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.

If everything was balanced then there would be no point in deviating ships and fits.

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.

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?


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.

Adapt or die(tm)

OP changes from "Win"matar to "Whine"matar.

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.

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.

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.

Cough

Arms Race

You forget empires are at war with each other and they are constantly looking to ways to one up against thier adversaries.

New Technologies will emerge becuase of the arms race. Its is time to shake things up. Ill leave it to the community and ccp to balance things I rather have FOTMs if they are only FOTMS for that month and ccp fixes it quickly.

And this happens in real life if you want to go argue that route. The best example the most powerful ship at sea before ww2? the battleship
post ww2 the carrier.
Even more interestingly before ww2 started the carrier concept was LAUGHED AT and almost dismissed entirely.

And yes I am posting there with reckless abandon its lightning round in the brainstorming idea table, ccp should know what is better what sounds bad and sounds good or what ideas they can pick apart and peice back together in thier vision as good I expect none of my suggestions to even be remotely close to what I imagine them to be but its not stopping me from posting or inspiring something from happening. I wouldnt mind seeing a whole slew of ejectable modules that add performance for a short duration or new functionality. Just like extended fuel tanks on fighter jets today, tanks extend the range of the bird and if in a dire situation they will eject the tanks to gain more agility.

I will say this though.

Adapt or Die Trying

So far I'm amazed how many people didn't read first post fully and didn't get that it's NOT about new stuff vs rebalance old stuff dilemma... Probably there were too many threads about it. =\

EVE isn't about the Empires, except in the barest sense of the notion. Empires in EVE only produce the technological advancements for Capsuleers to use; where Capsuleers make use of it as they see fit. I don't know if you've looked around recently; but the Empire involvement in these 'Wars' has devolved into political maneuvering and not much else.

Independent NPC Corporations in EVE are more likely to produce technological advancements for the Capsuleers, than the Empires; and I think this is where all newer technology should come from, with only a few exceptions. Certainly, the Empires use them to produce their Technological advancements; so there is no reason they cannot research and develop their own.

So far I'm amazed how many people didn't read first post fully and didn't get that it's NOT about new stuff vs rebalance old stuff dilemma... Probably there were too many threads about it. =\

Is this self contradiction or am I imagining things?

Just saying all of the new battlecruisers are empire comissioned.

The only bad thing about this ever change is that it's still CCP who intrudes in the sandbox to apply the "evolution". It's an hard coded thing.

Would be VERY refreshing and incredibly original if they could just feed us the tools to evolve EvE ourselves.
We'd have the first MMO that evolves on its own, with no developer intervention beyond creating general guidelines to keep such evolution in check.

EDIT

A possible idea: random rigs for modules.

I could be given a BPO that would create a module rig with random +stats and -stats but that also uses random +CPU / PG.

The possible number of variations you can get by fitting multiple rigged modules is huge and therefore we could have our own "personal" ship.

Or we could have each module accept 1 rig (frigate) to 3 rigs (BS) to 5 (capitals)... with bonuses and maluses like the regular rigs.

... balanced ...

... Starcraft II ...

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.


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.

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.

I'm all for a fluid changing dynamic

Site seems to be temporarily unavailable, but:
EVEnews24 - CCP Soundwave Interview - Why balancing is bad and monkeys are good

Unbalanced gameplay is good, because everytime we nerf a gameplay element it forces people to invest again a whole load of time training other skills. And it allows us (CCP) to ignore the game and do other things with our time. What a load of *** from CCP marketing. Im only reading excuses upon excuses why CCP isnt working on the game.

I just want to know am I the only one who is really disappointed by such approach?