|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
HankMurphy
Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 23:28:00 -
[1]
Edited by: HankMurphy on 30/07/2008 23:34:38 (edit: snypah)
Look, keep the ship speed changes. Keep the polycarb nerfs. You can even keep the implant changes. Forget about the web/scram changes for a later day.
Its simply stupid to rework the entire combat scene for this. Its premature and drastic. There is no reason for it.
WHY WOULDN"T YOU DO THIS SLOWLY, ONE ELEMENT AT A TIME AND WATCH IT UNFOLD ON TRANQUILITY??
god knows if you go ahead with it, even if you KNOW it's the worst thing you've ever done you wont yank the changes. that would mean admitting you were wrong.
So dont do all of this at once. Make the obvious changes (balance rigs vs mods, fix the ship base speeds) and and think about reworking the way pvp has been done since day 1 LATER
4 years i've played this game. This has to be the most ridiculously drastic thing i've ever heard of out of this company (and i'm speaking specifically about the web and scram changes IN CONJUNCTION WITH the other changes)
Just because you have the nerf bat doesn't mean you need to swing as hard as you can. I can't help but think you haven't really considered the full repercussions of this to the various ships and classes out there.
There will be no 'adding low slot here, mid slot here' to tweak the ships around the changes and in the long run i think you will unbalance more than you balance.
Sisi is no real test and we all know it. Tranq is the real test. Dont unfold all this at once. Make subtle changes and see how it goes.
analogy perhaps?
Pretend your an archaeologist. Now put down the shovel and sledgehammer and pick up the brush before you ruin this game! ------------------------------ of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most |
HankMurphy
Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 23:40:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 30/07/2008 23:30:50
Originally by: HankMurphy
4 years i've played this game. This has to be the most ridiculous thing i've ever heard of (and i'm speaking specifically about the web and scram changes)
Specifically, the web and scram changes are the best change I've seen in EvE since I started playing.
It only fixes a ton of things which are broken and we just got used to it.
hey, your as entitled to your opinion as i am to mine.
if it was alone, sure. i would go for it. but all together at once it just seems way too drastic. i think the rig fix and ship speed rebalance alone would be sufficient. at least see the effect before we go changing the way everything is done.
bad things happen when ppl try to to too much at once. there are just so many ships and elements that aren't being considered
(i have to assume this because we have received very poor feed back as how they think this will break down to individual ships and weapon systems)
i think speed nerf is needed. but after seeing this in action, it just gives me a really bad feeling ------------------------------ of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most |
HankMurphy
Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 00:06:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
The logical step would be to nerf polycarbs, implants and boosters, and if that isnt enough even gangboosters. But the SiSi implementation is just a senseless nuking of everything related to speed.
ding ding ding, we have a winner
I have to say the shear size and scope of the changes is evidence to how clueless the author of the changes is. ------------------------------ of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most |
HankMurphy
Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 08:22:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Rika Arkenana Do you not get that if they dont change webs AF's remain useless
yes, because god knows the current proposed changes is the ONLY POSSIBLE WAY ANYTHING COULD EVER BE CHANGED
here is something to start you off. it was discussed in the past ... how about a ship bonus decreasing web effect and increasing ab speed?
off the top of my head. i'm sure if i was getting paid by CCP to come up with answers, i could list a dozen ------------------------------ of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most |
HankMurphy
Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 08:26:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Andnowthenews stuff
sounds like fun. so we will fix AF by destroying hacs AND we will 'recreate the blob' just a handful of months after the 'break up the blob' project.
I have to ask, is the mastermind behind all these changes a bowl of applesauce? ------------------------------ of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most |
HankMurphy
Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 21:25:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Orange Faeces
Originally by: Aenis Veros
Heavy Assault Cruisers - Combined Assault Cruiser and Interceptor, since there is no cruiser-class variety of the Interceptor
No. What part of the word "Heavy" means "Fast" to you?
OF
it couldn't possibly mean 'heavy offensive ability' as opposed to 'heavy mass'
------------------------------ of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most |
HankMurphy
Minmatar Pelennor Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.08.01 00:07:00 -
[7]
Edited by: HankMurphy on 01/08/2008 00:07:29
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: RuriHoshino Nano ships themselves were not the problem. The nano style of play became popular because it was the only option left to a large group of players who wanted to be involved in 0.0 but did not have the resources to simply match a large alliance's numbers.
Wrong! This is just the excuse given by the pro-nano groups because it is better PR than the real reason.
The real reason is much more mundane.... Nano-ships are overpowered so they don't die much....
I know you all want to portray yourself as underdogs, but the reality is that you exploited a hole in game mechanics to get that "We Rulez!" feeling.
It is entirely feasible to roam in non-nano ships, even in hostile territory, unless of.c. you encounter a nano-gang in which case you're toast. You'll of.c. loose ships once in a while if your opponent knows what he is doing, but that's how the game should work, no matter how abhorrent the thought of loosing a ship is to the nano-people....
and i repeat:
people that constantly polarize the argument to two sides are the very people making this such a **** up.
If you would focus on discussion of balance to speed without trying to make the arguement it shouldn't even be an element of the game, you wouldn't look like such an idiot.
"the nano-people"
"The real reason is much more mundane.... Nano-ships are overpowered so they don't die much...." punctuation aside is that even a sentence OR logical statement?
in fact, i'm going to have to go with option C here. your trolling. if you weren't you wouldn't brush off the entirety of Ruri's well thought out post to 2 sentences and reply with "it's PR!!!! from the nano lobby!!!" ------------------------------ of all the things I've lost, I miss my mind the most |
|
|
|