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) |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
684
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 10:44:00 -
[1771] - Quote
Mario Putzo wrote:I still don't see how this is going to fix anything. To be quite honest I like the idea given to the worm. Less overall drones but more potent drones.
Its painfully obvious that this change has nothing to do with getting more people to press F1 and it is equally obvious it will not reduce strain on the server.
But the direct reduction in drone numbers tabled in the Pirate Frig update would accomplish the latter, and with limited drones on field the former would also be accomplished as people would have to be more attentive in order to maintain their limited number of drones remaining on field.
Just for the sake of a balanced view, I hate the idea of super-drones. Just because it seems like a weak narrative to have tiny drones that are as strong as the ship that's carrying them.
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".
|
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
366
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 13:44:00 -
[1772] - Quote
50 is way to big number. Faction Dreadnoughts
|
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
652
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 13:53:00 -
[1773] - Quote
no response in this thread from devs for some time.... i wonder if they are still interested in what we have to say ... most people including myself still thinks its a nonsensical mechanic that should never have existed and don't see why CCP want too keep this eminently exploitable mechanic alive... flogging a dead horse comes too mind here.. 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. |
Titus Maul
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 14:11:00 -
[1774] - Quote
I notice quite a few players stating that this is being nerfed because 'goons wanted it nerfed' and 'what are the small guys supposed to do to fight larger numbers?!?'
The answer to both of those questions is really the same. Lets assume for a second that the only reason corp/alliance/whatever A starts using a specific doctrine is because it is powerful enough to overcome corp/alliance/whatever B's vastly larger numbers. It happens that nothing in the game consisting of a equal or smaller number of ships effectively counters fleet A's new shiny doctrine. This is GREAT for the smaller group of players, they are able to compete with the larger swarm of fleet B and feel great about themselves. That continues to be true right up until group B starts using the same doctrine. Once group B is using this super awesome doctrine and they are STILL able to field vastly larger numbers the game breaks. That single doctrine becomes the only way to play the game.
The simple fact that has been reinforced by the entire history of mankind is that the larger force almost ALWAYS wins. The limited exceptions to this that I am sure you are listing off in your head at the moment are exactly that: Exceptions. Those exceptions become the stuff of legends. And every time an exception to the rule rises it is not a result of being a super elite force it is entirely attributable to a long series of unfortunate events for the larger force. Unfortunately the thing that you cannot really counter in warfare is more numbers. You can develop weapons that are 'force equalizers' but that only works until the bigger guy gets his paws on them. The idea that you can kill the enemy before he kills you with your brief advantage works SOMETIMES in the real world due to the unfortunate lack of a respawn feature. In eve it just means that once you show the larger group your spiffy new toy by exploding them with it they just reship and do it to you. Balance in this game basically means that no one doctrine or ship or whatever is vastly more powerful than another equal combination of ships.
CCP could have not nerfed drone assist and goons would use it full time and field three or four full fleets of drone assist doctrine during a single battle and we would be having a discussion in a few more months about how goons using drone assist is killing the game etc.
ld;dr Aryth is correct. |
Mario Putzo
Welping and Dunking.
346
|
Posted - 2014.02.27 16:15:00 -
[1775] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:no response in this thread from devs for some time.... i wonder if they are still interested in what we have to say ... most people including myself still thinks its a nonsensical mechanic that should never have existed and don't see why CCP want too keep this eminently exploitable mechanic alive... flogging a dead horse comes too mind here..
I am pretty sure that they haven't been interested in this thread since they arrived at the 50 cap. But its ok one only needs to take a look at the Damp nerf thread to see how much CCP really cares about what we have to say.
2013 Buff Drones Buff Damps
Players: Don't do that, that is a bad Idea.
2014 Nerf Drones Nerf Damps
Players: Told ya so!.
It makes no difference what we say, to be quite honest. I mean look at the egg they laid with the Nestor. |
masternerdguy
State Protectorate Caldari State
1397
|
Posted - 2014.03.02 03:38:00 -
[1776] - 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.
There seems to be a crusade against force multipliers, it started long ago with the Falcon nerf and has been moving steadily ever since. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Sgt Ocker
Last Bastion of Freedom
127
|
Posted - 2014.03.02 12:33:00 -
[1777] - Quote
masternerdguy wrote: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. There seems to be a crusade against force multipliers, it started long ago with the Falcon nerf and has been moving steadily ever since. The new force multiplier, more domis, more harpies, more bombers Domi fleet 3 is full, join domi fleet 4 2nd Harpy fleet is full join Harpy 3rd fleet. 250 reds camping 3 jumps out We move out in 5 mins, get in fleet.
|
Rabbit P
23rd Tier Overseer's Personal Effects Pangu Coalition
6
|
Posted - 2014.03.04 04:15:00 -
[1778] - Quote
this change will come out in 1.3 or not?
we can see this change is included in the sisi thread but the title of this thread still "1.x" |
Icylce
The Chosen 0nes DARKNESS.
17
|
Posted - 2014.03.04 08:26:00 -
[1779] - Quote
So when u nerfed most things drone related recently, are u gonna actually fix drones in not so distant future. U know like next decade maybe? |
Syri Taneka
NOVA-CAINE
108
|
Posted - 2014.03.04 16:20:00 -
[1780] - Quote
Harvey James wrote:it still makes no sense .. how a ship can control more drones than its bandwidth allows which surely makes drone assist a ridiculous mechanic does it not???
The important mistake here is that an assisted ship is not actually in control of the drones (unlike, say, assigned fighters). The pilot who has assisted a fleet mate with drones is saying, "Follow this guy and engage anything he engages," or, in the case of defend, "Follow this guy and engage anything that engages him." In both cases, the host ship's computers are pulling target data from the fleet mate in question and relaying that information to their deployed drones, albeit rather automatically (and without having to lock the target themselves).
Though there are some reasonable expectations of how this mechanic will play out, it's far from perfect control. For instance, with assist, if the assisted craft switches targets, the drones assisting him will not follow suit - they will stay with the old target until it ceases to be a viable target. Viable target, in this case, means: alive and on grid.
If the host ship dies or leaves grid, the drones assisting go inactive. If the target is outside control range of the host ship, the drones loaned by that host will not engage (though they will remain engaged if the host strays outside of control range after the hosts' drones have engaged initially, just as they would if the host had commanded them to engage directly). |
|
|
CCP Rise
C C P C C P Alliance
3892
|
Posted - 2014.03.04 16:50:00 -
[1781] - Quote
Just updated the thread title - this will be shipping in 1.3 |
|
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1754
|
Posted - 2014.03.04 18:17:00 -
[1782] - Quote
Rise respectfully we have 71 pages and not one substantial change to your op. I feel this was the wrong forum to announce the changes as its natural for a features thread to include iteration... Perhaps you should post set in stone changes like this in the test server forum so that we players have acceptable expectations and wont fill 70 pages in an attempt to iterate on said idea. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
52
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 08:11:00 -
[1783] - Quote
Hmmm...if drones did not have so many hits compared to frigates -- then you could have solved this with large area but weak smart bombs or reduced yield bombs.
It just seems to me that concentrating drones in one area via assistance is more realisticly an opportunity for massive destruction of drones.
Perhaps the very idea of assistance is badly implemented. In theory the lending ship is supposed to still be directing the drones within computers. So in fact the guard command should be working fine...particularly since all the guard drones are concentrated in one place for "easy" mass destruction by a single bomb (even understrength version -- capital launched super torpedo?). The Guard command simply displaces the point for drone operation and could be run by the owning ship.
Assistance commands should probably require remote sensor link modules to the original drone owning ships so that targeting info is RT available to the drone directing computers. This definitely would increase the ratio of active players to drones passively employed.
It might be further limited to targets designated by unit (squad to fleet) commanders - that is unit commanders have to do the remote target linking for their units and then select targets which get assistance calls. Or if that is considered too burdensome (gives squad commanders something to do) maybe the remote fleet targeting is a new gang link mountable only on Command Ships.
Also drones that leave the command range of the owning ship should continue to go inert. You could add a background EW noise number for fleet battles that disables regaining control of drones that have gone out of range before any official disconnect occurs.... or at least decreases the range at which control can be regained once lost and depending on battle size. Assistance commands would then tend to lose lots of drones due to issues tracking differing command ranges.
|
Udonor
Native Freshfood Minmatar Republic
52
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 08:13:00 -
[1784] - Quote
Rule of 50? I predict you just increased the number of controlling people slightly but the drones still get directed against a common target and drones are mainly against capital targets that don't instapop. So everyone is still bored once the drones are pointed to buzz against that capital ship for 30-90 minutes.
If you want to make drones more exciting -- make deploying drone swarms against capitals rather pointless. Killing smaller ships is much more dynamic. For instance give all the capital ships an option for a drone killer smartbomb or micro-doomsday module that can fire once every 20 seconds -- or better a new capital only module that kills drone command links within say 15km rendering drones inert.
But overall I think the issue is a bit BS. Drones inherently tend to passive playing during blob warfare even if no assistance or guard commands exist. If you got guns to manage in chaotic battle and assistance is not in effect...then what are the chances your drones are just set on aggressive. Carrier pilots? ...well honestly that is choosing boredom because you are mainly drones and regardless of who directs your drones the target they are on is likely among the largest enemy ships. You know the ships which take the longest time to knock down especially when properly logi supported.
|
I've got himtackled
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
12
|
Posted - 2014.03.05 23:12:00 -
[1785] - Quote
Udonor wrote:Hmmm...if drones did not have so many hits compared to frigates -- then you could have solved this with large area but weak smart bombs or reduced yield bombs.
It just seems to me that concentrating drones in one area via assistance is more realisticly an opportunity for massive destruction of drones.
Perhaps the very idea of assistance is badly implemented. In theory the lending ship is supposed to still be directing the drones within computers. So in fact the guard command should be working fine...particularly since all the guard drones are concentrated in one place for "easy" mass destruction by a single bomb (even understrength version -- capital launched super torpedo?). The Guard command simply displaces the point for drone operation and could be run by the owning ship.
Assistance commands should probably require remote sensor link modules to the original drone owning ships so that targeting info is RT available to the drone directing computers. This definitely would increase the ratio of active players to drones passively employed.
It might be further limited to targets designated by unit (squad to fleet) commanders - that is unit commanders have to do the remote target linking for their units and then select targets which get assistance calls. Or if that is considered too burdensome (gives squad commanders something to do) maybe the remote fleet targeting is a new gang link mountable only on Command Ships.
Also drones that leave the command range of the owning ship should continue to go inert. You could add a background EW noise number for fleet battles that disables regaining control of drones that have gone out of range before any official disconnect occurs.... or at least decreases the range at which control can be regained once lost and depending on battle size. Assistance commands would then tend to lose lots of drones due to issues tracking differing command ranges.
Tell me more about how destroying drones means anything when carriers carry literally 1000 sentries |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Brothers of Tangra
5
|
Posted - 2014.03.10 17:27:00 -
[1786] - Quote
Make DD's aoe scriptable (maybe 10k no skill/ 15k max skill hp aoe dd then subcap Drone problem solved Lag solved no more drone boat concepts for fear 1 titan will wipe the grids drones
titan pilots happy drone fleets nerfed without a nerf |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
358
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 15:28:00 -
[1787] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:Rise respectfully we have 71 pages and not one substantial change to your op. I feel this was the wrong forum to announce the changes as its natural for a features thread to include iteration... Perhaps you should post set in stone changes like this in the test server forum so that we players have acceptable expectations and wont fill 70 pages in an attempt to iterate on said idea. La, la la, can't hear you.... I am a pod pilot: http://dl.eve-files.com/media/corp/DesertIce/POD.jpg
CCP Zulu: Came expecting a discussion about computer monitors, left confused. |
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
5270
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 17:21:00 -
[1788] - Quote
Oh Takashawa wrote: "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?
Apparently, your alliance bringing in less subs makes you less relevant in game balance. Auditing | Collateral holding and insurance | Consulting | PLEX for Good Charity
Twitter channel |
Harvey James
The Sengoku Legacy
664
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 18:07:00 -
[1789] - Quote
drone assist needs to be purged with FIRE!!!!! 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. |
Fix Sov
124
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 18:40:00 -
[1790] - Quote
Apparently some people think that a counter to numbers isn't actually countered by numbers, and as such is immune to adoptation by the side which brings numbers to begin with. 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. |
|
Krimishkev
Critical Mass Inc. Nexus Fleet
121
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 20:31:00 -
[1791] - Quote
"We feel that _giant lagging blobs of poo_, at a large scale, leads to _frustrating_ gameplay that most players do not enjoy.
Fixed it for you. |
Fix Sov
124
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 20:42:00 -
[1792] - Quote
Krimishkev wrote:"We feel that _giant lagging blobs of poo_, at a large scale, leads to _frustrating_ gameplay that most players do not enjoy.
Fixed it for you. Solution: fix sov. 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. |
General Banks
Occultum Scientia Black Flame.
6
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 21:29:00 -
[1793] - Quote
Would a skill to increase the maximum number of drones that could be assigned to someone be out of the question?? |
Leeloo Alizee
Orion Constellation Inc.
6
|
Posted - 2014.03.11 23:35:00 -
[1794] - Quote
There are few easy and efective way to do it, but nooooo, you have to nerf whole system
1 you could nerf only sentri drone assistance 2 you could nerf sentri drone tracking speed 3 you could switch domi and navy domi bonuses, lets see how many people will use epencive domi in pvp. 4 Drones to be easier to pop
soooo many posibilitis, now we cant even assist warriors in assault fleet.
BTW, about 1 of your reasons: EVE may not have the twitchiest gameplay around, but drone assist goes too far and testimony from frustrated pilots..... <-----Ganked miners are even more frustrated and still no change, just oposite, its geting worse. |
Verde Minator
Crack And Cookies For Santa
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 06:32:00 -
[1795] - Quote
i want to say good, but ummm, in a large fleet battle, you just assign your drones to your squad commander, 5 x 10 = 50, 5 wings doing this with 5 squads, each squad commander taking over the drones, with the fleet commander taking the wing commanders drones or whatever.. basically all you did was make some people change a little bit of doctrine, unless you wanted them to segregate the fleet a little bit, which i was hoping they were goign to do that back when i was in the cfc but no, blob fleets, so yes, i like this, but im pretty sure they already figured out what i did in just as much time. i can take control of a 250 man fleet and that's what i would tell everyone to do.. ild more or less have tacklers with 50 drones to keep the pod kills coming in ;p
or something... |
Pufferfish Lemoncurry
Shadow Runners.
2
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 11:27:00 -
[1796] - Quote
Good change, but 50 is still too much. I'd propose 25.
Cheers for the changes anyway. |
Earthan
Infinite Point Nulli Secunda
1
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 18:23:00 -
[1797] - Quote
I just resubscrubed after long break but hearing about assigning drones and doing nrearly nothign else as gneral rule of battle sounds maissively wrong, so that change sounds good to me.I mean it must freakign boring.
Also when allaince wants only dominixes/ishatars /proteuses as dmg dealers you know there is a massive unbalance in the force |
Hannah Usoko
Transfixus Industries
0
|
Posted - 2014.03.12 20:42:00 -
[1798] - Quote
Just an idea: make drone assist leadership skills and link modules
Without any skill, the player could control 5 assisted drones. Drone Warfare skill: +3 assisted drones/ skill level, Drone Warfare Specialist skill + Drone Warfare Link - Assisted Drone Control Link I: +5 assisted drones/ skill level Drone Warfare Specialist skill V + Drone Warfare Link - Assisted Drone Control Link II: +5 assisted drones overall (5+15+25+5)
benefits: - smaller ships could control max 20 assisted drones - only command ships/battlecruisers etc. could control more drones - new skillpoint sink
alternative way: assisted drones would require limited bandwith from the ship which controls the drones. The skills and links would reduce the required bandwith
benefits: - smaller ships could control even less assisted drones - droneboats could control more assisted drones than non-droneboats - only command ships/battlecruisers etc. could control many assisted drones - new skillpoint sink |
Arthur Aihaken
Arsenite
3057
|
Posted - 2014.03.13 02:06:00 -
[1799] - Quote
Or just remove drone assist entirely. I am currently away, traveling through time and will be returning last week. |
Strom Crendraven
Rules of Acquisition Acquisition Of Empire
70
|
Posted - 2014.03.13 09:52:00 -
[1800] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Honest Blob wrote:
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.
We put a lot of thought into those kinds of use cases, which is why we settled on capping at 50 instead of removing drone assist or using a lower cap. After a lot of thought and discussion, we decided that a cap of 50 provides a very good balance that continues to allow tactics like the ones you are describing while discouraging the use of drone assist as a "primary" role for ships in large fights. I think you'll find that if you can't kill that interceptor with 50 warriors, 100 or 1000 won't be much better.
lol..just like you decided to discourage the use of missiles as a "primary" weapons system.
|
|
|
|
|
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 |