These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon 1.3] Drone Assist change

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave Stark
#801 - 2014-02-07 20:42:00 UTC
mynnna wrote:
CCP's been known to tweak before, y'know. Put a good enough explanation forward and maybe it'll happen here, too, but "we like it this way and don't want to change" probably won't cut it.


i don't need to put an argument forward; rise already said he especially doesn't want to negatively impact incursion runners. he's the one that wants it, not us. we're just asking why his changes don't reflect his stance.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#802 - 2014-02-07 21:23:03 UTC
mynnna wrote:
CCP's been known to tweak before, y'know. Put a good enough explanation forward and maybe it'll happen here, too, but "we like it this way and don't want to change" probably won't cut it.


unlikely to tweak it down to removing it altogether, despite that being the sensible thing to do
Chorianda
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#803 - 2014-02-07 21:27:51 UTC
mynnna wrote:
Ignore what Rise said about "not affecting incursioners" for a moment. Can someone explain to me why incursion runners think they're entitled be exempted having to adapt to change?

Why should we ignore what he said?

CCP Rise wrote:
there are several use-cases for assist that we wanted to preserve, such as incursion drone managers

The proposed change fails to preserve this use-case, as incursion drone managers in HQ sites routinely manage close to 200 light drones. This works well, and while change may be necessary for some reason unrelated to incursions, it is patently false that a 50 drone limit preserves the use-case that CCP Rise said he wanted to preserve.

I take this statement of intent at face value. It's not a question of entitlement, he stated clearly that he did not want to change this use-case. Perhaps he doesn't understand that his design failed in meeting his criteria, or perhaps he regards this as a compromise. I don't know, and I'd like to hear more from him on this point.

It seems to me that a design, whether based on bandwidth or some other method, that limited drone assist more severely for sentries and allowed larger numbers of light drones would better meet the criteria as I understand them. I'm sure that's more difficult to implement, so I would understand if he simply said, you're right, but it's too hard to do that right now, maybe we'll do better in the future.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#804 - 2014-02-07 21:32:48 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
mynnna wrote:
CCP's been known to tweak before, y'know. Put a good enough explanation forward and maybe it'll happen here, too, but "we like it this way and don't want to change" probably won't cut it.


Why wouldn't it?

Thats what CCP does with the Features and Ideas Discussion section. Its not about discussion, its about CCP dropping some assclown change in our lap and going " ok this is it deal with it" no matter what the player base says about the change.

This very thread is a perfect example of that.

Sentry drones haven't ever received any mechanical changes in any iteration they've done, the only thing thats changed is the Domi and the Ishtar, and yet suddenly they act like something changed in Sentry Drone mechanics to create some kind of imbalance thats being abused, which needs a change to drones, and not the catalyst that actually caused the rampant use: the Domi and Ishtar.


It is in effect you shooting somebody with a gun and me ignoring you and trying to blame it all on the gun.

CCP made changes, and when I say that I mean Kil2 and Fozzie made changes that they KNEW would break the game when they buffed the Domi and Damps as hard as they did. I've even been told that when warned about it all they did was smile, and now instead of owning their own retardation they're just brushing it all aside and moving on like they're not at all responsible, while at the same time completely destroying player made systems that have been around forever to cover their own ineptitude at balancing things.

And instead of opening a dialouge with the players about it they ask the "CSM" which is made up largely of people fighting a group that uses sentry drones. I'm sure the feed back given was totally accurate and non biased and I'm sure that progod was very articulate in his ramblings.

The end result is the developers doing exactly what you're telling the player base they shouldn't:

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Grant Sirus
Maekon Mercenaries
#805 - 2014-02-07 21:57:13 UTC
Either grow a pair and completely remove the entire drone assist mechanic because it leads to passive gameplay, or leave well enough alone. The hard cap will no doubt cause more issues leading to lag (EG: assist player x... drones can't; assist player y...drones can't; assist player z... and so on until they get to one that can)
Tarsas Phage
Sniggerdly
#806 - 2014-02-07 22:04:07 UTC
Grant Sirus wrote:
Either grow a pair and completely remove the entire drone assist mechanic because it leads to passive gameplay, or leave well enough alone. The hard cap will no doubt cause more issues leading to lag (EG: assist player x... drones can't; assist player y...drones can't; assist player z... and so on until they get to one that can)


And make it so they do not move! With hundreds of sentries on grid our clients (and no doubt, the server) would be better off not calculating and being told of each sentry's new position as they chug at 1ms towards whatever they're shooting at.
Two step
Aperture Harmonics
#807 - 2014-02-07 22:18:22 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:

Sentry drones haven't ever received any mechanical changes in any iteration they've done, the only thing thats changed is the Domi and the Ishtar, and yet suddenly they act like something changed in Sentry Drone mechanics to create some kind of imbalance thats being abused, which needs a change to drones, and not the catalyst that actually caused the rampant use: the Domi and Ishtar.


I don't think that is totally true. What also changed is that folks got richer and more people could afford to fly (and lose?) a carrier.

Grath Telkin wrote:
And instead of opening a dialouge with the players about it they ask the "CSM" which is made up largely of people fighting a group that uses sentry drones. I'm sure the feed back given was totally accurate and non biased and I'm sure that progod was very articulate in his ramblings.


If only PL had some representative on this "CSM"...

(you should have made Elise run again, no way sentries would have been nerfed if he had showed up for the summit in that white suit of his)

CSM 7 Secretary CSM 6 Alternate Delegate @two_step_eve on Twitter My Blog
Walker Ahashion
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#808 - 2014-02-07 22:20:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Walker Ahashion
Whats CCP Rise / CSM / Fox News got in common?


They're all For Fairness and balance……
Ravcharas
Infinite Point
Pandemic Horde
#809 - 2014-02-07 22:22:03 UTC
Adding drone damage mods probably didn't help curb drone usage
Sheeana Harb
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#810 - 2014-02-07 22:32:33 UTC
mynnna wrote:
So I'm gonna make my first post of the thread here.

Ignore what Rise said about "not affecting incursioners" for a moment. Can someone explain to me why incursion runners think they're entitled be exempted having to adapt to change?



I find your attitude in this post disgusting. CCP employee mentioned the desite not to affect incursioners, yet the change clearly does. That should be THE reason on its own to voice my opinion. I, as an incursioner, am concerned that 50 drone limit will (without any doubt) negatively affect my experience even though proposed bandwith limit is objectively better. Not mentioning incursions have in no way invoked the need for this drone limit.
Sheeana Harb
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#811 - 2014-02-07 22:44:38 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
mynnna wrote:
CCP's been known to tweak before, y'know. Put a good enough explanation forward and maybe it'll happen here, too, but "we like it this way and don't want to change" probably won't cut it.


i don't need to put an argument forward; rise already said he especially doesn't want to negatively impact incursion runners. he's the one that wants it, not us. we're just asking why his changes don't reflect his stance.


Spot on answer, thank you and hats down. I can't agree more. If i were skeptical, it would seem to me that 'some' members of CSM are just fine with collateral damage. Fortunately I'm not that kind of personCool.
Fix Sov
#812 - 2014-02-07 22:45:41 UTC
Sheeana Harb wrote:
I, as an incursioner, am concerned that 50 drone limit will (without any doubt) negatively affect my experience

Is having to do something yourself in an incursion a bad thing, now?

The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#813 - 2014-02-07 22:55:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
Two step wrote:


If only PL had some representative on this "CSM"...

(you should have made Elise run again, no way sentries would have been nerfed if he had showed up for the summit in that white suit of his)


Yea, one guy arguing against the mob always works doesn't it?

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Dave Stark
#814 - 2014-02-07 22:58:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Fix Sov wrote:
Sheeana Harb wrote:
I, as an incursioner, am concerned that 50 drone limit will (without any doubt) negatively affect my experience

Is having to do something yourself in an incursion a bad thing, now?

considering an incursion runner has plenty to do without accounting for drones, perhaps you should do one and realise it's not the same as a drone assist fleet where you can go afk once drones are assigned.

but that would mean actually doing something other than crying on the forums about something you've been told to cry about by some one else.
Fix Sov
#815 - 2014-02-07 23:08:43 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Fix Sov wrote:
Sheeana Harb wrote:
I, as an incursioner, am concerned that 50 drone limit will (without any doubt) negatively affect my experience

Is having to do something yourself in an incursion a bad thing, now?

considering an incursion runner has plenty to do without accounting for drones, perhaps you should do one and realise it's not the same as a drone assist fleet where you can go afk once drones are assigned.

I don't remember incursions being so busy I felt overloaded with things to do back when I last did incursions.

Maybe we should get gun assist too, to level the playing field?

Dave Stark wrote:
but that would mean actually doing something other than crying on the forums about something you've been told to cry about by some one else.

I'm confused, nobody's told me to cry about anything.

The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#816 - 2014-02-07 23:13:50 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
considering an incursion runner has plenty to do without accounting for drones, perhaps you should do one and realise it's not the same as a drone assist fleet where you can go afk once drones are assigned.

but that would mean actually doing something other than crying on the forums about something you've been told to cry about by some one else.


Please tell us about the difficult life of the hisec incursion runner

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Dave Stark
#817 - 2014-02-07 23:15:21 UTC
Andski wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
considering an incursion runner has plenty to do without accounting for drones, perhaps you should do one and realise it's not the same as a drone assist fleet where you can go afk once drones are assigned.

but that would mean actually doing something other than crying on the forums about something you've been told to cry about by some one else.


Please tell us about the difficult life of the hisec incursion runner


why don't you tell us about it? you 0.0 guys keep prattling on about how many high sec alts you have to make isk because 0.0 is so bad and broken.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#818 - 2014-02-07 23:17:50 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
why don't you tell us about it? you 0.0 guys keep prattling on about how many high sec alts you have to make isk because 0.0 is so bad and broken.


no, please, clearly we are unaware of the hard knock life of the hisec incursion runner as we play the easy, laid-back 0.0 game

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Dave Stark
#819 - 2014-02-07 23:19:36 UTC
Andski wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
why don't you tell us about it? you 0.0 guys keep prattling on about how many high sec alts you have to make isk because 0.0 is so bad and broken.


no, please, clearly we are unaware of the hard knock life of the hisec incursion runner as we play the easy, laid-back 0.0 game


i'm sorry, are you here to give feedback on the proposed changes or am i going to go and have to get my rain coat while you continue to cry and whine?
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#820 - 2014-02-07 23:20:41 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
mynnna wrote:
CCP's been known to tweak before, y'know. Put a good enough explanation forward and maybe it'll happen here, too, but "we like it this way and don't want to change" probably won't cut it.


Why wouldn't it?

Thats what CCP does with the Features and Ideas Discussion section. Its not about discussion, its about CCP dropping some assclown change in our lap and going " ok this is it deal with it" no matter what the player base says about the change.

This very thread is a perfect example of that.

Sentry drones haven't ever received any mechanical changes in any iteration they've done, the only thing thats changed is the Domi and the Ishtar, and yet suddenly they act like something changed in Sentry Drone mechanics to create some kind of imbalance thats being abused, which needs a change to drones, and not the catalyst that actually caused the rampant use: the Domi and Ishtar.


It is in effect you shooting somebody with a gun and me ignoring you and trying to blame it all on the gun.

CCP made changes, and when I say that I mean Kil2 and Fozzie made changes that they KNEW would break the game when they buffed the Domi and Damps as hard as they did. I've even been told that when warned about it all they did was smile, and now instead of owning their own retardation they're just brushing it all aside and moving on like they're not at all responsible, while at the same time completely destroying player made systems that have been around forever to cover their own ineptitude at balancing things.

And instead of opening a dialouge with the players about it they ask the "CSM" which is made up largely of people fighting a group that uses sentry drones. I'm sure the feed back given was totally accurate and non biased and I'm sure that progod was very articulate in his ramblings.

The end result is the developers doing exactly what you're telling the player base they shouldn't:


Grath ffs run for csm! We need you buddy.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.