These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Lisa esprit
Turnur Militia
#1321 - 2014-02-13 16:03:31 UTC
being a newer player, nerfing the drone assist is a good idea, it means the pilot will have to use his guns instead of oh yeah lets live in null and kill them all using a drone bunny, also its gonna shake up incursions which is a good thing, drone fleets were cool but its a godd thing there going, back to basic pvp again

good job ccp
Kitty Bear
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#1322 - 2014-02-13 16:06:41 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:

Not when you are trying to fix a problem. 0 is the only number that fixes the problem.


But that is not a realistic, acceptable or appropriate solution.

It's no different to saying "big fights cause ti-di, so we'll limit ship numbers to x"

now ask yourself 'how well would that solution go down with the nul-sec playerbase?'
Weaselior
GoonWaffe
Goonswarm Federation
#1323 - 2014-02-13 16:08:15 UTC
Grath Telkin wrote:
WHAT, I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE ROAR OF THE CELESTIS FLEET, SPEAK UP (edit: or RR BS or Tengu fleet or Ahacs that are made up entirely of zealots)

if we field just a fleet of celestises we'll be pasted by most fleets

celestises are just one of the components of our fleets

Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Pubbie Management and Exploitation Division.
Mario Putzo
#1324 - 2014-02-13 16:19:37 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Kitty Bear wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:

Not when you are trying to fix a problem. 0 is the only number that fixes the problem.


But that is not a realistic, acceptable or appropriate solution. It's no different to saying "big fights cause ti-di, so we'll limit ship numbers to x" now ask yourself 'how well would that solution go down with the nul-sec playerbase?'


Thats not the same thing at all actually. But ill bite.

When the argument is made (by CCP Rise) that not enough people push buttons, and then you only implement a fix that asks 25/250 people actually push buttons...does that fix the issue?

Tidi was a fix for the big fights. Instead of working on Sov to spread fights out, or instead of investing in more/better server capacity processing, instead of cleaning up the spaghetti code, CCP implemented Tidi to specifically deal with large numbers.

But no If CCP decided to cap numbers, I would be in that thread calling them out too for kicking the can down the road.

If the problem is passive play....remove passive play. Don't kick the can. The "fix" doesn't actually fix anything. Just like Tidi doesn't really fix anything. Dunno if you ever been in Tidi, but it isn't any surprise why folks would rather alt+tab out to a different game. After 2 hours of watching your guns cycle but not actually do anything it gets kind of old....now do that 3-4 times per war. If Drone Assist reduces fun...I wonder what CCP would say about Tidi.

If you as a developer identify an issue and have the ability to fix. Fix it.
Dave Stark
#1325 - 2014-02-13 18:41:08 UTC
should i be worried that i'm systematically agreeing with grath posts?

although i feel at this point in the thread we could be talking about the weather for all the good it's going to do to the final implementation of this idea.
Dave Stark
#1326 - 2014-02-13 18:43:14 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
If the problem is passive play....remove passive play.

passive play quite clearly isn't an issue in the slightest, or mining would have been hit with a sledge hammer long ago.
Mario Putzo
#1327 - 2014-02-13 19:16:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Dave Stark wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
If the problem is passive play....remove passive play.

passive play quite clearly isn't an issue in the slightest, or mining would have been hit with a sledge hammer long ago.



thatsthejoke.jpg
Sentamon
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#1328 - 2014-02-13 19:48:41 UTC
Mario Putzo wrote:
If the problem is passive play....remove passive play.


When passive play is more fun the active play, maybe the goal should be to make active play enjoyable so people want to actively play.

Forcing something that isn't fun on people probably won't end well.

~ Professional Forum Alt  ~
Mario Putzo
#1329 - 2014-02-13 19:50:36 UTC
Sentamon wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
If the problem is passive play....remove passive play.


When passive play is more fun the active play, maybe the goal should be to make active play enjoyable so people want to actively play.

Forcing something that isn't fun on people probably won't end well.


You mean treating symptoms instead of curing the disease isn't good development?

thisisalsothejoke.jpg
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate
#1330 - 2014-02-13 20:07:49 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
WHAT, I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE ROAR OF THE CELESTIS FLEET, SPEAK UP (edit: or RR BS or Tengu fleet or Ahacs that are made up entirely of zealots)

if we field just a fleet of celestises we'll be pasted by most fleets

celestises are just one of the components of our fleets


I laughed at both these statements.

Blasters for life

https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com
Dave Stark
#1331 - 2014-02-13 20:08:16 UTC
this isn't a joke book, this is a feedback thread for an idea that borderlines on terrible.
Mario Putzo
#1332 - 2014-02-13 20:54:32 UTC  |  Edited by: Mario Putzo
Dave Stark wrote:
this isn't a joke book, this is a feedback thread for an idea that borderlines on terrible.


Shocked < thats what my face did when i spit coffee at my screen.

:mysides: ...feedback...huehuehue.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#1333 - 2014-02-13 21:25:32 UTC
Weaselior wrote:
Grath Telkin wrote:
WHAT, I CAN'T HEAR YOU OVER THE ROAR OF THE CELESTIS FLEET, SPEAK UP (edit: or RR BS or Tengu fleet or Ahacs that are made up entirely of zealots)

if we field just a fleet of celestises we'll be pasted by most fleets

celestises are just one of the components of our fleets

No clearly Celestis fleet is just as versatile as a homogenous slowcat fleet (not even going into the wrecking ball here).

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
WarFireV
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#1334 - 2014-02-13 21:39:49 UTC
Clearly we need to make it so people are forced to use SniperBS, with everyone using what ever BS they want, like we all did in the past.

Pretty much bring back cyno AOE DD. That will fix all the problems.
Safdrof Uta
VELOCIRAPTORS EATING GRILLED CHEESE SANDWICH
The Burning Contingent Alliance
#1335 - 2014-02-14 05:35:45 UTC
So... I'm not going to argue against this change.

But on behalf of the HQ incursion communities (Ie, any incursion community worth mentioning) I would like to ask the limit to be raised.

You claim to not want to negatively affect us, but forget that we use 150 drones in our fleet, not 50.
While we will survive if you don't rethink the number, it would be greatly appreciated if you used a higher number.

Thanks - Me.

FC for The Valhalla Project.
Eve's largest and best 23.5 HQ community.
Lyris Nairn
Perkone
Caldari State
#1336 - 2014-02-14 05:41:25 UTC
Why not just use three triggers? For a number of triggers that small, the increase in coordination difficulty ought to be minimal as opposed to the twenty or more that would be needed for a full fleet of 256.

Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn
Mario Putzo
#1337 - 2014-02-14 06:21:42 UTC
Safdrof Uta wrote:
So... I'm not going to argue against this change.

But on behalf of the HQ incursion communities (Ie, any incursion community worth mentioning) I would like to ask the limit to be raised.

You claim to not want to negatively affect us, but forget that we use 150 drones in our fleet, not 50.
While we will survive if you don't rethink the number, it would be greatly appreciated if you used a higher number.

Thanks - Me.

FC for The Valhalla Project.
Eve's largest and best 23.5 HQ community.



Given the fact that Incursions already have system wide effects, I wonder how hard it would be for CCP to have a special drone assist buff tied to the Incursion effects. They could in theory eliminate assist under regular circumstances, and when under the effect of incursions allow for drone assist. Without actually having to have a Cap or anything like that.
Fix Sov
#1338 - 2014-02-14 07:45:37 UTC
Why would that be necessary? What makes incursions so special?

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.
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc
Shadow Cartel
#1339 - 2014-02-14 08:49:06 UTC
surely the people who aren't bad at them should welcome an increase in difficulty for incursions? competition and all.

also, nerf HS incursions loads - they suck, and the people who run them are terrible.
Mournful Conciousness
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#1340 - 2014-02-14 09:22:08 UTC
Dave Stark wrote:
Mario Putzo wrote:
If the problem is passive play....remove passive play.

passive play quite clearly isn't an issue in the slightest, or mining would have been hit with a sledge hammer long ago.


While hardly dynamic, neither is mining fully passive. Once your ore hold is full you have to do something.

Embers Children is recruiting carefully selected pilots who like wormholes, green killboards and the sweet taste of tears. You can convo me in game or join the chat "TOHA Lounge".