| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Gripen
484
   |
Posted - 2012.01.17 12:43:00 -
[1] - Quote
Following is a quote from F&I subforum but I think it outlines important development question which is worth a thread on its own so it won't be lost by community attention spotlight.
CCP SoniClover wrote:Just a quick note on why we're looking into adding new modules, rather than focus completely on fixing/balancing existing stuff - what we're looking into is creating a fluid tactical environment that shifts over time. So we're not looking into creating an uber-balanced utopia ala Starcraft II that, once achieved, we can then walk away from. Rather, we want to achieve a more chaotic environment where 'best' fittings change rapidly and the value of items (modules, rigs, ships) is relative based on the current metagame rather than fixed in eternity. The idea is that a fluid, ever-changing environment like that will have more long-term appeal in a game like EVE than a static uber-balanced system does.
I just want to know am I the only one who is really disappointed by such approach? Isn't this "fluid, ever-changing environment" is a synonym to the constant FOTM race and lack of complex balance vision what we had in EVE all the way since 2003? How can one reference an existing commercial product and utopia in the same sentence without implying that there is no way to create something even close to other people archivements? Shouldn't you always aim high? And balance doesn't mean there couldn't be any changes. Talking about after-mentioned SC2: it's supposed to be released in three parts so that's the same game sold three times in a row just because of changes supposed to shake the game environment.
So, what do you guys think: complex balance or FOTM race? Or maybe I misread the quote?
|
Mr M
Agony Unleashed
60
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 12:52:00 -
[2] - Quote
Yes, you're the only one. Change is good.
Oh hang on, it was you. You just don't want to update EFT every time they change something 
|
Ciar Meara
Virtus Vindice
477
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 12:54:00 -
[3] - Quote
Stagnation is to be avoided at all costs. The evolution of warfare is based on new discoveries, new goals and new tactics and sometimes new tactics based on discoveries and these goals.
If you take out this element, you get a boring spreadsheet gameplay with only a few fits that are optimal, we have that now in eve on occasion but the "chaotic" element makes it so that things stir up on occasion and new modules/skills/ships/bonuses or changing stats make that possible.
Evolution and change are fun and interesting, stagnation is death.
-
[img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img]
[yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow] |
Karl Planck
Heretic University
Heretic Nation
111
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 12:56:00 -
[4] - Quote
imo its healthy. While there is a great deal of merit to achieving (or pursuing) utopian balance, it is just one method of game structure. Chess is a good example of this kind of balance. Table top games with changing rules is the antithesis of this idea, but changing the rules to promote creativity and experimentation is something i feel fits into eve very well. |
Razin
The xDEATHx Squadron
Legion of xXDEATHXx
201
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 13:01:00 -
[5] - Quote
No news here. This is how EVE has been up to this point, with the only difference being that the balance updates were few and far between (we'll see if that changes). Looks to me like that statement is just an official admission that the current mechanics are too complex and that any real balance in unachievable. If there is a real effort to have regular balance updates this may be a good thing, and gives a chance to eventually coming up with a stable system, if such a thing is attainable at all. |
Aamrr
230
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 13:02:00 -
[6] - Quote
Change is good. Vote of confidence for CCP. |
Alexa Coates
LNTC
58
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 13:04:00 -
[7] - Quote
I like the idea of making more modules instead of balancing others. If everything was balanced then there would be no point in deviating ships and fits. Right now we can change ships and fits and have equal ships while being absolutely different.
Love my Gallente Federation Navy ships! |
Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
1199
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 13:06:00 -
[8] - Quote
Agree with CCP on this one. Constant change and evolution keeps the game interesting. As a gamer I'm certainly motivated by trying to discover "killer fits" and concepts by combining different elements and this aspect of Eve Online fascinated me from the beginning. Putting together Eve pvp gangs (or indeed PVE gangs) can sometimes be a bit like building MTG (magic the gathering) decks and thats a good thing.
The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom. Jericho Fraction is Recruiting! |
Cyzlaki
Interstellar eXodus
BricK sQuAD.
199
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 13:13:00 -
[9] - Quote
Disagree. Constant nerfing and buffing is the same as WoW, having to re-spec every patch and suddenly all your gear is worthless. Same thing here. Every patch will change the game which is terrible in a game where you have to wait for skills to finish in real-time.
It's just a cop out really. He's basically saying they don't know how to balance the game. If it was truly balanced it would not be stagnant at all, it would always be about player skill, not overpowered ships and modules. |
Alara IonStorm
1429
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 13:14:00 -
[10] - Quote
Alexa Coates wrote: If everything was balanced then there would be no point in deviating ships and fits.
Hahahahaha!
No.
Balance doesn't mean everything is the same or equal. It doesn't even come close to that, I wonder what idiot spread that bit of false info I see it everywhere?
Quote:In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning the relationships between a game's different systems, usually with the goal of preventing any from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers.
I don't know abut you but EVE will not get more boring if their is a viable Rail Ferox at the same Time as a viable Nano Cane.
I too am tired of Flavor of the Month. Make every Ship usable to its fullest potential within it's role CCP.
What is Stale is looking at half the Ships in EVE and never flying them then looking at a quarter more and knowing that if I d fly them it is fr the lols.
So please CCP balance Ships Roles and Weapons against each other. |
Gripen
484
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 13:25:00 -
[11] - Quote
Addition based on first replys: there is no debate that changes are needed but the question is "new stuff for the sake of new stuff" or "changes to improve depth without ruling out old stuff". More choices at any given time vs constant shift of the focus from time to time. |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
1721
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 13:29:00 -
[12] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:Alexa Coates wrote: If everything was balanced then there would be no point in deviating ships and fits. Hahahahaha! No. Balance doesn't mean everything is the same or equal. It doesn't even come close to that, I wonder what idiot spread that bit of false info I see it everywhere? Quote:In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning the relationships between a game's different systems, usually with the goal of preventing any from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers. I don't know abut you but EVE will not get more boring if their is a viable Rail Ferox at the same Time as a viable Nano Cane. I too am tired of Flavor of the Month. Make every Ship usable to its fullest potential within it's role CCP. What is Stale is looking at half the Ships in EVE and never flying them then looking at a quarter more and knowing that if I d fly them it is fr the lols. So please CCP balance Ships Roles and Weapons against each other.
This is pretty much my viewpoint exactly. I'm not interested in perfect balance, where CCP does nothing but endless minor changes to fix minor differences in ship and module performance. That doesn't mean I don't want them to bring mostly useless and obsolete ships and modules to a level where they are potentially worth using. I also don't want rapid changes to be made just for the sake of changing things. If they feel things are well balanced but stale, they should focus on bringing new ships, modules and mechanics in to the game, that will reshuffle things again.
|
Large Collidable Object
morons.
958
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 13:53:00 -
[13] - Quote
Change adds long term motivation for new players as they have new goals to train for from time to time just as it keeps the game interesting for higher SP players as they get to develop new fits, fleet concepts and tactics as soon as changes roll out.
To train for the 'best ship' and be stuck with that for the rest of the game would be terribly boring. However, I think it should be done without adding too much new stuff - rebalancing (not balancing by all means) existing stuff without forgetting about the races features every now and then achieves the same without cluttering the database with obsolete modules nobody uses anymore. And of course, all too blatant imbalances such as Minmatar/projectiles being OP or Gallente/Hybrids being broken for the last three years should be avoided.
morons- sting like a butterfly and-ápost like a bee. |
Wacktopia
Noir.
144
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 13:59:00 -
[14] - Quote
Adapt or die(tm)
. |
Winters Chill
Valhalla Legion
54
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 14:03:00 -
[15] - Quote
Wacktopia wrote:Adapt or die(tm)
/thread
This ethos as reported by the CCPer is the epitome of what Eve is about.
Don't stop CCP!
|
Zagam
Incompertus INC
Fatal Ascension
472
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 14:04:00 -
[16] - Quote
Change is good. It keeps players subbing, keeps the challenge level up, makes market speculation even more of an art form, and makes the game better overall.
I remember when Minmatar was crap in PvP. Now they're effectively "winmatar". I remember when a battleship fleet was to be feared... now its hot-dropped and its tears are bottled.
Constant change is simply good for the game, and makes EVE a fun game to play. |
Borascus
Hole Diggers
25
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 14:09:00 -
[17] - Quote
CCP have a good view towards balance and the quote of SoniClover appears to ask:
Do you want rock, paper, scissors? or want paper to become rock every now and again?
If new modules / stats are introduced you don't end up with a situation where intel in null-sec reports: "x ships of the following types: ......" which would result in: "ok we need x ships fit like this [linked fitting goes here]"
Sounds more utopian as I'm sure there are enough combat statistics out there in the community to have a valid rock paper scissors spreadsheet.
|
Akrasjel Lanate
Naquatech Conglomerate
510
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 14:15:00 -
[18] - Quote
So what nerf stuff used for major doctrines by alliances  |
Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
213
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 14:18:00 -
[19] - Quote
This is good. If done correctly, this is very good.
Magic: The Gathering is a fine example of such a system - it gets four card sets every year, constantly changing the game and altering the balance so you simply cannot use the same strategies year after year. It keeps things fresh.
If done correctly, constant small shifts and changes to things are better than the mythical "balance" that never happens anyway. It forces people to keep experimenting on fits and strategies and it prevents people from falling into a rut with one uber-doctrine (leaving most of the stuff available unused). Yes, it also means that you probably should cross train... 
It also injects quite a bit of action in the markets and manufacturing as "market PvP" guys have to stay on top of any changes - or even predict them - and invest accordingly. Today's top selling PvP fit item might not be the same as it was six months ago. This is a good thing.
Still, the devil is in the details. Such a system requires constant tweaking and maintenance. If CCP, even for a moment, goes all :lolccp: on the subject and abandons it in pursuit of some other shiny thing, things could go south fast. I'm actually impressed they even suggest at doing this as it is a long-term commitment of at least a few guys that have to keep working on this constantly or it'll fall on it's face.
|
Wot I Think
State War Academy
Caldari State
211
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 14:21:00 -
[20] - Quote
TLDR:
OP flys minmatar only.
CCP is going to buff another race.
OP changes from "Win"matar to "Whine"matar.
|
Dzajic
18
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 14:50:00 -
[21] - Quote
Stagnation is bad. FOTM race is worse. Point of balance is for there not to be one single wining combo. FOTM race just favors bittervets with 100M SP who can fly anything and don't really care. |
Karl Planck
Heretic University
Heretic Nation
113
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 14:51:00 -
[22] - Quote
Wot I Think wrote:
OP changes from "Win"matar to "Whine"matar.
nominated for quote of the week |
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
4447
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 15:14:00 -
[23] - Quote
There are three slightly different things going on here.
The quote seems to say GÇ£new things for the sake of new thingsGÇ¥, which just seems pointless. If there is no purpose to the new stuff, it will only render old stuff obsolete (or be obsolete on arrival) while fluffing up the client with more data and making poor newbies confused. It adds a thin veneer of complexity which will only trip up those who aren't yet familiar enough with the game to see through it GÇö those who do will only really see a new set of ships being relegated to the scrap heap.
The OP suggests that the opposite of this is balance, which is interesting, but largely unachievable since there will always be advantages to be had and since the metagame changes regardless. This just creates a FOTM that is longer than a month. At the same time, I reject the CCP view that balance would lack fluidity and dynamism. Again, the players will see to it that it doesn't: there will always be new strategies and tactics that obviates the old GÇ£bestGÇ¥ way of doing things, so I'm not entirely sure there is any real dichotomy here.
The third option, in my view, far more interesting: don't add pointless new stuff for the sake of it being new GÇö just stir the existing stuff to make things come and go. Add new stuff if there is something new to add (which can then be part of the next stirring session).
GÇ£If you're not willing to fight for what you have in GëívGëí you don't deserve it, and you will lose it.GÇ¥
If not, contact Miss DSA to shed your wardecs. |
Vimsy Vortis
Shoulda Checked Local
Break-A-Wish Foundation
235
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 16:12:00 -
[24] - Quote
Alara IonStorm wrote:
I don't know about you but EVE will not get more boring if their is a viable Rail Ferox at the same Time as a viable Nano Cane.
If there is a viable rail ferox the universe will collapse in on itself in protest. |
Jaroslav Unwanted
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
1284
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 16:14:00 -
[25] - Quote
"what if"
If people play responsibly then no change would be needed as people will fly for fun, have fun in the game and lose/win will not matter since it would be fun to be part of such event.
However people are people which doom any "stale" content since if it can get exploited it will be. |
Halcyon Ingenium
Infomorph Research and Technology
131
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 16:16:00 -
[26] - Quote
CCP confirmed as Tzeentch. Embrace Chaos.
That which always was, and is, and will be everlasting fire,
the same for all, the cosmos, made neither by god nor man,
replenishes in measure as it burns away. -Heraclitus |
Korsiri
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
10
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 17:50:00 -
[27] - Quote
Well, imo, it goes like this:
Nothing is ever balanced, even when devs try to balance it, something always gets tilted towards the less than preferred, either because players find a way around something, or because the ramifications simply don't show until the change takes place in the 'live' environment.
While I don't think the idea of balance should be totally abandoned, I do think it should take a definite backseat to change. If these games were to stay static, instead of evolving, they'd not keep their population. Admittedly when change happens either too fast, or when it happens despite vocal response from the majority of players, there are also problems.
The nature of these games is change, and especially in a sandbox game imo, this is true. Rather than worry about it, embrace it! I like the approach quoted by the OP because it's more logical than trying to make everything 'balanced' (and pissing just about everyone off). We don't want a cookie cutter approach, we want the excitement of figuring, and re-figuring, out what works, and what works best! To me, that is the Eve universe. |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
178
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 18:01:00 -
[28] - Quote
CCP SoniClover wrote:Just a quick note on why we're looking into adding new modules, rather than focus completely on fixing/balancing existing stuff - what we're looking into is creating a fluid tactical environment that shifts over time. So we're not looking into creating an uber-balanced utopia ala Starcraft II that, once achieved, we can then walk away from. Rather, we want to achieve a more chaotic environment where 'best' fittings change rapidly and the value of items (modules, rigs, ships) is relative based on the current metagame rather than fixed in eternity. The idea is that a fluid, ever-changing environment like that will have more long-term appeal in a game like EVE than a static uber-balanced system does.
The existence of this choice is specious. Eve is so complex that the "uber-balanced utopia" is not achievable in practice, and attempting to achieve it simply results in the aforementioned "fluid tactical environment". |
mkint
629
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 19:50:00 -
[29] - Quote
In other words "we in balancing are not good enough to actually balance anything, so we'll just throw a constant stream of OP'd sh!t out until everyone gets fed up." |
ElQuirko
The Demonfuge Malevolent Fan Club
317
|
Posted - 2012.01.17 20:22:00 -
[30] - Quote
For god's sake, this isn't Team Fortress 2. Change is good. |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |