| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Baun
   |
Posted - 2004.12.22 06:55:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:00:58
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:00:48
Many people have touched on this but the entire idea of an HP boost represents a gigantic problem for many ships;
Ships that sacrifice all or the majority of their defense in order to have increased offense are now much much less useful. In order for a gankageddon or a neutron fitted blasterthron to be powerful they must be able to kill the enemy quickly. If they cannot kill the enemy quickly they are screwed.
Case in point- If one has to spend 30 more seconds trying to kill a Raven or an apoc in a blasterthron one is dead. You are a FAR less capable tank then either the Raven or the Apoc anyway and your advantage of your damage. Your advantage, however, has been made substantially less useful because you have recieved no damage boost while the Raven and the Apoc's advantage has been augmented. Their tanking is now more significant (because they a priore have more time with which to tank) and your damage is now far less important as the damage/hp ratio has greatly decreased.
Some might argue that ships like the gankageddon were overpowered but when you look at the array of weaknesses present in any damage-dealing untanked ship one can see that this argument carries little weight. A gankegeddon or a blasterthon are easy to blow up, (usually) easy to jam, and very suceptible to smaller class ships. Furthermore, if they run into a situation of poor odds they have little hope of surviving long enough to take out an opponent (thsi is especially true of a blasterthron) becaue they have so little defense.
This change really needs to be thought through before implimenting. It is not nearly so simply as multiply all of the HPs by a certain factor and everything remains the same but battles take longer. Rather these changes actually have significant balancing effects that really promote one type of ship use over another. If your goal is balance then this really is a bad idea.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 06:55:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:00:58
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:00:48
Many people have touched on this but the entire idea of an HP boost represents a gigantic problem for many ships;
Ships that sacrifice all or the majority of their defense in order to have increased offense are now much much less useful. In order for a gankageddon or a neutron fitted blasterthron to be powerful they must be able to kill the enemy quickly. If they cannot kill the enemy quickly they are screwed.
Case in point- If one has to spend 30 more seconds trying to kill a Raven or an apoc in a blasterthron one is dead. You are a FAR less capable tank then either the Raven or the Apoc anyway and your advantage of your damage. Your advantage, however, has been made substantially less useful because you have recieved no damage boost while the Raven and the Apoc's advantage has been augmented. Their tanking is now more significant (because they a priore have more time with which to tank) and your damage is now far less important as the damage/hp ratio has greatly decreased.
Some might argue that ships like the gankageddon were overpowered but when you look at the array of weaknesses present in any damage-dealing untanked ship one can see that this argument carries little weight. A gankegeddon or a blasterthon are easy to blow up, (usually) easy to jam, and very suceptible to smaller class ships. Furthermore, if they run into a situation of poor odds they have little hope of surviving long enough to take out an opponent (thsi is especially true of a blasterthron) becaue they have so little defense.
This change really needs to be thought through before implimenting. It is not nearly so simply as multiply all of the HPs by a certain factor and everything remains the same but battles take longer. Rather these changes actually have significant balancing effects that really promote one type of ship use over another. If your goal is balance then this really is a bad idea.
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 07:03:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:08:22
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:03:39
Here is a good, simple question:
Why is this change even percieved as neccesary? The Devs have been working at balancing the game with the numbers as they stand for over 2 years. Why would it be beneficial to change the goalposts and mess everything up again? What problem does this solve?
Can anyone answer this? I really see NO motivation for this change other than some ass-backwards attempt to balance POS damage (and if that is the motivation they really need to consider actually addressing the problem itself instead of adjusting the game to fit the problem).
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
Baun
|
Posted - 2004.12.22 07:03:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:08:22
Edited by: Baun on 22/12/2004 07:03:39
Here is a good, simple question:
Why is this change even percieved as neccesary? The Devs have been working at balancing the game with the numbers as they stand for over 2 years. Why would it be beneficial to change the goalposts and mess everything up again? What problem does this solve?
Can anyone answer this? I really see NO motivation for this change other than some ass-backwards attempt to balance POS damage (and if that is the motivation they really need to consider actually addressing the problem itself instead of adjusting the game to fit the problem).
The Enemy's Gate is Down
|
| |
|