Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 61 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 20 post(s) |
Dave Stark
4350
|
Posted - 2014.02.14 16:11:00 -
[1711] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Does it solve the issue completely? No. The dps/ehp/range/speed advantages of the cruiser sized sentry boats will still dominate fighting in my area of operations (low sec).
other than stopping goons whining, it hasn't actually solve any issue. |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
296
|
Posted - 2014.02.14 16:34:00 -
[1712] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:Why should the rest of the game be changed because of nullsec? What makes nullsec so special? Does it solve the issue completely? No. The dps/ehp/range/speed advantages of the cruiser sized sentry boats will still dominate fighting in my area of operations (low sec).
But it doesn't actually change anything, and it certainly doesn't fix anything set up in CCP Rise's OP.
This fix is an appeasement fix for 8 months of CFC whining and 4 months of them deliberately (and knowingly) adding excessive server load in the use of Dominix, for the intended purposes of forcing CCP to make adjustments to a mechanic that their enemy had employed to counter their Celestis Fleet.
If it was about Balance why not include it in the balance update they just had regarding drones. Especially if this has been something CCP has been working on for a long time, and not just a kneejerk reaction because of what happened in HED, and the threat of thousands of players to quit the game because of HED, and of course the bad press CCP got because of HED. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
554
|
Posted - 2014.02.14 17:14:00 -
[1713] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote: That positive effect is that more people are interactively controlling all aspects of combat in their ship. As long as anchoring still exists, this won't be true. Anchoring is arguably even more passive than drone assist. Not having to control your ships motion is a pretty big deal - it's harder to navigate a ship than it is to target/attack somebody.
Anchoring is just the act of setting your ship to orbit someone else isn't it?
The precursor to removing this ability would be to introduce a more thoughtful means of controlling ship motion, and I (and I suspect the devs) have no idea where to start on that - eve is not FPS nor complete RTS, it's somewhere in between.
If you can orbit or keep at range an enemy or structure it seems arbitrarily illogical to prevent someone orbiting a friendly.
I also don't think that orbiting is as passive as drone assist. It's more akin to giving the drones a command to 'attack this guy', which is the F key.
As for multi boxers, yes when I was earning sisters LP for some blueprints i dual-boxed a dominix and EOS and slaved the EOS curators to the dominix, thus getting 2x the firepower and 30% better tank on both ships.
It would not have killed me to press ctrl-click, F on both clients... 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".
|
Markku Laaksonen
EVE University Ivy League
358
|
Posted - 2014.02.14 18:42:00 -
[1714] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Fix Sov wrote:Why would that be necessary? What makes incursions so special? Valhalla Project obviously don't want their ability to passively do incursions taken away. Incursions have always been the ideal isk farm. A few knowledgeable players to guide the masses to farm a lot of isk. With drone assist being reduced it will mean more knowledgeable players needed in each fleet. Instead of Fc (drone bunny) and a couple of logi, it will now require Fc logi and 2 additional players who know how to follow broadcasts. This change may mean it will take them 2 mins longer to finish tiks, which would be bad for the incursion community as it reduces their hourly income. (sarcasm intended)
50 drone limit for drone assist won't effect Vanguards at all. Your sarcasm masks the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. DUST 514 Recruit Code - https://dust514.com/recruit/zluCyb/
EVE Buddy Invite - https://secure.eveonline.com/trial/?invc=047203f1-4124-42a1-b36f-39ca8ae5d6e2&action=buddy
|
Dave Stark
4350
|
Posted - 2014.02.14 19:32:00 -
[1715] - Quote
considering how great incursions are for isk/hour it's amazing so many people are demonstrating that they've never done a single one. |
Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
12215
|
Posted - 2014.02.14 20:38:00 -
[1716] - Quote
I used to do incursions back when TEST was part of the CFC. I flew a space priest and none of this concerned me. Sky Captain of Your Heart
Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2034
|
Posted - 2014.02.14 23:09:00 -
[1717] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:X Gallentius wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:Why should the rest of the game be changed because of nullsec? What makes nullsec so special? Does it solve the issue completely? No. The dps/ehp/range/speed advantages of the cruiser sized sentry boats will still dominate fighting in my area of operations (low sec). But it doesn't actually change anything, and it certainly doesn't fix anything set up in CCP Rise's OP. It's one small step, not the final solution. And if it didn't change anything, then they aren't really bowing down to the Goons, right? |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
511
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 00:53:00 -
[1718] - Quote
X Gallentius wrote: Does it solve the issue completely? No. The dps/ehp/range/speed advantages of the cruiser sized sentry boats will still dominate fighting in my area of operations (low sec).
still waiting on medium-sized drone ships that use medium drones. |
Arthur Aihaken
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
2895
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 04:31:00 -
[1719] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:still waiting on medium-sized drone ships that use medium drones. I'm kinda holding out for frigates that get to run battleship-class weapons... I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
122
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 05:28:00 -
[1720] - Quote
Markku Laaksonen wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Fix Sov wrote:Why would that be necessary? What makes incursions so special? Valhalla Project obviously don't want their ability to passively do incursions taken away. Incursions have always been the ideal isk farm. A few knowledgeable players to guide the masses to farm a lot of isk. With drone assist being reduced it will mean more knowledgeable players needed in each fleet. Instead of Fc (drone bunny) and a couple of logi, it will now require Fc logi and 2 additional players who know how to follow broadcasts. This change may mean it will take them 2 mins longer to finish tiks, which would be bad for the incursion community as it reduces their hourly income. (sarcasm intended) 50 drone limit for drone assist won't effect Vanguards at all. Your sarcasm masks the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. LOL, your funny and maybe you should read the post I was responding to.
I've done enough incursions to know the reduced drone assist will have little to no effect.. Hence the sarcasm And who says it was Vanguards the comment was in reference to. I responded to a specific post sarcastically, what in that says I don't know what I'm talking about?
Do you know what "Sarcasm" is?
A troll will troll regardless of whether it is relevant or not.. |
|
Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
12216
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 06:45:00 -
[1721] - Quote
It is you who do not know what sarcasm is, as I pointed out earlier. Sky Captain of Your Heart
Reddit: lyris_nairn Skype: lyris.nairn Twitter: @lyris_nairn |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
296
|
Posted - 2014.02.15 08:54:00 -
[1722] - Quote
wrong thread |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
123
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 03:33:00 -
[1723] - Quote
Lyris Nairn wrote:It is you who do not know what sarcasm is, as I pointed out earlier. I think maybe you should look at the definition of sarcasm.. It is something that is hard to write down as a lot of the nuances of sarcasm are in the telling but each to his own.
|
Fleet Admiral Ocampo
Quad Technologies
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 04:35:00 -
[1724] - Quote
why not to limit drone assist to your SQUAD LEADER. and thats it.
that will keep a balance for subcap and capital drone asist.
let say u r in a carrier fleet . well u can get asisted by 10 players = your drones + your squad drones.
if u r on a sub capital fleet, well is the same. but as u know capitals can have up to 15 drones for asist. / note since super carriers CANT use other stuff that is not figther/figtherbomber. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
511
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 13:44:00 -
[1725] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:still waiting on medium-sized drone ships that use medium drones. I'm kinda holding out for frigates that get to run battleship-class weapons...
they could do it like combat drones, and make it so yo have battleship weapons with battleship tracking, frigate dps and frigate range. |
GordonO
Shaltanacs
43
|
Posted - 2014.02.16 19:36:00 -
[1726] - Quote
Are you planning to actually fix the feature, or just limit the amount ?? ie if you assist drones.. they don't always stay assisted, every now and again.. enough to be annoying, they go and do their own thing.. Shaltanacs-á is recruiting.. https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4133069#post4133069 |
Mike Voidstar
Voidstar Free Flight Foundation
393
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 00:42:00 -
[1727] - Quote
Arthur Aihaken wrote:TrouserDeagle wrote:still waiting on medium-sized drone ships that use medium drones. I'm kinda holding out for frigates that get to run battleship-class weapons...
Tristan
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2297
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 03:40:00 -
[1728] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:
The precursor to removing this ability would be to introduce a more thoughtful means of controlling ship motion, and I (and I suspect the devs) have no idea where to start on that - eve is not FPS nor complete RTS, it's somewhere in between..
You keep seeing people say this, like they anchor on the FC and his ship magically keeps at the right range to the hostiles and the logistics magically keep at range of their fleet members, but somebody is driving the anchor around, its not just keeping itself in the right position.
The FC moves to keep transv at the right place, the Logi anchor moves to keep the other logi in proper range.
So a 'more complex flight system' isn't needed because somebody is already using the existing flight system to do all these things for you
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
2D34DLY4U
Arab League
17
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 12:21:00 -
[1729] - Quote
The Flight Control model is working fine in solo and small gang PVP since it allows for fun and engaging game play, EVE really shines in this kind of engagements however it seems all of this depth is lost after a certain fleet size.
I suspect part of the problem is the way the Flight Control model flawlessly synergizes with the Fleet Interface, allowing fleets of any size to move/fight as a single unit with perfect communication. If you think of a fleet as an army and of the grid as a field of battle, there are many interesting game play opportunities created by a large army engaged in battle: communication, fog of war, terrain, distance, time. In EVE all of this is lost as the fleet works as a single unit irrespective of size that operates in a field of battle made up of empty space where everyone can be anywhere almost instantly.
In a large army there is strategic game play going on with the commanders issuing orders to their chain of officers that are engaged in implementing these orders at a tactical level within their own locus of control (who they are commanding) and context (where they are, who is near them, what they can engage). Commanders, Officers and Units are dealing with separate problems and actively managing different things while still contributing to a common goal. In EVE it seems that during very large engagements this more tactical level play is lost or at least not sufficiently developed - we can have groups of tacklers, bubblers, ewar, logi or bombers doing different semi autonomous things but currently the game allows for a lot of passive bland game play (anchor, F1, shut down brain for 15min, repeat).
This is an opportunity for game design to create new an interesting "emergent" game play so that large fleets are somehow forced to act as groups of smaller independent active groups on one hand (separate fleet into small gangs of ships that are actually playing the game autonomously); and on the other hand when a large fleet battle occurs we should have "terrain" like constraints added, things similar to bubbles, the new deployable structures or ship AOE effectss that allow/force these smaller active units to have fun tactical level decision making such as moving to point X, destroying target Y, defending Z, etc.
My point is that besides spreading conflict through different points in order to separate fleets into different grids, same grid game play during large engagements can also be made better and that there are opportunities for game design to make these engagements more fun and rewarding. We have had more or less this same model for the past 10 years and when EVE was launched there were no 4k pilot battles, serious attention should be paid to this part of the game to make it better. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
586
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 12:48:00 -
[1730] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:
The precursor to removing this ability would be to introduce a more thoughtful means of controlling ship motion, and I (and I suspect the devs) have no idea where to start on that - eve is not FPS nor complete RTS, it's somewhere in between..
You keep seeing people say this, like they anchor on the FC and his ship magically keeps at the right range to the hostiles and the logistics magically keep at range of their fleet members, but somebody is driving the anchor around, its not just keeping itself in the right position. The FC moves to keep transv at the right place, the Logi anchor moves to keep the other logi in proper range. So a 'more complex flight system' isn't needed because s omebody is already using the existing flight system to do all these things for you
As I understand it you and I see things the same way. I think the guy I was replying to was suggesting that anchoring is passive and that it should be removed. i.e. all pilots should pilot their ships individually and not be allowed to keep range etc.
While neither agreeing or disagreeing, I am simply highlighting this gameplay difficulty that this idea presents.
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".
|
|
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
123
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 16:35:00 -
[1731] - Quote
2D34DLY4U wrote:The Flight Control model is working fine in solo and small gang PVP since it allows for fun and engaging game play, EVE really shines in this kind of engagements however it seems all of this depth is lost after a certain fleet size.
I suspect part of the problem is the way the Flight Control model flawlessly synergizes with the Fleet Interface, allowing fleets of any size to move/fight as a single unit with perfect communication. If you think of a fleet as an army and of the grid as a field of battle, there are many interesting game play opportunities created by a large army engaged in battle: communication, fog of war, terrain, distance, time. In EVE all of this is lost as the fleet works as a single unit irrespective of size that operates in a field of battle made up of empty space where everyone can be anywhere almost instantly.
In a large army there is strategic game play going on with the commanders issuing orders to their chain of officers that are engaged in implementing these orders at a tactical level within their own locus of control (who they are commanding) and context (where they are, who is near them, what they can engage). Commanders, Officers and Units are dealing with separate problems and actively managing different things while still contributing to a common goal. In EVE it seems that during very large engagements this more tactical level play is lost or at least not sufficiently developed - we can have groups of tacklers, bubblers, ewar, logi or bombers doing different semi autonomous things but currently the game allows for a lot of passive bland game play (anchor, F1, shut down brain for 15min, repeat).
This is an opportunity for game design to create new an interesting "emergent" game play so that large fleets are somehow forced to act as groups of smaller independent active groups on one hand (separate fleet into small gangs of ships that are actually playing the game autonomously); and on the other hand when a large fleet battle occurs we should have "terrain" like constraints added, things similar to bubbles, the new deployable structures or ship AOE effectss that allow/force these smaller active units to have fun tactical level decision making such as moving to point X, destroying target Y, defending Z, etc.
My point is that besides spreading conflict through different points in order to separate fleets into different grids, same grid game play during large engagements can also be made better and that there are opportunities for game design to make these engagements more fun and rewarding. We have had more or less this same model for the past 10 years and when EVE was launched there were no 4k pilot battles, serious attention should be paid to this part of the game to make it better. The biggest challenge is to rid large battles of Tidi. Once that can be achieved it opens up possibilities for Devs and players to introduce more challenging and versatile combat scenarios. As it is now simply loading grid can take anything from 10 mins to an hour (or more). Locking a single target or even clicking keep at range can take for ever to process. When a single siege cycle takes up to an hour to complete, it is no wonder we see things like the "Wrecking Ball". The idea of being able to move about, lock targets, align, etc in a timely manner during a large fight is something everyone who has experienced Tidi wishes for.
CCP is working on it but until that time arrives, adding more commands to an already near dead grid is just going to add to existing problems. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
592
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 16:51:00 -
[1732] - Quote
Want to rid eve of TiDi?
Simple. Give "warp to fleet member" a degree of error in its operation, say you land 0 - 200km from where you hoped to. Give titan bridging and cyno-jumping a larger degree of error, say landing 0 - 20AU from the cyno.
Now it will will take fleets longer to get in position, and when they do they will need to be mobile, making decisions and flying their ships.
This will make fleets harder to command
This will make them smaller.
There are other suggestions, for example introducing parallelism into the eve server code, fewer moving objects and simplified physics - but ultimately none of these solutions can scale faster than pilots' ability to log on and "warp to zero" on the FC/bait ship/tackler.
While we have "warp to..." on fleet members, we will never be rid of the blob.
I mean, at present, an FC can't even say "please warp in my direction but hold 2AU out", unless someone has already thrown a bookmark out of the window while in warp previously.
What kind of crappy navigation systems do the put in these ships? Why can't I give an order for the fleet to assemble at 20AU at 30degrees "horizontal", 80 degrees "vertical" from the sun?
Even in the 20th century, the USA was able to build Voyager - a remotely controlled drone that was able to make it out of the solar system... without a bookmark!
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".
|
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2036
|
Posted - 2014.02.17 17:24:00 -
[1733] - Quote
Fleet Admiral Ocampo wrote:why not to every assist command to your SQUAD LEADER. and thats it. What an easy to implement idea! :)
|
Kel hound
Lycosa Syndicate Surely You're Joking
90
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 07:02:00 -
[1734] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello, some news:
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.
So instead of one FC being able to control a full fleets worth of sentry drones, now only squad leaders will be controlling the drones of their underlings?
Sorry but I don't see how this is better. A hellcamp fleet will need a few extra people to stay logged on and listen to FC call orders while the majority of the fleet can bugger off and play Warthunder or something while their domi continues to shoot things.
The cap is a good start, but sentry's should be treated like mobile deployed guns, not drones, and as such should be removed from the assist table completely.
Quote:"But wont that just shift the meta to heavy drones?"
Sentry drones provide heavy drone damage with turret like application. Heavy drones are slower, they need to get on-top of their target and this in turn gives the poor sod who is targeted by a heavy swarm time to react. Unlike sentry's where enough damage can be applied to someone almost instantly simply by changing targets. |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2697
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 10:21:00 -
[1735] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Want to rid eve of TiDi?
Simple. Give "warp to fleet member" a degree of error in its operation, say you land 0 - 200km from where you hoped to. Give titan bridging and cyno-jumping a larger degree of error, say landing 0 - 20AU from the cyno.
Now it will will take fleets longer to get in position, and when they do they will need to be mobile, making decisions and flying their ships.
This will make fleets harder to command
This will make them smaller.
There are other suggestions, for example introducing parallelism into the eve server code, fewer moving objects and simplified physics - but ultimately none of these solutions can scale faster than pilots' ability to log on and "warp to zero" on the FC/bait ship/tackler.
While we have "warp to..." on fleet members, we will never be rid of the blob.
I mean, at present, an FC can't even say "please warp in my direction but hold 2AU out", unless someone has already thrown a bookmark out of the window while in warp previously.
What kind of crappy navigation systems do the put in these ships? Why can't I give an order for the fleet to assemble at 20AU at 30degrees "horizontal", 80 degrees "vertical" from the sun?
Even in the 20th century, the USA was able to build Voyager - a remotely controlled drone that was able to make it out of the solar system... without a bookmark!
Define 0 degrees horizontal from the sun. Define Vertical (easier actually, as systems /tend/ to end up as disks, due to :physics:. But still, which is the 0 degree plane?)
This kind of thing is a fair bit trickier than you might think, due to a lack of stationary points. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4236322 http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
607
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 10:53:00 -
[1736] - Quote
Steve Ronuken wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:Want to rid eve of TiDi?
Simple. Give "warp to fleet member" a degree of error in its operation, say you land 0 - 200km from where you hoped to. Give titan bridging and cyno-jumping a larger degree of error, say landing 0 - 20AU from the cyno.
Now it will will take fleets longer to get in position, and when they do they will need to be mobile, making decisions and flying their ships.
This will make fleets harder to command
This will make them smaller.
There are other suggestions, for example introducing parallelism into the eve server code, fewer moving objects and simplified physics - but ultimately none of these solutions can scale faster than pilots' ability to log on and "warp to zero" on the FC/bait ship/tackler.
While we have "warp to..." on fleet members, we will never be rid of the blob.
I mean, at present, an FC can't even say "please warp in my direction but hold 2AU out", unless someone has already thrown a bookmark out of the window while in warp previously.
What kind of crappy navigation systems do the put in these ships? Why can't I give an order for the fleet to assemble at 20AU at 30degrees "horizontal", 80 degrees "vertical" from the sun?
Even in the 20th century, the USA was able to build Voyager - a remotely controlled drone that was able to make it out of the solar system... without a bookmark!
Define 0 degrees horizontal from the sun. Define Vertical (easier actually, as systems /tend/ to end up as disks, due to :physics:. But still, which is the 0 degree plane?) This kind of thing is a fair bit trickier than you might think, due to a lack of stationary points.
Of course, the real universe is in constant motion and space-time is not Euclidian. However, we could make a reasonable approximation by saying that the galactic centre (needs definition) is the origin, and that the positions of 2 distant galaxies define a plane. Once you have two planes you have a frame of reference for x,y,z coordinates.
Within a system you can do the same thing, using the sun as the origin and two distant stars as plane reference points.
That's good enough for players to approximate landing positions when delivering co-ordinates to the warp drive control system.
I am going to go out on a limb here and suggest that a civilisation that developed the warp and jump drives have also figured out how to compensate for moving reference points, time dilation and the bending of space-time due to gravity, so we can spare the players (and the eve servers) the work of doing the mathematics for that part.
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".
|
Jamir Von Lietuva
LDK Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
4
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 11:14:00 -
[1737] - Quote
so does this hit today or 1.3 or valve time? |
2D34DLY4U
Arab League
17
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 17:27:00 -
[1738] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote: The biggest challenge is to rid large battles of TiDi. Once that can be achieved it opens up possibilities for Devs and players to introduce more challenging and versatile combat scenarios.
I suspect that in order to get rid of TiDi we will need more than a multi threaded engine or better hardware. Per CCP comments we are already on the steep part of the exponential curve, this means all our best efforts to move X back are just going to slightly impact the server performance Y (or move the exponential curve a bit to the right), further the problem is aggravated by the incentive to pile maximum numbers in a single grid to get in game advantage where again the overly powerful fleet control doesn't help.
We still need a better engine if CCP wants more customers but we also need game design to help. Limiting force projection and spreading sov warfare over different conflict points are the two most commonly raised answers to this problem, my point is that besides these two if we can somehow make the task of moving and fighting with a large fleet more complex we can create diminishing returns to the extra pilot/ship thrown into the grid while at the same time allow room for better active game play.
You should gain in game advantage from being able to control tons of players with diplomacy and social tools and you should also gain in game advantage from force multipliers such as better fleet disciplines and/or better weapons that are built over the long term. The problem is that one way or the other the best decision is almost always to pile more people into system and currently it seems there is an opt out button available to those with sufficient numbers that allows them to crash the node, something clearly broken since it becomes "either I win or there is no fight". A server rewrite will not solve this problem since even if we improve performance what will happen is that the incentive to make even larger coalitions will be huge and at the same time the additional numbers required to again enable the opt out button aren't that big since we are dealing with exponential complexity.
If we somehow introduce skill / complexity to the way large fleets move (instead of a fleet fighting and moving as a single unit) then commanders could make choices such as sending fleet A to point X and fleet B to point Y, in practice they would be managing a pool of military resources (pilots in ships) and sending them to battle areas according to some cost / benefit analysis.
The idea of making fleet control more complex / interesting aims to address some of the comments made in this thread about fleets allowing for a lot of passive gameplay, I believe this is not about the flight control model that is working in solo and small gang but about the way the flight control model synergizes with the fleet interface as was pointed out. This re design should also lower the incremental benefit of sending the 1001th member into a grid as opposed to sending this resource somewhere else. Note I am not saying we should remove this incentive altogether or add some sort of cap, just that there should be additional game play elements involved to make it more complex and require active game play from all involved. We can still have 10.000 pilots on grid if the server allows it, it will just require that everyone is actively playing the game and both sides are able to deal with whatever game play complexity is introduced.
Limiting force projection and spreading conflict through different areas doesn't affect cost / benefit but forces commanders to spread resources through different points, changing the way the fleet interface synergizes with the flight control model to introduce more evolved game play is also about reducing the benefits of piling up pilots in a node, something I feel will have to happen besides the server rewrite if we are to get rid of TiDi. |
X Gallentius
Justified Chaos
2041
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 22:49:00 -
[1739] - Quote
2D34DLY4U wrote:....and you should also gain in game advantage from force multipliers such as better fleet disciplines and/or better weapons that are built over the long term. Isn't "more players in your fleet than the other guy's fleet" enough of a force multiplier already?
|
Aramatheia
Tiffany and Co.
184
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 13:48:00 -
[1740] - Quote
Sgt Ocker wrote:Markku Laaksonen wrote:Sgt Ocker wrote:Fix Sov wrote:Why would that be necessary? What makes incursions so special? Valhalla Project obviously don't want their ability to passively do incursions taken away. Incursions have always been the ideal isk farm. A few knowledgeable players to guide the masses to farm a lot of isk. With drone assist being reduced it will mean more knowledgeable players needed in each fleet. Instead of Fc (drone bunny) and a couple of logi, it will now require Fc logi and 2 additional players who know how to follow broadcasts. This change may mean it will take them 2 mins longer to finish tiks, which would be bad for the incursion community as it reduces their hourly income. (sarcasm intended) 50 drone limit for drone assist won't effect Vanguards at all. Your sarcasm masks the fact that you don't know what you're talking about. LOL, your funny and maybe you should read the post I was responding to. I've done enough incursions to know the reduced drone assist will have little to no effect.. Hence the sarcasm And who says it was Vanguards the comment was in reference to. I responded to a specific post sarcastically, what in that says I don't know what I'm talking about? Do you know what "Sarcasm" is? A troll will troll regardless of whether it is relevant or not..
tvp has a solution to drone assist changes, it is called Legion Commander!
ok maybe only when im in fleet but still, give me 50 drones + my legion and i'll get it done. I mean i can get it done neutral in site, 23 claimed wrecks is my record to date
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 .. 61 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |