My position on the Vagabond remains relatively unchanged. Its the second most popular HAC after Zealot currently [...].

Vagabond is so popular because its unique, lets Face it, the Main Problem is Most ships are just dull and average because they cant do anything special.

Look into the Command Ship Thead they all the same, same Bonuses, same Slots, same EHP, the only differents are the weapons.
Thats the Problem with balancing it ruins the uniquiness for the sake of the Community, because all the whiners want their cheese.

I am talking about statements such as this:



Popularity has little to nothing to do with a weapon systems or ships actual balancing problems. If a weapon type or a ship get used a lot then that does not in any form mean its op or even good.


People use ships they are familar with (cane is quite bad now, yet it still is the 6th most used ship) or weapon systems they are used to ( hmls still see some use yet they are utterly terrible in reality and as all medium long ranged weapon system could use a healthy buff, yet as the only one dont get changed in 1.1).

You could also argue that light blaster and railguns are better then small lalsers since they see more use (and that rockets are horrible since they see little use in coparison) but we all know that that isnt the case.

Most used ship atm is a talwar yet it by no means is the best destroyer, nor is it in any way op.



What im getting it is that the popularity in itself should not be used as a tool to balance. If you for example were to notice a hypothetical weapon system that is vastly under powered yet that is by far the most used ones of all systems you should not go, its fine it gets used a lot, it would still need a rebalance. Polpularitiy is no true measure of the state of balance.


Stop treating it as such.

Performance is in no way equal to popularity. Those are quite different.

Also my opinion is far from uneducated, at least in matters of subcapital performance not that that has anything to do with my opening post.



Please dont turn this into another ahac thread. This is about ccp using popularity as a important figure in balancing (or it coming across as such) while its really not.

Btw CCP doesn't rely on EVE-Kill top 20, perhaps that confuses you.

They have access to data such as ships built, sold and owned per pilot, jumpgate usage per ship, damage dealt per ship per sec status etc etc. Which means they are not relying on the killmail count data twisted by blob doctrines and campaigns.

So what should CCP be using to identify unbalanced ships/modules ?

Their braisn, eft or some similar fitting tool and extensive testing.

Their braisn, eft or some similar fitting tool and extensive testing.

they already do this. you quoted one instance of one dev commenting on the popularity of one ship. this doesn't mean they're balancing only on popularity. sorry you're upset about the vaga.

Anyone complaining about homogenization has obviously never experienced the "FC, can I bring my Drake" era.

TBH it should be rock, paper, scissor balancing. Even if you base that on popularity.

Every system should have an ideal counter to that system and people should realise that.

Say you're roaming around in an armor brawler gang and you run into a shield sniping gang.
If they have some long points in the shield gang and the armor gang tries to fight, they're going to lose.
This doesn't make the shield gang overpowered. It makes it a fight that the armor gang should withdraw from.

Wasn't that the ship with wings?

Funny you mentioned Drake because it was nerfed purely on the popularity it had as the go to fleet Ops sub cap. Much like all Nerfs, they failed to control blobbing because the problem is and always has been the primary alpha system in EVE.

The reason nerfing popularity isn't working, the reason it never will. No ship in this game, none, was designed to have 200 people locking it.

TBH it should be rock, paper, scissor balancing. Even if you base that on popularity.

Every system should have an ideal counter to that system and people should realise that.

Say you're roaming around in an armor brawler gang and you run into a shield sniping gang.
If they have some long points in the shield gang and the armor gang tries to fight, they're going to lose.
This doesn't make the shield gang overpowered. It makes it a fight that the armor gang should withdraw from.

We overused rifters. Sorry about that.

Because what Eve needs is less dynamic PVP?

Funny you mentioned Drake because it was nerfed purely on the popularity it had as the go to fleet Ops sub cap. Much like all Nerfs, they failed to control blobbing because the problem is and always has been the primary alpha system in EVE.

The reason nerfing popularity isn't working, the reason it never will. No ship in this game, none, was designed to have 200 people locking it.

I agree with this. Stop homogenizing EvE!

It doesn't make PvP less dynamic, it's not like every ship should only have one ship to be strong against, one ship to be weak against and one ship to be equal against (or switch the word ship for tactic if you would). It means that every ship should have about the equal amount of ships it's strong against, weak against and equal against. This also doesn't mean that each ship can only be used for one tactic, it can be used for multiple tactics but as long as the chosen tactic is one of the tactics the ship is designed for, then the amount stated above should be more or less the same

Homogenizing is what killed WoW. One thing I always liked about EVE was that the ships were never totally in balance with each other, by design, and that was just How It Is.

Anyone complaining about homogenization has obviously never experienced the "FC, can I bring my Drake" era.

Exactly, there all the same, unless you count the parts that are different, which apparently some of us don't. What was the great difference that people are referring to being lost that isn't there now?

TBH it should be rock, paper, scissor balancing. Even if you base that on popularity.

Every system should have an ideal counter to that system and people should realise that.

Say you're roaming around in an armor brawler gang and you run into a shield sniping gang.
If they have some long points in the shield gang and the armor gang tries to fight, they're going to lose.
This doesn't make the shield gang overpowered. It makes it a fight that the armor gang should withdraw from.

The rock, paper, scissors model is a horrible combat model. Played wow for 8 years and the more wow moved away from their initial RPS model of combat the better the pvp became.

It made an easy goto as far as cost, training ease and effect. Apparently offering too much in CCP's opinion. What I don't understand is the reasoning that a nerf to the drake was ever intended to break up the blob. No stat change on a ship can ever counter the fact that n+1 > n all other things being equal.

Killing by popularity is by definition killing the blob. Blobs burn through more ships that other combat styles.

If I see a situation I know I can't win, I dock up and log out. 10 guys can dock up and play station games. 800 guys won't do that. They will just burn their fleet. Considering the only way CCP can track popular ships is through kill mails, most popular is Blob.

Frankly I think they are wagging the dog. Most of EVE was always inert. Small details being nullified by blap power. It just takes some longer to see it than others and either bow down to the blob or just stop playing.

The point was that pre-determined outcomes make for less frequent and boring PVP. I mean, your example had the first fleet warping off because there was nothing they could do.

the hell is this ****? quality and intelligence on these threads is quite lo- owait, General Discussion.

carry on, and do keep with the whaawhaawhaa.

Congratulation, your the first one who troll this Thread by arguing its a classic General Discussion Troll Thread.

Trollception.

So we need specific pvp ships that will wtfpwn the specific pve ships?

Sounds good.

Performance is in no way equal to popularity. Those are quite different.

Also my opinion is far from uneducated, at least in matters of subcapital performance not that that has anything to do with my opening post.



Please dont turn this into another ahac thread. This is about ccp using popularity as a important figure in balancing (or it coming across as such) while its really not.

Thats why the Dominix Is OP and sales are way up.

Thats why the Machariel got nerfed and sales are way down.

Thats why nanoships were super popular before the nano nerf.

What you are trying to say, but unable to articulate, is that every balance change should not be based solely on the number of people using the ship.

CCP does not do this, has never done this, and likely won't ever do this.

So your entire thread based on one statement is highly irrelevant.

3/10 because you don't even know you're trolling.

Lets look at the Domi and the Armageddon.

Both are drone boats. The Domi gets a 10% falloff and tracking bonus to drones and the Armageddon gets a neut distance bonus. They get the same drone dps bonus. But, due to the Domi being "over powered" is going to lose its 10% falloff and tracking drone bonus. So, the "drone" race won't be able to field even an equivalent boat. They'll have the same drone stats but the Armageddon can fit more neuts and for greater range. One on one, which BS is going to win....the Armageddon because all else being more or less equal, it'll out neut a Domi while applying the same amount of drone DPS. The Domi won't even be able to out dps's the Armageddon because, blasters require cap, and I don't care how many cap boosters you have, against 5 or 6 neuts outside of blaster range means no dps.

And to top it off, vamps are getting a buff......seeing how rebalancing is in full swing, as far as I'm concerned and being a Domi pilot, the Armageddon is going to be over powered as of Odyssey 1.1. So, it's not like CCP is actually doing anything to balance the game. In fact, they're creating other imbalances.

I have no problem with the Geddon neuting better than a Domi.....but what is the Domi going to better? Die, is about it.

Lets look at the Domi and the Armageddon.

Both are drone boats. The Domi gets a 10% falloff and tracking bonus to drones and the Armageddon gets a neut distance bonus. They get the same drone dps bonus. But, due to the Domi being "over powered" is going to lose its 10% falloff and tracking drone bonus. So, the "drone" race won't be able to field even an equivalent boat. They'll have the same drone stats but the Armageddon can fit more neuts and for greater range. One on one, which BS is going to win....the Armageddon because all else being more or less equal, it'll out neut a Domi while applying the same amount of drone DPS. The Domi won't even be able to out dps's the Armageddon because, blasters require cap, and I don't care how many cap boosters you have, against 5 or 6 neuts outside of blaster range means no dps.

And to top it off, vamps are getting a buff......seeing how rebalancing is in full swing, as far as I'm concerned and being a Domi pilot, the Armageddon is going to be over powered as of Odyssey 1.1. So, it's not like CCP is actually doing anything to balance the game. In fact, they're creating other imbalances.

I have no problem with the Geddon neuting better than a Domi.....but what is the Domi going to better? Die, is about it.

Lets look at the Domi and the Armageddon.

Both are drone boats. The Domi gets a 10% falloff and tracking bonus to drones and the Armageddon gets a neut distance bonus. They get the same drone dps bonus. But, due to the Domi being "over powered" is going to lose its 10% falloff and tracking drone bonus. So, the "drone" race won't be able to field even an equivalent boat. They'll have the same drone stats but the Armageddon can fit more neuts and for greater range. One on one, which BS is going to win....the Armageddon because all else being more or less equal, it'll out neut a Domi while applying the same amount of drone DPS. The Domi won't even be able to out dps's the Armageddon because, blasters require cap, and I don't care how many cap boosters you have, against 5 or 6 neuts outside of blaster range means no dps.

And to top it off, vamps are getting a buff......seeing how rebalancing is in full swing, as far as I'm concerned and being a Domi pilot, the Armageddon is going to be over powered as of Odyssey 1.1. So, it's not like CCP is actually doing anything to balance the game. In fact, they're creating other imbalances.

I have no problem with the Geddon neuting better than a Domi.....but what is the Domi going to better? Die, is about it.

I would be curious on how much the Alliance Tournament influences their decisions...

Zero.

The fact that the domi were used so much is simply because they are overpowered.

Blobbing is the best.

Zero.

The fact that the domi were used so much is simply because they are overpowered.

Just pray that your favorite ship doesn't get picked up in a 0.0 doctrine.

The Drake was lolDrake for years, around comes 0.0 shield buffer, and even tho no numbers had changed, the Drake was suddenly considered overpowered.

It did teach people how to firewall properly tho, more tools in the toolbox is always good

Does the Vaga get that Kinetic hole plugged or speed increased to way over 4km/s ensuring it's the fastest cruiser by a mile and a nod to its 'speed tanking' heritage?

If not, sure happy *people* [that I don't know] will fly it, because my Talos likes them easy kills

PG buff is agreeably a lot more useful than them giving it extra hull hit points I suppose.

I agree with the OP.

Citing 'favoritism' over 'facts' is not really your duty when 'balancing'. It's an 'Oh dear' moment for some of us to read that.

You ignore the fact that it was lol Drake in the beginning because noobs kept bringing their pve regen purger Draeks, that tanked whole pve rooms, to pvp battles and expected them to perform the same way, and be appreciated for their anemic dps while they should never die. You also ignore the many changes in the game that shifted the power/value considerations toward Drakes.

When folks started realizing the power of the resist bonus married to logis, the ability to perma mwd it, the 70km sweet spot in range once probing killed off the sniper BSs, the introduction of rig sizing, etc., basically all the other changes in the game that took place over time, they realized Drakes were a very good value. So they started flying them in huge numbers. And, firewalling is a large fleet only, imperfect solution, to a game with no working dedicated anti missile ewar. But that's another issue.

I never met him, but heard a lot of good things about him. Can you introduce us?

So you're saying that data like 23% of all PvP'ers fly a rifter (the number was made up, it's an example) is not a fact? Oh dear...

Quoting for shame. Son, I am disappoint.

http://eve-kill.net/?a=top20

Rifter's not even in the top 20 mate.

Where does your Data come from? Lets look at it (I'm curious as to how you can be so wrong, but think you're so right).