These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Harrigan VonStudly
Stay Frosty.
A Band Apart.
#161 - 2014-02-06 15:28:04 UTC  |  Edited by: Harrigan VonStudly
Frygok wrote:
I don't care much for drone doctrines, so personally I don't get too fuzzed about this. However, what makes me annoyed is that you seem incredibly keen on nerfing symptoms, rather than actual issues.

Letting one person control the combined drones of an entire fleet is bad. Okay, fair enough. But why oh why, is it absolutely fine for one person in the entire fleet be the prober, the fleet warper and the broadcaster of targets for the entire fleet? How is that in any way different from drone assisting, in terms of what is required of a player? Oh no, you have to shift+clik and push F1, mad skills there!

If you really wanted to make players more involved in these fights, you would put more responsibility on the individual pilot, for instance removing fleet warp and broadcasting targets, and only being able to warp/broadcast to your own wing.

I would think that changing how fleets work altogether should be the goal, to require more pilot involvement, but instead you are trying to cure underlying mechanics by putting on a bandaid on the most superficial wound. It is the exact same pattern as with the changes to supers vs. the underlying problem of sov mechanics and too easy movement of big fleets.



Drones, especially sentries, are a main weapons platform. It's one thing to "broadcast" a target to an entire fleet. A broadcast is simply an electronic message, so to say. Fleet warp isn't broken. I've never seen anybody complain about entire fleets being able to be warped by one dude. It's too bad you can't see the difference between main weapon systems of an entire fleet being controlled by one dude with a fast lock ship and fleet broadcasts.

Assigned sentry fleets are literally one guy playing the game (fighting the battle) while the rest of the fleet goes off to make a sammich. Guess it's back to lock/press F1/keep at range time again for you sammich makers.
Tremer Latan
Hedion University
Amarr Empire
#162 - 2014-02-06 15:28:32 UTC
Kari Trace wrote:
C0NRAD wrote:
We feel that drone assist, at a large scale, leads to passive gameplay that most players do not enjoy

absolutly agree.

BUT u just incresing target callers count. 50 dominix - 250 drones - 5 target callers.


This.



With one drone assist you can get a perfect alpha from all 200 domis in your fleet. WIth more callers (20 in this case) there is the chance of them making mistakes, not targeting fast enough or beeing killed. Your damage will spread and the enemy ship has a chance to catch reps.
Powers Sa
#163 - 2014-02-06 15:28:51 UTC
The Ironfist wrote:
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Crysantos Callahan wrote:
So we just use 5x Wing leaders with drone assists on them for a full fleet?

Just saying...


As long as the members of those wings only have one drone each, then sure!


Since you are removing the upsides of drones what about the downsides? Will they get any boosts? Like more better resists for drones to increase their lifetime on the field? Given how stupidly easy it is to strip drone doctrines that are not capital based of their dps?

shut up baki

Do you like winning t2 frigs and dictors for Dirt Cheap?https://eveninggames.net/register/ref/dQddmNgyLhFBqNJk

Remeber: Gambling addiction is no laughing matter unless you've lost a vast space fortune on the internet.
Imouto Tan
Doomheim
#164 - 2014-02-06 15:28:55 UTC
Sheeana Harb wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:

We believe a flat cap will:

  • Limit large scale assist substantially
  • Leave room for smaller scale assisting (there are several use-cases for assist that we wanted to preserve, such as incursion drone managers)
  • Be very easy to communicate to players
  • Affect carriers more heavily than sub-caps (because they can field 10 drones per ship rather than 5)
    • and will make further adjustments.

    As an active incursion runner I strongly believe this change will (negatively) affect incursions as it's not uncommon to see more than 70 drones(small and medium) at a single site.
    On the other hand, heavy drones and sentries aren't used due to their slow dps application(heavies) or the need to keep moving(sentries).

    Is it possible to have separate caps for sentries and small/medium drones? The current 50 for sentries and let's say 100 for small/medium drones?


    Use two people for drone assist then?

    The idea is to not have ~1000-1250 drones assisted to the same person, and making them go down to having 50 target callers reduces the advantage of drone volleys, etc.

    If you need 70 drones, or even 100 drones, having 2 callers instead of 1 is hardly an inconvenience.
    Anthar Thebess
    #165 - 2014-02-06 15:29:58 UTC
    What about Ewar against drones?
    Drones assisted to mother ships still will be immune to any form of ewar?

    Can we sentries have option that if they will be not "unassisted by the target caller " they cannot be scoped?
    Assist ->10s for assist to take place -> unassist -> 10s for drones to be scoped.

    This will make drone doctrines easier target for bombers.

    Can you at the same reduce the abuse of way that carriers can abandon drones?

    Numbers of drones in space can kill you before you land on the grid.

    I suggest :
    If your ship can use 5 drones - you can have 5 drones active and 5 abandoned.
    If you abandon 5 active drones they will self destruct , as you already have 5 abandoned drones.

    Stop discrimination, help in a fight against terrorists

    Show your support to The Cause!
    marly cortez
    Ministry of War
    Amarr Empire
    #166 - 2014-02-06 15:30:51 UTC
    Wish peeps would stop grizzling about the way that CCP's designs are utilized, after all it's a game feature your talking about here, one dreamed up by the Dev's that they did not apply enough thought to at the time.

    Better to grizzle at CCP to update the games coding and the servers rather than complain that players use the games features to there best advantage.

    To CCP directly, if your going to insert new features in to the game do not be so intent on trinkets, think about the impact of your designs on game play and server load, better more updates that improve content and work over change just because you thought it was a good idea.

    Humanity is the thin veneer that remains after you remove the baffled chimp.
    Frygok
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #167 - 2014-02-06 15:31:06 UTC
    HVAC Repairman wrote:

    normally id be with you, but there are a number of hearing impaired people who require broadcasts to be able to do anything in big fleet pvp


    They would still be able to do it, my quickly made-up idea would be that one person would only be able to broadcast to his own wing, or maybe into an even lower tier of a fleet (squads might be too few, but maybe 25 dudes in each wing, who is the max amount that gets the broadcast, the warp-in etc.).
    Trinity Faetal
    Faetal Interstellar Science Institute
    #168 - 2014-02-06 15:31:59 UTC
    this feels a lot like a rushed approach from CCP backtracking after the hed-gp drone debacle and B-R fight.

    people have been complaining for months on end and this is the best you can come up with ? a nerf that affect a lot more people then for whom it is intended and caused this reaction.

    for all affected this just means you need 1 fast locker for every 10 ships, which null blobs already have! so their impact is minimal. you will still have stilletos with 4 sensor boosters and 20 scimitars repping it alpha-ing fleets ^^.

    nerf the 5x drone limit to 1 drone per player. make the drone dps/hp 5x higher, problem solved. this worked pretty well in the past for 15x ogre megathrons.
    Malcanis
    Vanishing Point.
    The Initiative.
    #169 - 2014-02-06 15:32:01 UTC
    Altrue wrote:
    Abernie wrote:

    2 people have to take care of their own drones. ISK/h ruined. -17 accounts. Thanks CCP.


    Lol sad people brutally discovering that they actually need to play the game to make isks.

    Being able to let someone else control your ship while afking is stupid by definition. This mechanism shouldn't exist in the first place.


    I think your sarcasm detector could do with a little retuning Blink

    "Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

    Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
    Artcanin
    GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
    Goonswarm Federation
    #170 - 2014-02-06 15:32:13 UTC
    At the end of the day once again reason, justice, logic, truth and the good guys have prevailed.
    Aleph Paradox
    Wired Reality
    #171 - 2014-02-06 15:32:22 UTC
    Harvey James wrote:
    Malcanis wrote:
    Harvey James wrote:


    so aren't the CSM at all concerned with the frigate abuse of drone assist?


    No we aren't. Not even slightly.



    WOW!!! so you think a condor controlling the alpha of 50 sentries with a lock time of what 2 secs is balanced?



    Building from your point. Would a "lock time" delay on the drones first shot help with that. ? Like a 3-5 secs delay to simulate the drone actually "locking" the target. hence removing the "insta-lock" effect from assisting fast tacklers.

    Just a tought.

    Aleph Paradox CEO / Director of Operations Wired Reality
    Altrue
    Exploration Frontier inc
    Tactical-Retreat
    #172 - 2014-02-06 15:33:26 UTC
    Can I make my guns assist my fleet commander? No.
    It should be the same for sentries.

    In the worst acceptable proposition it should be assit by brandwidth calibrated for 50 lightdrones. The best would be no assist at all.

    Signature Tanking Best Tanking

    [Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

    Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
    Malcanis
    Vanishing Point.
    The Initiative.
    #173 - 2014-02-06 15:33:36 UTC
    Harvey James wrote:
    Ali Aras wrote:
    Harvey James wrote:
    Malcanis wrote:
    Harvey James wrote:


    so aren't the CSM at all concerned with the frigate abuse of drone assist?


    No we aren't. Not even slightly.



    WOW!!! so you think a condor controlling the alpha of 50 sentries with a lock time of what 2 secs is balanced?

    Dude, just shoot the condor.



    missing the point entirely here.......


    What's the lock range on a Condor?

    "Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

    Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
    Frygok
    Republic Military School
    Minmatar Republic
    #174 - 2014-02-06 15:35:07 UTC
    Harrigan VonStudly wrote:
    Frygok wrote:
    I don't care much for drone doctrines, so personally I don't get too fuzzed about this. However, what makes me annoyed is that you seem incredibly keen on nerfing symptoms, rather than actual issues.

    Letting one person control the combined drones of an entire fleet is bad. Okay, fair enough. But why oh why, is it absolutely fine for one person in the entire fleet be the prober, the fleet warper and the broadcaster of targets for the entire fleet? How is that in any way different from drone assisting, in terms of what is required of a player? Oh no, you have to shift+clik and push F1, mad skills there!

    If you really wanted to make players more involved in these fights, you would put more responsibility on the individual pilot, for instance removing fleet warp and broadcasting targets, and only being able to warp/broadcast to your own wing.

    I would think that changing how fleets work altogether should be the goal, to require more pilot involvement, but instead you are trying to cure underlying mechanics by putting on a bandaid on the most superficial wound. It is the exact same pattern as with the changes to supers vs. the underlying problem of sov mechanics and too easy movement of big fleets.



    Drones, especially sentries, are a main weapons platform. It's one thing to "broadcast" a target to an entire fleet. A broadcast is simply an electronic message, so to say. Fleet warp isn't broken. I've never seen anybody complain about entire fleets being able to be warped by one dude. It's too bad you can't see the difference between main weapon systems of an entire fleet being controlled by one dude with a fast lock ship and fleet broadcasts.

    Assigned sentry fleets are literally one guy playing the game (fighting the battle) while the rest of the fleet goes off to make a sammich. Guess it's back to lock/press F1/keep at range time again for you sammich makers.


    And seriously, how is Shift-click, press F1, wait 10 minutes in any way, shape or form less passive than the Ishtar/Domi sentry fleets where you assign drones, then tackle and a hostile and go afk 10 minutes? The first argument in the Dev post is that they want to move away from passive gameplay. How is having 1 person probing down the hostile fleet, warping the entire fleet to said hostile fleet, broacasting all the targets neeeded encouraging active gameplay for the individual pilots?

    Yay, we fixed drones. Now the battles in 10% Tidi requires you to press 1 more button in Baltec, Proteus, Eagle or whateverfleet, and then go afk, due to the fact that 1 individual basically can run the entire fleet, except for the 2 clicks with a mouse.

    How awesome and revolutionary this will be for the actual activity of individual pilots in fleet fights!
    Artcanin
    GSF Logistics and Posting Reserves
    Goonswarm Federation
    #175 - 2014-02-06 15:35:34 UTC
    Oh Takashawa wrote:
    CCP Rise wrote:
  • Affect carriers more heavily than sub-caps (because they can field 10 drones per ship rather than 5)
    • Can we take this as a sign, then, that CCP holds the opinion that capitals should offer even fewer advantages to offset the increased cost, effort, risk, and skills required to effectively field them, as compared to simply fielding big piles of subcaps?

    Also, a broader question - do you intend to leave any force multipliers in EVE, Rise, or simply reduce it to whoever has more dudes in T1 subcaps, or alternatively, in bombers? It seems to be trending a lot that way lately, and I'm just curious if that's intentional or simply persistent oversight.



    lol
    Aleph Paradox
    Wired Reality
    #176 - 2014-02-06 15:35:41 UTC
    marly cortez wrote:
    Wish peeps would stop grizzling about the way that CCP's designs are utilized, after all it's a game feature your talking about here, one dreamed up by the Dev's that they did not apply enough thought to at the time.

    Better to grizzle at CCP to update the games coding and the servers rather than complain that players use the games features to there best advantage.

    To CCP directly, if your going to insert new features in to the game do not be so intent on trinkets, think about the impact of your designs on game play and server load, better more updates that improve content and work over change just because you thought it was a good idea.



    No one can forsee all aspect of any new feature, no matter how long you think about it.

    And we are damn innovative as a player base. :)

    Aleph Paradox CEO / Director of Operations Wired Reality
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #177 - 2014-02-06 15:35:50 UTC
    Aleph Paradox wrote:
    Harvey James wrote:
    Malcanis wrote:
    Harvey James wrote:


    so aren't the CSM at all concerned with the frigate abuse of drone assist?


    No we aren't. Not even slightly.



    WOW!!! so you think a condor controlling the alpha of 50 sentries with a lock time of what 2 secs is balanced?



    Building from your point. Would a "lock time" delay on the drones first shot help with that. ? Like a 3-5 secs delay to simulate the drone actually "locking" the target. hence removing the "insta-lock" effect from assisting fast tacklers.

    Just a tought.



    not really the difference between the lock time of a frig ------> battleship or a capital is much larger..

    T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

    ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

    Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
    Altrue
    Exploration Frontier inc
    Tactical-Retreat
    #178 - 2014-02-06 15:36:39 UTC
    Malcanis wrote:

    What's the lock range on a Condor?


    Please we all know that if you truly cared about drone assist abuses you'd have either disabled it for sentrys, or if you cared about logi still being able to whore... I mean assist... filtered it by brandwidth instead of raw drone count.

    He said Condor, he could've said anything else really. A loki would do it just fine.

    Signature Tanking Best Tanking

    [Ex-F] CEO - Eve-guides.fr

    Ultimate Citadel Guide - 2016 EVE Career Chart
    Harvey James
    The Sengoku Legacy
    #179 - 2014-02-06 15:37:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Harvey James
    Malcanis wrote:
    Harvey James wrote:
    Ali Aras wrote:
    [quote=Harvey James]

    so aren't the CSM at all concerned with the frigate abuse of drone assist?


    No we aren't. Not even slightly.



    WOW!!! so you think a condor controlling the alpha of 50 sentries with a lock time of what 2 secs is balanced?

    [quote]Dude, just shoot the condor.


    missing the point entirely here.......

    What's the lock range on a Condor?


    still missing the point....

    T3's need to be versatile so no rigs are necessary ... they should not have OP dps and tank

    ABC's should be T2, remove drone assist, separate HAM's and Torps range, -3 HS for droneboats

    Nerf web strength, Make the blaster Eagle worth using
    Marc Callan
    Center for Advanced Studies
    Gallente Federation
    #180 - 2014-02-06 15:37:05 UTC  |  Edited by: Marc Callan
    Malcanis wrote:


    What's the lock range on a Condor?


    'Bout forty km baseline, assuming good skills and fleet boosts and no SeBo or SigAmp.

    ETA: sorry, my sarcasm detector's in the shop. It got overloaded in a Warfare & Tactics discussion.

    "We are what we pretend to be, so we must be careful about what we pretend to be." - Kurt Vonnegurt