These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#681 - 2014-02-07 05:41:30 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Maybe if you want to beat us you should actually diversify and use cunning, strategy, deception, diplomacy, etc. instead of being ****-lords who rely on a single broken mechanic.


what like shoving as many people as possible into a single system on one grid to win a fight?

i think h-r was the first time i saw goons be smart and use thier numbers for a real advantage other then blobing.

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#682 - 2014-02-07 05:44:17 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Andski wrote:
any "counter" to the blob will ultimately become the blob hope this helps


Obviously its time to cap standings lists and then cap alliance membership numbers and then just artificially cap things in the sand box until we get it in the position that we want it, we of course not being the players who are creating the content but the developers who have proven over the years that they absolutely do NOT know whats best as anybody at the company who's shown an iota of creativity or forward thinking has been shuffled off by Hiltermar or let slip away.


I can surely support this point of view Andski, lets do it.


not sure if serious

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

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Arkady Romanov
Whole Squid
#683 - 2014-02-07 05:44:50 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Andski wrote:
any "counter" to the blob will ultimately become the blob hope this helps


Obviously its time to cap standings lists and then cap alliance membership numbers and then just artificially cap things in the sand box until we get it in the position that we want it, we of course not being the players who are creating the content but the developers who have proven over the years that they absolutely do NOT know whats best as anybody at the company who's shown an iota of creativity or forward thinking has been shuffled off by Hiltermar or let slip away.


I can surely support this point of view Andski, lets do it.



This is a slippery slope argument, and a bad one at that. I'm a little disappointed in you. Where's the fire, passion and uniquely worded insults and threats of grievious bodily harm?

Whole Squid: Get Inked.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#684 - 2014-02-07 05:45:11 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Hahaha you still think slowcats are a threat to us.



Haha man James you are such a sheep, 3 weeks ago you cried in every forum created about how they couldn't be beat and how it was the end of days and the servers would explode and on an on and on while being told 'no you're wrong' literally the whole time, now here you are like you'd been confident about it the whole time.

I also enjoy knowing you missed the point of all the posts I made in this thread and called my post 'a gem", clarifying the exact level of autism you currently suffer from.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Gematica
Militaris Industries
Northern Coalition.
#685 - 2014-02-07 06:10:38 UTC
Way to go.... getting bullied by cfc and friends...... nice backbone ccp..
Dave Stark
#686 - 2014-02-07 06:17:51 UTC
any word yet on if the limit is being raised to 200 or if ccp are fine with inconveniencing incursion runners contrary to their statement in the op?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#687 - 2014-02-07 06:18:50 UTC
it's pretty shameful that we only used the wrecking ball once and we devastated you with it ))

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Ragnen Delent
13.
#688 - 2014-02-07 06:19:58 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
any word yet on if the limit is being raised to 200 or if ccp are fine with inconveniencing incursion runners contrary to their statement in the op?


I really really doubt they're going to change on this at the very least until it is deployed and its effects seen. I know you're clinging to the statement that they didn't want to negative impact incursion runners, but until you can actually come up with an argument beyond "it is inconvenient" I can't see them doing much.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#689 - 2014-02-07 06:20:00 UTC
Arkady Romanov wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
Andski wrote:
any "counter" to the blob will ultimately become the blob hope this helps


Obviously its time to cap standings lists and then cap alliance membership numbers and then just artificially cap things in the sand box until we get it in the position that we want it, we of course not being the players who are creating the content but the developers who have proven over the years that they absolutely do NOT know whats best as anybody at the company who's shown an iota of creativity or forward thinking has been shuffled off by Hiltermar or let slip away.


I can surely support this point of view Andski, lets do it.



This is a slippery slope argument, and a bad one at that. I'm a little disappointed in you. Where's the fire, passion and uniquely worded insults and threats of grievious bodily harm?



Cap slippery slopes, and definitely cap fire passion and uniquely worded insults.


I mean if you cant get it by now, obviously the fact that the Domi was being out used over everything else is a good reason to put silly bullshit artificial caps on a mechanic. God forbid Rise and Fozzie publicly admit that their 'balance' pass broke things like Damps and Domis and you know, adjust damps and domis.

In fact, Cap recognizing retardation from developers, it could lead to our already capped slippery slopes.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#690 - 2014-02-07 06:22:29 UTC
Maybe we should cap the number of people allowed in any given system at any time, pulling some arbitrary number from my butt I choose 371.

Obviously people piling into one place promotes afk game play because when TiDi is wound up to 1% you technically only have to be at your PC once an hour to issue commands.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Dave Stark
#691 - 2014-02-07 06:24:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Dave Stark
Ragnen Delent wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
any word yet on if the limit is being raised to 200 or if ccp are fine with inconveniencing incursion runners contrary to their statement in the op?


I really really doubt they're going to change on this at the very least until it is deployed and its effects seen. I know you're clinging to the statement that they didn't want to negative impact incursion runners, but until you can actually come up with an argument beyond "it is inconvenient" I can't see them doing much.


I'm fine with them not changing it; i just want them to say so.

i'm not going to sit here and say "if they don't change it then incursions will fall apart" because we both know that's silly.
Stalker Ofeveryone
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#692 - 2014-02-07 06:25:01 UTC
I'm loving the rage and tears. Please post more.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#693 - 2014-02-07 06:29:57 UTC
Things that are hard capped in eve:

fleet sizes
drone bandwidth
drone bays
actual number of drones a ship can launch regardless of bandwidth
corporation size
number of industry/research slots a single character can use
number of industry/research slots in any given station or POS array
number of outposts in a 0.0 system
number of characters on an account
number of doomsdays you can fit on a titan
number of cloaks you can fit on a ship
number of cyno gens you can fit on a ship
number of cynojammers you can have online
number of TCUs you can have online
number of ihubs you can have online
fitting and rig slots, along with turret and launcher hardpoints
number of implants you can plug in
T3 subsystems
tower CPU/PG
bubble range

things that are soft capped in eve:

damage output of any given ship
cargohold size
turret/missile/drone optimal, falloff and tracking speed
other crap that doesn't immediately come to mind but my point is made so shut up Grath tia

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#694 - 2014-02-07 06:33:52 UTC
Andski wrote:
Things that are hard capped in eve:

fleet sizes
drone bandwidth
drone bays
actual number of drones a ship can launch regardless of bandwidth
corporation size
number of industry/research slots a single character can use
number of industry/research slots in any given station or POS array
number of outposts in a 0.0 system
number of characters on an account
number of doomsdays you can fit on a titan
number of cloaks you can fit on a ship
number of cyno gens you can fit on a ship
number of cynojammers you can have online
number of TCUs you can have online
number of ihubs you can have online
fitting and rig slots, along with turret and launcher hardpoints
number of implants you can plug in
T3 subsystems
tower CPU/PG
bubble range

things that are soft capped in eve:

damage output of any given ship
cargohold size
turret/missile/drone optimal, falloff and tracking speed
other crap that doesn't immediately come to mind but my point is made so shut up Grath tia


Mechanics that were capped because of the Dominix: Drones.

Any other ship having this problem would see the ship nerfed, using "People use the Domi too much we're capping drone assists" sounds like some scrub tier ****.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#695 - 2014-02-07 06:37:37 UTC
domi fleets are the only ones using drone assist, says grath telkin

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Ragnen Delent
13.
#696 - 2014-02-07 06:41:30 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:

Mechanics that were capped because of the Dominix: Drones.

Any other ship having this problem would see the ship nerfed, using "People use the Domi too much we're capping drone assists" sounds like some scrub tier ****.


Apparently hitting a button to shoot something with drones is too difficult to perform by more than 1 person?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#697 - 2014-02-07 06:43:47 UTC
maybe 1 drone trigger for every 250 ships was too much of a challenge for PL and they instead need one drone trigger for every friendly drone ship on grid

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#698 - 2014-02-07 06:48:20 UTC
Andski wrote:
domi fleets are the only ones using drone assist, says grath telkin


Thats not what I said at all, but its part of the main reasoning issued by CCP as to the change

CCP Rise wrote:


I can't put a number on it, but currently Dominixes are responsible for somewhere in the ballpark of 5 times the PVP damage dealt of the next most popular fleet battleship, if that's still the case in a few months this will have 'not worked'.


Don't put words in my mouth that came from this guy thanks.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#699 - 2014-02-07 06:49:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Grath Telkin
Hey guys, we here at CCP feel we need to buff drone boats so that they're used as mainline combat ships


Three months later....


OH GOD YOU'RE USING DRONES AS MAINLINE COMBAT SHIPS

perhaps adding a drone bay to every ship in the game was the unwise choice people screamed in their face when they started to redo things.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#700 - 2014-02-07 06:50:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
CCP Rise wrote:
Archons began showing the power of sentry doctrines before that, and the addition of tracking and optimal bonuses for drones on the Ishtar and Dominix catapulted this philosophy into the forefront of fleet warfare. The resulting meta is causing two major problems that we hope to address through this change.


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)


    • yes clearly domis were the only thing causing problems here

    insightful as always, Grath

    Twitter: @EVEAndski

    "It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar