These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
#1241 - 2014-02-11 18:35:41 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Or we could go with a 50 drone limit and deal with it.


yeah we could go with a **** choice and deal with it, or we could use the feedback thread to give feedback.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1242 - 2014-02-11 18:37:24 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Or we could go with a 50 drone limit and deal with it.


yeah we could go with a **** choice and deal with it, or we could use the feedback thread to give feedback.

50 drone limit is awesome, good job Rise. Rise gets a raise.
That's my feedback.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1243 - 2014-02-11 18:53:44 UTC
our domi doctrines correctly proved that drone assist is boring garbage, and ccp agreed with us

we didn't do it to prove it causes lag and y9ou know that because we lost a battle we would have won because of drone lag

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Dave Stark
#1244 - 2014-02-11 18:56:26 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Or we could go with a 50 drone limit and deal with it.


yeah we could go with a **** choice and deal with it, or we could use the feedback thread to give feedback.

50 drone limit is awesome, good job Rise. Rise gets a raise.
That's my feedback.


awesome job not preserving one of the use cases they especially didn't want to disrupt.

a use case that would be fine under a 750mb limit.
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support
#1245 - 2014-02-11 19:00:14 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Dave Stark wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Or we could go with a 50 drone limit and deal with it.


yeah we could go with a **** choice and deal with it, or we could use the feedback thread to give feedback.

50 drone limit is awesome, good job Rise. Rise gets a raise.
That's my feedback.


awesome job not preserving one of the use cases they especially didn't want to disrupt.

a use case that would be fine under a 750mb limit.

I am not particularly hip to modern incursion doctrines but I'm gonna go out on a limb and guess that you don't take more than 10 logi on the hq fleets, so it should be pretty trivial to get their damage dealing capacity in the mix without causing any undue attention splitting on the most attention-hungry portion of a fleet

everyone else is there to do damage, they can hit the 'F' key and move on with their lives
Fix Sov
#1246 - 2014-02-11 19:11:01 UTC
It isn't irrelevant if a fleet fight goes from a million instructions to 1000, all of which are either "approach/orbit", "launch drones", "assist to guy x", then guy x does everything.

The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change.
Fix Sov
#1247 - 2014-02-11 19:39:14 UTC  |  Edited by: Fix Sov
Mario Putzo wrote:
If his goal is to have everyone push buttons. Then this fix still does not solve that because Drone Assist is still going to be a functioning mechanic. I guess 25 people pushing F1 is an improvement, but it is not a fix. It is a bandaid, and is yet another can CCP kicks down the road.

Or in the case of carrier fleets, a bit more than 25 people instead of just 1 pressing F.

The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change.
Mario Putzo
#1248 - 2014-02-11 19:42:02 UTC
Fix Sov wrote:
Or in the case of carrier fleets, a bit more than 25 people instead of just 1 pressing F.


Still not 100% of people playing. The fix doesn't fix the problem. Either people not pushing buttons is an issue, or it isn't. Either fix it, or leave it as is.
Fix Sov
#1249 - 2014-02-11 19:42:51 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Mario Putzo wrote:
Just like Drones causing server load. CCP tried to fix drones like 7 years ago, they reduced the number of drones ships could launch...they didn't fix the problem, they just kicked the can down the road to 2014 and HEDGP.

It wasn't a problem until players suddenly decided that they were worth using as the fleet's sole damage output avenue.

*Snip* Removed reply to a deleted post. ISD Ezwal.

Mario Putzo wrote:
Fix Sov wrote:
Or in the case of carrier fleets, a bit more than 25 people instead of just 1 pressing F.


Still not 100% of people playing. The fix doesn't fix the problem. Either people not pushing buttons is an issue, or it isn't. Either fix it, or leave it as is.

So you're actually going to try to go with the "leave it as-is", given the evidence of how it affects player behavior and server performance?

Interesting.

The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change.
Mario Putzo
#1250 - 2014-02-11 19:49:18 UTC  |  Edited by: ISD Ezwal
Fix Sov wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Just like Drones causing server load. CCP tried to fix drones like 7 years ago, they reduced the number of drones ships could launch...they didn't fix the problem, they just kicked the can down the road to 2014 and HEDGP.

It wasn't a problem until players suddenly decided that they were worth using as the fleet's sole damage output avenue.

*Snip* Removed reply to a deleted post. ISD Ezwal.

And why did Drones become the primary damage choice for fleets?

It wasn't because of Drone Assist obviously. So why are we fixing drone assist? Clearly it is not an issue on its own.

Perhaps CCP should have listened to the player base when they were planning drone/drone boat changes. Or perhaps it is because CCP didn't listen to the player base when retooling damps, when the player base told CCP that this was bad and it was going to cause issues with fleets down the road.

Seems that the common theme here is CCP not listening to the people actually playing the game. Hell they didn't listen 7 years ago when Players told CCP that reducing amount of drones each ship brought wouldn't fix server load issues, because people would just bring more ships with drones anyway.

And here we are, 3 rounds of kick the can later....getting ready to kick it one more time. But ya lets not actually work on fixing the problem. Lets just assume everyone is playing null politics and spewing narratives at each other.



[quote=Fix Sov]
So you're actually going to try to go with the "leave it as-is", given the evidence of how it affects player behavior and server performance?

Interesting.


No I would personally remove it from the game in its entirety if the goal is to have people push buttons. If CCP is unwilling to do that then they should not change it at all because it obviously isn't actually an issue. I think all passive **** should eventually be taken out of the game. Including passive income sources. I don't think AFKing should be accepted at all.

I also would implore CCP to start taking sov mechanics seriously because the majority reason people would rather AFK "fight" is because current mechanics promote the dogpile which induces Tidi the primary thing that makes people hate actually playing.
Fix Sov
#1251 - 2014-02-11 20:01:24 UTC
So CCP doesn't want to completely remove drone assist for various reasons, so therefore CCP should do nothing about it and we should wait 5 years for CCP to fix the way the processing in a solar system is handled (to fix the lag issue) and another 5 years for CCP to fix the sov system. Meanwhile every fight is going to be an average of 10 player commands (apart from the FC)?

The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change.
Mario Putzo
#1252 - 2014-02-11 20:11:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Fix Sov wrote:
So CCP doesn't want to completely remove drone assist for various reasons, so therefore CCP should do nothing about it and we should wait 5 years for CCP to fix the way the processing in a solar system is handled (to fix the lag issue) and another 5 years for CCP to fix the sov system. Meanwhile every fight is going to be an average of 10 player commands (apart from the FC)?


Hey man ask Rise not me. I didn't announce that people not playing the game was an problem he did. I didn't announce a "fix" that doesn't address that issue he did. Perhaps you should be questioning CCP Rise as to his reasoning behind not actually addressing either issue he claims valid enough to warrant mechanics changes.

If it were up to me Drone assist would be gone in a patch tomorrow morning. Along with drone bays from any ship without a drone bonus. I would then focus all my efforts on figuring out a way to make sov battles unfold more like B-R did, and less like HED. Instead of doing half ass fixes that don't actually solve issues I deem relevant enough to warrant fixing.

Once I was able to not only reduce total drone use, and have people playing the game in a more enjoyable atmosphere, I would begin removing other passive fleet systems, such as anchoring, and I would begin to work on tweaking passive income systems to make them require more active player input to attain roids, moongoo and PI ****.

I wouldn't start by kicking a can a few more years down the road. Again.

When you want to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.

(your sig sums up the number 1 issue with the game today.)
Fix Sov
#1253 - 2014-02-11 20:23:46 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Fix Sov wrote:
So CCP doesn't want to completely remove drone assist for various reasons, so therefore CCP should do nothing about it and we should wait 5 years for CCP to fix the way the processing in a solar system is handled (to fix the lag issue) and another 5 years for CCP to fix the sov system. Meanwhile every fight is going to be an average of 10 player commands (apart from the FC)?


Hey man ask Rise not me. I didn't announce that people not playing the game was an problem he did. I didn't announce a "fix" that doesn't address that issue he did. Perhaps you should be questioning CCP Rise as to his reasoning behind not actually addressing either issue he claims valid enough to warrant mechanics changes.

If it were up to me Drone assist would be gone in a patch tomorrow morning. Along with drone bays from any ship without a drone bonus. I would then focus all my efforts on figuring out a way to make sov battles unfold more like B-R did, and less like HED. Instead of doing half ass fixes that don't actually solve issues I deem relevant enough to warrant fixing.

Once I was able to not only reduce total drone use, and have people playing the game in a more enjoyable atmosphere, I would begin removing other passive fleet systems, such as anchoring, and I would begin to work on tweaking passive income systems to make them require more active player input to attain roids, moongoo and PI ****.

I wouldn't start by kicking a can a few more years down the road. Again.

When you want to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.

(your sig sums up the number 1 issue with the game today.)

Realtalk: I have no issue with any part of this post. In fact I'm actually a bit surprised they went with a hard cap of 50. Personally I would've thought they would either get rid of it altogether, or go for a fighter-style assignment system, so a player can only wield x drones, where x is determined by either his ship, his skills or both.

Then I would've demanded they spend as long as it takes to fix the sov system, because in my view it is the biggest problem this game is facing, and one I wouldn't be surprised ends up killing it if it isn't fixed soon, but I digress.

The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change.
Ragnen Delent
13.
#1254 - 2014-02-11 20:25:23 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:

And why did Drones become the primary damage choice for fleets?

It wasn't because of Drone Assist obviously. So why are we fixing drone assist? Clearly it is not an issue on its own.


Perhaps it had to do with the drone modules added in 2012, as well as several buffs to which brought drones more in line with other weapons systems, allowing people to seriously consider them for fleet doctrines, and the stunning realization that now that drones were "good" that drone assist was now incredibly powerful due to its ability to mitigate the effects of ewar, poor ieet member attention to primaries, and almost instant damage application. Maybe it was that sequence of things that turned a mechanix which had previous not been all that useful due to how poor drones were.

Now, CCP could just nerf drones and likely reduce the usage of drones, but as mentioned that was not the principal intent of this change.
Mario Putzo
#1255 - 2014-02-11 20:31:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Ragnen Delent wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:

And why did Drones become the primary damage choice for fleets?

It wasn't because of Drone Assist obviously. So why are we fixing drone assist? Clearly it is not an issue on its own.


Perhaps it had to do with the drone modules added in 2012, as well as several buffs to which brought drones more in line with other weapons systems, allowing people to seriously consider them for fleet doctrines, and the stunning realization that now that drones were "good" that drone assist was now incredibly powerful due to its ability to mitigate the effects of ewar, poor ieet member attention to primaries, and almost instant damage application. Maybe it was that sequence of things that turned a mechanix which had previous not been all that useful due to how poor drones were.

Now, CCP could just nerf drones and likely reduce the usage of drones, but as mentioned that was not the principal intent of this change.


Ya that is what I was getting at. It wasn't drone assist that created the current problem, and changing drone assist isn't going to fix the current problem. The current problem is a symptom of other balance changes, and most notably the lack of any fucks being given to the sov system which is ultimately the cancer that is causing the symptoms.

If Sov war was more enjoyable do you think people would be alt tabbed playing WoT or PoE?


It just seems like CCP would rather play nursemaid, instead of stepping up and being the Doctor.
Mario Putzo
#1256 - 2014-02-11 20:34:48 UTC
Fix Sov wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
Fix Sov wrote:
So CCP doesn't want to completely remove drone assist for various reasons, so therefore CCP should do nothing about it and we should wait 5 years for CCP to fix the way the processing in a solar system is handled (to fix the lag issue) and another 5 years for CCP to fix the sov system. Meanwhile every fight is going to be an average of 10 player commands (apart from the FC)?


Hey man ask Rise not me. I didn't announce that people not playing the game was an problem he did. I didn't announce a "fix" that doesn't address that issue he did. Perhaps you should be questioning CCP Rise as to his reasoning behind not actually addressing either issue he claims valid enough to warrant mechanics changes.

If it were up to me Drone assist would be gone in a patch tomorrow morning. Along with drone bays from any ship without a drone bonus. I would then focus all my efforts on figuring out a way to make sov battles unfold more like B-R did, and less like HED. Instead of doing half ass fixes that don't actually solve issues I deem relevant enough to warrant fixing.

Once I was able to not only reduce total drone use, and have people playing the game in a more enjoyable atmosphere, I would begin removing other passive fleet systems, such as anchoring, and I would begin to work on tweaking passive income systems to make them require more active player input to attain roids, moongoo and PI ****.

I wouldn't start by kicking a can a few more years down the road. Again.

When you want to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.

(your sig sums up the number 1 issue with the game today.)

Realtalk: I have no issue with any part of this post. In fact I'm actually a bit surprised they went with a hard cap of 50. Personally I would've thought they would either get rid of it altogether, or go for a fighter-style assignment system, so a player can only wield x drones, where x is determined by either his ship, his skills or both.

Then I would've demanded they spend as long as it takes to fix the sov system, because in my view it is the biggest problem this game is facing, and one I wouldn't be surprised ends up killing it if it isn't fixed soon, but I digress.


Heck I wouldn't even mind seeing Drone Assist becoming a leadership skill, if their intent is to keep it. You start with the ability to control 0 drones (from others) and get +10 per level up to the 50 cap. This way not anyone can be a drone assist and it actually becomes a skill position and not just a "ill do it" thing.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1257 - 2014-02-11 20:37:22 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
Hey man ask Rise not me. I didn't announce that people not playing the game was an problem he did. I didn't announce a "fix" that doesn't address that issue he did. Perhaps you should be questioning CCP Rise as to his reasoning behind not actually addressing either issue he claims valid enough to warrant mechanics changes.

If it were up to me Drone assist would be gone in a patch tomorrow morning. Along with drone bays from any ship without a drone bonus. I would then focus all my efforts on figuring out a way to make sov battles unfold more like B-R did, and less like HED. Instead of doing half ass fixes that don't actually solve issues I deem relevant enough to warrant fixing.

Once I was able to not only reduce total drone use, and have people playing the game in a more enjoyable atmosphere, I would begin removing other passive fleet systems, such as anchoring, and I would begin to work on tweaking passive income systems to make them require more active player input to attain roids, moongoo and PI ****.

I wouldn't start by kicking a can a few more years down the road. Again.

When you want to make an omelet you have to break a few eggs.

(your sig sums up the number 1 issue with the game today.)


This is a pretty good post and mirrors a lot of my own thoughts on the matter.

I also wondered why they even left drone assist at a cap of 50 instead of just getting rid of it altogether.

Probably because they didn't want to induce rage from the incursion community....Not that people have much sympathy for them, anyways.

Exception: the part about "fixing anchoring" - if you have any ideas on how to do that, please let everybody know. That's a difficult nut to crack.
Mario Putzo
#1258 - 2014-02-11 20:46:33 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Anchoring isn't that tough to tweak really. Simply just disallow you from using navigable command on a fleet member.

Flash a lame message like

"Due to the fleet systems synchronization your navigation computer is unable to perform that action at this time."

You would still be able to do the approach/keep range/orbit on people outside fleet however due to the needed utility against opponents.

If you want to anchor you would do so on someone outside your fleet, thus they would not have bonuses nor would they be able to show up in the fleet watchlist etc. It would still be doable, but it would require more set up and application above just point and click.

Similar to how Drone Assist being removed doesn't nix Drone Alpha...it just become a bit more complex, and actually requires people to pay attention to goings on.

that is how I would address anchoring anyway.
Fix Sov
#1259 - 2014-02-11 20:50:43 UTC
Or just fetch whomever you're anchoring/orbiting/whatever's coordinates at the time of selection, instead of continually updating the coordinates of your target, thus requiring slightly more work on behalf of the fleet members.

But the proper fix would be xwing style flying and fighting.

The current sov system is too heavily reliant on the defender saving systems by stuffing as many people as possible into the system for the final timer, instead of incentivizing attacking (and defending) multiple systems at the same time by splitting their forces into multiple fleets and using actual intelligence/strategy. This must change.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#1260 - 2014-02-11 20:52:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Mario Putzo wrote:
Anchoring isn't that tough to tweak really. Simply just disallow you from using navigable command on a fleet member.


This is getting off-topic but that's not really a good solution.

It would invalidate many perfectly valid use cases...For instance, what if you just want to approach a fleet member? Not to "anchor" off of them, but just to get closer?

You'd essentially force everybody into the double-click game which is really bad. Or just approaching celestials instead.

Fix Sov wrote:
Or just fetch whomever you're anchoring/orbiting/whatever's coordinates at the time of selection, instead of continually updating the coordinates of your target, thus requiring slightly more work on behalf of the fleet members.


People would just select the anchor and be forced to spam the "approach" button in the ship control panel, much like W-space residents are forced to click "scan" over and over.

Not a great solution.