| Author |
Topic |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance |
Posted - 2010.12.30 09:37:00 - [ 211]
 Originally by: Onictus
Oh and LOL at the guy quoting physics...yet has never read the show info tab on a drone.
This thread seems to be thick with trolling, interesting. The other guy brought up quantum mechanics, I just pointed out that not only was he applying it in correctly, it was irrelevant to the discussion. And as for the lie that I haven't read the info tab on a drone, okay. Despite the fact that, ya know, I was just talking about what's on it. Originally by: Black Dranzer
Yeah okay
And yet more trolling, now by lying and inventing fake quotes. Originally by: Black Dranzer
You never argued balance.
Originally by: Black Dranzer
After that, you start discussing the balance issues
Who, you, troll? Naaaaaaaaaaaaaw. Originally by: Black Dranzer
You argued categorization.
Also fictional. I pointed out to you, several times, the use, schema, cooperative/solo differences, etc... I asked you to identify what you thought they were, and you just dodged most of the questions. We've been over this. Originally by: Black Dranzer
Somebody calls you on the whole "drones aren't actually reps" thing[/quote
And you troll some more.
Nobody could call me on a "drones aren't reps" "thing" because I never said drones are reps.
I've asked you to stop trolling, please do so.
|
Jared O'loathe
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 10:12:00 - [ 212]
Edited by: Jared O''loathe on 30/12/2010 11:09:39
uber supported! |
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 10:28:00 - [ 213]
Originally by: Jared O'loathe
uber supported!
Might want to tick the 'Check here if you want to give your support to the idea/discussion going on' box under the post-input-window then..  |
Ranka Mei
Caldari |
Posted - 2010.12.30 10:40:00 - [ 214]
While it could be argued that drones are small robotic ships, for all purposes and intent they are actually guns: you release them, as an extension of your own ship, for the purpose of shooting someone, with the intent of killing/repping them. Even in auto-aggro mode, they are still under your control, as you set their 'auto-aggro' state.
All of this is largely academic, though; when it comes to the game, the only question that really matters is whether or not self-repping drones shift the game balance. I think it stands to reason that drone-favored races and ships, like Gallente, would see a boost as the result of this. And other ships, like T3, with no viable drone bay, would be faced with entirely unbalanced tanks. So I doubt it's really a good idea. |
Shadow Sleuth
Gallente
Black Thorne Corporation
Black Thorne Alliance
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 11:17:00 - [ 215]
Edited by: Shadow Sleuth on 30/12/2010 11:48:06 Originally by: Ranka Mei
I think it stands to reason that drone-favored races and ships, like Gallente, would see a boost as the result of this. And other ships, like T3, with no viable drone bay, would be faced with entirely unbalanced tanks.
Not really, you forget the gal ships that are geared towards drone dps, they could tank better, but it would come at a cost. You could apply the same logic to defender missiles. They use up high slots but add to tank vs missiles.... actually has anyone considered changing defender missiles to protect allies? |
Black Dranzer
Caldari |
Posted - 2010.12.30 11:23:00 - [ 216]
Edited by: Black Dranzer on 30/12/2010 11:44:09 Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
troll
You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it means. So, are we going to talk about balance or not? Seriously, just say "No" and I can leave this thread. Also: Originally by: Black Dranzer
And yet more trolling, now by lying and inventing fake quotes.
Sorry, I can't hear you over the massive hypocrisy. |
Jyngo
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.12.30 15:47:00 - [ 217]
Drones aren't targeted external effects, they're objects.
And they're still different from remote rep modules, ordering them to repair you is still different from using a remote repair module on yourself.
Please implement this change CCP. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance |
Posted - 2010.12.30 17:51:00 - [ 218]
Originally by: Black Dranzer
You keep using that word.
And I keep pointing out where you're trolling. Much like you argued both that I never did and I actually did talk about balance, that I pointed out right above this. And predictably you're trying to change the subject. Just like now. Originally by: Black Dranzer
Also: Originally by: Black Dranzer
And yet more trolling, now by lying and inventing fake quotes.
Sorry, I can't hear you over the massive hypocrisy.
An utter lack of understanding on your part, Dranzer, is not hypocrisy on mine. You evidently admit that you were trolling and you did make up a fake quote and put it in a quote box, as if it was something I'd said in any of my posts. Quote boxes are, guess what, boxes designed to quote what's actually in the thread. I created a picture to show the intellectual dishonesty your position is based on and to point out your lack of reasoning. To do this, I created a rather obvious satirical quote. If you don't understand that a faked quote in a newspaper article is a bit different than an Onion article or a joke that John Stewart makes in a cutesy voice, well... Let's just say that it's not exactly hypocritical and it's somewhat silly to believe that it is. As for whether or not you're going to discuss anything, I guess that depends on if and when you stop trolling. As Ipointed out, for example, I've been asking you to discuss balance for days now and you steadfastly refused and pretended that you didn't see my questions. And then when you specifically requested that I repost questions (due to them being ever so spread out) that I'd reposted in a block something like half a dozen posts before your request, you still ignored half of them. Just like you trolled on and on about how, I'd have had a valid position if only I'd pointed out that using remote reppers on yourself is a violation of game mechanics just like using remote rep drones. And when it turned out that my very first post in the thread did exactly that, you quickly backpedaled and all of a sudden that still didn't mean (according to you) that my position was valid. Stop trolling and I'm sure we can talk just fine. |
Black Dranzer
Caldari |
Posted - 2010.12.30 18:10:00 - [ 219]
Okay, let me get this straight.
When you intentionally misquote me, you're being clever and satirical.
When I intentionally misquote you, I'm a lying troll.
I'm leaving the thread now. I advise you to take a few laxatives. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance |
Posted - 2010.12.30 19:07:00 - [ 220]
Originally by: Black Dranzer
When you intentionally misquote me
No. I never misquoted you. I provided an obvious satirical quote that anybody whose neurons are on speaking terms would realize was not to be taken seriously. Originally by: Black Dranzer
I intentionally misquote you, I'm a lying troll.
Correct on both points. Of course, your habit of lying about lots of things doesn't depend just on this bit (see, for example, your fiction that I ever claimed that guns are drones). An obvious joke is not the same as using the function that is used for providing direct quotes directly from a thread. That's what you mean when you put something into quote tags as opposed to making a joke out of it, that's it's a quote. And of course, as predicted, when caught trolling you switch the subject. Just like your trolling about how I'd have a valid position if I'd compared remote rep mechanics from the start, and when it turned out that I had, you changed the subject. Or when you trolled and tried to take me to task both for not ever providing a discussion on mechanics and for providing a discussion on mechanics (but disagreeing with you). Or when you trolled and lied by claiming that I'd argued drones are guns after you actually argued that drones are ships, and then retracted that as erroneous before playing word-games and putting it forward against as your argument. Or when you claimed that questions on balance, gameplay and mechanics and your experience/understanding/knowledge thereof was an "ad hominem" and you wouldn't answer it because you were oh-so-offended (and not because you had no idea what the answers were), and that you wouldn't respond to any of my arguments anymore. And then you responded to my arguments for something like a dozen posts, and denied that the reason you'd claimed you wouldn't respond wasn' because of any imaginary ad hominem, but because you couldn't answer. And then you claimed that you weren't sure which questions I was asking, even though I'd just reposted them, in a block, just a few posts above where you were asking for them. And then when they were reposted, again, you just accidentally managed not to answer the questions about balance, slot layout, solo/group play, etc... As for you not commenting ever again on my claims (again), if you say so. Again, if you stop trolling I'll be happy to talk about whatever you'd like. |
Corina Jarr |
Posted - 2010.12.31 00:04:00 - [ 221]
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Black Dranzer
When you intentionally misquote me
No. I never misquoted you. I provided an obvious satirical quote that anybody whose neurons are on speaking terms would realize was not to be taken seriously.
Even a satirical quote is an intentional misquote. |
Clementina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2010.12.31 08:49:00 - [ 222]
I too remember being baffled that you couldn't repair yourself with your own drones. |
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD |
Posted - 2010.12.31 16:04:00 - [ 223]
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Lying and trolling, again. You brought up QM.I pointed out you were misusing it. Naturally you want to lie and change the subject.
Oh, and stop lying and trolling by claiming that I'm quoting Wikipedia.
First of all, I was not misusing it. Second, let me tell you that bringing up details about random irrelevant experiment withing the field of quantum mechanics does not prove that drones are TEE. Quote:
But since anybody who knows how the game works
It's obvious you don't Quote:
They're a sub-class of projected effects that a require a target lock.
Drone is not an effect of any kind in the first place. It is capable of projecting an effect. Period. As i have stated previously, drone is a remotely controlled ship. Not an effect. And how does that demonstrate that i should not be able to order my drones to heal me anyway? Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
If you still dispute that, get o SISI, or, yet better, TQ with a bud and i will PROVE you wrong.
Simple. I said it three times already, you keep on trolling a
Yeah, I've asked you specifically to stop lying in order to troll, you seem not to want to stop that either. No, the "guard" command does not, at all, let you tell your drones which of your attackers you want them to attack.
I have learn that your words are empty sound. You lost any credit yo still had. I will not further reply to your pitiful attempts at rebuttal. If you would like to prove otherwise, get o SISI with friend. Ow, wait, you won't do that because that will prove me right. Got it. You may not bother replying any more, i will not read it anyway. And why aren't you trying to rebut to my arguments? thought you where desperate to prove that drones don't have targeting systems. I though you wanted to dispute my point that remote repair systems are physically mounted on the drone. I thought you wanted to prove that the repair systems are local to both the drones and the ship simultaneously. I thought you wanted to prove that drones-bays are TEE's. I thought you wanted to prove that TEE is a commonly accepted classification, and not a product of your imagination. I thought you wanted to dispute the existence of assist command. I thought you wanted to prove that you calling drones TEE is somehow relevant to the topic of this thread. So, to summ up: 1 You keep attempting to persuade us that your self-invented classification of drones as TEE is correct, yet you failed to produce a single convincing argument. 2 It has been stated and proven that drones can target and engage things without mother-ship ever obtaining a target lock. 3 It has been stated and proven that nobody apart from you agrees or uses your classification of drones as TEE's, rendering that classification worthless. 4 It has been stated and proven that drones are remotely controlled ships Due to you being exceptionally boring to debate against, i will no longer read your replies. They are inventive. To everybody else, please don't fed the troll any more. I made a mistake. Ignore it and it will leave. |
Corian Teranos
Caldari
Joint Espionage and Defence Industries
Preatoriani |
Posted - 2010.12.31 19:34:00 - [ 224]
the reasion this is disabled is because it would allow you to make a tank that is much more powerfull than normal withought the aid of a logisitical ship. i would support this idea but only if self repair suffered some penalty to make it less effective when the drones are turned on your own ship. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance |
Posted - 2011.01.01 00:26:00 - [ 225]
Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 01/01/2011 00:37:33 Originally by: Corina Jarr
Even a satirical quote is an intentional misquote.
Putting something in quote tags, which means it was (allegedly) actually said is not the same as a joke. Only someone with mental damage, for example, would have thought that any of the Michael Jackson jokes were actually purporting to be Jackson's own words. Not quite the same as a (forged) direct quote in a manner that indicates it's an actual quote (say, quote tags). Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
First of all, I was not misusing it.
Second, let me tell you that bringing up details about random irrelevant experiment withing the field of quantum mechanics does not prove that drones are TEE.
I see you are solely lying and trolling now. I already explained it to show how you are misusing it, and despite your lie now, not only were you the one who brought it up, but it was you who were trying to use it as proof for something. Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
drone is a remotely controlled ship.
Your compatriot in trolling has already admitted that this was false. And you are now trolling as I already pointed this out to you. Yet again, click your assets tab, use the string "ship" and see how many drones are returned. Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
I have learn that your words are empty sound.
More lying and trolling. Everybody understands that when you put your drones on "aggressive" or on "guard" stance, then you can not commend them to attack a specific enemy out of 100 attacking you without first targeting it and directing them. Which is, of course, why you cannot simply describe how the process is done, because you're trolling, and lying, and you made it up. If you weren't lying, it'd take, what, a dozen words to describe how to do it? That's the trouble with lies, awfully hard to provide proof for them. "Convenient" now you stop posting. Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
drones don't have targeting systems.
Already proven that it's a kludge. And you are trolling yet again by not having actually answered the facts about its kludged nature, but pretending I haven't answered you. Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
you wanted to dispute my point that remote repair systems are physically mounted on the drone
No, that's just you lying and trolling again. Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
I thought you wanted to prove that drones-bays are TEE's.
See above, about you lying and trolling. Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
I thought you wanted to prove that TEE is a commonly accepted classification, and not a product of your imagination.
First part: see above, about you lying and trolling. Second part: you are again trolling, as a descriptive term does not lose its validity simple because it is spoken. Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
I thought you wanted to dispute the existence of assist command.
See above, about how you are lying and trolling about drone functions. Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
I thought you wanted to prove that you calling drones TEE is somehow relevant to the topic of this thread.
Already done. See above, about you trolling. Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
It has been stated and proven that drones can target and engage things without mother-ship ever obtaining a target lock.
See above, about you lying and trolling. Drones have absolutely no specificity, just like FoF missiles, unless directed onto a locked target, yes, despite your trolling, even with the assist command the ship they're assisting must still target things in order to direct drones with specificity. Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
It has been stated and proven
See above, about you lying and trolling (again). Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
nobody apart from you agrees
See above about you lying and trolling (again). See also Bandwagon Fallacy. Originally by: Maxsim Goratiev
It has been stated and proven that
drones are remotely controlled ships
Lying and trolling again, on the same point (again). They're not ships. |
Corina Jarr |
Posted - 2011.01.01 03:21:00 - [ 226]
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 01/01/2011 00:37:33
Originally by: Corina Jarr
Even a satirical quote is an intentional misquote.
Putting something in quote tags, which means it was (allegedly) actually said is not the same as a joke. Only someone with mental damage, for example, would have thought that any of the Michael Jackson jokes were actually purporting to be Jackson's own words. Not quite the same as a (forged) direct quote in a manner that indicates it's an actual quote (say, quote tags).
The quote tags are also used for identifying who a poster is speaking to, and are frequently edited for the purpose of making a joke. |
Jyngo
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.01.01 04:34:00 - [ 227]
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Drones have absolutely no specificity, just like FoF missiles, unless directed onto a locked target
We know that, silly. Thats why someone created a thread titled "Repair yourself with YOUR repair drones" so we could get them to repair our ships with a right click command or something similar. Oh yeah and drones are still different from remote repair modules. :) In fact they're a whole different class of items. Its the differences from remote repair modules that leads me (and others) to believe they should be able to repair your own ship not the similarities. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance |
Posted - 2011.01.01 05:49:00 - [ 228]
Originally by: Jyngo
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
Drones have absolutely no specificity, just like FoF missiles, unless directed onto a locked target
We know that, silly.
... So you pretty much just picked a random phrase to take out of context? The guy who I was responding to was trolling about how his drones can engage specific targets without a target lock. Originally by: Jyngo
Oh yeah and drones are still different from remote repair modules.
In fact they're a whole different class of items.
Just like remote repair modules are a different class from remote capacitor modules and a different class from autocannons which are a different class from lasers which are a different class from drones... It's been other people arguing that disparate things are fungible, not me. I've pointed out that the fundamental principle remains behind their usage. |
Jyngo
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.01.01 06:28:00 - [ 229]
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
I've pointed out that the fundamental principle remains behind their usage.
If by "fundamental principal" you mean the similarity that currently rep drones and remote rep modules can only be used on someone else's ship you're right, it is a similarity. I say the fundamental principle of rep drones is to rep ships. Oh look, its subjective! There are things that remote rep modules have in common with rep drones and things they don't. The people that support this thread want to change one similarity. Just because you choose to label something a "fundamental principal" doesn't make it so, and it certainly doesn't mean you cant change anything. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance |
Posted - 2011.01.01 08:25:00 - [ 230]
I see you avoided the use and context of my statement about drone mechanics in response to someone trolling about how he can set his drones on "guard" and still tell them exactly which ship to engage. Not a good sign if you do something like that and when your mistake it pointed out, you change the subject... Originally by: Jyngo
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
I've pointed out that the fundamental principle remains behind their usage.
If by "fundamental principal" you mean the similarity that currently rep drones and remote rep modules can only be used on someone else's ship you're right
Likewise, in a thread this long, it's somewhat less than comforting that you've either ignore my argument or are choosing not to discuss it, and claiming that all I've said is that both have external effects. I've pointed out that effects which are external, and which rely on a target lock, have a specific place in terms of balance, use, the overall schema for EVE combat for solo and cooperative play, etc... It's not simply that they're used on other people's ships, although that's a facet of it. Originally by: Jyngo
Just because you choose to label something a "fundamental principal" doesn't make it so
And it is somewhat odd that you're claiming requiring a target lock in to direct effects at that target isn't a fundamental principle, but one I'm just inventing. |
Jyngo
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.01.01 08:55:00 - [ 231]
Edited by: Jyngo on 01/01/2011 09:08:39I thought you meant it was THE fundamental principal as in: their main purpose. Thats why I said i thought their fundamental principal was to rep ships. But whatever. Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
I see you avoided the use and context of my statement about drone mechanics in response to someone trolling about how he can set his drones on "guard" and still tell them exactly which ship to engage.
Not a good sign if you do something like that and when your mistake it pointed out, you change the subject...
Originally by: Jyngo
Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
I've pointed out that the fundamental principle remains behind their usage.
If by "fundamental principal" you mean the similarity that currently rep drones and remote rep modules can only be used on someone else's ship you're right
Likewise, in a thread this long, it's somewhat less than comforting that you've either ignore my argument or are choosing not to discuss it, and claiming that all I've said is that both have external effects. I've pointed out that effects which are external, and which rely on a target lock, have a specific place in terms of balance, use, the overall schema for EVE combat for solo and cooperative play, etc...
It's not simply that they're used on other people's ships, although that's a facet of it.
Cool, then explain to us why it would make things imbalanced without simply stating "rep drones are targeted cooperative effects." (we know you currently need a target lock, you don't need to keep repeating it) |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance |
Posted - 2011.01.01 10:22:00 - [ 232]
Originally by: FinnAgain
I see you avoided the use and context of my statement about drone mechanics in response to someone trolling about how he can set his drones on "guard" and still tell them exactly which ship to engage.
Not a good sign if you do something like that and when your mistake it pointed out, you change the subject...
Originally by: Jyngo
(we know you currently need a target lock, you don't need to keep repeating it)
It's a much worse sign if you not only don't acknowledge your mistake, but then go on to recycle it and pretend that I was simply stating that they require a target lock. Originally by: Jyngo
Cool, then explain to us why it would make things imbalanced without simply stating "rep drones are targeted cooperative effects."
So in other words, you want to discuss the balance and usage issues without talking about how they're balanced and used. No... the fact that they're TEE's is essentially to understanding their use and balance within the game. The questions I asked earlier were: Quote:
Why are they external rather than local, did CCP just flip a coin? Why are they reliant on being directed against a locked target in order to achieve specificity, is that random? How do these mechanics mesh with the concept of a cooperative engagement between disparate elements, and how does allowing external effects to duplicate local effects alter the schema and balance between the three types of slots, drone loadouts, and cooperative/solo play? Is it just coincidence that there are logi ships, local reppers, buffers and resist tanks?
And balance/usage issues are related to all of those. Which one would you like to talk about? |
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD |
Posted - 2011.01.01 13:37:00 - [ 233]
Originally by: Corian Teranos
the reasion this is disabled is because it would allow you to make a tank that is much more powerfull than normal withought the aid of a logisitical ship. i would support this idea but only if self repair suffered some penalty to make it less effective when the drones are turned on your own ship.
Well, the whole point is that they can be killed. I mean, it's the same thing at the moment, you just need two ships for it, because since you cannot put the drones on yourself, you put them on each-other. |
Jyngo
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.01.01 14:50:00 - [ 234]
Edited by: Jyngo on 01/01/2011 15:12:52 Originally by: FinnAgain Zero
So in other words, you want to discuss the balance and usage issues without talking about how they're balanced and used. No... the fact that they're TEE's is essentially to understanding their use and balance within the game.
Nope, i want you to address balance issues without SIMPLY saying "they are targeted external effects." You can use that phrase if you like. I'll make my previous post more clear if you're finding it difficult to comprehend: You can't SIMPLY use the phrase "they are targeted external effects", you have to elaborate on it. Specifically why changing the behavior of rep drones will make the game imbalanced. |
Glyken Touchon
Gallente
Independent Alchemists |
Posted - 2011.01.01 17:09:00 - [ 235]
Originally by: Corian Teranos
the reasion this is disabled is because it would allow you to make a tank that is much more powerfull than normal withought the aid of a logisitical ship. i would support this idea but only if self repair suffered some penalty to make it less effective when the drones are turned on your own ship.
the penalty is lower DPS. you have rep drones out instead of combat ones. There are a lot of assumptions being made in this thread about intentions/the way drones work from a code standpoint. Without CCP confirmation, all these are guesses. We can ask the CSM to put this forward to CCP, and if there are reasons CCP doesn't like it, then we'll find out at that stage. Oh, and we should thank Finn for keeping this on page 1. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance |
Posted - 2011.01.01 18:39:00 - [ 236]
Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 01/01/2011 18:39:24Edited by: FinnAgain Zero on 01/01/2011 18:38:50 Originally by: Jyngo
You can't SIMPLY use the phrase
Good thing, then, that I didn't. Originally by: Finn
Why are they external rather than local, did CCP just flip a coin? Why are they reliant on being directed against a locked target in order to achieve specificity, is that random? How do these mechanics mesh with the concept of a cooperative engagement between disparate elements, and how does allowing external effects to duplicate local effects alter the schema and balance between the three types of slots, drone loadouts, and cooperative/solo play? Is it just coincidence that there are logi ships, local reppers, buffers and resist tanks?
As I said, balance/usage issues are related to all of those. Which one would you like to talk about? |
Maxsim Goratiev
Gallente
Imperial Tau Syndicate
POD-SQUAD |
Posted - 2011.01.01 21:35:00 - [ 237]
Originally by: Glyken Touchon
Oh, and we should thank Finn for keeping this on page 1.
LOl |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance |
Posted - 2011.01.01 22:21:00 - [ 238]
Yes, you were trolling and got responses. Lowell!
Of course, nobody has shown any actual good reason to change mechanics besides the fact that they'd like it, and nobody has even addressed any reason why violating balance except for "they're... drones!" and trolling about how drones are ships or drones can indeed be directed to attack individual targets without a lock, or what have you. |
Jyngo
Gallente
The Scope
|
Posted - 2011.01.02 03:08:00 - [ 239]
Please explain why this change will create an imbalance finn. |
FinnAgain Zero
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance |
Posted - 2011.01.02 05:10:00 - [ 240]
Originally by: Finn
Originally by: Finn
Why are they external rather than local, did CCP just flip a coin? Why are they reliant on being directed against a locked target in order to achieve specificity, is that random? How do these mechanics mesh with the concept of a cooperative engagement between disparate elements, and how does allowing external effects to duplicate local effects alter the schema and balance between the three types of slots, drone loadouts, and cooperative/solo play? Is it just coincidence that there are logi ships, local reppers, buffers and resist tanks?
As I said, balance/usage issues are related to all of those. Which one would you like to talk about?
|
|
All Channels
Assembly Hall
