Redesign of Fighters

EVE Technology and Research Center Player Features & Ideas
1

One fighter squadron, the composition of which is based on the tubes you have. Why? TiDi. When 300 supers jump in, they aren’t launching 1500 fighters, they’re launching 300 fighters. Fighters kill servers better than they kill anything else. Also, I think this would be pretty neat as a carrier pilot.

For example, a carrier has 3 tubes. I throw one Siren, one Templar, and one Gram into the tubes. (“one”… post redesign they’d be consolidated from N fighters to 1 with an appropriate rebalance to cost, volume, etc).

When I launch, I launch just that one squadron. That squadron’s dps becomes an average of the 3 fighters in the tube. It gains the all abilities of all of the tubes, but the cooldown on the stuff with no charges and the number of volleys on stuff with charges is affected by the qty of the fighters in that squadron.

For example, SS fighters have evasive maneuvers and micro-missiles. I’m tired as ■■■■ after UALX, so I’m going to invent cooldowns and volley charge counts for each. Substitute the real numbers with the concept provided.

Imagine that Evasive Maneuvers has a cooldown of 10 seconds currently (again I’m tired and I can’t remember). With 3 SS fighters in the tubes, it would remain 10 seconds. With 2 SS fighters in the tubes, cooldown would be 20 seconds. With 1 SS fighter in the tubes, cooldown would be 30 seconds.

The missile swarm, imagine that you currently have 12 volleys. With 3 SS in the tubes, you’d still have 12 volleys. With 2, you’d have 8 volleys, and with 1 SS in the tube you’d have 4 volleys.

Sirens, Dromis, etc, same thing… cooldown would be affected by how many tubes you have.

2

In the example above, a carrier with a squadron consisting of a Siren, Templar, and Gram, it would have:

  • 30 second cooldown on siren point (base with 3 sirens would be 10 seconds)
  • 30 second cooldown on evasive maneuvers (base with 3 Grams would be 10 seconds)
  • 30 second cooldown on MWD (base with 3 Templars would be 10 seconds)
  • 4 volleys of heavy rockets (base with 3 templars would be 12)
  • 4 volleys of micro missiles (base with 3 Grams would be 12)

And again, I’m tired and I’m inventing base values. Use the concept, the numbers are just an illustration.

3

Simply won’t work.
Different fighter types have different purposes and different target types.
SSF vs Bombers for example.
They already merged all the individual fighters into a single entity to form a squadron.

2 Likes
4

Okay, melt together the tracking along with the damage.

Yea, and I’m saying merge all of the fighter squadrons into one squad. You don’t control 3 squads anymore, just one, as powerful as 3 (or 5, if you’re in a super).

5

In light of the ■■■■-show we’re about to see in X47L, I’m bumping this.

Fighters murder servers. They need to be fixed, and reducing the number of calculations by consolidating squadrons will make a massive improvement.

6

Just nerf fighters so hard they’re useless in PVP and the only place you see carriers and supers are as ferries and PVE :troll:

7

Allow fighters of same type to be grouped together say you deploy 3 Templar sets you get 1 Templar wing if grouped if you deploy 2 Templar 1 siren you can group just the Templar and end with 2 individual entities not 3

8

Or you know… let’s not need the things that weren’t what tanked the nose the most. And instead nerfed the 400 ECM burst frigates.

2 Likes
9

Sadly. Somebody else will come up with a method to porposefully try to kill the node…
And Fighters are pretty much as good as CCP can do them. Slamming more codes on them would be not a solution The only other mechanic that would work would be drones…and we know how that worked out already.

10

I mean… yea some people will always try to game it by crashing the node. This is more for “everyone’s just trying to play the game”.

Personally, I’d rather see the game remain playable. The first half of X47 was pretty rough. It cleaned up in the second half nicely (probably when the DDOS got fully mitigated/the attack ended) but there’s an instant jump to full TiDi the very second either FC orders fighters deployed even if there was none before.

Reducing those numbers by 3:1 and 5:1 has to make a significant impact.

It takes away some flexibility, as you can’t have your siren/dromi waiting at the gate while your LAF/HAF(s) wait a distance off, but still, it feels worth it.

11

The Model base is where it is…

you do know that all models are being rendered by the server right?
so the total picture would be that CCP reduces the model settings and noting else. same stats but lower amount of models…same tank same dps but say max 3/4 L/H Fighters Max 1 ECM fighter same tubes same everything…

it would decrease the “server stress by 3X” ?

12

Whatever you’re smoking, I suggest you either smoke more of it to finish off the job, or stop smoking it and learn a bit more about how this kind of stuff actually works.

The server does not render anything. Probably doesn’t even have a GUI directly in the binaries (rather, management tools on a different server connect to it for management tasks such as moving nodes).

13

The main problem with Fighters right now is that CCP has once again been very lazy and made ECM the bane of all Carriers. If you now reduce the amount of fighters to 1 (which is technically easy to do) then a single ECM module would be sufficient to completely block the entire Carrier.

Everything else is just some interface designing, and adjusting a few numbers, but lazy PvP balance will always fall back on your feet in the end.

14

Nothing says you can’t buff their sensor strength? If you’re consolidating 3 fighters to one, even just doubling their sensor strength makes it a lot harder to jam them and you’ll want 2-3 jams on each fighter.

That said, ECM should be a counter to carriers. It’s very apparent in their design that they’re intended to be weak to ECM. With a consolidation, needing 3-5 jammers to be as effective as 1 currently is, maintains status quota. A falcon can still shut down a super, just like it could before.

15

Better yet, eliminate cap proliferation. Fighter problem along with a whole slew of other problems solved. End thread.

16

Sounds like you have a fantastic idea to make that happen. In a thread about capital proliferation.

17

This topic was automatically closed 90 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.