Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
294
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:54:00 -
[121] - Quote
Jafit McJafitson wrote:Bakuhz wrote:thorgil wrote:it's time to eat drop. Tons of drop. and there problem solved a cheap synt drop will give 3% ish so bye bye nerf Are you implying that tracking dreads didn't already use drop? Clearly, the solution is to just have dozens of spare TCs in your cargohold, and just refit the burnt out ones over the course of the battle I'm almost sure that's what is going to happen. People will just drop a mobile depot and keep cycling out new mids as they burn up. ******* ********. I'm seriously astounded by the **** being announced recently. It's like they're taking our sub money and using it to buy really good drugs on Silk Road with bitcoins or some **** because I don't know where the hell these ideas are coming from |
Thatt Guy
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
61
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:57:00 -
[122] - Quote
WHAT THE ****?
Has everyone at CCP gone stupid? |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
278
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 20:57:00 -
[123] - Quote
I'm going to reserve judgment until Fozzie actually explains the reasoning.
What specific situations was 5% tracking too much, or putting dreads over the top?
Was it a specific fit? Situation?
I (and I assume others) are just wondering...Why? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
967
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:00:00 -
[124] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:I'm going to reserve judgment until Fozzie actually explains the reasoning.
What specific situations was 5% tracking too much, or putting dreads over the top?
Was it a specific fit? Situation?
I (and I assume others) are just wondering...Why? The reasoning should be pretty obvious. He kinda went out of his way to make sure it was understood this was not in isolation so there wasn't any existing situation since the thing being compensated for isn't out yet.
The relevant question is, is it justified. |
Rammix
Cosmic Clowns Killers Red Alliance
240
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:01:00 -
[125] - Quote
Money Makin Mitch wrote:It's like they're taking our sub money and using it to buy really good drugs on Silk Road with bitcoins or some **** because I don't know where the hell these ideas are coming from Yeah, this exactly. Sober mind can't make such "ideas". OpenSUSE 13.1, wine 1.7 Covert cyno in highsec: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=296129&find=unread |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
278
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:04:00 -
[126] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:I'm going to reserve judgment until Fozzie actually explains the reasoning.
What specific situations was 5% tracking too much, or putting dreads over the top?
Was it a specific fit? Situation?
I (and I assume others) are just wondering...Why? The reasoning should be pretty obvious. He kinda went out of his way to make sure it was understood this was not in isolation so there wasn't any existing situation since the thing being compensated for isn't out yet. The relevant question is, is it justified.
But you can't overheat indefinitely, so it's a net nerf.
I think this should be pretty easy to understand, so there must be some larger reason. |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
480
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:05:00 -
[127] - Quote
You all new this was coming...
Stealth Buff to Phoenix! Free Ripley Weaver! |
Thead Enco
Killing is Business Get Off My Lawn
49
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:07:00 -
[128] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:
In Rubicon 1.1 the tracking speed of all Capital Turrets will decrease by 5%.
This means tracking will be 5% down vs current TQ values when not overheating any TCs, about 2% down when overheating one T2 TC, and about 1.5% up when overheating two T2 TCs. Using higher meta TCs makes the crossover faster.
These changes will be on SISI very soon for you to try out for yourself, and as always we look forward to hearing your feedback.
Thanks!
You guys have seriously gone "Full ******" again with this ****??? this is what? tracking nerf #5? i've lost count. Have you even every "overheated" your guns in a cap battle pre & post tidi? Again because BLAPPING Dreads are the reason why subcaps dieing in a Hades fire ball.........
"Any man who must say 'I am the king' is no true king."
Tywin Lannister-á |
|
CCP Phantom
C C P C C P Alliance
3952
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:07:00 -
[129] - Quote
I would like to remind everyone to please stay constructive. It is of course valid to ask for the reasons of a change, nothing wrong with that! Constructive feedback is always welcome.
CCP Phantom - Senior Community Representative - Volunteer Manager |
|
Onslaughtor
Alexylva Paradox
74
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:09:00 -
[130] - Quote
Soldarius wrote:You all new this was coming...
Stealth Buff to Phoenix!
They have been Stealth buffing the crap out of it. Its really good now and no one knows it. |
|
Le Petite More
Brave Newbies Inc. Brave Collective
75
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:09:00 -
[131] - Quote
I can't even fly a dread and I think this is silly. I remember trying to web down a battleship for our dreads to hit and it was almost impossible which is fine but when they have trouble hitting carriers we have a problem |
Deedrix Dako
Somali Sailors
7
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:10:00 -
[132] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:It is of course valid to ask for the reasons of a change, nothing wrong with that!
How about answering those questions then...
|
Blodhgarm Dethahal
Transcendent Sedition Dustm3n
80
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:14:00 -
[133] - Quote
Le Petite More wrote:I can't even fly a dread and I think this is silly. I remember trying to web down a battleship for our dreads to hit and it was almost impossible which is fine but when they have trouble hitting carriers we have a problem
If your Dreads are having problems hitting battleships something is very wrong with either webing or the Dreads. -Bl+¦d
Transcendent Sedition is recruiting! Join "TSED Recruitment" chat ingame to talk to us if you are interested in Wormhole life! |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
967
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:17:00 -
[134] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Pinky Hops wrote:I'm going to reserve judgment until Fozzie actually explains the reasoning.
What specific situations was 5% tracking too much, or putting dreads over the top?
Was it a specific fit? Situation?
I (and I assume others) are just wondering...Why? The reasoning should be pretty obvious. He kinda went out of his way to make sure it was understood this was not in isolation so there wasn't any existing situation since the thing being compensated for isn't out yet. The relevant question is, is it justified. But you can't overheat indefinitely, so it's a net nerf. I think this should be pretty easy to understand, so there must be some larger reason. It's clearly a nerf, because peak performance is getting a buff and their regulating that buff to be less than what it would be without this change by pre-nerfing it.
Things tend to be balanced off of peak performance, regardless of sustainability. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
280
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:24:00 -
[135] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:Things tend to be balanced off of peak performance, regardless of sustainability.
But this is a really strange way of approaching "peak performance."
It's based on a theoretical fit which people may or may not field.
Furthermore, by forcing players to overheat to get to where they were, you sort of artificially dictate to the players what peak performance represents to that ship, and then balance around that....Even though other players may not share that view of peak performance -- and those players get hit.
I'm OK with certain levels of fit dictating -- Cov Ops Cloak is a good example of that. Triage, Bastion. Etc.
But when it gets to a point where you're dictating a fit right down to tracking computers/enhancers it gets a little bit silly.
I think the concept of balancing around "peak performance" is good, but it needs to be a fuzzy/blurry version of peak performance, or you risk the threat of balancing around an edge case.
And if you are balancing a ship around the edge case of a fit -- it might be that specific modules are the problem rather than the ship itself.
It's a strange move to buff a module type and then nerf the ships that use the module when it's not exactly a keystone module or anything. |
Money Makin Mitch
Paid in Full
295
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:39:00 -
[136] - Quote
CCP Phantom wrote:I would like to remind everyone to please stay constructive. It is of course valid to ask for the reasons of a change, nothing wrong with that! Constructive feedback is always welcome.
Try making some constructive content. I can't believe you guys are wasting man-hours on some of these ridiculous Rubicon 1.1 changes that seem to be added 'just because' |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
967
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:41:00 -
[137] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:Things tend to be balanced off of peak performance, regardless of sustainability. But this is a really strange way of approaching "peak performance." It's based on a theoretical fit which people may or may not field. Furthermore, by forcing players to overheat to get to where they were, you sort of artificially dictate to the players what peak performance represents to that ship, and then balance around that....Even though other players may not share that view of peak performance -- and those players get hit. I'm OK with certain levels of fit dictating -- Cov Ops Cloak is a good example of that. Triage, Bastion. Etc. But when it gets to a point where you're dictating a fit right down to tracking computers/enhancers it gets a little bit silly. I think the concept of balancing around "peak performance" is good, but it needs to be a fuzzy/blurry version of peak performance, or you risk the threat of balancing around an edge case. And if you are balancing a ship around the edge case of a fit -- it might be that specific modules are the problem rather than the ship itself. It's a strange move to buff a module type and then nerf the ships that use the module when it's not exactly a keystone module or anything. Determining peak performance on the other hand is part of the purpose of balance, and it's very direct and in no way artificial, so that isn't so much as issue as a statement of fact.
While reserving judgement regarding this change, it doesn't make sense to me to NOT consider edge fits, simply because those fits being edge cases now doesn't guarantee they will remain so due to being carelessly buffed.
The other issue you mention, that the mod may be the issue, I'd be more inclined to lean that direction when all affected configurations need changed. It reminds me of arguments in the resist bonus nerf thread citing RR as being the OP element, not the combination of RR and those bonuses, and suggesting RR be globally nerfed thus all non resist bonused ships under RR nerfed when they were never identified as problematic. Similarly to that situation you suggest nerfing all ships regardless of weapon size that fit TC's instead of one class. It's arguably an even more haphazard approach than what Fozzie is already announcing.
As such I'd still conclude questioning whether the nerf is needed at all is the better approach. |
James Amril-Kesh
4S Corporation Goonswarm Federation
8530
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:47:00 -
[138] - Quote
Deedrix Dako wrote:CCP Phantom wrote:It is of course valid to ask for the reasons of a change, nothing wrong with that! How about answering those questions then... Yes CCP Phantom senior community representative please do answer these important questions about game balance. My EVE Videos |
Kasumi 'Goto
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:51:00 -
[139] - Quote
Rammix wrote:Kasumi 'Goto wrote:I like this change. Helps to bring the other dreads inline with the phoenix. Either that or buff the phoenix. In one line with dirt you mean? Nerf 3 instead of boosting/fixing 1? lol
I would rather see the phoenix buffed rather than nerf the other 3. That said, I will take this over nothing. |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
287
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 21:54:00 -
[140] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:While reserving judgement regarding this change, it doesn't make sense to me to NOT consider edge fits, simply because those fits being edge cases now doesn't guarantee they will remain so due to being carelessly buffed.
You definitely have to consider edge fits, but they have to be targeted and excluded from the rest. My point about balancing around an edge case is that if you do it broadly, you can unintentionally nerf things that aren't a problem.
Tyberius Franklin wrote:The other issue you mention, that the mod may be the issue, I'd be more inclined to lean that direction when all affected configurations need changed. It reminds me of arguments in the resist bonus nerf thread citing RR as being the OP element, not the combination of RR and those bonuses, and suggesting RR be globally nerfed thus all non resist bonused ships under RR nerfed when they were never identified as problematic. Similarly to that situation you suggest nerfing all ships regardless of weapon size that fit TC's instead of one class. It's arguably an even more haphazard approach than what Fozzie is already announcing.
Hrm. I'm not sure about all this. I didn't propose any particular change. I subscribe to the RTS School of Balance -- which may or may not be derided in this community.
The school is: you change as little as possible to have the effect you want. You always divide things into smaller and smaller sections to identify the one specific number that needs to be changed -- and change it by the smallest amount to bring the offending edge case back in line.
The smaller the total set is of changed things there are, while still killing the edge case -- the better the balance change was. That's one thing I like about the RTS approach -- they always seek the most elegant/minimalist approach possible except in things like expansions or massive content changes.
You have a blurry view of what peak performance relatively represents (comparing fits to other fits), but no absolute magical power number to "balance" around.
For instance you would almost never see a change like: "All medium units move slower." |
|
Dograzor
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
62
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:09:00 -
[141] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: With the help of the CSM we have identified that the effects on Capital Turret tracking would be (slightly) negative so we're making a small tweak to them at the same time as the heat expansion.
Please tell me how (or who of) the CSM was involved in this, and on what reasoning did the CSM decide that the upcoming change was "negative" for dreads guns? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
967
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:11:00 -
[142] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:While reserving judgement regarding this change, it doesn't make sense to me to NOT consider edge fits, simply because those fits being edge cases now doesn't guarantee they will remain so due to being carelessly buffed. You definitely have to consider edge fits, but they have to be targeted and excluded from the rest. My point about balancing around an edge case is that if you do it broadly, you can unintentionally nerf things that aren't a problem. Tyberius Franklin wrote:The other issue you mention, that the mod may be the issue, I'd be more inclined to lean that direction when all affected configurations need changed. It reminds me of arguments in the resist bonus nerf thread citing RR as being the OP element, not the combination of RR and those bonuses, and suggesting RR be globally nerfed thus all non resist bonused ships under RR nerfed when they were never identified as problematic. Similarly to that situation you suggest nerfing all ships regardless of weapon size that fit TC's instead of one class. It's arguably an even more haphazard approach than what Fozzie is already announcing. Hrm. I'm not sure about all this. I didn't propose any particular change. I subscribe to the RTS School of Balance -- which may or may not be derided in this community. The school is: you change as little as possible to have the effect you want. You always divide things into smaller and smaller sections to identify the one specific number that needs to be changed -- and change it by the smallest amount to bring the offending edge case back in line. The smaller the total set is of changed things there are, while still killing the edge case -- the better the balance change was. That's one thing I like about the RTS approach -- they always seek the most elegant/minimalist approach possible except in things like expansions or massive content changes. You have a blurry view of what peak performance relatively represents (comparing fits to other fits), but no absolute magical power number to "balance" around. For instance you would almost never see a change like: "All medium units move slower." There's a pretty big issue there for that balance method to work. With regard to tracking there is a small set of numbers: skills, base weapon tracking, and module/implant modifiers; and furthermore all but one effects a much wider range. So really, in this case "All medium units move slower." is still pretty narrow when compared to "All units move slower" or "All non-medium units move faster" |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
287
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:19:00 -
[143] - Quote
Tyberius Franklin wrote:There's a pretty big issue there for that balance method to work. With regard to tracking there is a small set of numbers: skills, base weapon tracking, and module/implant modifiers; and furthermore all but one effects a much wider range. So really, in this case "All medium units move slower." is still pretty narrow when compared to "All units move slower" or "All non-medium units move faster"
I disagree.
There's a lot of numbers.
For instance: Each ship's individual tracking speed bonus if any Each gun for each ship's tracking speed (the modules) The overheat bonuses + all the other ones you mentioned.
I would classify "all dreadnoughts track 5% slower" as a very broad change.
Maybe it's needed, maybe it isn't. All I asked for initially was the justification |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
287
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:28:00 -
[144] - Quote
With Rubicon 1.1, I am convinced that CCP is trying to reignite interest in the game by irritating as many people as possible. These collective changes are designed to recreate the stunning success of Incarna and end the stagnation in Eve. How else do you explain changes that were not called for by anyone, do not address fundamental issues, and manage to affect nearly everyone who plays the game? Well played, CCP. Well played. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
967
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:29:00 -
[145] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:Tyberius Franklin wrote:There's a pretty big issue there for that balance method to work. With regard to tracking there is a small set of numbers: skills, base weapon tracking, and module/implant modifiers; and furthermore all but one effects a much wider range. So really, in this case "All medium units move slower." is still pretty narrow when compared to "All units move slower" or "All non-medium units move faster" I disagree. There's a lot of numbers. For instance: Each ship's individual tracking speed. Each gun for each ship's tracking speed (the modules) The overheat bonuses + all the other ones you mentioned. I would classify "all dreadnoughts track 5% slower" as a very broad change. "Each ship's individual tracking speed. ... The overheat bonuses" Ships don't have tracking speeds, so I'm not sure what you mean there. Nor do the guns themselves have tracking overheat bonuses unless I've missed something.
"Each gun for each ship's tracking speed (the modules)" This is a function of the things mentioned in my post. It doesn't exist separate from them and is directly modified as a result of changing those underlying factors.
I'm possibly not understanding because the factors you mention seem to either not exist or aren't factors, but rather the end result of combining them.
Note: For simplification I counted ship bonuses for tracking under skills, which could arguably be counted separately, but in the case that "XL turret tracking" is the identified issue, unless all of the ships capable of fitting them have such a bonus it becomes a moot point. |
Kassasis Dakkstromri
Terra Incognita Insidious Empire
138
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:39:00 -
[146] - Quote
Instead of nerfing to placate the CFC and Goonswarm Fozzie, maybe when the CFC picked up their CSM/CCP Batphone and whined and b!tched someone in CCP could have had the ballz to tell them to ESCALATE!
ESCALATION = PROBLEM SOVLED!
Totally disapprove of a change like this in the middle of a War! Srsly? |
Pinky Hops
Spartan's DNA
287
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:41:00 -
[147] - Quote
I'm not really in the mood for nit picking too much. I already edited my post to say the tracking speed of the ships (bonuses - if any) before you replied -- as verified by timestamps.
That'll be the end of the nitpicking on my end.
All I really stated was that I disagreed that there wasn't enough individual numbers to play with. I see a lot of numbers. |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
967
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:41:00 -
[148] - Quote
Kassasis Dakkstromri wrote:Instead of nerfing to placate the CFC and Goonswarm Fozzie, maybe when the CFC picked up their CSM/CCP Batphone and whined and b!tched someone in CCP could have had the ballz to tell them to ESCALATE! ESCALATION = PROBLEM SOVLED! Totally disapprove of a change like this in the middle of a War! Srsly? Weren't the CFC supposedly training INTO a dread counter to slowcats? |
Malakai Asamov
Van Diemen's Demise Northern Coalition.
30
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:41:00 -
[149] - Quote
Was consideration given to capitals ability to refit and how commonly that is done on the battlefield? Burn out a tracking comp, refit another one...? |
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
967
|
Posted - 2014.01.16 22:47:00 -
[150] - Quote
Pinky Hops wrote:I'm not really in the mood for nit picking too much. I already edited my post to say the tracking speed of the ships (bonuses - if any) before you replied -- as verified by timestamps.
That'll be the end of the nitpicking on my end.
All I really stated was that I disagreed that there wasn't enough individual numbers to play with. I see a lot of numbers. It hadn't been edited when I hit reply, which would be when your post was captured, so there is no need to be defensive about it. I conceded there was something I potentially misunderstood. When I made my revision I hadn't looked back to see if your post changed, but apparently already addressed it. Either way, my original reply still stands, the reason was already stated.
And not meaning to come off as hostile, but really it's pretty objective what the numbers do and as a result which ones do and do not apply. There is no nitpicking, only facts. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 .. 14 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |