| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Naglerr
Sanguine Penguin
Rote Kapelle
34
   |
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:33:54 -
[1] - Quote
KanmanDS wrote:Everyone else has already clearly illustrated the grossly negative impact this change will have on nearly all aspects of game play. This is so clearly the worst decision CCP has made in years, that it all boils down to this single sentence:
If you make this change, I will unsubscribe, because you are no longer selling a product I am interested in purchasing.
I can understand what motivated this proposed change, but let me explain what this proposed change does to my regular gameplay:
The fleet I am typically a part of consists of between 3 and 10 combat ships and 2 to 4 scouts. Typically all of our scouts have probes deployed. The number of actual people in these fleets is between 3 and 9 and exist in 2 different alliances. So roughly half of our fleet is actively working to get us the warp in on whatever bad that is existing in space so we can make them explode, not your typical FC does all the work fleet.
By constructing our fleet in a particular way and actively swapping fleet leadership roles when needed we can manage to achieve warpins on nearly all targets we want to engage. We heavily make use of fleet warps to bookmarks and probe returns as a method of pvp engagement generation. With the proposed changes our method of combat becomes completely not possible. Yes it is true that we can warp the scout on grid with the target, but that only doubles the time required to perform the same action that was previously possible with a reasonable level of efficiency and at greatly increased risk to our scanners. This will result in missed opportunities on targets for no observable gain in mechanics.
TLDR: We aren't a pile of F1 jockeys and we are being significantly adversely affected by this change. I doubt that the activities I routinely participate in are the ones that CCP is trying to nerf, and yet the change all but destroys our current tactics.
If this change goes live it will only reinforce the fact that CCP does not care about feedback from their customers. We're at 18 pages of no and I've not seen even one comment to suggest this change is being reconsidered.
If CCP turns this product into one that I no longer want, then I will not hesitate to discontinue paying for it. |
Naglerr
Sanguine Penguin
Rote Kapelle
35
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 04:50:47 -
[2] - Quote
Querns wrote:Naglerr wrote:
By constructing our fleet in a particular way and actively swapping fleet leadership roles when needed we can manage to achieve warpins on nearly all targets we want to engage. We heavily make use of fleet warps to bookmarks and probe returns as a method of pvp engagement generation. With the proposed changes our method of combat becomes completely not possible. Yes it is true that we can warp the scout on grid with the target, but that only doubles the time required to perform the same action that was previously possible with a reasonable level of efficiency and at greatly increased risk to our scanners. This will result in missed opportunities on targets for no observable gain in mechanics.
Adapt. Kills are not a commodity that you are owed -- they are a reward. If they become more difficult to acquire, the reward should be sweeter.
I would be perfectly happy to adapt to a mechanic that has at least some positive impact. This change is one that simply makes more burdensome the same tasks I've previously had to complete in order to earn kills. I guess I'm just not understanding how literally removing functionality from a product is supposed to make it more appealing to the customers of said product. Can you explain that one to me Querns? |
Naglerr
Sanguine Penguin
Rote Kapelle
35
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:07:04 -
[3] - Quote
Querns wrote:Naglerr wrote:Querns wrote:Naglerr wrote:
By constructing our fleet in a particular way and actively swapping fleet leadership roles when needed we can manage to achieve warpins on nearly all targets we want to engage. We heavily make use of fleet warps to bookmarks and probe returns as a method of pvp engagement generation. With the proposed changes our method of combat becomes completely not possible. Yes it is true that we can warp the scout on grid with the target, but that only doubles the time required to perform the same action that was previously possible with a reasonable level of efficiency and at greatly increased risk to our scanners. This will result in missed opportunities on targets for no observable gain in mechanics.
Adapt. Kills are not a commodity that you are owed -- they are a reward. If they become more difficult to acquire, the reward should be sweeter. I would be perfectly happy to adapt to a mechanic that has at least some positive impact. This change is one that simply makes more burdensome the same tasks I've previously had to complete in order to earn kills. I guess I'm just not understanding how literally removing functionality from a product is supposed to make it more appealing to the customers of said product. Can you explain that one to me Querns? This change has plenty of positive impact -- it severely diminishes the efficacy of bombers, whose omnipresence choked off available fleet comps to those that could either not be caught, or had small enough signature radii to shrug off bombing runs. Assuming workarounds are not found, we could see the resurgence of shield doctrines for subcaps. This returns a whole host of ships to combat effectiveness, which, to me, is a win.
So you're telling me that the only way to nerf bombers is to nerf everything? I mean, why would you start with the hull bonuses on bombers? Or possibly adjusting the stats of bomb launchers? It's clearly a much better answer to mess with the mechanics that everyone uses than simply nerf the thing that is the target of a nerf. |
Naglerr
Sanguine Penguin
Rote Kapelle
35
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:11:30 -
[4] - Quote
Querns wrote:Naglerr wrote:
So you're telling me that the only way to nerf bombers is to nerf everything?
No.
Please elaborate. If I were assigned to nerf bombers I would start with a hull bonus: Can not receive fleet warps. Please explain how this is a worse idea than removing fleet warps from all ships. |
Naglerr
Sanguine Penguin
Rote Kapelle
35
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:20:05 -
[5] - Quote
Querns wrote:Naglerr wrote:Querns wrote:Naglerr wrote:
So you're telling me that the only way to nerf bombers is to nerf everything?
No. Please elaborate. If I were assigned to nerf bombers I would start with a hull bonus: Can not receive fleet warps. Please explain how this is a worse idea than removing fleet warps from all ships. Nah. You asked for a positive aspect to the fleet warp change, and I supplied it.
So now that I ask a question that you don't have an answer to that suits your narrative you decide to bow out? Thank you for reinforcing my point that this change is a very poor way of achieving the desired effect, both in end result effect to bombers and to end result effect to all other ship types this nerf was apparently not intended for.
|
Naglerr
Sanguine Penguin
Rote Kapelle
35
|
Posted - 2015.06.12 05:28:16 -
[6] - Quote
Rowells wrote:Naglerr wrote:Querns wrote:Naglerr wrote:Please elaborate. If I were assigned to nerf bombers I would start with a hull bonus: Can not receive fleet warps. Please explain how this is a worse idea than removing fleet warps from all ships. Nah. You asked for a positive aspect to the fleet warp change, and I supplied it. So now that I ask a question that you don't have an answer to that suits your narrative you decide to bow out? Thank you for reinforcing my point that this change is a very poor way of achieving the desired effect, both in end result effect to bombers and to end result effect to all other ship types this nerf was apparently not intended for. How do you elaborate on words someone else put in your mouth?
So this reply chain got a bit specific on the disagreement Querns and I seem to have about this change. I'd like to bring it back to the topic at hand:
Is this change for sure directed specifically at bombers? I didn't watch the o7 youtube video people are mentioning that they claim say this. If the nerf is indeed directed at bombers, then why not simply apply a hull bonus to bombers: Can not receive fleet warps?
|
Naglerr
Sanguine Penguin
Rote Kapelle
42
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 17:47:30 -
[7] - Quote
http://www.reddit.com/r/Eve/comments/3a8pss/recording_of_ccp_fleet_warp_meeting_with_wormhole/
This discussion(linked) makes a few things very clear to me:
- The currently proposed removal of game functionality seems destined to occur.
- There will be future changes to the game intended to remove additional functionality from the game for some reason.
- The end result product will not in any way resemble the EVE game that I currently enjoy playing.
I don't know why I'm surprised at all, when CCP messed with the spawn distances to wormholes and the majority response was "do not want" they did it anyway. Why would 80 pages of mostly negative feedback from their customers alter their plans now? I guess it just rubs me the wrong way that they refuse to even compromise when confronted with such voluminous opposition. This situation applied to real business would be something like a major car manufacturer issuing a mandatory recall where they disable all cruise control because that feature causes people to use their cars in a way the manufacturer doesn't like.
Could I adapt? Yes, I suppose I could find a way to have content in this new game, but what it boils down to for me is this: I do not like the game CCP is changing EVE to be and I don't want to. |
Naglerr
Sanguine Penguin
Rote Kapelle
45
|
Posted - 2015.06.18 22:07:35 -
[8] - Quote
Mike Azariah wrote:CSM members are still talking to CCP about this.
Some of us are still, here, listening and taking reasonable concerns and suggestions.
m
This is fantastic news. Protip: Don't look here for additional reasonable concerns, those were all voiced in the first 40 pages. Now most of us are just sitting around complaining and trolling until the verdict is finalized. |
Naglerr
Sanguine Penguin
Rote Kapelle
46
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 17:47:30 -
[9] - Quote
Wow, 91 pages. It would be nice if CCP could come around and provide a status update on this subject. I remember something about them offering an updated status by the end of last week... |
Naglerr
Sanguine Penguin
Rote Kapelle
47
|
Posted - 2015.06.24 22:18:23 -
[10] - Quote
I guess this thread was too long for CCP so they made another one where it will be easier to steer the narrative. My comments are here: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=5843635#post5843635 |
Naglerr
Sanguine Penguin
Rote Kapelle
50
|
Posted - 2015.06.25 00:09:29 -
[11] - Quote
Awkward Pi Duolus wrote:baltec1 wrote:Troll words. That's a terrible red herring, and you should know better. Or .. read the dev blog better.
Baltec1 has been trolling this tread for almost every individual page of all the 91 pages that this thread is. I'm both really impressed with his dedication and surprised that people are still replying to his posts. |
| |
|