|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 38 post(s) |

cecil b d'milf
State War Academy Caldari State
3
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 04:38:00 -
[1] - Quote
CCP were under the impression they controlled the game... Goons just informed them otherwise 
CFC... too big to fail. |

cecil b d'milf
State War Academy Caldari State
5
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 18:35:00 -
[2] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Rather than nerfing everything into the ground up front, we'd rather catch the really obvious stuff first and then see how the game plays out.
Couldn't agree more. So why was the first devblog so focused on nerfing it all into the ground? Just to get a rise out of the community? Because now we have those who were happy with nerfing it into the ground being made to feel like you are "caving in", when in fact you are taking a logical, methodical approach. But before that we had to experience the threadnaught where those who saw it as unnecessarily aggressive were forced to point out a lot of very obvious issues. Glad you finally got to this point, but not sure it had to take this path
Considering how confused you are by CCP's initial direction with these changes, perhaps you ought to consider the more logical explanation that it was intentional and they did "cave in".
Occam's razor pal.
|

cecil b d'milf
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 18:38:00 -
[3] - Quote
Yun Kuai wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Retar Aveymone wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: - Battle rorqual -- Lots of cross-training for questionable value and the certainty that we'll nerf it anyway -- Reduced/removed drone bonus
just out of curiosity let us suppose the battle rorqual fleet was deployed how long do you think we'd have to play around with it before it got nerfed :sun: Depends how funny we found it, I think. I think we just found the new end boss on the forums 
New end boss that tries to create new end game content and bottles it ?
|

cecil b d'milf
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 18:48:00 -
[4] - Quote
Drak Fel wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: - Setting up caches of ships and jump cloning to them -- Difficulty and cost of setting up and maintaining caches of sufficient size and density -- Limit jump clone usage furtehr - Ascendancy capitals -- Risks involved, rarity of key items -- Reduce bonuses hyperspatial whatsamajigs give to supers - Battle rorqual -- Lots of cross-training for questionable value and the certainty that we'll nerf it anyway -- Reduced/removed drone bonus - T1 hauler redeployment -- Risk of moving your whole fleet in T1 haulers, bridging or no -- Nerf hauler fatigue bonus - Using JFs to move your fleet -- Requires everyone to train for and own a JF, requires you to fly round in an unescorted fleet of JFs -- We're going to nerf JFs evenutally, if we have to tackle this in the meantime we'll think of something - Blockade-runner/black ops fleet movement -- Need to have BO stationed everywhere to pull it off -- Nerf BR bonuses - Roaming fast-warp carrier gangs -- It's a gimmick, there's probably a good counter -- Delete carriers from game (kidding, unfortunately, but we'll think of something)
So basically what you're saying is, don't do anything that can give you an advantage or we will nerf it to the ground. Not much of a sandbox.
So people will not use the above tactics for fear that they may not be able to use the above tactics ? Or ... they will just use them until they can no longer use them ?
Which one of these makes more sense ?
|

cecil b d'milf
State War Academy Caldari State
7
|
Posted - 2014.10.10 20:00:00 -
[5] - Quote
Dirk MacGirk wrote:cecil b d'milf wrote:Dirk MacGirk wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote: Rather than nerfing everything into the ground up front, we'd rather catch the really obvious stuff first and then see how the game plays out.
Couldn't agree more. So why was the first devblog so focused on nerfing it all into the ground? Just to get a rise out of the community? Because now we have those who were happy with nerfing it into the ground being made to feel like you are "caving in", when in fact you are taking a logical, methodical approach. But before that we had to experience the threadnaught where those who saw it as unnecessarily aggressive were forced to point out a lot of very obvious issues. Glad you finally got to this point, but not sure it had to take this path Considering how confused you are by CCP's initial direction with these changes, perhaps you ought to consider the more logical explanation that it was intentional and they did "cave in". Occam's razor pal. Considering he has done exactly what he should have done in the first place, I think I've got a pretty good grasp on what the logical route was. They have multiple tools they can use in order to effect their desired outcome. They didn't need to drop the unopened toolbox from a 10-story building onto the problem, and then step themselves back, giving the impression of caving in. The modifications they have now come out with, all generally sensible, would have been the original outcome if they had bothered to discuss details with the CSM they way they should have. Instead, they brought it directly to the rabble using a worst-case scenario. That is bad judgment. And now that they have half of the people happy they showed moderation by using a logical process of change and review, they now have dopes who think they caved in. I guess you'd prefer a bad outcome as long as it means they didn't cave in on your illogical ideas. Make sense. Thank you for your insight, and good day sir.
Considering I was referring to what CCP intended to do and not making a comment about what they ought to have done, your lengthy explanation actually supports my point. It is far more reasonable to assume that CCP fully intended to drop the nerfquake and then backed away in the face of the tear tsunami that resulted. Your own confusion at why CCP would go about things in such an odd way if these tweaks were the original desired end point points to the more simple explanation that it never was the the desired end point. They were not "leaving themselves open to accusations of caving in"... they actually did cave in.
|

cecil b d'milf
State War Academy Caldari State
8
|
Posted - 2014.10.11 12:28:00 -
[6] - Quote
GeeBee wrote: The carrier is the entry level ship for anyone getting into being an independent nullsec player or entity.
and you wonder why CCP needs to take action ? |

cecil b d'milf
State War Academy Caldari State
10
|
Posted - 2014.10.11 16:40:00 -
[7] - Quote
Kiryen O'Bannon wrote:GeeBee wrote:This witch hunt of nerfing power projection makes be believe that CCP has lost sight of this being a sandbox MMO. All these silly regulations and stipulations and tribulations closing loops holes. Its a sandbox, what you're currently doing is overkill. The "Sandbox Argument", in fact, is a perfect example of fallacious reasoning - specifically Non Sequiter and Special Pleading, and can easily be countered by Reduction to Absurdity. All game mechanics and rules are regulations and stipulations of some sort. The fact that this is a game about spaceships and not wizards and dragons is a stipulation. The fact that a "cruiser" is larger than a "frigate" is a stipulation. Every game mechanic is a "Regulation" of some sort. It therefore does not follow (Non Sequiter) that there is something wrong with the proposed changes simply because they introduce new and different stipulations, regulations, or close "loopholes". All game changes and updates do that in some respect; in fact even creating the game in the first place did so. Your argument, if taken literally, is that changes to the game are bad because they are changes and that a "sandbox" precludes balancing or improvement attempts (regardless of the merits of the individual attempts) because it might somehow affect player behavior. This is your argument taken to its logical conclusion and thereby reduced to absurdity. There is no strict wall between "themepark" and "sandbox" but it defies reason to suggest that creating new rules (the "box" part of the sandBOX) to revitalize areas of the game that are stagnating inherently changes the game into a themepark. What you are REALLY trying to argue (and will no doubt deny in a fit of "you can't read my mind!" despite making your real intentions pretty transparent) is that these changes somehow make the game "themepark" because you don't like them. You have some arbitrary line or criteria in your mind based on the gameplay you want to engage in, and this somehow violates it, so therefore it magically becomes "too themepark". This is Special Pleading at it's finest "These changes are too themepark and bad for the game because I don't like them!" Like most people, you then make the case that this somehow means disaster for EVE. It is a common conceit of MMO players anywhere that any change they personally disapprove of means mass exodus from the game, but if MMO companies actually listened to such nonsense, we'd still be playing Everquest without any expansions.
I think Gee Bee wants to play OMNIPOTENT ONLINE.
|

cecil b d'milf
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 13:34:00 -
[8] - Quote
smokeydapot wrote:So I ran this idea past some non eve players using the analogy of cars the story goes as such:
Me: so you hear of a brand new BMW that is capable of doing 1000 miles per gallon, It costs you a years wage and an extensive driving licence that takes more than a year to complete.
them: WhatGÇÖs it called ?
Me: The BMW 540 W.I.S, Anyway this car has the ability to carry other cars, all of your furniture and go 400 MPH.
Them: 400 MPH ???
Me: yes itGÇÖs an awesome machine, ItGÇÖs the ultimate car.
Them: Ok I'm sold, Sign me up i want it.
Me: now the dealership drops the bombshell.
Them: thereGÇÖs always a catch.
Me: as usual, the car never does the 1000 miles, after 48.5 miles it overheats before you can travel again leaving you at the side of the road for 5 minutes and 51 seconds.
Them: well that sucks.
Me: thatGÇÖs not the extent of it, once you start driving again because the engine retains heat you travel 35.7 miles before stopping expecting it to overheat again, Your expectation is correct but this time you are stranded at the side of the road for 25 minutes.
Them: screw it I would rather take the train.
Me: but what about all the cool features this car has to offer ??
Them: ItGÇÖs not worth the time investment or money to sit at the side of the road.
Me: But itGÇÖs such a cool car if you want you can get a tow to cover extra distance while it cools down.
Them: nope not interested, I buy a car to get around despite all the cool features itGÇÖs not worth the trouble.
So even them that have never played eve or have any idea of these changes ( before this conversation ) agree that this "patch" is a pile of crap.
Go try this with people that don't play eve yourself and see what the reaction is.
How many BMWs do the US Navy have on deployment in the Persian Gulf currently ?
|

cecil b d'milf
State War Academy Caldari State
11
|
Posted - 2014.10.15 17:39:00 -
[9] - Quote
Dwissi wrote:If everyone would just step back for a second and look at the situation from the outside you would probably rethink the 'wtf' attitude and calm down a bit:
Capitals where introduced to have a counter to the original POS warfare. There is no POS warfare anymore because everyone kept shouting and screaming how awful that was. CCP changed it and yet - you kept your capitals - unchanged even.
We - the players - twisted the original ideas of ships into some completely different roles and as a result we twisted the original ideas of many other things at the same time. Eve is intertwined and we created effects that where not appreciated by many. CCP gave us a lot of time and just watched - but they obviously where not blind.
We as players have not been able to turn this wheel back - pretty human reaction as limiting ones abilities usually only happens when outside forces are at work. CCP is this outside force. Eve requires a change and change always means someone is going to suffer at least to some extend. Many others have suffered in other areas when changes where introduced for their line of gaming.
Pay these fellow gamers a bit of respect and dont act out like the upcoming changes are more important and more hurting than others in the past. Try to stay calm and adopt first instead of pumping out the 100th idea how CCP should implement things. We love to claim to be the 'smarter' community and the smarter players compared to other games - but currently we behave as bad as players of 'the game who's name shall not be stated'.
hear hear |
|
|
|