Again, you’re wrong. CCP does not tell people how to play. They can tell people how not to play. That’s how sandbox games work.
That’s a very selfish way of looking at gameplay changes. Yes, it doesn’t effect me. That doesn’t make it a good change. Your arguments thus far have been vindictive, aggressive, and most importantly, factually flawed.
But please, tell us more about how this change that effects people other than the target group is a good change to make because ■■■■ those people.
You’re detracting from the argument. Change is designed to effect players A and B. Meanwhile, players CDE are all affected by this change as well. Yet, you seem to think this is fine since you’re player F.
Here’s an example of CCP telling people how they can/can’t play.
Nothing that you’ve said here is substantial. It’s just off topic comments.
Like everyone else has said here, CCP’s stated reason is to reduce the amount of low-attention gameplay by using Drones. People have rationally come to the conclusion that one of the biggest areas of the game this impacts is low-attention afk nullsec krabbing, but they also realize that it impacts other aspects of the game.
You have not actually shown why this is a bad thing. At best, you’ve pointed to how this impacts other aspects of the game, to which the answer has been “yes, it will impact other aspects of the game, but players will be able to adapt.” Yet you refuse to accept the fact that players will (like they have for the past 16+ years) adapt to changes that take place.
…yes?
And this change is CCP telling people how not to play with afk drone-auto aggression (against NPCs).
Did you really need me to explicitly put that into words for you?
And yeah, the rest of your comment has zero substance, so I won’t bother reading it. Look, kid, it’s clear that you’re just triggered for the sake of being triggered. You don’t actually have an argument to pose other than “grr change is bad.” Hope at some point in your life, you grow up enough to realize that’s a really silly way to look at things.
As to your claim that:
You’re making the same mistake that @Jenn_aSide was making all thread-long. You’re replacing CCP’s stated goal with your own, and then getting butthurt that the change doesn’t accomplish your goal. So yeah, that’s your problem to deal with.
And in CCP’s head, because they have nerfed CDE just like A and B. You’re the one insisting that it’s an “oops, sorry guys” thing and not a deliberate decision to nerf all AFK and semi-AFK drone farming.
We actively support CCP’s policy of reducing user convenience.
I don’t know if this is really relevant, but
But the more CCP chases users, the more users of my space war game.
Share more users. CCP’s so monopoly.
I know this might seem like I’m being contrarian here, but I actually disagree with this assertion. You can’t make all the people happy all of the time. Even changes that arguably examples of excellent game design can piss people off. For example, the old command burst system was generally regarded as a cancer by the player base. Yet, there were people who liked the system, and who hated the chages. Moreover, nerfs often piss people off, and sometimes make them leave, but that doesn’t mean that they are terrible game design that shouldn’t be implemented. For example, recent efforts to combat unsustainable activity have resulted in a lot of income nerfs, which have pissed a lot of people off, and made some people leave. However, allowing players to continue to generate the same amounts of isk and minerals would have likely have had disastrous consequences for the economy.
Thus, good game design can’t be determined by whether or not it makes anyone leave. We all have different tastes, and changes that are good for the long term health of the game and/or the game as a whole can sometimes hurt a particular play style.
Yeah, I think I’m ready to move on from this thread. Before I do, however, I’d just like to say in no uncertain terms that I believe that some of the people in here are making disingenuous arguments.
People keep saying that CCP should have made the content more engaging if they wanted to stop people from automating it, but that ignores the fact that there already is plenty of more engaging PvE and PvP career options that they could have chosen. If they actually wanted more engaging content, they could have chosen to do more engaging content. But they didn’t. And now, they’re in here complaining about the changes.
Truth is, they chose easily automated content specifically because it was easily automated. And now they’re mad because they’re losing their ability to make money while being afk/semi-afk. Being honest about this, however, will garner them no sympathy. So, instead they make bad faith arguments about good game design and making the content more engaging. It’s like the ganker whine threads that like to use newbros as a shield to deflect criticism.
Obviously, I think it’s a mistake to assume everyone who makes these arguments is being disingenuous. Some people actually are interested in things like game design, player retention, and the long term health of the game. However, there are most certainly people in here who are indeed arguing in bad faith when they bring up the “more engaging” argument.
To generalize the change, and try to argue that changing drones will affect more people than it aims for, if not the whole playerbase, just because they use drones.
I wouldn’t be surprised if people started arguing that the change will cause the prices of drone boats to fall, and that will end up affecting the whole in-game economy, so due to that the change shouldn’t happen, otherwise the game will break.
I have pointed this out before, but the only reasonable argument so far has been about ECM countermeasures.
At first I thought it didn’t matter, as other weapon systems have to deal with it as well.
When someone pointed out however that drones have always been one of the main ways to counter ECM, I couldn’t help but agree, so now I support the idea that at the very least, there should still be a counter to ECM using drones.
Everyone else simply keeps arguing that the change will make them target stuff, click more, mantain a proper target queue, and that they can’t be bothered to because they never had to do that in the first place.
Hello, I really have to ask this since I have never done any Nullsec ratting or Nullsec combat sites. Is drone aggro not a thing in these sites?
If I set my drones to agressive in a mission like Worlds Collide, Zazzmatazz, or Silence the Informant in the hopes they would clear the site, I’m pretty sure that I would loose my drones first and then my ship. Often enough I loose a drone or two even when they’re set to passive and I call them back too late. It would certainly not work to release the drones and leave them completely unattended.
Basically, there’s methods to force rat aggro to stay on your ship.
In very specific scenarios, it might not work out, so in those cases, it will be impossible to be 100% AFK, but it’s not an issue to return drones to bay, let rats aggro focus on your ship, and then deploy drones and return to being semi-AFK, which is also part of the “low attention gameplay” that CCP is trying to address here.
Thank you, the link you posted was a very intersting read. I always thought that drone aggro is something you simply cannot avoid therefor I always I had my drones set to passive until there were only battleships left on grid.
I personally mantain a target queue of dealing with cruisers+ with my main weapons, and frigates/destroyers with drones, so I’ll target something like 4~5 cruisers first, and the rest of my target slots will be dedicated to all frigates/destroyers.
I mainly run lvl4 missions on a barghest, so my drones are always set to passive in order to avoid unecessary aggro, or killing a trigger early.