These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

[Rubicon 1.3] Drone Assist change

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dave stark
#461 - 2014-02-06 19:18:27 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
we began by starting at complete removal of assist, and worked our way back up until we had caught all the use-cases for assist that we didn't want to impact negatively. That included [snip] and most importantly, incursioners.


going to have to point out the contradiction here rise.

you say you don't want to negatively impact incursioners, yet you set the limit of drone assist below that of the amount of drones in an incursion fleet?

care to explain this contradiction?

or just link me to your explanation if some one has already pointed out this obvious error, cos i ain't reading 24 pages of thread for an activity i spend about 5% of my time on.
Grarr Dexx
Blue Canary
Watch This
#462 - 2014-02-06 19:19:11 UTC
Kranyoldlady wrote:
Incursionsrunner here.

In a hq fleet we normally have vindi's as dronebunny
That said, its 1 vindi for DDD and the rest shoots whatever the need to shoot.

Some numbers:

HQ = 40 people - 10 logi= 30 dps- 1 DDD is 29 dps for the fleet, inportant number when contesting. Effectively using 145 drones for dps.


your idea:

HQ = 40 people-10 logi =30 dps - 3 dps for DDD = 27 dps for the fleet. Again efectively using 145 drones for dps


Imo this does change things alot.
The fc lost 2 dps for the fleet since they get a new role.
The inplementation in the fleet among 40 people is going to be a hassle to put it mildly.



Adapt or die.
Jonas Vexxor
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#463 - 2014-02-06 19:19:21 UTC
Xython wrote:
Holy christ, every single time this happens, it's always the same pattern.

1. Bad players (BOB's remnants and decendants, usually) find an exploit that gives them supremacy.
2. The saner heads in the group point out it's an exploit or at the very least, overpowered
3. Bad posters and sockpuppets explain how it's totally not an exploit and that the CFC is just bad
4. The CFC either finds a way to defeat the exploit, or starts using it themselves to force CCP to fix it
5. CCP fixes it, usually about 6 months too late
6. 100 page threadnought with all kinds of buttmad sockpuppets, idiots missing the point of the change, people who have obviously never played the game in a PVP situation suggesting asinine mechnics changes to "spite" PVPers, morons who have never been to nullsec, et cetera et cetera.

Every. Single. Time.

But man, it's fun to watch all the buttmad pubbies and N3 sockpuppets in this thread crying. I especially liked the guy bitching that he can't PVP while in another room watching a movie now, that was great. :)


Goon finally calling people Pubbies

/thread
Worrlock
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#464 - 2014-02-06 19:20:15 UTC
Why can't we make it so that you can only assign to your squad commander, that'd make more sense for the purposes of immersion.
Silivar Karkun
Doomheim
#465 - 2014-02-06 19:24:46 UTC
Kasune wrote:
One thing that I thought would be a bit more "realistic" is that the type of drone you field, can be assisted to a specific type of ship.

Say light/Medium drones - Up to cruisers. Sentrys Heavys - Battlecruiser (or maybe battleship) and to titans.

In my opinion it would be a bit more logical, as a frigate shouldn't have the cabability to put out the needed instructions for something of almost the same size...

Or something like that, myabe


it overalls makes more sense to make it depending on the target ship's bandwidth........for small ships its not a big buff anyways, the carrier may lend you another 5 light drone squad.......that if you're a tristan of course.....
Tags'n Ammo
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#466 - 2014-02-06 19:24:46 UTC
Jonas Vexxor wrote:
Xython wrote:
Holy christ, every single time this happens, it's always the same pattern.

1. Bad players (BOB's remnants and decendants, usually) find an exploit that gives them supremacy.
2. The saner heads in the group point out it's an exploit or at the very least, overpowered
3. Bad posters and sockpuppets explain how it's totally not an exploit and that the CFC is just bad
4. The CFC either finds a way to defeat the exploit, or starts using it themselves to force CCP to fix it
5. CCP fixes it, usually about 6 months too late
6. 100 page threadnought with all kinds of buttmad sockpuppets, idiots missing the point of the change, people who have obviously never played the game in a PVP situation suggesting asinine mechnics changes to "spite" PVPers, morons who have never been to nullsec, et cetera et cetera.

Every. Single. Time.

But man, it's fun to watch all the buttmad pubbies and N3 sockpuppets in this thread crying. I especially liked the guy bitching that he can't PVP while in another room watching a movie now, that was great. :)


Goon finally calling people Pubbies

/thread


Worse than that. It's a dude in Merchi calling people pubbies.
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
#467 - 2014-02-06 19:25:04 UTC
Rhes wrote:
BoomBoss wrote:
3 regions my ass. You took a few systems in Immensea and that was pretty much it. Feyth never counted.

Resetting the goalposts while you're backpedaling so fast must be awkward.


Indeed speaking from experience are we?

There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... CCP Goliath wrote:

Ugh ti-di pooping makes me sad.
Crynsos Cealion
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#468 - 2014-02-06 19:25:08 UTC
One use case where 50 drones would not be enough: HQ Incursion fleets with ~ 150 drones from DPS ships and up to another potential 50 from the Logi Squad.

Although that is one usage scenario, I personally don't think it would be good to extend drone use as far as this (4 full squdads) and while 50 is more complex, it can be dealt with via the usage of 3 drone bunnies instead of one.
ShatterSparkz
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#469 - 2014-02-06 19:28:26 UTC
Logix42 wrote:
Since it would seem you don't want to hinder Vanguard incursion fleets I would suggest bringing the number up to 60. It is pretty standard to fly 11-12 man fleets so that as pilots rotate in and out the number of pilots in fleet doesn't drop below 10. We find that the small ISK penalty for flying 1 or 2 over is offset by the time improvements of having that extra dps and by not running sub-optimally when a couple pilots need to leave.

Vanguards Standard: 12 pilots
Please consider 60 drones as the assist cap


This is literally as useless an opinion as anyone stating that a drone nerf only benefits nullsec.
James Baboli
Warp to Pharmacy
#470 - 2014-02-06 19:28:56 UTC  |  Edited by: James Baboli
CCP Rise wrote:
Hello, some news:

[b]Coming soon, in a Rubicon point release, we are planning to add a hard cap to the number of drones that can be assisted to a single player. Currently, we are planning to set that cap at 50.

*SNIP*

Why 50?
and most importantly, incursioners. We believe 50 will leave all these uses unharmed while also heavily discouraging large fleet use. If it turns out that fleets are still able to rely on assist easily at 50 (which we feel is unlikely) we can and will make further adjustments.



As always, leave your feedback and we will do our best to answer any questions.

I love the idea. I really do.

But speaking as a former incursion HQ FC, and a current FC in other sites:
Can we get this upped to 100, because of incursions?

A standard VG contest fleet puts 9 DPS and 2 logi on grid. A fleet looking to out contest these fleets will run 10 DPS and 2 logi. In both cases, if all of the fleet attempts to assist drones, they will hit the cap, which hurts the most prevalent fleets.

Assault fleets run 20 on grid, which means 100 drones at max. They are already barely worth running due to NCN's forcing you to run with t1 BCs, Strat cruisers or pirate cruisers and 3 logi if you have ZERO margin for badly applied reps or slow broadcasts.

HQ fleets run 40, for 200 drones at max. This is a large enough number that it is likely that the PVP sentry assist mechanics would only be moderately impacted, especially if you assisted drones to multiple boxes of a multiboxer with broadcasting software.

Alternately, could you fix NCNs or up AS payouts?

Talking more,

Flying crazier,

And drinking more

Making battleships worth the warp
TJ Arbosa
His Majesty's Royal Rogue Hunters
#471 - 2014-02-06 19:30:49 UTC
Talking about the Incursion runners, wouldn't it be possible to distinguish between "normal" drones (light, medium, heavy) and sentries?

I mean, it isn't possible to assist logi or e-war drones either.

So, make it possible to assist 200 light/medium/heavy drones but only 50 sentries. I don't think "normal" drones are an option for the Domi/Ishtar fleets compared to sentries because they can be killed more easily than sentries (a couple of smartbombs should do) and they lack the instant alpha of sentries.
Oberus MacKenzie
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
Sedition.
#472 - 2014-02-06 19:30:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Oberus MacKenzie
Xython wrote:
Holy christ, every single time this happens, it's always the same pattern.

1. Bad players (BOB's remnants and decendants, usually) find an exploit that gives them supremacy.
2. The saner heads in the group point out it's an exploit or at the very least, overpowered
3. Bad posters and sockpuppets explain how it's totally not an exploit and that the CFC is just bad
4. The CFC either finds a way to defeat the exploit, or starts using it themselves to force CCP to fix it
5. CCP fixes it, usually about 6 months too late
6. 100 page threadnought with all kinds of buttmad sockpuppets, idiots missing the point of the change, people who have obviously never played the game in a PVP situation suggesting asinine mechnics changes to "spite" PVPers, morons who have never been to nullsec, et cetera et cetera.

Every. Single. Time.

But man, it's fun to watch all the buttmad pubbies and N3 sockpuppets in this thread crying. I especially liked the guy bitching that he can't PVP while in another room watching a movie now, that was great. :)


Or is it that players find a way to gain an advantage over the one-trick-pony Goon tactic of just bringing huge numbers, at which point Goons ***** and moan about how it's OP and badger CCP until they change the game so that Goons don't have to adapt? Yes actually, it's that.
What's really fun to watch is you accusing others of being "buttmad sockpuppets" when you are clearly the most obvious example of one. Congrats to you Goons, your tears have once again eliminated the need for you to change your tactics to something that requires even the smallest amount of intelligence.

With that out of the way, I wanted to say that I like the idea of using bandwidth as a cap rather than a raw drone count. It seems like it would allow a better balance as well as being more believable from a logical perspective. Whoever suggested the 1000mb bandwidth cap gets a +1 from me.
Mikey Aivo
Original Sinners
Pandemic Legion
#473 - 2014-02-06 19:37:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Mikey Aivo
Still not a fix.
10 domis assisting sentries to a remote sensor boosted interceptor sitting on a gate still alphas everything before you can do anything.
You should make it based on bandwidth. This way the opposing fleet knows whos dealing damage. Same as it is with logi, you know who the logis are based on ship. Make the certian ships have huge bandwidth to be able to control hordes of drones. I think its stupid that i can assign sentries to frigs and let them lock things super fast and kill **** before u even notice who locked you.
Doesnt kill a fleet if the commander dies, the drones are still active and players can still re assign them to someone else. Maybe make it so if u kill the commander the drones disconnect and ppl have to re connect to them.
Johan March
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#474 - 2014-02-06 19:37:29 UTC
Kasune wrote:
One thing that I thought would be a bit more "realistic" is that the type of drone you field, can be assisted to a specific type of ship.

Say light/Medium drones - Up to cruisers. Sentrys Heavys - Battlecruiser (or maybe battleship) and to titans.

In my opinion it would be a bit more logical, as a frigate shouldn't have the cabability to put out the needed instructions for something of almost the same size...

Or something like that, myabe


Don't you dare mess with my sentry Oneiros.
Sipphakta en Gravonere
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#475 - 2014-02-06 19:41:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Sipphakta en Gravonere
Llyona wrote:
Yes. This a limitation in Python and I agree, it's about time CCP started using a big boy language.



Python has multiprocessor support since 2.6, released more than 5 years ago: http://docs.python.org/2/whatsnew/2.6.html#pep-371-the-multiprocessing-package
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#476 - 2014-02-06 19:41:27 UTC
Oberus MacKenzie wrote:

What's really fun to watch is you accusing others of being "buttmad sockpuppets" when you are clearly the most obvious example of one. Congrats to you Goons, your tears have once again eliminated the need for you to change your tactics to something that requires even the smallest amount of intelligence.

i like that the change that prevents 254 people in a fleet welding their shoot mans buttons to one person's keyboard is somehow a reduction in intelligence needed
Llyona
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#477 - 2014-02-06 19:43:31 UTC
Sipphakta en Gravonere wrote:
Llyona wrote:
Yes. This a limitation in Python and I agree, it's about time CCP started using a big boy language.



Python has multiprocessor support since 2.6, released more than 5 years ago: http://docs.python.org/2/whatsnew/2.6.html#pep-371-the-multiprocessing-package

This should be pretty straight-forward, but multi-processor is not the same as multi-core.

EVE is an illness, for which there is no cure.
Marcel Devereux
Aideron Robotics
Aideron Robotics.
#478 - 2014-02-06 19:44:01 UTC
Make sure that with this change that there is an error message that is displayed to the user trying to assist when they assister is at his/her max drones.
Seliah
Blades of Liberty
#479 - 2014-02-06 19:44:04 UTC
I like the idea of basing this on bandwidth, it could create interesting mechanics for both small and large scale combat.

I also hope CCP will use this opportunity to fix the existing bugs with drone assign in lowsec, which have been around since, I believe, Crimewatch and the rework of criminal flags.
Koby Botick
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#480 - 2014-02-06 19:45:33 UTC
Llyona wrote:
MeBiatch wrote:
Llyona wrote:
Kappy Ukap wrote:

Server side:
Anyhow tbh making the server more powerful would be an option but can CCP do that with how much it could cost?


It's not a matter of cost, but possibility. CCP is already using the best servers money can buy. The "next gen" server platforms just haven't come out yet.


and yet still use single core processing...

its 2014 not 2003... eve code needs a complete re-write from scratch... it might take several years but should be a priority just like crimewatch rewrite was.


Yes. This a limitation in Python and I agree, it's about time CCP started using a big boy language.



It would potentially even be possible to "fix Python" to not have this very bad performance behaviour. Because strictly speaking Python does have threads, it's just that there is a global token (the GIL) which forces only one thread from actively working. Since Python itself does no thread scheduling and leaves that to the OS, very weird performance problems follow from that since the OS tries to actively schedule those threads, but only one can run, so the rest get awoken and put to sleep again because they cannot get the GIL very fast and often leading to the perverse situation that Python runs slower on a multicore CPU than on a single core CPU.

For the technically inclined, this is probably the best public documentation about this phenomenon: http://www.dabeaz.com/python/GIL.pdf

Note that CCP actually uses stackless to my knowledge which at least can offload IO processing somewhat more sensibly. The intrinsic problems with Python on mutlithreaded architectures (which ALL servers are today and only get massively more so) is why CCP actually runs one entire Python process per solar system and treats these as single-threaded computation units. This solves the deficency of Python in the normal case, but does obviously not work at all when one such process has a big fleet battle to process.

Divide and conquer by multi-processing is the only winning strategy and it is simply not there. Actually, the brain in the box initiative which we heard first about almost 2 years ago (?) would be a very very tiny step in this direction. But as you can see in the long wait for that getting implemented and looking at the task at hand to get the entire server/fleet action processing properly multithreaded, well it is safe to say it simply won't be done ever.