| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
37
   |
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:05:00 -
[1] - Quote
group 1: NERF THEM!!
group 2: NO NERF THEM!
Developer: Distributes nerfs
Group2: THEY NEED NERFS NAOW!
Group 1: NO NERF THEM!
Developer: Distributes nerfs
on and on...
What is this, battlenet?!? 
If something seems overpowered, in this case an effect of all medium missile boats? ...I just consider it poor-lazy development practice to issue [substantial] nerfs across the board (or to missile boats in this case) rather than just bringing the weaker up to standard. I've seen this just too many times in other mmo's, resulting in a cascade effect of unhappy players screaming for moar nerfs. Nerfs should only happen as fine tuning after introducing something new into the formula which suddenly made them overpowered, not after years of something being a set standard. |
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
37
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:21:00 -
[2] - Quote
Lord Ryan wrote: just give me back my SP..
THIS! 
|
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 20:56:00 -
[3] - Quote
Reticle wrote:edit: also, if defender missiles worked properly, complaints about HMs would probably stop
I have them trained a little, early on, until I found that they were worthless. This would make actual sense. So I punch through with four out of five missiles a volley, there 's the 20% reduction. I think missile boat drivers can live with that and it's not a nerf. Though I can imagine the tears of players needing to load defenders on hardpoint. Best option is still bringing non-missile boats up to standard. But just fixing the defender compared to nerfing is an acceptable lazy fix in comparison to fixing the rest of the fleet where it needs fixing. |
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:25:00 -
[4] - Quote
Deerin wrote:
I liked the fact that CCP actually has balls to go with this type of change. It may make the high-sec crowd cry a bit. It may even result in some loss of subscribers. But it will make eve much more playable and (more importantly) enjoyable in the long run, thus generating more subscribers in the long run.
Oddly enough, this was about the same thinking of SOE/LA regarding SWG:NGE. Funny how things worked out, eh?
|
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
39
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 21:42:00 -
[5] - Quote
Laura Dexx wrote:Omega Sunset wrote:Deerin wrote:
I liked the fact that CCP actually has balls to go with this type of change. It may make the high-sec crowd cry a bit. It may even result in some loss of subscribers. But it will make eve much more playable and (more importantly) enjoyable in the long run, thus generating more subscribers in the long run.
Oddly enough, this was about the same thinking of SOE/LA regarding SWG:NGE. Funny how things worked out, eh? The NGE was aimed at making things easier for everyone, especially new players. It wasn't because it was a major overhaul that it failed, but how they handled it and how they simplified the game with it, along with some of the more advanced content. That you're trying to liken this balancing patch to the likes of the NGE patch really tells me a lot about your lack of intelligence.
Hmmm... the lack of intelligence comment came to mind about your post and repeatedly using "long run" in the same sentence. But hey, I didn't mention it as I wasn't here to insult you, but obviously that is your only real worth while tactic, sadly.
NGE threw off it's existing subscribers in an all out nerf of the game, and as a surprise patch since they knew existing subscribers would object beforehand. You seem quite content to shed loyal players here, which SOE/LA gambled on and lost. Nerfing serves no good purpose when it's far better to fix the broken things of this game to bring the rest of the fleet up to standard. It's a lazy fix indeed, and only divides the community, and yes possibly loosing accounts as you so elegantly pointed out, Sir.
|
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
41
|
Posted - 2012.09.18 23:03:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ah well, guess I'll stock TD's, queue that last tier of marketing, wait for the right time to contract 80% of my useless t2 and missile boat fleet, and wait for WiS to launch before I ever get out of CQ again (not that I want WiS or even use CQ until now). Park my butt in hisec. I guess some gw2 time between now and then is my only viable option. Hope they change their path before my current sub year is up. |
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
42
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 08:28:00 -
[7] - Quote
Really CCP, is EVE's code so broken that you cant get defenders working? Fix defenders, end of problem!
You leave things broken for YEARS, nothing new, but don't start nerfing away to cover for your poor coding skills, seriously! |
Omega Sunset
Caldari Roughnecks
43
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:37:00 -
[8] - Quote
Rommiee wrote:Travis117 wrote:Ima wait and see most likely sell my tengus for a proteus
................................................................
Dude, no one will buy your Tengu after this I'll buy it. Uh um 50m including subs? I'll keep it for exploration when I'm expecting absolutely no combat. Oh on second thought, nm, just not worth it... risking implants etc.
stupid nerf *grumbles*
CCP (can't code properly) drop this excuse for bad coding skills unable to get the defender to work, fix the defender and dismiss the nerf. |
| |
|