Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Motoko Innocentius
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 18:14:00 -
[31] - Quote
Are you also ok if another structure is made that does the same for all turret weapons and missiles?
Tbh, your idea is as stupid as anything, you don't fix things by adding new mobile modules, that is not how things should be done. Balancing is done by adjusting what is not working as intended.
On a side note, if this kind of change would happen, should it happen before the cfcrusrusbl vs n3plnc. war has ended or after ? |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
199
|
Posted - 2013.12.23 18:51:00 -
[32] - Quote
This will affect both sides. CFC also moves to "dones online". This is sick, i want REAL eve not "assist to trigger - orbit"
Where is the place of NEW eve players? In renter alliances only?
At what point one of the sides decide - we don't need any more players - to many mouths to feed already. TIDI IS NIGHTMARE - CCP SHOW US THE TIMERS Reactivation timers on : MJD and more. Please like & post in this idea to keep it visible. |
Motoko Innocentius
Garoun Investment Bank Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2013.12.24 09:27:00 -
[33] - Quote
Doing a balance run just to allow yourside to win in the war is p stupid, whine after the wars settled. Nerfing during war only makes it look like ccp is on cfc's side as they are the biggest whine machine. I also see no reason for whining about this at this very moment, slowcats have been out for ages and everyone has known how they work. Timing your whine thread so it could affect a war you're part of is.. well you get the idea.
On the matter itself, there's still no reason to use your proposal as it is nothing but a bad idea and only leads to very bad outcomes. |
Lei Merdeau
Hidden Agenda Deep Space Engineering
13
|
Posted - 2013.12.24 11:10:00 -
[34] - Quote
Drake Doe wrote:Batelle wrote: The worst offender of the issue is the drone assist mechanic, which allows a billion carriers to target switch with perfect robot speed.
That proves how the real problem is the drone assist mechanic, as it provides an option that no other weapon can match.
I suspect the reason we still have this problem is that its also a solution. Having one player control all the drones reduces the load on the server. |
sci0gon
Kaira Innovations Superior Eve Engineering
16
|
Posted - 2013.12.26 00:07:00 -
[35] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:The simplest way to crash a node is to deploy all sentries.
All weapon systems have some ewar working on them. Guns - you can tracking /optimal rang disrupt. You can jam , drain cap , sensor disturb Missiles - you place 1-2 "firewall" smartbombing ships - and most of the damage is gone. Drones - you just assign them to someone and that's it. This person get some ewar - you just assign it to someone else.
There is no ewar against the drones and the assign mechanic.
node crashing is pretty much what goons are famous for, stuffing as many players into one system as they can and spamming local with nonsense to help push the node to its limit before poof everyone rushes to login to make sure they are safe.
ewar aside, all turret based weapons and missile launchers have implants which affect there overall dps, drones currently do not which to be honest im pretty surprised especially with ships such as the six t1 variants of Amarr and Gallente's drone bonus ships. |
Luna Arindale
Ubuntu Inc. The Fourth District
14
|
Posted - 2013.12.26 05:40:00 -
[36] - Quote
This Isn't even a thread about drones anymore, it is a thread about carriers. Oh and before anyone brings up omnidirectional tracking links, they do have stacking penalties. Sentry Drones are not instant dps, they hit for a lot of damage yes, but it is not instantaneous. The frustrations people have is related to drones becoming a weapon type and not just a source of extra dps. Unlike other weapons it can and will be destroyed. In regards to this you point out the carrier's drone bay size. I agree that it is a bit crazy, but that bay was designed for fighters. So the problem here is not drones, but the carrier being able to flight any type of drone.
In the meantime we at in the middle of a rebalance, so these "OP" ships are temporary until the other ships are made up to this new standard. I doubt we will see a change until CCP releases a new EWAR ship, or rebalances the carrier. So quit blaming the drones, they are not quite as OP as you think. |
Drake Doe
SVER Bloodpack Insidious Empire
315
|
Posted - 2013.12.26 06:05:00 -
[37] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Disrregardign what you do not like, and focusing on what is BROKEN.
The limit on assistance would mean that no huge alpha strike can be applied before the ship can be repaired, That by itself would diminish a LOT of the problems.
Add something like, track disruptors affecting all drones under control of that specific ship and you open up space to coutner those fleets. You just need to distinguish which of the ships are controlling (by a bit of trial and error).
The fleets would continue to be very very powerful but could be countered with effort.
With your proposal, dreads becomes infinitely more powerful than carriers on capital combat and that jsut swings the table to the other side.
Duringmost of eve history fights were boring because everythign would die so fast... now that we have fleets that can keep most ships alive , lets be subtle on the nerfing, Throwing everythgin back to the old times is bad because a single fight meant the end of war . I agree with this besides the td part, as long as my drones can be destroyed they should require ewar directly applied to them. "The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! *pops more corn*" ---Evernub-- |
Drake Doe
SVER Bloodpack Insidious Empire
315
|
Posted - 2013.12.26 06:08:00 -
[38] - Quote
Lei Merdeau wrote:Drake Doe wrote:Batelle wrote: The worst offender of the issue is the drone assist mechanic, which allows a billion carriers to target switch with perfect robot speed.
That proves how the real problem is the drone assist mechanic, as it provides an option that no other weapon can match. I suspect the reason we still have this problem is that its also a solution. Having one player control all the drones reduces the load on the server. The same amount of actions are occurring regardless, I doubt that requiring separate input increases sever load by a notable amount in comparison. "The homogenization of EVE began when Gallente and Caldari started sharing a weapon system."---Vermaak Doe-- "Ohh squabbles ohh I love my dust trolls like watching an episode of Maury with less " Is he my Dad " but more of " My Neighbor took a dump on my lawn " good episode! *pops more corn*" ---Evernub-- |
Dan Seavey Allier
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 11:41:00 -
[39] - Quote
Manssell wrote:If you're trying to address the drone assist issue with this, why not just have the deployable disrupt the ability to assign the drones? Deploy structure, everyone on grid has to control their own drones.
Uh....what he said.
Dan
|
Corraidhin Farsaidh
Hello-There
92
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 11:48:00 -
[40] - Quote
Manssell wrote:If you're trying to address the drone assist issue with this, why not just have the deployable disrupt the ability to assign the drones? Deploy structure, everyone on grid has to control their own drones.
Actually I like this idea better. Give it an AOE though so that you have to deliver them on target to the drone boat fleet to impinge them.
To stop the drone assist issue I would much rather see a change whereby you can only be assisted by as many drones as you can interface with.
This could be a nice interim measure that's is more rapidly deployable. Also I want my 'Droover(tm)', a drone hoover that can be deployed onto a crashed grid after restart to go collect me the gazillion drones floating around all lonely :D |
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
696
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 12:02:00 -
[41] - Quote
no, this mobile structure madness must stop, even more if its just another butthurt sentry whine of rus alliances loosing their war. |
Debora Tsung
The Investment Bankers Guild
843
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 12:40:00 -
[42] - Quote
Anthar Thebess wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Or you just destroy these structures with your drones. Yes and no. They are destroyable so you can remove this ewar from grid. But: If you just drop carriers - your 90km sentry drones will be not able to hit structure that is located 150km. Option 1: Use fighters - this will work, but will also limit the number of sentry drones you can carry, and fighters cannot be so easily scoped , they can be destroyed outside of 2500 sentry drones from slowcat fleet. Option 2: Drop long range , unsieged dreads, again this will work - but small signature and ability to deploy multiple structures will make those dreads vulnerable. Even unsieged, and RR by carriers they can still be killed by alpha strike. And you can use subcaps for this that dont have to be 180k away. So tornados , malelstorms will work. Option 3: Bring subcap fleet that will be killing those structures. Again this will work - but you can fight with this subcap fleet.
Option 4 drop carriers in range to destroy the astructure. Stupidity should be a bannable offense.
Also This --> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=216699 Please stop making "afk cloak" threads, thanks in advance. |
Anthar Thebess
REPUBLIKA ORLA C0VEN
269
|
Posted - 2014.01.10 13:16:00 -
[43] - Quote
Well the point is that you can drop multiple on one grid in different places and you can use dictors to hold carriers in one place. You will loose those structures , and a lot of them - but you can , and you will have to to deploy more of them. TIDI IS NIGHTMARE - CCP SHOW US THE TIMERS Reactivation timers on : MJD and more. Please like & post in this idea to keep it visible. |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |