EVE Search - Sticky:[Rubicon 1.x] Drone Assist change

All Channels

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Sticky:[Rubicon 1.x] Drone Assist change

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 13697	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:47:00 - [61] - Quote Cara Parker wrote: nice try but i think drones MUST eat some capacitor Part of the utility of drones is to provide a counter to EW in general. 1 Kings 12:11
Venetian Tar Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation 65	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:47:00 - [62] - Quote 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! I don't hate you, I'm just not necessarily excited about your existance.
Gheyna Hoover Inc. Black Legion. 114	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:47:00 - [63] - Quote Good change
Victor Dathar GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 264	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:48:00 - [64] - Quote Oh Takashawa wrote: 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. Heaven forbid more people have fun than just those with the biggest toys. ^^^ lol that post is so bad you should get back 2 GBS m8 o7
Malcanis Vanishing Point. The Initiative. 13697	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:48:00 - [65] - Quote Harvey James wrote: so aren't the CSM at all concerned with the frigate abuse of drone assist? No we aren't. Not even slightly. 1 Kings 12:11
GeeBee Paragon Fury Tactical Narcotics Team 41	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:48:00 - [66] - Quote Its about time, we can finally get back to non-drone assist doctrines. But as a note of possibility - Rather than reducing the number of drones that can be assisted to a single character limit the assist list to squad only. This would be roughly the same as 50 drones per character with subcapitals, but it would reduce the list of potential assist targets on the right click menu. It may also prove to be less taxing on the server with the ability for a fleet to still launch their drones and attempt to assign them just to have the server reject it, as those server calls will never be made. Tradeoff for this is a squad of carriers could assist more than 50 drones to 1 person, but changes it to an easier to manage scenario for both players and the server / client. Eitherway this changes the drone assist meta to the point of non-viability for blob warfare unless each drone boat can also function as an assist, and even then that would assume a large percentage of those pilots are competent enough to actually shoot a target. Also since we'll have to be shooting targets again manually with guns, can we get the fleet broadcasts under tidi / lag / server load some form of higher priority or moved to a different service so its reliable, nothing worse than getting reps or shooting targets when it all has to be done through ingame chat or jabber channels.
Aryth GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1457	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:48:00 - [67] - Quote How to understand what CCP is going to do in one easy post. Step 1: Is something overpowered? If Yes, go to step 2 Step 2: Are goons abusing it yet? If Yes, go to step 3 Step 3: Nerf Leader of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal. Vile Rat: You're the greatest sociopath that has ever played eve.
Jascal Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:48:00 - [68] - Quote Two ideas came to mind: First, limit the ability to direct assisted drones to squad leaders in a gang. Second, the limit should be 55, not 50 drones to allow a squad leader to add their drones to the total. I haven't given the concept a thorough sift for complications, so the idea may fall flat on it's face.
Anthar Thebess REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN 342	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:49:00 - [69] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: As always, leave your feedback and we will do our best to answer any questions. At least limit it to 25 per person with the 50 drone cap on gallente Command Ship. -=Reopening old corporations=- Do you have old and closed corporation and like to reopen it? Like this topic and keep it on the top by posting.
Zakn Tawate Perkone Caldari State 33	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:51:00 - [70] - Quote I have to do something more than 4 clicks to get killmails? Don't throw me in that there Briar Patch!
Cara Parker Monks of War 0	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:51:00 - [71] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Cara Parker wrote: nice try but i think drones MUST eat some capacitor Part of the utility of drones is to provide a counter to EW in general. really? drones is OP only engage it to attack someone and all you need is run-run-run lol
Grarr Dexx Snuff Box 321	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:52:00 - [72] - Quote The tears, they are brilliant. Any work on allowing us lowsec nerds to benefit from it, yet? 50 sentries per person is still a solid amount.
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 636	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:52:00 - [73] - Quote Malcanis wrote: Harvey James wrote: so aren't the CSM at all concerned with the frigate abuse of drone assist? No we aren't. Not even slightly. WOW!!! so you think a condor controlling the alpha of 50 sentries with a lock time of what 2 secs is balanced? 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.
Edmark I GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 47	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:52:00 - [74] - Quote Looking forward to shelving my Dominix. These are good changes.
Omnathious Deninard Novis Initiis 2162	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:53:00 - [75] - Quote Anthar Thebess wrote: CCP Rise wrote: As always, leave your feedback and we will do our best to answer any questions. At least limit it to 25 per person with the 50 drone cap on gallente Command Ship. There is no reason to arbitrarily give Gallente a larger drone assist vs other races. If it should be 25 make it 25, if it is 50 it should be for all. Novis Initiis is Recruting-á --á Ideas for Drone Improvement
Anya Solette GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 21	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:53:00 - [76] - Quote CCP Rise you are a goddamned hero, I am so happy now. Finally I can return to flying a ship that isn't a space potato again! Also I think Mittani may need to get treatment from a doctor for acute smugness overdose.
Dramaticus GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 434	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:53:00 - [77] - Quote LOST ANOTHER FLEET GIMMICK TO GOONFLEET DOT COM The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them
WarGod V0LTA Triumvirate. 27	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:54:00 - [78] - Quote A little late, but thank ****.
Conscriptx Enlightened Industries Goonswarm Federation 0	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:54:00 - [79] - Quote FINALLY
Ravcharas Infinite Point Nulli Secunda 286	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:54:00 - [80] - Quote CCP Rise wrote: 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. How about capping carrier drones to 5 and giving a 100% damage bonus to the hulls instead? What would you say are the pro et contra of something like that?
Honest Blob Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 20	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:54:00 - [81] - Quote I am starting to see a big time trend here thats gone back several years. If the CFC or Goons encounter somthing that decimates thier fleets they yell for nerf, they yell for changes and qq whine and complain and stomp thier feet untill ccp doesnt somthing that will benifit them. A way for a inferior amount of numbers to counter a much larger group was invented, and while it let the small group counter the much larger one the smaller one put more risk in isk and ship out there. CFC didnt like this and much like titan tracking screamed for nerf. Did you stop and think how this would negativly effect mining fleets? As it is youv allready nerfed mining in non empire to ****, making mining sites not need to be scanned, putting null ice fields on a 4 hour cycle, letting ceptors warp through bubbles. Now one of the last things that miners had to defend with and that was a cloud of drones is gone. Please ccp keep fixing the things that Goons dont like. instead of working on things that would reduce your server load, likeeeee after 50 drones on are field they generate no model.
El Scotch Eighty Joule Brewery Goonswarm Federation 20	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:54:00 - [82] - Quote Thanks Obama.
ToXicPaIN Souls of Steel Insidious Empire 50	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:55:00 - [83] - Quote i like it !!
Harvey James The Sengoku Legacy 636	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:55:00 - [84] - Quote it just seems bizzare that a fleets drones dps can be controlled by so few yet all gun/missile ships don't have the same luxury.. 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.
Oh Takashawa Body Count Inc. Pandemic Legion 16	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:55:00 - [85] - Quote Victor Dathar wrote: Oh Takashawa wrote: 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. Heaven forbid more people have fun than just those with the biggest toys. I'm all for having fun, but I'd like to see it be balanced and spread across the entire spectrum of the game. I've sat here and watched CCP buff the **** out of everything cheap and T1, barely improve T2, and talk widely about planning to nerf T3, and now give some indication (in this post) that they consider changes which nerf capitals more than subcapitals to be desirable. "Everyone having fun" is all well and good as a slogan, but the reality is that force multipliers have and should remain a key part of EVE - if you don't have a big pile of dudes, your options are more restricted, but there have always been strategies you can pursue to punch above your weight. CCP is removing those, slowly but surely, and as a member of a group that enjoys not being blue to 70% of EVE, that's a bit frustrating to watch. I'm simply curious whether that's the direction CCP wants us to go - whoever has more dudes wins, end of discussion - or if it's simply an accident on their part?
l0rd carlos Friends Of Harassment 862	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:55:00 - [86] - Quote Harvey James wrote: Malcanis wrote: Harvey James wrote: so aren't the CSM at all concerned with the frigate abuse of drone assist? No we aren't. Not even slightly. WOW!!! so you think a condor controlling the alpha of 50 sentries with a lock time of what 2 secs is balanced? Shoot the condor? If you remove it from frigs the blobs will just use a T3 with sensor subsystem and re-sebo. At least you can kill the condor. German blog about smallscale lowsec pvp: http://friendsofharassment.wordpress.com
Spleef Vanguard Frontiers Black Legion. 2	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:56:00 - [87] - Quote A good start. Thank you.
Veng3ance Origin. Black Legion. 24	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:56:00 - [88] - Quote 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. Everyone knew drone assist to carriers was insanely broken. It made carriers dps, tank and logistics all at once while having instant lock and immune to EWAR. If you can't see that is was one of the most OP things in the game then you sir are an idiot.

CCP Rise C C P C C P Alliance 3616	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:56:00 - [89] - Quote Quote: Please clarify yourself here. What do you mean "if this doesn't work" ? I can't put a number on it, but currently Dominixes are responsible for somewhere in the ballpark of 5 times the PVP damage dealt of the next most popular fleet battleship, if that's still the case in a few months this will have 'not worked'.

Olaf Erikkson Hamburger Jungs Fidelas Constans 8	Posted - 2014.02.06 14:57:00 - [90] - Quote THIS is bullshit! but Init. and Darkness. CSM... so ... yeah whatever

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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.