These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Drone's getting nerfed?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Phyrr
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#121 - 2014-01-02 04:57:29 UTC
Garandras wrote:
If they nerf drone assist then it will just mean that the slow cats wouldnt be able to go get a cup of coffee in the middle of the battle.. wont change a great deal..


This
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#122 - 2014-01-02 04:57:39 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
baltec1 wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
Perhaps if blobbing isn't working out so well you could consider not blobbing.

That's usually my approach to problems. When something works like ****, I try a different approach.

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. Some people prefer to do the same thing over and over and hope that one day the outcome is different than all the other times. This kind of person is also known to lose lots of money on slot machines.


And how exactly will a smaller fleet break the tank of a slowcat fleet when the firepower of two full fleets of battleships isnt enough to even scratch them?

By being creative, duh.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#123 - 2014-01-02 05:19:35 UTC
Phyrr wrote:
Garandras wrote:
If they nerf drone assist then it will just mean that the slow cats wouldnt be able to go get a cup of coffee in the middle of the battle.. wont change a great deal..


This


Locking time, range, having to mix repping and combat targets.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#124 - 2014-01-02 05:25:08 UTC
Or of course the big one: focusing fire becomes much more difficult.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#125 - 2014-01-02 06:34:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Phyrr wrote:
Garandras wrote:
If they nerf drone assist then it will just mean that the slow cats wouldnt be able to go get a cup of coffee in the middle of the battle.. wont change a great deal..

This

Locking time, range, having to mix repping and combat targets.

Since this is clearly the case, just let it get nerfed then.

Nope? Well that's ok.

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 ?
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#126 - 2014-01-02 06:35:32 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
Perhaps if blobbing isn't working out so well you could consider not blobbing.

That's usually my approach to problems. When something works like ****, I try a different approach.

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. Some people prefer to do the same thing over and over and hope that one day the outcome is different than all the other times. This kind of person is also known to lose lots of money on slot machines.


And how exactly will a smaller fleet break the tank of a slowcat fleet when the firepower of two full fleets of battleships isnt enough to even scratch them?

By being creative, duh.

Go back to highsec, slowcats can't go there

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 ?
Debora Tsung
Perkone
Caldari State
#127 - 2014-01-02 11:15:46 UTC  |  Edited by: Debora Tsung
Just a quick question to those of you with a greater understanding on fleet tactics than mine.

As far as I understand the slowcat doctrine, removing the ability to assign sentry drones would mean that the ability to simulaneously apply all the damage of the entire fleet at once would vanish. But wouldn't that mean, that a slowcat fleet of sufficient size would in essence still be almost unkillable due to all the awesome remote reps?

To me it looks like the only thing that would change if that ability was removed is that the time a slowcat fleet needed to kill anything would increase, but not by much. Straight

Am I wrong with that or am I lacking some information?

Stupidity should be a bannable offense.

Fighting back is more fun than not.

Sticky: AFK Cloaking Thread It's not pretty, but it's there.
Movarer
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#128 - 2014-01-02 12:15:04 UTC
Debora Tsung wrote:
Just a quick question to those of you with a greater understanding on fleet tactics than mine.

As far as I understand the slowcat doctrine, removing the ability to assign sentry drones would mean that the ability to simulaneously apply all the damage of the entire fleet at once would vanish. But wouldn't that mean, that a slowcat fleet of sufficient size would in essence still be almost unkillable due to all the awesome remote reps?

To me it looks like the only thing that would change if that ability was removed is that the time a slowcat fleet needed to kill anything would increase, but not by much. Straight

Am I wrong with that or am I lacking some information?


The biggest difference: No instant application of damage (it would be just as any gun/missile fleet trying to apply "perfect alpha" its not entierly doable due to variables) This is obviously a MASSIVE nerf.

Other downsides would be far lesser range, a slowcat archon now with drone assist as it is can apply damage up to about 180km or something stupid like that, it can also do this while being fully tanked and this is obviously also with an assistee so locktimes are irrelevant. Popping frigs as fast as the FC ship can lock with carriers is wierd in my opinion.

Its a huge nerf and it should never have gotten this far along, its by far the most boring **** ever, assist drones, watch netflix. Even pressing F1 and locking stuff every 5-10minutes is more engaging.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#129 - 2014-01-02 12:20:36 UTC
if you have to deal with slowcats, you're probably on the wrong side of the blob anyways and rightfully receive punishment in this manner for a very good reason of supporting blue donut 0.0 politics regimes.
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#130 - 2014-01-02 12:23:08 UTC
drone assist should be nerfed, simple.

Having 200 archons now as a standard fleet is wrong somehow. Everyone is running around in carrier fleet just as if they are like sub cap fleets. Theres something wrong there. And i used to be one of them! but still think from a game perspective, the carrier needs another role balance. We shouldn't be having 200 carrier.super fleets.

All my views are my own - never be afraid to post with your main, unless you're going to post some dumb shit
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#131 - 2014-01-02 12:24:10 UTC
tiberiusric wrote:
drone assist should be nerfed, simple.

Having 200 archons now as a standard fleet is wrong somehow. Everyone is running around in carrier fleet just as if they are like sub cap fleets. Theres something wrong there. And i used to be one of them! but still think from a game perspective, the carrier needs another role balance. We shouldn't be having 200 carrier.super fleets.


who is everyone?
Show me people who do that.
tiberiusric
Comply Or Die
Pandemic Horde
#132 - 2014-01-02 12:25:33 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
tiberiusric wrote:
drone assist should be nerfed, simple.

Having 200 archons now as a standard fleet is wrong somehow. Everyone is running around in carrier fleet just as if they are like sub cap fleets. Theres something wrong there. And i used to be one of them! but still think from a game perspective, the carrier needs another role balance. We shouldn't be having 200 carrier.super fleets.


who is everyone?
Show me people who do that.


lol dont comment on something you clearly no nothing about.

All my views are my own - never be afraid to post with your main, unless you're going to post some dumb shit
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#133 - 2014-01-02 12:27:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
tiberiusric wrote:
Robert Caldera wrote:
tiberiusric wrote:
drone assist should be nerfed, simple.

Having 200 archons now as a standard fleet is wrong somehow. Everyone is running around in carrier fleet just as if they are like sub cap fleets. Theres something wrong there. And i used to be one of them! but still think from a game perspective, the carrier needs another role balance. We shouldn't be having 200 carrier.super fleets.


who is everyone?
Show me people who do that.


lol dont comment on something you clearly no nothing about.


how about killboard link? I know PL/N3 massively use slowcats but they are far off from "everyone".
AND they can only pull it off because they
1) have a critical mass of carriers to do it
2) have a FC team capable of fielding this amount of capitals
3) can back their carriers with a supercapital fleet
4) can afford losses/reimbursements

with other words, a small fraction of eve population uses some shiptypes with a form of success, because
they worked hard to acquire capable people, invested a lot into alliance fleets and put huge amounts of ISK at
risk/on field any time they deploy - instead of stupidly recruiting everyone in a rifter and rely on sheer number
of noobs in kitchensink fleets. Proper tool for the job, etc...

Not to mention that those fleets are not fun for anyone but neccessary evil resulted from fighting against blue donut team consisting of 75% rest of eve.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#134 - 2014-01-02 12:56:59 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
Perhaps if blobbing isn't working out so well you could consider not blobbing.

That's usually my approach to problems. When something works like ****, I try a different approach.

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. Some people prefer to do the same thing over and over and hope that one day the outcome is different than all the other times. This kind of person is also known to lose lots of money on slot machines.


And how exactly will a smaller fleet break the tank of a slowcat fleet when the firepower of two full fleets of battleships isnt enough to even scratch them?
One idea would be that if our opponent was less than 500 BS on grid, we'd use another tactic.
There's no reason to risk the big guns if the smaller ones can do the job too.
Apart from that, I have yet to see some good CFC arguments for slowcat nerfs. It can really be boiled down to "we won't beat it the ways we know how to, therefore it needs nerfing" - working towards Omegafleet and all that is fine, but if you know how to counter the fleet concepts we use, your cries for nerfs are really just whining.

tiberiusric wrote:
lol dont comment on something you clearly no nothing about.
Take your own advice?

I'd ask if Alavaria Fera is just setting up an ironic act of a total imbecile, but at this point I have realised it's not an act.
My enjoyment of these forums went up by hiding its posts.
Movarer
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#135 - 2014-01-02 13:28:12 UTC
Alphea Abbra wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
Perhaps if blobbing isn't working out so well you could consider not blobbing.

That's usually my approach to problems. When something works like ****, I try a different approach.

Different strokes for different folks, I suppose. Some people prefer to do the same thing over and over and hope that one day the outcome is different than all the other times. This kind of person is also known to lose lots of money on slot machines.


And how exactly will a smaller fleet break the tank of a slowcat fleet when the firepower of two full fleets of battleships isnt enough to even scratch them?
One idea would be that if our opponent was less than 500 BS on grid, we'd use another tactic.
There's no reason to risk the big guns if the smaller ones can do the job too.
Apart from that, I have yet to see some good CFC arguments for slowcat nerfs. It can really be boiled down to "we won't beat it the ways we know how to, therefore it needs nerfing" - working towards Omegafleet and all that is fine, but if you know how to counter the fleet concepts we use, your cries for nerfs are really just whining.

tiberiusric wrote:
lol dont comment on something you clearly no nothing about.
Take your own advice?

I'd ask if Alavaria Fera is just setting up an ironic act of a total imbecile, but at this point I have realised it's not an act.
My enjoyment of these forums went up by hiding its posts.



There is no reason to risk the big guns? What do you have that outperforms slowcats in ANY aspect? A titanblob cant do what it does. A superblob cant either. It has great tank, perfect damage application, insane range, cost-efficiency, replacability, etc. If you do NOT put a slowcat fleet to defensive use, you are being stupid, and that is why its broken.
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#136 - 2014-01-02 13:32:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
Movarer wrote:
There is no reason to risk the big guns? What do you have that outperforms slowcats in ANY aspect? A titanblob cant do what it does. A superblob cant either. It has great tank, perfect damage application, insane range, cost-efficiency, replacability, etc. If you do NOT put a slowcat fleet to defensive use, you are being stupid, and that is why its broken.


here again, who deploys slowcat fleets apart of N3?
Noone really enjoys these fleets like I stated above, people would any time fly something where they can press F1 and click things a little more than sitting in a slowcat while watching movie, so if a subcap fleet can do it it will be always preference.
Movarer
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#137 - 2014-01-02 13:50:20 UTC  |  Edited by: Movarer
Robert Caldera wrote:
Movarer wrote:
There is no reason to risk the big guns? What do you have that outperforms slowcats in ANY aspect? A titanblob cant do what it does. A superblob cant either. It has great tank, perfect damage application, insane range, cost-efficiency, replacability, etc. If you do NOT put a slowcat fleet to defensive use, you are being stupid, and that is why its broken.


here again, who deploys slowcat fleets apart of N3?
Noone really enjoys these fleets like I stated above, people would any time fly something where they can press F1 and click things a little more than sitting in a slowcat while watching movie, so if a subcap fleet can do it it will be always preference.



But subcaps cant, thats the entire issue, you cant even specialize ANY ship to do as good of a job as a slowcat does like. Range is unmatched, spiderrepping is unmatched, (perfect) alpha damage is unmatched. Slowcats in my opinion isnt even the issue, just removing the incredibly boring and broken drone assist meaning that slowcats and domis/prophs acctually have to PUSH BUTTONS more then bridge in, anchor, drop drones, assign and come back in an hour to see if you won or lost.

Drone assist is what is making the slowcats so good, if they did NOT have the ability to assign their drones to a fast locking bricktanked fc then all the issues would be fine, they wouldnt be able to do a perfect volley, they wouldnt be able to lock frigs and shoot frigs at 100km+, they wouldnt be able to outtank everything unless they dropped their damage while doing it. All in all, the slowcats are at the breaking edge of drone assist tactics, I myself see the domi's power time and time again and sure, its absolutely terrifying to instapop other battleships, its at the same time a BAD THING FOR EVE. Pilots not doing **** leads to pilots being bored leads to not logging in leads to EVE IS DEAD. So thanks droneassist you killed eve.

But more seriously, why IS the drone assist mechanic in the game? Why should the pilot not handle their own drones? Im not very well in to why that mechanic works as it does, but seeing as how fighters (a mechanic not very unlike drones) does not work with unlimited assigned fighters etc, whats the difference that makes people think that drone assists are OK?
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
#138 - 2014-01-02 13:56:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Robert Caldera
yet, you didnt answer my question.

Relatively small coalition of alliances found a way to fight off hordes of scrubs, how is this a problem?
Shows that sheer number of stupids in fleet isnt everything in this game, a good thing actually!

Bring right tool for the job and be done with it?! Amount of supers/dreads will break slowcats, inability to bring
that to the table is the core issue - not slowcat fleets.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#139 - 2014-01-02 14:15:20 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
yet, you didnt answer my question.

Relatively small coalition of alliances found a way to fight off hordes of scrubs, how is this a problem?
Shows that sheer number of stupids in fleet isnt everything in this game, a good thing actually!

Bring right tool for the job and be done with it?! Amount of supers/dreads will break slowcats, inability to bring
that to the table is the core issue - not slowcat fleets.


No, you're totally wrong.

The game should be such that whichever coalition can get more pilots into the system automatically wins the fight.

No need to calculate things like damage. No need to think about fittings. Just whoever brings more people, wins. I think this would suit goons just fine.

No thinking. Just blobbing.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#140 - 2014-01-02 15:32:18 UTC
Robert Caldera wrote:
yet, you didnt answer my question.

Relatively small coalition of alliances found a way to fight off hordes of scrubs, how is this a problem?
Shows that sheer number of stupids in fleet isnt everything in this game, a good thing actually!

Bring right tool for the job and be done with it?! Amount of supers/dreads will break slowcats, inability to bring
that to the table is the core issue - not slowcat fleets.


Having 90% of ships invalidated by just one is a massive balance issue. CCP do not want capitals online and nobody wants a situation where it is impossible for a newer alliance to win fights vs the superpowers.