Foolish Bob
The Dirty Rotten Scoundrels
In Tea We Trust
6
   |
Posted - 2012.11.05 13:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Calembo DeLuna wrote:
What you are advocating is to pigeonhole everyone into diversification as the only viable style of play. Which IMO goes counter to sandbox game design philosophy. A sandbox game like EVE should encourage both styles of play - diversification and deep specialization - with their respective unique rewards.
We do live in a sandbox and the game does reward specialisation. In fact it can be fairly argued that it goes further and punishes diversification. You're just missing what it is that is being specialised. This is not like an RPG where you become the best killer of monsters +5 you can be by training monster killing +5. Existence in New Eden is defined by the profession you as a player choose to pursue, and whether or not you choose to maximise the skills you need to be that profession is up to you. Further, it is axiomatically true that specialisation in any profession that isn't mission running or mining requires a diversified set of skills in order to "perfect" your trade. In fact, for the PVP professions a diversified skill set is not sufficient, because (as is hyped most often) a low SP character has every chance of defeating a high SP character if, for instance, the high SP character is just terrible at flying (like me). So, rather what you're asking for is this
Quote:
In a game centred around Darwinian adaptation in all levels, I wish to fix my character into only one mode of playing in order to achieve the goals of my chosen profession and not suffer a disadvantage to someone who is capable of adapting to his situation
And that I disagree with. Mission running should no more be about "train caldari, learn missiles get profit" than PVP should be about "train minmater, learn projectiles, win", and if these changes go some way towards that then I'm all for it.
Note that I'm not saying that missiles don't need some form of iteration. A while ago I lost an af to a tornado whilst under fire from a manticore. This is to be expected (because I'm terrible) but the part that made no sense to me was that I was ignoring the ship with BS class missile weapons with a bonus to help it hit smaller targets and was only (rightly) concerned about the ship with BS class turret weapons with no bonus to hit smaller targets. I don't know in which direction the change for that needs to be made, but it's an odd emergent behaviour to be sure.
In terms of the broad changes, the stated goal is to remove the ability to compare long range missiles to short range guns as a design philosophy, and once that's settled to take a look at ship bonuses. I'd say these changes achieve the first point, so success. Am I worried about CCP's ability to deliver the other side of that goal? Of course, but if I were in their shoes I'd want to make changes to single dependant variables at a time too (given how horrifically complex the system is) so it'd be hypocritical of me to expect them to do all the things all at once. Still, chop chop, though. |