...It effects carriers more because they can launch twice as many sentries. No other reason.

it is an explicit goal for the nerf to affect carriers more than subcaps

please stop embarrassing yourself

it is an explicit goal for the nerf to affect carriers more than subcaps (this is why it is a reason for a flat cap)

please stop embarrassing yourself

that it is under "reasons for a flat cap" means that the outcome is specifically desired

the parentheses indicate, for the dimwitted, how it achieves that goal

a flat cap on assigned drones was specifically picked over "no more than 10 people can assign their drones to you" specifically to nerf carriers more

you merely parrot grath's argument that it should not be fixed until later because...well no reason

there is no good reason not to make a simple sensible fix like this and to simply delay it until sov is fixed, that's just a bad tactic to try to get good changes delayed for no reason

It affects carriers more because they can launch twice as many drones.

No other reason that I can see stated.

Also, the word "because" means why -- not how.

It affects carriers more because they can launch twice as many drones.

No other reason that I can see stated.

Also, the word "because" means why -- not how.

Im not parroting **** buddy. I am saying the change is ******* redundant. Drone assist does not cause issues with this game at all. The only time in the history of this game that it was deemed and issue was when CFC went out of their way to make it one. Period.

Im not parroting **** buddy. I am saying the change is ******* redundant. Drone assist does not cause issues with this game at all. The only time in the history of this game that it was deemed and issue was when CFC went out of their way to make it one. Period.

If you have an issue with doctrines using assigned sentries. Use a fleet doctrine that out ranges them. Problem solved.

Or we could go with a 50 drone limit and deal with it.

so when the eastern bloc was using sentry assist it was a carefully stewarded and responsible action, but when we deign to use it it suddenly becomes a blight on the game?

people don't get this outraged over redundant changes

for that reason. sounds like kind of the response to "why?"

as in:

why are you doing this?

because _____

or alternatively: for this reason _____

or again....why are carriers being affected more? because they have twice as many drones.

This is hard.

Drone Assist didn't cause the server to bung up when those dreads jumped into HED the 15K+ Objects on grid did that.

Thanks for illustrating my point for me.

How convenient of you to ignore that drone assist is the reason there were so many objects on grid in the first place.

A flat cap is also a simple and more elegant solution that some over-complicated bandwidth solution. CCP has decided that they don't want fleet play to be around drone assisting.

That's fine.

I'm sure CCP has a vision of carriers outside of that. It's not like this is the final balance iteration of the game. Capitals and supers are on the table for a rebalance anyways, so whatever current iteration of carrier we are about to have is likely to be temporary regardless.

I have the sneaking suspicion that Fighters and Fighter Bombers are due for some love this summer.

Its only a blight because of the context. When an entity states they are explicitly trying to break the game to show a mechanic causes a problem that is no longer natural game function, but intent to cause harm to the game. There is a fine line between exploiting a bad mechanic and manufacturing a poor mechanic.

Its only a blight because of the context. When an entity states they are explicitly trying to break the game to show a mechanic causes a problem that is no longer natural game function, but intent to cause harm to the game. There is a fine line between exploiting a bad mechanic and manufacturing a poor mechanic.

And ultimately it is not drone assist that CFC showed was an issue but Drones themselves. Drone Assist didn't cause the server to bung up when those dreads jumped into HED the 15K+ Objects on grid did that.

No the reason that drones were there is because SlowCats are the best defensive fleet one can field becuase of the defensive capability and versatility of Carriers. The reason subcap drone doctrines became a thing is because Rise opted to go ahead with changes to drones and drone boats, in spite of the community telling him that he is going to create an issue with drones down the road.

And here we are.

i have tired of bashing pinky hops into the ground as he's not managing to raise any points that are useful to use as a foil anymore, fortunately mario is back:


when people insist it's not a bad exploit when they're abusing it and the goonies are just lying, the most effective way to prove them wrong is to demonstrate exactly why it's broken by exploiting it ourselves

I do like that the assertion here is that our ability to influence CCP is so strong that it literally needs to be reigned in or taken into account when affecting game balance

it casts us in a much more competent light that we frankly deserve

So N3/PL are allowed to switch their doctrine to a drone-heavy doctrine, but the CFC isn't?

There is not data showing that Drone Assist is an issue.