Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 29 post(s) |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22043
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:16:00 -
[1381] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:I've bolded the important part of your words. Why is hull tanking sheer lunacy? Because of the low EHP and non-existing rep rates you get out of it compared to the intended tanking style of the ship.
Quote:So I will ask again, why is hull tanking not viable/lunacey? It's entirely viable. You're just confusing two completely unrelated words.
Quote:And balancing mods around one use case when they are used on numerous ships is bad balancing. What other ships are those? How is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? You're not making any sense here. 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. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
164
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:17:00 -
[1382] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:S1euth wrote:Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?!
This is an opportunity to make the game more fun. I would be very interested in hearing how you propose to make hauling "more fun". Do elaborate on that.
You make hauling more fun by making it take less time. This is a zero sum game. Less time spent hauling is more time spent actually having fun in the game.
How about supplying a small roaming gang worth of people shouldn't take up my entire evening so that I can't even fly with them.
A quick jita supply run takes me about 4 hours in total. This nerf makes it take even longer. Supplying people has taken over so much of my play time that I've long burnt out and I haven't found much willpower to still fleet up. One thing will have to go. Judging by the atrocious attrition rate for logistics people, most people just quit entirely...
Logistics needs a boost. It should be easier to supply people. I don't care what has to be changed to do this, but giving line members in 0.0 the ability to source resources locally would be a nice step. Local productions jobs are much easier to go through if I could just set and forget buyorders for everything I need. I can stomach regular redeployments, but the current state of the empire umbilical cord is terrible. |
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
1556
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:22:00 -
[1383] - Quote
Batolemaeus wrote:Kaarous Aldurald wrote:S1euth wrote:Does anyone actually find internet spaceship truck driving fun in this game? Why nerf something to ensure more time is spent doing something that is not enjoyable?!
This is an opportunity to make the game more fun. I would be very interested in hearing how you propose to make hauling "more fun". Do elaborate on that. You make hauling more fun by making it take less time. This is a zero sum game. Less time spent hauling is more time spent actually having fun in the game.
this is true.
missions also take too long and are boring. let me run missions faster but make the same amount of money per mission. what could go wrong.
Mining too falls into this scenario. increase my yield and lower cycle rate. i is good a economics :3 EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY?No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided""So it will be up to a pilot to remain vigilant wherever they may be flying and be ready for anything at any time" |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:27:00 -
[1384] - Quote
Tippia wrote:Because of the low EHP and non-existing rep rates you get out of it compared to the intended tanking style of the ship.
It's entirely viable.
Hull tanking is not viable on any ship currently with two exceptions as stated above. And the ONLY reason its viable on those two ships is because they have massive Hull HP with meager shield and armor HP. If those two ships had been balanced properly when they first came out, they would be balanced around capital ship armor or shield tanks since that's what those two ships are. Its been awhile since those ships were released, but given CCP's history I don't think that those two ships being the only one in game that can fit viable hull tanks was done intentionally. If it was, that, much like these changes were a bad idea.
Tippia wrote:Valterra wrote:And balancing mods around one use case when they are used on numerous ships is bad balancing. What other ships are those? How is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? You're not making any sense here.
Well, according to this statement: "It's entirely viable." You yourself made the argument that Hull tanking was viable for all other ships. So if that's the case, then balancing around the freighter is a bad way to balance. So which is it? Is hull tanking viable on all ships? I'm not the one thats making no sense here. |
NickSuccorso
Arcana Imperii Ltd. Black Flag Society
41
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:30:00 -
[1385] - Quote
CCP Fozzie, this change is a great start!
Every freighter pilot here needs to understand that this "re-balance" isn't intended to help freighters in their current role. It is clearly intended to reverse the damage that freighters and jump freighters have done to Eve game play.
Eve needs local production, regional economies, and a reason for people to move into low-sec.
Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!
The only major problem with this change is that it isn't enough. CCP Fozzie, it is very important that jump bridges be dealt with as well during this re-balance.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22043
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:32:00 -
[1386] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:Hull tanking is not viable on any ship currently with two exceptions as stated above. In other words, it's viable. Oh, and it's only one proper exception has been mentioned GÇö the Rorqual is better of shield tanking.
Quote:If those two ships had been balanced properly when they first came out, they would be balanced around capital ship armor or shield tanks since that's what those two ships are. No, one is a capital and is balanced around capital shield tanking; the other is a hybrid and balanced around hull tanking GÇö being a ship that is allowed in highsec, it can't even begin to have anything to do with capital-scale tanking.
Quote:You yourself made the argument that Hull tanking was viable for all other ships. Nope. That's just some nonsensical strawman you've made up.
You also keep failing to answer the question: how is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?
Or are you just trolling again? 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. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
165
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:38:00 -
[1387] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:this is true.
missions also take too long and are boring. let me run missions faster but make the same amount of money per mission. what could go wrong.
Mining too falls into this scenario. increase my yield and lower cycle rate. i is good a economics :3
These are not equivalent. |
Batolemaeus
Free-Space-Ranger Nulli Secunda
165
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:44:00 -
[1388] - Quote
NickSuccorso wrote: Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!
It wasn't.
Freighter convoys were such a crappy experience that people rushed to get their cargorevs in place. I lost so many hours to that boring tripe, and I don't want it back ever again. As soon as titan bridges were in game, people rushed to get them to ease logistics and reduce attrition rates on their people.
Also, this isn't 2006 anymore. The standard to be competitive is t2, because CCP made t2 that much more powerful than t1. That means you either have t2 or you perish. Pandora's Box has been opened many years ago, you aren't going to reverse it now. T2 means importing. Always. If you don't, you die. |
Jack Earthfire
Everse Defense Initiative
14
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:49:00 -
[1389] - Quote
NickSuccorso wrote:CCP Fozzie, this change is a great start!
Every freighter pilot here needs to understand that this "re-balance" isn't intended to help freighters in their current role. It is clearly intended to reverse the damage that freighters and jump freighters have done to Eve game play.
Eve needs local production, regional economies, and a reason for people to move into low-sec.
Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!
The only major problem with this change is that it isn't enough. CCP Fozzie, it is very important that jump bridges be dealt with as well during this re-balance.
Three Thumbs up!.. have only two, but who cares: Three Thumbs up! |
Axe Coldon
Coldon Enterprises Axion Bionics
38
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:51:00 -
[1390] - Quote
NickSuccorso wrote:CCP Fozzie, this change is a great start!
Every freighter pilot here needs to understand that this "re-balance" isn't intended to help freighters in their current role. It is clearly intended to reverse the damage that freighters and jump freighters have done to Eve game play.
Eve needs local production, regional economies, and a reason for people to move into low-sec.
Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!
The only major problem with this change is that it isn't enough. CCP Fozzie, it is very important that jump bridges be dealt with as well during this re-balance.
Gee I hope you are being sarcastic.
Unless they remove Jump Freighters stuff will still go back and forth.
The problem with trying to explain industry in null is it is not within the confines of a forum. It would be long and bore everyone. And anyways this is supposed to be a sandbox. We import because we want too. Plain and simple.
After the industry changes (compression and such) I do plan to make as much as i can in null and only send the excess to high. But there will be excesses to send. And they will go with or without the nerf. Main reason is the higher refine rate in null. That alone will encourage us to make as much as we can out there. And its possible to establish a regional hub within coalitions. Well that is and has been true for a long time.
Oddly enough..I import because why send the jf back empty. Null has more rare ore then high. well High has none. ha. So you export and import goods you do not want to make yourself on the return trip. So as long as goods move to high..goods will move back to null. and anyways ccp has said they like that. They purposely make it so not everything is in one location.
Forcing actions hurts the little guys more. I think the future is the little guy. The cool thing about eve is who will be the next super power? (not me, I don't care) IF we make it hard on the little guys then its harder for them to rise to power.
Honestly I think we are just repeating ourselves over and over. Now we just have to see if CCP will tweak the changes or leave as is or delay or what. |
|
Cor'len
Remnant of an Empire Psychosomatic.
2
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:55:00 -
[1391] - Quote
Dearest CCP,
Please stop f*cking up this game. Is it completely utterly out of the realm of possibility for you to actually do something nice for players, for once? Like making logistics less annoying?
Obviously not, because you keep doing these things.
Here's a heartfelt wish from my heap of alts to all you game designers (nerf artists): Go home. Get some sleep. Find a different line of work - I suppose demolition work might suit you, because it's all about breaking down things, and sometimes even breaking down the hopes and dreams of other people?
Just don't f*ck up the game any more than it already is. Thanks!
-Cor |
Markus45
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
9
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:56:00 -
[1392] - Quote
How is this a nerf exactly?
Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP - You are given more shield/armor thereby increasing the viability of RR support
Jump Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP, to the point of having absurd EHP, at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount of EHP - You are given substantially more shield/armor and T2 resists thereby making RR support very viable.
Nerf? What? |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6402
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 20:58:00 -
[1393] - Quote
Markus45 wrote:How is this a nerf exactly? Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP - You are given more shield/armor thereby increasing the viability of RR support Jump Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP, to the point of having absurd EHP, at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount of EHP - You are given substantially more shield/armor and T2 resists thereby making RR support very viable. Nerf? What? Look at the charts http://themittani.com/news/proposed-freighter-and-jump-freighter-changes-kronos
Not getting an across the board buff counts as a nerf now, didn't you know? "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
111
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:01:00 -
[1394] - Quote
Markus45 wrote:How is this a nerf exactly? Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP - You are given more shield/armor thereby increasing the viability of RR support Jump Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP, to the point of having absurd EHP, at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount of EHP - You are given substantially more shield/armor and T2 resists thereby making RR support very viable. Nerf? What? Look at the charts http://themittani.com/news/proposed-freighter-and-jump-freighter-changes-kronos And maybe tomorrow all your PVP ships should require a new mod to keep doing what they are doing, a module which costs as much or more than your ship+fit as it stands now.
If CCP made a chance where each PVP ship needed to fit a mod(s) to stay where it's at, then you'd go postal too.
This isn't like a change to just the Mega or something, this is a change to ALL ships that can do the job. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6402
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:06:00 -
[1395] - Quote
Sniper Smith wrote:Markus45 wrote:How is this a nerf exactly? Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP - You are given more shield/armor thereby increasing the viability of RR support Jump Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP, to the point of having absurd EHP, at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount of EHP - You are given substantially more shield/armor and T2 resists thereby making RR support very viable. Nerf? What? Look at the charts http://themittani.com/news/proposed-freighter-and-jump-freighter-changes-kronos And maybe tomorrow all your PVP ships should require a new mod to keep doing what they are doing, a module which costs as much or more than your ship+fit as it stands now. If CCP made a chance where each PVP ship needed to fit a mod(s) to stay where it's at, then you'd go postal too. This isn't like a change to just the Mega or something, this is a change to ALL ships that can do the job.
The difference being that people asked, ad nauseum, for freighters to get rigs.
So quit trying to make this about PvP ships vs. PvE ships. This is about buyer's remorse from fools who thought they could have their cake and eat it too. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
B Plague
Remnant of an Empire Psychosomatic.
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:11:00 -
[1396] - Quote
YES! GREAT IDEA *sarcasm*. Anyone that can afford a freighter should have to drop another bill in rigs to make proper and equivalent use of it; and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common, let us lower its defence to continue the policy of running off industry people! I feel that to balance the subtractions being made, as well as the added cost we have to invest for the rigs, that the base cost needs to be reduced to match. When you wield your nerf bat can't you at least be fair about it? |
Sniper Smith
Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation
111
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:12:00 -
[1397] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:lol wat? u mean like a hurricane where u have to buy an entire faction ship, not just T2 mods, to get it to do what it used to? Now if that was more than just one ship, but ALL Cruisers/BS's you'd have a proper analogy. It's not like there are a dozen lines of Freighters and they are only changing one..
Also, I wasn't one of the people asking for the change.. I knew it was gonna be a disaster the moment he said it at Fanfest. |
Kaarous Aldurald
ROC Deep Space The ROC
6402
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:14:00 -
[1398] - Quote
B Plague wrote: and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common
Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare. "Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."
Psychotic Monk for CSM9. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
522
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:15:00 -
[1399] - Quote
NickSuccorso wrote:CCP Fozzie, this change is a great start!
Every freighter pilot here needs to understand that this "re-balance" isn't intended to help freighters in their current role. It is clearly intended to reverse the damage that freighters and jump freighters have done to Eve game play.
Eve needs local production, regional economies, and a reason for people to move into low-sec.
Eve was so much more fun before the introduction of jump bridges and jump freighters. People had to mine and build things locally. That meant there were players in the asteroid belts, hauling things through gates, out in space!
The only major problem with this change is that it isn't enough. CCP Fozzie, it is very important that jump bridges be dealt with as well during this re-balance.
This is noble goals, but what do freighters in High sec have to do with that?
As for the 00 sec and Low sec part, I completely understand and support that kind of development. 00 sec is just as stagnant because players are lazy and feel way to entitled to an easy life, especially in Sov 00. This easy mode should stop. |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22044
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:18:00 -
[1400] - Quote
Valterra Craven wrote:See the words you stated in literally the same post: "in other words, it's viable". See how they don't include the strawman bit you added?
Quote:Is hull tanking viable for one ship, or all ships? Mu.
Quote:So I'm trolling when I say I think your idea is bad and try to offer reasons why. Since you offer no reasons why, yes.
I'll ask again. Last chance this time GÇö any further evasions or general failure to respond will be interpreted as you trolling; as their not being imbalanced; and as their being no appreciable effect on balance from giving them zero fitting requirements as far as you can tell.
Here goes: how is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced? 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. |
|
Platinum Playa
Black Hole Weaponry
0
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:19:00 -
[1401] - Quote
"Game Balance" and "Choices" would mean that you could put a certain configuration of rigs and get a ship with the same stats as the previous stats. This would then allow people to sacrifice some stat to gain some other stat by swapping out the "standard config of rigs". Anything else is a nerf! So, unless they change the numbers to match this strategy, lets just call a spade a spade and accept this as what it is... a huge nerf to the hauling industry!
There is no argument that anyone can make to define this any other way that is not just a euphemism for nerf. Its obvious that they wish to drastically increase the cost of transportation in order to put economic pressure to use their new industrial changes and produce locally, use only jump freighters of the race for the fuel in your operating area, and isolate from economic interaction areas of space (except where HUGE price differentials put counter economic pressure).
Many people who say prices will not change and "I will still undercut all" are the ones without good spreadsheets and are not taking into account all the expenses and time. These are the stupid industrialists who waste all their game time to make squat/hour. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:23:00 -
[1402] - Quote
Markus45 wrote:How is this a nerf exactly? Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP - You are given more shield/armor thereby increasing the viability of RR support Jump Freighters: - You are given the option to fit more EHP, to the point of having absurd EHP, at the cost of cargohold - You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount of EHP - You are given substantially more shield/armor and T2 resists thereby making RR support very viable. Nerf? What? Look at the charts http://themittani.com/news/proposed-freighter-and-jump-freighter-changes-kronos
I have looked at the charts... and I still think this is an across the board nerf.
You are given the option to fit more EHP at the cost of cargohold. Right, so I gain around 40% HP to loose 50% cargo and at best it costs half of the value of the ship to do so. Nerf I also
- You are given the option to fit more cargohold at the cost of a small amount EHP Right, so I gain around 10% more cargo to loose 10% HP and at best it costs half of the value of the ship to do so. Nerf
Any of the rest of your examples suffer the same problem. Little gain for massive cost.
|
Wulfy Johnson
NorCorp Security
43
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:24:00 -
[1403] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:B Plague wrote: and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.
oh, they will return soon tm. war is over, people gets bored, hisec gets it.. circle of live.. |
Jattila Vrek
Green Visstick High
10
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:28:00 -
[1404] - Quote
I'm not unhappy with this. I was unhappy with the warp changes, now I can undo that at the cost of some EHP and a third of my cargo space. And some isk. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
522
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:33:00 -
[1405] - Quote
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:B Plague wrote: and seeing as high sec suicide ganks are already super common Highsec suicide ganks on freighters are exceedingly rare.
Can't remember when I laughed as hard the last time.
|
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
22045
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:37:00 -
[1406] - Quote
5GÇô15 kills per day, many of which aren't even suicide ganks since they happen outside of highsec? Yeah, that's laughably rare. 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. |
Mag's
the united
17277
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:39:00 -
[1407] - Quote
This link is meant to prove what exactly?
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Rivr Luzade
Coreli Corporation Ineluctable.
522
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:46:00 -
[1408] - Quote
Mag's wrote:This link is meant to prove what exactly?
That freighter ganks in High sec are not "exceedingly rare". |
Mag's
the united
17277
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:49:00 -
[1409] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Mag's wrote:This link is meant to prove what exactly? That freighter ganks in High sec are not " exceedingly rare". Oh. So as it didn't, why post it?
Destination SkillQueue:- It's like assuming the lions will ignore you in the savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless. |
Valterra Craven
245
|
Posted - 2014.05.19 21:50:00 -
[1410] - Quote
Tippia wrote: .See how they don't include the strawman bit you added?
You mean how they exactly include evasion and confusion and state that hull tanking is viable because its viable on just one ship?
Tippia wrote:Mu./quote] Figures you can't answer a simple question. Tippia wrote:Since you offer no reasons why, yes. You mean I didn't offer reasons that you agreed with. The balancing convention to date is that mods that modify attributes that modify your HP in any way have fitting requirements. This is true for plates and this is true for extenders and it should be true for bulkheads. Balancing bulkheads just so they could fit your one off idea is bad because as stated the hole field of hull tanking should be balanced for all ships to make them viable(and this is something that's been asked for ad nausem just as much as rigs for freighters has) [quote=Tippia] I'll ask again. Last chance this time GÇö any further evasions or general failure to respond will be interpreted as you trolling; as their not being imbalanced; and as their being no appreciable effect on balance from giving them zero fitting requirements as far as you can tell. Here goes: how is it bad balancing to balance around the ships that use a given module? And how are bulkheads imbalanced? How would making them take up no fitting space make them more imbalanced?
Right, I'm the one evading when you provide nonsensical answers like this: "Mu". As to your opinion on what my posts are or not is irrelevant.
Its not bad to balance around ships that use a given module. Its bad to balance around ships that use a given module when the module should be just as viable on other ships in the game. Because they are tanking mods and tanking mods require fitting tradeoffs. You shouldn't get something for nothing.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 .. 94 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |