Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Command broadcasting, AKA sending commands from one input device to multiple clients at the same time, is forbidden by the TOS/EULA.

This suggestion would directly violate the TOS/EULA.

/thread

Sounds to me like someone needs a bottle of Johnson and Johnson.

Besides the fact I never mentioned, or implied, being able to undock fleet members. It does provide opportunity for not only fleet commanders to refine their fleets by identifying slackers (useful), it would provide more element of risk to careless pilots, allowing commanders to define their fleets by sorting out AFK'ers (teaching them the necessity to be present, and instilling discipline where needed, or expelling them when they fail to show improvement, more realistic), it would give more versatility to commanders as stated before, and even allow more discretion for the fleet commander to decide action taken once a location is reached. And that is beside the aforementioned reasons stated in the OP.

Citing AFK as a reason to stop any suggested idea is moot at best and infantile bare minimum. From open displays of protest, the vast majority of argument comes from feelings and not any logical debate based on experience or any real information.

There is a great deal of focus on feelings about afk while leaving out any sort of actual logical argument based on hard facts or points while over-emphasizing a desperate need to control others behavior in real life with a ball and chain shackling them close to a keyboard. The aspect of discipline and presence of pilots, once again, should be something a commander is in charge of determining, that is, determining the worthiness, discipline, reliability, and consistency of his pilots, making by nature a more cultivated and disciplined unit. A poor craftsman blames his tools, a poor commander does result in a poor, undisciplined, lackadaisical, unit ripe for slaughter, as it should be in EvE. Anyone with any real military experience knows this.

Your lack of insight into the purpose or use of this suggestion is primarily based on emotions, feelings, personal agenda, dislikes, or otherwise opinions given to you via 3rd party.

perhaps it should be more engineered to be, in the facet of leadership. This suggestion helps refine, define, and determine the process.

Point taken.

where the hell did the grrr goons come from? lol.

the blob would want this chief. Fleet warp, fleet undock, fleet etc....mix with drone doctrine and assigning they could phone in the war as it were lol.




You see we "lack" these things because they are part of the human element to the game. The most perfect plans start to go awry by people who don't follow simple instructions. This is intended. Enough people mess up following orders, bad things can and will happen. Solution: get these people to follow orders better. Or recruit better people really.

dude , i wasent mad i was just stating a fact. people know that goons either have supporters or straight ex-members in either CCP or Dev, that much is obvious to anyone that pays attention. its not really the validity of their ideas as much as it is their relationship to politics that gets most of their ideas passed for their own benefit. its not something im grrr gooning about, its just the way it is

no one was really talking about following orders or recruiting better.

I'm still in favor of fleet lock target and fleet f1 as the eventual evolution of this. It's awesome I can finally utilize all my ALTs with 0 effort. +1

Sorry to throw a wrench in your idea, but this isn't going to happen.

Where do we draw the line? Fleet activate hardeners? Fleet cycle guns?

I hate being a debby downer but removing the need for a pilot to fly their own ship is not on CCP's roadmap, I assure you.

You didn't.

However, to answer your question, Yes, that is where you would draw the line as stated before. Controlling the actual activation of a fleet members ships modules is a completely different category, and mechanic, then controlling the warp functions of other ships In the fleet, current mechanics of the fleet are proof of this as CCP currently allows ships to be sent into warp and regrouped.

Regroup, fleet warp, and fleet jump are in line with the same function my suggestions would serve, ship navigation options within the fleet ordered by the commander. Activating and deactivating the modules of another players ship is not even close to what I am suggesting. And yes, it would be a matter of judgement among the devs and CCP to prevent an update that would allow it, from ever happening.

Allowing the toggle of modules on other players ship, besides not being possible, and ill advised, would indeed provide a massive opportunity for sabotage and abuse, as opposed to these suggested features which do not and would actually still be within the players control to allow to occur in the first place. via a toggle option similar to what an orca has that allows and disallows access to hangers.

Unless you are actually in a position of authority to speak on CCP's behalf, I would suggest not doing so. CSM does not mean you have to authority to speak for them, only that you can advise them.

Thank you for your input.

I have definitely drawn the line, please reread the thread.