Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Muestereate
Minions LLC
281
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 14:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
As I see it the core of the ship balancing problem, which costs huge amounts of development time, is not about the ships.
There is no such thing as perfect balancing. persuing it is a waste of resources.
The true problems occur when very minor imbalances are multiplied a thousandfold by big fleets.
Eliminate this ability by tweaking the max amount of the same ship to then number in a fleets wing. This would force no more than 50 of the same ship in each fleet. when carried into the logical conclusion of blob balancing. Each fleet would end up with 5 ship types.
FC's and wing commanders would be more involved. More variety on the battlefield. Still enough alpha if a supreme commander directs multiple fleets. And more development time for things other than ship nerfs.
To name a few, I'm sure more could be added as well as presenting new problems to solve but I think a core game changer???
Good, bad, impractical, unfair?
Discuss? |
Velicitia
Emergent Avionics
2129
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 14:14:00 -
[2] - Quote
Wrong section.
Also, no - this'll just mean that instead of 1 fleet, you'll have 10 fleets so that the BS (or slowcat, or whatever doctrine) numbers stay the same. One of the bitter points of a good bittervet is the realisation that all those SP don't really do much, and that the newbie is having much more fun with what little he has. - Tippia |
Amyclas Amatin
xX-Crusader-Xx Li3 Federation
217
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 14:15:00 -
[3] - Quote
Are you asking to nerf numbers? For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ High-Sec has a future, But do You? Buy a Mining Permit to Secure yours today. |
Caviar Liberta
Moira. Villore Accords
510
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 14:17:00 -
[4] - Quote
Muestereate wrote: Eliminate this ability by tweaking the max amount of the same ship to the number in a fleets wing (50). This would force no more than 50 of the same ship in each fleet. when carried into the logical conclusion of blob balancing. Each fleet would end up with 5 ship types.
Because people can't divide by 50. |
Doc Fury
Furious Enterprises
4319
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 14:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Wrong section.
Indeed:
--> Features & Ideas Discussion
The accumulated filth of all their sex and murder will foam up about their waists and all the ho's and politicians will look up and shout 'Save us!' and I'll look down, and whisper 'Hodor'. |
Good Posting
Posting with my Mind
147
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 14:19:00 -
[6] - Quote
Sometimes ccp does a good job balancing stats (t1 cruisers, e.g.), and some others they wreck weapon systems or hulls and after that nobody uses them. Feels like a lotto to be honest. No one is perfect i guess. |
Amyclas Amatin
xX-Crusader-Xx Li3 Federation
218
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 14:23:00 -
[7] - Quote
It's not like the super-powers down in the big blue donut run around with 4000 man fleets to squash their neighbours every day... Typical turn out is in the hundreds, and then some coalitions split up their forces into multiple theaters. For epic turn outs, you have to wait for the weekends, give advance notice, or just be lucky enough to have enough people ready to fight at the time. And even then they won't necessarily bring the ships you want. For more information on the New Order of High-Sec, please visit: http://www.minerbumping.com/ High-Sec has a future, But do You? Buy a Mining Permit to Secure yours today. |
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
5569
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 14:45:00 -
[8] - Quote
Good Posting wrote:Sometimes ccp does a good job balancing stats (t1 cruisers, e.g.), and some others they wreck weapon systems or hulls and after that nobody uses them. Feels like a lotto to be honest. No one is perfect i guess. To be honest, yes, that happens occasionally.
Far more often a change is at first viewed as bad and drops from popularity, only to have someone several months down the line suddenly say "Hey guys, if you use it in this other way it actually kicks ass".
Change is scary, and occasionally forces people to temporarily shut off their brain. To carve a successful niche for yourself in EVE you need to be able to out sell, out produce, out fight,-á out run, or out wit your competitors. If you can do none of the above, your only option is to complain on the forums that somehow you are at a disadvantage using the exact same tool set-áas the rest of the player base. |
Ambo
CTRL-Q Iron Oxide.
113
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 15:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:costs huge amounts of development time Citation needed
|
Adrie Atticus
Unicorn Love Hurts
58
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 16:13:00 -
[10] - Quote
Muestereate wrote: Eliminate this ability by tweaking the max amount of the same ship to the number in a fleets wing (50). This would force no more than 50 of the same ship in each fleet. when carried into the logical conclusion of blob balancing. Each fleet would end up with 5 ship types.
Good, bad, impractical, unfair?
Discuss?
1 fleet of 250 megathrons in a single mumble channel. 5 fleets of 50 megathrons in a single mumble channel.
Spot the difference. |
|
Mara Tessidar
Dark Star Safari Goonswarm Federation
1067
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 16:16:00 -
[11] - Quote
Ambo wrote:Muestereate wrote:costs huge amounts of development time Citation needed
Step 1: adjust ship stats by 5-10% based on automatically collected metric performance Step 2: Change database numbers Step 3: waste huge amounts of dev time |
Muestereate
Minions LLC
281
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 16:57:00 -
[12] - Quote
Velicitia wrote:Wrong section.
Also, no - this'll just mean that instead of 1 fleet, you'll have 10 fleets so that the BS (or slowcat, or whatever doctrine) numbers stay the same.
If its not a new idea, its a redundant post isn't it? I asked to discuss not propose. I posted it here because of a broader cross section of talent. Features and Ideas impresses me as ship centered rather than group play. If the mods disagree, so be it but my first thought is that the idea has merit and creates new possibilities so much so that you would like to see the discussion be derailed and locked before it can see the light of dayI see new names, thanks for your responses.
I understand that the numbers will gravitate towards the blob mentality. This isn't to nerf blobs, its to divert resources from the bottomless pit of re-balancing. It will never end unless something else changes and quite frankly, I hate balanced ships. This shouldn't be a game about ships, it should be a game about people. Blob battles should be won on strategy and leadership and the ability to work together.
If you have ten fleets instead of one, you now need ten fleet commanders. for one this opens up leadership positions and another point is that it raises the bar from a competitive standpoint because it makes it harder to coordinate. team skill weigting rises as a proportion of overall difficulty and energy expenditures. Fatigue becomes a factor and additional errors increase the probability of a "turn of the tide" mistakes. These increase the potential content creation and drama. Of course in addition to more potential for errors is a somewhat increased strategic options available. Since force is not as concentrated, its free to split and handle the new broader range of threats.
Though the initial tendency would be to counter with the simplistic addition of fleets, more creative commanders could enjoy broader fleet comps under their control. |
Muestereate
Minions LLC
281
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 17:05:00 -
[13] - Quote
Amyclas Amatin wrote:It's not like the super-powers down in the big blue donut run around with 4000 man fleets to squash their neighbours every day... Typical turn out is in the hundreds, and then some coalitions split up their forces into multiple theaters. For epic turn outs, you have to wait for the weekends, give advance notice, or just be lucky enough to have enough people ready to fight at the time. And even then they won't necessarily bring the ships you want.
I see your very good point but it is the conditions under which all ships will appear broken when in reality they are not, its the blob that's broken because the concentration of force is only limited by server capacity. For the smaller fleets and operations, I would think this is a minor adjustment. For instance a Bash could still bring in 200 dreads, fifty of each. Considerttion of each type would need done instead of just the easy way out of fitting all the same, essentially turning us all into a bunch of drones. Same with BS's. Ranges could be matched pretty close and they could be made to work together. The other 50 in a fleet? tackle ewar, logistics etc?
|
Yarda Black
Epidemic. Nulli Secunda
116
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 17:13:00 -
[14] - Quote
I'll start undusting my drakes I guess |
Bagrat Skalski
Poseidaon
1291
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 17:18:00 -
[15] - Quote
Strangest proposition I have heard to this date and it would not make game any better than it is now. You will provide element of chaos,it will be evaded by players, numbers will not drop, it will be still a blob but with 50 man fleets. When weapons, technology, and economies mature faster than the leadership culture entrusted with them, disaster ensues. |
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan Council of Peace and Prosperity
3231
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 17:24:00 -
[16] - Quote
It would be nice when ships get reblanced if they would keep the fluff a little more up to date, something like;
Mk VII Caracal "In response to issues surrounding onboard systems, Caldari engineers decided to finally upgrade the targetting and tracking systems of the CC-17 Caracal, resulting in the Mk VII type launched in YC 113...." *** Vote MTU For CSM *** ***Free The Jita 1*** "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." - Pontianak Sythaeryn "Despite others being missing, at least Ramona is back." - Scipio Artelius |
Muestereate
Minions LLC
281
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 18:24:00 -
[17] - Quote
Crap, I wish our ships had model years where the stats and skins of the old models were intact. I don't know about the caracal though as far as ship variations over the years but I sure would like an old drake or hurricane or Absolution.
But I digress. The people that can oly see as far as an increased number of fleets in larger battles? I'd like to ask you to look a bit further than that consequence. I'm asking you to look at the next set of consequences and benefits of 5 times as many fleets and leaders in a operation. Like chess, look another move or two ahead.
Do not dismiss additional chance and chaos. Luck has and should continue to have a huge part in outcomes. That a particular group wins a battle should not be a foregone conclusion, that actually limits engagements. The individual ship balances had the potential to reintroduce chance into engagements but the number problem has stuffed that.
Chaos is exciting! Its what makes my adrenaline soar. Cold calculaed sure wins are kinda boring. Only a huge mistake turns it around so it becomes a field where concentrated control has advantage and the fight becomes a boring ordeal instead of an exciting engagement.
Fleet controls will become very important. Warping 5 times as many fletts and calling 5 sets of targets, and logistics broadcasts could just be the beginning of a new tool for ccp to balance fight dynamics.
Push your brains a bit further down the road. |
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan Council of Peace and Prosperity
3235
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 18:41:00 -
[18] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:Crap, I wish our ships had model years where the stats and skins of the old models were intact. I don't know about the caracal though as far as ship variations over the years but I sure would like an old drake or hurricane or Absolution. .
I would love this to be implemented
+Moar *** Vote MTU For CSM *** ***Free The Jita 1*** "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." - Pontianak Sythaeryn "Despite others being missing, at least Ramona is back." - Scipio Artelius |
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
357
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 18:59:00 -
[19] - Quote
Adrie Atticus wrote:Muestereate wrote: Eliminate this ability by tweaking the max amount of the same ship to the number in a fleets wing (50). This would force no more than 50 of the same ship in each fleet. when carried into the logical conclusion of blob balancing. Each fleet would end up with 5 ship types.
Good, bad, impractical, unfair?
Discuss?
1 fleet of 250 megathrons in a single mumble channel. 5 fleets of 50 megathrons in a single mumble channel. Spot the difference.
Need five times the boosters. Don't need anyone with the FC skill trained.
Did I win?
I am not an alt of Chribba. |
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog
Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic
357
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 19:05:00 -
[20] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:Velicitia wrote:Wrong section.
Also, no - this'll just mean that instead of 1 fleet, you'll have 10 fleets so that the BS (or slowcat, or whatever doctrine) numbers stay the same. If its not a new idea, its a redundant post isn't it? I asked to discuss not propose. I posted it here because of a broader cross section of talent. Features and Ideas impresses me as ship centered rather than group play. If the mods disagree, so be it but my first thought is that the idea has merit and creates new possibilities so much so that you would like to see the discussion be derailed and locked before it can see the light of dayI see new names, thanks for your responses. I understand that the numbers will gravitate towards the blob mentality. This isn't to nerf blobs, its to divert resources from the bottomless pit of re-balancing. It will never end unless something else changes and quite frankly, I hate balanced ships. This shouldn't be a game about ships, it should be a game about people. Blob battles should be won on strategy and leadership and the ability to work together. If you have ten fleets instead of one, you now need ten fleet commanders. for one this opens up leadership positions and another point is that it raises the bar from a competitive standpoint because it makes it harder to coordinate. team skill weigting rises as a proportion of overall difficulty and energy expenditures. Fatigue becomes a factor and additional errors increase the probability of a "turn of the tide" mistakes. These increase the potential content creation and drama. Of course in addition to more potential for errors is a somewhat increased strategic options available. Since force is not as concentrated, its free to split and handle the new broader range of threats. Though the initial tendency would be to counter with the simplistic addition of fleets, more creative commanders could enjoy broader fleet comps under their control.
More creative commanders can "enjoy broader fleet comps under their control" right now.
If you have ten fleets instead of one, you still only need one commander. You just (maybe) have to spend more time screwing around with your links, which is annoying and not fun.
Explain how there is more "fatigue" and then, if that explanation makes sense, explain why that's good for a video game.
Your just kind of stretching for some idea that is so flawed at its base that it's almost pointless to shoot it down.
I am not an alt of Chribba. |
|
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2600
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 19:16:00 -
[21] - Quote
The make work project will go on forever. They simply keep nerfing a group of ships, and then realize that put another class of ships out of whack with the rest.
Right now, 3 of the 5 pirate cruisers are being hammered. Next, they are going after the faction BS's, which will just be a barrel of laughs (Rattlesnake with 2 uber bonused Heavies?)
Then, they look at the T3's, and say, hey, they are really OP compared to the faction cruisers. They will be nerfed into oblivion, for the reason above, plus the fact that the null sec cartels can't control wormhole income from T3 sales, so it is in their best interest to ruin T3 sales.
Then we will see T2 recons go under the knife, and then the whole cycle starts up again.
Newsflash. Not EVERY ship was broken in the game. The majority were not. But the dev's in question can find faults with just about every one, or at least they THINK they are faults. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
Lugia3
Emerald Inc. Easily Excited
931
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 19:24:00 -
[22] - Quote
So your saying you liked the days where the only viable ship was the Hurricane, compared to today where every ship is viable? "CCP Dolan is full of ****." - CCP Bettik |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
1237
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 19:48:00 -
[23] - Quote
Dinsdale, you may have some point about how a lot of the changes lately have favoured Null in the overall scheme, but really, trying to claim that T3's getting nerfed is a Null Conspiracy? T3's are out of balance, they are more specialised than T2, rather than better than T1 & broader & more adaptable than T2. That's been known for years.
Anyway, the way to break the blob. Line of Fire mechanics, more space terrain that matters & affects tactics, and spreading fights out more. So a fleets versatility starts to matter. |
Muestereate
Minions LLC
282
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 20:09:00 -
[24] - Quote
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:Muestereate wrote:Velicitia wrote:Wrong section.
Also, no - this'll just mean that instead of 1 fleet, you'll have 10 fleets so that the BS (or slowcat, or whatever doctrine) numbers stay the same. If its not a new idea, its a redundant post isn't it? I asked to discuss not propose. I posted it here because of a broader cross section of talent. Features and Ideas impresses me as ship centered rather than group play. If the mods disagree, so be it but my first thought is that the idea has merit and creates new possibilities so much so that you would like to see the discussion be derailed and locked before it can see the light of dayI see new names, thanks for your responses. I understand that the numbers will gravitate towards the blob mentality. This isn't to nerf blobs, its to divert resources from the bottomless pit of re-balancing. It will never end unless something else changes and quite frankly, I hate balanced ships. This shouldn't be a game about ships, it should be a game about people. Blob battles should be won on strategy and leadership and the ability to work together. If you have ten fleets instead of one, you now need ten fleet commanders. for one this opens up leadership positions and another point is that it raises the bar from a competitive standpoint because it makes it harder to coordinate. team skill weigting rises as a proportion of overall difficulty and energy expenditures. Fatigue becomes a factor and additional errors increase the probability of a "turn of the tide" mistakes. These increase the potential content creation and drama. Of course in addition to more potential for errors is a somewhat increased strategic options available. Since force is not as concentrated, its free to split and handle the new broader range of threats. Though the initial tendency would be to counter with the simplistic addition of fleets, more creative commanders could enjoy broader fleet comps under their control. More creative commanders can "enjoy broader fleet comps under their control" right now. but they don't because they are under no constraints that guide them to be creative If you have ten fleets instead of one, you still only need one commander. You just (maybe) have to spend more time screwing around with your links, which is annoying and not fun. These are out of game solutions around the current problems, the current tactics need not be recreated Explain how there is more "fatigue" and then, if that explanation makes sense, explain why that's good for a video game. - have you ever tried to command multiple wings, say Ewar and Logistics while managing dps targeting and calling? fatigue comes after the adrenaline wears off.
- All outcomes are a product of probabilities. Risks become "fuzzy". More situations appear tenable = increased engagements = better for game.
Your just kind of stretching for some idea that is so flawed at its base that it's almost pointless to shoot it down. I appreciate your lack of comprehension, It shows a lack of communication on my part, thanks for helping me develop the idea
|
Muestereate
Minions LLC
282
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 20:14:00 -
[25] - Quote
Lugia3 wrote:So your saying you liked the days where the only viable ship was the Hurricane, compared to today where every ship is viable?
YES :) ABSOLUTELY!! I love the cruiser rebalance, after that it seems a downhill race to a vanilla generic bottom to me because it evades the real problem. Fixing symptoms instead of causes has a tendency to do this. Someone threw out the bait and CCP bit into it. THey are now like gut hooked flounder. |
Adrie Atticus
Unicorn Love Hurts
59
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 21:14:00 -
[26] - Quote
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:
Need five times the boosters. Don't need anyone with the FC skill trained.
Did I win?
Here, have a like. |
Erufen Rito
The Dark Space Initiative Scary Wormhole People
131
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 21:21:00 -
[27] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:As I see it the core of the ship balancing problem, which costs huge amounts of development time, is not about the ships.
There is no such thing as perfect balancing. persuing it is a waste of resources.
The true problems occur when very minor imbalances are multiplied a thousandfold by big fleets.
Eliminate this ability by tweaking the max amount of the same ship to the number in a fleets wing (50). This would force no more than 50 of the same ship in each fleet. when carried into the logical conclusion of blob balancing. Each fleet would end up with 5 ship types.
FC's and wing commanders would be more involved. More variety on the battlefield. Still enough alpha if a supreme commander directs multiple fleets. And more development time for things other than ship nerfs.
To name a few, I'm sure more could be added as well as presenting new problems to solve but I think a core game changer???
Good, bad, impractical, unfair?
Discuss? Man, this is a pretty bad idea, because it fixes nothing and creates more issues. It already is a logistical nightmere to coordinate a huge fleet. It'll be that much harder to coordinate 500 smaller fleets. It'd create more issues as well, thanks to the overview not being entirely player friendly for customization
Wait, I think i'm onto something. Lets do this. That way, when Goons can't form up and their blues start shooting more blues and the fail cascade starts, they can cry about a bad overview configuration window, and THEN we get a nice UI fix for that ugly thing.
Grr goons. This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165 |
Ralph King-Griffin
Var Foundation inc.
614
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 21:26:00 -
[28] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Dinsdale, you may have some point about how a lot of the changes lately have favoured Null in the overall scheme, but really, trying to claim that T3's getting nerfed is a Null Conspiracy? T3's are out of balance, they are more specialised than T2, rather than better than T1 & broader & more adaptable than T2. That's been known for years.
Anyway, the way to break the blob. Line of Fire mechanics, more space terrain that matters & affects tactics, and spreading fights out more. So a fleets versatility starts to matter. He's still bitter about how ccp "nerfed" marauders.
Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼a«£¦¬¦P¦¬a«£Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼ -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf In Doubt....Do....Excessively. Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼a«£¦¬¦P¦¬a«£Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼
|
Marsha Mallow
211
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 21:43:00 -
[29] - Quote
What on earth are you bawwing about now? Devs have explicitly stated on camera whilst rambling on during some AT that they deliberately create imbalances [for a bit] then nerf them when the time is right. Because they are like that. No I will not find the linky - go find it yourself, it's possible I just imagined it.
The sensible approach is simply to grab whatever they did by the horns, abuse the hell out of it, then find the next 'window of opportunity'. You don't even have to do it yourself, usually the most mouthy eft-warriors will run up and down declaring their new doctrine, so that everyone else can copy it. Cos, they are like that too. Conveniently. This attitude is all dependent upon whether you fall into the half full/half empty brigade and how hard you really enjoy squealing.
These are bored cranky vet, those-with-brain-cells-left tweaks. It's not like the rest of the numpties (no offense, I am in this category) will even notice anyway, unless it affects Lvl 4 missions. - |
Tosawa Komarui
Useless Incorporated QUIET TIME.
2
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 21:47:00 -
[30] - Quote
its not so much balancing as making all the ships have uses, which is what they are trying to do, and i think its great |
|
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
4532
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 22:09:00 -
[31] - Quote
All this would do is make people sub divide fleets into a bunch of smaller groups.
It's pretty much the same suggestion as "nerf alliance numbers because Grr Goons!", when all that would do is make coalition logistics a little bit harder.
They've already been circumventing fleet size restrictions for a while, this wouldn't be any different, just slightly more of a pain in the ass.
The solution is just to fix the damned ships, not to make the game less fun. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
masternerdguy
State Protectorate Caldari State
1557
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 22:15:00 -
[32] - Quote
The fact you expect this to work indicates you have no idea what you are talking about.
Nullsec alliances routinely circumvent the fleet size limits as part of any CTA. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Muestereate
Minions LLC
283
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 22:19:00 -
[33] - Quote
THere is a way to broadcast targets and reps to more than 255? I think if thats possible it might fit into the realm of an exploit. Could you please elaborate. All ideas have conditions and constraints to consider as well as the regard of inteested parties. |
masternerdguy
State Protectorate Caldari State
1557
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 22:20:00 -
[34] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:THere is a way to broadcast targets and reps to more than 255? I think if thats possible it might fit into the realm of an exploit. Could you please elaborate. All ideas have conditions and constraints to consider as well as the regard of inteested parties.
Oh man, he has us now
I used to PVP and FC before the broadcast system was implemented, so all it takes is not being lazy and having organized and disciplined comms.
But if that is outside the scope of your fleet, you might have a problem Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Muestereate
Minions LLC
283
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 22:22:00 -
[35] - Quote
multiply the difficulties and people passing on orders times five, do the chances for mistakes and fatigue increase? |
masternerdguy
State Protectorate Caldari State
1557
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 22:25:00 -
[36] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:multiply the difficulties and people passing on orders times five, do the chances for mistakes and fatigue increase?
I don't recall it being that much harder before broadcasts. You just took more advantage of watch lists, listening to the FC's verbal instructions (because "Primary ABC in the Drake" is so hard to understand) and kicking disruptive people from fleet (and primarying them of course).
Broadcasts only made people lazy, they were at no point needed for huge blob combat to happen. Heck, blobs happened before alliance level standings were even implemented!
So please continue to explain how your plan hurts people like me. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
2606
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 22:27:00 -
[37] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Dinsdale, you may have some point about how a lot of the changes lately have favoured Null in the overall scheme, but really, trying to claim that T3's getting nerfed is a Null Conspiracy? T3's are out of balance, they are more specialised than T2, rather than better than T1 & broader & more adaptable than T2. That's been known for years.
Anyway, the way to break the blob. Line of Fire mechanics, more space terrain that matters & affects tactics, and spreading fights out more. So a fleets versatility starts to matter.
It is not some dark conspiracy. It is pretty straightforward.
Null sec cartels cannot control the income streams from wormhole space. Though I am sure that the cartels have a large presence in wormholes, they can't control them as they have null sec. And how many null sec groups have a huge FW presence?? Lots. And we all can see how the cartels have directed the destruction of high sec income.
The last place they have no real control on the economy is wormhole space. So they are directing the dev's to trash T3's so less are sold, hurting wh players, and everyone else who likes to fly them.
As for T3's being over-powered, that is silly. Always has been. They have never been OP.
When I can fit a T1 cruiser to outgun any T3 but a gank Proteus, they are far from overpowered. Do they have great resists, and excellent tanks? You bet. But when you end up paying 40 times what you do for a T1 cruiser, yeah, they should be vastly superior.
I own a Proteus and Loki. Loki was setup for low sec exploration work. Proteus was set up for mission running, and was about to be retasked for low sec mission work.
Then the first drone nerf hit with the wrecking of drone range with the Omni's. Then the 2nd direct nerf to T2 sentries hit.
So I guess I will either stick with a terrible DPS Loki for low sec work, or upgrade to a Stratios, that still is marginally better than then Loki in DPS, even after the wrecking of drone damage. And once the T3 nerf hits, the Loki won't be able to tank or apply any kind of DPS. Most people viewed Orwell's writings as a warning. The harper regime and the goons treat them as a guidebook. |
masternerdguy
State Protectorate Caldari State
1557
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 22:29:00 -
[38] - Quote
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:Nevyn Auscent wrote:Dinsdale, you may have some point about how a lot of the changes lately have favoured Null in the overall scheme, but really, trying to claim that T3's getting nerfed is a Null Conspiracy? T3's are out of balance, they are more specialised than T2, rather than better than T1 & broader & more adaptable than T2. That's been known for years.
Anyway, the way to break the blob. Line of Fire mechanics, more space terrain that matters & affects tactics, and spreading fights out more. So a fleets versatility starts to matter. It is not some dark conspiracy. It is pretty straightforward. Null sec cartels cannot control the income streams from wormhole space. Though I am sure that the cartels have a large presence in wormholes, they can't control them as they have null sec. And how many null sec groups have a huge FW presence?? Lots. And we all can see how the cartels have directed the destruction of high sec income. The last place they have no real control on the economy is wormhole space. So they are directing the dev's to trash T3's so less are sold, hurting wh players, and everyone else who likes to fly them. As for T3's being over-powered, that is silly. Always has been. They have never been OP. When I can fit a T1 cruiser to outgun any T3 but a gank Proteus, they are far from overpowered. Do they have great resists, and excellent tanks? You bet. But when you end up paying 40 times what you do for a T1 cruiser, yeah, they should be vastly superior. I own a Proteus and Loki. Loki was setup for low sec exploration work. Proteus was set up for mission running, and was about to be retasked for low sec mission work. Then the first drone nerf hit with the wrecking of drone range with the Omni's. Then the 2nd direct nerf to T2 sentries hit. So I guess I will either stick with a terrible DPS Loki for low sec work, or upgrade to a Stratios, that still is marginally better than then Loki in DPS, even after the wrecking of drone damage. And once the T3 nerf hits, the Loki won't be able to tank or apply any kind of DPS.
You know that nullsec loves Lokis right? They're usually setup as a brick tanked armor Huginn. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Muestereate
Minions LLC
283
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 22:37:00 -
[39] - Quote
masternerdguy wrote:Muestereate wrote:multiply the difficulties and people passing on orders times five, do the chances for mistakes and fatigue increase? I don't recall it being that much harder before broadcasts. You just took more advantage of watch lists, listening to the FC's verbal instructions (because "Primary ABC in the Drake" is so hard to understand ) and kicking disruptive people from fleet (and primarying them of course). Broadcasts only made people lazy, they were at no point needed for huge blob combat to happen. Heck, blobs happened before alliance level standings were even implemented! So please continue to explain how your plan hurts people like me. EDIT: Anything you need a fleet and broadcast to do can also be done using a chat channel and proper overview setup.
I'm sorry if you interpreted my idea as a personal attack on you. I tried not to offend any particular person or group though its largest impact would be very large fleets that magnify very minor imbalances and overstress hardware and personnel resources by exposing these minor imbalances instead as broken mechanics.
|
masternerdguy
State Protectorate Caldari State
1557
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 22:45:00 -
[40] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:masternerdguy wrote:Muestereate wrote:multiply the difficulties and people passing on orders times five, do the chances for mistakes and fatigue increase? I don't recall it being that much harder before broadcasts. You just took more advantage of watch lists, listening to the FC's verbal instructions (because "Primary ABC in the Drake" is so hard to understand ) and kicking disruptive people from fleet (and primarying them of course). Broadcasts only made people lazy, they were at no point needed for huge blob combat to happen. Heck, blobs happened before alliance level standings were even implemented! So please continue to explain how your plan hurts people like me. EDIT: Anything you need a fleet and broadcast to do can also be done using a chat channel and proper overview setup. I'm sorry if you interpreted my idea as a personal attack on you. I tried not to offend any particular person or group though its largest impact would be very large fleets that magnify very minor imbalances and overstress hardware and personnel resources by exposing these minor imbalances instead as broken mechanics.
Actually, I find this pretty funny.
I've made a case how I will adapt and thrive despite your efforts, however you are unable to adapt to current game mechanics.
Things are only impossible until they are not. |
|
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2149
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 22:50:00 -
[41] - Quote
What really needs to happen is they need to set goals and then stick to those goals. Expansions should build on previous mechanics not completely rewrite them.
We started the game in 2003 with torpedo's that shot out to 100km or so and today we should still have torpedo's that shoot to 100k or so.
Same goes for the all the random, annoying and sometimes ridiculous changes that occur. Build on it, don't rebuild it constantly. Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
Rhes
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
754
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 22:53:00 -
[42] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:What really needs to happen is they need to set goals and then stick to those goals. So they should keep doing exactly what they have been doing since the Summer of Rage?
EVE is a game about spaceships and there's an enormous amount of work to do on the in-space gameplay before players (or developers) are ready to sacrifice it for a totally new type of gameplay - CCP Rise |
masternerdguy
State Protectorate Caldari State
1557
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 22:56:00 -
[43] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:What really needs to happen is they need to set goals and then stick to those goals. Expansions should build on previous mechanics not completely rewrite them.
We started the game in 2003 with torpedo's that shot out to 100km or so and today we should still have torpedo's that shoot to 100k or so.
Same goes for the all the random, annoying and sometimes ridiculous changes that occur. Build on it, don't rebuild it constantly.
Are you kidding?
Back in my day, the Raven could 1 shot any frigate with torps from 80km+! That same raven could hit 2.5km/s! They've certainly changed that!
And the only ships that shoot torps anywhere near those ranges get huge bonuses to missile velocity and flight time. Maybe you can do it in a Golem, but certainly not in a raven. Stealth bombers have great torp range, but that is because they used to fire cruise missiles (for their improved range) and when CCP rebalanced them to fire torps, which do more damage, they wanted to maintain the long range property.
Put torps on any non bonused ship and they're unlikely to go anywhere near 100km. And they certainly don't annihilate frigates in 1 salvo anymore. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Marsha Mallow
212
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 22:57:00 -
[44] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:Push your brains a bit further down the road. Whip a spine from somewhere, post with your main, and take the lash like anyone else. Gimp. - |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2149
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 22:57:00 -
[45] - Quote
Rhes wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:What really needs to happen is they need to set goals and then stick to those goals. So they should keep doing exactly what they have been doing since the Summer of Rage? Please stop calling it that, it makes you sound like a little nerd kid.... Summer of Nerd is preferable.
masternerdguy wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:What really needs to happen is they need to set goals and then stick to those goals. Expansions should build on previous mechanics not completely rewrite them.
We started the game in 2003 with torpedo's that shot out to 100km or so and today we should still have torpedo's that shoot to 100k or so.
Same goes for the all the random, annoying and sometimes ridiculous changes that occur. Build on it, don't rebuild it constantly. Are you kidding? Back in my day, the Raven could 1 shot any frigate with torps from 80km+! That same raven could hit 2.5km/s! They've certainly changed that! And the only ships that shoot torps anywhere near those ranges get huge bonuses to missile velocity and flight time. Maybe you can do it in a Golem, but certainly not in a raven. Stealth bombers have great torp range, but that is because they used to fire cruise missiles (for their improved range) and when CCP rebalanced them to fire torps, which do more damage, they wanted to maintain the long range property. Put torps on any non bonused ship and they're unlikely to go anywhere near 100km. And they certainly don't annihilate frigates in 1 salvo anymore. You missed the whole point. They should still shoot to 100k because they did when the game was implemented. Like I said you build on the game, you don't rewrite it.
Torps were long range high damage missiles, but they were slow, if a frig was stupid enough to allow itself to get popped by one then it was doing stuff wrong.
Building on the torp thing would have been implementing sig and speed tanking which they did which of course would have resulted in torps no longer instapopping. Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
Ralph King-Griffin
Var Foundation inc.
614
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 23:05:00 -
[46] - Quote
You'v got red on you. Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼a«£¦¬¦P¦¬a«£Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼ -á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-á-áIf In Doubt....Do....Excessively. Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼a«£¦¬¦P¦¬a«£Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼Gû¼
|
Marsha Mallow
212
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 23:05:00 -
[47] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Please stop calling it that, it makes you sound like a little nerd kid.... Summer of Nerd is preferable. You are correct. Should be renamed to "Summer of Backhand", NOW STFU RPING PERVES - we can be perverted anywhere *whipcrack* "
Off you run now, I've got bandages for those wounds. No, no, scared ? Ok, limp on - can you please scream a bit louder next time, tah xxxx - |
masternerdguy
State Protectorate Caldari State
1557
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 23:13:00 -
[48] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:Rhes wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:What really needs to happen is they need to set goals and then stick to those goals. So they should keep doing exactly what they have been doing since the Summer of Rage? Please stop calling it that, it makes you sound like a little nerd kid.... Summer of Nerd is preferable. masternerdguy wrote:Infinity Ziona wrote:What really needs to happen is they need to set goals and then stick to those goals. Expansions should build on previous mechanics not completely rewrite them.
We started the game in 2003 with torpedo's that shot out to 100km or so and today we should still have torpedo's that shoot to 100k or so.
Same goes for the all the random, annoying and sometimes ridiculous changes that occur. Build on it, don't rebuild it constantly. Are you kidding? Back in my day, the Raven could 1 shot any frigate with torps from 80km+! That same raven could hit 2.5km/s! They've certainly changed that! And the only ships that shoot torps anywhere near those ranges get huge bonuses to missile velocity and flight time. Maybe you can do it in a Golem, but certainly not in a raven. Stealth bombers have great torp range, but that is because they used to fire cruise missiles (for their improved range) and when CCP rebalanced them to fire torps, which do more damage, they wanted to maintain the long range property. Put torps on any non bonused ship and they're unlikely to go anywhere near 100km. And they certainly don't annihilate frigates in 1 salvo anymore. You missed the whole point. They should still shoot to 100k because they did when the game was implemented. Like I said you build on the game, you don't rewrite it. Torps were long range high damage missiles, but they were slow, if a frig was stupid enough to allow itself to get popped by one then it was doing stuff wrong. Building on the torp thing would have been implementing sig and speed tanking which they did which of course would have resulted in torps no longer instapopping.
The same argument can be made for other mechanics too. For example, you used to be able to send an area of effect doomsday via a cyno kestrel. Building on this game mechanic could have given some frigs a bonus to doomsday damage via cyno
The main reason for nerfing torps was they stepped on the toes of cruise missiles. This is similar to how rarely HAMS were used instead of Heavies before the rebalance to those missiles.
Finally, long range high DPS weapons are unbalanced, even if they are realistic.
I'm not against adjusting stats of weapons to keep things new and balanced, I am against trying to arbitrarily limit emergent gameplay to satisfy the people who are not intelligent, creative, or social enough to participate. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Muestereate
Minions LLC
283
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 23:13:00 -
[49] - Quote
Marsha Mallow wrote:Muestereate wrote:Push your brains a bit further down the road. Whip a spine from somewhere, post with your main, and take the lash like anyone else. Gimp.
Is that gimp reference a personal attack? |
masternerdguy
State Protectorate Caldari State
1557
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 23:17:00 -
[50] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:Marsha Mallow wrote:Muestereate wrote:Push your brains a bit further down the road. Whip a spine from somewhere, post with your main, and take the lash like anyone else. Gimp. Is that gimp reference a personal attack?
Probably just a reference to the well known, high quality, open source raster graphics application. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
|
Marsha Mallow
212
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 23:20:00 -
[51] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:Is that gimp reference a personal attack? Compliment. Continue! - |
Muestereate
Minions LLC
283
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 23:20:00 -
[52] - Quote
Ahh yes of course :) |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2149
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 23:22:00 -
[53] - Quote
masternerdguy wrote:The same argument can be made for other mechanics too. For example, you used to be able to send an area of effect doomsday via a cyno kestrel. Building on this game mechanic could have given some frigs a bonus to doomsday damage via cyno The main reason for nerfing torps was they stepped on the toes of cruise missiles. This is similar to how rarely HAMS were used instead of Heavies before the rebalance to those missiles. Finally, long range high DPS weapons are unbalanced, even if they are realistic. I'm not against adjusting stats of weapons to keep things new and balanced, I am against trying to arbitrarily limit emergent gameplay to satisfy the people who are not intelligent, creative, or social enough to participate. The cyno doomsday is a little different to a years old functioning weapons system.
Also they didn't step on the toes of cruise missiles, cruise are very fast, have twice the range, are easier to fit and do more damage to smaller ships. Range is irrelevant given they're totally different weapons systems.
Torps were arbitrarily nerfed to have almost as poor range as rockets for no reason other than blasters were short range high dps therefore all high damage dps weapons must be now short range. Irrespective of blasters and all other weapons being instant while torps took a long time to hit and could be out run easily.
Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
masternerdguy
State Protectorate Caldari State
1557
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 23:25:00 -
[54] - Quote
Infinity Ziona wrote:masternerdguy wrote:The same argument can be made for other mechanics too. For example, you used to be able to send an area of effect doomsday via a cyno kestrel. Building on this game mechanic could have given some frigs a bonus to doomsday damage via cyno The main reason for nerfing torps was they stepped on the toes of cruise missiles. This is similar to how rarely HAMS were used instead of Heavies before the rebalance to those missiles. Finally, long range high DPS weapons are unbalanced, even if they are realistic. I'm not against adjusting stats of weapons to keep things new and balanced, I am against trying to arbitrarily limit emergent gameplay to satisfy the people who are not intelligent, creative, or social enough to participate. The cyno doomsday is a little different to a years old functioning weapons system. Also they didn't step on the toes of cruise missiles, cruise are very fast, have twice the range, are easier to fit and do more damage to smaller ships. Range is irrelevant given they're totally different weapons systems. Torps were arbitrarily nerfed to have almost as poor range as rockets for no reason other than blasters were short range high dps therefore all high damage dps weapons must be now short range. Irrespective of blasters and all other weapons being instant while torps took a long time to hit and could be out run easily.
The balance in this game is that closer range weapons do more damage and longer range weapons do less damage but project damage better. This is good balance, even if it is unrealistic.
Believe me, I'd love to have the old torps back. But they were overpowered. Personally, I think blasters are currently the most OP weapon system, but blaster fans continue to deny this. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
20547
|
Posted - 2014.04.08 23:53:00 -
[55] - Quote
Muestereate wrote:Eliminate this ability by tweaking the max amount of the same ship to the number in a fleets wing (50). This would force no more than 50 of the same ship in each fleet. when carried into the logical conclusion of blob balancing. Each fleet would end up with 5 ship types. As a card-carrying member and representative of the 16M-Leaderhsip-SP cabal, I approve of this very silly and completely ineffectual change.
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:It is not some dark conspiracy. It is pretty straightforward. GǪit is also completely devoid of any connection to reality or facts or logic or reasoning. It assumes a secret plan towards some strange goal, neither of which have any support in what actually goes on in the game. That's why it's just a pretty silly conspiracy theory.
Quote:As for T3's being over-powered, that is silly. Always has been. They have never been OP. GǪaside from the very get-go, and aside from how they were intended to work. For a long time, they obsoleted numerous ships that they had no business even being near, for no particular reason other than GÇ£omg, we must make people want themGÇ¥. They were destined for a proper rebalance from the second they were released because they fundamentally failed to live up to their purpose. GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
Get a good start: Newbie skill plan 2.1. |
Infinity Ziona
Cloakers
2149
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 00:23:00 -
[56] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Muestereate wrote:Eliminate this ability by tweaking the max amount of the same ship to the number in a fleets wing (50). This would force no more than 50 of the same ship in each fleet. when carried into the logical conclusion of blob balancing. Each fleet would end up with 5 ship types. As a card-carrying member and representative of the 16M-Leaderhsip-SP cabal, I approve of this very silly and completely ineffectual change. Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:It is not some dark conspiracy. It is pretty straightforward. GǪit is also completely devoid of any connection to reality or facts or logic or reasoning. It assumes a secret plan towards some strange goal, neither of which have any support in what actually goes on in the game. That's why it's just a pretty silly conspiracy theory. Quote:As for T3's being over-powered, that is silly. Always has been. They have never been OP. GǪaside from the very get-go, and aside from how they were intended to work. For a long time, they obsoleted numerous ships that they had no business even being near, for no particular reason other than GÇ£omg, we must make people want themGÇ¥. They were destined for a proper rebalance from the second they were released because they fundamentally failed to live up to their purpose. It's arguable now that T3s don't need a major rebalance in terms of obsoleting other ships. From what I see they're pretty rare these days in PvP. I haven't used one in months because there are better cheaper options that don't cost skill points. Want to make billions a week solo running combat sites in null sec? -á Read my Exploratation Guide here -> https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=309467 |
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
552
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 00:34:00 -
[57] - Quote
The real issue is this following cycle:
1. Update a ship or release new ship that is marginally (say 5%) better at a particular job like mishing or bluesec blobbing or tournaments
2. Because basically EVE is a spreadsheet game and 5% is enough to matter, the updated/new ship becomes a ship of choice and everyone spends a few months training relevant skills
3. Eventually the new ship begins to dominate PvE or fleet doctrines or whatever and forum trolls begin to complain it is OP.
4. CCP then nerf the ship to the point of being useless. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
4539
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 00:36:00 -
[58] - Quote
Hasikan Miallok wrote:The real issue is this following cycle:
1. Update a ship or release new ship that is marginally (say 5%) better at a particular job like mishing or bluesec blobbing or tournaments
2. Because basically EVE is a spreadsheet game and 5% is enough to matter, the updated/new ship becomes a ship of choice and everyone spends a few months training relevant skills
3. Eventually the new ship begins to dominate PvE or fleet doctrines or whatever and forum trolls begin to complain it is OP.
4. CCP then nerf the ship to the point of being useless.
You forgot step 5.
"5. And then they nerf Caldari again too." "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
-áPsychotic Monk for CSM9.
|
Jonah Gravenstein
Machiavellian Space Bastards
17716
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 00:42:00 -
[59] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:"5. And then they nerf Caldari again too." Caldari is too Stronk!
|
Hasikan Miallok
Republic University Minmatar Republic
552
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 00:50:00 -
[60] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote:The real issue is this following cycle:
1. Update a ship or release new ship that is marginally (say 5%) better at a particular job like mishing or bluesec blobbing or tournaments
2. Because basically EVE is a spreadsheet game and 5% is enough to matter, the updated/new ship becomes a ship of choice and everyone spends a few months training relevant skills
3. Eventually the new ship begins to dominate PvE or fleet doctrines or whatever and forum trolls begin to complain it is OP.
4. CCP then nerf the ship to the point of being useless. You forgot step 5. "5. And then they nerf Caldari again too."
Same basic fallacy ... the idea that popular = OP
In the case of Caldari: 1. potential new players read ancient EVE help guides claiming Caldari are the optimal race and all go Caldari. 2. Hence Drakes and Caracals and Ravens are disproportionally popular. 3. Popular means OP 4. Hence Caldari ships are OP and need a nerf. |
|
Greyscale Dash
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
78
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 00:53:00 -
[61] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Muestereate wrote:Eliminate this ability by tweaking the max amount of the same ship to the number in a fleets wing (50). This would force no more than 50 of the same ship in each fleet. when carried into the logical conclusion of blob balancing. Each fleet would end up with 5 ship types. As a card-carrying member and representative of the 16M-Leaderhsip-SP cabal, I approve of this very silly and completely ineffectual change. Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:It is not some dark conspiracy. It is pretty straightforward. GǪit is also completely devoid of any connection to reality or facts or logic or reasoning. It assumes a secret plan towards some strange goal, neither of which have any support in what actually goes on in the game. That's why it's just a pretty silly conspiracy theory. Quote:As for T3's being over-powered, that is silly. Always has been. They have never been OP. GǪaside from the very get-go, and aside from how they were intended to work. For a long time, they obsoleted numerous ships that they had no business even being near, for no particular reason other than Gǣomg, we must make people want themGǥ. They were destined for a proper rebalance from the second they were released because they fundamentally failed to live up to their purpose.
Tippia, you are an inspiration to us all.
Your logic is so good I am going to base a character off you in my next Star Trek: The Next Generation / My Little Pony: Friendship is Magic crossover fanfiction. |
masternerdguy
State Protectorate Caldari State
1562
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 17:44:00 -
[62] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:Hasikan Miallok wrote:The real issue is this following cycle:
1. Update a ship or release new ship that is marginally (say 5%) better at a particular job like mishing or bluesec blobbing or tournaments
2. Because basically EVE is a spreadsheet game and 5% is enough to matter, the updated/new ship becomes a ship of choice and everyone spends a few months training relevant skills
3. Eventually the new ship begins to dominate PvE or fleet doctrines or whatever and forum trolls begin to complain it is OP.
4. CCP then nerf the ship to the point of being useless. You forgot step 5. "5. And then they nerf Caldari again too."
Caldari have definitely seen better days. They might consider just removing Caldari from the game and being done with it.
Drake? The battlecruiser that all the elite PVPers made fun of because it has nothing going for it but buffer tank? Nerf clearly needed.
Rokh? Chosen because it had a good resist profile and good damage projection? Nerf clearly needed.
Naga? Pre nerfed. Letting it fire missiles would be just unfair.
Falcon? Capable of doing its job as an expensive T2 recon projecting electronic warfare? Nerf clearly needed.
I've always wondered, why do CCP hate Caldari so much? They seem to like nerfing Caldari and buffing the Minmattar counterpart. Things are only impossible until they are not. |
Ramona McCandless
The McCandless Clan Council of Peace and Prosperity
3277
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 17:46:00 -
[63] - Quote
masternerdguy wrote:
Caldari have definitely seen better days. They might consider just removing Caldari from the game and being done with it.
Drake? The battlecruiser that all the elite PVPers made fun of because it has nothing going for it but buffer tank? Nerf clearly needed.
Rokh? Chosen because it had a good resist profile and good damage projection? Nerf clearly needed.
Naga? Pre nerfed. Letting it fire missiles would be just unfair.
Falcon? Capable of doing its job as an expensive T2 recon projecting electronic warfare? Nerf clearly needed.
I've always wondered, why do CCP hate Caldari so much? They seem to like nerfing Caldari and buffing the Minmattar counterpart.
This is sarcasm, right? *** Vote MTU For CSM *** ***Free The Jita 1*** "They feel the need to cover their ears and eyes in horror at your very presence." - Pontianak Sythaeryn "Despite others being missing, at least Ramona is back." - Scipio Artelius |
Muestereate
Minions LLC
283
|
Posted - 2014.04.09 17:52:00 -
[64] - Quote
The sun has set on the glorious Minmatar galactic recycling empire too |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page] |