| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 17 post(s) |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2588
   |
Posted - 2014.01.24 19:45:00 -
[1] - Quote
Destoya wrote:Harvey James wrote:besides caps being able to field 3x's the amount drones that of any other ship which seems strange in itself ( maybe nerf down to 10 and remove drones from caps altogether fighters only since their capital weapons and all) ... perhaps another way of reducing the amount of caps on field is too make fighters require actual pilots too fly fighters/bombers...
EVE Valkyrie comes too mind here.. To be clear, the majority of drones quoted in the post were sentry drones, not fighters or fighter bombers. Also, carriers can only field 10 drones, and for most people only 9 since they havent put in the time for carrier 5.
Should I refer to Advanced Drone Interfacing?
Or is that still capped to 10, even with Drone Control Units?
Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!
http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2588
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 19:46:00 -
[2] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:Frostys Virpio wrote:Marlona Sky wrote:Only having one objective to kill/protect in these sov related battles is terrible. But you can't just add more objectives in the same system because that is still the same load on on system. So the solution is to make the gates leading to the system being contested equally important. Now instead of one system trying to support thousands upon thousands of players, the weight is spread across a few systems. Each system on its own reinforced node. Still one giant battle, but far more playable and hamster friendly.  Won't people send all they have to system 1 and if they win go to system 2 then 3 then whatever because they are facing smaller fleet distributed over numerous systems which can be moved to all the time thanks to power projection? Not if winning means you need to win all the objectives at the same time.
The main problem there is that a smaller group /cannot/ capture any system.
Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!
http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2588
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:18:00 -
[3] - Quote
The only way to stop blobs, is to remove the big timers.
Turn Sov fights into /lots/ of little fights, which have to happen over time.
Which is grinding. And this impacts on fun levels. (Though the current blob system isn't so much fun either. Or so it appears. I'm not involved)
Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!
http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2588
|
Posted - 2014.01.24 20:29:00 -
[4] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Steve Ronuken wrote:The only way to stop blobs, is to remove the big timers.
Turn Sov fights into /lots/ of little fights, which have to happen over time.
Which is grinding. And this impacts on fun levels. (Though the current blob system isn't so much fun either. Or so it appears. I'm not involved) You still need an objective to shoot and it will have a timer to prevent people from using the other side's weak TZ to plow through countless systems...
Yup.
Something similar to FW wouldn't be perfect, but it does allow for grinding by small groups. And respawn rates would affect the rate you can grind down someone's systems.
Though something more interesting than button orbiting is a must. (Though a timer is needed)
Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!
http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2597
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 05:46:00 -
[5] - Quote
Findail wrote:Really pleased that CCP is trying to fix the large fleet battle issues.
At the moment, winning large battles like this is more about knowing how to exploit server limitations than actual skill in-game, which spoils it.
BTW, there's been on ongoing trend for some time for some parties to spam local chat. mostly with text graphics, in the belief that they'll induce more system lag by doing so.
Is this still an issue? And if so, would CCP consider rate-limiting the local chat to mitigate it?
Chat's handled by a different server than the node.
As it the market.
Only lag it could induce is in the clients.
Of course, you could petition people for deliberately trying to induce lag. That's a no-no. (Jumping in doesn't count)
Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!
http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2599
|
Posted - 2014.01.26 18:27:00 -
[6] - Quote
stoicfaux wrote:On a side note, we have gun drones, so why can't we have missile drones?
/ducks
You already have Missile Drones. They're called Missiles.
Steve Ronuken for CSM 9!
http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/
Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
| |
|