Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
lacretia
|
Posted - 2006.12.19 21:07:00 -
[1]
Why Ship balance doesnt bother me...by a relative noob.
I read these forums a lot, and I would post this under the "ships/mods" heading...but for discussion sake it I will just put it here.
I get a little tired of all the threads asking people to either "beef up" or "nerf" certain ships. Personally, I like the fact that some ships are less desirable than others in the game. Balancing taken to an extreme will just end up with us all in the same ship with a different graphics skin. Here are my main reason why I like ships to be "out of balance".
It is realistic. Even in our time we see examples of older military equipment that may be less desirable/less effective...but it is still put to good use by those who know how to use it. Lets take tanks for example...an aging Vietnam Era tank can still be quite effective against soft targets and infantry...but put it up against modern armor such as the M1Abrams...and it will be in deep ****oo. But...the older tank can still best the new one if proper tactics and team work was used. Now, in Eve, it is like the Ferox and the Drake. The Ferox is still just as good at doing what it is able to do...we just now have a newer technology. If it were too comperable to the Ferox, why would the designers (in game storyline wise) bother with the resources to develop it.
I have a Drake...and I love it. But I still fly my Ferox more. It still gets the job done, it still can take a beating, and if I lose it I am out far less isk than the Drake.
In EvE there is a survival of the fittest level of ship usage. If a ship is weak/out of balance, then the playerbase will migrate away from using it. Just as most militaries migrated away from older technology, however some countries still field older tanks/armor.
I am personally glad that some ships are "worse" than others. None of us are forced to fly "underpowered" ships...we can all pick and choose what we want to fly, and we have to be mature enough to accept what that ship brings with it.
|
Cmdr Sy
Appetite 4 Destruction
|
Posted - 2006.12.19 21:09:00 -
[2]
All I can say is, thank god some people still fly Omens.
When there is a cruiser squad approaching, that is the news you love to hear.
|
Your Name
|
Posted - 2006.12.19 21:33:00 -
[3]
Ships should not be identical in capabilty, but every race should have a ship that excels in some way in every class. That is what causes people to use mixed fleets. Race A the best tackler frig, race B has the best damage frig, race C has the best ECM ship, and then there is Amarr.
This split allows player, regardless of race, to pursue there own race and be useful. Otherwise everyone will just train for the one race's uber ship.
|
Kaalen
|
Posted - 2006.12.19 21:58:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Kaalen on 19/12/2006 21:59:05 I agree, the thing that most people don't tend to factor in to the whole balance equation is price. Sure some ship has a bonus to 'this' at the expense of 'that' and people like to compare the various stats and attributes of the ships in question to find out which is the best ship for it's particular role.
But there SHOULD be ships that aren't quite as good at a certain role as a different ship, the reason behind this is that if they're less effective they'll be less popular and thus this will drive the price down so their advantage will not be in their stats but in their cost effectiveness. They're cheaper to buy and easier to replace, so they do have their uses.
Of course whine threads about balance are actually important, becasue I trust CCP enough to be able to look through them and then analyse what they're whining about themselves, occasionally it does help them to fix a problem that they didn't see. They're not daft enough to read a whine thread and just blindly give everyone what they want. You can't please everyone and they way things are done in EVE is spot on. No one is perfect, but it's pretty damn good as it is.
|
Viktor Fyretracker
Caldari Worms Corp
|
Posted - 2006.12.19 22:11:00 -
[5]
the trouble is EVE like many pvp MMORPGs people who play the game hardcore play strictly by the math. this means you will allways have unused ships because the math doesnt work out.
|
Ithildin
Gallente The Corporation Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2006.12.19 22:20:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Viktor Fyretracker the trouble is EVE like many pvp MMORPGs people who play the game hardcore play strictly by the math. this means you will allways have unused ships because the math doesnt work out.
EVE is a bit more complex than that. There's a few ships that doesn't mathematically measure up as they should, but gets used anyway: * Dominix (it really doesn't add up mathematically) * Typhoon * Abaddon (what's "cap problem" when the enemy is already dead?)
Then there's the few that does add up mathematically, but not practically * Deimos
Oh, and of course. The T2 shuttles. That which is useless to everyone. Except for looks, in some cases. * Ares * Purifier - EVE is sick. |
Suze'Rain
|
Posted - 2006.12.19 22:27:00 -
[7]
personally, I rather enjoy PvE (as a consistent target ground so it's fairly predictable) and then fielding ships which can be completely useless... ie, take a Bantam into a combat mission, or an armour tanking ferox or something equally daft, just to see "if it can be done". it's not about grinding out a mission, but about having fun doing so, and who cares if there's a more efficient way... it's the fun of mucking around with a hull and completely screwing up the setup, and scraping out the end of the mission with half hull and no ammo left, laughing at having somehow got away with it.
long live the "2nd rate" ships
|
Wendat Huron
Lupus Industries
|
Posted - 2006.12.19 22:45:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Wendat Huron on 19/12/2006 22:50:51 Add some uniformity bonus, so a squadron of mentioned Omens get a slight bonus making them a viable option over a mixed fleet.
This would apply to the worst two tiers of any shiptype.
|
Revona
|
Posted - 2006.12.19 22:56:00 -
[9]
You musn't forget, people do not (or should not) complain when item A is worse than item B.
But you must agree, when item A is worse than item B, and getting item A required dozens of people to train 5 times as long, pay 3 times as much then there's something wrong. There's something broken about item B, or something very underpowered about item A, this is when people ask rightfully for a nerf or beef.
|
Your Name
|
Posted - 2006.12.19 22:59:00 -
[10]
I dont think isk cost has much to do with it (other then the cost of a HAC / COVOPS). The most valuable thing in this game is your time. When talking about t1 frigs, the difference of a million isk (mods included) is nothing compared to the time you will spend rebuilding a lost ship. I would much rather pay a little bit more isk, and spend more time in combat then save some isk, but spend much more time refitting/buying mods. That is what I think causes some of the lesser frigs to rarely be used.
|
|
Smagd
Encina Technologies Namtz'aar k'in
|
Posted - 2006.12.20 00:39:00 -
[11]
Have to post here real quick before signing off:
You're totally right. Balancing everything is boring.
Let people fly their hard mode ships if they want to. Sometimes it makes for really eye-opening movies, too (see Jaegerbomb, Nanophoon).
And whoever just needs a bit of quick cash can be back in their Raven running missions in easy mode.
Both fine by me, and I do both depending entirely on mood.
Personal highlights of stupid tricks: "The Score III" in Mammoth, and "Infiltrated Outpost IV" in Thrasher. --
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |