These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Zwo Zateki
Doomheim
#561 - 2014-02-06 22:05:04 UTC
Ragnen Delent wrote:
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.

And there's still no valid rationale for these changes from highsec POV. Again, we don't care how your big alliance bosses amass isk for RMT.

http://cvmkr.com/R4JG
Emperor Solaris
The Red Sun Industry
#562 - 2014-02-06 22:05:11 UTC
to reduce server load from drones i this that it should be as the following: when a player assist 5 drones to his friend then these 5 drones should sue the same trajectory and firing parameter as the host drones. this is just a rough idea but would kill 99% server load from the drones if it doable this way and once they are close enough to each other juts merge them? instead of the server having to calculate 10 drones path that are all one over each others he should only calculate 1 path for these 10 drones?

note: i know jack **** about coding but i do have a good common sense
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#563 - 2014-02-06 22:09:16 UTC
Zwo Zateki wrote:
And there's still no valid rationale for these changes from highsec POV. Again, we don't care how your big alliance bosses amass isk for RMT.


And they care even less about how you make your isk. See how stupid that train of thought is?

"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["
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#564 - 2014-02-06 22:10:25 UTC
guys it's not whining we swear

*fully 1/3rd of the posts are people trying to get drone assist partially un-nerfed to save having to split the attention of 3 additional pilots in a 40 man gang due to what is only legitimately excused by cerebral palsy*
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#565 - 2014-02-06 22:10:52 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
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.



malc what is your opinion about force muliplyers found in the blob should there be some sort deminishing returns on blobing?

as blobing causes TIDI which we can all agree is not fun also which from rises post was one of the major reasons for the rebalance being drone assist caused major lag which made TIDI even worse.

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
William Darkk
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#566 - 2014-02-06 22:12:07 UTC
Zwo Zateki wrote:

And there's still no valid rationale for these changes from highsec POV.

There doesn't need to be.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#567 - 2014-02-06 22:12:17 UTC
http://games.chruker.dk/eve_online/item.php?type_id=27914

enjoy your force multiplier

now even more usable due to the castration of sentry carriers
Zwo Zateki
Doomheim
#568 - 2014-02-06 22:12:29 UTC
Snow Axe wrote:
Zwo Zateki wrote:
And there's still no valid rationale for these changes from highsec POV. Again, we don't care how your big alliance bosses amass isk for RMT.


And they care even less about how you make your isk. See how stupid that train of thought is?

Except incursions is the only kind of highsec PvE that doesn't make you sick in the long term.

http://cvmkr.com/R4JG
Dave Stark
#569 - 2014-02-06 22:14:39 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
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.


i'm not questioning the perfection of the solution. in fact, i honestly couldn't care about the solution.

i'm asking for clarification on the contradiction; their intent to not harm incursion runners is directly conflicting with their intention to reduce the assist limit to 50.
so is 50 an incorrect number, or are they perfectly fine to inconvenience incursion runners? don't really care which it is, i just want a consistent answer.

judging from your response, i'm going to assume keeping the 50 limit is the truth and not inconveniencing incursion runners is a complete fabrication that they'd like to have stuck to but won't. however it would nice for rise to just give us a straight answer himself.
Snow Axe
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#570 - 2014-02-06 22:15:20 UTC
Zwo Zateki wrote:
Except incursions is the only kind of highsec PvE that doesn't make you sick in the long term.


And that has what to do with anything?

(btw I ran incursions. You're dead wrong, they suck just as bad as any other PvE with the added bonus of having to listen to nerds talk the whole time)

"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["
Davader
Space Cleaners
The Gorgon Empire
#571 - 2014-02-06 22:15:30 UTC
Even 50 is too big number.

Why don't you reduce it to simple rule: one ship can have only one pack of drones assised (from 1 to 5 for subcaps excluding guardian vexor).

The assist of drones is too powerfull and makes the dps projection too easy. Each FC of a big fleet dreams about a button 'assist F1 monkeys' which would cause all fleet members to target and to auto-atack the broadcasted target.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#572 - 2014-02-06 22:19:46 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
i'm not questioning the perfection of the solution. in fact, i honestly couldn't care about the solution.

i'm asking for clarification on the contradiction; their intent to not harm incursion runners is directly conflicting with their intention to reduce the assist limit to 50.
so is 50 an incorrect number, or are they perfectly fine to inconvenience incursion runners? don't really care which it is, i just want a consistent answer.

judging from your response, i'm going to assume keeping the 50 limit is the truth and not inconveniencing incursion runners is a complete fabrication that they'd like to have stuck to but won't. however it would nice for rise to just give us a straight answer himself.

There is no contradiction, simply the fact that the potential harms to incursions, while undesirable, were of considerably lower importance than the decided balance point for drone assist. In the end any negative effect is still negligible, at worse making a second drone bunny, so it really hold no weight against the primary goal.
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#573 - 2014-02-06 22:20:03 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
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.


i'm not questioning the perfection of the solution. in fact, i honestly couldn't care about the solution.

i'm asking for clarification on the contradiction; their intent to not harm incursion runners is directly conflicting with their intention to reduce the assist limit to 50.
so is 50 an incorrect number, or are they perfectly fine to inconvenience incursion runners? don't really care which it is, i just want a consistent answer.

judging from your response, i'm going to assume keeping the 50 limit is the truth and not inconveniencing incursion runners is a complete fabrication that they'd like to have stuck to but won't. however it would nice for rise to just give us a straight answer himself.


Seriously if you want to work yourself up into a lather of pedantry when Fozzy's meaning is perfectly clear, then go for it. If there's one thing I've learned from the EVE-O forums, it's that when people are determined to be mad about something, nothing will stop them.

One specific subset of one gameplay style will experience very minor inconvenience. It's a shame, but that's just too bad.

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

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Zwo Zateki
Doomheim
#574 - 2014-02-06 22:20:19 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
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.


i'm not questioning the perfection of the solution. in fact, i honestly couldn't care about the solution.

i'm asking for clarification on the contradiction; their intent to not harm incursion runners is directly conflicting with their intention to reduce the assist limit to 50.
so is 50 an incorrect number, or are they perfectly fine to inconvenience incursion runners? don't really care which it is, i just want a consistent answer.

judging from your response, i'm going to assume keeping the 50 limit is the truth and not inconveniencing incursion runners is a complete fabrication that they'd like to have stuck to but won't. however it would nice for rise to just give us a straight answer himself.

50 = 5 drones x 10 fleet members. If we are talking anything more than VGs then yes, drone control will be impaired.

http://cvmkr.com/R4JG
Dave Stark
#575 - 2014-02-06 22:20:43 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
There is no contradiction, simply the fact that the potential harms to incursions, while undesirable, were of considerably lower importance than the decided balance point for drone assist. In the end any negative effect is still negligible, at worse making a second drone bunny, so it really hold no weight against the primary goal.


the fact that there is a negative effect, regardless of negligibility is the exact contradiction.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#576 - 2014-02-06 22:21:52 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
There is no contradiction, simply the fact that the potential harms to incursions, while undesirable, were of considerably lower importance than the decided balance point for drone assist. In the end any negative effect is still negligible, at worse making a second drone bunny, so it really hold no weight against the primary goal.


the fact that there is a negative effect, regardless of negligibility is the exact contradiction.

No, that's not a contradiction, it's prioritization.
Charadrass
Angry Germans
#577 - 2014-02-06 22:22:44 UTC
First: why is a CSM acting so angry.
Second: what is wrong with the bandwidth suggestion i made.
Dave Stark
#578 - 2014-02-06 22:23:23 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
There is no contradiction, simply the fact that the potential harms to incursions, while undesirable, were of considerably lower importance than the decided balance point for drone assist. In the end any negative effect is still negligible, at worse making a second drone bunny, so it really hold no weight against the primary goal.


the fact that there is a negative effect, regardless of negligibility is the exact contradiction.

No, that's not a contradiction, it's prioritization.


what you described is a prioritization, yes. however read what is wrote in the original post. it contradicts itself on that very point. he even puts emphasis on not wanting to have a negative impact incursion runners above all others.
Zwo Zateki
Doomheim
#579 - 2014-02-06 22:24:21 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
There is no contradiction, simply the fact that the potential harms to incursions, while undesirable, were of considerably lower importance than the decided balance point for drone assist. In the end any negative effect is still negligible, at worse making a second drone bunny, so it really hold no weight against the primary goal.


the fact that there is a negative effect, regardless of negligibility is the exact contradiction.

What makes it infuriating is that they're bowing to nullsec grunts and break highsec playstyle at the same time. Why can't just CCP realise that nullsec is just a vocal minority, irrelevant for the most subscribers?

http://cvmkr.com/R4JG
GetHighNow
Perkone
Caldari State
#580 - 2014-02-06 22:27:37 UTC
HOW DARE YOU CCP.