These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#581 - 2014-02-06 22:28:41 UTC
Zwo Zateki wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
There is no contradiction, simply the fact that the potential harms to incursions, while undesirable, were of considerably lower importance than the decided balance point for drone assist. In the end any negative effect is still negligible, at worse making a second drone bunny, so it really hold no weight against the primary goal.


the fact that there is a negative effect, regardless of negligibility is the exact contradiction.

What makes it infuriating is that they're bowing to nullsec grunts and break highsec playstyle at the same time. Why can't just CCP realise that nullsec is just a vocal minority, irrelevant for the most subscribers?

sorry bud but nullsec is what gets on fox news and the bbc, not your pissant incursion fleet
Dave Stark
#582 - 2014-02-06 22:30:03 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Seriously if you want to work yourself up into a lather of pedantry when Fozzy's meaning is perfectly clear, then go for it. If there's one thing I've learned from the EVE-O forums, it's that when people are determined to be mad about something, nothing will stop them.

One specific subset of one gameplay style will experience very minor inconvenience. It's a shame, but that's just too bad.


it's rise that said it, not fozzie?

i'm not getting worked up, i'm just replying to people.

sure it's too bad if it goes ahead at 50, but is it really that bad that we're asking for a straight answer?
zbaaca
Republic Military Tax Avoiders
#583 - 2014-02-06 22:30:09 UTC
this will be fine is something will be done with bottomless drone bay of carriers.

Bugs are opportunities to cause unprecedented amounts of destruction. --Zorgn ♡♡♡

BrokenBC
no tax's are us
#584 - 2014-02-06 22:31:11 UTC
Olaf Erikkson wrote:
THIS is bullshit!

but Init. and Darkness. CSM... so ... yeah whatever


Spai !!
Konrad Kane
#585 - 2014-02-06 22:31:13 UTC
This thread should be capped at 50,
Charadrass
Angry Germans
#586 - 2014-02-06 22:32:01 UTC
Again: the problem is to adjust the dominix sentry fleets and slowcats.
I bet there are no plans to touch other drone activities.

Imho ccp wasnt thinking through enough.
Adjusting the droneamount by bandwidth will counter the problem AND only the problem. And leave all others normal.
Problem solved.

I would like to have an answer from ccp about that.
Rashnu Gorbani
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#587 - 2014-02-06 22:32:03 UTC
CCP Rise wrote:
Omnathious Deninard wrote:
Why 50? That still seems too much.


This is certainly the most common concern we ran into. As I said above, we think it's low enough. We didn't want to go lower because of the potential impact on other uses for assist, but if this doesn't work we will consider going lower at that point.

I wonder if "we" here means cfc and in or out of game pets.
Couldn't be any more obvious...
Captain StringfellowHawk
Forsaken Reavers
#588 - 2014-02-06 22:41:01 UTC
MeBiatch wrote:
dei'ro wrote:
rip 2000 drones shooting all at once.
rip going afk during a fleetfight.

oh no now i actually have to play eve ;_;

thanks ccp


yes now you can press f1 every 10 min in heavy tidi... totally see how that changes the afk thing.


At least it actually lets ME pilot my ship and lets ME play the game I pay for Instead of SOMEONE ELSE. Whatever lets me do more with my ship then some Trigger handling I am for. Think about how much LESS tidi there will be and how many MORE ACTIVE players you can cram into a systems, put into these large Epic fights now before Tidi kicks in. the system to handle these fights has been greatly improved, lets keep items that break it out of it.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#589 - 2014-02-06 22:41:17 UTC
Charadrass wrote:
Again: the problem is to adjust the dominix sentry fleets and slowcats.
I bet there are no plans to touch other drone activities.

Imho ccp wasnt thinking through enough.
Adjusting the droneamount by bandwidth will counter the problem AND only the problem. And leave all others normal.
Problem solved.

I would like to have an answer from ccp about that.

that assumes 51 sentries being used by someone is a problem but 250 lights not. Without knowing all usage cases intended to be cut off we can't say for sure that that idea would work.
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#590 - 2014-02-06 22:44:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Seranova Farreach
i disagree, the drone assist should be based on WHICH drones are being assisted...

if its med/light.. id say 150-200

for heavy maybe 100-150

sentrys no more then 100.

Ewar drones cannot be assigned to other players.

Logi drones and mineing drones have no limit.

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
The Tebo
Endless Summers
Shepherds
#591 - 2014-02-06 22:45:01 UTC
I still think it would be neat to use Salvage drones to pick apart peoples ships... using them as a weapons......

nothing like.. tackling someone. and instead of blowing them up..... take them apart.. piece by piece while they are helpless to get away. Shocked
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#592 - 2014-02-06 22:45:32 UTC
Zwo Zateki wrote:
Why can't just CCP realise that nullsec is just a vocal minority, irrelevant for the most subscribers?

Hello Dinsdale
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#593 - 2014-02-06 22:46:20 UTC
The Tebo wrote:
I still think it would be neat to use Salvage drones to pick apart peoples ships... using them as a weapons......

nothing like.. tackling someone. and instead of blowing them up..... take them apart.. piece by piece while they are helpless to get away. Shocked

salvager moduals vs minmatar ships :P

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#594 - 2014-02-06 22:46:59 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
what you described is a prioritization, yes. however read what is wrote in the original post. it contradicts itself on that very point. he even puts emphasis on not wanting to have a negative impact incursion runners above all others.
I'm having trouble with viewing that as anything other than an incorrect estimation of the number of drones an individual pilot would have a reasonable opportunity to manage in an incursion at best. Even then it's not so much a contradiction as just being wrong (and probably subsequently deciding it's not worth fixing).
Seranova Farreach
Biomass Negative
#595 - 2014-02-06 22:47:54 UTC
i feel the drone assist nerf is also a sham.. its to placate and avert people away form the real problem which is ISBoxer+insta alpha ships

[u]___________________ http://i.imgur.com/d9Ee2ik.jpg[/u]
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#596 - 2014-02-06 22:49:02 UTC
Zwo Zateki wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
There is no contradiction, simply the fact that the potential harms to incursions, while undesirable, were of considerably lower importance than the decided balance point for drone assist. In the end any negative effect is still negligible, at worse making a second drone bunny, so it really hold no weight against the primary goal.


the fact that there is a negative effect, regardless of negligibility is the exact contradiction.

What makes it infuriating is that they're bowing to nullsec grunts and break highsec playstyle at the same time. Why can't just CCP realise that nullsec is just a vocal minority, irrelevant for the most subscribers?


12,000 trials were started in the week after B-R.

No doubt this was because they all heard Incursions are so awesome and wanted to run them one day.

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Allus Nova
#597 - 2014-02-06 22:53:01 UTC
Demotress wrote:
While you are at it, why not switch the name of the game to goons get what they want online. After all every time they tell you to change something, you do it. Nerf needed or not.



This wasn't a goons gets what they want issue, this is a nerf bad game mechanics issue. Goons 1000 man Domi fleets will be just as affected as the N3 "wrecking ball"
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#598 - 2014-02-06 22:54:49 UTC
Very nice.

Preserves most legitimate uses, takes out the bad.

Not as elegant as I'd have liked (I would have preferred a "Drone Commander" skill), but it gets it in the goalposts, certainly.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Charadrass
Angry Germans
#599 - 2014-02-06 22:59:02 UTC
Ive never seen the powerblocks clashing with lightdrones. So yes, there is a difference.

Otherwise i would like to have more then ten targets lockable so i can command my drones on seperate targets at the same time.
If not, then ccp is simply nerfing incursions by slowing down HQ fleets, by needing 4 dronebuddys reducing the killspeed of either the battleships or the frigs.

So ccp, butter bei de fische. Is your target the overwhelming usage of sentrys in big fleet fights or slowing down incursions.
AetomHaert Mother
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#600 - 2014-02-06 22:59:11 UTC
Oh Takashawa wrote:
CCP Rise wrote:
  • Affect carriers more heavily than sub-caps (because they can field 10 drones per ship rather than 5)
    • Can we take this as a sign, then, that CCP holds the opinion that capitals should offer even fewer advantages to offset the increased cost, effort, risk, and skills required to effectively field them, as compared to simply fielding big piles of subcaps?

    Also, a broader question - do you intend to leave any force multipliers in EVE, Rise, or simply reduce it to whoever has more dudes in T1 subcaps, or alternatively, in bombers? It seems to be trending a lot that way lately, and I'm just curious if that's intentional or simply persistent oversight.