These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Drone's getting nerfed?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#321 - 2014-01-05 15:49:26 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
Actually, all I said was that cost was a factor in balance.

Do you disagree?


no, you also said this:

Pinky Hops wrote:
Minerals cost the same no matter what you use them for. I know this is a difficult concept to understand....

And when one ship or item has a higher mineral cost than another ship or item....That means the former ship/item costs more. Difficult concept, I know.


so you either argued that the relative cost of a ship remains equal (which it doesn't) or that the market values of minerals are constant (which they aren't)

pick one

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#322 - 2014-01-05 15:53:18 UTC
Andski wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
Actually, all I said was that cost was a factor in balance.

Do you disagree?


no, you also said this:

Pinky Hops wrote:
Minerals cost the same no matter what you use them for. I know this is a difficult concept to understand....

And when one ship or item has a higher mineral cost than another ship or item....That means the former ship/item costs more. Difficult concept, I know.


so you either argued that the relative cost of a ship remains equal (which it doesn't) or that the market values of minerals are constant (which they aren't)

pick one


No, I argued only that ship cost is a factor in balance. The second statement is just affirming that mineral cost and actual cost are directly correlated.

Probably because minerals have a cost. Difficult concept.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#323 - 2014-01-05 15:55:02 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
No, I argued only that ship cost is a factor in balance. The second statement is just affirming that mineral cost and actual cost are directly correlated.

Probably because minerals have a cost. Difficult concept.


so let's see, cost remains a balancing factor despite the fact that the relative costs vary wildly based on the mineral market

feel free to mix in some of your sockpuppet logic here, unless you have a difficult time understanding that relative costs not remaining constant defeats the entire idea of cost as a balancing factor

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#324 - 2014-01-05 15:55:03 UTC
Focused fire has been an issue/worry ever since fleet size averages hit 100 (ie. a long time ago). All assigned drones/sentries does is take that to its extreme by effectively removing dissent and incompetence from the picture .. only the most disciplined fleets actually fire at the same target, be it lag, disrespect for FC, streamed pron, mail whoring etc.

That human factor is probably the only reason why focused fire on its own hasn't been threadnaughted in the past 6+ years, but all those go out the window with assigned drones when a hundred triggers become one .. target calling for Dummies.

Base ability to control assigned drones on a skill such as Advanced Drone Interfacing with each level allowing for +5 drones, adding more trigger fingers will automatically decrease the power of the drone assigning but at up to +25 per assignee it will remain considerably stronger/more effective than 'regular' focused fire with its 1 button per finger.

PS: What war is referenced to and why should it matter? If CCP was to lose the ability to fix stuff based on player whims (yes, shooting people in the face in a game is a whim) out of fear of being called biased then Eve is dead .. very simple to avoid bruises when the bat comes down: If something is too good to be true then stay clear because there is probably a Dev already reaching for the bat - one person being able to directly control the firepower of an entire fleet would fall into that category.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#325 - 2014-01-05 15:56:39 UTC
you're free to quote mine 10 year old posts from developers who no longer work for the company to prove your point however

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#326 - 2014-01-05 15:56:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Andski wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
No, I argued only that ship cost is a factor in balance. The second statement is just affirming that mineral cost and actual cost are directly correlated.

Probably because minerals have a cost. Difficult concept.


so let's see, cost remains a balancing factor despite the fact that the relative costs vary wildly based on the mineral market

feel free to mix in some of your sockpuppet logic here, unless you have a difficult time understanding that relative costs not remaining constant defeats the entire idea of cost as a balancing factor


Are you trying to argue that Trit costs a different amount depending on what you use it for?

If so, that's incorrect.

Ships cost minerals. Minerals have a cost in ISK. Ships therefore cost ISK. This is hard, advanced stuff.

I can confirm this statement by logging on EVE, checking the markets, and seeing ships for sale that cost ISK.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#327 - 2014-01-05 16:01:51 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
Andski wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
No, I argued only that ship cost is a factor in balance. The second statement is just affirming that mineral cost and actual cost are directly correlated.

Probably because minerals have a cost. Difficult concept.


so let's see, cost remains a balancing factor despite the fact that the relative costs vary wildly based on the mineral market

feel free to mix in some of your sockpuppet logic here, unless you have a difficult time understanding that relative costs not remaining constant defeats the entire idea of cost as a balancing factor


Are you trying to argue that Trit costs a different amount depending on what you use it for?

If so, that's incorrect.

Are you trying to argue that a ship's market cost is the sum of its mineral cost?

Pinky Hops wrote:
Ships cost minerals. Minerals have a cost in ISK. Ships therefore cost ISK. This is hard, advanced stuff.

I can confirm this statement by logging on EVE, checking the markets, and seeing ships for sale that cost ISK.

Yeah, looks like that's what you're trying to argue.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#328 - 2014-01-05 16:02:18 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
Are you trying to argue that Trit costs a different amount depending on what you use it for?

If so, that's incorrect.

Ships cost minerals. Minerals have a cost in ISK. Ships therefore cost ISK. This is hard, advanced stuff.


this is sockpuppetry at its finest

feel free to tell me how cost remains a balancing factor despite:


  • costs not remaining constant
  • relative costs not remaining constant
  • diminishing returns on investments
  • the unpredictability of a player-controlled market

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#329 - 2014-01-05 16:02:49 UTC
http://community.eveonline.com/news/dev-blogs/odyssey-ship-balancing/

Quote:
As we have done with the previous Tech 1 ship classes that have gone through rebalancing, mineral prices for Tech 1 Battleships are going to be adjusted to meet the new “Tiericide” requirements.


Quote:
There is no need to have price differential within ships of the same class if tiers are gone. If all of them have an equally valuable role, price should match.


Quote:
We cannot decrease overall costs of Battleships due to the mineral consumption linked with the production of the current Tier 3 Battleships. Doing so would affect the market adversely.


Cost: clearly not a factor of balance.

And we all know this article I am quoting is 10 years old and from a developer that no longer works at CCP.

Oh wait.......Big smile
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#330 - 2014-01-05 16:05:14 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Alphea Abbra wrote:
I don't know why you would - it was you who did it, so you're probably the one who knows.
What was your reason to imply that Archons are overpowered because they can be repped by supercarriers?


I never said that

Quote:
No, not effectively two domi fleets. Effectively 1.33 domi fleets with worse tracking/optimal (Assuming an equal ratio of Gal BS to Amr Carrier).


10 drones is twice as much as 5 drones and you get to use more damage ships than the domi fleet who need to use several other shiptypes in the fleet. So yea, you get two fleets worth of domi drone goodness.


Quote:
No.
Why are you trying to rewrite history?
The supercarrier nerfs were because supercarriers were able to either win or log off, and the intended purpose for them was anti-capital and anti-structure more than anti-subcapital. If you want to deal with a subcapital fleet, bring a subcapital fleet or carriers.


They were nerfed because they were unkillable to subcaps and could launch a veritable cloud of drones that would alpha anything up to a dreadnought. They never needed to log off.
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#331 - 2014-01-05 16:09:44 UTC
Andski wrote:

the "cost" of supercarriers and titans has increased substantially - even in relative terms- compared to the cost of subcapitals, as a consequence of the drone loot nerf

That only really makes sense if you're comparing them to t2 or t3 ships. t1 battleships increased in cost just as much if you're looking at it as a percentage increase (or more in the case of the tier 1 BS that had extra materials added to their build cost in the rebalancing).
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#332 - 2014-01-05 16:11:15 UTC
Sal Landry wrote:
That only really makes sense if you're comparing them to t2 or t3 ships. t1 battleships increased in cost just as much if you're looking at it as a percentage increase (or more in the case of the tier 1 BS that had extra materials added to their build cost in the rebalancing).


what the **** do you think "relative" means

the jita price of a battleship may have doubled, but the cost of losing that same battleship with insurance barely did

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#333 - 2014-01-05 16:11:51 UTC
Sal Landry wrote:
Andski wrote:

the "cost" of supercarriers and titans has increased substantially - even in relative terms- compared to the cost of subcapitals, as a consequence of the drone loot nerf

That only really makes sense if you're comparing them to t2 or t3 ships. t1 battleships increased in cost just as much if you're looking at it as a percentage increase (or more in the case of the tier 1 BS that had extra materials added to their build cost in the rebalancing).


The insurance kept up on those ships though. Supers and titans cannot be insured so thats where the much bigger costs come from.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#334 - 2014-01-05 16:12:37 UTC
Clearly CCP should buff supercapital insurance payouts.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#335 - 2014-01-05 16:21:19 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
I never said that

Oh yes. You implied exactly that.
baltec1 wrote:
Meyr wrote:
If these ships are catching reps, you guys can't kill them?

DO YOU SERIOUSLY INTEND TO STATE THAT THE ENTIRETY OF GOONS & CFC CAN'T CONSTRUCT AN E-WAR FLEET?

The guys who started out by blobbing with Rifters can't utilize T1 E-War frigates en-masse?

Really?


Supers cannot be jammed.
Now if this is a matter of you being misinterpreted, please tell us how you meant it instead?


Quote:
10 drones is twice as much as 5 drones and you get to use more damage ships than the domi fleet who need to use several other shiptypes in the fleet. So yea, you get two fleets worth of domi drone goodness.
How do you get 10 drones from an Archon (So carrier 5) and only 5 from a Dominix (So BS 0)?
If you apply bonuses, at least apply them consistently. Dominix gets effectively +50% drones from BS 5.

Your point about supercarriers isn't wrong per se, it's just misinforming through obfuscation. By not acknowledging the entirety of what it said, you make it seem to support your case when in reality, it doesn't:
Quote:
(...)Supercarriers are far too versatile

The reason that supercarriers can deal with any size of ship is the versatility provided by its massive drone bay. Having access to almost unlimited combat drones of all sizes and being able to launch 20 of them at a time means that they have an answer to almost any situation. In fact, we found that drones on capital ships in general to be detrimental to the way fleet fights should work. If you want to deal with sub-capitals, you should bring your own sub-capitals or a carrier. (...)
This is what happens in EVE right now.
You want to change that to something like:
"If you want to deal with sub-capitals, don't use capitals"
And I am asking for the good arguments for that change.
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#336 - 2014-01-05 16:26:09 UTC
i'm not sure why coattail riding chaff keep talking about supercarriers and titans in a thread about drone assist, which is irrelevant for supercarriers and titans

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#337 - 2014-01-05 16:27:31 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
I never said that

Oh yes. You implied exactly that.
baltec1 wrote:
Meyr wrote:
If these ships are catching reps, you guys can't kill them?

DO YOU SERIOUSLY INTEND TO STATE THAT THE ENTIRETY OF GOONS & CFC CAN'T CONSTRUCT AN E-WAR FLEET?

The guys who started out by blobbing with Rifters can't utilize T1 E-War frigates en-masse?

Really?


Supers cannot be jammed.
Now if this is a matter of you being misinterpreted, please tell us how you meant it instead?


How the hell did you manage to misinterpret that?

He said just jam them. I said supers cannot be jammed.

I said nothing at all about capital reps being overpowered and I have no idea how you got that from the four words I put.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#338 - 2014-01-05 16:27:32 UTC
Andski wrote:
i'm not sure why coattail riding chaff keep talking about supercarriers and titans in a thread about drone assist, which is irrelevant for supercarriers and titans
baltec1 thinks it's a part of the issue, as you can see from the quote.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#339 - 2014-01-05 16:27:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Andski wrote:
i'm not sure why coattail riding chaff keep talking about supercarriers and titans in a thread about drone assist, which is irrelevant for supercarriers and titans


I assume you are referring to your alliancemates/corpmates, baltec1 and james-whatever
Andski
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#340 - 2014-01-05 16:28:28 UTC
i logged in my supercarrier and i couldn't find any sentry drones to assist to anybody somebody tell me why people keep bringing them up

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar