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) |
BobFromMarketing
ElitistOps Pandemic Legion
60
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 15:57:00 -
[211] - Quote
Malcanis wrote:Sort Dragon wrote:Crysantos Callahan wrote:So we just use 5x Wing leaders with drone assists on them for a full fleet?
Just saying... Sigh learn to read. And ffs you are in my alliance too. Don't feel bad, there are people in INIT. who unironically think that removing AoE doomsday was wrong. It just goes to show.
Hah, can you imagine B-R or HED with AoE DD's? What a ******* nightmare for both sides.
edit: These changes are good, down with drone doctrines. |
Wolf Kraft
Aliastra Gallente Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 15:58:00 -
[212] - Quote
I haven't had a chance to read the entire thread or think about potential technical limitations/issues. However was there any thought about adding a new ship stat 'Drone Assist Bandwidth'? This would resolve any lore issues by just saying this is your ship's ability to properly transmit targeting data to the drone's host ship. It would also allow greater granularity for balancing as well. |
Leigh Akiga
My Highsec Backbone
552
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 15:58:00 -
[213] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Drones, for the time being, are the most taxing weapon system for our hardware, which means overall play experience has suffered some because of the popularity of sentry doctrines This is the biggest thing to take away from all of this. |
Artcanin
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 15:58:00 -
[214] - Quote
MeBiatch wrote:so when we getting a hard cap on power projection? should there not be deminishing returns when you have over 2k people shooting one frig?
Go back to hisec and mine veldspar. |
Kama Kairade
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 15:58:00 -
[215] - Quote
Rise,
Players like drone assist because it 'works' during large fleet fights. As in, I asist drones, drone master locks target, drone master activates offensive module on the target, the drones fire at the target (repeatedly even).
Players dislike fighting against drone assist fleets because the alternatives (turrets, missiles) do not work correctly during large fleet fights. We lock a target, we attempt to activate our offensive modules. If the module activates, it doesn't cycle properly. Should we wish to deactivate the module, it doesn't deactivate properly. The experience is so poor that 200 naglfars get destroyed by 200 archons, when the stats are greatly in the naglfar's favor (we can demonstrate this wherever tidi is not present).
As much as I dislike drone assist, there are a couple part of your argument that I cannot wrap my head around. You insist that drone-assist leads to passive playing, and later point out that it's necessary for things like logistics ships. That you would apply the former logic to archons and not the latter, makes us think that might not understand what an Archon does while in a fleet. Alternatively, you might be completely ignoring our requests, much like the client does when we wish to deactivate our modules.
So, to summarize. The problem with drone assist isn't that it is broken. The problem is that it works and everything else (turrets) are broken.
The pragmatic response would be to fix turret/module activation/cycling/deactivation under tidi. |
MeBiatch
GRR GOONS
1709
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 15:58:00 -
[216] - Quote
dei'ro wrote:rip 2000 drones shooting all at once. rip going afk during a fleetfight.
oh no now i actually have to play eve ;_;
thanks ccp
yes now you can press f1 every 10 min in heavy tidi... totally see how that changes the afk thing. There are no stupid Questions... just stupid people... Winter Expansion new ship request |
Kesthely
Fleet of the Damned Ace of Spades.
129
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 15:59:00 -
[217] - Quote
Is there any mechanic in place that prohibits persons with drones assigned to them to assign their own drones to someone else?
If not this change will make things only WORSE
Example 10 people assign 50 drones to person A, 10 people assign 50 drones to person B, 10 people assign 50 drones to person C; Person A, B and C assign their drones to Person D, Person D assigns there drones to Person E, Person E assigns There drones to Person F
Person F is killed, Person E immediatly takes over, Person E is killed Person D immediatly takes over.
Drone assist still has multiple more drones the then the absolute limit, but you also Incourage an extra problem: If the other fleet identifies the last one in chain (person F) and kills it, the underlying structure makes it so that Person E has all the chains commanded. Since players / fleet commanders want to maximize the potential, its an extremely easy doctrine to say "squad members assist to your squad leaders, Squad leaders assist to your wing commanders, and the wing commanders assist to the fleet commander. You can even pre designate backups in squad / wing / fleet, in the case the chain collapses a little bit.
In realistic terms, if the controller is killed now, 200 people need to re-assist their drones. In the new scenario, people will know who the've assited too, and only up to 10 people need to re-assist their drones. since people can put their assisted person in the watchlist, they can immediatly see if their assisted is dead, and assist their drones to anyone else to start contributeing to the chain again.
Secondly due to phased shooting, i think with chain assisting in the proposed method without prohibiting people that have drones assisted to them to assist their own drones, the lag issues will actually Increase. Since the chains makes the amount of commands and checks even more. |
Abernie
Massively Incompetent
152
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:00:00 -
[218] - Quote
Nami Alden wrote:Abernie wrote:Nami Alden wrote:No, no you haven't. 50 is not even enough for a typical VG fleet (12 pilots) and certainly not for an HQ with 40 pilots. Just make the assist depend on drone bandwidth. That way you can limit alpha with sentries which can be considered main weapon while not interfering with light drones which are used as secondary damage application. 1250 bandwidth and this change is at least reasonable. 2 people have to take care of their own drones. ISK/h ruined. -17 accounts. Thanks CCP. Also having to do math on 17 lights+ 12 mediums + 3 heavies + 11 sentries sounds like so much fun. Oh no. 2nd grade math too hard. Better make it dumbed down for newbies. Or maybe the damage of 250 light drones troubles your sleep? Having 4 drone bunnies instead of 1 does make it an unnecessary hassle and a significant loss of damage by those vindies. It's not hard. It's tedious and doesn't add much into the game.
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2631
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:00:00 -
[219] - Quote
Is it a perfect solution? Nope. I'd prefer something with choices, so you can gimp your fit, to take more drones. (A new script for SeBos would work, and provide a balancing factor)
But it's a simple one, which won't add additional load. I like it. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Alina Thano
Shadow Jumpers
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:00:00 -
[220] - Quote
Kesthely wrote:Is there any mechanic in place that prohibits persons with drones assigned to them to assign their own drones to someone else?
If not this change will make things only WORSE
Example 10 people assign 50 drones to person A, 10 people assign 50 drones to person B, 10 people assign 50 drones to person C; Person A, B and C assign their drones to Person D, Person D assigns there drones to Person E, Person E assigns There drones to Person F
Person F is killed, Person E immediatly takes over, Person E is killed Person D immediatly takes over.
Drone assist still has multiple more drones the then the absolute limit, but you also Incourage an extra problem: If the other fleet identifies the last one in chain (person F) and kills it, the underlying structure makes it so that Person E has all the chains commanded. Since players / fleet commanders want to maximize the potential, its an extremely easy doctrine to say "squad members assist to your squad leaders, Squad leaders assist to your wing commanders, and the wing commanders assist to the fleet commander. You can even pre designate backups in squad / wing / fleet, in the case the chain collapses a little bit.
In realistic terms, if the controller is killed now, 200 people need to re-assist their drones. In the new scenario, people will know who the've assited too, and only up to 10 people need to re-assist their drones. since people can put their assisted person in the watchlist, they can immediatly see if their assisted is dead, and assist their drones to anyone else to start contributeing to the chain again.
Secondly due to phased shooting, i think with chain assisting in the proposed method without prohibiting people that have drones assisted to them to assist their own drones, the lag issues will actually Increase. Since the chains makes the amount of commands and checks even more.
Drones are not triggering other drones as far as i have expirienced it in my eve time |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2218
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:01:00 -
[221] - Quote
What is so sad in this whole mess is the fact that no speaks about. Sentry drones were unloved, and unchanged, for years. People used heavies. No one cared about drone command.
Then along came fozzie who wiped out heavies in missions with the AI changes. This still did not affect sentries or heavies in PvP. Then he and his new sidekick went full-on , how do I say it politely, "special needs", and with their alterations to the Domi and Ishtar turned them into death machines from insane distances, and null sec tacticians took full advantage of it. Factor in the ability of many more people to be on-grid, courtesy of CCP's efforts, and we ended up with the cluster-**** we have today.
Now, we see sentry drones ruined for PvE, and highly restrictive limits on drone command.
Which all could have been avoided by addressing the range bonuses on the Ishtar and Domi, after it was demonstrated that the null sec groups were exploiting the design to ridiculous levels.
But nope, someone's hubris and inability to acknowledge they have created a huge mess with their past decisions and alter the past decisions, well, has resulted with things like this announcement and last weeks Omni accouncement.
One person's screwup has huge implications on the entire game, including people that were never part of the exploitation of the Domi and Ishtar fleets in null sec.
Bravo. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Frygok
Common Sense Ltd Nulli Secunda
9
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:02:00 -
[222] - Quote
Artcanin wrote: N3 tears best tears
I'm actually quite happy about this change, I just wish CCP would actually take a proper look at the whole passive gameplay thing, and change more than just one symptom of it.
|
Efraya
Dissident Aggressors Mordus Angels
257
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:03:00 -
[223] - Quote
As far as I can tell from this change the following will happen.
In a max fleet of 250 archons. Each of the squad leaders will have the drones assisted, IF all the squad leaders are calling primaries at their own discretions the enemy logistics will have to be really on it's toes as it will splitt the DPS of the fleet over the enemy.
This may/may not be a good thing I'm not sure.
I've never flown an archon in a slowcat fleet but I'm fairly sure they don't have their high slots fitted with 5 Drone Control Units.
Interesting change. I don't think this is a nerf to the current trend of Slow Cat fleets however. Time will tell.
WSpace; Dead space. |
Dart Aurel
Space Roar Babylon 5..
1
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:03:00 -
[224] - Quote
Nice change. But maybe just limit assisting to squad members? That will be more transparent mechanics as u can't see how many drones are already assisted at you. |
Yhor Pita
13
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:03:00 -
[225] - Quote
1000 Bandwidth limit preserves incursions and small/med gangs, while having the desired results in large scale primary drone dedicated fleets.
Flat bandwidth should be the goal here, not the number of drones. Whether it be 1000 BW or 1250 BW.
50 total is a step in the right direction though.
o7 |
Desert Ice78
Cobra Kai Dojo WHY so Seri0Us
338
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:04:00 -
[226] - Quote
Nice, the goon whining wins again. Good job there Rise and Fozzie, but could you even TRY to make an effort not to be so obvious? 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. |
Xolve
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2384
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:05:00 -
[227] - Quote
CCP Rise wrote: Drones, for the time being, are the most taxing weapon system for our hardware, which means overall play experience has suffered some because of the popularity of sentry doctrines. Maybe you should have thought about that before you buffed a handful of ships to the point of completely obsoleting several types of fleet warfare and damage mitigation (i.e. speed/sig tanking).
|
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2631
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:05:00 -
[228] - Quote
Efraya wrote:I've never flown an archon in a slowcat fleet but I'm fairly sure they don't have their high slots fitted with 5 Drone Control Units.
You do know you get to field an additional drone per level in Carrier, right? Without the use of DCUs? Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
Leigh Akiga
My Highsec Backbone
552
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:06:00 -
[229] - Quote
Addressing the assist is good and the omnidirectional change was a step in the right direction but the near-infinite drone bay on carriers is still a problem and sentries can still blap frigates on up to other capitals. |
Venetian Tar
Wildly Inappropriate Goonswarm Federation
73
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:06:00 -
[230] - Quote
Desert Ice78 wrote:Nice, the goon whining wins again. Good job there Rise and Fozzie, but could you even TRY to make an effort not to be so obvious?
If this were true, would it not have been nerfed while we were getting "murderzoned" before B-R? I don't hate you, I'm just not necessarily excited about your existance. |
|
Xolve
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
2385
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:08:00 -
[231] - Quote
Leigh Akiga wrote:Addressing the assist is good and the omnidirectional change was a step in the right direction but the near-infinite drone bay on carriers is still a problem and sentries can still blap frigates on up to other capitals.
Near Infinite?
Maaaate. Nobody was spending 4b on drones before this change, certainly they aren't going to start now. |
Arkived
Ultramatics In Design Animal Farms
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:09:00 -
[232] - Quote
Please make drone assist work correct first in LS |
Mournful Conciousness
Embers Children TOHA Conglomerate
512
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:11:00 -
[233] - Quote
Venetian Tar wrote:Mournful Conciousness wrote:1 squad commander controlling 7000dps of fully obedient drones is still better than 1 squad commander commanding 10 humans who may miss or mistake orders. I take it you've never had experience with drones in this game, because they are pretty damned far from obedient.
If the assistee fires his guns at the target after the drones have been given the order to assist him, they are 100% obedient. I have never experienced otherwise in 3 years of using drone assist (before it seemed to become fashionable).
It's important to remember that the drones will attack: 1. anything you operate any offensive module against - the last operation taking precedence (including webs and painters) 2. failing that, anything that attacked the assistee after the command to assist was given.
Each ship seems to maintain an "aggression queue" with the drones attacking aggressors in the order they aggressed the person you are assisting.
I accept that in large engagements where there is network or cpu congestion the command may not be invoked in the server as soon as the player expects, and this might have appeared to you (before you read this post) as if the drones are disobedient.
But this is not the case. Drones do not have any randomisation coded into their behaviour. They are 100% predictable once you take into account any latency in command execution, which is the only source of entropy between your keypress and the drone activating.
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".
|
t3hWarrior
Kobol Defense Force SpaceMonkey's Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:11:00 -
[234] - Quote
why not making it a ship parameter?
lets say there is a 250 man dominix fleet. instead of one man calling targets and assisting his drones he can pass the job to 25 people with 10 ships assigning their drones.
he would have to call targets, but only 25 people would have to do something, 90% of the fleet wont feel the change.
instead of making a hard cap, you could limit the drone assist per ship types, its kind of dumb that every ship class could do the same job just as effectively... right? |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8922
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:11:00 -
[235] - Quote
HAH My EVE Videos 59-15 |
Dramaticus
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
438
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:12:00 -
[236] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:What is so sad in this whole mess is the fact that no speaks about. Sentry drones were unloved, and unchanged, for years. People used heavies. No one cared about drone command.
Then along came fozzie who wiped out heavies in missions with the AI changes. This still did not affect sentries or heavies in PvP. Then he and his new sidekick went full-on , how do I say it politely, "special needs", and with their alterations to the Domi and Ishtar turned them into death machines from insane distances, and null sec tacticians took full advantage of it. Factor in the ability of many more people to be on-grid, courtesy of CCP's efforts, and we ended up with the cluster-**** we have today.
Now, we see sentry drones ruined for PvE, and highly restrictive limits on drone command.
Which all could have been avoided by addressing the range bonuses on the Ishtar and Domi, after it was demonstrated that the null sec groups were exploiting the design to ridiculous levels.
But nope, someone's hubris and inability to acknowledge they have created a huge mess with their past decisions and alter the past decisions, well, has resulted with things like this announcement and last weeks Omni accouncement.
One person's screwup has huge implications on the entire game, including people that were never part of the exploitation of the Domi and Ishtar fleets in null sec.
Bravo.
FIRST THEY CAME FOR THE HEAVY DRONE, AND I DID NOT SPEAK OUT -- BECAUSE **** DRONES
The 'do-nothing' member of the GoonSwarm Economic Warfare Cabal
The edge is REALLY hard to see at times but it DOES exist and in this case we were looking at a situation where a new feature created for all of our customers was being virtually curbstomped by five of them |
Weaselior
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
6355
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:12:00 -
[237] - Quote
Xolve wrote:Leigh Akiga wrote:Addressing the assist is good and the omnidirectional change was a step in the right direction but the near-infinite drone bay on carriers is still a problem and sentries can still blap frigates on up to other capitals. Near Infinite? Maaaate. Nobody was spending 4b on drones before this change, certainly they aren't going to start now. thats because nobody was actually going to bother to blap 500 of your drones so why bother adding more
if people could blap 500 you would have added more Head of the Goonswarm Economic Warfare Cabal Disadvantaged Persons Outreach Division:
"We hire one-half of the working class to kill the other half." |
Tara Read
The Generic Pirate Corporation Shadow Cartel
674
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:13:00 -
[238] - 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.
I think i'll bite with this one. By "advantage" you mean due to what exactly? If you are saying a Capital should be impervious to a larger force picking at it say an Archon or a Nyx then you fail to grasp even the basic concepts of combat. Numerical advantage (no matter by whom) is typically how larger engagements are won if we are going by sheer attrition.
BR is an excellent example of what "could" have happened had more sub capitals been able to enter system and yes even the potential risk for drone doctrines to be used that may have possibly resulted in yet another node crash. Had sub capital engagements taken place inside BR (and not in outer staging systems) with the typical drone doctrines currently encouraged, the battle would probably not have been what it was due to server side issues or worse the node crashing.
But this is a trivial point and one we all know and understand. Furthermore you as a much vaunted "elite" PL pilot should more than understand the basic concept of risk in Eve. Why it's Eve 101 that whenever you undock or "log in" your precious Nyx or that shiny Revenant that you do risk losing said assets...
The balance of Capital vs Sub Capital is fine and CCP will once again rebalance Capitals to keep them in line with the changing sub caps. In fact I dare say Capitals will probably be buffed in some regard putting them in line with your concept of such ships being well worth the quote: "cost, effort, risk, and "skills" you stated earlier.
I also chuckle a little at you whining about "piles" of sub caps being fielded in combat. Much can be equally said about PL fielding "piles" of supers and capitals at the drop of a hat. I however think these changes are long overdue and welcome them.
Thanks CCP
Visit my blog for all the latest in jeers and tears as well as news at http://hoistthecolors.org |
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
2631
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:13:00 -
[239] - Quote
Arkived wrote:Please make drone assist work correct first in LS
What doesn't work right? For those of us who haven't run into it. Steve Ronuken for CSM 9! http://www.fuzzwork.co.uk/ Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter |
iskflakes
891
|
Posted - 2014.02.06 16:14:00 -
[240] - Quote
supercapitals-online warm-bodies-online
Are any new force multipliers planned to fight massed battleships? - |
|
|
|
|
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 |