Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 7 post(s) |
Mag's
Rabble Inc. TransentienT
21277
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 22:14:41 -
[571] - Quote
Tbh the whole idea needs a rethink. The idea that all ships should have this kind of buff, is ridiculous. I'm also dubious that making them passive is a good idea. The beauty with the module atm, is it's power but required activation.
Please rethink this. Oh and if you're so concerned about keeping balance, then gankers are missing a few buffs.
Destination SkillQueue:-
It's like assuming the Lions will ignore you in the Savannah, if you're small, fat and look helpless.
|
Violet Crumble
Funtime Factory
772
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 22:39:19 -
[572] - Quote
As a Freighter Pilot, why I think this change needs more thought:
In June 2014 when Freighters/JFs were given lowslots to provide choices around play, one aspect of the increased tank was that the changes provided some good options for smart players to mitigate their risk:
CCP Fozzie (2014) wrote:...we are of course committed to a balanced environment between defense and offense.
We don't believe that these changes skew the balance too far against suicide gankers, although they do provide some good options for smart players to manage their risk.
That was a welcome change as it gave options for tank or cargo and smart players that do manage risk gained an advantage over their competitors because they could easily run max cargo, while keeping themselves safe.
For quite a while now CCP have been talking about the benefits of rich experiences as having a positive benefit on player retention and wanting players to be involved in more group based activities.
So why buff AFK play at all, which is what this change does, while giving no benefit to those that already manage their risk effectively?
This change for example has no benefit for people that currently treat hauling as a group activity and use webbing assistance.
Up to now, there has been an advantage that they can fit max cargo, take larger contracts, take more smaller contracts at a time and potentially out earn the solo AFK haulers who need to fit max tank in order to manage some of the risk of being AFK.
Now however, that playing field has been leveled. AFK play is receiving a significant buff to the point where they'll more easily be able to fit max tank and successfully haul AFK. The ability of group play to earn more than solo play is being reduced and in some cases, 2 players working cooperatively might end up earning less individually than a solo AFK hauler.
Giving an EHP buff to solo haulers so that they don't need to manage their risk, reduces the exact thing that was highlighted as a plus from the previous change.
This change provides nothing to those smart players identified before, and only benefits the lazy pilots they compete with.
Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
|
Rowells
ANZAC ALLIANCE Fidelas Constans
2937
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 22:40:31 -
[573] - Quote
Jin Kugu wrote:So CCP just removed 10 pages of this thread because they were about the balance of freighter ganking.
Even the OP states that this change mainly affects freighter ganking so I think you just want me to start over again? No, 10 pages were wasted on whether or not freighters should be banked or whether banking was good/bad/hard/easy. The fact that we diverged to spats on isk tanking for entire pages shows how far off track they got. |
Pandora Deninard
Combat Applications and Logistics Group
0
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 22:57:46 -
[574] - Quote
If it's about freighter ganking, then this is an unnecessarily complicated fix to a simple problem. Buff freighter EHP only. Problem solved (without dicking around with every other ship in the game). |
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
722
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 22:59:20 -
[575] - Quote
Even though its a valid playstyle; I really could care less whether or not the freighters or exhumers are getting an HP buff or not. Bring more friends and choose different targets - crisis adverted.
I am more so concerned at the possibility of how much this will buff Gallente ship lines further. The passive 33% will be applied to all, but particularly buff Gallente ships.
Might be good, who knows. I do like the fact that it encourages fitting more modules other then the standard DCU. |
Sean Parisi
Blackrise Vanguard
722
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 23:00:27 -
[576] - Quote
Pandora Deninard wrote:If it's about freighter ganking, then this is an unnecessarily complicated fix to a simple problem. Buff freighter EHP only. Problem solved (without dicking around with every other ship in the game).
I think its more so an issue of people nit picking that particular comment. Which was said as more of a "We know you will get upset about this gankers" as opposed to "We are only changing every DCU and all the fits its relevant to in the game because Freighters Hurr" |
FT Cold
The Scope Gallente Federation
41
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 23:06:18 -
[577] - Quote
Mag's wrote:Tbh the whole idea needs a rethink. The idea that all ships should have this kind of buff, is ridiculous. I'm also dubious that making them passive is a good idea. The beauty with the module atm, is it's power but required activation. Please rethink this. Oh and if you're so concerned about keeping balance, then gankers are missing a few buffs.
Notwithstanding the whole ganker vs anti-ganker fight, for many pvp fits now it's going to be an actual fitting choice, rather than a requirement, to fit a DCU. This is going to shake up the meta, especially for armor and kiting fits. For example, it might be advantageous to fit an EANM instead of a DCU to a tormentor, or simply another heat sink. In any event, it gives players a new set of options, instead of making one module mandatory. Not a bad thing at all, it's simply a change that gives players new choices.
Also, I'd like to address this:
Quote:The beauty with the module atm, is it's power but required activation.
This particular 'keep EVE hard' line of reasoning adds little to the game but unneeded complexity. It's just one more keystroke, one extra button press that adds an extra opportunity for module lag or to take away from actually piloting your spacecraft. Functionally, the cap cost did nothing, even under neut pressure. Like training skills or death clones, it does nothing to add fun and meaningful game play for players. By extending this line of reasoning, do you think it would be a good idea to give all passive modules a trivial capacitor cost and cycle time in the name of emergent game play, or at some point does it simply become keystrokes for the sake of keystrokes?
I'm happy that CCP has done the right thing here and excised the majority of the ganker vs anti-ganker argument. Between the two of them, they're a toxic community that poison every discussion they're a part of. They're so caught up in their war with one another that they refuse to even acknowledge that other players might have a stake, or even input into this. |
Circumstantial Evidence
255
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 23:11:41 -
[578] - Quote
This change isn't about freighter ganking, although those ships benefit. The first lines of the OP state giving every ship some hull resist % and reducing DCU hull resist % is designed to create a choice in fitting a DCU or not, where no choice seemed to exist before. |
Violet Crumble
Funtime Factory
773
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 23:18:45 -
[579] - Quote
Circumstantial Evidence wrote:This change isn't about freighter ganking, although those ships benefit. The first lines of the OP state giving every ship some hull resist % and reducing DCU hull resist % is designed to create a choice in fitting a DCU or not, where no choice seemed to exist before. Yes, I totally agree. It's not directly, it just has an indirect benefit to those ships.
For a lot of situations, this is a great change. For pvp fits, a DC is just about compulsory in many cases and when working on a new fit, it's one of the first modules to consider fitting because of the benefit it provides.
But, since this is about rebalancing the DC and fitting options around its use, why buff ships that can't even fit it?
They don't have the option now at all, so it isn't a consideration of play with those ships anyway. Why buff those ships, when previous buffs have already accounted for their inability to fit a DC?
Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
|
Violet Crumble
Funtime Factory
773
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 23:31:00 -
[580] - Quote
FT Cold wrote:Mag's wrote:]The beauty with the module atm, is it's power but required activation. This particular 'keep EVE hard' line of reasoning adds little to the game but unneeded complexity. I don't think 'keep Eve hard' was the reason it was made active when originally designed.
It was more. 'keep Eve at keyboard' rather than providing benefit to AFK pilots.
T1/T2 industrials, Orca and Bowhead are good examples. I can fit a Damage Control on all of them and when I haul, I gain advantage over AFK pilots because I can activate the module to gain the additional resists.
Switching the module to passive provides equal benefit to AFK pilots that they don't currently gain, particularly for example when autopiloting.
I'm not saying this change is bad, just that it isn't a 'keep Eve hard' change. There's nothing hard about activating a DC, but you do have to be present to do so.
Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
|
|
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
229
|
Posted - 2016.02.12 23:38:32 -
[581] - Quote
ALSO, this is NOT tiericide. Tiericide was initiated to get rid of all the "tiered" modules like meta 3 etc. that nobody ever used. None of these new threads are tiericide, they are nerfs in disguise.
These changes consist mostly of rebalances. Ones that nobody asked for or wanted as far as I can tell. If it was tiericide there would be no change to the CPU costs or effects of these items, only removal of the unnecessary clutter of a bunch of different Meta varieties (which doesn't seem to be happening here). |
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
2971
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 00:05:11 -
[582] - Quote
Violet Crumble wrote: I don't think 'keep Eve hard' was the reason it was made active when originally designed.
It was more. 'keep Eve at keyboard' rather than providing benefit to AFK pilots..
No, it was literally 'We don't have the codebase to make this a passive module'. They've said that themselves many times that it was originally intended to be passive but they had to make it active to work at the time. |
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7201
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 00:31:05 -
[583] - Quote
Jin Kugu wrote:I actually agree. Just buff freighter ehp if that's what CCP want, this proposed change is bad and convoluted But then that;s ot what the change is for, the change is part of the normal tiercide that is happening to all modules, the fact that it balances out ganking a bit is a minor part of the change.
All around it's a pretty good idea, reduces damage control as straight dependency and gets rid of the additional click by making it passive. Like they said way back when they removed clone levels, having something you have to click because that is the only good option is not good gameplay.
Thumbs up CCP.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Violet Crumble
Funtime Factory
776
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 00:42:22 -
[584] - Quote
Nevyn Auscent wrote:Violet Crumble wrote: I don't think 'keep Eve hard' was the reason it was made active when originally designed.
It was more. 'keep Eve at keyboard' rather than providing benefit to AFK pilots..
No, it was literally 'We don't have the codebase to make this a passive module'. They've said that themselves many times that it was originally intended to be passive but they had to make it active to work at the time. I'm currently looking for quotes either way. Haven't found any yet. Will keep looking.
Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
|
Violet Crumble
Funtime Factory
776
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 00:46:55 -
[585] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Violet Crumble wrote:This change for example has no benefit for people that currently treat hauling as a group activity and use webbing assistance. Of course there's a benefit. A web doesn't make you immune, just a less favourable target. Having the additional defense is a definite positive. AFK haulers will still be the primary targets and will still get ganked. Sure Lucas. Whatever you say. No one has ever had a different opinion that is also valid.
There is no benefit to me from this change, since I don't rely on the EHP of my ship in order to be a deterrent to ganking. That is also true of anyone else that uses webs. We don't use the EHP of our ship to be safe.
Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
|
Morrigan LeSante
Senex Legio The OSS
1210
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 00:48:28 -
[586] - Quote
Violet Crumble wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Violet Crumble wrote:This change for example has no benefit for people that currently treat hauling as a group activity and use webbing assistance. Of course there's a benefit. A web doesn't make you immune, just a less favourable target. Having the additional defense is a definite positive. AFK haulers will still be the primary targets and will still get ganked. Sure Lucas. Whatever you say. No one has ever had a different opinion that is also valid. There is no benefit to me from this change, since I don't rely on the EHP of my ship in order to be a deterrent to ganking. That is also true of anyone else that uses webs. We don't use the EHP of our ship to be safe.
+1
If you need your EHP in a non-combat ship something has gone fundamentally wrong somewhere. |
Dom Arkaral
Gate Is Red Complaints Department
59
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 00:53:39 -
[587] - Quote
Violet Crumble wrote:Lucas Kell wrote:Violet Crumble wrote:This change for example has no benefit for people that currently treat hauling as a group activity and use webbing assistance. Of course there's a benefit. A web doesn't make you immune, just a less favourable target. Having the additional defense is a definite positive. AFK haulers will still be the primary targets and will still get ganked. Sure Lucas. Whatever you say. No one has ever had a different opinion that is also valid. There is no benefit to me from this change, since I don't rely on the EHP of my ship in order to be a deterrent to ganking. That is also true of anyone else that uses webs. We don't use the EHP of our ship to be safe. And yes, of course AFK haulers will still be the primary target of gankers. I didn't say anything different. The balance is still changed though for a situation that doesn't ever currently benefit from a Damage Control. Balancing damage controls is resulting in a massive boost to ships that can't even fit them now. Don't mind our friend Lucas here,
I totally agree with you Afk don't need a buff It'll just attract more bots
Merc. Tear Gatherer. Quebecker
I have no Honer (truly)
Attache ta tuque avec d'la broche!
Ich bin krank! (I don't speak German don't bother)
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3085
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 00:57:52 -
[588] - Quote
Could nerf freighter structure hp by 33%. Or slightly less if you feel it balances with the wreck hp change.
edit-wreck not structure
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
Violet Crumble
Funtime Factory
779
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 01:08:43 -
[589] - Quote
Daichi Yamato wrote:Could nerf freighter structure hp by 33%. Or slightly less if you feel it balances with the structure hp change. This change is about balance for the Damage Control. That's where it should stay.
Freighters can't fit a damage control, so don't need a buff because of a Damage Control nerf.
They just don't need to be affected by this change at all, since it's about a module that isn't relevant to them.
edit: Didn't see your edit, so my response is to your original post, not the change making it about wrecks.
Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
|
Daichi Yamato
Xero Security and Technologies
3085
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 01:28:36 -
[590] - Quote
yeah i derped.
But if freighters dont get the resist buff, some point down the line it begs a million threads in the way of 'why dont freighters have the same resists as other ships.' So get around that by nerfing freighter HP at the same time.
Assuming CCP dont want to buff freighter tanks *fingers crossed*
EVE FAQ "7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided"
Daichi Yamato's version of structure based decs
|
|
Lucas Kell
Internet Terrorists SpaceMonkey's Alliance
7201
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 01:56:07 -
[591] - Quote
Violet Crumble wrote:Sure Lucas. Whatever you say. No one has ever had a different opinion that is also valid. I didn't say other opinions weren't valid, I just think you're being very selective about what constitutes a benefit. It's the equivalent of saying "insurance doesn't benefit me because I haven't crashed yet".
Violet Crumble wrote:There is no benefit to me from this change, since I don't rely on the EHP of my ship in order to be a deterrent to ganking. That is also true of anyone else that uses webs. We don't use the EHP of our ship to be safe. You don't all the time you aren't being ganked. You sure as hell will use the EHP of your ship once you get picked out as a target and they suicide tackle then bump you before your webber gets you into warp.
Violet Crumble wrote:And yes, of course AFK haulers will still be the primary target of gankers. I didn't say anything different. The balance between active, group based hauling and AFK hauling is still changed though for a situation that doesn't ever currently benefit from a Damage Control.
Balancing damage controls is resulting in a massive boost to ships that can't even fit them now. So what's the problem? Balancing damage controls will provide a passive boost to all ships. A ship that used to be able to fit a DC can now fit another module instead and still maintain over half the benefit of a DC. As long as the change doesn't put an AFK pilot ahead of an equivalent active pilot, I don't see the problem.
Dom Arkaral wrote:Afk don't need a buff It'll just attract more bots Bots are active, genius.
The Indecisive Noob - EVE fan blog.
Wholesale Trading - The new bulk trading mailing list.
|
Syri Taneka
Un4seen Development Sev3rance
121
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 02:10:21 -
[592] - Quote
So, let's see, 40% of 67% is... 26.8%, plus 33%, yields 59.8%, which is basically identical to t2 now. That's cool. |
SilentAsTheGrave
Aliastra Gallente Federation
376
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 02:19:34 -
[593] - Quote
This change is a lot more than just freighters. Not having to turn on the DC after every jump - yes please. Not to mention it now frees up a low slot if I want to experiment without having to sacrifice all hull resistances. |
Helene Fidard
CTRL-Q
35
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 02:24:22 -
[594] - Quote
I'm surprised there's only going to be one meta Damage Control rather than a better cpu/better resists split. I don't mind, but it doesn't seem typical of tiericide.
Hey! I don't know about you
but I'm joining CTRL-Q
|
Murkar Omaristos
The Alabaster Albatross Sev3rance
231
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 02:45:12 -
[595] - Quote
Helene Fidard wrote:I'm surprised there's only going to be one meta Damage Control rather than a better cpu/better resists split. I don't mind, but it doesn't seem typical of tiericide.
They called it tiericide so people wouldn't realize fozzie was swinging the nerf bat again >:( a lot of the proposed changes have increased CPU requirements across the board. |
Violet Crumble
Funtime Factory
779
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 02:46:44 -
[596] - Quote
Lucas Kell wrote:Violet Crumble wrote:Balancing damage controls is resulting in a massive boost to ships that can't even fit them now. So what's the problem? Balancing damage controls will provide a passive boost to all ships. A ship that used to be able to fit a DC can now fit another module instead and still maintain over half the benefit of a DC. As long as the change doesn't put an AFK pilot ahead of an equivalent active pilot, I don't see the problem. It's all outlined in my original post on this topic.
Buffing AFK over active pilots is the issue I have with this, when Damage Controls can't even be fit to freighters to begin with.
But that feedback is already there and if CCP pick up on it and agree, then great. If they don't then ok, that's also fine.
I don't however see any point discussing it further with you. Anyone else, sure. But you, I have no desire to enter into pointless circular discussion.
Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
|
Frayn Bantam
The Chasers
2
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 05:26:52 -
[597] - Quote
Just a quick paste from our jabber room, if CCP is even reading this thread here it is
Warr Akini wrote: As a reminder of the history of suicide ganking nerfs in recent history:
-No GCC insurance -Kill right revamp -Suspect flag on 'illegal' looting -Cannot loot can while warp drive engaged -Lowslots on freighters (see: 700k EHP Anshars, and now 1m EHP Anshars) -No incentive for Bowheads to run anything less than full tank -Awoxing nerf -Security status tick nerf -Shifting HP from hull to armor and shield, buffing anti-ganking logistics -Mining barge/exhumer straight EHP buff -Sec status for aggression now is the same as if you killed the target -Hyperdunking nerf
matched with what buffs exactly?
BTW it doesn't actually matter if any of those contradict with earlier nerfs, the fact is that they are all unchecked, unmatched changes that were explicitly intended to nerf ganking. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2909
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 06:10:00 -
[598] - Quote
Why not give freighters more CPU now? IIRC the reason they were kep low was to prevent them from fitting damage controls. Now you could just knock their hull HP down a bit to mesh with the hull resist bonus they're getting, and allow them to fit damage control as an option because it's no longer going to make quite as huge a difference.
FT Diomedes: "Reaver, sometimes I wonder what you are thinking when you sit down to post."
Frostys Virpio: "We have to give it to him that he does put more effort than the vast majority in his idea but damn does it sometime come out of nowhere."
|
Violet Crumble
Funtime Factory
779
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 06:49:33 -
[599] - Quote
Reaver Glitterstim wrote:...Now you could just knock their hull HP down a bit to mesh with the hull resist bonus they're getting, and allow them to fit damage control as an option because it's no longer going to make quite as huge a difference. Obviously, only Fozzie can answer that, but looking at the numbers, what real benefit would that provide as opposed to the current fitting option of 3 bulkheads?
That is, if you are going for tank, then in order to fit a damage control to provide defense, you need to remove a bulkhead, which provides similar defense.
Using an Obelisk with bulkheads as an example:
367K EHP, with 269K raw hull HP at 0 resist
In order to fit a damage control, 1 bulkhead would need to be removed, -54K the raw hull HP:
313K EHP with 215K raw HP at 0 resist
The addition of a damage control would have the effect of increasing the hull by 40%, which is +86K, but that's not applying base resists or reducing the hull HP to compensate for fitting a DC.
So if you drop the hull HP down in order to add resists, that just means that fitting a damage control would just approach exactly the same EHP as fitting 3 bulkheads anyway.
Effectively, you can already achieve the same result with just the bulkhead fittings, without needing to adjust fitting on Freighters, or knock their hull HP down. Why bother when the outcome is effectively the same?
Just fit 3 bulkheads, which is already possible.
Funtime Factory - We put the fun back in funtime
|
Skia Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC Desman Alliance
203
|
Posted - 2016.02.13 10:40:52 -
[600] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:2) Making all Damage Controls passive modules Why? Please dont. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 [20] 30 40 50 .. 51 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |