These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Drones Online

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#221 - 2013-12-25 23:28:30 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:

Introduce a game mechanic that allows for the possibility of ships not jumping, or jumping to a random system 1-3 systems away from the target, or even the complete destruction of the ship.

The more ships that jump, combined with a mass variable, the higher the chance that something bad happens when there is a fleet jumped. And the more ships in a system, the higher the odds of something bad happening also goes up.

You jump 100 BS's, nothing happens.
You jump 100 supercarriers, a 3% chance per ship of it not jumping, a 2% chance of it jumping to the wrong system, and a 1% chance of utter destruction.

Also, add in 1 hour cooldown timers for ANY ship that is jumped using a Titan cyno, and all supercaps have the same 1 hour cooldown timer.


"please CCP, nerf their guns, we cant win otherwise".
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#222 - 2013-12-25 23:52:10 UTC
Us dirty metagamers gotta do what we can.

Though that is just a bad idea

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#223 - 2013-12-26 00:07:16 UTC
Bloodmyst Ranwar wrote:
By no means am I a vet in this game.....

But it seems to me the problem is the Larger Ship hulls in this game such as Carriers, Titans etc. So much tank whilst having so many drones can only promote stale game play especially when X amount of pilots in the blob are taking orders from 1 person. Also, it's been mentioned a few times in this thread that these fights last for so many hours with only a few losses. (3 - 5 Archon losses in 4 hours is a bit..... well too drawn out)

IMO, a solution needs to be implemented that will try to break these blobs into much smaller numbers, thus promoting greater strategic game play (not just we all follow order from one person and press F1). Whatever that solution may be I have no idea and this is why we have game developers. But the quick fix to it now , is just delete these hulls from the game or convert them into industrial ships only.

Meh, my 2 cents worth....

There is an easy solution, I proposed it a while back but no joy:

An armor or shield hardener has a small excess energy absorbing component, it can use the excess energy from an attack to boost its resistances if the attack is severe enough. At normal levels, being shot by say 10 Archons with 10 bouncer II's the boost is negligible and almost all damage is taken by the ship (for every 1 damage, 0.01 is resisted). At extreme levels, being shot by 300 Archons with 10 bouncer II's each (3000 drones), the boost is extreme, for every 1 damage, .99 is resisted.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#224 - 2013-12-26 00:43:30 UTC
Zulu Death Mask wrote:

There's a counter to subcap blobs, there isn't one to capital blobs.

Hello CCP

(That's why we need a bomber with capital weapons \o/ !!)


you mean the game should revolve around sheer numbers of bodies again? sounds exciting.

Vembuvend wrote:
Because Nags are countered by titans and guess who wins number wise there.


so basically you're saying that a party who brings most of the relevant ships wins?? Nothing wrong with this IMO.

Pinky Hops wrote:
I am not saying the current system would be good if you just removed timers and kept everything else the same.

I am saying that the reason people blob to the max, is specifically because of timers.



without timers you would simply shift the control from defender towards the attacker. why do you think this would diminish blobbing?

baltec1 wrote:

Unsupported dreads in a hostile system belonging to the people with the largest super/titan fleet in all of New Eden sounds like the perfect plan.

here again, its your own fault and not of peoples building and paying a proper capital fleet.
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#225 - 2013-12-26 01:00:34 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:

without timers you would simply shift the control from defender towards the attacker. why do you think this would diminish blobbing?

Are you seriously asking this question or is that a joke?

Try to remember back to your school days when there was a) a spontaneous punch up in the cafeteria and b) a Meet You At The [insert convenient beating up place] after school.

Obviously any X time and X Place setup is going to get lots more blobbier than a spontaneous fight ffs. Its not rocket science...

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Tetsuo Tsukaya
Perkone
Caldari State
#226 - 2013-12-26 01:11:00 UTC
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:

without timers you would simply shift the control from defender towards the attacker. why do you think this would diminish blobbing?

Are you seriously asking this question or is that a joke?

Try to remember back to your school days when there was a) a spontaneous punch up in the cafeteria and b) a Meet You At The [insert convenient beating up place] after school.

Obviously any X time and X Place setup is going to get lots more blobbier than a spontaneous fight ffs. Its not rocket science...


Confirming that attacking parties do not schedule fleets to go out and shoot things, and that all offensive actions in coalition warfare are mostly "hey we've got 5 guys in corp chat, lets go reinforce something"
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#227 - 2013-12-26 01:15:25 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:

without timers you would simply shift the control from defender towards the attacker. why do you think this would diminish blobbing?

Are you seriously asking this question or is that a joke?

Try to remember back to your school days when there was a) a spontaneous punch up in the cafeteria and b) a Meet You At The [insert convenient beating up place] after school.

Obviously any X time and X Place setup is going to get lots more blobbier than a spontaneous fight ffs. Its not rocket science...


well ok it would maybe reduce blobbing at some given time but overall you nerf defenders in favor of attackers, which could distribute sov grind work amongst bigger blob which is still an uncontested advantage of having more people, while burning down regions of sov could all happen in attackers timezone, a model CCP moved away from explicitely by introducing timers defender would basically set to their own tz to be able to defend themselves at all without having all timezone coverage (which itself is another driver for blobs).
Grath Telkin
Amok.
Goonswarm Federation
#228 - 2013-12-26 02:49:57 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:


you mean the game should revolve around sheer numbers of bodies again?


Yes thats actually exactly what they want.

Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#229 - 2013-12-26 03:26:51 UTC
Better than wanting the game to revolve around super ultra elite awesome ships that kill everything.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#230 - 2013-12-26 03:37:52 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Robert Caldera wrote:
Infinity Ziona wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:

without timers you would simply shift the control from defender towards the attacker. why do you think this would diminish blobbing?

Are you seriously asking this question or is that a joke?

Try to remember back to your school days when there was a) a spontaneous punch up in the cafeteria and b) a Meet You At The [insert convenient beating up place] after school.

Obviously any X time and X Place setup is going to get lots more blobbier than a spontaneous fight ffs. Its not rocket science...


well ok it would maybe reduce blobbing at some given time but overall you nerf defenders in favor of attackers, which could distribute sov grind work amongst bigger blob which is still an uncontested advantage of having more people, while burning down regions of sov could all happen in attackers timezone, a model CCP moved away from explicitely by introducing timers defender would basically set to their own tz to be able to defend themselves at all without having all timezone coverage (which itself is another driver for blobs).

A fix to sov will not come via a single change only to timers. Timers were a fix for another problem. What about looking at the problem that gave birth to timers. Why are the biggest most powerful ships in game able to travel over an entire region and burn down so many structures? What about looking at that.

There are many ways to fix sov but they're not popular because the self entitled like having their close to indestructible ew immune able to field 500 flights of 25 sentry travel all over the galaxy faster than an inty multi million hp pwnmobiles.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Infinity Ziona
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#231 - 2013-12-26 03:54:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Infinity Ziona
Rab See wrote:
I Love Boobies wrote:
Definitely something the old DD could do something about. Boom... no more drones.


And just watch as TiDi disappears ...

Its one of the most stupid things that CCP seem to be ignoring. Slowcat is a lovely tactic, but its **** for the issue at hand.

200 Slows and 2000 sentries. I'm sorry - BUT GET YOU FINGER OUT CCP FFS - its Zombies'R'US with the playerbase taking part literally watching a movie while playing. Yes - I did exactly that.

If they cant see that this is one of the primary reasons things are breaking, one of the reasons FCs use it, knowing that the 'in/out' nature of the drones themselves causes massive fluctuations. Are they truly stupid? You dont need 2000 people to crack a server. Just a few hundred zombies and one person driving. Why the hell should CFC respond to it when they know its crucifying the server its being done on.

Solve this soon, how?

Without destroying the tactic. Drones on Carriers - make them deploy for a minimum of 2 minutes. Make them take 2 to return. Make returning them unabortable. Gives bombing and other tactics a chance. But it still makes carriers (non DPS uber logi) stay as DPS uber logi.

To destroying the tactic. You can only drone assist your squad leader. One person can only control 15 drones max. Anything to get away from making eve as crap as this.

Nah just make carriers conform to the rest of the ships in EvE. They should be deploying fighters not sub cap sentries. Give them big fighter bay. Small drone bay comparatively.

Do we see dreads owning fleets with battleship size weapons? No. So why are carriers owning fleets with sub cap weapons? The reason fighters are crap against sub caps was to stop them being used the way sentries are being used.

CCP Fozzie “We can see how much money people are making in nullsec and it is, a gigantic amount, a shit-ton… in null sec anomalies. “*

Kaalrus pwned..... :)
Tetsuo Tsukaya
Perkone
Caldari State
#232 - 2013-12-26 03:55:16 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Better than wanting the game to revolve around super ultra elite awesome ships that kill everything.


Not really no. It's not like anything prevents you guys from making an honest effort and bringing your own caps, you'd just rather the game adapt to you rather than have to do anything different than what you'd always done. You want to win at the most high stakes level of EVE? Act like it.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#233 - 2013-12-26 04:09:24 UTC
Tetsuo Tsukaya wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Better than wanting the game to revolve around super ultra elite awesome ships that kill everything.


Not really no. It's not like anything prevents you guys from making an honest effort and bringing your own caps, you'd just rather the game adapt to you rather than have to do anything different than what you'd always done. You want to win at the most high stakes level of EVE? Act like it.

Cute speech, but that's not actually descriptive of anything.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tetsuo Tsukaya
Perkone
Caldari State
#234 - 2013-12-26 04:15:39 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Tetsuo Tsukaya wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Better than wanting the game to revolve around super ultra elite awesome ships that kill everything.


Not really no. It's not like anything prevents you guys from making an honest effort and bringing your own caps, you'd just rather the game adapt to you rather than have to do anything different than what you'd always done. You want to win at the most high stakes level of EVE? Act like it.

Cute speech, but that's not actually descriptive of anything.


Oh I'm sorry, I missed the part where you guys actually had brought your own fleet of caps supported by supers to counter slowcats/wrecking ball. Carry on then.


In other news, when we were in lowsec we ran into a command ship fleet supported by guardians and even though we had 3 times as many people in frigates we still lost. CCP needs to nerf that stuff because there is literally nothing we could have done other than brought our own T2 battle cruisers and logi, and this shouldn't be a game that revolves around ultra elite awesome ships after all.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#235 - 2013-12-26 04:25:04 UTC
Missingthepoint.jpg
I never said better shops shouldn't be better.
Only that it shouldn't be everything.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Leigh Akiga
Kuhri Innovations
#236 - 2013-12-26 04:44:42 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:


you mean the game should revolve around sheer numbers of bodies again?


Yes thats actually exactly what they want.


EVE Online should be pay to win. Whoever puts the most isk on the field wins.
Rainbow Dash
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#237 - 2013-12-26 04:55:04 UTC
Clearly using isk to counter numbers is wrong. Whoever has the most raw numbers should win every fight. That's game balance.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#238 - 2013-12-26 04:58:24 UTC
Rainbow Dash wrote:
Clearly using isk to counter numbers is wrong. Whoever has the most raw numbers should win every fight. That's game balance.

Not what I'm saying at all.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#239 - 2013-12-26 05:29:15 UTC
Wow, so Supercapitals Online: Drone Assist Expoansion is a success I take it.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
EI Digin
irc.zulusquad.org
#240 - 2013-12-26 05:51:44 UTC
Leigh Akiga wrote:
EVE Online should be pay to win. Whoever puts the most isk on the field wins.


Technically game time has isk value, so putting a thousand people into ships does have an isk cost associated with it. Not to mention opportunity cost, as you are putting people into ships to fight instead of maximizing their isk/hour into isk generation sources. But that isn't realized by fleets per se, but more by individual players.

So in a way yes, this game is in fact all about putting the most isk on field.