These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Giving Drones an Assist

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
stoicfaux
#501 - 2014-04-02 17:26:45 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
One more quick update before I go home. I'll do another more comprehensive pass on the thread tomorrow.

For the racial Drone Specialization skill requirements, we're going to be reducing the requirements for all T2 drones to level 1 of the skill.

That means for example Gallente Drone Spec level 1 will unlock Hobgoblin IIs, Hammerhead IIs, Ogre IIs, and Garde IIs (assuming you have the requisite T1 drone skills at level 5). This brings the drone spec skills more in line with the rest of our T2 weapon specialization skills. Training the skill beyond level 1 will still be advisable in order to get the extra damage boost, of course.

So, e.g., to unlock Garde IIs I'd need sentry drone op to 5 and gallente spec to 1?

And Light Drone Operation V for Hobgoblin IIs, Medium Drone Operaton V for Hammerhead IIs, and Heavy Drone Operation V for Ogre IIs.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Kazanir
Goonbine Honnete Ober Advancer Mercantiles
Goonswarm Federation
#502 - 2014-04-02 17:27:54 UTC
Is the argument here, "You're nerfing super DPS so you should nerf sov structure EHP also?"

I think everyone can pretty much get behind that argument -- sov structure EHP is one of the worst current parts of EVE.

If the argument is, "nerfing supercarrier FiBo DPS is unjustified because of how vulnerable they are to stealth bombers" then that's a dumb argument, especially in light of the durability changes.
Vera Algaert
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#503 - 2014-04-02 17:27:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Vera Algaert
CCP Fozzie wrote:

Yes this is a relative buff to the Wyvern, and yes that is intentional. However it's much less of a buff than you seem to think it is because the vast majority of Supercarrier use is in situations where they can refit at will, allowing clever pilots to switch between high tank and high damage fits as needed.

I remember discussion about supers dying with ridiculously low amounts of damage taken just a few months ago, the presumed cause at the time was refitting of low-slots under heavy lag leaving the ship bugged. If you want to make the argument you are trying to make then you have to give us some assurance that refitting during combat is actually safe.

.
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#504 - 2014-04-02 17:28:02 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Because its a stupid change that hurts anybody who doesn't have an established supercapital force?

Because it helps to further stifle the 0.0 environment by further forcing new groups to rely on an existing umbrella?

Because any change that promotes the botting that is ISboxer is bad, and this does exactly that?

your complaint is "isboxer exists" and "bombers exist"

these changes help by making isboxer bombers less effective on fbs sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#505 - 2014-04-02 17:30:20 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Because its a stupid change that hurts anybody who doesn't have an established supercapital force?

Because it helps to further stifle the 0.0 environment by further forcing new groups to rely on an existing umbrella?

Because any change that promotes the botting that is ISboxer is bad, and this does exactly that?

your complaint is "isboxer exists" and "bombers exist"

these changes help by making isboxer bombers less effective on fbs sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

his argument, stripping away all his stupid concern troll nonsense, is that because isboxer exists, no amount of EHP increase on fighterbombers will be enough until they are INVULNERABLE to bombers

this is apparently supposed to be enough of a controversy that the entire change gets scrapped so aeon and nyx havers don't have to cross train to wyvern
tsiliadora
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#506 - 2014-04-02 17:33:23 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:

I mean my alliance can just stay full tank fit and not care really, whats a few seconds when you have 50 supers grinding a thing

if this is the case then why are you posting in this thread



Because its a stupid change that hurts anybody who doesn't have an established supercapital force?

Because it helps to further stifle the 0.0 environment by further forcing new groups to rely on an existing umbrella?

Because any change that promotes the botting that is ISboxer is bad, and this does exactly that?




+1
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#507 - 2014-04-02 17:36:13 UTC
Klng Star wrote:
Not a fan of sentry drones needing the race skills to regain lost damage unless the multiplier wants to drop from a 5x to a 2x

No.

Welcome to Every other primary weapon system in Eve.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#508 - 2014-04-02 17:38:24 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Because its a stupid change that hurts anybody who doesn't have an established supercapital force?

Because it helps to further stifle the 0.0 environment by further forcing new groups to rely on an existing umbrella?

Because any change that promotes the botting that is ISboxer is bad, and this does exactly that?

your complaint is "isboxer exists" and "bombers exist"

these changes help by making isboxer bombers less effective on fbs sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

his argument, stripping away all his stupid concern troll nonsense, is that because isboxer exists, no amount of EHP increase on fighterbombers will be enough until they are INVULNERABLE to bombers

this is apparently supposed to be enough of a controversy that the entire change gets scrapped so aeon and nyx havers don't have to cross train to wyvern


Not really, we'd rather just buy Wyverns in addition to our Nyx's and Aeons (many of us at this point have more than one super, we've had them for a while and we didn't stop doing the things that allowed us to afford the first one)

The bigger complaint that I'd rather they address is the sov system itself, and ISBoxer.

ISboxer allows one man/woman to flawlessly give X number of accounts the exact same command at the exact same time. How is that not an unfair advantage over other players? Thats pretty much the definition of when CCP should be doing something about it, only they wont because in this particular case its bringing them in a lot of money.

Which I'm realistically Ok with, but if they're going to let something like that exist in the game then they need to balance with that in mind.

A regular bomber fleet is much easier to deal with than an ISboxing fleet of bombers, and we do have to deal with those.

Coupled with the current situation of sov that everybody in the game hates, and you see a problem.

Any changes to anything that deal with sov should come with a corresponding reduction in sov structure hp. Its stupid that it takes what it does, and CCP is well aware at player displeasure with the current sov system. We've been waiting years for them to fix it and instead of making any adjustments to it at all they're instead dropping the DPS potentials of the main tool used to deal with the idiocy that is EVE Sov Warfare

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Barton Breau
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#509 - 2014-04-02 17:50:03 UTC
Tippia wrote:


What I'm saying is that averages will go up as more effective and yet not hilariously rare DDAs will be available. To keep those averages from rising when what they want is for them to go down, they bring everything down a bit more than might be expected.

Quote:
You may want to explain where you see silly output
In the average 1200+ DPS that those drone boats can deliver.


That something needs to go down is your opinion.

A full flight of drones x4DA will get you 600-850dps a full broadside of guns/missiles x4DA will get you 500-1200dps, maybe we should nerf the guns/missiles instead, eh ?
dantes inferno
State War Academy
Caldari State
#510 - 2014-04-02 17:50:08 UTC
Dude, stop complaining about isboxer while all your alliance is account sharing supers...come on...
mkint
#511 - 2014-04-02 17:51:29 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Promiscuous Female wrote:
Weaselior wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Because its a stupid change that hurts anybody who doesn't have an established supercapital force?

Because it helps to further stifle the 0.0 environment by further forcing new groups to rely on an existing umbrella?

Because any change that promotes the botting that is ISboxer is bad, and this does exactly that?

your complaint is "isboxer exists" and "bombers exist"

these changes help by making isboxer bombers less effective on fbs sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo

his argument, stripping away all his stupid concern troll nonsense, is that because isboxer exists, no amount of EHP increase on fighterbombers will be enough until they are INVULNERABLE to bombers

this is apparently supposed to be enough of a controversy that the entire change gets scrapped so aeon and nyx havers don't have to cross train to wyvern


Not really, we'd rather just buy Wyverns in addition to our Nyx's and Aeons (many of us at this point have more than one super, we've had them for a while and we didn't stop doing the things that allowed us to afford the first one)

The bigger complaint that I'd rather they address is the sov system itself, and ISBoxer.

ISboxer allows one man/woman to flawlessly give X number of accounts the exact same command at the exact same time. How is that not an unfair advantage over other players? Thats pretty much the definition of when CCP should be doing something about it, only they wont because in this particular case its bringing them in a lot of money.

Which I'm realistically Ok with, but if they're going to let something like that exist in the game then they need to balance with that in mind.

A regular bomber fleet is much easier to deal with than an ISboxing fleet of bombers, and we do have to deal with those.

Coupled with the current situation of sov that everybody in the game hates, and you see a problem.

Any changes to anything that deal with sov should come with a corresponding reduction in sov structure hp. Its stupid that it takes what it does, and CCP is well aware at player displeasure with the current sov system. We've been waiting years for them to fix it and instead of making any adjustments to it at all they're instead dropping the DPS potentials of the main tool used to deal with the idiocy that is EVE Sov Warfare

sov won't ever change to something that doesn't suck. Bad sov -> big fleet fights -> news coverage -> more (temporary) income. And with CCP money is more important than the game. You'll never have a good sov mechanic, but you might get a different sov mechanic as long as it can be advertised in a way that increases subs. Apparently, they don't care about retention (retention stats in the game seem abysmal), as long as there's a quick shot of $. I don't know if it's a short term greed issue, or a resume fluffing issue, but it's endemic.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#512 - 2014-04-02 17:54:08 UTC
Considering that isboxer bombers are the archenemy of supercarrier grinding forces, and that this change makes supers less vulnerable to bombers, this is a net buff in that regard. It is also the primary reason why I disagree with Grath and believe that these changes are a major buff to supercarriers, albeit a buff that helps some of the supers more than others.

It even goes past the straight HP/rep buff, since now you can fit drone nav computers to pull drones way faster than before, and obviously the significant DPS bonus from having 2+ damage mods. It's not like people fit anything but cap right now when grinding safely so it's not a big deal to give up the slots for 4x DDA + 3 drone nav computers. In combat situations too this makes supercarriers at least somewhat able to rep their own drones, which makes them at least sort of useful in the big blob fights. I'll take more survivable drones than 20% DPS any day.

Biggest issue in my opinion is that this makes the Nyx even worse in comparison to its peers than it is currently. Aeon has the same tank with 3x DDA as a Nyx with a single DDA, which leaves you with the somewhat questionable advantage of being able to shield rep your bombers at range (compared to the far more useful cap range bonus). Hel is still bad compared to wyvern, but I guess that's to be expected.
Fredric Wolf
Black Sheep Down
Tactical Narcotics Team
#513 - 2014-04-02 17:54:29 UTC
One thing I would like to point out/ask is it correct that dragonfly do more damage then firbolg?

In the spread sheet it has dragonfly with a damage multiplier of 4.2 where the firbolg have a damage multiplier of 3.5?

Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#514 - 2014-04-02 17:55:51 UTC
dantes inferno wrote:
Dude, stop complaining about isboxer while all your alliance is account sharing supers...come on...


Glass houses, stones, ect.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Erasmus Phoenix
Avalanche.
#515 - 2014-04-02 18:00:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Erasmus Phoenix
Steph Livingston wrote:
Just to ask the question again:

Is the skill requirement for Light/Med drones changing from Scout Drone Operation to Combat Drone operation skills?

Currently you need to train Scout Drone Operation (distance) to get the T2 drones, it sounds like that's getting changed to the new skills that combat drone operation is getting split into.

Did I misunderstand?


You seem to be the only other person who is seeing this weirdness. The skills which will be the new prerequisites for the drones are not in any way related to the skill which currently unlocks them, therefore it will be entirely possible to lose access to T2 (or even T1) light/medium drones after the patch.

EDIT: I should also probably point out the confusing language in the original post -

"This means that all light combat drones will now be unlocked and bonused from the Light Drone Operation skill, and medium combat drones will be unlocked and bonused from the Medium Drone Operation skill."

"The Scout Drone Operation skill is being renamed “Drone Avionics” [...] The effects, prerequisites and unlocks provided by these skills will not be changing."

These statements are directly contradictory. What exactly is happening with these skills, Fozzie?
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#516 - 2014-04-02 18:00:23 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
Destoya wrote:
Aeon has the same tank with 3x DDA as a Nyx with a single DDA,.


This nyx in this situation is already doing less damage than he is on TQ(it takes 2 DDA's and max skills to reach your current potential), so tell me again how its a buff Destoya.

Nyxes will be significantly lower in DPS because they're the lowest tanked super as is (a common myth is that its the Hel but that hasn't been the case for a while now) so they either live in glass cannon mode or do less DPS than currently on TQ.

Sure am glad i sold that Nyx for an Erebus then sold the Erebus and got an Aeon.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Chris Winter
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
The Curatores Veritatis Auxiliary
#517 - 2014-04-02 18:01:39 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
One more quick update before I go home. I'll do another more comprehensive pass on the thread tomorrow.

For the racial Drone Specialization skill requirements, we're going to be reducing the requirements for all T2 drones to level 1 of the skill.

That means for example Gallente Drone Spec level 1 will unlock Hobgoblin IIs, Hammerhead IIs, Ogre IIs, and Garde IIs (assuming you have the requisite T1 drone skills at level 5). This brings the drone spec skills more in line with the rest of our T2 weapon specialization skills. Training the skill beyond level 1 will still be advisable in order to get the extra damage boost, of course.

Except instead of two weapon specialization skills, drones have four...and most drone users (especially sentry users) will use all types...

This is kind of like requiring a different specialization for each damage type of missile. Not really helping perception of drones as a skill-heavy weapon system.

Plus, WTF is with the nerfed falloff on Curators?
ctrlc ctrlv
Comfortably Numb.
Brack Regen
#518 - 2014-04-02 18:05:14 UTC  |  Edited by: ctrlc ctrlv
Instead Fozzie and CCP try to fix sov mechanics which all players demands all over the past years nerfs the only ship that can do a proper dps to sov structures.

Just want it to say to fozzie that not all alliances have 250 supers to grid sov.

If you are a small alliance with small amount of supers u need tank + dps + the ability to gtfo asap from the field.
With 30% less dps u give the enemy blob a lot of time to response.

10 days ago a small super fleet was hitting a station the enemy droped them and manage to tackle 1nyx.
He tanked 7DD from titan blob and at the end he managed to get out.Was he gonna tank the same if he had dda on lows probably not...

Nerfing supers for 3d time over the past years and on the other hand ignoring current sov mechanics its something that personally cannot understand.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#519 - 2014-04-02 18:06:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
Also please let this be about some ridiculous Valkyrie tie in to keep it consistent with a 10 v 10 match or some nonsense like that.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#520 - 2014-04-02 18:07:55 UTC
Chris Winter wrote:

This is kind of like requiring a different specialization for each damage type of missile. Not really helping perception of drones as a skill-heavy weapon system.

not really, each type of drone has its own damage application window

it's like requiring a different specialization for each type of short and long range weapon system for each type of gun

oh wait that's how shit is now for guns