| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Andre Grey
Moira.
Villore Accords
0
   |
Posted - 2014.02.20 11:25:00 -
[1] - Quote
Good day all,
I will post here some small thoughts on the Carrier issue, as we seem to be facing in EVE, while well understanding that possibly a lot of what I write has been possibly said countless times by other people.
To start I will say up front that I wholeheartedly support the recent changes to the assist mechanic introducing the cap on drones (so please do not flame on the issue here, thereGÇÖs a separate thread).
Now as to the suggestions themselves:
GÇóIntroduce a dedicate drone bay to the carriers (size up for debate 500m3, more/less).
GÇ£Story explanationGÇ¥: It could be something as simple as an event in which some rouge drones (you do know the NPCs donGÇÖt you) would slip on board of a Carrier that carried in its hangar alongside traditional fighters also drones (or just drones GÇô standard Slowcat). I am sure this could be spun into a greater story in which those drones then proceed to kill all people on board, spread havoc or even infiltrate whole fleets to cause mayhem (again could easily be spun into a different GÇ£incursionGÇ¥ type of events with rewards GÇô exp. new game carrier being based on Gallente/Minmatar character skills progression).
To continue above, the idea of the GÇ£dedicatedGÇ¥ drone bay on carriers, could be introduced under the Concord/Empire agreement to prevent a repeat of the GÇ£drone takeoverGÇ¥ by providing sealed off drone maintenance bays on the Carriers which would be fitted with the necessary security measures to ensure Rouge Drones cannot endanger the ships.
OOC: The above would give the excuse for the fix/nerf (decide yourself) to the Carriers without influencing their roles for any other situation but the Slowcat Fleet issues that are hotly debated now. It would not take away the ability of Carriers to field drones for fights, but would limit the number of times the ships could replace them (the over 300 sets of sentries do make the current situation somewhat odd and strain the nodes a lot).
Such a change does not mean, to stop the work on improvements/fixes for Fighters which the carrier could and should still be able to carry (and by making the changes use more often).
GÇóMake the GÇ£drone bunnyGÇ¥ (as in the ship to which the drones are assigned) receive some form of UI marking (similar to cyno beacon) visible to all.
GÇ£Story explanationGÇ¥: The high number of drones which need to be controlled simultaneously should create a huge number of dataflow, thus transmissions from such vessels. With the advancements of scanners of ships, the other pilots in space should be able to reasonably find out the ship that controls the swarms of drones.
OOC: The above would not influence any PVE/Incursion use of the Drone Ships. As such it would however prevent AFK fielding of drones in larger battles when fleets are engaged in PVP. EVE being a game that prides itself on GÇ£PlayersGÇ¥ being the driving force of change/consequences, should make it GÇ£realGÇ¥ by encouraging players to actually be there when events happen (as opposed by current situation where we read that more often than not fights are being run without people actually GÇ£being partGÇ¥ of them in person).
GÇóAside of the above:
Eve Story, in game data mentions that Fighters and Fighter Bombers are GÇ£mannedGÇ¥ craft as opposed to AI run Drones. Of course this does not reflect on the mechanics, where all of the above are considered similar items with different sizes and bandwidth requirements. Limiting the bandwidth on carriers, which would not affect the Fighters, could also be a solution to the GÇ£debatedGÇ¥ mechanic of over-use of sentries by certain fleets.
If this was posted in same/similar form somewhere else please feel free to add a reference or to move this post to the appropriate thread.
Thank you for reading.
|
Hatsumi Kobayashi
Origin.
Black Legion.
433
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 14:49:00 -
[2] - Quote
Sir I'm going to have to ask you to stop beating that poor horse. He's dead.
No sig. |
Batelle
Komm susser Tod
1847
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 15:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
I have no idea what you're trying to propose or what the point of this thread is. The drone assist nerf is fine as proposed, it doesn't really need a lore explanation, and it absolutely doesn't need a second drone bay added to carriers. Why are you suggesting a second drone bay? that doesn't even make sense.
"CCP is changing policy, and has asked that we discontinue the bonus credit program after November 7th. So until then, enjoy a super-bonus of 1B Blink Credit for each 60-day GTC you buy!"
Never forget. |
Bertrand Butler
Cras es Noster
212
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 17:53:00 -
[4] - Quote
Batelle wrote:I have no idea what you're trying to propose or what the point of this thread is. The drone assist nerf is fine as proposed, it doesn't really need a lore explanation, and it absolutely doesn't need a second drone bay added to carriers. Why are you suggesting a second drone bay? that doesn't even make sense.
If I understood correctly, he is suggesting a second drone bay so that its impossible to use the first (big) one to put anything there other than fighters. That would provide a nerf to the number of battle ready sentry sets a carrier can churn out.
If you want the tl;dr of the OP, it goes as follows
1. Nerf drone carrying capacity for carriers
2. Further nerf drone assist by making the drone bunny light up like a Christmas tree in the grid/system.
3. Nerf drone bandwidth so that carriers cannot use all drone slots for 25mbit/s drones.
Or to make it a little shorter, **** you carriers! |
Andre Grey
Moira.
Villore Accords
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 17:57:00 -
[5] - Quote
@Batelle
Please allow me to elaborate, as I can understand that there might be some confusion.
In regard to the GÇ£dedicatedGÇ¥ drone bay on Carriers I am simply referencing to an idea which was voiced before that the Carriers should have the Fighter Bay (for fighters only) and a Drone Bay (for drones only). In other words that unlike what we have at the moment you would not be able to fill up your Carrier with countless drones, but instead be able to carry a flight or two of Fighters, and have a smaller bay for fielding of Drones.
(As an example of similar division already existing in game please look to the recent changes of Industrials or the Venture which has a small GÇ£generalGÇ¥ cargo hold, and a GÇ£dedicatedGÇ¥ mining hold.)
This would permit for the Carriers to maintain their support role, while limiting the over-use of drones in certain situations, or permitting sub-capital ships to counter the carrier by limiting the number of drone swarms a single carrier can keep fielding as they are being destroyed.
It would in no way prevent the Carriers from fielding fighters, as they were imagined to do.
In this regard the story suggestion is meant to give a tidy and consistent in game explanation, why ships that were up to that point able to field 1000+ drones, are now limited to 3-4 sets of 5 heavy/sentry drone flights, without losing the Fighter flights.
I do hope this explains the question (Edit: Thank you Bertrand Butler for explaining it as well)
@Hatsumi Kobeyash
I do apologize if you feel that I am repeating something you heard too often.
Please note that the changes to Carriers, which I believe is what you refer to, are only one of my suggestions.
I do hope you take a moment to read about the GÇ£drone bunny indicationGÇ¥ as well, as my intention is to encourage more active participation of players by suggesting a way to deal with the one aspect of fights that at this time in several cases are turning players from GÇ£participantsGÇ¥ into GÇ£spectatorsGÇ¥.
|
Zhilia Mann
Tide Way Out Productions
2049
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 18:20:00 -
[6] - Quote
Can I offer a general set of suggestions?
First, this sort of thing really does belong in Features and Ideas. I got yelled at last time I posted as much, but it's true. It's a discussion of an idea for a broad change in game mechanics/balance and isn't a conversation about the current state of ships/how to use them/etc.
Second, whether it seems obvious or not, and whether you think it needs it or not, a post like this is almost universally more effective when it starts out with a discussion of what you see the problem to be. In this case, yes, we all know that slowcats exist and that people complain about them for a variety of reasons. But you, as someone bringing a fairly radical (not original, but still radical) change to the table, are much more compelling when you lay out your own understanding of the issue. Yes, this opens you to criticism by people who will disagree with your premises, but without it you're open to people just making assumptions about your premises and charging those windmills instead.
So once those premises are laid out and we all know what you, as the OP, understand the issue to be in specific detail, I'd suggest you move on to the changes you want to talk about and describe how they address the problems identified while minimizing ancillary issues. The best change is often the one that most narrowly solves a problem while having no effects on anything else. Other times, a good change will have identifiable and predictable positive ripple effects to other areas of the game. Still others, though hard to sell, will deliberately introduce a disruptive change. How do you see your proposal? Where does it fit into that schema and why?
Finally if you want to include lore... eh. I guess you can do that. It's not like it really gets in the way that much.
I say all this because I see a lot of words here but I don't see a lot of answers to these questions. My take is that if you're going to spill that much ink: do yourself a favor and write a more effective proposal.
(Oh, and I don't really care one way or the other about slowcats.) |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
6299
|
Posted - 2014.02.20 22:03:00 -
[7] - Quote
One time bump to fix forum. |
|
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
2887
|
Posted - 2014.02.22 19:03:00 -
[8] - Quote
Moving thread from Ships and Modules to Features and Ideas.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
Captain
Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)
Interstellar Services Department |
|
Secret Squirrell
Allied Press Intergalactic
77
|
Posted - 2014.02.23 07:02:00 -
[9] - Quote
The problem is that to actually limit the sentry drones a carrier can field would require far more radical changes. Lets say you give carries a fighter bay, and a very small 500m^3 regular drone bay. I can now only field 2 flights of sentries out of my carrier right? WRONG. No one cares about a solo carrier with infinite drones, people care about a slowcat fleet, which means I can refit, which means I can reload my drone bay, which means that my entire fleet hangar can be loaded with more drones. So now I have 420 sentry drones, instead of the about 800 I currently load my slowcat with. (probably never lost more than 200 in a day) So all you have done is made life annoying for carrier pilots, but wont make any of the critics of carriers happy. Oh and if you have any supers/titans, that is another 2000/4000 sentries the carriers can reload with EACH. |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children
TOHA Conglomerate
651
|
Posted - 2014.02.23 09:56:00 -
[10] - Quote
Having read the OP carefully and worked through the implications, My view is that it makes a great deal of sense.
He's proposing separate fighter and drone bays.
Why not? A fighter and a drone are very different things. Launch tubes etc would be different sizes, and maintenance requirements would be different.
I might add that in addition, fighters ought to be buffed so that they can attack cruisers with some degree of success. At the moment they are somewhat underwhelming.
+1
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".
|
Swiftstrike1
Swiftstrike Incorporated
492
|
Posted - 2014.02.23 10:41:00 -
[11] - Quote
Dear OP,
you would do yourself and all your readers a huge favour if you changed your original post to look like this format:
Brief Introduction
Proposed Changes
Reasons Why
Pros & Cons
Conclusion
Get rid of the lore stuff entirely, it has no place in a proposal like this. As for the change I think you are suggesting, have a +1
Fleet Bookmarks
New Gravimetric Sites
Med Clones 2.0 |
Lina Theist
Rosendal Research and Development
50
|
Posted - 2014.02.23 11:50:00 -
[12] - Quote
I somewhat agree with carriers having a separate drone bay, but the problem is that you can still just refit new drones with the ship maintenance feature.
Another possible fix would be to allow carriers to deploy "1 additional Fighter per level" to severely reduce the viability of slowcats. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |