These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Borachon
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#541 - 2014-02-06 21:33:40 UTC
Theodoric Darkwind wrote:
Ok now that you are nerfing drone assist are you going to nerf the reason for drone assist?

Nerf the hell out of Sensor Damps, its the only fair thing to do. Drone assist was the only defense against the CFCs **** You Fleet.

Currently the Celestis is soo overpowered it alone has killed off all doctrines that are not either drone assist, or unable to engage from outside of 200km. Under current mechanics one Celestis can completely shut down 2 of any ship that isn't immune to EWAR.

You nerfed ECM for less than what the Celestis is currently capable of.


If only there were a module which boosted lock range and or sensor strength. It'd be even better if CCP made one which could be scripted either way, and if there was a remote one which helped your sensor buddy even more strongly.
Dave stark
#542 - 2014-02-06 21:34:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Tippia wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
well no, he's not. you just told me he'd be controlling an entire cloud of drones.
…which he is.
Thus, Rise's comment about wanting to preserve drone managers is entirely correct.

You can twist it as much as you like, but it's still the case.


erm, he isn't because 50 is 1/4 not 1/1 of the drone cloud. you can do maths, i know you can.

so his comment is completely incorrect.

i'm not twisting a thing. 50 =/= 200. fairly straight forward.
Obunagawe
#543 - 2014-02-06 21:36:30 UTC
WTB Archon toon for transfer cost.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#544 - 2014-02-06 21:38:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Dave Stark wrote:
erm, he isn't because 50 is
…an entire cloud. An entire cloud controlled by one person.
So his comment is entirely correct.

Quote:
i'm not twisting a thing. 50 =/= 200.
You're twisting it by suggesting that by not being able to control every done in the field, drone managers are somehow removed from the game. This is hysterical and nonsensical hyperbole. Same goes for the claim that having to have two people look after the drones is somehow this huge negative impact.

One guy can still control an entire cloud. The impact is zero.
Sheeana Harb
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#545 - 2014-02-06 21:40:18 UTC
Promiscuous Female wrote:
i guess i don't understand the incursion whining

did you consider adapting your techniques to use four drone assists instead of one

it's not like it's a massive change, and being a drone assist requires you to give up at most two targets and one civilian railgun to trigger with


There is no incursiom whining, weight your words. And yes, having more drone buddies did cross my mind. However when the solution doesn't meet the initial goal(not affecting incursions), then it might not be the optimal one.
Dave stark
#546 - 2014-02-06 21:42:40 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
erm, he isn't because 50 is
…an entire cloud. An entire cloud controlled by one person.
So his comment is entirely correct.

Quote:
i'm not twisting a thing. 50 =/= 200.
You're twisting it by suggesting that by not being able to control every done in the field, drone managers are somehow removed from the game. This is hysterical and nonsensical hyperbole. Same goes for the claim that having to have two people look after the drones is somehow this huge negative impact.

One guy can still control an entire cloud. The impact is zero.


that's not twisting anything. they said they didn't want to negatively impact incursion runners. for that to be so they have to control 200 drones.

you can deny it all you want, that is the fact of the matter.
hydraSlav
Synergy Evolved
#547 - 2014-02-06 21:44:46 UTC
Just throwing this out there:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4192785#post4192785

Capped drone assist does not prevent multiple people in fleet controlling 50 drones each, nor does it remove drones from the field.

CCP states that too many drones on field is a problem. My linked proposal actually removes drones from the field.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#548 - 2014-02-06 21:45:28 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
that's not twisting anything. they said they didn't want to negatively impact incursion runners.
…and having two controllers is such a minute impact that it's not even measurable. It'll take any competent incursioner all of two seconds to adapt.
Shadowschild
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#549 - 2014-02-06 21:46:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Shadowschild
50 drones is reasonable & I agree that once the drones are assigned, we are basically doing fk all..
But the issue of bandwidth is what concerns me. Why is a domi limited to 125mb/s, but 50 people can assign their drones and suddenly im in control of 125x50 (6250mps) extra bandwidth? Just remove drone assist all together
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#550 - 2014-02-06 21:46:31 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Tippia wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
erm, he isn't because 50 is
…an entire cloud. An entire cloud controlled by one person.
So his comment is entirely correct.

Quote:
i'm not twisting a thing. 50 =/= 200.
You're twisting it by suggesting that by not being able to control every done in the field, drone managers are somehow removed from the game. This is hysterical and nonsensical hyperbole. Same goes for the claim that having to have two people look after the drones is somehow this huge negative impact.

One guy can still control an entire cloud. The impact is zero.


that's not twisting anything. they said they didn't want to negatively impact incursion runners. for that to be so they have to control 200 drones.

you can deny it all you want, that is the fact of the matter.


Well I'm confident that the highly skilled, well organised, very motivated Incursions community will be able to adapt to this minor obstacle.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Dave stark
#551 - 2014-02-06 21:47:20 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
that's not twisting anything. they said they didn't want to negatively impact incursion runners.
…and having two controllers is such a minute impact that it's not even measurable. It'll take any competent incursioner all of two seconds to adapt.


and that's still a negative impact. also, it's more than two but let's not let facts get in the way since you haven't so far.

hence the contradiction that needs addressing.
Dave stark
#552 - 2014-02-06 21:48:09 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Well I'm confident that the highly skilled, well organised, very motivated Incursions community will be able to adapt to this minor obstacle.


i agree.

that doesn't stop the original post of this thread, by rise, contradicting itself. does it?
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#553 - 2014-02-06 21:49:07 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
and that's still a negative impact.
No, it's zero impact.

Quote:
hence the contradiction that needs addressing.
It's addressed by the fact that it will have no impact.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#554 - 2014-02-06 21:49:21 UTC
when will I be able to assign my railguns to the squad commander?
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#555 - 2014-02-06 21:49:57 UTC
hydraSlav wrote:
Just throwing this out there:
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4192785#post4192785

Capped drone assist does not prevent multiple people in fleet controlling 50 drones each, nor does it remove drones from the field.

CCP states that too many drones on field is a problem. My linked proposal actually removes drones from the field.


They're banking on this idea making drone assist fleets far less popular (hint: it's going to work, at least for subcaps), which would lead to less drones on the field naturally.

Of course, it may not work. That's the whole thing with iteration though - small step, if it works? great. If not? take another small step, repeat until the problem is either gone or small enough.

"Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread["
Dave stark
#556 - 2014-02-06 21:50:15 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
and that's still a negative impact.
No, it's zero impact.

Quote:
hence the contradiction that needs addressing.
It's addressed by the fact that it will have no impact.


that's incorrect, because you've just reduced the fleet's dps in order to create an extra drone bunny for people to assign drones to.

so it is a negative impact.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#557 - 2014-02-06 21:54:47 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
that's incorrect, because you've just reduced the fleet's dps in order to create an extra drone bunny for people to assign drones to.
That's impact caused by your poor choice of fleet design — choose better.

Quote:
so it is a negative impact.
Not from this change no.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#558 - 2014-02-06 21:56:30 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Well I'm confident that the highly skilled, well organised, very motivated Incursions community will be able to adapt to this minor obstacle.


i agree.

that doesn't stop the original post of this thread, by rise, contradicting itself. does it?


Well no solution is 100.00% perfect mate, that's the nature of compromises. We did our best to cause the minimum damage to gameplay modes that weren't a problem. In this case the damage is pretty trivial. I doubt anyone on the CSM or at CCP is going to lose much sleep over the hideous torment inflicted by this change on the helpless innocent incursions community.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Dave stark
#559 - 2014-02-06 21:56:49 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
that's incorrect, because you've just reduced the fleet's dps in order to create an extra drone bunny for people to assign drones to.
That's impact caused by your poor choice of fleet design — choose better.

Quote:
so it is a negative impact.
Not from this change no.


so there's more hassle as people are managing drones instead of assigning them to a drone bunny, that's still a negative impact.

tippia, usually i like your posts but you're being systematically wrong and an early morning at work means i can't spend all night here correcting you.

good night.
Ragnen Delent
13.
#560 - 2014-02-06 22:02:13 UTC
Or you incursion runners could, you know, not run a single dedicated ship to manage drones. This whole semantic arguement is ridiculous and does nothing but make Incursion runners look like whiny babies that can't handle changing tactics. Heaven forbid acommon ship used by incursion runners get changed too.

There was never going to be an agreed upon value for maximum drone control. The rationalization of 50 creates a compromise that satisfys a number of parties without making the change pointless. It minimizes damage to incursion runners bottom line as much as a change like this could.