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) |
Promiscuous Female
GBS Logistics and Fives Support Goonswarm Federation
322
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 06:03:00 -
[1321] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Weaselior wrote:you meant No, I meant exactly what I just said. Is English not your first language? Promiscuous Female wrote:also frankly your position shows a very low amount of respect for CCP Well good I was wondering if it showed given that the thread is about drone assist and is not about the CRIMINAL GOONSPIRACY I am gonna go ahead and cut out a lot of unnecessary rhetoric arguments here and just call you silly for attempting to twist your post, vague as it is, as being about anything other than drone assist
otherwise your post is dangerously offtopic
weaselior's point still stands, please stick to the topic at hand sir the posting community thanks you |
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Sicarius Draconis
94
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 06:23:00 -
[1322] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Weaselior wrote:you meant No, I meant exactly what I just said. Is English not your first language? Promiscuous Female wrote:also frankly your position shows a very low amount of respect for CCP Well good I was wondering if it showed given that the thread is about drone assist and is not about the CRIMINAL GOONSPIRACY I am gonna go ahead and cut out a lot of unnecessary rhetoric arguments here and just call you silly for attempting to twist your post, vague as it is, as being about anything other than drone assist otherwise your post is dangerously offtopic weaselior's point still stands, please stick to the topic at hand sir the posting community thanks you
Yes Grath stay on topic, only members of the CFC are aloud to derail this thread. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2284
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 06:23:00 -
[1323] - Quote
Promiscuous Female wrote:
weaselior's point still stands, please stick to the topic at hand sir the posting community thanks you
No
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8988
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 06:45:00 -
[1324] - Quote
If it's so evident as you claim that the drone assist nerf doesn't affect you, then how could it be favoritism towards us? "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8988
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 06:47:00 -
[1325] - Quote
"This nerf doesn't hurt us in any way but it's still biased against us." "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2284
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 06:52:00 -
[1326] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:"This nerf doesn't hurt us in any way but it's still biased against us."
Its quoted right at the top of this page James this isn't hard bro
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8988
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 06:56:00 -
[1327] - Quote
No, that was answering the question of "why do you care if this doesn't affect you", your answer being essentially "because it's favoritism toward the CFC." My question was the logical continuation of that, being "if this doesn't affect you, how is it favoritism towards us?"
You must realize that just because we ask for a change and lobby for it doesn't mean that such a change would benefit us exclusively (or even really benefit us at all for that matter). And if it doesn't, does making the change still count as favoritism? "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
268
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 07:04:00 -
[1328] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:If it's so evident as you claim that the drone assist nerf doesn't affect you, then how could it be favoritism towards us?
Its not favoritism. It is simply developmental bias.
Drone assist is 10 years old. Has never been considered a problem. ~Drone quantity was reduced and drone assist was not touched during this rebalance~
Drones and drone ships received adjustments ~Drones ships began to be used again in fleets, notably the Alliance tournament. Drone assist was not touched~
Drone Assist was used and CFC started a propaganda tool in the fountain war. ~HAHA You guys must be so bored just assigning Drones.~
At the End of the Fountain War, Martini stated he will Use only Drone Assist to show how broken the mechanic is. ~This is the first time an Entity claimed overtly that drone assist was a broken mechanic in its 10 years in game.~
During the Halloween War CFC used nothing but Domi Fleets ~The battle Cry was Drone Assist made Slowcats OP, and that Using Drone Assist made the game less fun~
HEDGP ~Drones were blamed for the server issues....no mention of drone assist being the problem from CCP or Players~
B-R ~Drone Assist used by Slowcats and Supers on both Sides, No Domis present, Battle lasted 21 Hours. No complaints of Drone Assist by players or CCP, no complaints of drones impacting the server.~
CCP Announces Drone Assist is not balanced and is a poor mechanic. ~Because the Game is unfun(subjective) and drones cause lag(indifferent to Drone Assist)~
Did I miss anything?
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2284
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 07:04:00 -
[1329] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: You must realize that just because we ask for a change and lobby for it doesn't mean that such a change would benefit us exclusively (or even really benefit us at all for that matter). And if it doesn't, does making the change still count as favoritism?
Normally it wouldn't, but when you set out to enact the change in retribution because an enemy uses it (as was publicly stated) then it becomes favoritism if that request is granted.
Like if the CFC's grand campaign had been "man drones are **** this all needs to get fixed" and the Assign nerf came as part of a larger package than good on you for making the game a better place, but when the campaign starts off as "N3 likes this, we think its dumb, but CCP doesn't, so we're going to rub everybodies face in it until they change their mind" you're not making the game a better place and CCP granting that desire can't be seen in any light but favoritism, especially when its wrapped in bullshit like 'we're fixing afk game play and trying to reduce server load' when what they're doing doesn't address either of those things in any meaningful way.
I would be posting literally the exact same if the subject were anything different under the same circumstances. If the CFC had woke up and said "N3 likes mulitcolored lasers, we think thats dumb but CCP doesn't agree so until they do we're shoving multi colored lasers down their throats until they change their mind" and then 3-4 months later CCP says "we don't like multi colored lasers now we're making it unified colors" I'd be just as pissed because its the same thing.
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Stalker ofeveryone
SUNDERING Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 07:44:00 -
[1330] - Quote
Hi Grath, how's it going? |
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8988
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 08:03:00 -
[1331] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: You must realize that just because we ask for a change and lobby for it doesn't mean that such a change would benefit us exclusively (or even really benefit us at all for that matter). And if it doesn't, does making the change still count as favoritism?
Normally it wouldn't, but when you set out to enact the change in retribution because an enemy uses it (as was publicly stated) then it becomes favoritism if that request is granted. Like if the CFC's grand campaign had been "man drones are **** this all needs to get fixed" and the Assign nerf came as part of a larger package than good on you for making the game a better place, but when the campaign starts off as "N3 likes this, we think its dumb, but CCP doesn't, so we're going to rub everybodies face in it until they change their mind" you're not making the game a better place and CCP granting that desire can't be seen in any light but favoritism, especially when its wrapped in bullshit like 'we're fixing afk game play and trying to reduce server load' when what they're doing doesn't address either of those things in any meaningful way. I would be posting literally the exact same if the subject were anything different under the same circumstances. If the CFC had woke up and said "N3 likes mulitcolored lasers, we think thats dumb but CCP doesn't agree so until they do we're shoving multi colored lasers down their throats until they change their mind" and then 3-4 months later CCP says "we don't like multi colored lasers now we're making it unified colors" I'd be just as pissed because its the same thing. Except CCP can put more than two or three brain cells together and if this were actually about multi-colored lasers both they and the CSM would have (rightfully) said we were being ******** and refused to change anything.
The fact is, they were swayed by reasoned, logical arguments in favor of our position. The entire CSM agreed that something had to be done about it. I seriously doubt that this would have happened if it were only an issue because we decided to raise hell about it, especially considering there are several members of the CSM who actively dislike us.
As for Rise, it's pretty clear from his posts that he's just terrible at articulating his position (and really someone else at CCP ought to do the talking for him). "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8988
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 08:04:00 -
[1332] - Quote
Let me put it to you another way: What incentive is there for CCP and the entire CSM to come to our position if it is indeed only as a result of our lobbying and not a change that's actually necessary? "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Fix Sov
115
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 08:21:00 -
[1333] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Fix Sov wrote:Mario Putzo wrote:Fix Sov wrote:So one side abusing something is fine, but the other side abusing it at the same time is bad? I don't follow. Who said anything about abusing. I didn't mention it anywhere in my post at all that drone use was an abuse. So one side using drones is just fine because it's the right side using it, the other side using it in the exact same fashion is bad because it's the wrong side using it. Gotcha. One side said they were setting out to break it, the other side didn't, hope that helps One side said "we'll use drones and drone assist", the other side "oh yeah? well, so can we.".
And they did. And here we are. 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. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2284
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 08:37:00 -
[1334] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Let me put it to you another way: What incentive is there for CCP and the entire CSM to come to our position if it is indeed only as a result of our lobbying and not a change that's actually necessary?
I don't know James, but its odd that in September this wasn't seen as a problem by CCP, even after the alliance tourney, and now suddenly after a fairly fierce barrage of forum posting and constant protests from one group suddenly there is a problem with it.
By odd I of course mean greasy as hell.
Fix Sov wrote: One side said "we'll use drones and drone assist", the other side "oh yeah? well, so can we.".
And they did. And here we are.
Thats not what happened but nice revisionist try there. If only it wasn't in print on that damned web site
Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Snow Axe
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
1460
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 08:39:00 -
[1335] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Thats not what happened but nice revisionist try there. If only it wasn't in print on that damned web site
What did happen, Grath? After that post on the website you referred to. What did the CFC do that's got you so rustled? "Look any reason why you need to talk like that? I have now reported you. I dont need to listen to your bad tone. If you cant have a grown up conversation then leave the thread[" |
Allison A'vani
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
61
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 08:45:00 -
[1336] - Quote
Xython wrote:50 drones? Wow, that's going to make PVP in Nullsec require tactics and strategy again. Weiiird.
I'm honestly more excited at his subtle mention of an upcoming Drone overhaul, though. (The mention of how Drones - as they are now - are taxing on the hardware.)
Actually, correctly piloting a carrier in a slowcat fleet requires quite a bit more concentration and tactics than your "anchor on target and press f1," only bads just assisted drones mindlessly. If you are not constantly refitting depending on what is happening then you are really incompetent and should not be talking about tactics nor strategy. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8990
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 08:48:00 -
[1337] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Let me put it to you another way: What incentive is there for CCP and the entire CSM to come to our position if it is indeed only as a result of our lobbying and not a change that's actually necessary? I don't know James, but its odd that in September this wasn't seen as a problem by CCP, even after the alliance tourney, and now suddenly after a fairly fierce barrage of forum posting and constant protests from one group suddenly there is a problem with it. By odd I of course mean greasy as hell. Yeah, that is odd. And by odd I mean odd. As in, how did they not know this was a problem, odd. Also, was drone assist used in the AT? I didn't pay any attention to it. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
13835
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 08:49:00 -
[1338] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:If it's so evident as you claim that the drone assist nerf doesn't affect you, then how could it be favoritism towards us? It is simply developmental bias it neither benefits nor detracts from either party but clearly shows certain elements have developmental sway. Which terrible for any developer to do really.
So a few years ago, I campaigned for an insurance nerf. Later, I also made a proposal for bounty hunting changes.
Both were (more or less) implemented.
Tech nerf? That was us too.
0.0 Ore changes? Moi!
Proof positive that CCP are showing massive favouritism towards INIT.
And you fools thought it was about Goons all this time. Only now, at the end, do you realise the truth.
1 Kings 12:11
|
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8990
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 08:50:00 -
[1339] - Quote
You know what else I find interesting is that these cries of favoritism are over a change that was announced after the war was effectively over. If they're indeed catering to our side, they sure picked a bad time to go ahead with it. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2285
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 08:50:00 -
[1340] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote: Also, was drone assist used in the AT? I didn't pay any attention to it.
Almost exclusively by every team in it, to the point that it was almost entirely a Dominix Only Tournament
James Amril-Kesh wrote:You know what else I find interesting is that these cries of favoritism are over a change that was announced after the war was effectively over. If they're indeed catering to our side, they sure picked a bad time to go ahead with it.
It doesn't have to be anything to do with the war, its catering to your sides wishes, regardless of the time it was done, I can't put it anymore plainly than that. Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
|
Fix Sov
116
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 08:53:00 -
[1341] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote:Let me put it to you another way: What incentive is there for CCP and the entire CSM to come to our position if it is indeed only as a result of our lobbying and not a change that's actually necessary? I don't know James, but its odd that in September this wasn't seen as a problem by CCP, even after the alliance tourney, and now suddenly after a fairly fierce barrage of forum posting and constant protests from one group suddenly there is a problem with it. By odd I of course mean greasy as hell.
Grath Telkin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: Also, was drone assist used in the AT? I didn't pay any attention to it.
Almost exclusively by every team in it, to the point that it was almost entirely a Dominix Only Tournament It's almost as if CCP is a lumbering beast, slow to react or change direction, and probably saw it as a problem back then, but haven't gotten around to fixing it until now, chiefly because they were being used by one (or both) sides of a conflict.
It's now post-conflict, which is the perfect time to introduce such a change without adversely affecting either side during said conflict(s). 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. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8991
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 08:58:00 -
[1342] - Quote
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3463077#post3463077
CCP Rise wrote:We are obviously aware of the conversation around drone assist and this change doesn't really aim to have a massive effect on sentry-doctrines as a whole. Drone assist is a much larger issue and we aren't looking to make any changes to it for [Odyssey] 1.1. We would love to do work on drones overall, but for now I can't make any promises about when that will happen or how it will look. This indicates that CCP was aware of the problems around drone assist (it being "a much larger issue") in early August of last year. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Sicarius Draconis
94
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 09:18:00 -
[1343] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=3463077#post3463077 CCP Rise wrote:We are obviously aware of the conversation around drone assist and this change doesn't really aim to have a massive effect on sentry-doctrines as a whole. Drone assist is a much larger issue and we aren't looking to make any changes to it for [Odyssey] 1.1. We would love to do work on drones overall, but for now I can't make any promises about when that will happen or how it will look. This indicates that CCP was aware of the problems around drone assist (it being "a much larger issue") in early August of last year.
Which is fine, but as Grath and Mario have been saying for the last 10 pages, this fix does not fix what CCP Rise said he was trying to fix. It does not fix AFK and it does not fix server issues. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8991
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 09:23:00 -
[1344] - Quote
Nobody is saying that drone assist causes server issues. What they are saying is that drone assist led to an overusage of drone heavy doctrines, resulting in more drones being used, resulting in server issues. Without drone assist, people won't use drone heavy doctrines, doctrines that do have drones but don't rely on them may elect not to launch them so as to avoid putting undue pressure on the server, etc.
It's really not that hard. Rise also never said he wanted to fix AFK, he said "passive gameplay" which is definitely not the same thing. "Pretty much all 14 of the CSM were in favor of a drone assign nerf for OBVIOUS gameplay reasons" - Sala Cameron
|
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Sicarius Draconis
94
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 09:28:00 -
[1345] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:Nobody is saying that drone assist causes server issues. What they are saying is that drone assist led to an overusage of drone heavy doctrines, resulting in more drones being used, resulting in server issues. Without drone assist, people won't use drone heavy doctrines, doctrines that do have drones but don't rely on them may elect not to launch them so as to avoid putting undue pressure on the server, etc.
It's really not that hard. Rise also never said he wanted to fix AFK, he said "passive gameplay" which is definitely not the same thing.
If it was solely Drone Assist that lead to the overuse of drones then it would have been taken out 7 years ago as Mario said. Which leads into Grath's point, make this change as part of a Complete drone overhaul and not a point patch, that still does not fix the issues of "passive gameplay" and server issues. Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
Fix Sov
116
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 09:29:00 -
[1346] - Quote
Phox Jorkarzul wrote:If it was solely Drone Assist that lead to the overuse of drones then it would have been taken out 7 years ago as Mario said. Drones weren't useful enough back then to become the sole offensive weapon used by a majority of a fleet. 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. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2285
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 10:15:00 -
[1347] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Phox Jorkarzul wrote:If it was solely Drone Assist that lead to the overuse of drones then it would have been taken out 7 years ago as Mario said. Drones weren't useful enough back then to become the sole offensive weapon used by a majority of a fleet.
Bullshit people have been assigning drones forever.
What caused the overuse of drones was the mega buff to the Domi and the Ishtar, because the drones themselves, Drone Link Augmentors, and Omindirection Tracking links have been the same for just about forever.
EDIT: Im trying to think if they (the mods) got a minor buff when they added DDA's but I know that the link augmentors are the same and I'm pretty sure the Omni's haven't ever changed too. Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Fix Sov
116
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 10:18:00 -
[1348] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Fix Sov wrote:Phox Jorkarzul wrote:If it was solely Drone Assist that lead to the overuse of drones then it would have been taken out 7 years ago as Mario said. Drones weren't useful enough back then to become the sole offensive weapon used by a majority of a fleet. Bullshit people have been assigning drones forever. What caused the overuse of drones was the mega buff to the Domi and the Ishtar, because the drones themselves, Drone Link Augmentors, and Omindirection Tracking links have been the same for just about forever. Which increased the usefulness of the drones. :science: 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. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2285
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 10:22:00 -
[1349] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote: Which increased the usefulness of the drones. :science:
So that would mean that they over buffed those two ships (sentries on Geddons kinda suck balls) so why not just curb the problem ships a bit?
I know i know, any kind of sense like that wouldn't fit in with your grand narrative and all that Malcanis - Without drone assign, the slowcat doctrine will wither and die.
|
Phox Jorkarzul
Deep Void Merc Syndicate Sicarius Draconis
94
|
Posted - 2014.02.11 10:22:00 -
[1350] - Quote
Fix Sov wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:Fix Sov wrote:Phox Jorkarzul wrote:If it was solely Drone Assist that lead to the overuse of drones then it would have been taken out 7 years ago as Mario said. Drones weren't useful enough back then to become the sole offensive weapon used by a majority of a fleet. Bullshit people have been assigning drones forever. What caused the overuse of drones was the mega buff to the Domi and the Ishtar, because the drones themselves, Drone Link Augmentors, and Omindirection Tracking links have been the same for just about forever. Which increased the usefulness of the drones. :science:
Which as Grath said, had nothing to do with drone assist so :science: Blasters for life
https://neverpheedthetroll.blogspot.com |
|
|
|
|
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 |