would at some point): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCVsQUlP81Q https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iDphNX9WmbU Just 2 of several methods that can be used to make your capital almost instantly safe without moving an inch. Doing skynet "properly" your almost immune to repercussion unless you get lazy or screw up or do it from the same POS too many times in a row (second one works better if you have an inty or something to swap into). (Obviously these methods aren't entirely proof against infiltration, etc.)
Ostor LightDust SUPERFLUOUS WANDERLUST Gentlemen's.Club 25	Posted - 2015.03.28 00:07:40 - [1355] - Quote We do not want skynet back at this point. Most of us former skynetters realize it's OP-ness. We want the damn assist/guard that we were honey dicked into believing we would get.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 993	Posted - 2015.03.28 00:10:40 - [1356] - Quote Ostor LightDust wrote: We do not want skynet back at this point. Most of us former skynetters realize it's OP-ness. We want the damn assist/guard that we were honey dicked into believing we would get. Absolutely no reason why delegate couldn't still exist with some adjustments that would have killed skynet just as effectively coupled with some other mechanism so that carriers can't make themselves safe... apart from my increasing feeling there are very few people in the game, including devs, who are upto speed on those aspects.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1984	Posted - 2015.03.28 04:18:12 - [1357] - Quote Antonia Iskarius wrote: No, it doesn't work that way. We pay for this game, we get to have an opinion on how it works. So does everyone else though. And everyone else read the bragging about how broken assisting 50 fighters to an interceptor was even if it had to be on grid. And the bragging about how the 50km POS bubble was easy to get around also. And all the other bragging. And so did CCP, hence why you didn't get assist as a replacement most likely. Just take your carriers on grid, and launch fighters from 250km at stuff. Is it a nerf, Totally, sometimes nerfs are needed to things. And sometimes Nerfs are needed in one area before buffs can come in another. Because if you do both at once you can't see that the change has had its intended effect.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 18	Posted - 2015.03.28 06:42:49 - [1358] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Totally, sometimes nerfs are needed to things. And sometimes Nerfs are needed in one area before buffs can come in another. I agree, lets nerf all t2 frigates, cruisers, and bomb damage application into the ground. So that in a future patch at some unknown date we can completely rework the system making each tier of ship desirable/viable again. So in a year or more after this nerf they can patch in a change to the damage calculation adding a penetration variable making it near impossible for a frigate to damage a battleship, while a battleship can barely, if at all, track a frigate. Then you are FORCED to field a cruiser or higher to kill a battleship, a battleship or higher to kill a capital. It's balanced right??? THIS was the rework you waited years for. Your damage got **** on in one patch, then a year later it was pigeonholed further so taking your ship against larger ships was now completely out of the question. But you now have a specified role so there is no more confusion as to your purpose. *Just to give you a reverse example of what has occurred here. -- You see the problem here is things are being nerfed/removed with nobody but crying nobodies asking for it because they don't have the power themselves YET to handle the situation. Or just refuse to avoid a fight and recognize when they have been bested. But CCP promises that with these changes that a future patch will "make them desirable" again. Which translates to one of two things: 1) We wait a year or more for the rework and they are released creating a even more specified niche they can now fill. 2) We wait a year or more for the rework and they are released more broken than you considered them to be before, more crying, and more nerfing ensues as the cycle continues.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 996	Posted - 2015.03.28 12:54:01 - [1359] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Antonia Iskarius wrote: No, it doesn't work that way. We pay for this game, we get to have an opinion on how it works. So does everyone else though. And everyone else read the bragging about how broken assisting 50 fighters to an interceptor was even if it had to be on grid. And the bragging about how the 50km POS bubble was easy to get around also. And all the other bragging. And so did CCP, hence why you didn't get assist as a replacement most likely. Just take your carriers on grid, and launch fighters from 250km at stuff. Is it a nerf, Totally, sometimes nerfs are needed to things. And sometimes Nerfs are needed in one area before buffs can come in another. Because if you do both at once you can't see that the change has had its intended effect. 50 anything is going to hurt... a lot... besides there were plenty of solid suggestions for balanced fixes for both of those issues.
d0cTeR9 Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance 105	Posted - 2015.03.28 21:35:37 - [1360] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Antonia Iskarius wrote: No, it doesn't work that way. We pay for this game, we get to have an opinion on how it works. So does everyone else though. And everyone else read the bragging about how broken assisting 50 fighters to an interceptor was even if it had to be on grid. And the bragging about how the 50km POS bubble was easy to get around also. And all the other bragging. And so did CCP, hence why you didn't get assist as a replacement most likely. Just take your carriers on grid, and launch fighters from 250km at stuff. Is it a nerf, Totally, sometimes nerfs are needed to things. And sometimes Nerfs are needed in one area before buffs can come in another. Because if you do both at once you can't see that the change has had its intended effect. You can only assign 5 fighters to 1 interceptor. Nothing stopped the idiots getting killed from warping away, jumping the gate, bringing more ships, hot dropping the carrier, etc etc ETC... Bunch of noobs crying because they are getting killed by OVERWHELMING forces DEFENDING their space. CCP just give mini doomsdays to ceptors and lets call it a day, i'm sure the noobs will finally be happy nothing can kill them, and they can kill anything.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2176	Posted - 2015.03.28 22:05:09 - [1361] - Quote d0cTeR9 wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: Antonia Iskarius wrote: No, it doesn't work that way. We pay for this game, we get to have an opinion on how it works. So does everyone else though. And everyone else read the bragging about how broken assisting 50 fighters to an interceptor was even if it had to be on grid. And the bragging about how the 50km POS bubble was easy to get around also. And all the other bragging. And so did CCP, hence why you didn't get assist as a replacement most likely. Just take your carriers on grid, and launch fighters from 250km at stuff. Is it a nerf, Totally, sometimes nerfs are needed to things. And sometimes Nerfs are needed in one area before buffs can come in another. Because if you do both at once you can't see that the change has had its intended effect. You can only assign 5 fighters to 1 interceptor. Nothing stopped the idiots getting killed from warping away, jumping the gate, bringing more ships, hot dropping the carrier, etc etc ETC... Bunch of noobs crying because they are getting killed by OVERWHELMING forces DEFENDING their space. CCP just give mini doomsdays to ceptors and lets call it a day, i'm sure the noobs will finally be happy nothing can kill them, and they can kill anything. If your only options to counter the mechanic are running away or driveby doomsdays (good luck getting enought DPS to kill a carrier before it sucks the shields) then it's a pretty safe mechanic.
Austin Ahmburg State Protectorate Caldari State 2	Posted - 2015.03.28 22:41:00 - [1362] - Quote http://eveion.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/ccp-introduces-balancing-on-fly.html Relevant to the new changes.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 21	Posted - 2015.03.29 01:41:21 - [1363] - Quote Rowells wrote: If your only options to counter the mechanic are running away or driveby doomsdays (good luck getting enought DPS to kill a carrier before it sucks the shields) then it's a pretty safe mechanic. People are foolish thinking that killing the enemy super is the only way to victory. If you can make him go into his shield, you've won. If you can make him not want to log in for fear of possibly losing the super because every time he does log in so do several alts in system, you've won. If you can catch and kill his trigger ship, you've won. If you can catch and kill the super itself, then that's an enormous victory. Each of those is in itself a victory. Problem is if some players don't see the enemy ship blow up they consider it a loss. Completely forgetting about tactical victories. Not everything is about killing the other player's largest ship. Take the current war going on right now in Delve/Fountain. We have taken pretty hard loses in a couple of engagements, but have managed to maintain control of each timer. So at the end of the day, that's a win. Do we cry if we lose the isk war in a skirmish? No, because that's just one aspect of the game and we love it. Here are a few things for you to think about: Do null players cry for slowcats or drone assign to be nerfed? No, we accept it for what it is and we know we can do it right back if we so choose. Do null players want bomb nerfs? Well maybe, but we know why they exist and accept it. You see, unlike many spoiled players those who actually live in null typically accept and adapt to existing mechanics. We don't want CCP's hands in our sandbox. If we did we'd all play WOW where everything is homogenized so nobody had an unfair advantage over anyone else.
Jezza McWaffle No Vacancies Lost Alliance 183	Posted - 2015.03.29 02:10:50 - [1364] - Quote Now though you can have alot more fun and still use fighters by putting yourself at risk like everybody else by being in grid. Still don't understand why sitting at a POS is being argued as a good thing apart from by people with zero pvp skill. C6 Wormhole blog http://holelotofwaffle.wordpress.com/
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 998	Posted - 2015.03.29 02:39:54 - [1365] - Quote ^^ People who are so risk adverse they sat at POS aren't going to suddenly start putting their carrier on grid with these changes - more likely the carrier will be retired - when with a better balanced set of changes it might have been possible to increase the chances of catching them without swinging the balance so far they felt the risk was too great.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2179	Posted - 2015.03.29 03:09:30 - [1366] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: Rowells wrote: If your only options to counter the mechanic are running away or driveby doomsdays (good luck getting enought DPS to kill a carrier before it sucks the shields) then it's a pretty safe mechanic. People are foolish thinking that killing the enemy super is the only way to victory. If you can make him go into his shield, you've won. If you can make him not want to log in for fear of possibly losing the super because every time he does log in so do several alts in system, you've won. If you can catch and kill his trigger ship, you've won. If you can catch and kill the super itself, then that's an enormous victory. Each of those is in itself a victory. Problem is if some players don't see the enemy ship blow up they consider it a loss. Completely forgetting about tactical victories. Not everything is about killing the other player's largest ship. Take the current war going on right now in Delve/Fountain. We have taken pretty hard loses in a couple of engagements, but have managed to maintain control of each timer. So at the end of the day, that's a win. Do we cry if we lose the isk war in a skirmish? No, because that's just one aspect of the game and we love it. Here are a few things for you to think about: Do null players cry for slowcats or drone assign to be nerfed? No, we accept it for what it is and we know we can do it right back if we so choose. Do null players want bomb nerfs? Well maybe, but we know why they exist and accept it. You see, unlike many spoiled players those who actually live in null typically accept and adapt to existing mechanics. We don't want CCP's hands in our sandbox. If we did we'd all play WOW where everything is homogenized so nobody had an unfair advantage over anyone else. I believe you are correct in saying that the 'victory' does not require destruction, however, the concern against fighter assist is not the destruction of capitals being absent, but the risk associated with using fighters. Sure, making a carrier duck under the shields might mean you control the field, but why should the carrier exert power over a field the ship is not even on, and not have the same amount of risk associated with it? And stop pretending to speak for the majority. You in no way can try to use the silent majority to bolster your opinion.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 998	Posted - 2015.03.29 03:44:53 - [1367] - Quote Rowells wrote: and not have the same amount of risk associated with it? Not sure thats as simple a subject - the logistics of just one of the capital module alone on that carrier is probably more than the entire ishtar that invariably the pilot complaining about risk is flying :S End of they day skynet is/was bad and had to go that doesn't mean however that the way CCP has chosen to go about that is in anyway a good solution.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2179	Posted - 2015.03.29 05:41:13 - [1368] - Quote Rroff wrote: Rowells wrote: and not have the same amount of risk associated with it? Not sure thats as simple a subject - the logistics of just one of the capital module alone on that carrier is probably more than the entire ishtar that invariably the pilot complaining about risk is flying :S End of they day skynet is/was bad and had to go that doesn't mean however that the way CCP has chosen to go about that is in anyway a good solution. I've always considered the pre-work done to acheive these kinds of things as a last concern. Usually reserved for comparing it to similar features rather than to the rest of the game as a whole. Otherwise things get very convoluted trying to make them work out properly.
Unseen Illusions ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 0	Posted - 2015.03.29 06:52:31 - [1369] - Quote being a solo player with 2 accounts wanting to solo level 5 missions in low security space not being able to aid my missioning ship off grid with fighters will be a massive draw back to me . to think I was almost set up to do this. also I have my brother in-law who works from home who was almost going to reactivate his account to give me off grid fighter bonus while he worked because he doesn't have much time to play who probably wont bother now sorry CCP but this is a bad idea and I can see a lot of people who use more then one account let there time expire and settle for soloing level 4 missions with one account. I wonder what this big change will do to the PLEX prices time will tell I guess
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 998	Posted - 2015.03.29 14:45:08 - [1370] - Quote Rowells wrote: Rroff wrote: Rowells wrote: and not have the same amount of risk associated with it? Not sure thats as simple a subject - the logistics of just one of the capital module alone on that carrier is probably more than the entire ishtar that invariably the pilot complaining about risk is flying :S End of they day skynet is/was bad and had to go that doesn't mean however that the way CCP has chosen to go about that is in anyway a good solution. I've always considered the pre-work done to acheive these kinds of things as a last concern. Usually reserved for comparing it to similar features rather than to the rest of the game as a whole. Otherwise things get very convoluted trying to make them work out properly. True, its something a little closer to my heart as I tend to fly ships I care about a bit, usually put some effort into and often fairly expensive and while I'm not shy of putting them on grid won't throw away on a whim or treat in a disposable manner and I see the whole risk thing a bit differently to the typical attitude of many who fly around in generic fit flavour of the month inexpensive roaming ships or alliance wide doctrine ships. (Which as a very long post which I've re-typed half a dozen times and abandoned as no one really wants to read all through it leads back to why I've been vocal against the (as implemented) fighter changes in this thread despite also being anti-skynet and why I've made the decision not to continue with the game once my subscriptions expire).
darkneko Black Cat mining Inc. 7	Posted - 2015.03.29 19:17:33 - [1371] - Quote Seeing as how you guys are getting rid of tower shields soon why not just leave carriers as they are? Or if you do get rid of drone assist at least give those drones a new feature. Being able to remote control them for scouting would be great.
Warden Domitius2 Walkyrie Inc. Synergy of Steel 0	Posted - 2015.03.29 19:38:12 - [1372] - Quote Taking a short break from the game and my whole playstyle pve wise is gone - not really sure what game i come back to with this patch frequency. first the jumping now i cant even use carriers for 2 acc ratting? they only seem to care for the big things and not for the little guy. all the changes affect large scale sov stuff but also individual players in their logistics and personal money making. one needs a certain amount of overhead and isk income to partake in all the other stuff in eve. that overhead has now grown to a size where the ratio of have to do / wanna do is unfavorable - guess it's hitaus-o-clocka
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1986	Posted - 2015.03.29 21:36:14 - [1373] - Quote Please explain why you can't carrier rat anymore? Or you mean you can't keep your carrier safely off grid while gaining more than normal DPS & tracking on fighters from a max DPS/Tracking fit? Just take it on grid and rat with it. Still works. CCP have not screwed your playstyle, you don't want to take the risk that should have always come with that play style. Also your overhead has dropped since you can gate jump the carrier with a scout (Hey you have two accounts even) so moving it around no longer needs cyno's.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 998	Posted - 2015.03.29 23:56:28 - [1374] - Quote Have you tried your own advice? from what I can see fighters are distinctly a poorer choice to actually use now over sentries or geckos, etc. that you can still assist and if you really weigh it up I'm not even sure your better off just ditching the carrier and going with a pair of RR domis or something (as most people ratting with a carrier have atleast 2 accounts).
Kraken Merius Big Diggers Get Off My Lawn 0	Posted - 2015.03.30 00:28:00 - [1375] - Quote Just wanted to throw in my two cents on this subject. Overall, I agree that fighter assist and even drone assist, as it exists in recent memory, need to be either heavily modified or removed. That being said, heavily modified would be far more preferable to outright deletion. A full mechanic should not be cut out of the game simply because it doesn't function correctly and fixing it would require a fair amount of work. I also believe that fighter warp is one of the cool and unique things about owning and flying a carrier. It isn't broken or overpowered in a stand alone sense. The fact that your fighters can follow a craft through warp and reengage, while annoying to the guy/gal who is hightailing it, is a function in the game that is just fine the way it is in my opinion. Solutions: 1. Really simple and needed. Remove the ability to assist fighters to a subcapital ship completely. If they could control fighters, they would have the bandwidth to use them in the first place. On grid or off grid, I don't think it matters, just get rid of it. I would argue to allow fighter assist between capitals, or at least carrier class capitals, but only to a certain degree. 2. As someone previously stated, and in line with my #1 solution, create a module that allows a certain amount of FIGHTER ONLY bandwidth, but only say a maximum of 2 or 3. That way, they would receive limited assistance and wont be able to use the module to pad their own drone bay and be buffed without the assistance of a carrier. 3. Even if not removed outright, disallow the use of fighter/drone assist anywhere near a POS. No one should be able to assist a fight from the inside of a POS. Nor by poking the nose or ass of their ship outside the shield. 4. Drone assist is a great mechanic, but being able to assign a hundred Bouncers to a Fleet Commander in a fight is not the way the game should be played, again in my opinion. The fleet should not be able to kick back and orbit while one guy keeps hitting a big red button on his control console. Therefore, I think that there should be a maximum amount of drone assists per ship, say 5, and then they can receive no more. Or as an alternative, create a new stat that will govern how much bandwidth a ship has available to receive assistance. So say the stat is named Drone Assist Bandwidth and the stat reads 50, then that ship can receive 5 medium drones as assistance and no more. I think this idea would transfer over fluidly to carriers by renaming the stat Fighter Assist Bandwidth and thus limiting the number of fighters a carrier can have assisted to it. This would add another level of depth in small and large fleet engagements as this stat would/should vary wildly with different ship types. Maybe even have a ship with bonuses to assisted drones, but that seems like a far fetched dream all in all. All things considered, I think there should be a number or stat limit to just about everything you can do in the game, and for the most part that is the case. Just not Fighter/Drone assisting. There are numerous ways things could be reworked to keep drone/fighter assist while nerfing it (appropriately), keeping fighter warp, and removing the safety net of POS shields in these situations without just throwing hands up and saying "You know what? We're just deleting it." It will require some hard work, balancing, and testing. But this road, while harder, will ultimately be a more rewarding experience to gamers and a richer game in general. Just my two cents. And since I only have two cents, can anyone spare any change? *Edited for spelling
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 29	Posted - 2015.03.30 00:55:50 - [1376] - Quote Rowells wrote: And stop pretending to speak for the majority. You in no way can try to use the silent majority to bolster your opinion. I've got news for you buddy, I do speak for the majority of null sec and likely a good chunk of low who have any actual ties to the use of supers. It's you who are in the minority here. Very few ever said skynet was fine and should stay. In fact almost every post I've read had said alter it in such a way to make it more dangerous and/or limit who can accept the fighters. Viable ideas I've seen thus far get ignored: Removing the ability to assign fighters within X-distance of the stick, not just shield edge to prevent sitting next to an online tower. Limit to certain ship types. Limit to available bandwidth of accepting ship. Implementing a siege module allow for off grid assign and warping (on grid only without). ... the list goes on... all viable, all increase risk while leaving each different play style intact. Balancing, not removing. Just read the posts here, I've lost count how many players are unsubbing their main accounts, not just alt accounts, over CCP's recent actions (not just fighters). And that is just those who decided to be vocal about it! And no, the game is not better without them. For each player that leaves, that's one less reason their friends have to stick around as well. It's a vicious cycle every MMO is susceptible to.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 29	Posted - 2015.03.30 00:58:17 - [1377] - Quote Delete please. Double posted.
Antonia Iskarius Republic Military School Minmatar Republic 34	Posted - 2015.03.30 01:35:55 - [1378] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Please explain why you can't carrier rat anymore? Or you mean you can't keep your carrier safely off grid while gaining more than normal DPS & tracking on fighters from a max DPS/Tracking fit? Just take it on grid and rat with it. Still works. CCP have not screwed your playstyle, you don't want to take the risk that should have always come with that play style. Also your overhead has dropped since you can gate jump the carrier with a scout (Hey you have two accounts even) so moving it around no longer needs cyno's. Lock times from the hulls themselves + nerfed fighter scan res means over a minute from beginning targeting to applying DPS to your target. Could've left in on-grid assist to alleviate that, but nope. Removing it means there is no reason to fighter rat, and supers which can't field regular drones are now completely useless for both ratting and subcap PVP whether on grid or not.
Arthur Aihaken Narada 4252	Posted - 2015.03.30 02:20:02 - [1379] - Quote Antonia Iskarius wrote: Lock times from the hulls themselves + nerfed fighter scan res means over a minute from beginning targeting to applying DPS to your target. Could've left in on-grid assist to alleviate that, but nope. Removing it means there is no reason to fighter rat, and supers which can't field regular drones are now completely useless for both ratting and subcap PVP whether on grid or not. Can we also add that carriers and dreadnoughts basically can't really defend themselves against even a small group of attackers? I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week.
Swaatybaatch Yesplease KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.30 08:02:33 - [1380] - Quote in my fears that I will never be able to use a carrier , I rushed to buy a carrier char one able to fly and use them , rushed that that char down to null and sold everything I own in game across all my accounts so I could get a carrier fitted and in space ....... carriers = loads of fun , even though I am not able to get my drones to assist or guard my friends , hell my fighters do not even auto attack the rats , I killed a rat and will now sit back and wait for the day that carriers are good again , not being able to even set my drones to assist my mining friend who is 20km from my ship was a waist rats burned his mining ship down while I stared at the lock timer , thanks CCP watching some one pop in space is always fun . with all that at least I got to fly a carrier .
Spugg Galdon Nisroc Angels 641	Posted - 2015.03.30 08:38:16 - [1381] - Quote Personally, I don't like how fighters behave like mindless drones. I'd far prefer fighters to behave as if they actually had pilots in the cockpits, which, in reality they actually do. I'd like to see them maneuver intelligently and independently. I'd like to see wings of fighters from opposing carriers in a furball trying to gain space superiority. I'd like to see fighter pilots being an actual "thing". I mean, imagine, you get your rookie pilots and grind up their experience to become "Ace" pilots who can fly faster, turn tighter, shoot more accurately meaning that if you lose your fighters, you lose your pilots too. But you could expand on this..... A carrier will always have SAR operations for their downed pilots. You would have to launch your search and rescue "helicopters" to go and save your ace pilots (these would work like salvage drones). You would then simply assign them a "mission type" instead of "Attack my target" or "Assist my target" and the AI would then decide the best course of action to take. Currently, fighters are just big ass drones with stats that are out of whack cause that's the only way to balance them. Overall, fighters could be reworked completely but it would be a large chunk of work.
King Fu Hostile Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 321	Posted - 2015.03.30 12:19:11 - [1382] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: Rowells wrote: If your only options to counter the mechanic are running away or driveby doomsdays (good luck getting enought DPS to kill a carrier before it sucks the shields) then it's a pretty safe mechanic. People are foolish thinking that killing the enemy super is the only way to victory. If you can make him go into his shield, you've won. If you can make him not want to log in for fear of possibly losing the super because every time he does log in so do several alts in system, you've won. If you can catch and kill his trigger ship, you've won. If you can catch and kill the super itself, then that's an enormous victory. Each of those is in itself a victory. Problem is if some players don't see the enemy ship blow up they consider it a loss. Completely forgetting about tactical victories. Not everything is about killing the other player's largest ship. Take the current war going on right now in Delve/Fountain. We have taken pretty hard loses in a couple of engagements, but have managed to maintain control of each timer. So at the end of the day, that's a win. Do we cry if we lose the isk war in a skirmish? No, because that's just one aspect of the game and we love it. Here are a few things for you to think about: Do null players cry for slowcats or drone assign to be nerfed? No, we accept it for what it is and we know we can do it right back if we so choose. Do null players want bomb nerfs? Well maybe, but we know why they exist and accept it. You see, unlike many spoiled players those who actually live in null typically accept and adapt to existing mechanics. We don't want CCP's hands in our sandbox. If we did we'd all play WOW where everything is homogenized so nobody had an unfair advantage over anyone else. So you agree that skynet was pretty much immune to risk, and that it's ok to have an unfair advantage because this isn't wow. gg If the skynet carrier/super had been at any risk, CCP wouldn't have removed the mechanism. This is the reality.
Malcaz Addicted to Shljivovica 36	Posted - 2015.03.30 12:51:19 - [1383] - Quote Fighter assist was one of the fun things of having a carrier. There are many solutions to this where it does not have to be removed all together. For example, make it so that fighters cannot be assigned until 1000km from a pos shield or so. Problem solved... carriers are easy to probe and tackle and kill
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1001	Posted - 2015.03.30 13:02:56 - [1384] - Quote King Fu Hostile wrote: So you agree that skynet was pretty much immune to risk, and that it's ok to have an unfair advantage because this isn't wow. gg If the skynet carrier/super had been at any risk, CCP wouldn't have removed the mechanism. This is the reality. There are good and bad ways to go about addressing that however...
boldy mecpokey VentureCorp inc 0	Posted - 2015.03.30 13:23:25 - [1385] - Quote http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/eve-online-save-the-carrier
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1001	Posted - 2015.03.30 13:56:05 - [1386] - Quote Malcaz wrote: Fighter assist was one of the fun things of having a carrier. There are many solutions to this where it does not have to be removed all together. For example, make it so that fighters cannot be assigned until 1000km from a pos shield or so. Problem solved... carriers are easy to probe and tackle and kill No one cared about "skynet" until CCP gave players the tools to make fighters that could trundle around applying 1000s of dps (upto 7400 from a single nyx) with better effectiveness than light electron blaster, most people wouldn't even bother with doing skynet (not to say other changes shouldn't have been made) if fighters had been tweaked so as to be incidental dps in a typical skynet encounter instead of the prominent weapon platform in the situation that they'd become. Which would have been possible via a number of implementations, the knock on effect to carrier/super ratting would mean that they'd have to use something a bit more expensive along with their fighters to gain parity in efficiency at killing NPC frigs and cruisers but I've little sympathy in that regard it - would still have been possible with a moderately higher risk having to put a bit more ISK on grid. As before my preferred implementation would have been to give fighters a variation of titan style tracking (it makes sense that human pilots wouldn't be as proficient with the same size weapon platform as pod pilots or drone electronics) - purely as an example of the kind of thing I'm talking about with 5 einherji versus a stationary interceptor it would reduce the damage from say ~1+kdps/3-4+K alpha to (depending on tweaking) something like upto 200dps/700 alpha and scaling upwards from there until you hit full damage at >400 sig or whatever.
Nasar Vyron S0utherN Comfort DARKNESS. 35	Posted - 2015.03.30 17:54:24 - [1387] - Quote King Fu Hostile wrote: So you agree that skynet was pretty much immune to risk, and that it's ok to have an unfair advantage because this isn't wow. gg If the skynet carrier/super had been at any risk, CCP wouldn't have removed the mechanism. This is the reality. The post you quoted I am referring to the use of skynet in fleet combat where it was intended, not gate camps. Which we have used the tactic against our enemies as many times as it has been used against us. It's all a part of pre-staging for a battle, or risking your assets during to get in position quickly. It is the carrier's ROLE in this game to provide ONGRID logistics and OFFGRID offensive support via their fighters. You rarely see a normal carriers use fighters while on grid because they are horrid for sub-cap warfare where you actually have to fit tank, instead you see them drop sentries. And on that note, you rarely even see super's on grid for that exact reason. If super's had a semi-reliable way to actually combat the small gangs tackling them you would see them on grid more often. If you took the time to actually read anything else I've posted you'd see that I was not "okay" with several aspects of skynet, and as myself and many others can see the overlap between skynet and other legitimate uses of the mechanic did not want to see it completely stripped away. I was personally a fan of making it so drone/fighter assign was based on distance from stick, not shield edge, to prevent what I see as a borderline exploit of bringing the shield up around you at an instance completely removing the slow act of boating back into the shield. I was also for limiting the ships who could accept the fighters based on their open bandwidth, meaning only drone ships could accept them as their ships were actually equip to control drones in the first place. This would have done away with insta-lock ceptors that are near impossible to catch and kill, and inevitably pushed it to large hulls forcing them to replace their personal drones with the more powerful fighters. Super pilots have no reward for risking their assets in such a reckless way. That's why their use has been pigeonholed into only being wielded while within in a blob now where they can rely on the logistics of those around them as they go after other capitals. There simply is no reward for owning a super outside of simply status anymore, same can be said about titans. CCP already understands that their players will always find ways to exploit mechanics, now they just need to learn how to go about adjusting these in a less harmful manner.
Lloyd Roses Artificial Memories 935	Posted - 2015.03.30 18:28:18 - [1388] - Quote Rroff wrote: King Fu Hostile wrote: So you agree that skynet was pretty much immune to risk, and that it's ok to have an unfair advantage because this isn't wow. gg If the skynet carrier/super had been at any risk, CCP wouldn't have removed the mechanism. This is the reality. There are good and bad ways to go about addressing that however... going straight for the jugular and screwing over anyone who might use fighters completely unrelated to skynet might not sound like a problem to someone pro-small gang PVP... wait til that same principle is applied to something you care about. Ye I'm prepared for links to come on grid, one falcon eventually not reliably jamming 2/3 guardians and for T3 Destroyers to lose half their powergrid. And this whining about here is on quite another scale. I might have missed something but it only means you can't just put your fighters to some Svipul anymore and kill everything in system that is moving, you need to be there to launch your drones. Thoe complaints are like OMG can't boost from inside POS FF anymore, RIP links that got voiced the last time a similar impactful change came around. Also, links amplify your ship's attributes. Skynet just adds a flat few thousand dps to anything.
King Fu Hostile Fistful of Finns Triumvirate. 321	Posted - 2015.03.30 18:57:54 - [1389] - Quote Rroff wrote: King Fu Hostile wrote: So you agree that skynet was pretty much immune to risk, and that it's ok to have an unfair advantage because this isn't wow. gg If the skynet carrier/super had been at any risk, CCP wouldn't have removed the mechanism. This is the reality. There are good and bad ways to go about addressing that however... going straight for the jugular and screwing over anyone who might use fighters completely unrelated to skynet might not sound like a problem to someone pro-small gang PVP... wait til that same principle is applied to something you care about. I don't agree with the total removal, just for the record. However his reasons to keep it are wrong.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1003	Posted - 2015.03.30 19:27:44 - [1390] - Quote Lloyd Roses wrote: I might have missed something but it only means you can't just put your fighters to some Svipul anymore and kill everything in system that is moving, you need to be there to launch your drones. Thoe complaints are like OMG can't boost from inside POS FF anymore, RIP links that got voiced the last time a similar impactful change came around. Also, links amplify your ship's attributes. Skynet just adds a flat few thousand dps to anything. People do use fighters outside of skynet style "pvp" - assign and assist no longer work on grid or off grid with fighters which makes them pretty much useless in reality for much of what they were used for outside of skynet. As I've pointed out though skynet itself is pretty bad when done properly and had to go it doesn't sit right with me though that such a long standing feature that people who use it will mostly be long term players who've spent quite awhile training and so on to use can be casually wiped away with the wave of a hand and a fake feedback thread.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 1987	Posted - 2015.03.30 20:03:47 - [1391] - Quote Rroff wrote: People do use fighters outside of skynet style "pvp" - assign and assist no longer work on grid or off grid with fighters which makes them pretty much useless in reality for much of what they were used for outside of skynet. As I've pointed out though skynet itself is pretty bad when done properly and had to go it doesn't sit right with me though that such a long standing feature that people who use it will mostly be long term players who've spent quite awhile training and so on to use can be casually wiped away with the wave of a hand and a fake feedback thread. Yes, because anything where the Devs don't agree with you is 'fake'.... Yea right, grow up. If the entire community had been on board with your POV then you might have some ground to complain, but most people were not in favour of the assign, and a lot also weren't in favour of a simple 'Assist as if drone' mechanic either.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1003	Posted - 2015.03.30 20:20:16 - [1392] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: Yes, because anything where the Devs don't agree with you is 'fake'.... Yea right, grow up. If the entire community had been on board with your POV then you might have some ground to complain, but most people were not in favour of the assign, and a lot also weren't in favour of a simple 'Assist as if drone' mechanic either. I seem to have upset someone... Plenty of people have posted alternative ideas and asked for a more balanced change rather than completely wiping out long standing fighter functionality I'm far from alone on that front - small gang type players are always going to proportionally out weigh capital representation however and hence have a louder voice - especially as they are typically on the receiving end and don't care beyond it going away any result where its gone is a good one to them.
Valorian Amarison The Graduates Forged of Fire 0	Posted - 2015.03.30 21:38:02 - [1393] - Quote My vote would be to keep warp capabilities in tact for fighters... this is my thought. When warping a carrier to safety, at times, there is little time to recall fighters. With fighters as expensive as they are, it would be a shame to abandon them on the field if they can no longer warp. Removing assist is one thing, please don't break carriers completely.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2183	Posted - 2015.03.31 00:49:22 - [1394] - Quote Nasar Vyron wrote: Rowells wrote: And stop pretending to speak for the majority. You in no way can try to use the silent majority to bolster your opinion. I've got news for you buddy, I do speak for the majority of null sec and likely a good chunk of low who have any actual ties to the use of supers. It's you who are in the minority here. Maybe you don't understand how representation works. Usually you become a representative either by formal designation as a mouthpiece (through voting, force, or coercion) and then you can speak on their opinions. You, however, seem to believe that finding similar opinions in a few posts makes you the (un)official speaker for nullsec, therefore giving your opinions more legitimacy. Because while you claim to represent the majority of nullsec, I could see all of the counter-responses and claim that I represent the majority of Eve players (especially considering rest of eve > nullsec population). Would it mean anything other than me trying to find toothpicks to hold up my opinion? absolutely not. You represent yourself and only yourself. A good idea or opinion will be good regardless of who you claim is standing behind you. Don't hide behind others and claim yourself strong.
Aeryn Maricadie Periphery Bound 17	Posted - 2015.03.31 01:01:21 - [1395] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Can we also add that carriers and dreadnoughts basically can't really defend themselves against even a small group of attackers? they do have a 3% chance to do full damage with every volley no matter what, so if they pick small things they could potentially alpha them. (I am assuming that all dreads have 3 turrrets, i wouldn't know i haven't looked at all of them)
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2183	Posted - 2015.03.31 01:35:35 - [1396] - Quote Arthur Aihaken wrote: Antonia Iskarius wrote: Lock times from the hulls themselves + nerfed fighter scan res means over a minute from beginning targeting to applying DPS to your target. Could've left in on-grid assist to alleviate that, but nope. Removing it means there is no reason to fighter rat, and supers which can't field regular drones are now completely useless for both ratting and subcap PVP whether on grid or not. Can we also add that carriers and dreadnoughts basically can't really defend themselves against even a small group of attackers? I would argue carriers have he best defense against subcaps amongst al the capitals and depending on drones used better than some battleships.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1003	Posted - 2015.03.31 01:41:43 - [1397] - Quote Aeryn Maricadie wrote: Arthur Aihaken wrote: Can we also add that carriers and dreadnoughts basically can't really defend themselves against even a small group of attackers? they do have a 3% chance to do full damage with every volley no matter what, so if they pick small things they could potentially alpha them. (I am assuming that all dreads have 3 turrrets, i wouldn't know i haven't looked at all of them) I'm also no statistician but I think there is also a .02% chance of them doing x2 full alpha and .0001% of them doing x3 full alpha with every volley. Some have 2 like the nag. Wrecking shots seemed a bit broken with fighters - not sure if they really were but was getting more than I normally see when playing around - quite funny when you get 2-3+K alpha from a single fighter against a small target.
Smoothlezz 4Th Horsman 7	Posted - 2015.03.31 03:48:43 - [1398] - Quote removed fighter assist from carriers nerfed drones that go good with ishtar nerfed ishtars nerfed rails next in line: nerf blasters remove all drone bonuses from carriers and drone boats give missilee boats drone bonuses with no drone bay space and were set to go my point: carriers shouldnt been touched with assist there are many ppl who cry for being suicided why ccp doesnt do anything about it? risk profit you say? when you get blown on 50 mil ship and get all the cargo from the other ship where is the risk/profit in it? those who do so risk nothing! they dont fit theyre suicide ships with something expensive neither they use 1 bil or more ships.... lets break carriers.... ahh and there is something i was roaming some day and got dropped by carrier and bs's so plz nerf carriers so they wont get to rep battleship in 2 sec! that way there will be balanced carriers they just wont be able to do nothing.... will be most useless ship in game and can rise a monument in jita in memory of carriers! :D p.s: YES i Am Furious due to this change p.s.s: never used "skynettin" for pvp but did delegated control in pve
Swaatybaatch Yesplease KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 2	Posted - 2015.03.31 05:02:02 - [1399] - Quote with all the carrier nerf going on I found the perfect use for them , carrier mining http://eve.battleclinic.com/view_loadout.php?id=40021 should be able to out mine a hulk with it , who wants to join for a carrier mining OP ?
Miss Erica Royal Amarr Institute Amarr Empire 0	Posted - 2015.03.31 05:09:09 - [1400] - Quote You have nurfed titans so bad over the last 5 yrs. no more AOE Moms were buffed about 5.5 years ago. no more drones and screwed up Fighter bombers. So now you want to nurf carriers even more? no warp or no assist? How do you expect them to defend themselves? Nurfed so many good things about eve. You may as well rename EVE to NURFED. No rage here just history. How about adding something that's been missing from the start? Ship maneuvers , programmed groups of commands selectable. In what reality would this not exist other than online games... Must be to hard for you to program.... Don't nurf the damn fighters. they cost to much damn money. When 3-5 frigs and hold down a carrier and kill it. fighters cant kill a frig as well as the frigs can kill a fighter or carrier. damn shame. Buff the carriers a lot so more people use them and in turn have more fun trying to kill them... I don't want to see "s h i t" about support remarks. Keep your dumbass remarks to yourselves. Reply to this and prove yourself as the above. I know you red coats wont be able to resist.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 812	Posted - 2015.03.31 22:03:56 - [1401] - Quote Rowells wrote: If your only options to counter the mechanic are running away or driveby doomsdays (good luck getting enought DPS to kill a carrier before it sucks the shields) then it's a pretty safe mechanic. Which is WHY WE ASKED FOR A BUBBLE AROUND A POS WHERE YOU COULD NOT DELEGATE FIGHTERS. Additionally, forcing a retreat of a hostile carrier into the POS shields or to dock would be considered a "win" by any reasonable person.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1004	Posted - 2015.04.01 01:12:09 - [1402] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Rowells wrote: If your only options to counter the mechanic are running away or driveby doomsdays (good luck getting enought DPS to kill a carrier before it sucks the shields) then it's a pretty safe mechanic. Which is WHY WE ASKED FOR A BUBBLE AROUND A POS WHERE YOU COULD NOT DELEGATE FIGHTERS. Additionally, forcing a retreat of a hostile carrier into the POS shields or to dock would be considered a "win" by any reasonable person. While I'm not 100% sold on it I think by far the best compromise in that regard would have been to have a bastion type module for delegation - 1 minute cycle time (once its turned off at the end of that cycle fighters automatically warp back) makes the carrier stationary + weapons timer and local (but not remote) tank buff along with maybe a bonus to fighter EHP. Couple with changes to make fighters inefficient against anything too small and no one would really bother with skynet any more by and large while not almost if not entirely crippling things for people who use fighters entirely unrelated to skynet.
Eoin Donovan The Soul Society DeepSpace. 13	Posted - 2015.04.02 12:50:17 - [1403] - Quote I like the idea of making fighters pointable, for something that is on par with a frigate it makes no sense that you cant. I also like the idea of you needing to be X distance from a POS in order to be able to assign fighters. This removes the "Safe" way while still keeping the tactic viable! Everyone wins Another solution would be to only allow fighters to be assigned to certain ship types. Or to have assigned drones/fighters take up bandwidth (Or atleast a % of bandwidth) Meaning you cant just assign everything to one person.
Katie Hakoke Ore Hogs Greater Western Co-Prosperity Sphere 0	Posted - 2015.04.03 11:53:44 - [1404] - Quote I think voting on nerfs should only be allowed by people who trained the skills in question. I'm so tired of training up skills only to have them nerfed because of whining from ppl who haven't taken the time or isk to train the skill they complain about. Fighter assist is one of the reasons I trained carrier skills on my main. No fighter nerfs please.
Kernal Pop I N E X T R E M I S Circle-Of-Two 0	Posted - 2015.04.03 18:07:59 - [1405] - Quote This is really stupid in my opinion. Yes, fighters are designed as a support drone out of Carrier class vessels, and their cost and performance reflect that. But to go as far as removing Fighter Assist? That's kind of going over the line. Drones unfair with insta-lockers? How about making it to where if the locking ship isn't the ship that deployed them and is assisting another ship; per say an insta-locker, the drones have their own built-in lock timer (i.e a light drone will require an extra two seconds to lock on to a target after the ship it is assisting begins combat.) Instead of outright nerfing things without providing an actual solution, try a "rebalance." Problems with skynet? Make drones undeployable from anywhere under 10-15km from any station, pos, etc. If you go within the said perimeter you lose contact with your drones. Fighters warping is kind of their special thing, so I can't see why you would remove that. Chasing targets after they leave the scene? That particular ability could be removed without hurting the fighter drones too much. Introduce a new module that has a percent chance to interfere with a drone and the ship that launched them, making them float uselessly for a period of time kind of like how ECM works on targeting. Let's try to find actual ways to rebalance things instead of just destroying them.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 127	Posted - 2015.04.03 18:16:21 - [1406] - Quote I am John Connor, If you are listening to this message, you are the Resistance. ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1005	Posted - 2015.04.03 19:20:29 - [1407] - Quote Katie Hakoke wrote: I think voting on nerfs should only be allowed by people who trained the skills in question. I'm so tired of training up skills only to have them nerfed because of whining from ppl who haven't taken the time or isk to train the skill they complain about. Fighter assist is one of the reasons I trained carrier skills on my main. No fighter nerfs please. The writings on the wall I'm afraid and we simply aren't valued as customers. 2 accounts down, one expires in a few hours and 8 days left on Rroff. (Not playing brinkmanship or emo rage quitting - seems my play style isn't compatible with this game any more).
ITTigerClawIK Galactic Rangers 474	Posted - 2015.04.04 08:45:57 - [1408] - Quote ok so i dont get this, the problem here is that fighters can be assigned to people from just outside a POS force field so the solution by CCP here is to get rid of the entire mechanic, where in the thread about Removal of Cap jump bridges there is just a denial of use around a POS.... why the hell cant ther be a denial of Fighter assignment just outside a POS for capitals instead of removing the feature entirely?????
Cade Windstalker Donohue Enterprises Ad-Astra 332	Posted - 2015.04.04 09:00:47 - [1409] - Quote ITTigerClawIK wrote: ok so i dont get this, the problem here is that fighters can be assigned to people from just outside a POS force field so the solution by CCP here is to get rid of the entire mechanic, where in the thread about Removal of Cap jump bridges there is just a denial of use around a POS.... why the hell cant ther be a denial of Fighter assignment just outside a POS for capitals instead of removing the feature entirely????? Watch the Fanfest presentation on ship and module balancing. During the Q and A someone asks something very close to this and the basic answer is that they considered trying to discourage the practice by adding risk or otherwise tweaking things and it basically ended up being too complicated (and, I would assume, therefore exploitable or hard to deal with in the future) and there's a big capital rebalance coming that will hopefully fix a lot of concerns people have with the state of capitals in general.
Holly Hardcore School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State 8	Posted - 2015.04.04 09:53:03 - [1410] - Quote Ok, so where is the risk for the 20 titans which jumped in to kill the carrier and jump out 2 minutes later? I'm shure that assigned fighters, or carriers in general, never ever been such a big problem. But who cares? The party wich could escalate most can still bring supers on field with minimal risk, while all with less numbers could do ship spinning inside their forcefield. Good job ccp.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1006	Posted - 2015.04.04 11:42:17 - [1411] - Quote Cade Windstalker wrote: ITTigerClawIK wrote: ok so i dont get this, the problem here is that fighters can be assigned to people from just outside a POS force field so the solution by CCP here is to get rid of the entire mechanic, where in the thread about Removal of Cap jump bridges there is just a denial of use around a POS.... why the hell cant ther be a denial of Fighter assignment just outside a POS for capitals instead of removing the feature entirely????? Watch the Fanfest presentation on ship and module balancing. During the Q and A someone asks something very close to this and the basic answer is that they considered trying to discourage the practice by adding risk or otherwise tweaking things and it basically ended up being too complicated (and, I would assume, therefore exploitable or hard to deal with in the future) and there's a big capital rebalance coming that will hopefully fix a lot of concerns people have with the state of capitals in general. That was painful to watch... Relevant parts: www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqeUqRo0yto#t=1148 www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqeUqRo0yto#t=2416 Stumbling over the most basic terminology (for the 3rd time if you include the opening post and o7) - sorry as much as I love a lot of what Rise has done for the game... how was this person in charge of anything relevant to capital balancing? (Trying to be objective here not hating on Rise but he obviously does NOT have the familiarity with the overall subject required). Condescending waffle about how he wants us to" feel better about using a capital" while removing 9/10ths of the functionality that someone (assuming they didn't train it to do skynet) spent >300 days and >-ú100 just on the core skills to fly 15 fighters with some vague promises that it'll all be better in the future... "just wait another 300 odd days" - his answer was completely dismissive that anyone might even use fighters outside of skynet - the drone module changes that allowed "skynet" to become a thing are relatively new changes most people who have the skills trained to use 15 fighters properly would have had to have started training long before they'd even know "skynet" would be possible even assuming they did "skynet" when it became possible.
Khan Wrenth Hedion University Amarr Empire 123	Posted - 2015.04.04 11:51:31 - [1412] - Quote Rroff wrote: The writings on the wall I'm afraid and we simply aren't valued as customers. 2 accounts down, one expires in a few hours and 8 days left on Rroff. (Not playing brinkmanship or emo rage quitting - seems my play style isn't compatible with this game any more). Just remember to contract your stuff to UAE before you go. HTFU.-á Adapt or die.-á Beware the falcon punch.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1008	Posted - 2015.04.04 11:55:20 - [1413] - Quote Khan Wrenth wrote: Rroff wrote: The writings on the wall I'm afraid and we simply aren't valued as customers. 2 accounts down, one expires in a few hours and 8 days left on Rroff. (Not playing brinkmanship or emo rage quitting - seems my play style isn't compatible with this game any more). Just remember to contract your stuff to UAE before you go. In all seriousness can't actually contract a lot of my assets - either being in w-space logged off or other reasons.
Madchen Sterben Net Neutrality 3	Posted - 2015.04.06 20:05:04 - [1414] - Quote Please please please STOP killing capitals because you cannot make new code. Solution #1 1) Simply do not allow fighter assist while the ship is within 500 km of a corp / owned force shield. Solution #2 2) The new POS system with docking resolves this issue, No more force fields. No need to break more stuff.
godtallon boomer Agarest war 0	Posted - 2015.04.07 03:03:18 - [1415] - Quote i think there is something like this in progress already but make the fighters a thing like dust take them out other then when someone is controling the ship in first person i dont know how pratical it is but i thought it would take controle of the problems and give more control to fleet battles and stuff like that again im sorry if this has been talked about already iv been away for a while and iv been hopeing eve would go to the same path as dust and add the ships up to destroyers in the game and that would make the allience battles a lil more about skill and tatics and skill
Barbara Nichole Cryogenic Consultancy 685	Posted - 2015.04.07 06:15:57 - [1416] - Quote I'm not really in favor of removing the assist in the case of drones or fighters. It's a unique and interesting feature of carrier use. -á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á- [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Glenn Eastland SNAZZ PATROL 0	Posted - 2015.04.08 16:50:12 - [1417] - Quote i think ccp should stop changing everything all the time in general its crazy! people are going to find loopholes and find tricks you cant just keep stepping in and changing the game mechanics when they do!! you are hurting all the people that use the features in a productive and fun way, and not just this but every thing you "re-balance" aka nerf. ccp's input on the situation is that its "unfair" or to powerful and you take away every ships unique feature and ability's, im sorry but there is no 'unfairness' to eve everyone has the same chance to get the same ships with time, it should be a completely free world open market game like it once was. if your ship is getting blown up suck it up and get a different ship, that's all not have ccp make the other ship less powerful, i use my legion for missions and in another one of these patch notes you nerfed its armor hp??? why ? because it was too powerful for others to kill in pvp, for those people i say stop using t1 fit garbage and upgrade to your own t3, if you cant kill a ship with what you are currently flying trade ships,,, simple... dont engage a more powerful ship if you cant do it then have ccp nerf it when you lose.. i fly every race and every "re balance" has never helped and has only hurt all the ships ive ever flown, so yes this is a horrible idea to take away drone assist so is every other nerf you've ever done. if you truly must "re balance" then stop nerfing and give more attributes to other ships, instead of me waking up to an offline turret case power grid is different 10 percent less hp and 1 less turret hard point making me have to totally refit and have a ship that's not worth half what i paid for it and i can no longer use it for what i use it for......
Glenn Eastland SNAZZ PATROL 0	Posted - 2015.04.08 16:54:55 - [1418] - Quote what i pay for in this game is relative to the money i give you ccp and if im dumping money into a game for a monthly sub and dumping money into the game to buy the ships i want and then you take away their significance you are taking money from me and hurting loyal paying customers that are keeping this game online, you are driving away all your older based cash cow capital pilots and that's just bad business
Hibiki Fox LEGION OF PROFESSOR CHAOS Darkmatter Initiative 0	Posted - 2015.04.08 18:48:22 - [1419] - Quote Over the years capitals have became giant piles of floating trash. Their survivability was completely destroyed were a few small ships can now blow one to hell without it every putting up much of a fight. The reason capitals are used in the way they are now is all the previous nerfs they were given. "Our fleet of 10 frigates can't blow up this multi billion Isk, massive carrier" Better nerf capitals "These ships that are clearly designed to support ENTIRE fleets are keeping our gank squad from killing Isk" Better nerf capitals "OMFG why are there so many drones?" Better nerf capitals "I can't stop it from warping or jumping? Come on CCP my 100k frigate can completely screw over this multi billion isk ship right?" Better nerf capitals " This capital ship that is completely useless except for giving smaller ships the ability to shoot other smaller ships is sitting at a POS, not doing it's intended job of supporting a fleet... and we can't kill it because it will just run inside the bubble...." Well, you are right! Better nerf capitals.... How about you revisit all the nerfs to armor, shields, modules, support, abilities, drone usage, drone limits, survivability, roles in fleet combat, before you needlessly remove a feature of the game that CCP yourselves have basically shoved the carrier into.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1669	Posted - 2015.04.08 22:45:44 - [1420] - Quote Glenn Eastland wrote: what i pay for in this game is relative to the money i give you ccp and if im dumping money into a game for a monthly sub and dumping money into the game to buy the ships i want and then you take away their significance you are taking money from me and hurting loyal paying customers that are keeping this game online, you are driving away all your older based cash cow capital pilots and that's just bad business It's a MMO. If you don't expect stuff to change, you are thinking wrong.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2236	Posted - 2015.04.08 23:51:16 - [1421] - Quote Glenn Eastland wrote: what i pay for in this game is relative to the money i give you ccp and if im dumping money into a game for a monthly sub and dumping money into the game to buy the ships i want and then you take away their significance you are taking money from me and hurting loyal paying customers that are keeping this game online, you are driving away all your older based cash cow capital pilots and that's just bad business And what about the rest of the paying customers?
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 193	Posted - 2015.04.09 02:10:18 - [1422] - Quote Rowells wrote: Glenn Eastland wrote: what i pay for in this game is relative to the money i give you ccp and if im dumping money into a game for a monthly sub and dumping money into the game to buy the ships i want and then you take away their significance you are taking money from me and hurting loyal paying customers that are keeping this game online, you are driving away all your older based cash cow capital pilots and that's just bad business And what about the rest of the paying customers? Butt is x14 Rank skillbook? vOv Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Make BS & BC Worth the Warp! ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1010	Posted - 2015.04.09 02:14:20 - [1423] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: It's a MMO. If you don't expect stuff to change, you are thinking wrong. I don't think it unreasonable as a paying customer to expect a little more care put into the change of a feature that takes a significant amount of investment however. Rowells wrote: And what about the rest of the paying customers? Approaching that from a slight tangent - skynet was bad and wrong and pretty much everyone accepts that it needed to change that doesn't automatically mean that that problem validates any and all change to carriers/fighters (even if people who don't fly capitals might think anything that removes skynet is good) - its not like there weren't other options for ending skynet.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 193	Posted - 2015.04.09 02:17:05 - [1424] - Quote Skynet was cancer and you know it. Fighters reaching ceptor speeds, while controlled by another ceptor. LOL Risk - reward, get gud. P.S. I'm going to read this thread from Page 1 while touching myself. ...Zooooah!.. Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Make BS & BC Worth the Warp! ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 194	Posted - 2015.04.09 04:13:17 - [1425] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: titan Multi3 wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: titan Multi3 wrote: It's powerful because it requires a large investment of isk/time. You need a very well skilled assigning toon, you need to have the capitals, and you still have to setup your own infrastructure. Limiting the mechanic to assigning to another capital class ship ( maybe just other carrier/sc ?) would be a decent way to balance the risk out, and still keep a good mechanic. Remote DD and AoE DD required a well trained toon, the capital to do it and to setup an infrastructure if you didn't want to leave your titan without protection and it was removed because it was a **** mechanic. Comparing AOE DD's and fighter assist is a TAD of a long stretch. Remote DD was kind of using a weapon system from off grid no? You could fire then thru cynos. Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Make BS & BC Worth the Warp! ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1676	Posted - 2015.04.09 12:08:18 - [1426] - Quote Rroff wrote: I don't think it unreasonable as a paying customer to expect a little more care put into the change of a feature that takes a significant amount of investment however. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to understand applying damage from off-grid is stupid.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 818	Posted - 2015.04.09 12:31:47 - [1427] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Skynet was cancer and you know it. Fighters reaching ceptor speeds, while controlled by other ceptors. Reminds me of another Skynet-type scenario from years ago that spelled game over for anyone caught by it - Nanophoons. Risk - reward, get gud. It was bad, sure, but nowhere near as bad as certain people in this thread would lead you to believe. For starters, fighters were limited 5 to a person. Even AB inties had enough muscle to run back to the gate before getting blapped, and anything larger had enough punch to kill the inty before the fighters went to work. I would pay real money to watch you to up to that pilot of the Revenant and tell him "Skynetting has zero risk". And finally, instead of harping on how the mechanic should be removed, tell us why the other proposed changes in this thread are bad, in 5000 words or less.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1010	Posted - 2015.04.09 13:10:59 - [1428] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Rroff wrote: I don't think it unreasonable as a paying customer to expect a little more care put into the change of a feature that takes a significant amount of investment however. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask you to understand applying damage from off-grid is stupid. Which I've demonstrated multiple times in this and the other skynet threads.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 818	Posted - 2015.04.09 17:17:03 - [1429] - Quote Yes, yes, if done "properly" XYZ would change. If done properly, we'd be seeing Naglfar usage spike tremendously, we'd see the Pantheon fleets lose archon after archon after being volleyed off the field, we'd see this, that, and the other thing. If we balance the game based on perfect situations, it's going to be very interesting, using the Chinese definition of "interesting". There is no reason, with their new 6 week release time, to change the carrier's behavior to disallow usage of assigned fighters within 50km or so of a Control tower (to prevent garagedoor assists) and to enable a player to warp scramble a fighter, and to give it a run for 6 weeks to see how it fares. There is such a thing as overreacting, my friend, and CCP has done just that.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1010	Posted - 2015.04.09 18:27:03 - [1430] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: There is no reason, with their new 6 week release time, to change the carrier's behavior to disallow usage of assigned fighters within 50km or so of a Control tower (to prevent garagedoor assists) and to enable a player to warp scramble a fighter, and to give it a run for 6 weeks to see how it fares. There is such a thing as overreacting, my friend, and CCP has done just that. This bit I whole heartedly agree with.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1677	Posted - 2015.04.09 18:29:39 - [1431] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Yes, yes, if done "properly" XYZ would change. If done properly, we'd be seeing Naglfar usage spike tremendously, we'd see the Pantheon fleets lose archon after archon after being volleyed off the field, we'd see this, that, and the other thing. If we balance the game based on perfect situations, it's going to be very interesting, using the Chinese definition of "interesting". There is no reason, with their new 6 week release time, to change the carrier's behavior to disallow usage of assigned fighters within 50km or so of a Control tower (to prevent garagedoor assists) and to enable a player to warp scramble a fighter, and to give it a run for 6 weeks to see how it fares. There is such a thing as overreacting, my friend, and CCP has done just that. Unless it's a major PITA to code... The cyno for example require a module to be turned on so they probably were able to add some line of code on the item to perform the distance check before it can start and the effect can't be moved anyway as the cyno itself is in space and not on the ship. Carrier don't need any module to assist a fighter, didn't get locked into place and there was nothing to be locked in space since you could of bumped your own damn carrier as close as possible to the forcefield to just require a slight push to get it back to safety. It probably would of required them to create a new module just for that to anchor the carrier/super in space so it can't be bumped by any mean to be sure it can't be done in a similar relative safety.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1010	Posted - 2015.04.09 19:28:20 - [1432] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Unless it's a major PITA to code... The cyno for example require a module to be turned on so they probably were able to add some line of code on the item to perform the distance check before it can start and the effect can't be moved anyway as the cyno itself is in space and not on the ship. Carrier don't need any module to assist a fighter, didn't get locked into place and there was nothing to be locked in space since you could of bumped your own damn carrier as close as possible to the forcefield to just require a slight push to get it back to safety. It probably would of required them to create a new module just for that to anchor the carrier/super in space so it can't be bumped by any mean to be sure it can't be done in a similar relative safety. A carrier running some kind of triage or bastion style mod for fighter delegation even bumped up against the FF is still relatively vulnerable - a "typical" skynet fit isn't very tanky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCVsQUlP81Q even a basic 3x gyro T2 fit nag put that thanny into half shields. (Bare in mind that in the context of that video I purposely let one hit land for demonstration reasons - in reality that nag wouldn't have got a shot off if the carrier pilot was half on the ball and with no triage or bastion style module in effect).
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 194	Posted - 2015.04.09 19:50:29 - [1433] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: And finally, instead of harping on how the mechanic should be removed, tell us why the other proposed changes in this thread are bad, in 5000 words or less. That would be lending you credibility, which I don't intend to do. Train went Choo-Choo the second drone upgrade mods were introduced. (GÇó_GÇó) ( GÇó_GÇó)>GîÉGûá-Gûá (GîÉGûá_Gûá) Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Make BS & BC Worth the Warp! ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1678	Posted - 2015.04.09 19:52:34 - [1434] - Quote Rroff wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: Unless it's a major PITA to code... The cyno for example require a module to be turned on so they probably were able to add some line of code on the item to perform the distance check before it can start and the effect can't be moved anyway as the cyno itself is in space and not on the ship. Carrier don't need any module to assist a fighter, didn't get locked into place and there was nothing to be locked in space since you could of bumped your own damn carrier as close as possible to the forcefield to just require a slight push to get it back to safety. It probably would of required them to create a new module just for that to anchor the carrier/super in space so it can't be bumped by any mean to be sure it can't be done in a similar relative safety. A carrier running some kind of triage or bastion style mod for fighter delegation even bumped up against the FF is still relatively vulnerable - a "typical" skynet fit isn't very tanky: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCVsQUlP81Q even a basic 3x gyro T2 fit nag put that thanny into half shields. (Bare in mind that in the context of that video I purposely let one hit land for demonstration reasons - in reality that nag wouldn't have got a shot off if the carrier pilot was half on the ball and with no triage or bastion style module in effect). But what happen if when you jump or warp your nag to the POS where I am sitting if I bump my carrier inside the POS shield? Does the carrier become invulnerable for being inside the shield or does a triage module really prevent you from being bumped inside of it by any mean possible?
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 818	Posted - 2015.04.09 20:02:55 - [1435] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: And finally, instead of harping on how the mechanic should be removed, tell us why the other proposed changes in this thread are bad, in 5000 words or less. That would be lending you credibility, which I don't intend to do. Train went Choo-Choo the second drone upgrade mods were introduced. (GÇó_GÇó) ( GÇó_GÇó)>GîÉGûá-Gûá (GîÉGûá_Gûá) I really shouldn't have expected anything other than a dodge from an NPC alt. I really don't know why I'm disappointed. Frostys Virpio wrote: But what happen if when you jump or warp your nag to the POS where I am sitting if I bump my carrier inside the POS shield? Does the carrier become invulnerable for being inside the shield or does a triage module really prevent you from being bumped inside of it by any mean possible? So combine the two. Make a fighter assist module AND make sure it can't be used within 50k of a tower. No Archon will survive hostile fire long enough for it to edge back into the shields.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 194	Posted - 2015.04.09 20:06:25 - [1436] - Quote This change is obviously in prep for the FozzieSov, and I'm glad they saw reason. So get gud, while there's still time. Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Make BS & BC Worth the Warp! ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1678	Posted - 2015.04.09 20:15:31 - [1437] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: And finally, instead of harping on how the mechanic should be removed, tell us why the other proposed changes in this thread are bad, in 5000 words or less. That would be lending you credibility, which I don't intend to do. Train went Choo-Choo the second drone upgrade mods were introduced. (GÇó_GÇó) ( GÇó_GÇó)>GîÉGûá-Gûá (GîÉGûá_Gûá) I really shouldn't have expected anything other than a dodge from an NPC alt. I really don't know why I'm disappointed. Frostys Virpio wrote: But what happen if when you jump or warp your nag to the POS where I am sitting if I bump my carrier inside the POS shield? Does the carrier become invulnerable for being inside the shield or does a triage module really prevent you from being bumped inside of it by any mean possible? So combine the two. Make a fighter assist module AND make sure it can't be used within 50k of a tower. No Archon will survive hostile fire long enough for it to edge back into the shields. If it does not anchor you, what prevent me from bumping my own ship with an alt at the very edge of the POS shield or the POS itself to use my garage door to shield myself? Will the module stop working as soon as I get too close?
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1010	Posted - 2015.04.09 20:34:30 - [1438] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: If it does not anchor you, what prevent me from bumping my own ship with an alt at the very edge of the POS shield or the POS itself to use my garage door to shield myself? Will the module stop working as soon as I get too close? The "garage door" type techniques would keep you safe (currently) but a carrier running a triage or bastion type module will take a bit of bumping even if its right up against the FF - by the time you've carried out the manoeuvre the carrier is potentially dead. Disallowing fighter delegation within ~50km of the POS would have made sense with or without such a module and made it a lot harder to make a carrier too safe while delegating.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 194	Posted - 2015.04.09 20:34:31 - [1439] - Quote Calexis Atredies wrote: This thread has more pages than all the other nerf threads combined! I am going to need a bigger bucket for all the tears... brb Is gut thread, sister. Still reading... and touching myself... Page 59. / https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OUZsKXSEU8M Missing horror film music. xdeath posting CTA on Page 58, involving something something PVE carriers. Price of PLEX should be 700m. in a month or two. Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Make BS & BC Worth the Warp! ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1679	Posted - 2015.04.09 20:58:27 - [1440] - Quote Rroff wrote: Frostys Virpio wrote: If it does not anchor you, what prevent me from bumping my own ship with an alt at the very edge of the POS shield or the POS itself to use my garage door to shield myself? Will the module stop working as soon as I get too close? The "garage door" type techniques would keep you safe (currently) but a carrier running a triage or bastion type module will take a bit of bumping even if its right up against the FF - by the time you've carried out the manoeuvre the carrier is potentially dead. Disallowing fighter delegation within ~50km of the POS would have made sense with or without such a module and made it a lot harder to make a carrier too safe while delegating. If you don't have a module to make a check every X amount of time, you will delagate from 50001 meters and then slowboat toward the POS because the fighter are already delegated. That's why I say you need to be anchored at that distance or else people will definately have to will to try to bump themselves back toward the shield. It's EVE, where there is a way there is a will.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 817	Posted - 2015.04.09 21:12:26 - [1441] - Quote 2 things: 1) Garage Door Cynos are being or have been patched out. And I mentioned 50km or so from the tower, not the shield. 2) An anchor-type module that consumed no fuel coupled with a simple check every second / cycle would do it for the module. Hell, even every 5 seconds would be fine.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1012	Posted - 2015.04.09 21:17:33 - [1442] - Quote The technique of using the forcefield like a door however (AFAIK) isn't being changed - which still allows that mechanism to be used for non cyno use to make things safe.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1679	Posted - 2015.04.09 21:29:24 - [1443] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: 2 things: 1) Garage Door Cynos are being or have been patched out. And I mentioned 50km or so from the tower, not the shield. 2) An anchor-type module that consumed no fuel coupled with a simple check every second / cycle would do it for the module. Hell, even every 5 seconds would be fine. You can still garage door yourself if you are already inside where the shield will cover. If you can somehow be bumped after assisting the drones away, we sadly ahve to assume people will put in the effort. Do we have any module that really anchor you? The only one I am used to is the Cyno and it's not an anchor. You can still be bumped in any direction. You would need to be anchored in space like a POS for example. And all of that assume it's not 100% stupid to be able to apply damage while of grid too...
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 817	Posted - 2015.04.09 21:43:42 - [1444] - Quote Frostys Virpio wrote: Nolak Ataru wrote: 2 things: 1) Garage Door Cynos are being or have been patched out. And I mentioned 50km or so from the tower, not the shield. 2) An anchor-type module that consumed no fuel coupled with a simple check every second / cycle would do it for the module. Hell, even every 5 seconds would be fine. You can still garage door yourself if you are already inside where the shield will cover. If you can somehow be bumped after assisting the drones away, we sadly ahve to assume people will put in the effort. Do we have any module that really anchor you? The only one I am used to is the Cyno and it's not an anchor. You can still be bumped in any direction. You would need to be anchored in space like a POS for example. And all of that assume it's not 100% stupid to be able to apply damage while of grid too... Bastion, Siege, Triage, Industrial Core. Some fascinating properties occur when you turn those modules on. As I said, if you get closer than 50km or so to the control tower, not the shield, the fighters will return, however the module will not turn off.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1012	Posted - 2015.04.09 22:23:15 - [1445] - Quote ^^ Yup bumping a carrier in triage takes some effort - and really needs either out of control mass from another capital or something like a machariel with a good run up. Though if your sitting 1m from safety its doable - I've seen an archon in triage bumped before upto enough speed to reduce damage from citadel missiles.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 817	Posted - 2015.04.09 22:28:26 - [1446] - Quote Rroff wrote: ^^ Yup bumping a carrier in triage takes some effort - and really needs either out of control mass from another capital or something like a machariel with a good run up. Though if your sitting 1m from safety its doable - I've seen an archon in triage bumped before upto enough speed to reduce damage from citadel missiles. Which is why I specifically stated that you wouldn't be able to assist or keep fighters assist within a certain distance that would be outside the bubble.
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2024	Posted - 2015.04.09 23:44:45 - [1447] - Quote The fact you have to make such a convoluted mechanic simply to even attempt to stop skynetting should be telling you things. Convoluted mechanics are bad. Mechanics that require being exactly x distance from things are also bad due to how fiddly they are, and the fact distance checks are not pretty on run time. You also aren't considering the possibility that CCP wanted fighter assist for ratting to go as well.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 818	Posted - 2015.04.10 12:23:25 - [1448] - Quote Nevyn Auscent wrote: The fact you have to make such a convoluted mechanic simply to even attempt to stop skynetting should be telling you things. Convoluted mechanics are bad. Mechanics that require being exactly x distance from things are also bad due to how fiddly they are, and the fact distance checks are not pretty on run time. You also aren't considering the possibility that CCP wanted fighter assist for ratting to go as well. They could just inhibit assisting fighters within 50km of the tower and call it a day, and that'd solve a lot of their problems. Fighter assist on ratting one way to help new players earn some ISK. Assisted fighters do less damage than bonused drones on a drone boat, from my math. If CCP wants to let caps take acceleration gates, then I'd say it's a fair trade-off. But as it stands right now, CCP's cutting off their face to spite their nose.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1679	Posted - 2015.04.10 13:49:34 - [1449] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Nevyn Auscent wrote: The fact you have to make such a convoluted mechanic simply to even attempt to stop skynetting should be telling you things. Convoluted mechanics are bad. Mechanics that require being exactly x distance from things are also bad due to how fiddly they are, and the fact distance checks are not pretty on run time. You also aren't considering the possibility that CCP wanted fighter assist for ratting to go as well. They could just inhibit assisting fighters within 50km of the tower and call it a day, and that'd solve a lot of their problems. Fighter assist on ratting one way to help new players earn some ISK. Assisted fighters do less damage than bonused drones on a drone boat, from my math. If CCP wants to let caps take acceleration gates, then I'd say it's a fair trade-off. But as it stands right now, CCP's cutting off their face to spite their nose. What if caps were not intended to be used that way especially since they are about to be re-purposed according to CCP? What if CCP just though no matter how safe or not, you aren't supposed to off-load your damage potential to another ship from ouside the grid? Want to use your cap, how about you bring it on the field instead of keeping it X AU away from what it's helping achieve?
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 818	Posted - 2015.04.10 16:14:13 - [1450] - Quote 1) Off Grid Boosters. 2) If they were going to re-purpose them, they should have either a) given us some hint or b) held off until they were going to enact the actual change.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 215	Posted - 2015.04.10 16:27:06 - [1451] - Quote OGB is the same cancur that will be dealt with shortly. There are/were no technical solutions for either of them. Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Make BS & BC Worth the Warp! ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 819	Posted - 2015.04.10 16:51:25 - [1452] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: OGB is the same cancer that will be dealt with shortly. There are/were no technical solutions for either of them. Wrong. Boosters are no longer unscannable, and can no longer boost from inside a shield. Just add in a limit to the distance from a POS and you're golden.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1681	Posted - 2015.04.10 17:29:20 - [1453] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: 1) Off Grid Boosters. 2) If they were going to re-purpose them, they should have either a) given us some hint or b) held off until they were going to enact the actual change. They gave you a hint in the thread about the scan res on fighter and fighter bomber. They specifically said they were loking into making change to it but not in that particular release. It came pretty much right after.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1681	Posted - 2015.04.10 17:30:18 - [1454] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: OGB is the same cancer that will be dealt with shortly. There are/were no technical solutions for either of them. Wrong. Boosters are no longer unscannable, and can no longer boost from inside a shield. Just add in a limit to the distance from a POS and you're golden. THey already said the reason boost are not on grid yet is server load. It will come if they find a solution to that.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1012	Posted - 2015.04.10 19:35:23 - [1455] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: OGB is the same cancur that will be dealt with shortly. There are/were no technical solutions for either of them. The cold hard truth is 90% of people complaining about off grid boosters are actually people who just want the results without having to put in the effort - once it goes they'll just move onto complaining about whatever else gives a prepared/competitive player/corp an edge. There are some areas of eve that it does validly have an undesirable negative impact but generally in anything other than very small gang/"solo" action people tend to bring command ships with them on grid these days and/or when they don't its generally because they are flying a setup that doesn't have a suitable on grid command platform i.e. some smaller kiting setups and so resort to off grid boosting.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 221	Posted - 2015.04.10 19:36:45 - [1456] - Quote If the on-grid issue can't be resolved, unloading Armour/Skirmish/Shield links onto a structure could be an interesting option - same bonuses, but the source is now very scannable and is immobile, and depending on the anchoring delay - could be more of a defensive featurette. Perhaps a concept for the new structure system that is in the works. Anchoring should require the same skills as with current links. Rroff wrote: Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: OGB is the same cancur that will be dealt with shortly. There are/were no technical solutions for either of them. The cold hard truth is 90% of people complaining about off grid boosters are actually people who just want the results without having to put in the effort. It is a cancerous mechanic requiring to dual box a booster in any size gangs by default. Cancerous mechanic. Full stop. Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Make BS & BC Worth the Warp! ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1012	Posted - 2015.04.10 19:40:35 - [1457] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: If the on-grid issue can't be resolved, unloading Armour/Skirmish/Shield links onto a structure could be an interesting concept - same bonuses, but the source is now very scannable and is immobile. Perhaps a concept for the new structure system that is in the works. Anchoring should require the same skills as with current links. A bit off topic for this thread - but I'd have loved to see links made a bit more tactical with a little of the effectiveness reduced on the links themselves (not too much as that would make them less attractive to use on unbonused BCs, etc.) and more of the effect moved to a variety of mindlinks with various grades of penalties i.e. you could have really powerful links for certain areas but they'd come at the cost of for instance sensor strength with the most basic mindlink having no penalty at all like with drugs. A variation of it could also be used to keep off grid boosting useable for non PVP use while generally ineffective for PVP use, etc.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1012	Posted - 2015.04.10 19:48:54 - [1458] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: It is a cancerous mechanic requiring to dual box a booster in any size gangs by default. Cancerous mechanic. Full stop. And always will do - while not really something I've done very prolifically - when roaming on one char and trundling a booster around with it if off grid wasn't possible it would be coming on grid in "buff bot" form - an eos with mostly hands free brick tank, remote reps + links, local/remote eccm'd to the max, etc. contributing some extra dps via drones assisted to the main character. (I don't generally do much outside of small to medium fleet PVP however so most of the time we have on grid links anyhow). If your wanting fair 1v1 you ain't gonna find it (for the most part) in eve.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 221	Posted - 2015.04.10 19:51:55 - [1459] - Quote It is the same as with trapping people in flying mothership coffins. Fun. Used to be a time when they envisioned BCs and CS on grid heroically supporting the fleets. Is cancer now. Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Make BS & BC Worth the Warp! ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Sep DeNau Celestial Horizon Corp. 0	Posted - 2015.04.11 04:24:49 - [1460] - Quote When I open my client and see the 20,000 plus pilots online, that number is not necessarily the true number of "people" online. The game even advertises sidekick accounts to help with the tasking of your main account. Fighter assist was a feature I used to assist my main account in ratting, mining security, and defence of my system owned by my small corp. Lets face it, when it comes to combat, I am not going to go all in with all my accounts with my mediocre PC. I am going to use my strongest backed up by command bonuses off grid and now no longer fighter support. I guess there really is no room in EVE for little corps unless I give in and join the masses if i want to survive in null sec. cheers to the death of good tactics and great game features!
Rivr Luzade Exclusion Cartel The Kadeshi 1323	Posted - 2015.04.11 08:30:59 - [1461] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: OGB is the same cancur that will be dealt with shortly. There are/were no technical solutions for either of them. No tactical solution against OGB? I wholeheartedly recommend ample use of combat probes with some player skills (be a capable prober both in terms of SP and knowledge), implants and proper ships. You can easily shut OGB off or scan and kill them when they dualbox and don't have their eyes on the booster all the time. Both things are very effective counters to OGB. Skynet also has a counter: it's called drive by doomsday or a couple of supers showing up to have their Maleuses say hello. However, it is admittedly a lot harder to pull off and a whole lot riskier than to combat probe a boosting T3 and not feasible for smaller groups. Station Tab :: UI Improvement Collective
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 224	Posted - 2015.04.11 10:40:23 - [1462] - Quote Tech - ni - cal. No technical solution of turning cancer OGB into GB. Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Make BS & BC Worth the Warp! ( -í° -£-û -í°)
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1012	Posted - 2015.04.11 12:33:25 - [1463] - Quote ^^ You "could" driveby someone doing skynet if they were lazy/complacent but it generally meant they had to do it frequently from the same POS and allow someone the opportunity to get a character logged off in position to spring the ambush. Anyone half on the ball would be a lot less susceptible to a driveby - the revenant for instance logged in at a spot quite a way off the FF (probably the spot he'd cyno'd in at before logging out) leaving himself quite vulnerable.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 224	Posted - 2015.04.11 13:17:14 - [1464] - Quote Rroff wrote: ^^ You "could" driveby someone doing skynet Hafta agree that game is degenerating beyond repair, when such options, and such scenarios like DD drivebys become 1) necessary; 2) common place; 3) yet unsuccessful in the case of Skynet specifically. Hence DEATH TO ALL CAPITALS! Is gud they saw reason, and that Skynet is no more. Gÿæ Skynet GÿÉ Non-Triage remote rep GÿÉ Cap transfers Soem points to go, but gud start, gud start. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Tydil Flux Demons of EVE. The Volition Cult 0	Posted - 2015.04.11 13:18:20 - [1465] - Quote Honestly just force a check on the size of ship that the drone/fighter is being assigned to. Assigning fighters to other carriers should be okay. Why is this such a hard concept???
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1012	Posted - 2015.04.11 13:44:22 - [1466] - Quote Tydil Flux wrote: Honestly just force a check on the size of ship that the drone/fighter is being assigned to. Assigning fighters to other carriers should be okay. Why is this such a hard concept??? I still say the best solution would have been to force apply sig/damage scaling on fighters - fighters are frig sized platforms but piloted by "regular" pilots so you wouldn't expect them to be as proficient as pod pilots with the same sized craft making them most effective against battleships and other capitals. Sure it would have had a bit of an impact on people ratting with skynet type fits but they could bring their ratting capabilities back upto par by investing a bit more ISK in the ship they had on grid so I don't have much sympathy in that regard (none the least coming from a C5 wormhole background there have been times when I've been multiboxing 8+bn worth of ships on grid running escalations in PVE).
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 224	Posted - 2015.04.11 14:42:10 - [1467] - Quote It's dead, Jim. Ain't coming back. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Arctic Estidal Harbingers of Chaos Inc Gentlemen's.Club 19	Posted - 2015.04.11 15:03:56 - [1468] - Quote The reason for its removal by CCP is due to the new node sov mechanic, which if allowed to continue would provide a significant defence strength to defenders as they would have a super on the system which an attacker would be trying to use an entosis link on and could kill the attackers without significant risk of assets. I agree the mechanic is overpowered for the defender, or an attacker who drops a ninja pos, but there has to be significant bonuses to defenders who have upgraded their systems and actively use their space, when compared to non-active, non-upgraded systems. I think this is an overpowered mechanic, but the question remains, what are you doing for super capital pilots that wants them to risk the isk, and secondly what are you doing to provide defence bonuses for heavily used systems so the staging systems of alliances cannot be headshot and the all their items and isk destroyed.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1012	Posted - 2015.04.11 15:14:45 - [1469] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: It's dead, Jim. Ain't coming back. Yup :S - Rroff expires 12 April 2015 - 7:18 pm UTC (in 1 days) all my other accounts are down. So you won't have to put up with my posts in this thread much longer. Arctic Estidal wrote: The reason for its removal by CCP is due to the new node sov mechanic, which if allowed to continue would provide a significant defence strength to defenders as they would have a super on the system which an attacker would be trying to use an entosis link on and could kill the attackers without significant risk of assets. Hope that isn't the (real) reason... thats a very poor way to do game development.
Frostys Virpio The Mjolnir Bloc The Bloc 1682	Posted - 2015.04.11 17:04:06 - [1470] - Quote Arctic Estidal wrote: The reason for its removal by CCP is due to the new node sov mechanic, which if allowed to continue would provide a significant defence strength to defenders as they would have a super on the system which an attacker would be trying to use an entosis link on and could kill the attackers without significant risk of assets. I agree the mechanic is overpowered for the defender, or an attacker who drops a ninja pos, but there has to be significant bonuses to defenders who have upgraded their systems and actively use their space, when compared to non-active, non-upgraded systems. I think this is an overpowered mechanic, but the question remains, what are you doing for super capital pilots that wants them to risk the isk, and secondly what are you doing to provide defence bonuses for heavily used systems so the staging systems of alliances cannot be headshot and the all their items and isk destroyed. If your system is well used, the timers will take much longer letting you mount up an effective defense. You also probably ahve most if not all POS as friendly and possibly a station for re-shipping too. What more do you need?
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1012	Posted - 2015.04.11 19:54:32 - [1471] - Quote Completely off the wall rough idea but thinking about the idea of a bastion style module for delegation - as an aside it could have been extended to the rorqual with a "resource collector" style mining "fighter" (obviously not actually a fighter) but only delegatable to barges/exhumers - sure it wouldn't get the rorqual on grid but not many things will get someone to put a rorqual on grid without significant reward anyway but it would have a window of vulnerability but granular enough level of risk it wouldn't put people off using it.
Nolak Ataru KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation 820	Posted - 2015.04.12 00:43:14 - [1472] - Quote Rroff wrote: Completely off the wall rough idea but thinking about the idea of a bastion style module for delegation - as an aside it could have been extended to the rorqual with a "resource collector" style mining "fighter" (obviously not actually a fighter) but only delegatable to barges/exhumers - sure it wouldn't get the rorqual on grid but not many things will get someone to put a rorqual on grid without significant reward anyway but it would have a window of vulnerability but granular enough level of risk it wouldn't put people off using it. It was mentioned countless times before, and you yourself dismissed it earlier.
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1012	Posted - 2015.04.12 01:58:20 - [1473] - Quote Nolak Ataru wrote: It was mentioned countless times before, and you yourself dismissed it earlier. Not talking about the idea of the module itself in the context of carrier/fighters or a serious suggestion it was just a random thought that came to me in the shower of something that could be done with the rorqual.
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 234	Posted - 2015.04.12 02:16:46 - [1474] - Quote Rroff wrote: ...a random thought that came to me in the shower of something that could be done with the rorqual... Tell me more. ( -í~ -£-û -í-¦) // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Rroff Questionable Ethics. Ministry of Inappropriate Footwork 1012	Posted - 2015.04.12 02:27:02 - [1475] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: Rroff wrote: ...a random thought that came to me in the shower of something that could be done with the rorqual... Tell me more. ( -í~ -£-û -í-¦) Not sure tales of whales in the shower are quite appropriate for this forum.
XXXMina Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance 4	Posted - 2015.04.12 11:13:48 - [1476] - Quote Stop nerfing capitals, supers, and titans. you've done enough. i had 5 capital pilots in 5 accounts and i used to happily fly all 5 at once. now i have 2 and one of them doesnt really log on anymore because its a pain to travel with jump fatigue. now your taking away fighter assist...i dont even think its as effective as you make it sound to be. you cant even deploy your own drones while your being assisted. is it really that OP that it needs addressing? i occasionally do this with carriers and my tengu and my tics when ratting are hardly phased. I cant rant and cry about this stupidity for hours but thats it for me. Gnight
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 239	Posted - 2015.04.12 11:31:55 - [1477] - Quote XXXMina wrote: capitals, supers, and titans. you've done enough. i had 5 capital pilots in 5 accounts This gentlebeing has aptly defined the current tragedy in Eve. Divide 350k by five. // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
MelaneNao The Debauchery Tea Party 198	Posted - 2015.04.13 09:14:04 - [1478] - Quote -Æ-¦-+ -¦-ü-¦-Ç-¦-¦-+-+ -+-¦-ü-Ç-¦-é-î -ç-é-+ -Å -é-â-é -+-¦-+-+-ü-¦-+, -+-+-ì-é-+-+-â -+-¦ -¦-â-¦-â -+-¦-Ç-+-é-î-ü-Å -ü -+-¦-Ç-¦-¦-+-¦-+-+. -É -+-+-¦ -¦-¦-¦ -+-¦-Ç-+-¦-â -+-¦-ü-Ç-¦-é-î -¦-â-¦-â-é -+-+ -¦-¦-Ç-+-¦-é-î -ä-¦-¦-é-¦-Ç-ï -¦-+-é-+-Ç-ï-à -+-¦-+-î-+-Å -¦-¦-+-¦-¦-+-Ç-+-¦-¦-é-î. -ñ-¦-Ç-ê-é-¦-¦?
Iroquoiss Pliskin Hedion University Amarr Empire 250	Posted - 2015.04.13 10:30:20 - [1479] - Quote MelaneNao wrote: -ñ-¦-Ç-ê-é-¦-¦? Ja. ( -í~ -£-û -í-¦) // Turret-Equivalent of the Rapid ML Concept // Cruisers Online - [Damage done in PvP by Shiptype]
Nevyn Auscent Broke Sauce 2029	Posted - 2015.04.13 10:32:16 - [1480] - Quote Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote: XXXMina wrote: capitals, supers, and titans. you've done enough. 5 capital pilots in 5 accounts This gentlebeing has aptly defined the current tragedy in Eve. Divide 350k by five. http://eve-offline.net/?server=tranquility Try dividing over 500k by about 2.4 and you get actual players I believe. Since CCP did release numbers saying that was the average number of accounts per person a couple of years back, and with recent changes to multiboxing I don't imagine that number has gone up at all.
Talaris EveningStar Yurai-Tenshin Zaibatsu Ishuk-Raata Enforcement Directive 0	Posted - 2015.04.14 05:33:55 - [1481] - Quote Removing Fighter Assist kills one of the one and only interesting things about flying a Carrier. Why would I spend billions of ISK on a freighter with high DPS drones? Instead, I agree with looking into fixing things on the POS side of things. Clearly there's a hole in how it is working, and instead of nerfing a core function of a ship, maybe try fixing the real problem instead? The idea of a Fighter Assist module for high slots isn't a terrible idea, but I think its just laziness not to address the real root cause of the problem; the Carrier/Shield side of things, which I almost consider an exploit if it weren't for the fact a Dread still has a pretty good chance of dropping on their heads and nuking them.
Rowells ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans 2256	Posted - 2015.04.14 05:45:47 - [1482] - Quote Talaris EveningStar wrote: Removing Fighter Assist kills one of the one and only interesting things about flying a Carrier. There was a reason the dev presentation said skynet wasn't a major practice. Everyone else realized what those other stats on the ship were for.
Gemini Tordanis No.Mercy Triumvirate. 3	Posted - 2015.04.14 18:03:36 - [1483] - Quote While I agree with removing fighter assist, Carrier sensors arent robust enough to be able to DPS as effectively without assist. So do we effectively have a DPS nerf? hard to say. Also. If the POS shield keeps me from targeting things while inside the shield, why cant drone bandwidth be blocked too?
Barbara Nichole Cryogenic Consultancy 686	Posted - 2015.04.29 20:12:20 - [1484] - Quote Why not just remove fighters all together....? Let me make it clear in case you couldn't read through my sarcasm, I think this change is not the right one; even though it addresses a problem or more accurately a complaint, it takes away much of a good and clever feature. There must be less less dramatic and easier ways to fix the beef you had with "skynet". -á-á- remove the cloaked from local; free intel is the real problem, not-á "afk" cloaking-á- [IMG]http://i12.photobucket.com/albums/a208/DawnFrostbringer/consultsig.jpg[/IMG]
Murtific Perkone Caldari State 30	Posted - 2015.04.30 19:37:01 - [1485] - Quote Dont remove ability to assign fighters. If I'm in combat and I'm in a carrier, I can focus on repairing people and assign fighters to help the situation while relieving me of being slower on the reps. Repair allies and Attacking the primary can be difficult. It is the mechanic since forever to be able to do this multitasking in carrier combat.
Dr Cedric Independent Miners Corporation Care Factor 95	Posted - 2015.04.30 20:56:51 - [1486] - Quote Murtific wrote: Dont remove ability to assign fighters. If I'm in combat and I'm in a carrier, I can focus on repairing people and assign fighters to help the situation while relieving me of being slower on the reps. Repair allies and Attacking the primary can be difficult. It is the mechanic since forever to be able to do this multitasking in carrier combat. The man has a point. It makes good sense to allow delegation of fighters to members that are not a warp-able distance away (less than 150 km), that way the original idea of the carrier launching mini-ships stays intact, but keeps the carrier on-grid Cedric

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]

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.