| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 63 post(s) |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
471
   |
Posted - 2012.09.19 11:31:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'm Down wrote:60 pages of players who get that small changes to two ships make more sense than sweeping changes that affect an entire class of combat that by far wasn't problematic beyond two ships.
60 pages of people saying nerf range, but lay off nerfing dps.
60 pages of people saying focus specifically on the drake/tengu.
Who wants to bet this "constructive feedback" gets overlooked and we see this proposition go through unchanged.
This will happen, absolutely, no question. As was proved with the unified inventory farce, CCP don't really care if people disagree with their proposals, they go ahead and do them anyway. Then when the inevitable shitstorm happens, they try and backtrack and make emergency "iterations". Just enough of them to make us think that they are addressing the problem, but aren't really.
Again with the unified inventory, a lot of the promised iterations never happened, and I believe that they never will.
CCP philosophy:
Bring crap in regardless, and when riots occur, do a couple of slight amendments to keep people quiet until it all dies down. And...... on to the next bit of crap. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
473
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 13:54:00 -
[2] - Quote
Warde Guildencrantz wrote:That is the main difference between missiles and turrets. Missiles are easier because transversal is irrelevant. You don't have control over it. There is a reason why missile boats are considered noob friendly compared to turret boats.
You can't get the same maximal effectiveness from both turrets and missiles if the latter involves less skill and effort ( things which are essential for manual piloting ).
Exactly. And to compensate for the the less skill and effort required, missiles do crappy damage, which is also delayed by the flight time. So now, the base damage will be reduced, and TD's will bring that down even further. How the hell can you tracking disrupt something that doesn't track. CCP, stop smoking that stuff ffs.
This is too much of a nerf to make any sense.
|
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
473
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 14:01:00 -
[3] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Are you even open to changing any of this or are you just planning to ignore everyone?
We are a long way from release and none of these proposals are set in stone. What I will say is that we are set in the belief that heavy missiles do need changes to bring them closer in power to other long range weapons. The details of how that happens is definitely up for debate.
Is that the same type of debate that took place on SISI over the new unified inventory ?
That is, pretend to listen and ignore everyone ?
|
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
475
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 19:50:00 -
[4] - Quote
Bloodpetal wrote:To help Fozzie out...
Balance changes requires tweaking stats.
The Unified Inventory was a huge code undertaking from the FOUNDATION of EVE up to the highest levels of EVE codes. Making changes on a whim after work was done would've required whole amounts of weeks or more to be scrapped and redone. So, making changes there wasn't just a matter of punching a number in a spreadsheet and adjusting it.
Unified Inventory needed a lot of love when it came out, but it wasn't because they were ignoring you.
To help you out....
There were weeks, yes weeks of replies in the Unified Inventory thread detailing the exact problems that the new system would introduce. Very reasonable and sensible suggestions were made by a large number of people BEFORE this was introduced onto TQ.
All these were ignored and it was brought in regardless. Then surprise, surprise most of the EVE community were screaming about the EXACT same problems that were spotted by us on SISI.
So.... Yes, they did completely ignore all the feedback that was given (and there was a lot of it). I think it was a fair question to ask if it is going to happen again. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
475
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:04:00 -
[5] - Quote
Cartheron Crust wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Why nerf things when you could buff things instead? When we are balancing in a game like Eve we always need to be concious of the danger presented by power creep. In some games where the progression is tied to ever advancing gear stats power creep isn't a big issue as it is built into the whole premise of the game. In a sandbox like Eve player advancement is tied to individual freeform goals and we need to make sure that the tools available are both interesting and balanced. Any time we buff something in Eve, we are nerfing every other item in the game slightly by extension. In a case like this we believe that the best course of action is to adjust the Heavy Missiles downwards to achieve balance. Aware of power creep? You mean like introducing a new BC tier that uses BS weapons and has better agility (+50%) and better speed (+50%) than the current tier 2 BC's that are getting nerfed because they are a little overpowered atm? Or introducing a tanking module that is far better than any other tanking module in the game so much so that it obsoletes other fits meant for a ship via its bonuses? Or introducing Tech 3's that are easier to skill for and overshadow other types of ship in the game at their intended roles (T3's as HAC's/Linkships)? Or Fighterbombers? Yes I can see CCP is very aware of power creep.  I also await the day of "Put a TD on everything".
Spot on :) |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
475
|
Posted - 2012.09.19 20:42:00 -
[6] - Quote
Jenn aSide wrote:Dante Lioncourt wrote:But seriously guys do you not think that CCP has got plan for the rest of the caldari missile boats that never get used that would balance this out ? For example the cerb which could be a awesome long range missile boat with wicked speed Or maby they have a suprise for the ferox ? This is EVE anything is possible , just be positive  you must be new...... lol
Or a CCP alt |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
475
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:23:00 -
[7] - Quote
Travis117 wrote:Ima wait and see most likely sell my tengus for a proteus
................................................................
Dude, no one will buy your Tengu after this |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
475
|
Posted - 2012.09.20 07:52:00 -
[8] - Quote
BrokenBC wrote:@ Hans Jagerblitzen, at least we know which csm not to vote for next election!!! this Nerf is way over the top.
Or any of them tbh
This is looking like the most inept and ineffectual CSM for years. |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
478
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 06:18:00 -
[9] - Quote
Krystyn wrote:Who dreams up these horrible ideas?
The inventory UI is still worse than it was before.
Will it ever be as functional as it was before. We're like 6 months past and still not there yet
Never going to happen.
They made a few chages when the shitstorm happened to calm people down and pretend that they were going to fix it.
Now they have moved on to the next piece of crap that they will break and not fix.
And the next....and the next..... |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
478
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 06:23:00 -
[10] - Quote
Anabaric wrote:Reading through the complaints, and praise both seem pretty equal in numbers... CCP must be doing something right. 
:double facepalm |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
478
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 06:35:00 -
[11] - Quote
Terik Deatharbingr wrote:Garviel Tarrant wrote:TriadSte wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:
All Missiles
Increase missile acceleration so that real range is much closer to the client assumed range of flighttime*speed against a stationary target. This means a slight range buff for all missiles, and missiles will act in a way that is more intuitive to newer players.
Heavy Missiles
-Base flight time reduced by 30%
-Base velocity increased by 6.66%
-In total, base range reduced by ~25%
-Damage decreased by 20% (rounded to closest digit)
-Affects all variant Heavy missiles, including FOF.
You are having a late April fools joke yes? So in that respect I'm going to lose : 106 DPS 4.5 Seconds of flight time that's a loss of 37km with current figures. Are you going crazy over there in Iceland or what? What in gods name got into your thick skulls about reducing heavy missile damage? Theyre not exactly awesome DPS as they are. What was the thought process for making medicore DPS.....worse? There i fixed that quote for you. Also HML's were the highest dps long range weapon by FAR, and they will still have more dps than comparable long range weapons after the nerf. l2p? but if long range guns switch to short range ammo, does their DPS NOT exceed that of the drake? Can the drake change to HAM's mid fight?
Exactly the point
|
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
478
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 06:56:00 -
[12] - Quote
Marlona Sky wrote:You guys are impossible. All you care about is your precious 'do everything' Drake.
And all you care about is stopping the Drake blobs that are currently kicking your ass |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
478
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:22:00 -
[13] - Quote
Ark Anhammar wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Soon Shin wrote:
TD needs to have two different types. One for Missiles and one for Turrets. Therefore the pilot will have to choose between either missiles or turrets, rather than just fit one and win.
Which is a solution CCP Fozzie has already stated they are considering. Here's hoping the answer is yes. I still can't understand why anyone would hope to argue that missile ships still need to be special snowflakes and have a separate TD module.
Well... thatGÇÖs because you canGÇÖt track disrupt a weapon system that doesnGÇÖt track.... DOH !
|
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
478
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 07:41:00 -
[14] - Quote
Hazen Koraka wrote:Nagarythe Tinurandir wrote:Hazen Koraka wrote:So... 110 pages of mostly people against these changes.
When will Fozzie respond with his counter argument? Or will he let this thread rumble on until Winter when they go ahead with the changes anyway, regardless of feedback? Cmon Fozzie, we want feedback too! he already did. post #1318 https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1942484#post1942484it just drowed in all the whining of grunts and people who complain because there ships wont be uber anymore. Oh thanks for that, yes I missed it in all the posts! So erm yeah... the result is... we're gonna nerf anyway?
Pretty much, yes |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
478
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 08:33:00 -
[15] - Quote
Signal11th wrote: Ufortunately although I admire your sentiment people always say "I'm off" and don't actually go through with it. I'll be staying because I like EVE and will just buy the ship that hasn't been nerfed and that will still do the same job.
It doesn't change the fact that I think it's run by people who really don't understand their user base even after so many cockups and apologies and their little lapdogs with their holier than thou attitudes.
Spot on dude |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
480
|
Posted - 2012.09.21 13:37:00 -
[16] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:Seranova Farreach wrote:" Why are you nerfing the weapon system when the real problem is two ships?
It is true that the use of heavy missiles is very strongly concentrated on the Drake and Tengu at this time. There are some problems with those ships that will need to be solved in time, and we also need to make ships like the Caracal, Cerb and Nighthawk more viable with Heavy Missiles"
your not makeing HM nighthawk more viable your killing it, the dps is already low on NH with HMs barely 500 with the proposed changes it will be barely 300-350 The Nighthawk died the day the Drake was introduced. Resurrecting it is definitely on the to-do list but first we need a relatively stable platform upon which to build its bonuses. CCP Greyscale wrote: NH balance - is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?
LOL, priceless |
Rommiee
Mercury Inc.
480
|
Posted - 2012.09.24 11:30:00 -
[17] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:I have a few changes to the proposal we're considering and testing internally. Once we get past that stage I'll take them to the CSM, then to you all.
LOL...... This CSM will just agree with anything CCP says, so skip that part and save yourself a bit of time.
|
| |
|