EVE General Discussion

Because your ship is doing the targeting? Essentially you want sentries to be even more ludicrous than they already are.

No, the problem is that you don't understand a word of what I'm saying and instead invent your own meanings. I have never done anything of the kind and I have no idea where you got that idea from. If anyone is linking DCR and effective range, it's you since you seem to believe that they are in some way related when they're not.

The position of the drones is completely irrelevant. That's the beauty of drones: that they are independent of the ship and can be placed in the position that benefits them the most while you skip around and decide what to attack.

Incorrect. Drone range is relevant for the same reason all optimal ranges are relevant: it decides how well your drone can hit their target. The existence of the current DCR mechanic does not affect or interact with the range of the drone in any way — they are completely separate and measure completely different relationships.

You have been told on multiple occasions and in numerous ways why it works the way it does and why it is not broken. Once again, the only thing that makes it broken is that — as illustrated here — you do not actually understand the mechanics involved. You can protest and claim to do so as much as you like but every last one of your suggestions and explanations prove beyond any doubt that you don't.

Good news: drone range is not limited by ship attributes. You're probably just confused about what the different ranges do, what they measure, and how they relate to each other.

Now you've invented a completely new stat: drone lock range. And again, why should this mechanic change? Why do you want to nerf drones in that way and at the same time unbalance the relationship between attackers using drones and those using other weapon systems?

I'd suggest you shut up and play the game first. Drones have a lock range. I'm just a little confused now though. How is this a nerf in any way? Is this where all your stupid paranoia and reluctance to understand something new is coming from?


Way to take things out of line. When I said "Is this intended" I wanted the reasoning behind the mechanic, not the mechanic itself. You'd understand that by reading the full line. When I said "Just curious to know why isn't this a thing" I was referring to the way I think the mechanic should work, again, inferred by reading. Lastly, "anyone else got any insight?" was me basically ignoring you. You have yet to understand a thing and keep posting the same useless garbage over and over. No one is asking you to explain the mechanic. We get it, you know it by heart. I'd ask CCP for a diploma or something if I were you.

I don't know how many times I have to say this, but I don't want an explanation of how the mechanic works. I already know that. The whole purpose of this, which you'd know by reading instead of skimming over it, is to know why SENTRIES are the only ones who have their range ignored.

Ok, you seem to not understand basic English. I will try my damn hardest to simplify it for you.

1. I have no need to make up my mind. One thing is not understanding a concept *very much like you with my suggestion* and a different one is wanting an explanation of the reasoning behind it. In other words "Why". I know that if i jump into the void I'll fall. I'm not asking how I fall, or what causes my fall, or why is it that I don't float. I'm asking Why I fall. In this case, I'm asking "If a sentry is at the edge of the DCR, why wont it engage a target within it's own range". I honestly can't simplify it any more. If you can't answer anything besides your lecture on the mechanic, save yourself the trouble and don't do it, since you've failed to understand the question.

2. Again, no. I'm not wondering why it works the way it does. I'm wondering why it doesn't work the way I think it should. Again, you understood something different from what was asked.

3. An idea can't be a misconception. Your failure to understand the concept I'm proposing gives birth to this notion of yours.

4. You are right, it doesn't matter how many times I repeat myself, if you fail to understand the question *I'm starting to see a pattern here.*

5. Again, you have failed to grasp the concept of the OP. Reading can take you far.

I'd suggest you try the following. Forget about your desire to right me from my wrong, and start over. This time, don't try to teach me something new, or enlighten me in any way. Try to understand what I'm proposing instead, mkay? Oh, and forget about your "lolnerfdrones" paranoia. Not a nerf by any standard. *which, if you think it's a nerf, it simply shines more light on the fact that you have failed to understand the topic all together*

You seem to be unable to make a point without being insulting, especially when the point you're making is factually incorrect. I can understand that it's hard to learn that you were wrong about something, but that's no reason to start to lash out at people who correct you or to transfer your problems onto them.

So, on the on hand, you want the reasoning behind a concept and on the other hand, you don't want to understand it. If you don't want to understand it, why do you need the reasoning behind it? Why do you need the reasoning behind the mechanic if you already understand it? Make up your mind.

…a question that has been answered many times: because the DCR has nothing to do with where the sentry is and because it will engage a target within (and even outside of) its own range.

Setting aside for a moment that one explains the other and that the only reason you are wondering the latter is because you don't get the former, this has been answered too: because the DCR is there to ensure that you have to be close to your target in order to engage it. It has nothing to do with the range of the drone (for a good reason, which has been explained as well).

Ehhhmmm…
Anyway: good thing that no-one has ever claimed that it is. You know, every time you respond with abuse, it's because you've projected one of your mistakes onto me. Here, it is the inability to read what I write. Your idea is indeed based on a misconception. Numerous ones, even. I understand your concept just fine — you want DCR to be a limit on how far away you can be from your drone, rather than a limit on how far away you can be from the target — but since I actually understand the full range of drone range mechanics, I also understand why this concept is a bad one: because it nerfs drone use something fierce and doesn't solve any actual problem. You incorrectly think that this somehow restricts or puts a damper on drone range, which it doesn't for the simple reason that range of the drone and your range are two completely separate measurements.

Ok.
Your idea is awful because you don't understand the mechanics involved. I won't correct the numerous misconceptions that have led you to think that this is a problem that needs to be solved. Suffice to say that restricting how close you have to be to your drone would make them a hellalot less useful and also create balance issues.

I suppose you could rename DCR into something else so you don't make such simple mistakes, but what else would you call it?

Without getting into the pedantic argument that has taken over as usual when Tipps sets his mind to being feisty, I'd just like to see an expansion dedicated to revamping drones to work like they should.

And it would have to be a dedicated expansion considering how much legacy code would need to be rewritten. Worth it in my opinion though as they are an integral weapon of choice for 25% or more of the player base.

Well..that and I'm a selfish Gallente that just wants it fixed...because.

Mr Epeen

Actually, no.



Good job, you absolutely covered that.



Right, like repeatedly telling me that I'm wrong because I don't understand the basic mechanics, when all I'm doing is suggesting a change to said mechanics. Then, going as far as calling it a nerf, and being unable to explain why it would be a nerf.

Again, if you have nothing worthwhile to contribute, it'd be best if you stopped posting all together. Seeing as to how you, in fact, have nothing to contribute, have failed to address any relevant issues to the suggestion and continue berating me about my "lack of understanding", then getting hurt when tossed the same coin, I would simply come to the conclusion that you are purposely wasting my time.

Then again, you have no power here, so I guess I am guilty of letting your stubbornness get under my skin.

Erufen Rito PLZ carve this to your skull.

Drone control range is a valid game mechanic used to impose limits to damage projection because drones have a unique ability that other weapon types don't. And that ability is the fact the actual weapon platform is not installed in the ship but can be put/ordered to be anywhere in the battlefield. And adding drone assist/delegation to the equation makes a pretty convincing argument for keeping DCR as it is

Damage projection is the effective distance BETWEEN YOUR SHIP AND THE TARGET that you can do damage in. Thats where DCR is important as a limit.

If you know why DCR is a valid mechanic that balances range projection, why in the holy name of **** would you propose what you did? I just explained to you WHY it is important.

Go back to the start and actually read this time around.