Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Right, we've established that any action that promotes afk gameplay or places the abilities of your ship in another players hands is not.

Fleet anchors would then fall in the 'not' category because you're not driving your spaceship, somebody else is.



A Small group of hulls?

Name the hulls in EVE without drone bays.

Then name the hulls in EVE with drone bays.

See if you still feel its only a 'small group'.


(I'll spoiler it for you):

The recent ship changes have given almost every ship in EVE a drone bay, so by your logic since its ok for you to AFK your ship and let somebody else drive it because it works across a large number of hulls, Drone assist should be even more ok since its not only used in PVP but PVE and its usable by nearly every hull in the game.

Also how do you know CCP can't do anything about it? If they can tell you that you're not allowed to anchor a structure near a gate or smartbomb near a station or that you can't light a cyno because you're going to fast I imagine it would be a relatively trivial task to state that you can't anchor or orbit a fleet member or even a moving target at all.

Picking and choosing which afk mechanics and which mechanics you allow one man to control all of for a fleet reeks of hypocrisy, just in case you were wondering, not to mention the outright lie that drone assists is used on a "small group of hulls". Its used on tons of hulls for tons of reasons, it just doesn't fit the James Version of Reality so as per usual with your posting you simply ignore it.

Your posting is getting more and more inane.

I think a cap is a good idea, but not for hardware or "insta win" reasons.

Remote support modiules, like remote sensor boosting, projected ECCM, etc, have stacking penalties, per affected ship. Why don't we have the same issue with drones?

Anything over 3 modules has very little return, and over 5 is practically 0% increase in strength.

Now, it would be silly and rather difficult to have the first assist be at 5, the second at 4, and so on. So, in my view, the cap should be 5 assists (25), not 50. Honestly, I would prefer 3 assists (15) to make up for the diminishing return aspect. This way, it is more in line with other remote assistance mods.

** now, I do realize the stacking penalties only apply to % increased items, not +x increased items. Yes, drones are more like +5, +10, etc, but I am looking at the aspect of remote help, not % vs +n **

such a harabad idea things like say remote sebos have stacking penalties bc they effect ur ship in the case of remote sebos by increasing ur targeting range or sig res so they basicly make ur ship better. on the other hand assigning drone does not effect ur ship any way shape or form, so ur ship is not any better so no need for stacking penalties. its like asking for stacking penalties for having too many guns on ur ship or bc there are too many people on a km, its just a really stupid idea

Redirect and obfuscate, Grath.

No, it actually wasn't, youre exact words are in the quote and you said absolutely nothing about sentry drones, and this isn't just about sentry drones, which is the point of what all the other people not in the CFC are mad about.

why should it matter the type of drone.

I can assign any drone.
All drones count as tracked objects.

If this is about simply sentry drones than it becomes more and more apparent that this change doesn't actually solve any issues in the game at all, and is only being implemented to appease the crying voices of 65K dudes who spent the last 4 months using nothing but drone fleets to prove manufactured point.

Going back to one of Graths earlier questions.

CCP Rise can we see a numeric representation of the use of drone from End 2012 to Present. Is drone use growth a constant growth pattern? Or does it spike over the past 4 months only when the largest group of players in the game decided to use nothing but Dominix Fleets forthat period?

Do we have any data on that?

I get your point, and in an ideal world you're right, but there are technical limitations that mean things like orbit and keep at range have a purpose. Until such time as having 2000 brackets on screen doesn't crap out half the participants computers, there needs to be some form of navigation for those of us who can't operate in a large fleet battle without being fully zoomed out, and half the graphics turned off - there has to remain some means to navigate just through interaction with the overview.

Sure, its a ****** arguement, I'll confess, but otherwise you are demanding that a lot of players can only take part in large battles if they fly things that don't have to move from the point they get in system (actually, scrap orbit, and keep at range is maybe an edge case, but I'm adamant about approach at the very least).

ITT: We learn that black is white because neither of them are colours.

Chronology:
N3/PL uses sentry-wielding carriers
CFC finally escalate in a way which causes "a few" N3/PL titans to die
N3 and PL call for a withdrawal
CCP announce drone assist changes

And yet, on twitter, Grath keeps claiming that this change was implemented "to help one side of a war", despite the fact that drone assist wasn't why the withdrawal happened, and the war's essentially over well before it was announced.