These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 1.1] Omnidirectional Tracking Links

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Moor Deybe
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#221 - 2014-01-23 01:30:00 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Moor Deybe wrote:
I've just spent 3 hours on SISI in a Dominix with the new scripted Omnidirectional Tracking Links, doing Drone Hordes and other Drone Anomalies. I did these same anomalies recently with the curent Omnidirectional Tracking Links when testing out the new ESS module.

Well as expected, the Dominix is now a very different ship indeed!

Whereas before, the Dominix did these sites without too much trouble as long as you picked your targets correctly, the Drone Horde was a bit too much now for the new Dominix, because with the large range reduction on the Gardes, it got overwhelmed somewhat by the advancing Drone Battleships and their incoming DPS.

Using the EM curators against the drones (as that is their weakness), I was able to complete the sites, because the Curators have decent range still, but they're only 650 DPS (and that's with 4 Drone Damage Amplifiers) which in comparison to the 800 DPS Thermal Gardes, is a big drop.

I am somewhat dubious about that Dominix claim. I know you actually tested it on SiSi, but something seems wrong.

Curators have only 81.25% the DPS of Gardes:
* bouncer 87.5%
* curator 81.25%
* warden 75.0%

However, the Alvus Queen has EHP of X versus damage type:
* EM 27,231
* Expl 53,455
* Kin 39,250
* Therm 31,810

Divide the EHP by 800 DPS for Gardes, 700 for Bouncers, 650 for Curators, and 600 for Wardens to get the rough Time to Kill (TTK):
* EM 27,231 / 650 = ~42s
* Expl 53,455 / 700 = ~76s
* Kin 39,250 / 600 = ~65s
* Therm 31,810 / 800 = ~40s
This does NOT take any shield/armor regeneration into account.

42 seconds for EM versus 40 seconds for Thermal is a volley difference (plus shield/armor regen.) In theory, you should have been able to use Curators at long range and Gardes at short/medium range with a minimal loss in TTK (up to ~10% longer-ish.)

If anything, Garde DPS is probably a bit too high for PvE given how many NPCs have thermal as a secondary weakness. Meaning, with the high DPS of Gardes, it normally better to use Gardes on "thermal as a secondary weakness" NPCs instead using a Warden or Curator against the NPC's primary weakness.

For example, for the kinetic weak Guristas Pith Eliminator, the TTKs are:
Curator: 47,058 / 650 = ~72s
Bouncer: 35,306 / 700 = ~50s
Warden: 24,393 / 600 = ~41s
Garde: 28,664 / 800 = ~36s

Gardes (36s) are noticeably better than Wardens (41s).


I can understand why Gardes are getting the biggest nerf (i.e. range nerfed,) but it looks like swapping between Warden/Curators at long range and Gardes at long range shouldn't translate into a huge nerf.



Interesting analysis.
Those numbers all look good and the conclusions re Time To Kill (TTK) seems reasonable and yet.....

I went on the SiSi again, found a Drone Horde, warp in at 100km, which consistently puts you at 80km but hey ho!
Started off with the Curators and switched to the Garde's when the rats reached the Garde optimal.

Result was the same with a Dominix in low armour / structure, being overwhelmed by the advancing Alvus Queens and other battleships, whereas with the old Garde, they'd reduced the DPS on the field before the Dominix was overwhelmed by incoming DPS.

I have no stats as such, just empirical research carried out, albeit that hits include a certain random factor, which you'd hope would average out somewhat after this many Drone Hordes Smile

I only have this thought.
The EM Curators seem better at cutting through NPC shields at range than the thermal Gardes, but the Curators seem quite poor at getting through NPC armor in comparison!

Now according to this site the Alvus Queen has the following amounts of shield, armor and structure

Shield: 3,500 HP
Armor: 6,500 HP
Structure: 8,000 HP

Now with the Alvus Queen having roughly 85% more armor than shields (and I am seeing it take more volleys to get through the armor when using Curators) could this account for the longer time it seems to take to get these Alvus Queens off the field and reduce incoming DPS?

I don't know if the Effective Hitpoints numbers take care of that disparity or not, I'm just reporting what I previously observed, and what I observe now.

The Drone Horde that I did, the 4 tower variant, has 62 Battleships in if I've counted correctly, so it only requires a slightly longer take down time for each Alvus Queen e.g. 2 or 3 more volleys to get through the armor with Curators compared to the Gardes, to make a significant lengthening of the mission time = more DPS on the field = results that I'm seeing.

Now with my old Garde's having an optimal out to 100km and the new ones being approx 58km, thats a good 40km the old Garde's had to do their work in, which is now being done by Curators.

I miss those old Gardes, I reckon they fired depleted uranium or something..............ah those were the days
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University
Minmatar Republic
#222 - 2014-01-23 01:36:53 UTC  |  Edited by: Hasikan Miallok
Moor Deybe wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:
Moor Deybe wrote:
I've just spent 3 hours on SISI in a Dominix with the new scripted Omnidirectional Tracking Links, doing Drone Hordes and other Drone Anomalies. I did these same anomalies recently with the curent Omnidirectional Tracking Links when testing out the new ESS module.

Well as expected, the Dominix is now a very different ship indeed!

Whereas before, the Dominix did these sites without too much trouble as long as you picked your targets correctly, the Drone Horde was a bit too much now for the new Dominix, because with the large range reduction on the Gardes, it got overwhelmed somewhat by the advancing Drone Battleships and their incoming DPS.

Using the EM curators against the drones (as that is their weakness), I was able to complete the sites, because the Curators have decent range still, but they're only 650 DPS (and that's with 4 Drone Damage Amplifiers) which in comparison to the 800 DPS Thermal Gardes, is a big drop.

I am somewhat dubious about that Dominix claim. I know you actually tested it on SiSi, but something seems wrong.

Curators have only 81.25% the DPS of Gardes:
* bouncer 87.5%
* curator 81.25%
* warden 75.0%

However, the Alvus Queen has EHP of X versus damage type:
* EM 27,231
* Expl 53,455
* Kin 39,250
* Therm 31,810

Divide the EHP by 800 DPS for Gardes, 700 for Bouncers, 650 for Curators, and 600 for Wardens to get the rough Time to Kill (TTK):
* EM 27,231 / 650 = ~42s
* Expl 53,455 / 700 = ~76s
* Kin 39,250 / 600 = ~65s
* Therm 31,810 / 800 = ~40s
This does NOT take any shield/armor regeneration into account.

42 seconds for EM versus 40 seconds for Thermal is a volley difference (plus shield/armor regen.) In theory, you should have been able to use Curators at long range and Gardes at short/medium range with a minimal loss in TTK (up to ~10% longer-ish.)

If anything, Garde DPS is probably a bit too high for PvE given how many NPCs have thermal as a secondary weakness. Meaning, with the high DPS of Gardes, it normally better to use Gardes on "thermal as a secondary weakness" NPCs instead using a Warden or Curator against the NPC's primary weakness.

For example, for the kinetic weak Guristas Pith Eliminator, the TTKs are:
Curator: 47,058 / 650 = ~72s
Bouncer: 35,306 / 700 = ~50s
Warden: 24,393 / 600 = ~41s
Garde: 28,664 / 800 = ~36s

Gardes (36s) are noticeably better than Wardens (41s).


I can understand why Gardes are getting the biggest nerf (i.e. range nerfed,) but it looks like swapping between Warden/Curators at long range and Gardes at long range shouldn't translate into a huge nerf.



Interesting analysis.
Those numbers all look good and the conclusions re Time To Kill (TTK) seems reasonable and yet.....

I went on the SiSi again, found a Drone Horde, warp in at 100km, which consistently puts you at 80km but hey ho!
Started off with the Curators and switched to the Garde's when the rats reached the Garde optimal.

Result was the same with a Dominix in low armour / structure, being overwhelmed by the advancing Alvus Queens and other battleships, whereas with the old Garde, they'd reduced the DPS on the field before the Dominix was overwhelmed by incoming DPS.

I have no stats as such, just empirical research carried out, albeit that hits include a certain random factor, which you'd hope would average out somewhat after this many Drone Hordes Smile

I only have this thought.
The EM Curators seem better at cutting through NPC shields at range than the thermal Gardes, but the Curators seem quite poor at getting through NPC armor in comparison!

Now according to this site the Alvus Queen has the following amounts of shield, armor and structure

Shield: 3,500 HP
Armor: 6,500 HP
Structure: 8,000 HP

Now with the Alvus Queen having roughly 85% more armor than shields (and I am seeing it take more volleys to get through the armor when using Curators) could this account for the longer time it seems to take to get these Alvus Queens off the field and reduce incoming DPS?

I don't know if the Effective Hitpoints numbers take care of that disparity or not, I'm just reporting what I previously observed, and what I observe now.

The Drone Horde that I did, the 4 tower variant, has 62 Battleships in if I've counted correctly, so it only requires a slightly longer take down time for each Alvus Queen e.g. 2 or 3 more volleys to get through the armor with Curators compared to the Gardes, to make a significant lengthening of the mission time = more DPS on the field = results that I'm seeing.

Now with my old Garde's having an optimal out to 100km and the new ones being approx 58km, thats a good 40km the old Garde's had to do their work in, which is now being done by Curators.

I miss those old Gardes, I reckon they fired depleted uranium or something..............ah those were the days




One thing that may help a little (though stacking will suck after 4th omni with same script) is we now have mobile depots.

This will mean its possible to swap out to a full rack of scripted omnis in the mids (providing your targeting comes form rigs and low slots) on a PvE domi while shooting and then swap your prop mods/MJD back in when it gets close to GTFO time.
stoicfaux
#223 - 2014-01-23 03:57:27 UTC
Moor Deybe wrote:
Now according to this site the Alvus Queen has the following amounts of shield, armor and structure

Shield: 3,500 HP
Armor: 6,500 HP
Structure: 8,000 HP

Now with the Alvus Queen having roughly 85% more armor than shields (and I am seeing it take more volleys to get through the armor when using Curators) could this account for the longer time it seems to take to get these Alvus Queens off the field and reduce incoming DPS?

I don't know if the Effective Hitpoints numbers take care of that disparity or not, I'm just reporting what I previously observed, and what I observe now.

EHP does take resists into account, e.g. 3500 / (1- shield_resist) + 6500 / (1-armor_resist) + 8000. However, the resists are the same for shield and armor for the Alvus Queen so it it's a moot point.

Quote:
The Drone Horde that I did, the 4 tower variant, has 62 Battleships in if I've counted correctly, so it only requires a slightly longer take down time for each Alvus Queen e.g. 2 or 3 more volleys to get through the armor with Curators compared to the Gardes, to make a significant lengthening of the mission time = more DPS on the field = results that I'm seeing.

Now with my old Garde's having an optimal out to 100km and the new ones being approx 58km, thats a good 40km the old Garde's had to do their work in, which is now being done by Curators.

I miss those old Gardes, I reckon they fired depleted uranium or something..............ah those were the days

Thanks for taking the time to test again on Sisi. My tentative guess is that the extra Curator volleys per battleship is the tipping point between "easy" and "in structure."

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#224 - 2014-01-23 07:21:33 UTC  |  Edited by: I'm Down
What you two guys are seeing a two fold effect.


  • 1st is the difference tracking makes. Quality of hits are incredibly different for the two drones, so even though you see the paper numbers looking nearly even, the reality is in the actual math of the tracking formula. Those gardes are probably getting mostly well placed hits, where as the curators are probably getting average, and a few misplaced hits. It significantly changes the actual damage output of the drones.

    • This is one of the most broken parts of the game and why I often argue that the tracking formula is probably the single largest issue in the game. Because of the way the formula calculates, there is a significant drop off in damage as a ship approaches max transversal compared to the tracking speed of a weapon. The problem is that there is no calibration for sig at range which means longer range lower dps weapons are always at a disadvantage. This is also why Blap dreads are so damn effective even though logic would state that they should be **** vs smaller ships.

    In simpler terms, a garde that could hit at 54 optimal with ~4000 m/s tracking and 800 dps will absolute obliterate a curator that can hit up to 90km, but only has -2400 m/s tracking at 50km and 600 dps. The sig of the ships is absolutely meaningless at that point because the ships are so low in the scope of the tracking abilities of these weapons. But what is happening is that the quality hits are skyrocketing for the weapon that has the least issue tracking. If the BS get closer, the disparity becomes more highly pronounced.

    With the change to the optimal of gardes, they are also taking a big hit to their ability to track since they aren't hitting at the most ideal ranges.

  • The other thing you are seeing is the way rats react to alpha strike.
    • The first part of that is that assuming you transfer from one rat to the next, the first difference is the 600 extra alpha volley the gardes get at time 0 when the first strike happens. Every single rat gains 600 more damage due to the transfer. If you're shooting 60 BS in a mission as someone stated above, then that translates into a bare minimum of 36,000 damage. But that's not all

    I've done some extensive testing with this over the years and found out that rats seem to react to the types of damage they are receiving in terms of their desire to repair. I've used ships with different DPS and different rates of fire in belts to test this setup.

    The most obvious time this effect occurred was watching an AC Maelstrom vs a Artillery Maelstrom with the exact same ammo. Logic would tell you the AC mael should always win. But what seems to happen is that the alpha strike artillery platform somehow bugs out the rats to where they don't repair the same way they would with more consistent damage. In fact, there were many instances where rats would not repair between first and 2nd hits using Artilleries, or maybe repair 1 time.

    Over the course of their life, rats being shot with AC tended to get about 4-8 x the amount of repairs of those who were being shot with Artilleries. It's so ridiculous that I can actually 2-3 volley certain rats with Artillery for a kill every 33-50 seconds, but with autocannons, It would take 70-90 seconds for the same rats even when webbed and all tracking and falloff effects removed.


So yes, you are seeing a drastic falloff from these changes... and it's primarily due to the absolute **** tracking and NPC mechanics present in game.
Kagura Nikon
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#225 - 2014-01-23 09:03:43 UTC  |  Edited by: Kagura Nikon
I'm Down wrote:
What you two guys are seeing a two fold effect.


  • 1st is the difference tracking makes. Quality of hits are incredibly different for the two drones, so even though you see the paper numbers looking nearly even, the reality is in the actual math of the tracking formula. Those gardes are probably getting mostly well placed hits, where as the curators are probably getting average, and a few misplaced hits. It significantly changes the actual damage output of the drones.

    • This is one of the most broken parts of the game and why I often argue that the tracking formula is probably the single largest issue in the game. Because of the way the formula calculates, there is a significant drop off in damage as a ship approaches max transversal compared to the tracking speed of a weapon. The problem is that there is no calibration for sig at range which means longer range lower dps weapons are always at a disadvantage. This is also why Blap dreads are so damn effective even though logic would state that they should be **** vs smaller ships.

    In simpler terms, a garde that could hit at 54 optimal with ~4000 m/s tracking and 800 dps will absolute obliterate a curator that can hit up to 90km, but only has -2400 m/s tracking at 50km and 600 dps. The sig of the ships is absolutely meaningless at that point because the ships are so low in the scope of the tracking abilities of these weapons. But what is happening is that the quality hits are skyrocketing for the weapon that has the least issue tracking. If the BS get closer, the disparity becomes more highly pronounced.

    With the change to the optimal of gardes, they are also taking a big hit to their ability to track since they aren't hitting at the most ideal ranges.

  • The other thing you are seeing is the way rats react to alpha strike.
    • The first part of that is that assuming you transfer from one rat to the next, the first difference is the 600 extra alpha volley the gardes get at time 0 when the first strike happens. Every single rat gains 600 more damage due to the transfer. If you're shooting 60 BS in a mission as someone stated above, then that translates into a bare minimum of 36,000 damage. But that's not all

    I've done some extensive testing with this over the years and found out that rats seem to react to the types of damage they are receiving in terms of their desire to repair. I've used ships with different DPS and different rates of fire in belts to test this setup.

    The most obvious time this effect occurred was watching an AC Maelstrom vs a Artillery Maelstrom with the exact same ammo. Logic would tell you the AC mael should always win. But what seems to happen is that the alpha strike artillery platform somehow bugs out the rats to where they don't repair the same way they would with more consistent damage. In fact, there were many instances where rats would not repair between first and 2nd hits using Artilleries, or maybe repair 1 time.

    Over the course of their life, rats being shot with AC tended to get about 4-8 x the amount of repairs of those who were being shot with Artilleries. It's so ridiculous that I can actually 2-3 volley certain rats with Artillery for a kill every 33-50 seconds, but with autocannons, It would take 70-90 seconds for the same rats even when webbed and all tracking and falloff effects removed.


So yes, you are seeing a drastic falloff from these changes... and it's primarily due to the absolute **** tracking and NPC mechanics present in game.


you have no clue about how the tracking formula work.. or you are very bad at expressing your toughts in a post. Probably the second... too many mixed things and arguments make it sound you are mixing reasons.... for example:

Your example of arties and AC completely forego range and the falloff effect.. the MAIN factor between them.

"If brute force does not solve your problem....  then you are  surely not using enough!"
Moor Deybe
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#226 - 2014-01-23 11:38:05 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Thanks for taking the time to test again on Sisi. My tentative guess is that the extra Curator volleys per battleship is the tipping point between "easy" and "in structure."

Yes, perhaps my use of the Dominix in a Drone Horde was pushing it right to the edge of its capabilities and this wasn't apparent as it managed comfortably, and now with the new Omnidirectional Tracking Links, in my usage, I now find it to be past that tipping point which results in "in stucture".

I guess everyone will have to see how close to the edge of its capabilities they were using it! and I shall endeavour to get it back "in front" of the tipping point in my usage.

Hasikan Miallok wrote:


One thing that may help a little (though stacking will suck after 4th omni with same script) is we now have mobile depots.

This will mean its possible to swap out to a full rack of scripted omnis in the mids (providing your targeting comes form rigs and low slots) on a PvE domi while shooting and then swap your prop mods/MJD back in when it gets close to GTFO time.

Thanks for that, this is certainly worth considering.
It might become fiddly over time, but using the mobile depot to e.g. swap out propulsion for resistance mods to give the Dominix more time in the fight is certainly worth considering, especially as the ship is immobile for the sentries anyway.

It would be interesting to see the how the CCP Dominix usage stats change over the course of the next release, but I suppose we do see that in a way as it shows up in the Market Price History graph, as demand changes and the price reflects that!

So time will tell I guess, whether the Dominix and other drone boats fall off in their usage..............and then receive a subsequent buff in a future expansion Cool
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#227 - 2014-01-23 12:21:40 UTC
Fozzie, can you do me a favor and explain how this change doesn't leave boats like the Armageddon which were rebalanced to have drones as a primary weapon system but got no range/tracking bonus out to dry? With only 4 mid slots, and at least 2 of those being used for prop mod/tackle, how in the hell are you supposed to get any kind of usable tracking or range on that ship now?

With no low slot modules to modify drone range/tracking I think this rebalance deserved a little more effort than copy stats from gun mod, paste to drone mod.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#228 - 2014-01-23 14:31:21 UTC
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Fozzie, can you do me a favor and explain how this change doesn't leave boats like the Armageddon which were rebalanced to have drones as a primary weapon system but got no range/tracking bonus out to dry? With only 4 mid slots, and at least 2 of those being used for prop mod/tackle, how in the hell are you supposed to get any kind of usable tracking or range on that ship now?

With no low slot modules to modify drone range/tracking I think this rebalance deserved a little more effort than copy stats from gun mod, paste to drone mod.


You really don't get it.
Not to worry, most don't see the underlying theme of this.

Just remember where the dev came from.
Then remember how much pleasure that group gets screwing up the game for others.
Notorious Fellon
#229 - 2014-01-23 14:56:14 UTC
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Fozzie, can you do me a favor and explain how this change doesn't leave boats like the Armageddon which were rebalanced to have drones as a primary weapon system but got no range/tracking bonus out to dry? With only 4 mid slots, and at least 2 of those being used for prop mod/tackle, how in the hell are you supposed to get any kind of usable tracking or range on that ship now?

With no low slot modules to modify drone range/tracking I think this rebalance deserved a little more effort than copy stats from gun mod, paste to drone mod.



I am interested in the answer on this as well. Some ships will be impacted more than others. Some of which were borderline already.

Crime, it is not a "career", it is a lifestyle.
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#230 - 2014-01-23 15:42:41 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Andrea Keuvo wrote:
Fozzie, can you do me a favor and explain how this change doesn't leave boats like the Armageddon which were rebalanced to have drones as a primary weapon system but got no range/tracking bonus out to dry? With only 4 mid slots, and at least 2 of those being used for prop mod/tackle, how in the hell are you supposed to get any kind of usable tracking or range on that ship now?

With no low slot modules to modify drone range/tracking I think this rebalance deserved a little more effort than copy stats from gun mod, paste to drone mod.


You really don't get it.
Not to worry, most don't see the underlying theme of this.

Just remember where the dev came from.
Then remember how much pleasure that group gets screwing up the game for others.


Oh I get it, I'd just like to hear him say it outright since a nerf of this magnitude isn't even remotely justifiable.
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#231 - 2014-01-23 18:38:43 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

You really don't get it.
Not to worry, most don't see the underlying theme of this.

Just remember where the dev came from.
Then remember how much pleasure that group gets screwing up the game for others.


If that is the way they want to run 'their' game, then subscriptions will show it.

This is the most mindless lazy garbage anyone could ever conceive. It's lazy to the point of incompetence. This is how it works.

copy Tracking Computer 1 -> Omnidirectional 1
copy Tracking Computer 2 -> Omnidirectional 2

Edit activation cost

done

So you take Omnidirectional 1 with 20% range and 20% tracking bonus and make it 5% range 10% tracking and add 10% falloff.

Omnidirectional 2 from 25% range and 25% tracking bonus and make it 7.5% range 15% tracking and add 15% falloff.

Scripted:

Omnidirectional 1 scripted tracking speed 25%, scripted optimal range 10% range and add 20% falloff

Omnidirectional 2 scripted tracking speed 30%, scripted optimal range 15% range and add 30% falloff

Falloff does not equal range and is a huge nerf. 15% range does not equal 2 mods with 25% range

Scripted tracking speed 30% does not equal 2 mods with 25%.
I'm Down
Macabre Votum
Northern Coalition.
#232 - 2014-01-24 04:12:13 UTC
Kagura Nikon wrote:


you have no clue about how the tracking formula work.. or you are very bad at expressing your toughts in a post. Probably the second... too many mixed things and arguments make it sound you are mixing reasons.... for example:

Your example of arties and AC completely forego range and the falloff effect.. the MAIN factor between them.


Quote:
It would take 70-90 seconds for the same rats even when webbed and all tracking and falloff effects removed.


did you miss the part where this was stated? It means that when you are always comparing the two shooting in optimal.

And if you did more than a quick breeze over the post, you'd realize that there was nothing about tracking in the section about autocannons vs artillery. Maybe the issues is that you just can't or won't read.
Hexatron Ormand
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#233 - 2014-01-24 13:02:14 UTC
Postet it in the test server forum first, but i assume it belongs here as well. After playing around with the new omnidirectional tracking links, this is what i thought:


One thing that is bothering me a little about them is, that you cannot see how the script changes influence the launched drones. It would be really nice if you could see the optimal/falloff changes as you change the scripts, or the tracking increase.

When you rightclick on a turret to open the info screen, you can see the actual stats of it, with all the skill and module influences on it.

If you do the same with a launched drone in a drone window, it only shows the basic stats, as if you would click the market window info about the.


Your reason for making those modules active, with scripts, and to be able to overheat them, is flexibility in making decisions, on what script to use when, if you overheat or not - doing this just gets really hard without any feedback on the actual lauched drones, when i cannot see what results or influence my choices have.

Like.. better to run optimal range script.. or is the enemy close enough already, so i am better off switching to tracking instead of range? So it would be really great if the drones would show the actual information that is true for them right now with my skills and active modules.


I have no idea how hard this would be to code... i assume quite hard? As there is another issue with drones that is out there for years. The Drone-DPS shown in your ship window is always that of the drones still left in your drone bay, instead of the LAUNCHED ones... it is quite a bit confusing. As soon as you launch drones, the value switches to that of the leftover drones in the bay, instead to that of those that are actually "out there" and doing the damage. You can see that quite well if you use two sets of sentries. For example Garde II and Curator II. Launch the Curators and the drone DPS shown stays the same (as that of the Garde that make higher DPS was shown all the time). Launch the Garde, and it instantly drops to that of the Curators - what is wrong, as the garde are out there and doing the damage actually.

So what i wish for is more drone feedback for the launched and active drones. Current DPS values, tracking, optimal and falloff ranges. How am i supposed to make tactical decisions, if i cannot see what would be the better choice for my drones right now?


We either need this feedback, or it would be better if the omnidirectional tracking links are left alone. Bring them back to their former passive state, or include the needed informations that players can act on and decide on.



TL;DR: Without feedback and information of the current state of the active (aka launched) drones, it is useless giving us more choices - as you cannot see what choice would be the most benefical at any given moment. If it is impossible to give us this information, bring the tracking links back to their former passive state.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#234 - 2014-01-24 13:51:31 UTC
Hexatron Ormand wrote:



TL;DR: Without feedback and information of the current state of the active (aka launched) drones, it is useless giving us more choices - as you cannot see what choice would be the most benefical at any given moment. If it is impossible to give us this information, bring the tracking links back to their former passive state.



You are absolutely correct that we can't give proper feedback on this nerf because of the lack of information provided ingame.
And that is precisely why fozzie will do nothing about providing us the information to give proper feedback.
Mustn't let facts get in the way of ideology.
stoicfaux
#235 - 2014-01-24 14:32:13 UTC
Fortunately, EVE peoples are a talented bunch.

pyfa has Rubicon 1.1 preview files: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=247609


Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#236 - 2014-01-24 14:42:33 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Hexatron Ormand wrote:



TL;DR: Without feedback and information of the current state of the active (aka launched) drones, it is useless giving us more choices - as you cannot see what choice would be the most benefical at any given moment. If it is impossible to give us this information, bring the tracking links back to their former passive state.



You are absolutely correct that we can't give proper feedback on this nerf because of the lack of information provided ingame.
And that is precisely why fozzie will do nothing about providing us the information to give proper feedback.
Mustn't let facts get in the way of ideology.

If you undock, activate your modules, the expand you group of drones while they are still in the drone bay you can show info on them and it will display the active effects on them.

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Arsine Mayhem
Doomheim
#237 - 2014-01-24 15:22:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Arsine Mayhem
No matter what it is a "huge change" in the stats achieved by "simply" copying another module used for turrets on top of the current omni.

Absolutely no thought has gone into this. I've never seen such heavy mindless changes done to any stats in any game i've played.
Andrea Keuvo
Rusty Pricks
#238 - 2014-01-24 18:18:14 UTC
Arsine Mayhem wrote:
No matter what it is a "huge change" in the stats achieved by "simply" copying another module used for turrets on top of the current omni.

Absolutely no thought has gone into this. I've never seen such heavy mindless changes done to any stats in any game i've played.


Most of the changes of modules from passive to active and the OH changes look to me like they were done at the last minute to meet some kind of personal performance goal due to the copy + paste nature of them.

Also, as usual, we are but a few days from patch and the devs have gone ghost and are not acknowledging or commenting on these threads.

Maybe we need a new forum? We have Features & Ideas Discussion where devs can post changes they want feedback/discussion on and there could be a new forum called "Sh*tty Changes we are Forcing on You" for stuff like this where they intend to implement as is regardless of feedback. At least that way we don't waste time posting about things that are a done deal.
Cheng Musana
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#239 - 2014-01-24 20:25:46 UTC
Sigh so i can kick my rattlesnake into the bin now. The main issue on fleet fights is that you can set hundreds of drones onto a single fleet member which probs has a insta locking ship. So annoying that im now forced to spec into T2 large turrets to compensate for the new changes.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#240 - 2014-01-24 20:49:35 UTC
Cheng Musana wrote:
Sigh so i can kick my rattlesnake into the bin now. The main issue on fleet fights is that you can set hundreds of drones onto a single fleet member which probs has a insta locking ship. So annoying that im now forced to spec into T2 large turrets to compensate for the new changes.

With the at some point upcoming pirate ship rebalance I wonder what is in store for the RS. As is it's rather subpar compared to the domi since the BS round of changes and is now pretty objectively nerfed unless you load 4+ mids with scripted Omnis, which in many cases I imagine is more slots to then than is currently used for most drone ships/fits. The same of course can be said for any drone bonused ship without damage application bonuses, which enhances the feeling of sliding into obsolescence. Even the upcoming Nestor, in it's already lackluster state, is going to further suffer due to this.

Given the analysis of the HED fight and the growing amount of drone combat in fleet fights leading up to it I can't help but wonder if this was a response to that trend to make them less attractive, with the effects on small scale drone work being only collateral damage.

As is my RS will also be formally retired until it is re-imagined into another form, and possibly another role entirely, as it currently just has no real benefit for the job at hand anymore.