| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
0
   |
Posted - 2012.11.05 23:08:00 -
[1] - Quote
I've been for a spin on the test server and if anything the rebalancing seems incomplete. Caracals now output almost 90% of the dps of a Drake if you fit them right and have a longer range whilst being cheaper. It's true that they have no real tank, but hey cheap snipers shouldn't really have any tank.
That's the trade off in eve. The more dps you need to output brings you closer and closer to your opponent. Whilst the carcal has been nicely rebalanced I would have liked to have seen the same rof and velocity bonus applied to the drake to compensate for the missile nerf.
The Caldari have a ranged combat fighting style as per the eve back story and are also shield tankers. so it makes sense that their weapons of choice should be long ranged and their ships should have solid shield tanking abilities (the Drake fits the bill perfectly for this). Balancing them to the point that their weapons perform to the same degree as other races weapon systems makes your choice of weapon utterly pointless. It might be called a missile, an autocannon or a laser but if it has similar range and outputs similar dps to your opponents then what's the point? Where can you get an edge? In eve we all live and die by whatever edge we can get yet the endless rebalancing mitigates the effects of fighting styles and tactics. We might as well all equip our ships with fuzzy, buck rogers style energy beams and fire them all day. Whilst we're at it we might as well assign every frigate and every cruiser the same stats as any other one. The end result will be the same.
Anyhow I am not convinced that that this rebalancing is being done to any sort of mathematical algorithm which could prove that all ships and weapons are balanced. The case in point being how the original damage nerf was 20% and after much postin on the forum by opponents of this it's now 10%. If the rebalancing was being done to a formula that outputted a value of 20% changing it to 10% would still result in an unbalanced game. This suggests that the rebalancing is done by feel not by simulation or mathematical analysis. In which case the developers only stop working when the game feels right to them. This would further suggest that eve will never, ever, ever be a balanced game.... |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 16:44:00 -
[2] - Quote
I am glad that ccp are listening a bit and the proposed nerfs aren't as extreme as originally proposed, but crucially we're still getting them after many people have intelligently posted superb reasons as to why this balancing is unfair.
I am not a caldari player and in the wake of this I wouldn't want to be. Other people have posted comments about the caldari tears following copiously on this thread. My response to that is that if projectile weapons had a nerf as severe as the original proposal Minmatar space would turn into one giant wet sponge. I'd have enough tears to bath in... So the caldari bashing is a bit unfair.
The people who are supporting the nerf are probably the players that don't have the chops the take a drake down in pvp and that's always the way, bad players who cant get an edge want to take other people's advantages away from them.
My secondary point is that the missile is supposed to be the 'weapon of choice' of the caldari, but it isn't as the stats show most caldari pilots firing rails, some even mimic the fighting style of the gallente and use blasters, so much for a weapon of choice.
The missile nerf doesn't bother me, I fly Amarr, but I have sympathy for the Caldari which last time I checked was the most popular race for new players, by nerfing the caldari 'weapon of choice' ccp is making the game poorer for their newer players. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
1
|
Posted - 2012.11.08 17:08:00 -
[3] - Quote
Bouh Revetoile wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:My secondary point is that the missile is supposed to be the 'weapon of choice' of the caldari, but it isn't as the stats show most caldari pilots firing rails, some even mimic the fighting style of the gallente and use blasters, so much for a weapon of choice. Again, weapon of choice for caldari is *hybrids* as well as missiles. Have you ever seen a gallente spiting on blasters or railguns because caldari can use them too ? No, because it's stupid (and because drones can't make it alone). You know, caldari and gallente were only one race in the past, that's why they share the hybrid guns. What is silly though is that caldari are supposed to be pragmatic soldiers...
Strange thing is though in the tutorials that the new players are strongly encouraged to do an agent mission is called 'weapon of choice' and for the Caldari the tutorial is all about missiles.
All soldiers are pragmatic. The caldari are pragmatic enough to learn the fighting style of another race lol as their own isn't good enough. All I'm saying is that the reality of playing eve should match the back story as portrayed in the official canon.
Sorry for my bad english, it's not my first language. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.09 20:38:00 -
[4] - Quote
The whole point of my earlier post was simply to state that there's a back story in eve and that new players will most likely read some of it. If they follow the back-story and fit their caldari ships for rails and missiles as (opposed to being pragmatic and flying some other races ships or using non racial weapons ) then they will be worse off in pvp and have very little fun.
Is it so wrong to think that a game like eve which is supported by canon should have game mechanics that reflect the canon? It looks like Eve is getting divorced from it's backstory...
If any weapon weapon is overpowered in eve online it's the projectiles both long and short range... Nerf them and collect the minmatar tears in charity buckets. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 20:19:00 -
[5] - Quote
Guys this attempt to compare missiles with guns is just like someone trying to compare apples with oranges. All we know for sure is that they are both fruit.
It's normal to expect missiles and guns to behave differently and personally I think missiles are currently under-powered not over-powered. A weapon that takes ages to deliver damage to a target had better hit hard. Missiles don't hit hard enough.
I also support the idea that we should have a variety of missile ammunitions., short ranged high damage, long range weaker damage. This is true for other weapon types such as lasers, hybrids and projectiles so why not for missiles.
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
3
|
Posted - 2012.11.10 22:24:00 -
[6] - Quote
Yeay showing me a video of a fight in a T3 ship does not prove your point...
T3 vessels are not typical if we only look at extremes we will never attain balance, most missile users do not fly around in T3 ships on account of their expensive nature. When I have been arguing against the proposed nerf I have specifically been thinking of the T1 missile biased ships like the Caracal and the Drake both of which are underpowered in comparison to ships in the same class belonging to other races. Once again we're back to apples and oranges... |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
4
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 11:50:00 -
[7] - Quote
Jorma Morkkis wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Yeay showing me a video of a fight in a T3 ship does not prove your point...
T3 vessels are not typical if we only look at extremes we will never attain balance, most missile users do not fly around in T3 ships on account of their expensive nature. When I have been arguing against the proposed nerf I have specifically been thinking of the T1 missile biased ships like the Caracal and the Drake both of which are underpowered in comparison to ships in the same class belonging to other races. Once again we're back to apples and oranges... What experienced mission runner says to rookie who wants to run pve content? "Train Drake and then Tengu." Drake underpowered? Show me 400 dps 73k EHP rail Ferox. I'm going to help you a bit: 4x MagStab Ferox does 368 paper dps at 13km with Javelin.
That last line says it all... Dude I do not need your help.
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
6
|
Posted - 2012.11.11 20:56:00 -
[8] - Quote
I read your post, despite being 300 pages in and wholeheartedly agree with your opinion. MIssiles are not guns and if a TD can affect missiles it should at best only have a minor effect on telemetary sent by the firing ship. FOF missiles (which are pretty much useless) should be immune. I personally think that for a TD to have any chance of working on a missile they should have to target the actual missile in flight, but that would be too hard to implement and impractical. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.12 14:41:00 -
[9] - Quote
As I understand it such a system would have to be a high slot item as I've always been told (I am sorry if I am wrong about this) that high slot items were mounted on the exterior of the hull, with mid slots being buried within the hull and low slots deep inside the ship etc. Sorry if I am not making myself that clear but english is a bit hard for me on times as I am not a native speaker. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 16:23:00 -
[10] - Quote
I've been a regular contributor to this thread throughout the 300+pages and am strongly opposed to the missile nerf in any form. I cant add anything of any substance to the previous arguments though, I think the topic has been exhausted. I was around (albeit with a different toon) the last time that the missiles got nerfed a few years back and still belive that this prior nerf was a mistake.
If this nerf goes through, it wont matter what weapon system you choose to train, it won't matter how many sp you have in a given range of skills as we will have lost all diversity in the game. Why choose a weapon system at all if the result is that you will dish out the same damage as someone else at an equivalent skill level. What if the systems of eve become so finly balanced that hybrids perform the same as projectiles and projectiles perform the same as lasers and lasers perform the same as missiles. It makes choosing a training path pointless. We all might as well have a single skill we can dump our sp into called 'Shipboard Weapons' which allows you to fire and use any weapon in the game. This quest for 'balance' in a 'by feel' way risks destroying the game.
As for the drake so what if it is a bit tanky, anyone can take a drake down if they know their enemy, how about using some ewar and get the jammers on it, it can't fire **** then and without it's missiles it's dps is 0 and a flight of 5 drones a mere nuisance to a decently fit BC. It's possible to overwhelm the average passive recharged+hardener+rigged fit drake with a Welp Hurricane ffs. If they try to up the regen it's usually at the expense of hardeners which leaves the ship vulnerable to EM.
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
7
|
Posted - 2012.11.19 21:42:00 -
[11] - Quote
Arya Greywolf wrote:Faora Zod wrote:
Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.
There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.
Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.
You must be overdosing on some strong sleeping pills to come up with this argument.
Whilst I don't agree with the argument I do sympathise with it. CCP have done some pretty dumb stuff over the years that they have barely been forgiven for by many and not forgiven at all by many others. It's easy to see how this type of belief can spring up. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
8
|
Posted - 2012.11.20 18:25:00 -
[12] - Quote
Faora Zod wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:Arya Greywolf wrote:Faora Zod wrote:
Balancing the game? Really? Seems more like an idea to weaken two of the best ships in the game hoping people will buy more GTCs to convert to salable plexes to replace the loses.
There is a saying, if it is not broken don't fix it.
Once everyone realizes all the changes that CCP is making to this game is just another means to get us to spend more money on it buying GTCs they are screwed, No more extra money for them.
You must be overdosing on some strong sleeping pills to come up with this argument. Whilst I don't agree with the argument I do sympathise with it. CCP have done some pretty dumb stuff over the years that they have barely been forgiven for by many and not forgiven at all by many others. It's easy to see how this type of belief can spring up. Did you just read what this person said or my full post? Try and look beyond the HML nerf, look at the whole picture people. People bitched and moaned about how the pants money was going to be a way for EVE to be a pay to win game, when it has already been for years. Real Life money buys GTCs, you convert them to plexes, put them up for sale buy the universe. It isn't to hard to see if you look at it.
Sigh, I have read every post in this thread from post #1 and I understand your argument, I am however free to disagree... |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
9
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 18:35:00 -
[13] - Quote
I agree that the Caldari battleships needs some love and the the Raven description is just plain wrong, but aren't these ships lined up for some tiericide treatment in any case? I might be wrong on the last point, but either way they should be rebalancd to behave as a new player who has read some of the eve chronicles and backstory might expect them too.
Coming back to the main thread, missiles have always been underpowered as evidenced by an earlier post in which someone said that they offered the second best alpha in the game next to artiliieries. Thing is though, doesn't this mean that artillary weapons are over powered as after all we're looking for balance here. Artillary weapons don't have to wait as long as missiles to apply damage in any case so are doubly overpowered.
I don't mind them being over powered, but I think that missiles should be buffed to be their equal, not further nerfed to be the most inferior of all weapon systems.
As for the whole caldari shield question the most advanced shield systems belong to the minmater not the caldari as is claimed in the Eve backstory, you've only got to look at the Maelstrom for that with it's 8000 HP and 7.5% bonus to shield boosting per level. It can deploy power at sizeable range with it's projectiles and is in real terms everything that the Raven should be but is not.
It's the new players I feel sorry for. They might like the look of a caldari character as most new players tend to and if they try and play out the racial stereotype and train rails and missiles they will all die horribly and be ***** slapped hard across the cluster by people who know better. It' probably wont be much fun for them and will increase the rate of churn that CCP currently has when it comes to new players, joining, trying and quitting.
My final point is that nerfs cost ccp money in terms of lost subscriptions. No one who has trained hard for a skill or an ability to use a weapon likes to see it nerfed without an equivalent buff elsewhere. i.e. my heavy missiles don't do as much damage, are not as versatile against different size targets as they used to be and are incapable of going as far. I might forgive this if all launchers had an increase in ROF to make up for it or enlarged capacities so I don't have to reload as often.
I will most probably forgive the proposed Drake nerf in which it loses it's sheild resist bonus but gets a ROF bonus for the missiles etc. I may even get to like it if it has an increase to passive regen (I'd lovbe to see that) but then again this latter point wont happen as we all know Caldari have the most advanced shield systems of anyone, so no need. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 18:43:00 -
[14] - Quote
To add to my previous post, none of the bonuses on any of the Caldari Battleships make any sense at all from a tactical perspective with the exception of the scorpion which as all of its bonuses in EM. Compare them to Gallente Battleships and their bonuses have a versatile tactical value for the ships intended role as do the Amarr and the Minmatar. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 18:55:00 -
[15] - Quote
Moonaura wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:To add to my previous post, none of the bonuses on any of the Caldari Battleships make any sense at all from a tactical perspective with the exception of the scorpion which as all of its bonuses in EWAR. Compare them to Gallente Battleships and their bonuses have a versatile tactical value for the ships intended role as do the Amarr and the Minmatar. The resistance bonus that many of the Caldari ships get is a big deal. This is what really enables the force multiplier effect of logistics ships when used in a Caldari fleet. The better the resistances, the more a ship can technically tank. It makes a profound difference. So instead of one large shield transfer being placed on you, lower resistances mean you now need two, etc. The Rokh right now, is perfect. I hope CCP don't change a damn thing with it.
To be fair I hadn't thought of that as I tend to work in small gangs and solo, I was thinking that a ship that is obviously a sniper wouoldnt need a resist bonus as it wasn't meant to get close too close to the enemy. But you're right and I retract my statement as incorrect, so that just leaves the Raven out of the Caldari ships as being tactically inferior. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
10
|
Posted - 2012.11.23 20:36:00 -
[16] - Quote
Ubat Batuk wrote:Sigras wrote:Faora Zod wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
Wait, are these changes supposed to increase or decrease our profits? You lost me there and I want to make sure I'm part of the correct shadowy conspiracy.
In all seriousness we don't balance the game to trick people into losing ships and replacing them with plex, we balance the game to create an interesting and fun game environment for everyone. It turns out the best way to convince people to pay some of their hard earned money for your game is to make a good game! Who would have guessed?!
Just because you are denying the conspiracy does not mean there is not one, that is how shadow conspiracies work! CCP is a business, and the whole idea of a business is to make a profit, otherwise it a charity/nonprofit org. So yeah Fozzie you guys are trying to get us to spend money. You would think that instead of trying to keep our interest in playing eve you would actually give us something new and interest in the game, rather than change what we already have and call it balancing. Instead of wasting your time "balancing" the missile system, why don't you guys get to work on making us faction Battlecruiers? Who wouldn't want a CN Farox (a CN Drake would be even more awesome but useless with these "balanced" Missiles), or a Angel Cyclone, or Sansha Harbinger. or Come up with NEW skills to help the raging players who whine about the Drake/Tengu's to keep range. Want to solve the ability of tengus and Drakes to keep range? slow them down! Fix the 3 different sized AB and MWD to where they can only fit on the ships they are intended for, 1mn on frigs and destroyers, 10mn on cruisers and Bcs, and 100 mn's on Battleships and bigger. makes alot more since than changing the HML since it would work on all the races ships. There are other and better ways to keep us interested than "balancing" the ships we already have. Look at it this way, theyre adding 4 new battlecruisers to the game, and a whole new weapon platform! New BattlecruisersBrutix Harbinger Prophecy Ferox Where they really in the game before? really? How often did you see any of these ships flying around? why? because they're totally eclipsed by the current drake and hurricane, this will no longer be the case. New Weapon PlatformHAM Once again, how many times have you seen a ship sporting these flying around? After the change, you may have some new viable equipment to equip Also maybe we can try out the sacrilege again, maybe after the HAM changes it wont totally suck anymore!! Oh look, we have new stuff to play with . . .  So how about no matter what ship you take it's the same? i don't like that.
I agree, that would not be balance, that would be uniformity, I've posted along those lines many times during this thread. I don't mind any ship or weapon system having an edge, even a large edge as long as it has a corresponding disadvantage to go along with it. Like a superhero having a special weakness, now that would be balance. These changes do not represent that but are rather an attempt to make everything the same. This is uniformity... |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 15:13:00 -
[17] - Quote
Best point yet, as we can all train any skills we like and fly anything we would want in time what's the point of the balancing? As previously mentioned I have no problem with OP ship designs, they make the game interesting and as far as I can tell every ship has a unique set of weaknesses that a skilled opponent can exploit. Intuitively missiles should be the highest alpha but they are not, lasers should be the longest ranged weapons but they are not. Most pvp these days revolves around blasters and autocannons as these weapon systems are overpowered. We need buffs in Rails and Missiles to counter this not silly nerfs designed to turn missiles into lasers/hybrids. There is no point to balance if every weapon and ship performs the same and has no meaningful advantage over another weapon system. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 18:20:00 -
[18] - Quote
No I am not. I am saying that lasers should be the longest ranged weapons but are not. Think about it, Lasers are coherent light and in real life only suffer from attenuation of the beam over distance due to things like atmospheric particles getting in the way. In space this is greatly reduced so beam attenuation should be effectively meaningless in a fighting grid of 250km. Lasers should therefore hit for full damage at long ranges, longer than missiles or artilarly are capable of delivering. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
11
|
Posted - 2012.11.25 23:35:00 -
[19] - Quote
Zyella Stormborn wrote:Little Dragon Khamez wrote:No I am not. I am saying that lasers should be the longest ranged weapons but are not. Think about it, Lasers are coherent light and in real life only suffer from attenuation of the beam over distance due to things like atmospheric particles getting in the way. In space this is greatly reduced so beam attenuation should be effectively meaningless in a fighting grid of 250km. Lasers should therefore hit for full damage at long ranges, longer than missiles or artilarly are capable of delivering. Erm... going by that argument, they would all do full damage at long ranges, since gravity in space is so small as to be almost inconsequential unless you are fighting in orbit around a planet, and there is no atmosphere or other friction of any measurable means to slow things down. Also... its a sci-fi video game, not a real-physics science adventure.
Eve is a sci fi adventure as opposed to a real physics adventure, but nevertheless I like some science in my sci-fi otherwise why bother with the highly technical nature of Eve as it currently stands. We might as well all a join a buck rogers mmo where we all fire generic energy beams at each other with no explanation of the science behind them. Anyhow my earlier post was a response to someone else's question and you may have read it out of context.
To return to the subject at hand, missile nerfs, my point was that we shouldn't expect eve weapon systems to behave the same as another because if we do so we lose all of the diversity in the game. This is uniformity not balance. And as such too much balance makes choosing a weapon system unimportant. It wont matter what you choose to train or use if say for instance heavy missiles hit the same dps at the same ranges as lasers/projectiles/hybrids etc. We wont actually be using a different weapon all we will be getting is a different graphical effect and animation. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
12
|
Posted - 2012.11.28 08:52:00 -
[20] - Quote
OT Smithers wrote:
1. Most Eve players don't really understand how their guns work or what things like optimal and falloff really mean. They see huge DPS numbers from projectiles and believe that's what they are doing at falloff.
I don't think point no1 is fair as evidenced by this thread a great deal of people fully understand how their guns work and have a deeply ingrained knowledge of fall off and optimal range/tracking etc and how that effects their ability to project power within the range of their weapon system.
I do agree with all of your other points though. |
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.09 20:02:00 -
[21] - Quote
Joe Risalo wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Colt Blackhawk wrote:
Didn-Št really see a Drake for ages now. Nowhere. Does anyone still fly it? Are there anywhere drakes left in the galaxy?
Doubt it.
Drake use since the release of Retribution has dropped 4.8%. Usage of the Heavy Missile Launcher II module has dropped 7.8% in the same timeframe. Both well within acceptable ranges for this point and we're continuing to keep an eye on the numbers. The question really isn't the dropped usage from hmls or Drakes, but rather hmls on drakes. If you looked at those numbers, what would they be? I ask this because hmls are still relatively effective when used on caracals, navy caracals, rooks, tengus, etc. etc... Soo, in my mind this could effectively mean that the drop in hml launchers is directly relative to the drake. Also, we're only 1 month into the changes, so I feel that these numbers aren't yet settled on what the final numbers. will be. Once many of these existing drakes have been destroyed I'm afraid they're not going to get replaced. Also, there are probably plenty of players who are training out of a drake and just haven't reached a capable skill lvl to be able to fly anything else. Hell, before these changes I was running around telling many players that if they were going to train missiles then there was no point in training past a tengu and past heavy missiles. Now..... Well, all I can say is that my over 8mil sp in missiles is going waisted because the only missile boat I currently own is actually a cloaky scanner ship that just happens to have launcher hard points... While CCP has made cruise and torps more effective, they're still not that effective. In pve I can take out targets approaching using large turrets without the use of any tracking mods. However, in a cruise or torp boat I need at least 2 target painters to put max effective dps on a BATTLESHIP, and that's with high support skills. Personally, I'm wondering if missiles just need to be taken back to the drawing board and just redesigned in a way to make them more competitive when compared to turrets in both pvp and pve. I don't know what to do as far as changing them in this manner, but then again, I'm not the game designer and shouldn't be responsible for figuring it out.
Good points well made, I am of the opinion that sooner or later missiles of all varieties will be phased out. Full stop, no more missiles. This is the second major missile nerf I've had to put up with since joining the community of New Eden. Now I just tell noobs, to 'just train guns'. As for missiles there's no ******* point. Every missile boat I own from frigate to BS underperforms when compared to an equivalent gun toting ship which is sad considering that I have 5 million sp in missiles and roughly the same in gunnery.
Ho Ho there we go.
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld
30
|
Posted - 2013.01.10 15:51:00 -
[22] - Quote
I would like to know the criteria that CCP is basing it's balancing decisions on. We're all stabbing at the dark with our suggestions because we don't have perfect knowledge. CCP have that and should share it so that we fully informed can comment on their balancing ideas. |
| |
|