EVE Search - Top 3 balancing issues for ccp nozh

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Top 3 balancing issues for ccp nozh

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Cracken Gallente	Posted - 2009.04.18 08:37:00 - [31] Probing yes I will say it it's just too damned easy too do now. The reason so few mission runners leave high sec now is it is now far too easy too hunt down mission runners in low sec when they try too do a mission there I mean come on all you have too do is fit a nos and the rats do the work for you nos and scrambler and you've won. Let me say this once and we'll see if it sinks in a pVe setup absolutely fails at pvp.
RedeyeAce Caldari Inspired Evolution	Posted - 2009.04.18 09:52:00 - [32] Originally by: Sera Ryskin Originally by: RedeyeAce I was having another think about mods that arent used i.e. defenders... and what about Warp Core stabs... They got nerfed to hell and back and quite rightly so, however would it bring a bit more flavour to pvp again if they were un nerfed slightly? or perhaps have the current drawbacks, but more benefits i.e. t2 has +3wcs and some ability to get out of a HIC bubble? No. Absolutely not. In fact, WCS need to be nerfed again, something like a 50% damage penalty for each WCS fitted, to completely remove them from combat ships. WCS are fine on non-combat haulers and stuff, but the current "penalty" still leaves combat ships (especially ratting/mission ships) able to function far too effectively. Heya Merin, I disagree, we dont want invincible haulers and BR's, in fact perhaps anothe rpenalty should be chance to screw with cloak. The point of this is to make pvp more interesting. When was the last time u saw WCS's slightly regular, I havent seen / heard folk fit them for bloody ages now.. and yes i agree they shouldnt be an omg yay i got away module like they were, I think something should be done with them. Maybe add another 2 skills, like 1 for chance for strength i.e. chance to get to a +3 would be fairly high if you took it to l5 (i.e. Warp core tuning Rank 4)... another for chance for successfull use (warp timing override rank 6) (L5 would be 65% chance at a guess) Theyre never used in fleet, Could bring a bit more fun to gatecamps, where you'd get inties sittin geared up for high warp speed to chase any net slipping target down and locking them down . Small - medium combat could be more fun with this as well. I understand where your coming from however, There are a couple of modules that just arent used and It's a case where we dont go down the road of how they were in the past, however enhancing gameplay more. It it damned annoying for a target to slip through your fingers, but the adrenaline kicks in and you want to chase them down, its the same for the oponnent, hitting the oh**** button and praying they get away. It would also make the kills you do get much sweeter and satisfying rather a lot of the monotonous routies we have atm...
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance	Posted - 2009.04.18 10:13:00 - [33] Originally by: Hixxy how the hell do you get time to study? :) if they didnt grab you yet they should. lol. I would love to work for CCP, as anyone here would likely want to. Assault Frigate new bonuses: Vengence - either 10% bonus to HP per level, or 5% bonus to Rocket rate of fire per level Retribution - 5% bonus to small energy turret rate of fire Hawk - 5% bonus to small missile rate of fire per level Harpy - 5% bonus to shield resistances per level Ishkur - Being a light drone boat, and already a huge damage dealer, its hard to give a bonus to this. Perhaps a 7.5% armour rep bonus. I would prefer to get rid of the optimal range bonus for a rate of fire bonus. Enyo - Remove Optimal bonus for 5% bonus to small hybrid turret damage per level. Add 5% bonus to small hybrid turret rate of fire per level. Perhaps remove the tiny/pointless dronebay. Jaguar - 7.5% bonus to shield booster effectiveness per level Wolf - 5% bonus to projectile rate of fire per level
Lady Aja Caldari Demented Unity	Posted - 2009.04.18 10:20:00 - [34] Originally by: Qlanth Edited by: Qlanth on 18/04/2009 04:13:28 Originally by: Lady Aja Originally by: Isabelle Sparks Originally by: Delnas Sapphire Like trading or manufacturing right Oh wait..... Theres plenty of ways to make money with 0 risk in this game and level 4 missions are probably the most inneficient way of doing it. Exactly. Leave the mission runners alone, they are already working to hard for their isk. If anything missioning in low sec should be substantially buffed. TBH, I cannot think of too many things more dangerous actually. I mean ratting in your alliances 0.0 sovereign space is pretty freaking safe compared to missioning in low sec. Speaking as a ex mission runner my self... you are right to a point. but if youre alliance is in low sec and lives in and around a agent hub in low sec/0.0 its pretty dam safe if you use intel channels. Which relies solely on other people reporting hostiles in an intel channel. You will be extremely lucky to make half as much ISK an hour living in lowsec, and will probably make just as much ISK ratting in 0.0. Meanwhile a level 4 mission runner does not have to read any intel channels at all. He/She is free to sit happily in NPC police protected space lazily running missions. What I am saying here is that to make ISK with ratting, exploring, w-spacing, or even mining (god forbid) you accept a certain risk. To make more money you have to go deeper and deeper into space where people can gradually hunt you out and more easily kill you. With missions you can run Level 1 through 4 agents from the exact same system. You never have to take the risk of being killed except to the hands of the NPC rats. From level 1 to level 4 the amount of reward does not scale with the risk. You could even argue that it stays exactly the same. Either move Level 4s and 5s to deeper space where you will have to accept a higher level of risk to reap your reward (what I am hoping for), or nerf the amount of reward you get from never leaving the safety of empire. Lets take my fave 0.0 mission hub into account where i have killed many a goonie lol.. g-0q86 5xq20 lvl3 agents, 10 q20 lvl 4 agents. in a total of two stations in the same system. you can easily farm in system missions. no worries about gate camps. in 4-5 days one can make 500m in change after paying for a macharial bpc to sell for 800m isk. altho now its dead easy to scan down mission runners due to what i consider probing boosts.. I my self can find most lvl 3 mission runners with ease.
Wang Jing	Posted - 2009.04.18 10:29:00 - [35] Originally by: TimMc Originally by: Hixxy how the hell do you get time to study? :) if they didnt grab you yet they should. lol. I would love to work for CCP, as anyone here would likely want to. Assault Frigate new bonuses: Vengence - either 10% bonus to HP per level, or 5% bonus to Rocket rate of fire per level Retribution - 5% bonus to small energy turret rate of fire Hawk - 5% bonus to small missile rate of fire per level Harpy - 5% bonus to shield resistances per level Ishkur - Being a light drone boat, and already a huge damage dealer, its hard to give a bonus to this. Perhaps a 7.5% armour rep bonus. I would prefer to get rid of the optimal range bonus for a rate of fire bonus. Enyo - Remove Optimal bonus for 5% bonus to small hybrid turret damage per level. Add 5% bonus to small hybrid turret rate of fire per level. Perhaps remove the tiny/pointless dronebay. Jaguar - 7.5% bonus to shield booster effectiveness per level Wolf - 5% bonus to projectile rate of fire per level Good ideas for the most part, but imo the wolf and jag sorely need the 7.5% tracking bonus from the rifter.
Pascal Almaric	Posted - 2009.04.18 13:09:00 - [36] Changes I'd like: - A way to switch implants more often. If I could get out of my 100M empire clone into a 5M PvP clone with a couple of +2s for an hour or two, I could afford to be a lot more adventurous. I'd hazard that this might do as much to encourage "casual PvP" as the entire edifice of faction war. - Do something to make Electronic Attack Ships attractive.
Monticore D'Muertos Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2009.04.18 13:54:00 - [37] 1. boost falcons(remove drone bay, remove dmg bonus, give it ecm range bonus) 2. artillery (improve tracking, more dps slower rof, larger clip) 3.blaster (can be fixed if they fix webs or boost tracking) 4.rapier/huggin(remove target painter bonus for a web str bonus) 5.scrabmler (make it scripted for either point/or removing mwd)
Cohkka Celestial Apocalypse death from above..	Posted - 2009.04.18 15:57:00 - [38] Originally by: Monticore D'Muertos 5.scrabmler (make it scripted for either point/or removing mwd) That's actually a pretty good idea. Would allow for tactical decisions and give us a useful utility module. Don't speak english, just F5, F5, F5...
Qlanth Caldari Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2009.04.18 17:44:00 - [39] Originally by: Frits McDonal hmm, how come it's so risk free to run missions in high sec? Was the concord response time removed? But really, I don't think that any carebear would take their billion+ isk marauder to low sec just for your amusement. There is no risk in running missions in High-Sec because characters can stay in noob corps for as long as they like and never be wardecced. There is no way a single player is going to attack a neutral mission running battleship in high-sec and kill it before concord arrives. If a gang is used to kill a mission running battleship that battleship must be incredibly expensively fit or else there would be no reason to do it. You would lose more ISK than you would gain (again, risk vs. reward) It's funny that you say I want people to move to low sec for my "amusement" because I do not live in low-sec and step foot there maybe once or twice every 6 months. I could care less about scanning out someone running a mission and killing them, but maybe if mission runners had to be afraid of that it would make running those missions more fun. And anyhow, there is no reason to run level 4 missions in a Marauder unless you already have billions and billion of ISK you likely farmed risk free and now want to have an even easier time farming your ISK. The fact that people can, and do, run Level 4 missions in a Marauder just helps prove my point that there is far too little risk involved. You can run any mission in a Dominix for 1/10th of the cost of a marauder without any problems. In any other area of the game where reward/risk is actually a factor players are forced to compensate. For example I could rat in 0.0 in a Marauder and I could certainly make ISK hand over fist, but the risk of using it in 0.0 is far too high compared to the amount of reward I would receive. Instead I can use a regular Battleship, or even better, a well fit Battlecruiser to make sure if I am caught my loss is reasonable compared to the amount of money I make. This is why players who rat in carriers are laughed at and made fun of. It is a stupid decision. However a player who flies a Marauder (which probably costs more than a carrier or at least the same amount) stands no risk of ever losing it, and because of that using a Marauder to run L4s is commonplace. This is the perfect example of why l4 missions are imbalanced. That said if you don't like the idea of moving to low sec then the obvious answer is to lower the amount of ISK you can make to more evenly represent the amount of risk taken. Or even better CCP could increase the amount of money players could make in 0.0 and lowsec to balance the risk/reward ratio in those areas to be better than level 4 missions. Personally, I think it would be far easier and more reasonable to move the missions or lower their reward than to change everything else around them.
Traderboz	Posted - 2009.04.18 17:54:00 - [40] I tend to agree Qlanth, but I think it's at least somewhat balanced in that you can earn more cash in 0.0 or low sec missioning. And along those lines, people still do mission in 0.0/low sec. CVA space is a good example of this, and you'll see marauders and the like used for missioning in low sec out there. The problem is if they nerf high sec missioning, then people would arguably have less disposable income and as such, risk less in PVP (or simply PVP less). However, I don't personally think it'd be that problematic to nerf it, since there are other ways to earn ISKs, and it'd be silly to nerf low sec / 0.0 missioning, since there's considerable risk out there. Overall, I think high sec missioning could use a nerf. It's not the most profitable activity in the game, but it's pretty high considering the negligible amount of risk. IMO put it a bit more inline with high sec mining - still higher income than mining, but not by 3-4x.

Wang Jing	Posted - 2009.04.18 18:07:00 - [41] Originally by: Cohkka Originally by: Monticore D'Muertos 5.scrabmler (make it scripted for either point/or removing mwd) That's actually a pretty good idea. Would allow for tactical decisions and give us a useful utility module. That will nerf frigates/assault frigates into the ground, in fact will be a big blow to solo players. A big step back imo.
Dale Konstantine	Posted - 2009.04.18 18:46:00 - [42] 1. Blasters need some help. A small boost to dps and tracking would make them worth fitting. A bit of adjusting to void ammo wouldnt hurt either. 2. Ewar drones could use a nerf while receiving bonuses from recon, EAS and other ships devoted to drone ewar. 3. All force recons should get a 40 mb/s 80m3 dronebay, with combat recons gaining 50 mb/s and 100m3. All recons should get 10% damage/level with racial weapons. (Except for Pilgrim and Curse, keep them as they are now.)
Monticore D'Muertos Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2009.04.18 19:33:00 - [43] Originally by: Wang Jing Originally by: Cohkka Originally by: Monticore D'Muertos 5.scrabmler (make it scripted for either point/or removing mwd) That's actually a pretty good idea. Would allow for tactical decisions and give us a useful utility module. That will nerf frigates/assault frigates into the ground, in fact will be a big blow to solo players. A big step back imo. yes and no it will nerf frigate who don't fit a mwd and who have low amount of med slots. but ceptors/short range tackling frigs are useless with the way a scrambler works atm. i love my new rifter but i still think you should need 2 slots to fit what a scrambler does with 1. maybe lower the cpu so fitting 2 scrambler is easier maybe. scrambler is so much better than a web for a frig atm that webs are useless. most crows/ranis and im sure others fit disruptor/scrambler instead of a web
Wang Jing	Posted - 2009.04.18 20:22:00 - [44] Edited by: Wang Jing on 18/04/2009 20:22:25 Originally by: Monticore D'Muertos yes and no it will nerf frigate who don't fit a mwd and who have low amount of med slots. but ceptors/short range tackling frigs are useless with the way a scrambler works atm. maybe lower the cpu so fitting 2 scrambler is easier maybe. scrambler is so much better than a web for a frig atm that webs are useless. most crows/ranis and im sure others fit disruptor/scrambler instead of a web How are they useless?? Being able to shut off a mwd is amazingly good for tackling. What you're proposing means afterburners would become useless again. They are only viable for use with a scram. A scram change like that would kill the utility of assault frigates and the ability for people to solo in small ships and stand a chance against something larger.
Monticore D'Muertos Caldari Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire	Posted - 2009.04.18 20:45:00 - [45] Edited by: Monticore D''Muertos on 18/04/2009 20:52:38 i see scram fitted on everything because a web is useless compared to a web. maybe things are different in low sec but in 0.0 you don't see many ab fits. because if you try and solo in 0.0 with an afterburner your gonna get blobbed. 1 scram on a ship and thats it your a sitting duck, but before the ship needed a web and scram to do the same thing. there is a reason the added scrips to damps/tracking disruptors/sensor boosters/tracking comps because they though modules able to do 2 things at once very well was overpowered. i have done over 2 thousand 0.0 jumps solo in a rifter over the last 2 months and even in a rifter nobody will engage me solo (in general) even worse when i am in a ranis. so whether they change the scrambler or not solo is pretty much dead. the scrambler makes guerilla/hit and run/solo work alot harder .
Laodamia	Posted - 2009.04.18 20:54:00 - [46] 1. Boost Missiles 2. Boost Artillery 3. 4th Assault frig bonus
Pater Peccavi Minmatar Tactical Initiative	Posted - 2009.04.18 21:08:00 - [47] The way scrams are now is necessary for solo frigs. Cruiser size and up have plenty of tools to take down frigs besides scrams (Neuts and drones). Solo frigs, however, don't have the room for multiple tackles most of the time. Forcing them to do with 2 midslots what they can currently do with one will kill most solo fits (including all Wolf fits, it won't be any better than a solo Retribution, lol). If you script scrams, you might as well just remove them from the game and add MWD disruptors. Scrams only have a slightly better fitting cost than Disruptors, which is negligible on ships other than...frigs. On a different topic, I would love it if CCP looked at active tanking now. They don't even have to look at it with regards to most ships, the only one I really care about is the Cyclone. I love the idea of an active-tanked Minmatar BC, it's just that there's not much reason to use it over a 'cane. Give our PvP a little more flavor. This is a post. It says stuff.
Wang Jing	Posted - 2009.04.18 21:33:00 - [48] Originally by: Monticore D'Muertos Edited by: Monticore D''Muertos on 18/04/2009 20:52:38 i see scram fitted on everything because a web is useless compared to a web. maybe things are different in low sec but in 0.0 you don't see many ab fits. because if you try and solo in 0.0 with an afterburner your gonna get blobbed. 1 scram on a ship and thats it your a sitting duck, but before the ship needed a web and scram to do the same thing. there is a reason the added scrips to damps/tracking disruptors/sensor boosters/tracking comps because they though modules able to do 2 things at once very well was overpowered. i have done over 2 thousand 0.0 jumps solo in a rifter over the last 2 months and even in a rifter nobody will engage me solo (in general) even worse when i am in a ranis. so whether they change the scrambler or not solo is pretty much dead. the scrambler makes guerilla/hit and run/solo work alot harder . You're obviously in the wrong place. I fly solo in lowsec and get fights all the time, some fair, some not so fair. But come on, seriously, a scram fitted to everything?!? Do you even look in the loadout topics? People rarely fit scrams because firstly a lot of fits are designed for working outside of 9km and secondly the trade-off in range is severe, leading you to miss a lot of kills. They do work very well on certain fits, mainly on frigate hulls in conjunction with an afterburner, but these have the very large risk that if you dont land within 9km of your opponent, you're going to get kited to death. IMHO at the moment there is a great balance between the scrambler and the disruptor, although it seems to me that a disruptor is fitted in the majority of cases, with the scrambler having more of a niche role for certain "styles" of fitting.
Atsuko Yamamoto The Nietzian Way	Posted - 2009.04.18 22:21:00 - [49] I don't understand why people whine and complain about high sec isk making. Why complain about it when you can do it? There's these things called jumpclones, they're pretty handy for managing operations in multiple areas. If you move Lvl 4s/5s to "deeper" space that won't change what your highsec carebear is gonna do, they'll simple grind out 3s and edge into mining more possibly. If you nerf the amount of reward for missions, it won't matter, they'll still do them in the same style as they are now. If highsec missions really are a massive economical problem then the fix maybe not be so black and white, though honestly you think CCP will dump on what can be considered almost 1/3 of the player base?
AFTERMARKET	Posted - 2009.04.19 04:42:00 - [50] Nerf Beer, Its completely overpowered that a 2$ beer has enough alpha to kill my 200$ gaming keyboard and the insurance(warranty) doesn't pay out or replace it.

Sera Ryskin	Posted - 2009.04.19 05:16:00 - [51] Edited by: Sera Ryskin on 19/04/2009 05:17:48 Originally by: RedeyeAce I disagree, we dont want invincible haulers and BR's, in fact perhaps anothe rpenalty should be chance to screw with cloak. The point of this is to make pvp more interesting. I like this. -50% chance for cloak to fail per WCS fitted in addition to the -50% damage penalty. I would prefer a 50% chance to kill you IRL every time your WCS saves you from a tackle, but that might cut CCP's subscription numbers a bit... Quote: When was the last time u saw WCS's slightly regular, I havent seen / heard folk fit them for bloody ages now.. and yes i agree they shouldnt be an omg yay i got away module like they were, I think something should be done with them. This is a GOOD thing. Pre-nerf WCS were stupidly overpowered and ruined PvP. If nobody ever fits a WCS on a combat ship for the rest of the life of EVE, it will be a very good thing. Quote: Maybe add another 2 skills, like 1 for chance for strength i.e. chance to get to a +3 would be fairly high if you took it to l5 (i.e. Warp core tuning Rank 4)... another for chance for successfull use (warp timing override rank 6) (L5 would be 65% chance at a guess) Painfuly stupidity. 65% chance to get +3 WCS = automatic get out of jail free card. It will not be possible for a solo player (unless they're flying an interdictor) to ever kill a target before it is able to win the die roll and warp out. Making a blob of tacklers mandatory to ever get a kill is terrible game design. Quote: Theyre never used in fleet, Could bring a bit more fun to gatecamps, where you'd get inties sittin geared up for high warp speed to chase any net slipping target down and locking them down (when they finally fix the bloody warp accelleration, so that would have to be fixed as in conjunction) . Small - medium combat could be more fun with this as well. WCS are not fun. WCS = you're about to win, and suddenly your target just warps off. The fact that they are never used in fleets is a GOOD thing. Quote: I understand where your coming from however, There are a couple of modules that just arent used and It's a case where we dont go down the road of how they were in the past, however enhancing gameplay more. WCS not being used is a GOOD thing. The game would be substantially improved if CCP just removed them from the game entirely. Quote: It it damned annoying for a target to slip through your fingers, but the adrenaline kicks in and you want to chase them down, its the same for the oponnent, hitting the oh**** button and praying they get away. It would also make the kills you do get much sweeter and satisfying rather a lot of the monotonous routies we have atm... Too bad you don't get to chase them down, because only an idiot is warping anywhere other than a station or a safespot + cloak. Too bad it isn't even fun for the WCS user, since it involves zero skill, you just randomly escape. Fun and adrenaline and all that require SKILL, not just "oops, I have an overpowered module, you can't kill me". ========== Merin is currently enjoying a 14 day vacation from the forums. Until she returns, you've got me to entertain you!
Jacob Holland Gallente Weyland-Vulcan Industries	Posted - 2009.04.19 10:33:00 - [52] Remove all basic T1 items from loot tables and replace with named. Reduce the mineral yield from refining named modules. Introduce t3 modules/rigs which require new materials obtained from refining rogue drone alloys, remove mineral yield from rogue drone alloys. Slightly increase Tritanium yield from Veldspar refining to reduce tritanium prices. 40% of minerals come from refined loot; Veldspar is, by far, the most profitable ore to mine until you get down to the very valuable nullsec ores; many believe that, particularly since the introduction of salvage, L4 missions are far too profitable - and certainly they seem to be farmed far more than they used to; Tritanium prices rather than "more difficult to obtain" highends the profit/loss curves for most T1 manufacturing. -- Originally by: cordy Respect to IAC .Your one of the few people who truly deserve to own and live in the space you are in.
Myrkala Minmatar Aurora Acclivitous	Posted - 2009.04.20 16:35:00 - [53] Bumping this. I think its important. "Ruppie ain't no puppie."
TimMc Gallente Brutal Deliverance	Posted - 2009.04.20 16:45:00 - [54] Originally by: Jacob Holland Edited by: Jacob Holland on 19/04/2009 10:38:56 Remove all basic T1 items from loot tables and replace with named. Reduce the mineral yield from refining named modules. Introduce t3 modules/rigs which require new materials obtained from refining rogue drone alloys, remove mineral yield from rogue drone alloys. Slightly increase Tritanium yield from Veldspar refining to reduce tritanium prices. 40% of minerals come from refined loot; Veldspar is, by far, the most profitable ore to mine until you get down to the very valuable nullsec ores; many believe that, particularly since the introduction of salvage, L4 missions are far too profitable - and certainly they seem to be farmed far more than they used to; Tritanium prices rather than "more difficult to obtain" highends define the profit/loss curves for most T1 manufacturing. Nice
Solostrom	Posted - 2009.04.20 18:18:00 - [55] Not sure that L4 mish need more nerfing. They have been stealth nerfed with the addition of several new mish. These are courier, mining, and Faction mish (aka against Caldari, Gallente, etc). My point here is because the mish tables contain more sucky mish there has already been a nerf. In addition I'm tempted to say but can not prove that the loot tables have been modified downward. Perhaps other changes would be desirable. I'd love to see all Empire L4 agents set to the same Quality, spread people out a bit.
yani dumyat Minmatar purple pot hogs	Posted - 2009.04.20 20:54:00 - [56] Quote from this dev blog about sleeper AI. Originally by: CCP Incognito We are not going to change 80% of the NPCs in the game. Your faction-fit Navy XXXX is still going to allow you to run LV 4 missions solo. We haven't changed the NPCs that spawn in belts, nor in any of the classic dungeons, but that may change in future iterations (post-Apocrypha). Missions got a massive boost from salvage without a significant increase in risk however if CCP implement sleeper AI for the higher tier missions then the problem's solved. The people calling for high sec mission pay to be reduced should remember who's buying all those t2 mods that make moon mining so profitable, most pvp is paid for by some form of carebearing so if you nerf the bears you nerf pvp. No one should be forced into dangerous space to make isk because many people find it boring and would quit if eve became solely about pvp. Adding content and challenge to missions keeps CCP's RL cash cow happy and funds the in game pvp for everyone else. Anyways missions aren't half as screwed as mineral prices Sig_________________________________________________________________________________ My alliance, corp, psychiatrist and parole officer claim no responsibility for my actions on these forums.
Halycon Gamma Caldari The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.21 04:55:00 - [57] My only point toward missions... Mining with guns is why the mineral market is so full of fail. Anyway, what I actually care about are rockets. I fly a couple cruisers and a couple battleships, but thats part of my income. For fun I'd rather fly small fast nimble ships. And rockets are full of fail. I'm better off putting turrets on a missile boat, than missiles on a missile boat. I'm not certain how to fix this, as boosting any part of the rocket itself knocks other things out of kilter. Since explosion velocity vs ship velocity was CCP's quick and dirty way of adding a transversal analog to missiles. Boost base dps too much and it becomes over powered on ships at rest, boost explosion velocity too much and it becomes too powerful to ships that are moving. Really, what I'd like is a complete rework of missile mechanics to where it takes relative positioning of the missile and the ship into effect so it becomes a much closer system to what transversal is on turrets. Moving toward the explosion you take full damage, moving away and you get the full damage mitigation speed brings you, with various degrees in between resulting in only partial damage. That isn't going to happen because of server load, though I think it could fix a lot of the problems inherent in balancing missiles against turrets. Gives a lot more leadway in how you can play with explosion velocity and base damage without borking them one way or another in a post QR world, and puts a lot of the issue on the person being shot at on how to deal with it. Just like it does with turrets. Unfortunately.. thats not going to happen.. so... Can we look at missile damage... specifically for my usage.. rocket damage?
Vyllana	Posted - 2009.04.21 06:16:00 - [58] Missions are a painfully slow way to earn ISK compared to trading, which can be done in complete safety, with 0 risk, without ever undocking from a station. Trading will also earn you ISK at a far faster rate than missions, billions per day if you know what you're doing. People call it "market pvp" but the fact is, it's still risk free. It's not like you can really lose money trading in EVE unless you're a complete idiot. So that being said I don't see what the fuss is about with missions. Let people have their fun and build up crazy multi-billion isk missioning ships in relative safety. Big freaking deal. People out in 0.0 already have their income source which is even easier, and in a big alliance, pretty much just as safe as hi sec missions: ratting. Nerfing hi-sec activities isn't gonna bring more people out into low/null sec... those that are risk averse will remain so.
fogbird	Posted - 2009.04.21 10:08:00 - [59] Originally by: Wang Jing Originally by: Beverly Sparks Why do people care about level 4 missions??? For the amount of work put in, the money is already pretty crappy. Risk vs Reward The sizeable rewards and the fact they are done with almost zero risk of loss completely imbalance all other ways to make isk in the game. Wrong! - t2 production - moon mining - mining in high sec - trading - scamming - blobbing make for far more, risk free isk and the list could go on forever. cant even guess your motivation to whine.
Halycon Gamma Caldari The Flying Tigers United Front Alliance	Posted - 2009.04.21 10:34:00 - [60] Edited by: Halycon Gamma on 21/04/2009 10:34:39 Originally by: fogbird Originally by: Wang Jing Originally by: Beverly Sparks Why do people care about level 4 missions??? For the amount of work put in, the money is already pretty crappy. Risk vs Reward The sizeable rewards and the fact they are done with almost zero risk of loss completely imbalance all other ways to make isk in the game. Wrong! - t2 production - moon mining - mining in high sec - trading - scamming - blobbing make for far more, risk free isk and the list could go on forever. cant even guess your motivation to whine. Actually.. moon mining nets you anywhere from 2-27bil a month. depending on the moon. so.. if you can make 30 million isk an hour.. and you play 23 hours a day, for 30 days a month.. you'll make 20billion 700million. Which beats the vast majority of moons. If you can do 40 million an hour, you'll come out at 27billion 600million. Which beats every moon. So on an isk/hour basis, mission running is more profitable than most moons. If you're unbelievably good at mission running, you can beat all moon mining on a per hour basis.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.