Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 .. 15 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Unforgiven Storm
Eternity INC. Goonswarm Federation
446
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 11:56:00 -
[391] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Malcanis wrote:CCP Ytterbium wrote:No, no, actually that's not true. We have a "trolling" contest going on between CCP Fozzie, Rise, Tallest and myself to see who can create the biggest rage threadnought on the forums, while we keep scores on a whiteboard. The T1 hauler thread was a suprise high scorer, btw My missile thread from Retribution still has a commanding lead.
I have a feeling that the first of you three (Fozzie, Rise, Ytterbium) to post the first T2 ship rebalance thread will win and have the biggest rage threadnought on the forums, for sure. Test 1, 2, 3... |
Zendon Taredi
Doodus Exploration Corporation
30
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 12:03:00 -
[392] - Quote
Dps nerf it out of the question, they are barely scraping by in that area. 100mn nerf is probablty justified, make the ab sub bonus apply only to 10mn and that's fixed. Maybe the tengu tank is too good? that's all I can think of really. The legion needs love, not nerfs. |
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
171
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 12:05:00 -
[393] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Onomerous wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Making the cost of a ship appropriate to its performance doesn't mean ships are balanced around their cost. And up is not up since it is really down? Or left is not left but really right? Your comment doesn't make any sense. Which part are you struggling with? Okay, let me create a couple of scenarios so you can understand how balance doesn't work. Scenario A: Player A buys a Tengu for 1m isk from her friend while player B gets ripped off in Jita and pays 1bn isk for his. Both players have the same skills trained and use the same fit. They get into a fight. What happens: Player A wins because she is smart. Player B does not win because his ship is not a billion times better just because it's a billion times more expensive. He is also incredibly stupid and that is why he lost the fight. Scenario B:Player A and Player B both have the same skills trained and are flying identical Tengus with identical fittings. They fight. What happens: Player A wins because she is very intelligent and cunning. Player B loses the fight and loses SP as a result. Despite what Player B thinks (because he is incredibly stupid), he did not lose the fight because he lost SP after the fight. In fact, before the fight started, both players were evenly matched and he had at least a 20% chance of winning the fight, up to a maximum of 50% if he were smarter. I hope this helps you understand why cost and SP loss are not balancing factors when it comes to ships engaging eachother in battle. I am player A in both examples scenarios described in this post.
yeah ok... that's nice
Making the cost of something appropriate to the performance is a fancy way of saying balancing. Why would you increase the cost of a ship because it performs very well? Balance. Why would you reduce the cost of a ship because the performance is not on par with other ships near the same cost? Balance. Cost does play SOME part of balance.
I await your (as well as nasty.. probably some name calling as well..) reply. |
Riot Girl
Thundercats The Initiative.
1262
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 12:15:00 -
[394] - Quote
Onomerous wrote:Cost does play SOME part of balance. Cost is a result of ship performance, not a cause of it.
Quote:I await your (as well as nasty.. probably some name calling as well..) reply. Why would I be nasty or call you names? I'm a civil and mature adult. Here's a bear
Oh god. |
Malcanis
Vanishing Point. The Initiative.
10501
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 12:20:00 -
[395] - Quote
Zendon Taredi wrote:Dps nerf is out of the question, they are barely scraping by in that area. 100mn nerf is probablty justified, make the ab sub bonus apply only to 10mn and that's fixed. Maybe the tengu tank is too good? that's all I can think of really. The legion needs love, not nerfs.
Seriously, this discussion is meaningless until after the T2 Cruisers are done.
1 Kings 12:11
|
Onomerous
Shockwave Innovations Surely You're Joking
171
|
Posted - 2013.07.03 13:59:00 -
[396] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Onomerous wrote:Cost does play SOME part of balance. Cost is a result of ship performance, not a cause of it.Quote:I await your (as well as nasty.. probably some name calling as well..) reply. Why would I be nasty or call you names? I'm a civil and mature adult. Here's a bear
I'll back out as I agree to disagree.
And I appreciate your civility!! It's just pixels on a screen and numbers in a database when get right down to it!! :) |
Jarod Garamonde
Sardaukar Merc Guild General Tso's Alliance
305
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 22:38:00 -
[397] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:Jarod Garamonde wrote:This is one of the few places I'm going to solidly disagree with CCP on... they say they want more people involved in missioning and exploration... and now they're considering nerfing ships whose primary purpose is those two things. The majority of T3 owners use their ships for missions and complexes.
What is the problem with a player being able to fit a cap-stable T3 that can permatank L4 missions? It's not like you can AFK those missions... you still have to pay attention to what's happening to you. Especially if your primary DPS comes from your drones (as is the case with many PvE Proteus pilots).
So why the nerf? Nerf T3's and nobody will fly them anymore. They're too expensive to NOT be OP'd.
I'm Jarod Garamonde, and I approved this message. Dude, seriously? Do you even play eve with other people? Here, let me educate you. No one gives a rat's skinny ass what people do with their bling ratting ships except awoxers, bombers, and war-threats. Guys like you buy the fancy mods we dig up. Or did you forget all those dead-space mods coem from nulsec? The problem is that Tech 3s do everything better than everything except EWAR. Cost is not a huge factor here. A T2-fit strat cruiser can be as cheap as 500M. But with appropriately skilled and implanted command ships boosting one in a fleet, they can exceed 333kEHP with the signature approaching that of a destroyer. (Thrasher - base 75m. Boosted arty Loki, 88m) A Legion fit with T2 trimark armor pumps can exceed 333kEHP, sigRad of only 99.5 meters, and still put out 400dps with HAMs. Or you can drop a 1600m plate and fit lasers for better damage projection but much less tank (only 218k EHP). Oh, did I mention it still has 3 spare midslots after a prop mod for EWAR, cap booster, whatever? In case you haven't figured it out, there is a very good reason why every nulsec entity that can afford to reimburse tech 3s is flying them. They are so OP that the SP loss and greater expense is justified. CCP, It would be so easy to nerf tech 3. Reduce grid. Reduce command link bonuses from link subsystem. Increase signature radius. I have never had any complaint about their EWAR abilities or dps. But the tanking ability is absurd, and the links are just as good as a command ship with the added bonus of being able to fit covert cloaks at the same time, added agility, off-grid boosting, and near impossibility to probe. There is really only one thing to say about Strategic Cruisers in their current form: **** is OP. CCP, plz fix.
FIRST of all, friendo... I am PRIMARILY a small-gang PvP player, so don't even go there with me. Second, I have lived and fought in nullsec. I'm well aware of where deadspace and officer mods come from, because I've dug a few of them up, myself. Third, I T2 fit everything... faction and deadspace are too cost-ineffective for my needs. So, don't go THERE with me, either. LASTLY... don't patronize me or attempt to educate me on any of the issues you brought up. I have been a part of this game world in one form or another, since the beginning. I might know a thing or two. "you can identify eve players by looking at their cars. Since they don't drive what they can't afford to lose."-á --áBienator II |
Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
3871
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 22:53:00 -
[398] - Quote
Onomerous wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Onomerous wrote:Cost does play SOME part of balance. Cost is a result of ship performance, not a cause of it.Quote:I await your (as well as nasty.. probably some name calling as well..) reply. Why would I be nasty or call you names? I'm a civil and mature adult. Here's a bear I'll back out as I agree to disagree. And I appreciate your civility!! It's just pixels on a screen and numbers in a database when get right down to it!! :) Actual cost is the minerals it takes to build. These don't reflect a ships performance.
MarketPrice is the result of the actual cost + supply/demand.
More people buy the exceptionally well performing ship, making it more expensive.
Cost is a *result* of ship performance, not a cause of it. |
Solstice Project
I'm So Meta Even This Acronym
3871
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 22:58:00 -
[399] - Quote
It seems that what you're missing here is the realization that it's relatively easy to gather so much ISK, that cost can never be a working balancing factor at all.
That's the "obvious" reason, btw. |
Nocturnal Phantom
TunDraGon Suddenly Spaceships.
23
|
Posted - 2013.09.05 23:13:00 -
[400] - Quote
I believe all T3's are exactly where they need to be except the Legion. The Legion needs a buff with its laser subsystem, even the HAM subsystem needs some slight dps buff... The Legion is a joke for when it comes to DPS compared to its other T3 counterparts. Fix it, please! |
|
Remiel Pollard
The 0th Fleet A Rather Intimidating Group of Individuals
1706
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 00:43:00 -
[401] - Quote
Onomerous wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Making the cost of a ship appropriate to its performance doesn't mean ships are balanced around their cost. And up is not up since it is really down? Or left is not left but really right? Your comment doesn't make any sense.
Faction noob ships. 'nuff said. You don't scare me. I've been to Jita. |
MotherMoon
Tribal Liberation Force Minmatar Republic
1460
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 01:26:00 -
[402] - Quote
with my last day I just need to say this
RE INTRODUCE AND USE THE 5TH SUBSYSTEMS WHEN YOU RE-BALANCE K THX BYE!!! http://dl.eve-files.com/media/1206/scimi.jpg |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
456
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 05:59:00 -
[403] - Quote
Grimpak wrote:Onomerous wrote:Each T3 seems to do a slightly different 'thing' best. Depending on what you are trying to do, pick the T3 of choice. It seems balancing to some people means that all T3s should be fairly equal at all roles. If that is the case, why have different races, weapons, etc.? and thus we arrived to the crux of the problem: how to make T3's useable and attractive while maintaining them balanced vs other ships, keeping the (apparent) flexibility of T3's, while maintaining them exotic enough between themselves and all the other ship classes. Caveat:
- they are, in the end, cruisers and thus should be balanced around that paradigm.
- no, cost is not a damn balance factor.
- yes, they are an important (the main) factor on the wormhole economy viability, so better not screw this up.
altho hard, considering the fact that T2's are next, and then only CCP will touch T3's, there will be some time to fix them. perhaps next year's summer expansion only, altho I wish they would be fixed together with the entire T2 cruiser class, as to keep things a bit more coherent.
Judging by the HAC changes, I have doubts about the T3s hopefully they change the skill tree so I can get the SP for the three I can fly back.
|
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
65
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 08:10:00 -
[404] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Onomerous wrote:Cost does play SOME part of balance. Cost is a result of ship performance, not a cause of it. Quote:I await your (as well as nasty.. probably some name calling as well..) reply. Why would I be nasty or call you names? I'm a civil and mature adult. Here's a bear
Cost is a result of supply and demand. Higher costs create a barrier to entry i.e a Ballanced economy... Read a book for once in your miserable life. |
Riot Girl
Krypteia Operations
1726
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 08:27:00 -
[405] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:Cost is a result of supply and demand. It's also a result of manufacturing requirements which are decided by CCP after the ships have been rebalanced. Show me a single F&I thread where CCP have said they want a ship to cost a certain price and so they need to adjust the stats to suit the price range.
Quote:Higher costs create a barrier to entry i.e a Ballanced economy... Read a book for once in your miserable life. Sorry but your words are garbage. They make no sense. Oh god. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
457
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 08:32:00 -
[406] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:Cost is a result of supply and demand. It's also a result of manufacturing requirements which are decided by CCP after the ships have been rebalanced. Show me a single F&I thread where CCP have said they want a ship to cost a certain price and so they need to adjust the stats to suit the price range.
So ummm why do you think BS AND BC prices jumped...
|
Riot Girl
Krypteia Operations
1726
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 08:34:00 -
[407] - Quote
Which price jump are you referring to? Prices jump all the time. Oh god. |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
65
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 08:40:00 -
[408] - Quote
lol I'm talking crap? Take a look in the mirror pal.
If you were right, everyone would be flying nothing but T3s and faction ships. Your real world principles don't apply to a virtual world in which CCP can influence anything they choose (again, ballance)
If a thorax was the same price as a Deimos, everyone one consider the Deimos to be overpowered. If you don't understand that, you are a fool and you don't deserve our attention regarding your flawed logic.
|
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
457
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 08:40:00 -
[409] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Which price jump are you referring to? Prices jump all the time.
The build requirements that doubled the prices of the cbcs, abd pushed the former tier 1 battleships up 60 mil.
That was a misquote that is to annoying to fix on a phone. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7832
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 08:48:00 -
[410] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Grimpak wrote:Onomerous wrote:Each T3 seems to do a slightly different 'thing' best. Depending on what you are trying to do, pick the T3 of choice. It seems balancing to some people means that all T3s should be fairly equal at all roles. If that is the case, why have different races, weapons, etc.? and thus we arrived to the crux of the problem: how to make T3's useable and attractive while maintaining them balanced vs other ships, keeping the (apparent) flexibility of T3's, while maintaining them exotic enough between themselves and all the other ship classes. Caveat:
- they are, in the end, cruisers and thus should be balanced around that paradigm.
- no, cost is not a damn balance factor.
- yes, they are an important (the main) factor on the wormhole economy viability, so better not screw this up.
altho hard, considering the fact that T2's are next, and then only CCP will touch T3's, there will be some time to fix them. perhaps next year's summer expansion only, altho I wish they would be fixed together with the entire T2 cruiser class, as to keep things a bit more coherent. Judging by the HAC changes, I have doubts about the T3s hopefully they change the skill tree so I can get the SP for the three I can fly back.
Not a chance. This is the risk you take when you chase the fotm. |
|
Riot Girl
Krypteia Operations
1726
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 08:50:00 -
[411] - Quote
CCP adjusted build costs to reflect their vision of balance within the tiericide. They didn't rebalance the ships based on the build costs, that was decided separately and while the costs reflect the balance of ships, I doubt they consulted a list of changed stats and bonuses while deciding those costs. Oh god. |
Riot Girl
Krypteia Operations
1726
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 08:51:00 -
[412] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:you don't deserve our attention regarding your flawed logic. Sorry but I honestly can't follow anything you say. It's all garbage and makes no sense to me. Oh god. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
457
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 08:58:00 -
[413] - Quote
Quote:
Not a chance. This is the risk you take when you chase the fotm.
You mean train alliance doctrine?
Because you know, your alliance uses recon T3s with all doctrines.....and has both Tengu and Loki specific fleet doctrines.
My last alliance used basically nothing but Tengu for a year, and the hell with flying full time logi.
|
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
65
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 09:02:00 -
[414] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:you don't deserve our attention regarding your flawed logic. Sorry but I honestly can't follow anything you say. It's all garbage and makes no sense to me.
lol this guy, right?
"I can't dispute your argument so I'm just gonna say, I don't know what you are saying" Spoiler alert - I'm calling you a ******* idiot!
Maybe you should go to the doctor and see if they can do something about your autism, rain man. |
Onictus
Silver Snake Enterprise Fatal Ascension
457
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 09:03:00 -
[415] - Quote
Remiel Pollard wrote:Onomerous wrote:Riot Girl wrote:Making the cost of a ship appropriate to its performance doesn't mean ships are balanced around their cost. And up is not up since it is really down? Or left is not left but really right? Your comment doesn't make any sense. Faction noob ships. 'nuff said.
You know there is a sansha nub ship out there.
|
Riot Girl
Krypteia Operations
1726
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 09:08:00 -
[416] - Quote
Quinn Corvez wrote:"I can't dispute your argument so I'm just gonna say, I don't know what you are saying" What argument? You don't have an argument, you are talking crap. Oh god. |
baltec1
Bat Country
7832
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 09:12:00 -
[417] - Quote
Onictus wrote:Quote:
Not a chance. This is the risk you take when you chase the fotm.
You mean train alliance doctrine? Because you know, your alliance uses recon T3s with all doctrines.....and has both Tengu and Loki specific fleet doctrines. My last alliance used basically nothing but Tengu for a year, and the hell with flying full time logi.
And like every nerf before we will adapt. |
Quinn Corvez
Probe Patrol Polarized.
66
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 09:14:00 -
[418] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Quinn Corvez wrote:"I can't dispute your argument so I'm just gonna say, I don't know what you are saying" What argument? You don't have an argument, you are talking crap.
Right back at you buddy. |
Dorrann
Imperial Shipment Amarr Empire
44
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 10:09:00 -
[419] - Quote
Riot Girl wrote:Onomerous wrote:Cost does play SOME part of balance. Cost is a result of ship performance, not a cause of it. Quote:I await your (as well as nasty.. probably some name calling as well..) reply. Why would I be nasty or call you names? I'm a civil and mature adult. Here's a bear
Youre confusing Cost with Price.
Price is the cash you pay or items you trade for what you want and is determined by the buyer and seller meeting a mutually acceptable compromise (in most cases, sometimes not)
Cost is not the same. Cost is set by the volume of the materials used to create the item, and that is determined in this universe by CCP when they pluck the numbers out of the crack of their rear ends (or crunch numbers till they are happy with them). THIS IS used in balancing terms. See the Additional Materials section on numerous blueprints.
|
Sergeant Acht Scultz
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
1189
|
Posted - 2013.09.06 10:24:00 -
[420] - Quote
CCP Ytterbium wrote:Yes, YES, the only reason why we are nerfing them down is to generate a river of tears from our player base - we need it to add some flavor in our morning oatmeal No, no, actually that's not true. We have a "trolling" contest going on between CCP Fozzie, Rise, Tallest and myself to see who can create the biggest rage threadnought on the forums, while we keep scores on a whiteboard. Also, when we are going to nerf them, we'll just launch a 6-faced dice to see how many slots we are going to randomly remove. Except for the Legion, we'll use a 20-faced dice. Doesn't matter if we end up with negative slot number! Ok, more seriously, let's sit down a bit and talk about this. See that big sofa over there? Yes, the big black comfy one. Let's sit down and relax. Now breathe deeply. Slowly. See? There is no reason to go into panic mode waving your arms all over the place. May hurt yourself. Then spill fluids all over the place. Messy. First, we are not even sure on how we want to tackle Tech3s yet - we have a general direction on where we want to go, but not how yet. See that hill far away in the horizon? That's the end of Tech2 rebalancing - if we had to put Tech3s into perspective, we wouldn't even be able to see them due to the curvature of the Earth. Sure, some small tweaks may happen more or less shortly (like the rebalancing of Warfare Links and associated bonuses on Tech3 when we get to Command Ships), but we are not up to the point where we are going to touch the Tech3 hulls themselves. So speaking of nerf at this point is just plain premature. When we get to them we'll discuss the changes through the proper channels, like the CSM and the Features & Ideas Discussion sub-forum section, so you'll have plenty of time to see them coming and voice your concerns. Then, we are not going to casually blanket-nerf them with one hand while eating a jambon-beurre-fromage sandwich with the other at a random lunch break. Along with capitals, Tech3s are the most complicated hulls out there, and we will be careful they still have a proper role when we're done with them. As much as I want to nerf the Tengu to oblivion while singing dirty French limericks, we actually have responsible and fully-mature people out there, like CCP Fozzie and Rise that won't let me run amok in the office. But yes, there may be some changes on how they function as a whole - for instance we have discussed things like making them more flexible by allowing rigs to be removed from them, rebalancing the sub-systems to be less terrible in their selection while offering gameplay not necessarily competing with current hulls, or even introducing a new line of modules with flexibility in mind to complement Tech3 hulls. Whatever we end up with may be different with what we have now, yes. I like to pick the same crappy frozen pizza brand when I go food hunting instead of trying something different, like I don't know, cooking for instance. That's just because I don't want to get out of my comfort zone, even if the pizza tastes like chewed plastic. It's the same exact problem here, fear of change can be a potent adversary. We are not making such a change because we like to troll our player base by randomly switching various numbers on ships while staring at our screens drunk. We do it because we feel such an effort is justified for the overall health of the game, and because in the long term, the gained value will outweigh the pains involved. That's also a given we will be careful when we get to it, because our jobs remain based on what on player subscription and what they may or may not like. Wrote a wall of text Oh well, hope that helps a bit.
The Jambon-Beurre and cooking part was interesting, everything else is ok and supports the main thing to retain right now: wait and see
Not curious or in hurry and a lot less "afraid" of what's going to happen to T3's but rather "fixed" on what's going to happen most probably. *removed inappropriate ASCII art signature* - CCP Eterne |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 [14] 15 .. 15 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |