These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE Information Portal

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Dev Blog: Giving Drones an Assist

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Deerin
East Trading Co Ltd
#281 - 2014-04-02 05:28:25 UTC
Good changes

Any chance for you guys to look at ewar drones?!?
Baneken
Arctic Light Inc.
Arctic Light
#282 - 2014-04-02 05:45:29 UTC
So what about mining drones and salvage drones, what happens to their speed and other stats ?
Because currently you get 20% yield for mining drones from drone interfacing and you are still going leave the adv. drone interfacing as it is ?
Even if nobody and I mean nobody except "all to V or bust" crowd and some most desperate carrier ratters even think about ever raising that skill over 3.
Frankly the most useless skill in all of EVE that only effect one ship type and one module that hardly sees any use beyond maybe 3 max. unless those ships also appear in conjunction with a fail mail.
Omnathious Deninard
University of Caille
Gallente Federation
#283 - 2014-04-02 05:53:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Omnathious Deninard
After some thought regarding the changes.
As a blanket effect they are good over all, but when broken down some of them are less appealing.

Like was stated earlier in the thread, the go to drones will still be Gallente drones and Minmatar drones, Amarr and Caldari drones will still see little use, Amarr drones admittedly will see more use than before.
To truly solve that issue, you would need drones to all deal the same DPS and give differences to other areas, much the way Fighter Drones are handled.

Heavy Drones, the increased MWD velocity is nice, but the reality of it is; it wont help that much. Close range battleship engagements tend to be in the 20~30km range with an optimal range of 1km they need to travel 15~25km before engaging their target and with the buff that will still take 10 or more seconds. Optimal range increases would help heavy drones much more than the MWD velocity.

The skill split for medium and light drones hurts new players harder than you may realize, with so many of Gallente's drone ships using mixed sized drones. A possible solution to this is making drone control a ship based feature similar to how turret and launcher hard points are rather than a skill based feature. Then ships like the Algos and Vexor could use "proper" sized drones and get some extra drones to compensate for no longer using larger than normal drones. EX: Algos Drone Control 6, Bandwidth 30, Dronebay 60. Or Myrmidon Drone Control 8, Bandwidth 80, Drone Bay 200.

Edit: Drone HP distribution should be looked at also, Ogre IIs have 1421 hull HP with 576 Armor HP and only 269 shield HP. Could you not distribute this like Gallente ships have? Most have about a 25% Shield 35% Armor 40% Hull ratio which would put the HP at Shield:566 Armor:793 Hull:906

If you don't follow the rules, neither will I.
Iomi Alabosa
Zero Gee Removal Enterprises
#284 - 2014-04-02 06:00:47 UTC
Love improvements. Overall these sound fine. Just one thing:

In all the excitement over rebalancing, please don't lose sight of the fact that currently "Drone interface" is an oxymoron. It would be really nice to see a proper HUD or at least a new drone UI that is more than a Windows Explorer window. It should be far easier to exert finer control over individual drones and to attack/recall/repair them than it is currently.

Please?
Gremmel
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#285 - 2014-04-02 06:16:39 UTC  |  Edited by: Gremmel
As someone who barely uses them this looks fine to me, although how lucky am I that I JUST started an alt that is going to be focused on Gallente frig/cruiser combat. The much needed UI overhaul however is sadly lacking from this blog, there's a lot of different ideas on how to redo the current boring spreadsheet into something exciting that functions just the same but takes less space.
Narcil
Coldstone Cold Stone's
#286 - 2014-04-02 06:16:47 UTC
iskflakes wrote:
I've run the numbers on Nyx vs Aeon after the changes, specifically looking at their role in fleet fights and capital ganks. As far as I can see the Aeon now wins every time.

With the changes to drone damage amps the aeon can have the DPS the Nyx used to have, and also have a better tank at the same time. Unless you want to do some kind of comedy "max dps" fit there will be little reason to ever choose a Nyx over an Aeon.

Details:

An aeon with two drone damage amps fit will get around 29.7m EHP (implants, no boosts). With two drone damage amps it will do ~43% above base damage. A nyx with full tank fit gets around 28.7 million EHP, and does 25% above base damage (hull bonus).

What if we want to put a DDA on the nyx? Now it tanks 23.4 million. That's equivalent to an aeon with 3 DDAs. The aeon is now doing 56% above base damage. The Nyx is doing 48% above base damage. Again, the aeon wins on tank and damage.

If we add a second DDA to the nyx, it now edges out ahead in DPS of an aeon with 4 DDAs, though the aeon still wins in tank.

The aeon tanks better, it has higher resists and it does more DPS in 90% of situations. It also has the extremely valuable remote cap transfer range bonus and the option to refit to a huge tank. The nyx has an additional 5 spare fighters (or 2 bombers), an extra midslot, and the comparatively useless shield transfer range bonus. It can't match the aeon's tank in any situation.

The spare midslot on the nyx could be used for damage application, though there is no midslot module that will significantly affect fighter bomber damage. The midslot can be used for cap rechargers, but the aeon can use cap power relays which are substantially better (while still maintaining equal DPS and superior tank).

After these changes we may see a decrease in ship diversity as people switch to Aeons.

What if you fit 2 DCUs to the supers. i think the nyx with no dda would outdps the aeon with one dda (with 2 DCUs each), but the difference is pretty small. Although they really need bigger drone bay and fleet hangar if they want to make DCUs viable.
Josef Djugashvilis
#287 - 2014-04-02 06:20:40 UTC  |  Edited by: Josef Djugashvilis
What worries me is that the complete pig's ear CCP have made with drone 'balancing' over the past 18 months or so, seems to suggest that they are simply incapable of thinking through any of the latest 'whizz bang - super exciting' ideas any of their staff seem to draw up at random on the back of a very small postcard.

CCP need to recognize that Eve players are very good at coming up with the best way to utilize any ship and weapon configuration to get the most from them.

Simply and constantly nerfing the flavour of the month into the ground, is indicative of a failure on the part of CCP to understand their own game.

As the Japanese taught us in my job, (pharmaceuticals) think twice, act once.

This is not a signature.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#288 - 2014-04-02 06:28:04 UTC
Unezka Turigahl wrote:
Tippia wrote:

It's like this:

Before:
Garde I — 50 damage ×1.60 modifier ×1.8 (Drone Interfacing IV) ×1.05 (Sentry Interfacing I) = 151.2 damage at minimum skills.
Garde I — 50 damage ×1.60 modifier ×2 (DI V) ×1.25 (SI V) = 200 damage at max skills.
Garde II — 50 damage ×1.92 modifier ×2 (DI V) ×1.25 (SI V) = 240 damage at max skills.

After:
Garde I — 64 damage ×1.7 modifier ×1.4 (DI IV) ×1.05 (SI I) = 159.9 damage at minimum skills.
Garde I — 64 damage ×1.7 modifier ×1.5 (DI V) ×1.25 (SI V) = 204 damage at max skills.
Garde II — 64 damage ×1.7 modifier ×1.5 (DI V) ×1.25 (SI V) ×1.1 (Gal. Drone Spec V) = 224.4 damage at max skills.

T1 becomes 2% better at maxed skills (6% better at minimum skills); T2 becomes 6.5% worse at max skills (and max skills requires more SP).


So my exploration Ishtar is going to do 748 DPS instead of its current 800 DPS, assuming I train for 19 days to get Gallente spec up to 5. That blows. Starting to look like its gonna take 19 days and 400mil in faction DDAs to make my Garde IIs perform the same as they do now. And I still won't be able to control them via F1-F5 like any other weapon in game. Or move around while using them. Arg.


Bingo. Another huge nerf to drone users , and this is weeks after the destruction in use of the Omni.
But remember, this is the same guy that brought us the AI change that drove us from heavies to sentries in the first place.
Plus, I would just love to hear what some gun jockey would say if he had to train a 19 day skill for each ammo type.
Guess it is time for an autocannnon pilot to learn seven 19 days skills to use every ammo type.

One last thing, what is the over/under on when the Domi / Ishtar get their drone bonuses nerfed to hell?
You KNOW that is coming with this dev's hatred of drones.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#289 - 2014-04-02 06:34:28 UTC
Omnathious Deninard wrote:


The skill split for medium and light drones hurts new players harder than you may realize, with so many of Gallente's drone ships using mixed sized drones.


LOL...just look at this dev's track record when it comes to the New Player Experience.
Also, look at his track record of modifying changes once he announces them.
Methonash Qorranto
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#290 - 2014-04-02 06:45:40 UTC
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:

As the Japanese taught us in my job, (pharmaceuticals) think twice, act once.


Agreed!

So on that note...am I the only one in this thread who thinks it's a little ridiculous that, in the new drone scheme, Garde2's will have 18 km of falloff, while Curator2's will only possess 12 km of falloff?

Since when have blasters had 50%(!!!) more falloff than lasers? And since when, for that matter, have blasters ever had 150% of their optimal range in terms of falloff? This high-percentage-of-optimal-as-falloff sounds like an artillery platform, but we've already got bouncers for that.

It just doesn't make very much sense - if we are to faithfully follow the convention of "greater DPS, lower range/falloff", then Garde2's should have the lowest falloff, in addition to the lowest optimal range--which they did previously, but now they're suddenly receiving an unexplained mega-falloff-buff.

Gardes aren't railgun platforms--we know they're blasters, because they shoot little blaster mini-bolts! The wardens are the railgun platforms, and their visual FX reflect that.

:-/
King Fu Hostile
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#291 - 2014-04-02 07:09:41 UTC
Methonash Qorranto wrote:
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:

As the Japanese taught us in my job, (pharmaceuticals) think twice, act once.


Agreed!

So on that note...am I the only one in this thread who thinks it's a little ridiculous that, in the new drone scheme, Garde2's will have 18 km of falloff, while Curator2's will only possess 12 km of falloff?

Since when have blasters had 50%(!!!) more falloff than lasers? And since when, for that matter, have blasters ever had 150% of their optimal range in terms of falloff? This high-percentage-of-optimal-as-falloff sounds like an artillery platform, but we've already got bouncers for that.

It just doesn't make very much sense - if we are to faithfully follow the convention of "greater DPS, lower range/falloff", then Garde2's should have the lowest falloff, in addition to the lowest optimal range--which they did previously, but now they're suddenly receiving an unexplained mega-falloff-buff.

Gardes aren't railgun platforms--we know they're blasters, because they shoot little blaster mini-bolts! The wardens are the railgun platforms, and their visual FX reflect that.

:-/


You didn't bother to check any actual numbers, did you?
Nonoyesyes
Evolution
Northern Coalition.
#292 - 2014-04-02 07:11:56 UTC
I'm still hoping the super-capital changes are an April fools joke

I can appreciate and support reducing in the number of fighter-bombers. It will help with server lag, and will give switched on pilots to repair the damage if your bombers are taking random damage, but any concerted effort will still kill them off far to quickly (see: Alpha-strike or multiple bombing runs in quick succession)

Give super-carriers the ability to hold several waves of replacement bombers please

Reduce the buff for shield super-carriers by standardising the damage for aeons / nyx with no damage mods fit. Why should a shield based super-carrier be able to fit full tank as well as gank?

(Although I can appreciate the shield super-carriers have been the poorer cousin of their armour counterparts for a while. But is that an intentional buff or unintended feature?)
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#293 - 2014-04-02 07:12:15 UTC
Players: Man your sov system sucks and is super boring you should fix it


CCP: Sure guys we're working on it!

*Nerfs the tool used to make that job less lifesucking*




Swear to god, this company would throw a drowning man a sack of bricks.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
Frank Pannon
Emerald Swine Escavations
#294 - 2014-04-02 07:13:07 UTC
Maybe there is not enough information available yet to anwser this, but I am curious.

Will this mean a shift from armor carriers towards their shield variant? More Chimeras and Wyverns? Maybe I just cerry-pick one thing from the blog and there are other aspects to consider.

Can someone with hands-on experience with capital fleets reflect on this?
Narcil
Coldstone Cold Stone's
#295 - 2014-04-02 07:27:13 UTC  |  Edited by: Narcil
Frank Pannon wrote:
Maybe there is not enough information available yet to anwser this, but I am curious.

Will this mean a shift from armor carriers towards their shield variant? More Chimeras and Wyverns? Maybe I just cerry-pick one thing from the blog and there are other aspects to consider.

Can someone with hands-on experience with capital fleets reflect on this?

i think it's unlikely to change anything. no matter how good they make shield supers the quantity of armor titans already in game will assure that substantial capital fleets stay armor.
Ron Mexxico
ElitistOps
Deepwater Hooligans
#296 - 2014-04-02 07:37:22 UTC
will the racial drone spec skills affect fighters / bombers?
Narcil
Coldstone Cold Stone's
#297 - 2014-04-02 07:39:05 UTC
Ron Mexxico wrote:
will the racial drone spec skills affect fighters / bombers?

it was answered earlier somewhere. no it doesn't since F/FBs are T1.
Shilalasar
Dead Sky Inc.
#298 - 2014-04-02 07:54:13 UTC
Red Teufel wrote:

1. sentry can be destroyed.
2. sentry does not move.
3. you know nothing.



1. You have 375 dronebay and another 2 sets in cargohold. Trying to eat through 10+ drones is a waste of time unless have spare bomberwings.
2. so? That makes their tracking better and if someone made it to a place where he can apply dps and you do not you can just abandon and relaunch.
3. If I know nothing then what is the less than nothing you know called?

Unezka Turigahl wrote:

4. sentries require a lot of clicking and dragging using radial menus to use efficiently.
5. sentries must be recalled when taking damage from NPCs, resulting in a loss of DPS in competitive situations like hisec exploration sites, that turret using ships do not have to deal with.
6. sentries are locked into 1 damage type. Another set of sentries must be carried to switch damage type. Not practical to carry all damage types like turret and missile users can with ammo.
7. sentries do not have implants that boost DPS and other traits like guns and missiles do.

In summary, drones and guns/missiles can not be directly compared.


4. Droneinterface is bad, yes. Welcome to eve. But in exchange you get a weapon that fires when you go afk or are jammed.
5. People have been running sleepersite with drones for ages. You just need to learn how to control AI aggression for PvE. Doesn´t matter in PvP at all.
6. All that explosive damage from lasers is really a problem.
7. true, I guess that is on the list for fixing. Like we are getting faction DDAs now.

Maybe you can not compare them 1-1, but overall drones have massive advantages over turrets esp and very little drawbacks.

The no fittingrequirements is just so strong. Turretships need to downgrade their guns often enough to fit a decent tank while droneboats can fit 3 tankmodules or fill the highslots up on neuts etc.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#299 - 2014-04-02 08:02:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Tippia
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Bingo. Another huge nerf to drone users , and this is weeks after the destruction in use of the Omni.
It's not a huge nerf by any stretch of the imagination, and it comes on the heels of numerous drone buffs that made them silly effective against everything. This change simply puts them back in a more sane place, both in terms of damage output and damage application.

Quote:
But remember, this is the same guy that brought us the AI change that drove us from heavies to sentries in the first place.
No, it's not, for the simple reason that that never actually happened. Heavies were always awful and sentries were always better — the introduction of rat AI did not change this. If you were using heavies before Level1 AI, you were doing it wrong. Oh, and if you lost tons of drones after the AI introduction, you were also doing it wrong.

Quote:
Plus, I would just love to hear what some gun jockey would say if he had to train a 19 day skill for each ammo type.
Oh, they have to train a whole lot more than that to get each racial variation of their size category.
Isbariya
State War Academy
Caldari State
#300 - 2014-04-02 08:06:05 UTC
Narcil wrote:
iskflakes wrote:
I've run the numbers on Nyx vs Aeon after the changes, specifically looking at their role in fleet fights and capital ganks. As far as I can see the Aeon now wins every time.

With the changes to drone damage amps the aeon can have the DPS the Nyx used to have, and also have a better tank at the same time. Unless you want to do some kind of comedy "max dps" fit there will be little reason to ever choose a Nyx over an Aeon.

Details:

An aeon with two drone damage amps fit will get around 29.7m EHP (implants, no boosts). With two drone damage amps it will do ~43% above base damage. A nyx with full tank fit gets around 28.7 million EHP, and does 25% above base damage (hull bonus).

What if we want to put a DDA on the nyx? Now it tanks 23.4 million. That's equivalent to an aeon with 3 DDAs. The aeon is now doing 56% above base damage. The Nyx is doing 48% above base damage. Again, the aeon wins on tank and damage.

If we add a second DDA to the nyx, it now edges out ahead in DPS of an aeon with 4 DDAs, though the aeon still wins in tank.

The aeon tanks better, it has higher resists and it does more DPS in 90% of situations. It also has the extremely valuable remote cap transfer range bonus and the option to refit to a huge tank. The nyx has an additional 5 spare fighters (or 2 bombers), an extra midslot, and the comparatively useless shield transfer range bonus. It can't match the aeon's tank in any situation.

The spare midslot on the nyx could be used for damage application, though there is no midslot module that will significantly affect fighter bomber damage. The midslot can be used for cap rechargers, but the aeon can use cap power relays which are substantially better (while still maintaining equal DPS and superior tank).

After these changes we may see a decrease in ship diversity as people switch to Aeons.

What if you fit 2 DCUs to the supers. i think the nyx with no dda would outdps the aeon with one dda (with 2 DCUs each), but the difference is pretty small. Although they really need bigger drone bay and fleet hangar if they want to make DCUs viable.


you know that the Wyvern will just outdps bot of them, it only loses three. CN PDA maybe a DCU if you want to fit four damage mods. Therefore you will still have a massive tank, an insane dmg and a passive shield reggen. I can't wait for these changes :-P