| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Joshua Cy
   |
Posted - 2009.05.01 20:46:00 -
[811]
What I see as needing balance in EVE
1)The first thing that needs balance isà. Balance. Do you remember the anti-speed buff? No? How about the anti-missile buff? No, what you remember is the speed Nerf and the missile Nerf. When ôbalancingö is done, its done by means of nerfs more often than by buffs. Balance is out of balance.
Issue: When re-balancing is done, do an equal amount of nerfs and buffs.
2)Coding effort is un-balanced. The entire time I have played this game, I have gotten crashes, lockups, disconnects, and weird graphics artifacts. Also there are things in the game most everyone sees as ôbrokenö like bounties, defender missiles, or the ôpay to griefö war dec system. Each update I hope that this time things will be fixed. No, just more features added. IÆve heard that CCP does not even have plans to fix some things. Instead we get new ships and systems, while basic components of the game lie rotting.
Issue: Coding effort should be balanced between new features and fixing problems.
3)The biggest un-balance in the game stems from a fundamental lack of understanding between two groups: Those who like PvP, and those who do not. First, an attempt to increase that understanding. You may ask, ôWhy do some not like PvP?ö I can only speak for myself and report on what I learn from others. The reason I do not like PvP is I do not get ôThe Rushö. That burst of adrenalin that comes from PvP to some feels good, maybe very good, and is worth risking their entire wallet to get. They get the rush. For me that burst leaves me feeling ill for the rest of the day EVEN WHEN I WIN. I do not play games to feel ill. Based on talks to other players, it seems that getting the rush and liking PvP are strongly related. Why do some get or not get the rush? I researched this, and according to Dr. Drew Pinsky itÆs genetic. We are born that way. Please do not hate someone for the way they are born.
At present the game seems to be built around forcing these two groups together. But due to a fundamental genetic difference, they will not get together. Instead the two groups need to respect each other. I think the game should be structured to give each group more of what it wants without forcing them together.
Issue: The game has too much content that tries to force PvPers and nonPvPers together; more content geared to the likes of each group is needed.
|
Tres Farmer
Gallente Federation Intelligence Service
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 02:19:00 -
[812]
1) undocking in a system is unbalanced compared to jumping into a system
explanation see here: http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1062924
2) T2 Ammo
enough posted about this
3) High Sec Kill Mission Loot
The NPC should drop named T1 BPC if at all and no more T1 Modules, this will remove pressure on medium minerals and give starting producers a chance in the field of T1 items.. keep isk-payment and bounty as is to prevent deflation.
PS: I hope this thread is already is checked by you Nozh *crosses fingers*
Forge '07 on Sale
|
Hawk Firestorm
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 06:28:00 -
[813]
1. The economy, NPC corps should play a active role in regulating the market, both selling and buying goods to remove them from game, and more importantly for you off the database, and to sell goods on Volume that stops the playerbase from manipulating the market causing hyper inflation without loosing their shirts trying to do so.
Players operating between these 'safety valves'.
2. Pricing and Manufacture of T2+ items especially ships that utterly preclude their use due to the insane risk involved because of pricing that makes them entirely redundant beign in game in the first place for anything more than missioning or being hanger orniments, rather than the user having access to content appropriate for where they are in eve.
3. BLOB warfare, Super corps/Alliances that have pushed the weak design elements of eve past the brink and degraded the gamplay especially fleet warfare, one reason being while the population of eve has increased over 10 fold the universe hasn't, a MASSIVE expansion of eve colonisable space to encourage smaller corps and alliances and therefore gang sizes back to a sensible level.
Perhaps even opening up new galaxies to explore and communities to empire build in, and take advantage of some human traits like being somewhat lazy and not wanting to travel over huge distances to fight which also helps mitigate gang/territory size.
Huge fleet battles are a great idea unfortunately CCP hasn't improved the core design elements of eve to suit the high population to allow it and still keep the quality of the gameplay, you've just thrown hardware and content at it rather than improving the core design elements.
|
Kyang Tia
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 08:06:00 -
[814]
1) Boost Minmatar and Gallente recons (give Rapier a web strengh bonus and increase the damp bonus on Arazu/Lachesis)
2) Give short range weapon systems (esp. blasters, but also autocannons) slightly more tracking and optimal.
3) Boost Nosferau in some way. They are quite useless in PvP.
|
Tomin Highborn
Minmatar
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 08:17:00 -
[815]
the top 3 things that bug me the most about this game are:
1. not being able to repier stuff in the corp hanger. at least people with director rolls should be able to do this.
2. not being able to make a contract becuse of damaged items exspesaily laser crystals. it would not be hard to have a built in fee added to repiar you items. that leads me in to the next one.
3. not having a repiar in all station, you should be able to turn your armor rep on in station or some thing.
that all that really bugs me but since this does not seem to bug any one else i guess they will not be first on the list to get fixed.
tomin
|
Astria Tiphareth
Caldari
24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 11:37:00 -
[816]
 Originally by: Abrazzar
1.) Mining mineral output vs module reprocessing output. Mining should be the major source of minerals by a significant proportion. It should be some 75% not the less than 60% it is now.
2.) Faction item balancing. This includes faction ships and modules. Either make some of them cheaper or more effective. For example most modules in the Gallente LP store. The cost of faction ships compared to their abilities and pirate faction ships' stats. Everything concerning LP stores and faction items could use some time investigating.
3.) Tier 1 Battlecruisers. They need a more distinctive role from the tier 2 BCs. Especially the Prophecy and Cyclone. Tank and gank are not different roles by themselves, they are just different ends of the same stick.
Could add more but you asked for three only.
I, like Abrazzar, could add way more than 3. These however will do as my top three.
___
My views may not represent those of my corporation, which is why I never get invited to those diplomatic parties...
Environmental Effects
|
Alxea
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 11:59:00 -
[817]
Lowsec Nullsec should have a delayed local. In high sec local is fine as it is, and should stay so for wartargets and new players. But in 0.4 and below it should be all men for themselfs. If you jumped into criminal space would you be having your radio blasting so everybody can find you, or would you be in silent mode?
Nobody should know your there right off the bat. This would make hunting more intresting. And not a automatic lets let the blobs of pirates come to kill me message. Blobs win. Solo people are left out? It was a good idea to do this for W-Space but K-Space needs it, atleast in 0.4 and below.
PS: Armor needs a boost, to balance it with passive shields, we need a passive armor solution that works in a similar way. Buffer tanks need to beable to be regeneratable on their own with nanobots, like shields have regeneration at the expense of cap.
The same consept could be applied to armor, and instead of regeneration ENM's giving a bonus to armor HP they could actoualy do that they say and regenerate armor hp, just chance the bonuses around and allow them to be put in mid slots and low slots. This would balance things out quite well if the bonuses are equal to SPR's at the highest.
Also nanobot injectors would be nice. To have reserve boost in armor regeneration with some kind of tanks like this. To also combat the 0 cap issue armor tanks have. Shields are lightyears ahead of armor when it comes to self repair. Armor should beable to repair itself with no cap because nanobots do all the repairing. Armor plates need powergrid and cpu? Its metal plates! It should have 0 powergrid and cpu. Only mass and speed of a ship should be used.
It makes no sense armor plates require powergrid or cpu at all. What are you doing pumping energy into your armor? Battleships of the navy today don't use CPU or powergrid on 2ft thick of steel on their boats they only use bigger engines to prepel the weight in water. But this is space, weight doesn't exist in vacuum , only mass, friction between atoms at high speeds, and such. It would only effect a ships agility and acceleration speed.
If a 1600mm plate was put on a frigate, it should be pretty slow to accelerate and turn because of the denser mass. More HP could also be a fast anser to balancing shield tanked frigates. I can get a jagur to 5000 shield and a 200 DPS tank with high resistances.
Whats wrong with this picture, armor can't have a 200 DPS tank and 5000 hp on armor. Maybe a 50 DPS tank. But that uses cap and a jagur doesn't and can regen very quick. It effectivly has the tank of a battle cruiser with its very small sig radius. But that'd be fine if armor could do the same. Would be nice to have armor on the same level as shields.
This has been a issue for years. This is why I have trained a lot through shields after I have been with armor for a year. I don't even need half the shield skills to out class armor. This should be looked at. Somethings wrong when I can get a 800 DPS tank with half sheild skills on a HAC and only 700 DPS tank on a HAC with armor nearly maxed.
|
The Alchemist
Enterprise Estonia
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 12:42:00 -
[818]
1. Blasters need Buff
2. Webs are over nerfed
3. Large Artyes are Bad ...
|
Herschel Yamamoto
Bloodmoney Incorporated
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 16:12:00 -
[819]
1) Lowsec. There's not many reasons to be in lowsec. There's very little there that makes you more money than being in highsec, you have to deal with pirates, and if you try to live there and defend yourself you quickly lose access to highsec.
2) The Naglfar, and to a lesser extent the Phoenix, suck utterly. Crappy damage, the citadel explosion velocity issue, the problem of split weapons and missile lag, and the fact that they have no real field where they're better than the Revelation and Moros. Not the only ship balance issue, but the most glaring.
3) T2 ammo. Spike/Tremor/Aurora is just fine, Scorch/Barrage(but not Null) and Javelin missiles are useful, but Void/Conflag/Hail and Javelin/Gleam/Quake are utter crap. Faction ammo has the "Same, but more damage" role covered, give T2 ammo a more specific role - range works well(at least, when you're not trying to give a token range boost to blasters), and so would things like tracking.
Those aren't the three biggest issues with the game(that'd be the UI, sovereignty, and lowsec), but they are the three biggest I can think of that could probably be fixed with simple number tweaks.
|
Hanns
Amarr Secret Service
|
Posted - 2009.05.02 23:41:00 -
[820]
1) Rockets
2) Rockets
3) Did i mention rockets?
Cmon CCP rockets suck a fat one, there supposed to be high damage alternate to standard missiles but are bearly any better!
Originally by: Tuxford
a new retribution bonus +1 med slot per level
|
|
|
aevistyne
Caldari
Solarflare Heavy Industries
Doctrine.
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 07:09:00 -
[821]
1. Tempest - outside of a fleet sniping role there is no reason to use this ship really
2. Artillery in general, especially large/Xlarge
3. Minmatar caps: Nidhoggur is fine for the most part, though it needs more cap/faster recharge.
Naglfar however has both pathetic dps and a terrible tank, see the thread in the assembly hall for all the numbers. It either needs more directed weapons bonuses, since the fact that it has weapon slots is countered by the split weapons bonus, and fix the slot layout so that its either an armor tank or a shield tank, not really bad at both. If shield tank, fix the cpu so that co processors arent needed for a full tank fit.
-------
EvE +NLINE - T+TALHELLDEATH SUPPORTER |
Arthur Frayn
V.O.F.L IRON CORE
H E L I C O N
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 09:46:00 -
[822]
Edited by: Arthur Frayn on 03/05/2009 09:50:39
1. Rigs need to come in frigate and cruiser sized variations using proportionally fewer components to build, as was hinted at in the past. T1 rigs are almost too expensive to be worth using on battlecruisers as it stands now.
2. Artillery needs 50% higher optimal range, increased volley and decreased ROF.
3. Scorpion hull needs a left wing. It looks completely unbalanced without one.
--
Eventus stultorum magister. |
Ahura Dracul
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 12:18:00 -
[823]
1: Many smaller amarr laser ships. Omen, Maller, Retribution, Coercer...
2: Wardec costs are too low
3: local at lowsec/0.0 needs delay, change it into constellation chat or remove it
|
KissedByDeath
|
Posted - 2009.05.03 22:35:00 -
[824]
1) improve other ewar drones. Basically remove stacking penalties. and re/introduce medium webbing drones
2) improve caldari ships in general (they have weakest sensor strength, are the slowest except crow of course).
3) fix Blackbird, Scorp, Kitsune - After the SDA changes they have lower jamming strength and didn't get compensated as the falcon & rook did. And ffs give falcon 25m3 drone space 10 is just a joke
|
Merroki
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 08:16:00 -
[825]
Edited by: Merroki on 04/05/2009 08:16:33
1. Fix Shield Buffer Tanking (not referring to passive regen tanks). Where are the XL shield extenders (+4k shield hitpoints?), the supposed equivalent to 1600mm armor plates (+4k armor hitpoints)? At the moment, PVP favors buffer tanks, as it is both resistant to cap warfare and less disadvantaged in fights bigger than 1v1 (high incoming DPS), even if disregarding the choice between mid/low slot usage. Since shields have no 1600mm plate equivalent, armor tanking is automatically favored in fleets. I would like to see shield and armor tanking be equally viable in fleets. If the lack of XL is due to concern for passive regen, then how about an XL Extender with a shield regen penalty? I don't really see the big deal with passive regen tanked battleships if there are passive regen tanked battlecruisers. Besides, you'd have to be using up all your mid/low slots if you want to regen tank, slots that could potentially have web/scram/mwd/ab/damagemods/etc.
2. Explosion Radius Bonus for Stealth Bombers would really help to restore it's viability and fun factor in PVE. This will not impact their battleship killing capability, but as it stands, it's really only any good for killing battleships, and maybe battlecruisers. The new incarnation of bombers is useless in pvp outside of the gang/fleet scenario, as 1 vs Any = lose. That basically rules it out for being someone's primary ship, as it was mine pre-Apoc-1.1. Surely, we don't want people to start using bomber alts (to log in for that one specific scenario that calls for it)?
I've personally flown a bomber as my primary ship for the better part of a year, for ratting and general missioning (because it is a ton of fun, not because I can do it faster than if I used a golem), and occasional PVP. While being able to take down battleships better is cool, and warping in cloaked has strategical fleet use, Being mostly ineffective in most situations (vs frigates, cruisers) in empire space, is rather boring, and absolutely crippling for ratting and missions (Good luck killing that tackling elite frigate at 2-5 DPS in your mission.. ZZzzzzzz). Bigger ships get around this because they have drone bays. Bombers used to get around this with the explosion radius bonus, and Guided Missile Precision or Rigs(which do not work on torps, making it worse). I recognize a lot of people are in 0.0 where caps and battleships rule the day, but not everyone is. All ships should be generally serviceable imo, but with different strengths. Most ships are. Bombers aren't, as of Apocrypha 1.1. Add an explosion radius bonus, not necessarily -16.66%, please.
3. Stealth bombers badly need more cargo hold, now that their cruise launchers have been swapped for torps, and torps take up twice the space. This is less of an issue if you fleet blob bombers and occasionally gank, and don't really use up that many torps, but as noted above, not everyone is interested in camping a gate 23/7, waiting for a lone battleship to wander on through, or what have you.
Originally by: Alxea
If a 1600mm plate was put on a frigate, it should be pretty slow to accelerate and turn because of the denser mass. More HP could also be a fast anser to balancing shield tanked frigates. I can get a jagur to 5000 shield and a 200 DPS tank with high resistances.
I think if a 1600mm plate were put on a frigate, the frigate should have a top speed of about 10m/s :P If anything, compare plate mass with thrust, even when AB/MWD is off.
Originally by: Alxea
I don't even need half the shield skills to out class armor. This should be looked at. Somethings wrong when I can get a 800 DPS tank with half sheild skills on a HAC and only 700 DPS tank on a HAC with armor nearly maxed.
If you mean 800 DPS passive tanked, don't forget to take into account that 800 DPS only happens at roughly 1/3 shield, and you probably just got a massive sig radius penalty that will probably more than negate the puny 100 DPS difference.
|
Trimutius III
Legio Octae
Rebellion Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 09:14:00 -
[826]
Originally by: Tres Farmer
Edited by: Tres Farmer on 02/05/2009 02:35:43
.
1) undocking in a system is unbalanced compared to jumping into a system
explanation see here: Why is undocking more dangerous than jumping...?
If I would - up on undocking - end in the same situation I end up jumping into a system I wouldn't complain. But when I apply current undocking-mechanics to jumping into another system, I get this:
- you always appear in the same spot at the gate
- you decloak instantaneous
- you wouldn't be allowed to jump back for ~20 secs
Who in his right mind would still travel around in low/null under such conditions? This mechanic simply would destroy most of travel down there..
I Should disagree. When u undocking if u are doing nothing u are invulnerable for 30 seconds and after that u can easily dock back if docking range is big enough. THe only thing some smaller stations should have bigger dock range.
-------------------------------------------------
I am envoy from nowhere in nowhere. Nobody and nothing have sent me. And though it is impossible I exist ¬ Trimutius |
Tibi
Zoners
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 10:24:00 -
[827]
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Originally by: Xelios
So I think we've got enough top 3's now, time for discussion threads?
Aye.
By the end of the day
Where?
* |
Vall Kor
Minmatar
ZipZoom Kaboom
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 18:31:00 -
[828]
Edited by: Vall Kor on 04/05/2009 18:32:01
1. Auto cannons/Arties. and T2 Ammo - Needs some love
2. Re-think the missile nerf
3. Look at SOV mechanics.... POS busting/spamming is not fun in anyway.
|
Onerous One
|
Posted - 2009.05.04 21:24:00 -
[829]
1) The Falcon lost its launcher hardpoints and received a hybrid turret bonus because Ishukone doesn't build missile ships. The Buzzard is made by Ishukone and has missile bonuses and more launcher hardpoints than turret. This is not consistent with Ishukone ship design.
2) Harpy, Vulture and Eagle are all Ishukone ships each with two hybrid turret optimal range bonuses. Falcon has no ECM or hybrid turret optimal range bonuses. The Falcon is the only Ishukone ship without optimal range bonuses. This is not consistent with Ishukone ship design.
3) Falcon has a 120-150km targeting range but neither its ECM or hybrid turrets can reach even half that distance. From the Falcon description:
Quote:
Most of the recent designs off their assembly line have provided for a combination that the Ishukone name is becoming known for: great long-range capabilities and shield systems unmatched anywhere else.
The Falcon has no range or shield bonuses. It has great long-range targeting but no bonuses to utilize that range. This is NOT consistent with Ishukone ship design. |
Random Womble
Minmatar
Emo Rangers
Electric Monkey Overlords
|
Posted - 2009.05.05 02:07:00 -
[830]
Edited by: Random Womble on 05/05/2009 02:09:01
1. Copied from above: Boost Minmatar and Gallente recons (give Rapier/huginn a web strengh bonus and increase the damp bonus on Arazu/Lachesis) + pilgrim needs to be boosted
2. Faction Guns vs T2
3. Faction Ships (PG/CPU slots, bonuses the works)
|
|
|
The WitchDoctor
Caldari
|
Posted - 2009.05.05 17:48:00 -
[831]
1. Interdictors
Signature radius is to big.
Heretic and Flycatcher could use 1 extra missile slot.
Eris needs a compleet revamp(hybrid turret interdictor would be nice)
2. Rockets
They suck, enough said.
3. 'Combat'-commandships
They are very expensive however are outperformed by a tier 1 bs that will cost less. They have their plusses however they do not make up for the huge cost.
|
omgdutch2005
Gallente
Advanced Planetary Exports
Intergalactic Exports Group
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 17:16:00 -
[832]
1. Buff medium and large blasters (or dedicated blaster ships)
CCP balancers seem to have overlooked 90% webifiers were originally designed to enable blaster ships to track targets at their abysmal short range. Agreed, the webifier nerf was needed to make smaller ships usable and is welcomed by most people, myself included, but blasters (tracking/dps) were never re-balanced to compensate. Blasterships were not classed as overpowered before the web nerf, blasters are supposed to be the most feared short range weapons ingame, please fix them.
2. T2 Ammo
Re-balance T2 ammo to make it an alternative to faction ammo, and remove the rediculous stacking penalties especially the short range varieties.
3. Large Projectiles (Mainly artillery)
Increase artillery alpha.
|
Rahjadan Shardur
Minmatar
Rionnag Alba
Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 17:22:00 -
[833]
1. Many T1 Ships form Frigats to tier1 BC are out of ballance or useless. Remove the tier system and Buff the majority of T1 ships to be in the same leage as the working ones (Rifter or Punisher for Frigs, or Thorax for Cruisers).
2. Rockets has been mentioned, has it?
3. Reballance T1 ships, this will help alot of the newer players and seems to be consistent with the path EVE takes right now. All Frigs should be flyable with *race*Frig to level 1 and additional level sould only bring more bonusses, same for cruisers. Revise the bonuses: For example the Rapture is the only ship of its class with only 4 turrets where all the other ones have 5 (Thorax, Maller, Moa). Noone complains because the ship works, but it's still out of ballance. A ship with a dubble dmg bonus should do the most damage, however the most damage should also be done by the balster boats. so give the Rupture another gunport and more grid but remove the Damage bonus. The damage stays the same (at level 5, will be a bit more at the lower levels) but the ship can now have a bonus that realy helps as a gunship and sets it apart, like tracking, falloff or range. This is an example and should be done with alot of ships i just mentioned it because it's not that aparent for seemingly working ships.
------------------
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
(Douglas Adams) |
Sanguinem
Amarr
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 17:32:00 -
[834]
1. Please add more Nullsec Systems. This game gets smaller every day with all the people that are now playing. Sorry, you made a popular game. Time to expand the universe 
2. 4th bonus on Assault Frigate. And while you're putting on bonuses, make it a 5% bonus to missile damage on the Hawk, perhaps? 
3. Rocket/Missile Damage Buff.
-------------------------------------------------------
Dude, your chin...
My favorite quote ever, and if you know which thread this came from, you know what I'm talking about! |
Reptzo
Channel 4 News Team
|
Posted - 2009.05.06 20:26:00 -
[835]
Originally by: Tibi
Originally by: CCP Nozh
Originally by: Xelios
So I think we've got enough top 3's now, time for discussion threads?
Aye.
By the end of the day
Where?
Yes, where are these discussion threads? So much for "end of the day".
|
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
|
Posted - 2009.05.07 00:09:00 -
[836]
Edited by: Liang Nuren on 07/05/2009 00:10:49
Originally by: Reptzo
Yes, where are these discussion threads? So much for "end of the day".
Threads:
- ECM Drones
- Naglfar
- Citadel Torps (Nag thread)
- 0.0 Mechanics (Nag thread, somewhat. New thread forthcoming... someday)
I dunno, I don't see them flinching from the issues so much as simply going really slow about it. It's still alot faster/better changes than we've seen in a *lloooonnngg* time.
-Liang
--
Liang Nuren - Eve Forum ***** Extraordinaire
www.kwikdeath.org |
Janeth Veris
|
Posted - 2009.05.07 08:00:00 -
[837]
1) Low-sec
The additional BS spawns was a good start but I think it needs a little more work.
Maybe a slight increase in faction loot available or something?
2) Projectiles
Maybe a small increase in damage multiplier.
tech2 ammo could use some reworking.
But most importantly the way falloff works should be reworked.
3) lvl 4 missions and pve
I agree mostly that lvl 4 mission rewards is overpowering in relationship to almost everything else in hi-sec.
One of my first suggestions would be to remove tech1 loot drops, and decrease named loot drops in general in missions.
Loot drops from lvl 4 missions should not be able to compete with miners in terms of minerals!
In general the ideas to make pve slightly more like pvp is something that sounds positive!
4) Minmatar BS's
5) 0.0
I heard rumours about reworking 0.0 soverienty, I think alot of people wil be happy.
6) balance EWAR
ok so ECM is good and everybody loves it. (is almost completely overpowering against smaller ships)
dampeners are weaker but somewhat usefull.
tracking disruptors are good enough.
Target painting can use a buff as currently most minmatar ships with TP bonusses are a waste of time in most situations.
99% of the time TPs are largely enferior to Webs.. so maybe nerf webs. That wil also make AB's worth more.
One thing that could help balance EWAR is to maybe change how it stacks.
ECM - make cycles shorter so that jamming is more intermittent - this wil probably balance it enough.
|
Murbella Venturi
|
Posted - 2009.05.08 00:53:00 -
[838]
Rockets blow chunks.
|
Esbear
Minmatar
Exotic dancer training club
|
Posted - 2009.05.08 09:28:00 -
[839]
1. Projectile artillery, no need to clarify. Enough has been said about the subject.
2. T2 ammo. Some need work, the high damage short range ones. The others are fine as they are.
3. POS moon income and T2 building materials. As it is now there is no real viable way for small alliances or even corporations to either take or let alone keep a high end moon. Any major alliance might just come and remove it from your hands. There is little you can viably do to take it. This makes it hard, maybe too hard to try and take them by force. Major alliances therefore have a "free" high income with very little work. This is the imbalance I would like to address. But considering fixed moon output and increasing demand due to a growing player base I also fear T2 prices might be in for increased inflation. At the moment I do not yet see T3 production being able to replace that. Player income, especially for newer players I do not see rising with it.
One solution might be to regularly change moon minerals on every moon as new deposits are found and old ones are depleted. This could be combined with an increase in output in order to "fix" prices on a decent level. It would also be virtually impossible then for any (group of) alliances to fix the T2 materials market prices. A change like this will make it viable for small corp and alliances to search for high end moons and to set up their own production. To promote use of low sec I would level the chance of all materials, including high end, to spawn equal in null and low sec. One danger that needs to be addressed then is pos spamming of entire constellations in order to "claim" moons. Destruction of unfueled and offlined pos looks like a nice solution as they crash into the moon due to a lack of fuel for maneuvering.
|
Guru Saurfang
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2009.05.08 09:30:00 -
[840]
Edited by: Guru Saurfang on 08/05/2009 09:33:21
1.Give some love for the Artillery . Better Alpha? Can you count the scenarios that the arty alpha matter now?
2.T2 ammo
3.Give value to low sec.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |