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) |
Zack1023
Sons of The Forge SpaceMonkey's Alliance
6
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:41:00 -
[271] - Quote
"Drones, for the time being, are the most taxing weapon system for our hardware, which means overall play experience has suffered some because of the popularity of sentry doctrines."
Isnt this reasoning kinda poor. do sentries cause more load then light/med/heavy drones? there will always be drones on the battlefield. just because using a drone assist cap to try to encourage more fleet doctrine diversity doesnt mean there will be less drones.
There should also be a dynamic to the drone assist cap. Larger/advanced ships should have better command and control systems to handle the load. so a frigate could have 10 drones assisted, but a battlecruiser 25, battleship 50, a carrier/command ship 75 |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution Nullsec Ninjas
241
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:41:00 -
[272] - 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.
As most of you surely know by now, drone assist has been a very hot topic over the last 6 or so months. Archons began showing the power of sentry doctrines before that, and the addition of tracking and optimal bonuses for drones on the Ishtar and Dominix catapulted this philosophy into the forefront of fleet warfare. The resulting meta is causing two major problems that we hope to address through this change.
We feel that drone assist, at a large scale, leads to passive gameplay that most players do not enjoy. Assist places too much control in the hands of a single person and leaves the majority of the fleet with little to do. note: we spent a lot of time considering the value in delegation of ship systems and navigation overall (why not have assisted turrets? why have fleet warp? etc) and while this discussion will likely continue, we feel it depends heavily on the amount of delegation taking place. Amount might refer to the time something is delegated or the importance of the system being delegated (is it a primary system or a secondary one). Moral of the story: while some cases of drone assist can be fun, large fleets based on assist are not. Drones, for the time being, are the most taxing weapon system for our hardware, which means overall play experience has suffered some because of the popularity of sentry doctrines. We are making this change primarily to address the first point, but also hope to have a positive effect on performance by allowing more room for other weapon systems in the fleet meta.
Why a flat cap?
We believe a flat cap will:
Limit large scale assist substantially Leave room for smaller scale assisting (there are several use-cases for assist that we wanted to preserve, such as incursion drone managers) Be very easy to communicate to players Affect carriers more heavily than sub-caps (because they can field 10 drones per ship rather than 5) This solution meets each of these points in a more effective way than any others we considered.
Why 50?
To arrive at 50 we began by starting at complete removal of assist, and worked our way back up until we had caught all the use-cases for assist that we didn't want to impact negatively. That included frigates on gates trying to catch cloakers, small fleets trying to use assist to avoid e-war, logistics pilots who are too busy to manage their drones, and most importantly, incursioners. We believe 50 will leave all these uses unharmed while also heavily discouraging large fleet use. If it turns out that fleets are still able to rely on assist easily at 50 (which we feel is unlikely) we can and will make further adjustments.
Before I go, I want to say that we've been looking at this for some time now. We've watched the discussion in the community evolve and also kept a close eye on TQ behavior. We began discussing this change with the CSM via internal forums just prior to the summit, and then spent significant time discussing it in person with them during the summit. Their feedback was valuable, as always, and gives us confidence that this is a good direction.
As always, leave your feedback and we will do our best to answer any questions.
Goons shout "Jump!"
CCP asks "How High?" Don't Panic.
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1709
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:41:00 -
[273] - Quote
HVAC Repairman wrote:yes lets ignore conventional logic and reason to introduce a bad mechanic. 2008 era ccp would probably hire you as a game designer
if 2k drones shooting one frig is bad then so to should be 2k ships which could be upwards of 16000 turrets.
there is only so much room on a ship for the projectile to hit.
at a certain point any more damage comming in shout be moot.
the bad mechanic was introduced in 2003 when the game was released without deminishing returns for blobing... though at the time CCP more then likely thought they would never see 4k battles. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Motoko Snow
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:42:00 -
[274] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:What is so sad in this whole mess is the fact that no speaks about. Sentry drones were unloved, and unchanged, for years. People used heavies. No one cared about drone command.
Then along came fozzie who wiped out heavies in missions with the AI changes. This still did not affect sentries or heavies in PvP. Then he and his new sidekick went full-on , how do I say it politely, "special needs", and with their alterations to the Domi and Ishtar turned them into death machines from insane distances, and null sec tacticians took full advantage of it. Factor in the ability of many more people to be on-grid, courtesy of CCP's efforts, and we ended up with the cluster-**** we have today.
Now, we see sentry drones ruined for PvE, and highly restrictive limits on drone command.
Which all could have been avoided by addressing the range bonuses on the Ishtar and Domi, after it was demonstrated that the null sec groups were exploiting the design to ridiculous levels.
But nope, someone's hubris and inability to acknowledge they have created a huge mess with their past decisions and alter the past decisions, well, has resulted with things like this announcement and last weeks Omni accouncement.
One person's screwup has huge implications on the entire game, including people that were never part of the exploitation of the Domi and Ishtar fleets in null sec.
Bravo.
Thank you for following through, for a second there I almost thought you weren't going to rage about this. But, thankfully, to my satisfaction I get to read yet another delicious tears post from you about how every change in this game is aimed to hurt you personally and benefit nullsec. Bravo. |
Max50
Parental Control Triumvirate.
45
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:42:00 -
[275] - Quote
Fehz wrote:So what you're telling me is that I can't go to sleep for a couple hours during fleet fights anymore?
No, you can still go to sleep or shoot any other target than the one broadcasted. Chanses are a few hundred of the rest of the 2k blob will. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
513
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:42:00 -
[276] - Quote
Conversation with a drone
Before this change Me: drone, see that guy? Shoot what he shoots at. Drone: OK chief!
After this change Me: drone, see that guy? Shoot what he shoots at Drone: I can't Me: why not? Drone: Because I have used my not inconsiderable sensor array to scan all ships and drones in the vicinity. By observing the behaviour of 5000 drones and correlating it with the observed behaviour of 1000 ships (quite a considerable computational feat for a humble combat drone if I may say so), I have deduced that 50 other drones are shooting at what that guy shoots at. Me: so? I don't care about that. Shoot his target anyway. Drone: no can do. My programming specifically includes this check. For no apparent reason that I can compute. Me: You're getting reprogrammed the moment we get home!
What it should have been Me: drone, see that guy? Shoot what he shoots at Drone: Master, I serve you and you alone. I will shoot only at targets to which you specifically direct me. Me: ok then. Shoot that guy! Drone: I'm a firin' mah lazorz!!!
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 - 2014.02.06 16:44:00 -
[277] - Quote
rip in piece |
Effort Nullifyer
Outer Space Random Corp
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:44:00 -
[278] - Quote
I think that it was better first to make turrets assistable. It looks fair and there wouldn't be no whine from N3 and other mass drone users. It is easily predicted that assistable turrets could swipe drone formats away as well (easily changed alpha with sufficient numbers does wonders). And only after that both turret and drone assist should be wiped away from the game totally. I think that going way to automated combat will lead us to automatic distribution of points, electronics, warp outs after 30% of armor etc. Indeed that is how should have worked command ships in real. It looks quite logical for futuristical space combat but it is not good for gameplay. |
Leigh Akiga
My Highsec Backbone
552
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:45:00 -
[279] - Quote
I am curious what esteemed CSM member and the self-styled Da Vinci of ship fitting Progodlegend- who infamously told his alliance that the sentry drone was victory and life, feels about these changes. |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
638
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:45:00 -
[280] - Quote
Mournful Conciousness wrote:Conversation with a drone
Before this change Me: drone, see that guy? Shoot what he shoots at. Drone: OK chief!
After this change Me: drone, see that guy? Shoot what he shoots at Drone: I can't Me: why not? Drone: Because I have used my not inconsiderable sensor array to scan all ships and drones in the vicinity. By observing the behaviour of 5000 drones and correlating it with the observed behaviour of 1000 ships (quite a considerable computational feat for a humble combat drone if I may say so), I have deduced that 50 other drones are shooting at what that guy shoots at. Me: so? I don't care about that. Shoot his target anyway. Drone: no can do. My programming specifically includes this check. For no apparent reason that I can compute. Me: You're getting reprogrammed the moment we get home!
What it should have been Me: drone, see that guy? Shoot what he shoots at Drone: Master, I serve you and you alone. I will shoot only at targets to which you specifically direct me. Me: ok then. Shoot that guy! Drone: I'm a firin' mah lazorz!!!
awesome post!!!
kind of makes this thread seem ludicrous .. either remove drone assist or leave it as it is .. Tech 3's need to be multi role ships not cruiser hulls with battleship tank and insane resists ABC's are clearly T2 in all but name.. remove drone assist mechanic. Nerf web strength ..... module tiercide FTW role based instead of tiers please. |
|
Alexander the Great
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
168
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:47:00 -
[281] - Quote
Something like squad assist will still work after this change, so drones will remain quite popular in large fleets. And carriers are too good at tank and navigation to stop using them only because of assist nerf.
You should concentrate more on performance issues. Just lower the number of drones per ship to say 2-3 on subcaps and 4-5 on carriers and balance their damage and EHP. |
Shonion
FREE GATES Sorry We're In Your Space Eh
49
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:49:00 -
[282] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote:Hello, some news:
Dear Rise,
Riot games waits you for both of our pleasure.
Brgds |
1Robert McNamara1
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
42
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:49:00 -
[283] - Quote
Good change. Timing is nice too. War is over, so everyone can go back to the drawing boards to figure out what BS doctrine is next.
To put it bluntly, if you cannot handle the complexity of a few more drone bunnies in your fleet, you probably shouldn't be holding space. Alpha fleets require timing coordination, Brawler fleets require careful piloting and positioning, Drone fleets now require a tiny bit more coordination between leaders. Deal with it.
For those asking for more changes, good on you. Eve should be a more engaging game. 1 change at a time please. There's lots of 'fair use' cases for Fleet warp and broadcast that still require an active user to align, target, shoot/rep, and drop targets as they become lower priority or catch reps. |
Andy Koraka
PonyWaffe Insidious Empire
29
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:50:00 -
[284] - Quote
So unless I'm one of the 4 triage carriers in a full subcap fleet (or I'm suicide Triage to save some Supercaps) my Archon has no reason to ever enter combat again.
I understand the reasons behind breaking drone assist, but there needs to be a replacement mechanic. Maybe some changes to Fighters to make them actually useful would keep Carriers relevant. |
Waltaratzor
Walt's Holding Corp
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:50:00 -
[285] - Quote
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.
This is going to really hurt HQ incursions. A cap of 50 is going to require 4 drone assisted players instead of 1. |
Wacktopia
Noir. Noir. Mercenary Group
624
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:51:00 -
[286] - Quote
Sounds good.
Any plans to do any more work on drones - like in the UI or something to help out drone-users that are not part of the Archon-Sentry movement :) Forums are playing EVE too. Fact. |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
The Suicide Kings Insidious Empire
141
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:51:00 -
[287] - Quote
No matter which side you fall on this issue, the one positive is that CCP waited until the war ended (for all intents and purposes) before announcing the nerf.
Unless it's totally coincidental, I think the restraint in addressing the situation is commendable and both CCP and the CSM should adopt this approach! That if something needs to be addressed, but addressing it in the moment will prejudice an outcome ingame (as in sov warfare), then the better approach is to wait for the end of the situation - or at minimum a significant lull - before changing anything.
|
Darius JOHNSON
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
312
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:52:00 -
[288] - Quote
A needed change well done! Best of luck to the Nulli pilots in learning how to actually fly and fight with spaceships. |
Hendrick Tallardar
SniggWaffe WAFFLES.
124
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:52:00 -
[289] - Quote
HVAC Repairman wrote:normally id be with you, but there are a number of hearing impaired people who require broadcasts to be able to do anything in big fleet pvp
Counterpoint: Have them be the meatshield.
Xander Phoena wrote:TAckermassacker wrote:Did someone mention that the last AT was won by 39 Sentries? so why dont go to like 20? So you want the entirety of Eve to be balanced based on 8 man AT teams? You fo' realz dawg?
Dead sizzle my nizzle. LeeSsang. Never Forget. |
Logix42
Taxation Damnation
182
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:53:00 -
[290] - Quote
Since it would seem you don't want to hinder Vanguard incursion fleets I would suggest bringing the number up to 60. It is pretty standard to fly 11-12 man fleets so that as pilots rotate in and out the number of pilots in fleet doesn't drop below 10. We find that the small ISK penalty for flying 1 or 2 over is offset by the time improvements of having that extra dps and by not running sub-optimally when a couple pilots need to leave.
Vangaurds Standard: 12 pilots Please consider 60 drones as the assist cap Go beyond the edge of space... Explore |
|
Mister Pirate
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:53:00 -
[291] - Quote
Sort Dragon wrote:We went through alot with ccp for this. And for now this is a good change.
^ Planning to nerf carriers and blob systems with 4000 megas.
sort is just butt-hurt |
Chris Madison
Tactical Soldiers Nulli Secunda
11
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:53:00 -
[292] - Quote
Venetian Tar wrote: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. I had a nice laugh at your stupidity. I hope you don't mind!
The fact that you are calling the person stupid just proves his point. You can't argue it so you have to resort to name calling because it's true, every time CFC didn't like something they could beat, instead of adapting they cried for nerf bats and you people get it every time.
What needs to be nerfed is the ewar the fact that a celestias can damp people from 100kms away is absurd.
CCP you really should consider just stop listening to goons more often every time they cry for a nerf bat.
|
Zoldarion Katelo
Void.Tech Get Off My Lawn
17
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:56:00 -
[293] - Quote
Very nice change hopefully we will regain some BS size fleet diversity. |
Zomgnomnom
Royal Black Watch Highlanders Northern Associates.
22
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:56:00 -
[294] - Quote
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.
I would like to see this question addressed.
Some of the changes were needed and I am pretty happy with. There are others though that cause one to wonder if a few of the Devs are intentionally playing stupid. |
Ais Hellia
Hoover Inc. Black Legion.
23
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:57:00 -
[295] - Quote
sennett wrote: remember carriers are 1.1 bil for the hull not 170 mnil, they SHOULD be better
My chremoas is 100bil per hull it SHOULD solo like 10 capital ships atleast right? RIGHT?
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2218
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:58:00 -
[296] - Quote
Motoko Snow wrote:Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:What is so sad in this whole mess is the fact that no speaks about. Sentry drones were unloved, and unchanged, for years. People used heavies. No one cared about drone command.
Then along came fozzie who wiped out heavies in missions with the AI changes. This still did not affect sentries or heavies in PvP. Then he and his new sidekick went full-on , how do I say it politely, "special needs", and with their alterations to the Domi and Ishtar turned them into death machines from insane distances, and null sec tacticians took full advantage of it. Factor in the ability of many more people to be on-grid, courtesy of CCP's efforts, and we ended up with the cluster-**** we have today.
Now, we see sentry drones ruined for PvE, and highly restrictive limits on drone command.
Which all could have been avoided by addressing the range bonuses on the Ishtar and Domi, after it was demonstrated that the null sec groups were exploiting the design to ridiculous levels.
But nope, someone's hubris and inability to acknowledge they have created a huge mess with their past decisions and alter the past decisions, well, has resulted with things like this announcement and last weeks Omni accouncement.
One person's screwup has huge implications on the entire game, including people that were never part of the exploitation of the Domi and Ishtar fleets in null sec.
Bravo. Thank you for following through, for a second there I almost thought you weren't going to rage about this. But, thankfully, to my satisfaction I get to read yet another delicious tears post from you about how every change in this game is aimed to hurt you personally and benefit nullsec. Bravo.
Actually no. But thanks for playing. Here is your fabulous parting gift.
No doubt high sec got caught in the whining of the goons and CCP's inevitable response. But also a huge chunk of null sec, and possibly wormhole mechanics, are fubared by this.
If CCP had the foresight (and I clearly don't mean the pair who created the initial mess and keep compounding it) to actually address the hull bonuses of the Domi and Ishtar, we could avoid all these other far more invasive problems created by this supposed "solution to sentries being OP".
Oh, and btw, this change does not affect me personally. I gave up Incursions when this crew wrecked the Marauders, and shelved my drone boats in missions when the Omni's were destroyed by the same bunch. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Ivana Twinkle
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
465
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:59:00 -
[297] - Quote
Waltaratzor wrote: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. This is going to really hurt HQ incursions. A cap of 50 is going to require 4 drone assisted players instead of 1.
Whatever did you do before the game of drones? |
Venetian Tar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
82
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:59:00 -
[298] - Quote
Chris Madison wrote:Venetian Tar wrote: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. I had a nice laugh at your stupidity. I hope you don't mind! The fact that you are calling the person stupid just proves his point. You can't argue it so you have to resort to name calling because it's true, every time CFC didn't like something they could beat, instead of adapting they cried for nerf bats and you people get it every time. What needs to be nerfed is the ewar the fact that a celestias can damp people from 100kms away is absurd. CCP you really should consider just stop listening to goons more often every time they cry for a nerf bat.
Hey, cutey. Fancy a drink?
I called him stupid because we've been abusing the ever-living **** out of drone assist too, now we've actually got to play this horrible game instead of monitoring armor now and again.
I've managed to watch many films while grinding your space in the past few days because of drone assist and supercapitals, now I'll have to concentrate. I don't hate you, I'm just not necessarily excited about your existance. |
sennett
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 17:00:00 -
[299] - Quote
Ais Hellia wrote:sennett wrote: remember carriers are 1.1 bil for the hull not 170 mnil, they SHOULD be better My chremoas is 100bil per hull it SHOULD solo like 10 capital ships atleast right? RIGHT?
no. because thats a collectors item. moron |
Speedkermit Damo
Demonic Retribution Nullsec Ninjas
241
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 17:00:00 -
[300] - Quote
Zakn Tawate wrote:Anya Solette wrote: Also I think Mittani may need to get treatment from a doctor for acute smugness overdose.
Unfortunately there is no known treatment for that affliction.
A good hard headbutt usually does the trick. Don't Panic.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |