| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Demonic Embrace
   |
Posted - 2007.02.18 20:18:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Demonic Embrace on 18/02/2007 20:24:34
Why are fighters allowed to just warp off with points on them?
I am kinda sick of nothin but ceptors warping in gangs sending fighters and warping out before any of them can go down and then unable to atleast lock down a few of the fighters and kill them.
|
Reggie Stoneloader
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 20:26:00 -
[2]
Because they don't technically warp. I think it's a loophole in the game code, to be honest with you. I want to be able to lock them down and at least cost the enemy a little isk.
|
Demonic Embrace
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 04:43:00 -
[3]
Come on CCP!
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Solid Industries Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 06:50:00 -
[4]
Here's one idea off the top of my head:
- Battleships & Command ships max. 4 fighters assigned
- Cruisers & Battlecruisers max. 3 fighters assigned
- Destroyers max. 2 fighters
- Frigates, barges, everything else max 1 fighter assigned
- Capital ships no limitation
Yes, and of course make them prone to scrambling.
___________________________________
_/_/ Game balance isn't just a luxury \_\_ |
Chronus26
Gallente
Vale Heavy Industries
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 07:52:00 -
[5]
No. Why should I personally have to pocket the loss (5 Fighters = 90-100 Mil) when some *** I assign my fighters too warps off and doesn't call them with him.
-----
|
Demonic Embrace
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 00:30:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Chronus26
No. Why should I personally have to pocket the loss (5 Fighters = 90-100 Mil) when some *** I assign my fighters too warps off and doesn't call them with him.
Simple. Learn who the dumbass is and never assign him fighters again. But fighters being immune to warp jam is rubbish. They shouldn't be immune.
|
Angelus Xenotov
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 00:39:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
I know you can easily find some counter arguments, but the way I see it, game mechanics wise, the concept of fighters is pretty weird and they are being used in a rather unbalanced way.
Why is a fighter so much stronger than a frigate? Why the posibility to easily double or tripple the strenght of small ships?
It's all that firepower that's hard to control.
Fighters are basically frigates stripped down to warp cores, reactors and guns. No life support, no pilot pods, nothing (Aside from what I imagine is a transmitter/reciever so the carrier can tell it what what), that's why you can pour aload of firepower from it, because that's all it basically is. Its not unbalanced (Considering the Isk and skill involved)
And limits to assigning fighters? No, no reason, no point, no thank you.
|
Reggie Stoneloader
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 03:40:00 -
[8]
Actually, fighters are manned. If you look closely, you can even see the little guy in there, except in the Caldari one, which has tinted windows.
They've got a warp core, basic maneuvering jets and one oversized gun. I don't understand why a fighter is more powerful than an Atron, to be honest with you, and if I was in charge we'd get fighters, bombers and corvettes for carriers, to balance and deepen carriers' role in combat. But that's just me.
Regardless of any and all debate about the strength and of fighters, the competence of gangmates or the current tactics, there's no reason why a fighter should have an unscramblable warp core.
|
Chronus26
Gallente
Vale Heavy Industries
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 06:35:00 -
[9]
They cost 20 mil each, cannot be insured, and die very, very easily as it is. Thats reason enough for me. A Fighter won't last long to anything that can deal damage and has a web anyway. Either make them alot harder to kill or give me insurance on my fighters, then it'd be fair.
-----
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Solid Industries Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 07:46:00 -
[10]
Ok, now wait a minute.
While I agree with Reggie that fighter strength, gangmate competence etc. isn't the original topic, I feel some things should be set straight.
Atron
mass 1.100.000 kg, volume 22500 m3
Firbolg
mass 12.000 kg, volume 5000 m3
That's not stripped down, that's a whole different size category. It's 1/10th mass and 1/4 volume, about the same relations between a cruiser and a frigate.
Firbolg
shieldcapacity 2500, armorhp 3000
Atron
shieldcapacity 188, armorhp 219
And those are stats on the fighter not even a tier 3 cruiser can produce unmodded.
Now saying that a fighter is 'just' a stripped down frigate or dies very very easily is slightly.. exaggerated, mildly put.
Yes, of course even a battleship dies very very easily and fast - in certain circumstances. But that doesn't mean it's flimsy.
Please either ignore any stray arguments or stay by the facts and don't pull false information out of nowhere.
"Its not unbalanced (Considering the Isk and skill involved)"
That's totally NOT what I was saying. I said it's use is unbalanced. and I didn't propose a single change, eventually unbalancing it, but instead suggested a shift in balance, making them weaker but cheaper and at the same time buff the carrier.
Skill is irrelevant, it's a cap ship weapon for christs sake, and to be honest, the skill reqs for fighters are a joke. Leadership V might suck for Achuras, but..
"And limits to assigning fighters? No, no reason, no point, no thank you."
Reason given - abuse.
Point given - balance.
Yeah, you're welcome ;-)
___________________________________
_/_/ Game balance isn't just a luxury \_\_ |
Chronus26
Gallente
Vale Heavy Industries
SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 08:17:00 -
[11]
They may have alot more HP than a Frigate, but they don't Rep themselves and, being a simple game mechanic unlike frigate pilots, cannot make use of some of the 'smarter' ways to keep ones self alive (ie. Transversal velocity, staying out of web range etc etc)
-----
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Solid Industries Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 08:45:00 -
[12]
Granted, they're not as smart as a real pilot.
But wouldn't it then be better if they were more disposable?
Let them cost around 1 mill each and be throwaways.
I can't make any sense out of fighters being tougher and more expensive than standard frigates, which aren't stripped down to basic functions. They don't even incorporate pod technology.
That's background wise, of course.
___________________________________
_/_/ Game balance isn't just a luxury \_\_ |
jeNK
Caldari
STK Scientific
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 11:35:00 -
[13]
Ceptors and AF's die quicker than fighters. Ceptors and AF's can't follow you in warp, either.
|
Reggie Stoneloader
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 15:51:00 -
[14]
Originally by: jeNK
Ceptors and AF's die quicker than fighters. Ceptors and AF's can't follow you in warp, either.
Aye, and they can be scrambled. Heck, if a fighter has all those low slots and CPU for WCS, they oughta be fitting damage mods. Would you condone a stabbed-out setup in your fleet?
|
Angelus Xenotov
|
Posted - 2007.02.21 20:21:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
"And limits to assigning fighters? No, no reason, no point, no thank you."
Reason given - abuse.
Point given - balance.
Yeah, you're welcome ;-)
Abuse? Rubbish. Get your own carrier and then listen to someone complain about a perfectly reasonable feature and you'll call it rubbish too.
Also kids, fighters cost alot of money and aren't frigates which cost 200k, they require skills and an entire capital ship dedicated to them. I don't think its unfair that they should be the power they are considering the cost and skills required to use them.
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Endica Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.02.21 20:52:00 -
[16]
Well, kid (dude, don't call me kid ffs) you obviously own a carrier or make regular use of assigned fighters, as you seem very biased. Especially since you clearly don't even bother trying to understand other people's points.
Why don't you try to be a bit more impartial?
I could own a carrier easily, but I still think their design should be slightly different.
So, fighters cost a lot of money. Yes, that's true. But I also said those costs should be reduced if fighters were weaker.
They aren't frigates, right. They're actually much smaller. They are to a frig what a frig is to a cruiser.
They require skills.. yes, you already mentioned it. Now, what skills again? You know, everything in EVE requires skills. And skills for fighters isn't that much, really..
I always thought it was the fighters belonging to the carriers, not the other way around.
___________________________________
_/_/ Game balance isn't just a luxury \_\_ |
Reggie Stoneloader
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.02.21 21:12:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Chronus26
give me insurance on my fighters, then it'd be fair.
You don't get insurance on T2 drones either, and those are neither cheap nor smart. Drones have a lot of advantages: Unlimited ammo, diverse damage types, no cap use, ability to function at 100% effectiveness while you're target jammed, ability to swap out different sizes and damage types, effectively refitting your weapon systems for different targets, etc. If the enemy diverts fire from you to kill your drones, they even contribute to your tank.
The only downsides drones suffer from are leaving them behind and getting them blown up. Warp-capable fighters don't even have to get back to your drone bay to follow you in warp, so that compromise is lost, and if they can't be scrambled, it's a quick order and a warp to save them from any danger.
They're plenty powerful as it is. The Carrier is a support ship, its weapon capabilities shouldn't be enough to single-handedly slaughter the enemy fleet, and they shouldn't be enough to turn the tide of a battle. If you want your carrier to have a huge impact on a fight, put some capital logistics mods on it and go to the front line to bolster tanks.
|
FawKa
Gallente
Old Farts
|
Posted - 2007.02.21 21:17:00 -
[18]
They allready die in second when ganked by a BS?
We lose 19 m each time this happens.. Wtf are you thinking? its a capital ship but you want your weapon to die asap.
If this is introduced tho, I want warpsc fighters btw
|
Angelus Xenotov
|
Posted - 2007.02.23 01:20:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Reggie Stoneloader
They're plenty powerful as it is. The Carrier is a support ship, its weapon capabilities shouldn't be enough to single-handedly slaughter the enemy fleet, and they shouldn't be enough to turn the tide of a battle.
What? A Carrier is essentially an Aircraft carrier in space and what happens when you bring an aircraft carrier into a navel battle? Alot of planes take off and start firing alot of gear into the other ships. If Carriers were meant to be Logistics+ they'd have bigger logistics bonuses and the ability to launch three fighters for defense only tops.
Quote:
Well, kid (dude, don't call me kid ffs) you obviously own a carrier or make regular use of assigned fighters, as you seem very biased. Especially since you clearly don't even bother trying to understand other people's points.
Why don't you try to be a bit more impartial?
Laughable. Nerfing fighters means the carrier class loses alot of its ability to fight, nerfing assignment numbers reduces carrier effectiveness, reducing the cost of fighters at the cost of firepower isn't a fair trade and never will be.
Who wants a carrier filled with 7 AF's? Considering the cost of the carrier itself (And its inheriant no-weapons aside from the fighters), you'd be effectively forcing a capital ship to defend itself with very little firepower. Nobody would use it. End of.
|
Reggie Stoneloader
eXceed Inc.
INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.02.23 03:55:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Angelus Xenotov
A Carrier is essentially an Aircraft carrier in space and what happens when you bring an aircraft carrier into a navel battle? Alot of planes take off and start firing alot of gear into the other ships.
Yeah, which is why carriers can carry pod-capable ships in the ship maintenance array. A Thanatos can carry 20 fitted AFs, 5 HACs, or any combination thereof. It can rearm pilots whose primary ships are lost in a fight, instantaneously making them fighting fit again and effectively increasing both the size of your fleet and, with the aid of fighters, its firepower and versatility. They have a humungous advantage over a gang without carrier support.
You don't see a Nimitz-class supercarrier with deck guns and stealth tech on it, do you? They don't fight alone, and if they did, fighter jets wouldn't be enough to repel a large force of enemy ships. They travel in a battle group, and if an enemy fleet destroyed all the other ships, that carrier would be a sitting duck, just like they are in EvE.
Capital ships are large, unweildy and impractical in solo situations. If you think your billions of isk entitles you to unconditional victory, you're an arrogant fool.
Fighters should be vulnerable to warp scramblers.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |