Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Alkeena
Gallente Unitas Nusquam Est FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:32:00 -
[1]
Consistently I hear the complaint that cruisers should not be able to fit 'L sized weapons' -- Heavy Drones. Similar arguments have come about regarding the ishkur and medium drones, resulting in a pending bandwidth nerf to them.
Those that hold this position are ruining what makes eve unique: flexibility and the true sandbox nature of Eve. I've been part of EVE for two and a half years, joining just before Exodus and the introduction of capitals. Essentially all that I've witnessed since then has been the gradual homogenization of Eve. No longer do you really have to question what setup a particular ship may be using, at most there are two, in rare cases three feasible fits for any given ship. More poignantly, there is growing consistency between the races and ship profiles at large.
Take the caldari for instance with the coming torp nerf/buff: They used to have a high power weapons system that could strike at long range--it just took some time. In a few weeks they'll be reduced down to just another standard short range platform. Torps are being stripped of their uniqueness and turned into just another short-range system. Yes I recognize there are differences still, such as the fact that a Bthron will do the same damage but have to close to 5km and deal with concurrent cap and tracking issues to pull it off instead of just sitting and spamming at 30km . Still the fact remains that a major distinguishing feauture between the weapons systems has been lost...
Likewise, drones used to be a different type of weapons system. Drones were unique in their implementation and have been for 4 years. You fit what you could and what was appropriate to the situation, yes you could carry heavies and do a litle more damage, but you'd run into issues against faster targets and run the risk of your drones being popped without you having replacements in the bay...now they are rapidly on the path to being pidgeonholed. No longer will drone ships be seen as versatile ships--their drone loadouts will be largely pre-defined and to make up the DPS shortfall they'll have no choice but to fit standard loadouts--at which point they may as well be flying a standard gun ship. Drones have never been a standard weapons system--they've always been in a different category; one where they could be reasonably mixed and matched but you ran the risk of loosing them. Now they're loosing one of the traits that made them unique, they're slowly being homogenized like everything else.
The push is everywhere, the Eos is being nerfed to be exactly like the other fleet commands (worse, actually, it's tank + links is terrible in comparison). There are constant cries for the nerfing of nano ships, despite numerous effective counters--eventually I'm sure they'll be nerfed to a point that those pilots will have no choice but to start fitting standard tanks instead. I dont even fly them, in fact my favored setups--blaster boats--are utterly impotent against them, but loosing that uniqueness I feel would be a massive blow to what makes eve special. As a further example, given the current rate of nerfage, (and yes this is hyperbole) I fully expect that optimal PvP fits will eventually favor cap rechargers over EW , which removes a significant portion of tactical piloting.
I dont want all the ships to be the same, or hell, even perfectly balanced along racial lines, you can always crosstrain and as long as there is sufficient distinction in roles people will continue to fly 'sub-optimal' ships because they have unique attributes that makes them suitable to particular situations. Instead, Eve is slowly becoming Warcraft II in space--same ships, different skins, maybe not this patch, but we're certainly on the path there.
I want my ship fitting decisions to matter, I want to HAVE ship fitting decisions. I want my piloting ability to matter. At this rate Eve will just turn into F1-F8 online, and that depresses me.
CCP, start setting your ships apart, not balancing them through homogenization.
~Alkeena
|
Jita Alt
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:36:00 -
[2]
Didn't read it, you're wrong though __________________________________ Calling you an idiot on a forum nearby |
Alkeena
Gallente Unitas Nusquam Est FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:38:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Jita Alt Didn't read it
You fail at any form of sensible discourse. If you're not even going to read it you have no standing for argument.
~Alkeena
|
Nexus Kinnon
Synthetic Frontiers
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:39:00 -
[4]
I agree completely.
|
krrukruukruuujkh
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:40:00 -
[5]
ya bandwidth is dumb m3 already restricts what can be fit where this is a dumber idea than the carrier drone control nerf
|
Jita Alt
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:40:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Alkeena
Originally by: Jita Alt Didn't read it
You fail at any form of sensible discourse. If you're not even going to read it you have no standing for argument.
~Alkeena
Sure i do, you're whining about the proposed changes and i can't be arsed reading yet another bloody thread about it So, you're wrong and need to shut up, NEXT! __________________________________ Calling you an idiot on a forum nearby |
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:41:00 -
[7]
There's nothing killing EVE - it's been growing consistently for several years now. People are whining, people have whined, and people will continue to whine. If CCP decides to nerf something it will be due to the massive amount of data they have on how various ships or modules are purchased/lost/used primarily and input from the community secondarily.
If the Myrmidon is 3 times as popular as any other battlecruiser despite only 35% of players being Gallente (example numbers) then they figure it needs to be balanced. Of course this won't be popular because unbalanced ships are popular for obvious reasons - they kick ass.
EVE will survive the carrier nerf, will survive drone bandwidth, and will survive any future nerfs unless they're truly short-sighted and idiotic, which I don't think will ever happen. ---------------- Tarminic - 29 million SP in Forum Warfare Wrangler on Whining |
Masukito Mako
Echelon Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:41:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Masukito Mako on 26/10/2007 19:42:02 /signed (the OP)
vehemently.
|
Jatonix
Target Practice Inc. Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:42:00 -
[9]
I fail to see how the drone changes make fitting decisions useless. You will still have to make drone decisions, as well as other fitting decisions.
You want to know what is actually killing EVE? People who whine and complain about EVERYTHING instead of adapting like you.
|
Jita Alt
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:42:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Tarminic There's nothing killing EVE - it's been growing consistently for several years now. People are whining, people have whined, and people will continue to whine. If CCP decides to nerf something it will be due to the massive amount of data they have on how various ships or modules are purchased/lost/used primarily and input from the community secondarily.
If the Myrmidon is 3 times as popular as any other battlecruiser despite only 35% of players being Gallente (example numbers) then they figure it needs to be balanced. Of course this won't be popular because unbalanced ships are popular for obvious reasons - they kick ass.
EVE will survive the carrier nerf, will survive drone bandwidth, and will survive any future nerfs unless they're truly short-sighted and idiotic, which I don't think will ever happen.
you = jesus __________________________________ Calling you an idiot on a forum nearby |
|
Jita Alt
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:42:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Jatonix I fail to see how the drone changes make fitting decisions useless. You will still have to make drone decisions, as well as other fitting decisions.
You want to know what is actually killing EVE? People who whine and complain about EVERYTHING instead of adapting like you.
you = also jesus __________________________________ Calling you an idiot on a forum nearby |
Moon Kitten
GoonFleet
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:43:00 -
[12]
I disagree with the entire premise of your argument.
|
Kolwrath
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:44:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Tarminic There's nothing killing EVE - it's been growing consistently for several years now. People are whining, people have whined, and people will continue to whine. If CCP decides to nerf something it will be due to the massive amount of data they have on how various ships or modules are purchased/lost/used primarily and input from the community secondarily.
If the Myrmidon is 3 times as popular as any other battlecruiser despite only 35% of players being Gallente (example numbers) then they figure it needs to be balanced. Of course this won't be popular because unbalanced ships are popular for obvious reasons - they kick ass.
EVE will survive the carrier nerf, will survive drone bandwidth, and will survive any future nerfs unless they're truly short-sighted and idiotic, which I don't think will ever happen.
Amen brotha.
|
Alkeena
Gallente Unitas Nusquam Est FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 19:54:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Jatonix I fail to see how the drone changes make fitting decisions useless. You will still have to make drone decisions, as well as other fitting decisions.
You want to know what is actually killing EVE? People who whine and complain about EVERYTHING instead of adapting like you.
Although technically what you wrote implies that I DO in fact adapt, I'm going to assume, due to context, that you actually meant the opposite, and respond to that.
I am adapting. I used to be an avid drone pilot, I started shifting to blaster kits as soon as it was hinted at that drones may be altered in some way. Blaster ships aren't being nerfed at all, in fact I'm getting a pretty decent boost with the introduction of the Kronos. Ad hominem attacks accomplish nothing as you've done little to refute my argument. I suppose this is fair given that it was more a statement of opinion than anything else, but still, attacking me doesnt accomplish much.
What I had intended to say, in not so many words, is that Eve seems to be loosing it's particular flavor and uniqueness. Yes there are still decisions to be made, yes pilot skill still factors in, but I believe it is this holds true to a much lesser extent than it has in the past. This, in turn, makes the game less appealing to me. Perhaps that is sound financial accumen. I loathe WoW, for instance, but it's highly successful and enjoyed by many.
Eve, as a game, seems to be changing. Slowly but perceptably, our sandbox is shrinking, and it bothers me. All of the above was merely the expression of that.
~Alkeena
|
Alkeena
Gallente Unitas Nusquam Est FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:06:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Alkeena on 26/10/2007 20:11:06
Originally by: Tarminic There's nothing killing EVE - it's been growing consistently for several years now. People are whining, people have whined, and people will continue to whine. If CCP decides to nerf something it will be due to the massive amount of data they have on how various ships or modules are purchased/lost/used primarily and input from the community secondarily.
If the Myrmidon is 3 times as popular as any other battlecruiser despite only 35% of players being Gallente (example numbers) then they figure it needs to be balanced. Of course this won't be popular because unbalanced ships are popular for obvious reasons - they kick ass.
EVE will survive the carrier nerf, will survive drone bandwidth, and will survive any future nerfs unless they're truly short-sighted and idiotic, which I don't think will ever happen.
I appreciate the candor of your response. The position I would take with regards to that is that it doesnt matter if the myrm is overpower (to an extent), so long as other ships are differentiated enough to make them worthy of flying on their own merits. The trouble we've run into, in my opinion, is the obsession with DPS. It's all that a lot of people see and so when a ship class is made essentially homogenous (I'll grant a happy exception to the tanking ability of the drake) the slightest difference causes people to rush to ONE ship, such as the myrm due to it's elevated DPS. If the other BCs had a role that was sufficiently differentiated they'd be flown more as a result. Instead, because they are percieved as being so similar it becomes 'easy' to pick out the 'best' one and everyone flocks to it.
Note my use of the word percieved above. There's another issue at work here, and that's that a lot of players are not terribly astute. Vagacanes = awesome. Also, pop the damn drones and your problem is solved.
Finally, when I say that something is killing Eve, I mean in the sense that REALLY sets it apart. Let's face it, the more mass market appeal you have the better off you are financially, that doesnt necessarilly mean it is a better game, just that it can attract more rabid mouth breathers. I think a lot of people that respect the complexity and depth of Eve hold games such as WoW in disdain, yet it is many times more successful.
It is not the true death of Eve, it is the spiritual death of Eve.
~Alkeena
Edit: I predicated the discussion of the myrm with "within reason." I'm not against all nerfs, simply homogenizing ones. The missile nerf that came with exodus I feel was necessary, as it essentialy destroyed the role of smaller ships. By NOT nerfing missiles they would have continued to encourage everyone to fly big ships and big ships alone; homogenization = bad. The myrm is certainly on the cusp of that, as it may have started to crowd out BS pilots, however "bringing it in line" with the other BCs is also a poor decision, or at least in the form it was implemented, for reasons already expressed.
|
Malcanis
High4Life SMASH Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:07:00 -
[16]
Excellent post, OP.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Igualmentedos
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:08:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Alkeena
Originally by: Tarminic There's nothing killing EVE - it's been growing consistently for several years now. People are whining, people have whined, and people will continue to whine. If CCP decides to nerf something it will be due to the massive amount of data they have on how various ships or modules are purchased/lost/used primarily and input from the community secondarily.
If the Myrmidon is 3 times as popular as any other battlecruiser despite only 35% of players being Gallente (example numbers) then they figure it needs to be balanced. Of course this won't be popular because unbalanced ships are popular for obvious reasons - they kick ass.
EVE will survive the carrier nerf, will survive drone bandwidth, and will survive any future nerfs unless they're truly short-sighted and idiotic, which I don't think will ever happen.
I appreciate the candor of your response. The position I would take with regards to that is that it doesnt matter if the myrm is overpower (to an extent), so long as other ships are differentiated enough to make them worthy of flying on their own merits. The trouble we've run into, in my opinion, is the obsession with DPS. It's all that a lot of people see and so when a ship class is made essentially homogenous (I'll grant a happy exception to the tanking ability of the drake) the slightest difference causes people to rush to ONE ship, such as the myrm due to it's elevated DPS. If the other BCs had a role that was sufficiently differentiated they'd be flown more as a result. Instead, because they are percieved as being so similar it becomes 'easy' to pick out the 'best' one and everyone flocks to it.
Note my use of the word percieved above. There's another issue at work here, and that's that a lot of players are note terribly astute. Vagacanes = awesome. Also, pop the damn drones and your problem is solved.
Finally, when I say that something is killing Eve, I mean in the sense that REALLY sets it apart. Let's face it, the more mass market appeal you have the better off you are financially, that doesnt necessarilly mean it is a better game, just that it can attract more rabid mouth breathers. I think a lot of people that respect the complexity and depth of Eve hold games such as WoW in disdain, yet it is many times more successful.
It is not the true death of eve, it is the spiritual death of eve.
~Alkeena
Holy balls, stop complaining about what you think EVE should be. Just accept that change is inevitable.
|
Sorum Daemoth
Insidious Existence Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:08:00 -
[18]
/signed
also jita alts a noob, i caught him in the restroom with polaris pulling a george michael.
You just got WTF EXIT ganked! |
Laboratus
Gallente BGG League of Abnormal Gentlemen
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:10:00 -
[19]
The op is 100% correct. ___ P.S. Post with your main. Mind control and tin hats |
MasterEnt
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:11:00 -
[20]
Agreed
This is why weapons and modules has CPU/MW requirements. If you want to fit a "L" weapon on a meduim ship.. should should be able to.. just knowing that your resources will be limited.
Too Much
|
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:12:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Alkeena I appreciate the candor of your response. The position I would take with regards to that is that it doesnt matter if the myrm is overpower (to an extent), so long as other ships are differentiated enough to make them worthy of flying on their own merits. The trouble we've run into, in my opinion, is the obsession with DPS. It's all that a lot of people see and so when a ship class is made essentially homogenous (I'll grant a happy exception to the tanking ability of the drake) the slightest difference causes people to rush to ONE ship, such as the myrm due to it's elevated DPS. If the other BCs had a role that was sufficiently differentiated they'd be flown more as a result. Instead, because they are percieved as being so similar it becomes 'easy' to pick out the 'best' one and everyone flocks to it.
I can agree with that actually - one of the things that I like about EVE is that it's not a game that can be easily min-maxed (I.E. someone simply creating 'optimal' setup with the highest posssible DPS) and that several real-time factors make doing this impossible. Think that we need more diversity in ship setups (though T2 battleships do interesting things in this regard).
Quote: Note my use of the word percieved above. There's another issue at work here, and that's that a lot of players are not terribly astute. Vagacanes = awesome. Also, pop the damn drones and your problem is solved.
Finally, when I say that something is killing Eve, I mean in the sense that REALLY sets it apart. Let's face it, the more mass market appeal you have the better off you are financially, that doesnt necessarilly mean it is a better game, just that it can attract more rabid mouth breathers. I think a lot of people that respect the complexity and depth of Eve hold games such as WoW in disdain, yet it is many times more successful.
It is not the true death of eve, it is the spiritual death of eve.
~Alkeena
Indeed - it's up to CCP to strike the right balance between uniqueness and mass-appeal, and we all have different positions along that line.
I do think that we need to add something more to combat, and I think that CCP will be doing that with T3 weapons, attribute changing effects (sensor boosters, dampeners, etc), and heat will help this. ---------------- Tarminic - 29 million SP in Forum Warfare Wrangler on Whining |
Jatonix
Target Practice Inc. Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:12:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Jatonix on 26/10/2007 20:13:11
Originally by: Alkeena
Originally by: Jatonix I fail to see how the drone changes make fitting decisions useless. You will still have to make drone decisions, as well as other fitting decisions.
You want to know what is actually killing EVE? People who whine and complain about EVERYTHING instead of adapting like you.
Although technically what you wrote implies that I DO in fact adapt, I'm going to assume, due to context, that you actually meant the opposite, and respond to that.
I am adapting. I used to be an avid drone pilot, I started shifting to blaster kits as soon as it was hinted at that drones may be altered in some way. Blaster ships aren't being nerfed at all, in fact I'm getting a pretty decent boost with the introduction of the Kronos. Ad hominem attacks accomplish nothing as you've done little to refute my argument. I suppose this is fair given that it was more a statement of opinion than anything else, but still, attacking me doesnt accomplish much.
What I had intended to say, in not so many words, is that Eve seems to be loosing it's particular flavor and uniqueness. Yes there are still decisions to be made, yes pilot skill still factors in, but I believe it is this holds true to a much lesser extent than it has in the past. This, in turn, makes the game less appealing to me. Perhaps that is sound financial accumen. I loathe WoW, for instance, but it's highly successful and enjoyed by many.
Eve, as a game, seems to be changing. Slowly but perceptably, our sandbox is shrinking, and it bothers me. All of the above was merely the expression of that.
~Alkeena
I see where you're coming from, but it seems like bandwidth will actually add more variety in a way. Now, you can store much more different types of drones with the larger drone bays, making your drone decisions carry into space, rather than in station. Let's take, for example, a ship with 50 m3 of drone space. That's 5 medium scouts. Once in combat, you can only launch those, limiting decisions. With the new changes, you will be able to store more varieties of drones to adapt to more situations.
|
shinsushi
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:13:00 -
[23]
translation, "My boats can't do everything anymore!!!"
Last I checked there where like 100 different ships in eve, alot with different roles. Wanna do something well, get in a specialized ship for it. AMARR - Taking it up the butt since 2005
Fixing Laser Boats 101 |
Major Death
Caldari Space Salvage Incorperated
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:21:00 -
[24]
Shame, someone broken the OP's I WIN button.
My original sig was 'Enjoy lag free play in a dynamic space MMORPG'. It was removed for lack of EVE content! ;) |
Gnulpie
Minmatar Miner Tech
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:24:00 -
[25]
I agree with the op here.
The changes are taking away more and more freedom from Eve. The devs really need to be MUCH more carefully what they want to change and what not.
They must not forget that the SANDBOX CONCEPT is what made Eve so unique and strong. They shouldn't limit it to 3 or 4 specialization careers. That takes away all the freedom and it will only force you to skill up that career.
Everything will become predictable and boring ... and there will be a 'best fit' if they continue like this. And then it will be only dull nerf - unnerf game of the devs.
|
Wilfuc Fatburdz
The Capitals' Club Te-Ka
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:36:00 -
[26]
The only thing killimg EVE atm the moment is Devs making devblogs out of a brainfart. Which then appears to the sweaty mass to devalue immense time investments in a particular skill branch so much as to make them apparently worthless at a stroke.
No amount of ISK can buy the most valuable personal commodity in EVE, and that commodity is time. Such power, to regard it so carelessly.
Kardim: If i buy a Ferrari it damn well better be a Ferrari a year later not a Civic. |
ChimeraRouge
Caldari Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:42:00 -
[27]
Sorry you are 100% WRONG.
|
krrukruukruuujkh
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:51:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Gnulpie I agree with the op here.
The changes are taking away more and more freedom from Eve. The devs really need to be MUCH more carefully what they want to change and what not.
They must not forget that the SANDBOX CONCEPT is what made Eve so unique and strong. They shouldn't limit it to 3 or 4 specialization careers. That takes away all the freedom and it will only force you to skill up that career.
Everything will become predictable and boring ... and there will be a 'best fit' if they continue like this. And then it will be only dull nerf - unnerf game of the devs.
ah ok so you think that its cool for a carrier to be able to do everything without changing fit
|
cal nereus
Bounty Hunter - Dark Legion Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:52:00 -
[29]
It doesn't matter if your ship is "good" or not. Just fly whatever looks cool, has a nice name, or embodies the style of play you prefer. Don't fly something just because it is powerful. That leads to a lot of grief when it gets nerfed. Keyword: when. ---
Join BH-DL |
Mekk Azal
November Night Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 20:54:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Alkeena
Originally by: Jita Alt Didn't read it
You fail at any form of sensible discourse. If you're not even going to read it you have no standing for argument.
~Alkeena
I didnt read it either. But please skip the fancy words and just tell me to STFU like normal space-geeks.
|
|
Louis DelaBlanche
Cosmic Odyssey YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:01:00 -
[31]
I agree with the principle that the homogonisation of ships in EVE is a bad thing. However, I disagree that these changes necessarily are taking EVE further down that road. Theres still pleanty of scope for variety of setups for ships, & till it reaches the point (which itl hopefully never do) that the only difference between each races ships is the hull design, CCPs attempts to "balance" should continue.
|
Alkeena
Gallente Unitas Nusquam Est FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:08:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Mekk Azal
I didnt read it either. But please skip the fancy words and just tell me to STFU like normal space-geeks.
STFU Noob
|
MEEATYOU
Gallente Coalition of Nations Free Trade Zone.
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:09:00 -
[33]
Amen to this post.
/signed. CCP, get off your asses and fix some nerfs and then STOP NERFING EVERYTHING cause some carebear in Empire lost his ship cause he was dumb.
I see this one day,
EVE ONLINE USERS: 5,000 (All In Empire)
CCP, get it straight. Majority rules, Not BOB, nor CAREBEARS.
YARR! FTW
|
Mark Lucius
Forbidden Lore
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:21:00 -
[34]
I disagree. The drone buff makes it necessary to think on your feet. Sure it will be easier to decide what drones you take with you since you've got a larger bay, but now you will have to think of what you actually set loose instead of just dropping the 5 Ogre II's (since you got nothing else). Also, a larger bay makes for better mixing and matching, so you don't have to go the secure 'read about in the ships/modules section' loadout.
The bandwidth reduction is also a good thing, because it brings the power of the Myrmidon more in line with the other Tier 2 BCs. It makes the other BCs viable choices again, which brings back the element of the sandbox and choice (ofcourse I will still get laughed at because I prefer the Harbinger). ---
|
Buyerr
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:35:00 -
[35]
i see the point in beeing able to fit a larger weapon type on a smaller ship, so that you are able to do considerable dps on something bigger then your ship, although the term balance needs to be in place so that you can NOT tank in any way while doing it (no speed or normal tank).
but your whine is primary about the drones where it is lame that it is the only weapen system that can effectively do this and only on a few ship types. if it have to be apply it to all weapon types and MAKE SOME DRAWBACK FOR USING HEAVY DRONES instead of light
|
Mark Lucius
Forbidden Lore
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 21:52:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Mark Lucius on 26/10/2007 21:52:48
Originally by: Buyerr i see the point in beeing able to fit a larger weapon type on a smaller ship, so that you are able to do considerable dps on something bigger then your ship, although the term balance needs to be in place so that you can NOT tank in any way while doing it (no speed or normal tank).
but your whine is primary about the drones where it is lame that it is the only weapen system that can effectively do this and only on a few ship types. if it have to be apply it to all weapon types and MAKE SOME DRAWBACK FOR USING HEAVY DRONES instead of light
Oooh, I like this. How about a CPU-heavy module that allows medium sized ships to use (more) heavy drones? ---
|
Owi
Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 22:15:00 -
[37]
Edited by: Owi on 26/10/2007 22:16:45
Originally by: Alkeena Edited by: Alkeena on 26/10/2007 20:11:06
It is not the true death of Eve, it is the spiritual death of Eve.
~Alkeena
i saw that coming long time ago. If something good and uniqe gets created, ppl overrun it and make it commercial. And in that way it gets f***** up by stuiped s*** and boring low entertaiment. *coughs
Its part of growing and grow it to death.
Well its bit off topic but the changes are made about growing. If this changes are wrong and overreacted it ends in boring - all the same kind of s*** .
I feel ya Alkeena and i know what you want to say - some ppl that posted in here dont.
My EvE-Files.com folder !
|
Alkeena
Gallente Unitas Nusquam Est FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 22:15:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Alkeena on 26/10/2007 22:18:20 Quick response as I have other engagements shortly:
You're quite right in believing that I'm not terribly fond of the impending drone nerf. That, however, was not the primary thrust of the post, merely an extended example. I think the greatest affront of all is actually the proposed torp changes...It really removes quite a bit of cross-race variety from the game, much to its detriment imho. These are all just symptoms of a larger problem though.
This is not really a whine about nerfing in general, although it seems many people misconstrued it as such. It's a whine about HOW nerfing is done. Adjusting ships to "bring them in line" with other ships in class seems a poor decision. First because, as I've repeatedly said, it encourages homogenization which I consider to be the bane of any good game a direct source of boredom and stagnation. Also, balance is almost impossible if you attempt to have everything perform the same without actually having their stats exactly the same. The end result is that you either have ships that ARE exactly the same (BAD) or you have ships that are very nearly the same but with some inherent imbalance which people will seize upon. If all ships of a given class perform exactly the same role, but one performs it marginally better (as one inevitably will) then the players will flock to it until further calls for nerfs are made. In this way we'll end up with the consistent chain nerfs that we've been witnessing for the past couple years.
The way to avoid this issue is to ensure that each ship in a class has a particular independent role which encourages people to fly it in specific circumstances because that's what it is best suited for. I get the sense that this was originally why the racial profiles were created in the first place...Who says Caldari should have a good close range damage dealer? They're (ostensibly) the long range race. Who says the minmatar need 'good' ew, be happy with your target painters and speed, it makes you unique (or should, and the fact that it doesn't is really the issue).
It then becomes a matter of balancing roles against one another rather than taking a bunch of ships that are essentially the same and tweaking a few states at the outrage of the many.
Before I'm attacked for these views, note well that what I presented above is something of a simplification for explicative purposes. If you take it too far in the 'role-based' direction you're right back to pigeonholing...It's a balancing act assuredly, but one that seems far more appealing to me than arbitrary stat changes that make all the ships appear to be nearly the same.
Oh, and if it keeps the thread alive, feel free to keep whinging about drones specifically if you like.
~Alkeena
|
Grim Vandal
Caldari Burn Proof
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 22:25:00 -
[39]
the worst balance factors are within similar systems like:
shield tanking working as armor tanking = pretty lame
guns do dot ... all of them do dot ... thats it ... now even missiles and torps do dot ... MISSILES SHOULD BE TACTICAL WEAPONS DEAR GOD, missiles should by now way bet a dot weapon ...
the worst thing EVER: ships having bonuses to ONE weapon-type only why shouldnt a ship have like 2 laser guns, some autocannons and one tactical torp launcher ... well i stop already ... it wouldnt be eve anymore ...
Greetings Grim |
Mark Lucius
Forbidden Lore
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 22:42:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Alkeena Edited by: Alkeena on 26/10/2007 22:18:20 Quick response as I have other engagements shortly:
You're quite right in believing that I'm not terribly fond of the impending drone nerf. That, however, was not the primary thrust of the post, merely an extended example. I think the greatest affront of all is actually the proposed torp changes...It really removes quite a bit of cross-race variety from the game, much to its detriment imho. These are all just symptoms of a larger problem though.
This is not really a whine about nerfing in general, although it seems many people misconstrued it as such. It's a whine about HOW nerfing is done. Adjusting ships to "bring them in line" with other ships in class seems a poor decision. First because, as I've repeatedly said, it encourages homogenization which I consider to be the bane of any good game a direct source of boredom and stagnation. Also, balance is almost impossible if you attempt to have everything perform the same without actually having their stats exactly the same. The end result is that you either have ships that ARE exactly the same (BAD) or you have ships that are very nearly the same but with some inherent imbalance which people will seize upon. If all ships of a given class perform exactly the same role, but one performs it marginally better (as one inevitably will) then the players will flock to it until further calls for nerfs are made. In this way we'll end up with the consistent chain nerfs that we've been witnessing for the past couple years.
The way to avoid this issue is to ensure that each ship in a class has a particular independent role which encourages people to fly it in specific circumstances because that's what it is best suited for. I get the sense that this was originally why the racial profiles were created in the first place...Who says Caldari should have a good close range damage dealer? They're (ostensibly) the long range race. Who says the minmatar need 'good' ew, be happy with your target painters and speed, it makes you unique (or should, and the fact that it doesn't is really the issue).
It then becomes a matter of balancing roles against one another rather than taking a bunch of ships that are essentially the same and tweaking a few states at the outrage of the many.
Before I'm attacked for these views, note well that what I presented above is something of a simplification for explicative purposes. If you take it too far in the 'role-based' direction you're right back to pigeonholing...It's a balancing act assuredly, but one that seems far more appealing to me than arbitrary stat changes that make all the ships appear to be nearly the same.
Oh, and if it keeps the thread alive, feel free to keep whinging about drones specifically if you like.
~Alkeena
Ok so you are saying that we should keep the 'little' imbalances that exist now, because they are what define Eve? So Caldari should stay PvE, Gallente should stay PvP, Minmatar should stay Nano and Amarr should stay the laughing stock?
While I agree that there should be distinguishing points between the races, like the ones you mention, they should clearly not be so far apart that for each role there is a clear answer.
Example: This means that if someone ask you which ship he should train for when he likes fast, heavy hitters, you don't immediately reply 'train for the Ishtar or Myrmidon', but instead say 'Well, that depends. Do you like lasers? Do you like missiles?' With an unbalance this second answer is not really an option.
Adjustments like this make the distinction better, because no matter role or race you choose, you can participate meaningfully instead of being cannonfodder just because your preference 'just happens to not work so well'. ---
|
|
Murtala
Mushin Market
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 23:04:00 -
[41]
AGREED
But ultimately, the developers and shareholders depends on getting this right and personally I think the drive to "BALANCE" everything will succeed and variety will disappear and . . . well I have spent 3 years here, so I have had a good run.
STOP BALANCING EVERYTHING
|
SirMoric
|
Posted - 2007.10.26 23:08:00 -
[42]
Nothing wrong with "balancing" EVE.
I don't see any problem in each race and each ship has their own purpose, as long as you don't create a unbeatable ship.
When you fit your ship there should always be an option for people to counter it.
So everytime you go out on a mission you may be able to kill 50 percent of the ships in your own class where the drivers have the same amount of SP and the other 50 percent will be dangerous to you.
Stupidity will prevail when you're able to make a setup that is nber against everything else class- and skillwise.
So, I like "balancing".
If this thread is about you just lost your favourite ship cause it's nber in most situations.... Can I have your stuff then?
rgds
|
Dirk Magnum
Red Light Enterprises Eastern Star Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 00:09:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Dirk Magnum on 27/10/2007 00:10:42 I wouldn't say that balance is killing Eve, but it has the potential to if taken too far. Even if you're a dedicated roleplayer who would never consider cross-training weapons and ships, you still shouldn't be complaining about balance. Does Mozambique complain to the UN about the military superiority of American weapon systems, and demand they be regulated (nerfed, if you will) down to match third world levels of quality? No. You make do with what you have, and take advantage of system improvements whenever possible. Okay this may not be the greatest possible analogy, but I've said it before and I'll say it again, true balance kills diversity in this game.
Originally by: SirMoric
I don't see any problem in each race and each ship has their own purpose, as long as you don't create a unbeatable ship.
When you fit your ship there should always be an option for people to counter it.
Making that statement strongly implies that there is an unbeatable ship setup in this game. Pray tell what it is, because I wish to make use of it
|
Jack Icegaard
The Omega Project
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 00:18:00 -
[44]
To the OP: Very nice post, i share the same concern for the game.
Originally by: Alkeena
...Also, balance is almost impossible if you attempt to have everything perform the same without actually having their stats exactly the same. The end result is that you either have ships that ARE exactly the same (BAD) or you have ships that are very nearly the same but with some inherent imbalance which people will seize upon. If all ships of a given class perform exactly the same role, but one performs it marginally better (as one inevitably will) then the players will flock to it until further calls for nerfs are made. In this way we'll end up with the consistent chain nerfs that we've been witnessing for the past couple years. This is the mechanism behind the FOTM...nerf...FOTM cycle in my estimation.
Exactly!
|
Incantare
Caldari Kernel of War Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 00:21:00 -
[45]
Balance is good for the game. End of.
Balance doesn't mean watered down gameplay and identical races, it means equal ability to compete so that performance in battle is dictated through skill, both in preparation and in combat, rather than largely influenced by racial choices.
|
Si Raven
Challenger Logistics Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 01:20:00 -
[46]
Originally by: MasterEnt This is why weapons and modules has CPU/MW requirements. If you want to fit a "L" weapon on a meduim ship.. should should be able to.. just knowing that your resources will be limited.
QFT
The Drake shouldn't have the same CPU/MW as the Ravem just as the Myrmidon shouldn't have the same bandwidth as the Dominix. If you still want to use "L" drones, your resources should be limited!
Originally by: Alkeena The trouble we've run into, in my opinion, is the obsession with DPS
Including you? How can you call the new Myrmidon homogenous when you consider the versatility of that huge drone bay? You can go from BC DPS, to cap neuter, to repairer, to ecm! All without redocking at a base station!
|
Bohoba
Caldari Dragons United Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 01:37:00 -
[47]
I have played the game 3.5 years I am Cald, race what I am seeing is this Eve will become 1 race 1 ship 1 gun no skill(player wise) to play the game I have seen my share of the nerf bat hehe well every patch sence the day I logged onto eve.
Eve is really becoming more of a WoW group whinners win the game here
have you noticed that every time a major nerf bat is comming CCP offers the 2 for one deals
Oh well just a game hope to play for awhile longer could always go mining in empire I guess hehe
The Dark Force is strong in EvE But it will fail
Get Into the Game it makes it fun for all |
Saris Dadra
Drifter Unincorporated
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 02:10:00 -
[48]
I think most of the posters here seem to be missing the OP point.
Balance is wonderful, balancing everything by making it the same is not.
For example a passive shield tank and an active shield tank are very different beasts. Now suppose a change comes around that makes them less so. Perhaps, the optimal recharge rate is removed and shield recharge rates are boosted slightly to compensate. Now the two tanking styles are fairly similar. All damage is repaired in a linear fashion so you just chose the one that does it slightly better. The change may not even drastically change the effectiveness of any particular ship, but it removes a certain flavor of the game, which is something I think should be avoided.
I'm not a big missile user so I cant offer much of an opinion the torpedo changes. But if the changes are being made because every other race has long and short range weapons, not because torpedos in their current form are overpowered then it is a bad change. Balance doesn't mean that every race has long and short range weapons, it means that every race is just as viable to play as the next one.
Likewise nerfing the Myrm for the REASON it can fit Large sized weapons is bad. Nerfing the Myrm for the REASON it OMGWTFPWNs all other battle cruisers is a good thing, and I think it is the real reason for nerf. Still it makes me rather sad to see a rather unique ship made into an oversized Vexor, and I wish there was another way to nerf the ship that didn't destroy its uniqueness. |
Teneshian
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 02:13:00 -
[49]
if you balance the game completely no one is going to win
|
Vana theHunter
PsyCorp INVICTUS.
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 02:21:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Tarminic There's nothing killing EVE - it's been growing consistently for several years now. People are whining, people have whined, and people will continue to whine. If CCP decides to nerf something it will be due to the massive amount of data they have on how various ships or modules are purchased/lost/used primarily and input from the community secondarily.
If the Myrmidon is 3 times as popular as any other battlecruiser despite only 35% of players being Gallente (example numbers) then they figure it needs to be balanced. Of course this won't be popular because unbalanced ships are popular for obvious reasons - they kick ass.
EVE will survive the carrier nerf, will survive drone bandwidth, and will survive any future nerfs unless they're truly short-sighted and idiotic, which I don't think will ever happen.
I'd have to agree fully. The nerfs are in place for reasons. The nano age was rediculous, and this time is just another way to balance the combat and pvp aspect of the game.
If you want a combat system that's not balanced, I recommend you moving to WoW. Really, you may enjoy it.
Other than that, hop back into your nerfed nanophoon and quit complaining.
|
|
Drizit
Amarr Lonely out here Division of Eden
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 02:43:00 -
[51]
The only thing overpowered in this game is the nerf bat.
I'm all for balance, there should be a certain amount of versatility that allows everyone, no matter what race they are, to do what they want without having to cross-train to fly the only ship in the game capable of it.
The problem recently is how they have balanced the game - with nerfs
Reducing the effectiveness of one always makes another more powerful. Take away the top card and the card underneath always becomes the top card. All this does is creates a continual round of removals from the top until there's no cards left. The only way you can ever achieve a true balance is by reducing the DPS of every ship to zero then it just becomes space tag. Oh but that makes Minmatar too powerful so we have to nerf their speed... And so it goes until nothing is left but ambulation and it becomes a chat room game.
Stop with the nerfs already. In WW2, did some ultimate dev nerf the aircraft because it was too powerful? No, someone invented the anti-aircraft gun and flak cannon to counter it.
Stop nerfing by subtraction, lets have some nerfing by addition instead.
--
|
TRYPTIC
The Flaming Sideburn's Hedonistic Imperative
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 03:06:00 -
[52]
I strongly agree with the OP. There are, at most, two solid kit-outs for each ship. Some may have a third fit which is slightly above mediocre.
What I have noticed most in CCP's attempts at balancing is movement towards specialized ships of every type. That is one of the culprits which encourage blobbing. You need tacklers, support, damage-dealers, snipers, drone boats, ECM boats, etc. Solo PvP is all but dead because of this specialization.
I'm glad to see several differing opinions here, both pro and con...except for the moronic temper tantrum thrown by Jita Alt, who doesn't even have the balls to post with his main.
Regards, Tryp
|
Gastco
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 03:18:00 -
[53]
Actually, I find this thread to be a bit hypocritical.
The title "balance is killing eve" implies that the game is currently unbalanced and then you go on to say the upcomming potential changes are a bad thing because it kills the "flexibility" of eve.
I couldnt disagree more. Flexibility comes about because there are more than a few viable paths to take in EvE. Right now, EVE is the most flexible game out there. But, there are still a large majority of people following a few paths, simply because those paths are a little more viable than others.
EVE is no different in that way than any other game thats every been released. The masses will always migrate towards the ships, abilities, and mods that are the most powerful. The best way to identify those skills that need addressing is letting lots of people play your game. Currently, its no fluke that certain Carriers and drone ships are the ships most sought after by the masses.
You use the term "homogonization" I dont see CCP doing this at all.
If you have 10 ships, 8 of which are balanced and 2 of which are more powerful, especially when combined with certain skills. What do you think people will play? How is bringing the 2 in line "homogonizing" the game? Since everyone is now flying those 2 ships everyone is gonna be mad when they nerf them. Thats whats happening here.
the bottom line is needed rebalancings and nerfs are a part of games like this, and rebalancing does anything but homogonize the game.
|
shupaco yaloo
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 03:24:00 -
[54]
Originally by: TRYPTIC except for the moronic temper tantrum thrown by Jita Alt, who doesn't even have the balls to post with his main.
that is his main unless you think this guy is on more than 6 hours a day every day actively speaking within local and trading contracts and then goes on a pvp character
|
MrPops
Caldari Foundation R0ADKILL
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 05:10:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Jita Alt Didn't read it, you're wrong though
STFU, you are jackass. Go shine some d i l d o e s
|
Ban Shui
Eve University
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 05:14:00 -
[56]
As the saying goes:
"The road to failure is paved with good intentions."
I do not doubt CCP's intentions.
|
faxtarious
Silent Death Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 05:36:00 -
[57]
there's a saying that goes... "you don't like it...then get the F' out"
|
Danae Melios
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 06:56:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Alkeena Edited by: Alkeena on 26/10/2007 22:32:53 Edited by: Alkeena on 26/10/2007 22:18:20 Quick response as I have other engagements shortly:
You're quite right in believing that I'm not terribly fond of the impending drone nerf. That, however, was not the primary thrust of the post, merely an extended example. I think the greatest affront of all is actually the proposed torp changes...It really removes quite a bit of cross-race variety from the game, much to its detriment imho. These are all just symptoms of a larger problem though.
Alkeena, I agree with this somewhat. I liked the idea of a "big, slow, dumb, can kill you quickly if it hits but is easily outran" weapon with a long range. I ran a Caldari toon for a long time, and I liked having it as part of the game.
Originally by: Alkeena
This is not really a whine about nerfing in general, although it seems many people misconstrued it as such. It's a whine about HOW nerfing is done. Adjusting ships to "bring them in line" with other ships in class seems a poor decision. First because, as I've repeatedly said, it encourages homogenization which I consider to be the bane of any good game a direct source of boredom and stagnation. Also, balance is almost impossible if you attempt to have everything perform the same without actually having their stats exactly the same. The end result is that you either have ships that ARE exactly the same (BAD) or you have ships that are very nearly the same but with some inherent imbalance which people will seize upon. If all ships of a given class perform exactly the same role, but one performs it marginally better (as one inevitably will) then the players will flock to it until further calls for nerfs are made. In this way we'll end up with the consistent chain nerfs that we've been witnessing for the past couple years. This is the mechanism behind the FOTM...nerf...FOTM cycle in my estimation.
Here, I am afraid, we part ways out how we see things. You have been in the game since pre-Exodus, well I have as well (though I gave my previous characters away to start a new life in Eve). Remember that each navy has been built up independently of the others, reacting to one another. One Empire comes up with a new concept, the others steal it to put a ship with the same role in their navies. So there is deliberate duplication of capabilities. Why? Because not everyone cross-trains to different races to get unique ships.
Originally by: Alkeena
The way to avoid this issue is to ensure that each ship in a class has a particular independent role which encourages people to fly it in specific circumstances because that's what it is best suited for. I get the sense that this was originally why the racial profiles were created in the first place...Who says Caldari should have a good close range damage dealer? They're (ostensibly) the long range race. Who says the minmatar need 'good' ew, be happy with your target painters and speed, it makes you unique (or should, and the fact that it doesn't is really the issue). ~Alkeena
Yes, I agree that the flavors of the different races need to be preserved. Hell, halve the structure of Minmatar races and boost their speeds, make 'em more distinct. At the same time, add more armor to the Amarr, buff their lasers, and lower their speeds even more. Keep different weapon systems more consistently Amarr and Caldari and Gallente and Minmatar, enhance the modifiers that come from each shipyard.
BUT-- keep in mind that every fleet needs its fast scouts and tacklers. Each fleet needs its snipers and its close combat specialists. Its own tankers and logistics ships. And when one side gets too good at a particular trick, others will steal it. Or, now, file complaints with CONCORD alleging provocative and illegal weapons systems threatening a new arms race, requiring adjustments to technology to comply with arms limitations treaties.
|
Owi
Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 07:04:00 -
[59]
What wouldt be better for the game ?
Balancing it for the average mass or balancing it on results that made from a handfull strong players ?
To keep the mass happy - sure its better balancing / reducing the skill-level . But for the game itselfs it is bad because it gets balanced with little faults init.
Balance it on a handfull strong players wouldt raise the level and make it better.
CCP make to much nerfs, finding a way between the both examples wouldt been probably the best.
How bout a "Nerf Filtersystem Managment" CCP ;-)
My EvE-Files.com folder !
|
Tona Beqa
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 08:40:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Owi Edited by: Owi on 27/10/2007 07:13:26
What wouldt be better for a game ?
Balancing it for the average mass or balancing it on results that made from a handfull strong players ?
To keep the mass happy - sure its better balancing / reducing the skill-level . But for the game itselfs it is bad because it gets balanced with little faults init.
Balance it on a handfull strong players wouldt raise the level and make it better.
CCP maked to much nerfs early.
To find a way between the both examples wouldt been probably the best.
How bout a "Nerf Filtersystem Managment" CCP ;-)
Currently, 'the masses' fly Myrmidons, Carriers or use torpedoes. What are you on about?
|
|
Shevar
Minmatar A.W.M Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 08:50:00 -
[61]
If every race had a roughly similar amount of "best" ships in each ship role category I would agree with you. But since 90% of the ship roles are divided between gallente and minmatar I can't. ---
-The only real drug problem is scoring real good drugs |
Aramendel
Amarr North Face Force
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 09:02:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Aramendel on 27/10/2007 09:04:48
Originally by: Alkeena The position I would take with regards to that is that it doesnt matter if the myrm is overpower (to an extent), so long as other ships are differentiated enough to make them worthy of flying on their own merits.
Uh....that is an extremly flawed position.
Essentially you complain that the drone changes reduce options or variety for myrmidon setups, right?
What do you think does an overpowered ship which fills a large amount of game niches to that extend that it is by far the most used ship in its class? It reduces option. Not for itself but for all other ships in its class.
Nerfing that ship will reducing the options of it, but will add new, previously inefficient options to the other ships.
You complain that the myr is forced out of some of its niches but do not mind at all that it was pigeonholing the other BCs in very narrow niches. More perspective please.
|
shinsushi
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 09:12:00 -
[63]
Edited by: shinsushi on 27/10/2007 09:14:41 Double post.
++++++++++ AMARR - Taking it up the butt since 2005
Fixing Laser Boats 101 |
shinsushi
Amarr Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 09:14:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 27/10/2007 09:04:48
Originally by: Alkeena The position I would take with regards to that is that it doesnt matter if the myrm is overpower (to an extent), so long as other ships are differentiated enough to make them worthy of flying on their own merits.
Uh....that is an extremly flawed position.
Essentially you complain that the drone changes reduce options or variety for myrmidon setups, right?
What do you think does an overpowered ship which fills a large amount of game niches to that extend that it is by far the most used ship in its class? It reduces option. Not for itself but for all other ships in its class.
Nerfing that ship will reducing the options of it, but will add new, previously inefficient options to the other ships.
You complain that the myr is forced out of some of its niches but do not mind at all that it was pigeonholing the other BCs in very narrow niches. More perspective please.
What he said.
Lets say CCP just left certain ships overpowered, they would just stay that way. Everyone would be flying them, then there would be no diversity at all in eve. Cookie cutter overpowered setup on the Flavor of the Game ship.
++++++++++ AMARR - Taking it up the butt since 2005
Fixing Laser Boats 101 |
Vyktor Abyss
The Abyss Corporation Abyss Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 11:26:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Vyktor Abyss on 27/10/2007 11:27:35
Great Posts Alkeena.
I think you're spot on. The devs added variety for example with the BCs - with distinct differences like DPS, tanking, speed - then seem desperate to NERF them into being pretty much identical.
This NERFing seems quite ill thought out since by attacking the differences that exist between the races, they actually make the game a lot more bland for everyone - especially for those older players that just see these balance changes as 'homogenization' (heh...if thats even a word!)...
Spiritual Death?!? - maybe not...but definately heading along the lines of Spiritual Decay by verbose long sermons and kiddy fiddling priests *ahem*.
Alkeena for Community Council Representative! [x]
- Ideas are my business...maybe thats why I'm always skint! Please read my ideas |
Brianna Talnor
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 11:44:00 -
[66]
This whole post was complete bull****....
This is a video game, the only thing that is homogenized is the fact that one type of ship (drone ships) was so powerful that everyone who used it was hands down more powerful then anyother ship in its class.
I'd rather see a balanced range of competitive ships to choose from rather then one uber ship that's "different" beating the hell out of everybody. Why? Because I like a competitive video game.
I understand your argument, and in some ways am able to empathize with you. However, I still disagree with the stance you are taking that "balance" is a negative thing. The weapon types are still different, just less different now in an attempt to remove unfair advantages between them.
|
Mark Lucius
Forbidden Lore
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 12:12:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 27/10/2007 09:04:48
Originally by: Alkeena The position I would take with regards to that is that it doesnt matter if the myrm is overpower (to an extent), so long as other ships are differentiated enough to make them worthy of flying on their own merits.
Uh....that is an extremly flawed position.
Essentially you complain that the drone changes reduce options or variety for myrmidon setups, right?
What do you think does an overpowered ship which fills a large amount of game niches to that extend that it is by far the most used ship in its class? It reduces option. Not for itself but for all other ships in its class.
Nerfing that ship will reducing the options of it, but will add new, previously inefficient options to the other ships.
You complain that the myr is forced out of some of its niches but do not mind at all that it was pigeonholing the other BCs in very narrow niches. More perspective please.
This! Aramendel wins thread. ---
|
Alkeena
Gallente Unitas Nusquam Est FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.10.27 21:07:00 -
[68]
Edited by: Alkeena on 27/10/2007 21:15:30
Originally by: Saris Dadra I think most of the posters here seem to be missing the OP point.
Balance is wonderful, balancing everything by making it the same is not.
For example a passive shield tank and an active shield tank are very different beasts. Now suppose a change comes around that makes them less so. Perhaps, the optimal recharge rate is removed and shield recharge rates are boosted slightly to compensate. Now the two tanking styles are fairly similar. All damage is repaired in a linear fashion so you just chose the one that does it slightly better. The change may not even drastically change the effectiveness of any particular ship, but it removes a certain flavor of the game, which is something I think should be avoided.
I'm not a big missile user so I cant offer much of an opinion the torpedo changes. But if the changes are being made because every other race has long and short range weapons, not because torpedos in their current form are overpowered then it is a bad change. Balance doesn't mean that every race has long and short range weapons, it means that every race is just as viable to play as the next one.
Likewise nerfing the Myrm for the REASON it can fit Large sized weapons is bad. Nerfing the Myrm for the REASON it OMGWTFPWNs all other battle cruisers is a good thing, and I think it is the real reason for nerf. Still it makes me rather sad to see a rather unique ship made into an oversized Vexor, and I wish there was another way to nerf the ship that didn't destroy its uniqueness.
Again, just a quick read, not nearly enough time now to respond to everything that might warrant one. This, however, is exactly the point I'm after.
And this: \ Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Edited by: Vyktor Abyss on 27/10/2007 11:27:35 Great Posts Alkeena.
I think you're spot on. The devs added variety for example with the BCs - with distinct differences like DPS, tanking, speed - then seem desperate to NERF them into being pretty much identical.
This NERFing seems quite ill thought out since by attacking the differences that exist between the races, they actually make the game a lot more bland for everyone - especially for those older players that just see these balance changes as 'homogenization' (heh...if thats even a word!)...
Spiritual Death?!? - maybe not...but definately heading along the lines of Spiritual Decay by verbose long sermons and kiddy fiddling priests *ahem*.
Alkeena for Community Council Representative! [x]
~Akeena
|
Caenus
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 05:14:00 -
[69]
Edited by: Caenus on 29/10/2007 05:14:46 change the title to balancing is killing the solopwnmobile "i gank j00 l0l" community, and I'll sign.
|
Megadon
Caldari Deathshead Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 06:13:00 -
[70]
Hey to OP, Eve is turning into Electronic Arts Battlefield in space. That's the trend and thats the way they want it.
You see, the deal is, CCP wants to grow Eve by leaps and bounds and that means pasteurizing and homoginizing it to appeal to the masses of sheep and meat puppets.
Mass appeal is all about those kinds of things.
It's just the way things are.
Some view it as evil, some as progress, some as backwards, some as necessary and good. The masses want it though so it will be done. Don't believe me. Look at how many muppets play WoW and you'll figure out why and where Eve is headed.
--------------
|
|
Atius Tirawa
Minmatar Wreckless Abandon Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 06:20:00 -
[71]
Sad thing is, balance is a nomitive judgment (for those who have not read Kant: A Nomitive Judgment is basically an ideal that cannot be realized but guides action nevertheless - like the idea of 'freedom' does - can't happen, but it guides action) and the most 'balanced' form eve can take is for all of us to have the same skill-points (thus no skill points) and all be in Ibis' or some such - obviously there is not death penalty and so on.
So difference and flavor in any MMO, especially in EvE, is based on strengths and weaknesses - saddly some strengths are better then others.
Does this mean 'balance' cannot be achived, yes. Does that mean CCP should quit trying? No. Does this ultimatly mean that we should all train for Gallente or Minmatar for PvP? I hope not, and in CCPs defense, EvE is very well balanced. Yes there are problems, mainly with Amarr. But overall, the game is well balanced. -----------
|
ZerKar
Caldari Zen'Tar
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 07:26:00 -
[72]
Balance has its place but I agree that it needs to be done only to a point. Personally I think each race should just be awesome at whatever they do irregardless of if it is very powerful or not. Balance them vs. their enemy a bit like they did in the past and all is well. Just make sure not to nerf the hell out of what makes any given race good AND PLEASE GOD, do make it VERY clear from sign up what each race really can and cannot do! If you did that then there is no ill suprises later.
I am a good example of that. By what the intro says Caldari should be hardcore military veterans with powerful ships. Reality: The Gallente make them look pathetic in every way and they struggle almost as much as the Amarr at killing anything, except that they are slower. Had I known at the start what I know now I would have been Minmatar from day one lol.
---------------------------------------------------------- I saw the Sign...!
O.o |
Digital Anarchist
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 09:02:00 -
[73]
This also affects specialization. If every avenue of specialization is nerfed, people are forced to become jacks-of-all-trades when it comes to PvP. If variety is to be prefered, some mechanics have to be left alone.
I don't see where drones were breaking this game, for instance. The criteria for balance should be game-breaking mechanics, not homogenization.
------------------------ This space for rent |
Bum Slave
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 09:08:00 -
[74]
Yes Balance is killing eve lets all have Shuttles with Ion Siege cannons and 1 second shield regen with 99% resists so we can all live in total Equilibriam.
|
Sheriff Jones
Amarr Please Enter Password
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 09:14:00 -
[75]
Edited by: Sheriff Jones on 29/10/2007 09:14:26
Originally by: Bum Slave Yes Balance is killing eve lets all have Shuttles with Ion Siege cannons and 1 second shield regen with 99% resists so we can all live in total Equilibriam.
Dibs on the short black hair, black jacket and two pistols
My opinions represent the opinions of my corporation completely. I'm the CEO damnit. |
Bum Slave
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 09:16:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Sheriff Jones Edited by: Sheriff Jones on 29/10/2007 09:14:26
Originally by: Bum Slave Yes Balance is killing eve lets all have Shuttles with Ion Siege cannons and 1 second shield regen with 99% resists so we can all live in total Equilibriam.
Dibs on the short black hair, black jacket and two pistols
Yes Sir!!!!
|
Gaven Blands
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 10:17:00 -
[77]
And can we define "counter" when you're talking about counters to nano ships?
Because a "counter" to anything else almost invariably involves destroying it, if you say there are dozens of "counters" to nano, you must be talking about repelling it rather than destroying it. Which is I believe where you will find the problem with nano ships.
Balance is not about blandness, and even if it was, people still watch the motor sports where no one car is allowed to be faster than another.
If you really want Eve to die, then simply stagnate it. OR worse still go back to how it was when the Veteran's weren't crying rivers.
Out with the old, in with the new. -- Awwwww Diddums! Did I wardec your highsec alt recently or something? |
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 10:44:00 -
[78]
Very nice posting Alkeena. I definitely agree and said something similar in a Torp thread.
If the differences only exist in the name of the modules and the graphic effects (say, torp explosion vs blaster flash) but the capabilities and tactics used are nearly identical, then there is no real difference at all. Unfortunately, it's much easier homogenizing ships/wepaons systems then it is to balance different types of ships and ship roles.
|
Cygnus Zhada
Amarr Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 11:17:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Tarminic There's nothing killing EVE - it's been growing consistently for several years now. People are whining, people have whined, and people will continue to whine. If CCP decides to nerf something it will be due to the massive amount of data they have on how various ships or modules are purchased/lost/used primarily and input from the community secondarily.
If the Myrmidon is 3 times as popular as any other battlecruiser despite only 35% of players being Gallente (example numbers) then they figure it needs to be balanced. Of course this won't be popular because unbalanced ships are popular for obvious reasons - they kick ass.
EVE will survive the carrier nerf, will survive drone bandwidth, and will survive any future nerfs unless they're truly short-sighted and idiotic, which I don't think will ever happen.
QFT (apart from the idiotic, shortsighted nerfs but even those will be mended/balanced out in the long run).
Welcome to EVE Online: Press 1 for Caldari, PVE Online Press 2 for Minmatar, PVP Online Press 3 for Gallente, PWN Online Press 4 for Amarr, Lulz Online |
Khalm
Firing Squad Pure.
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 11:27:00 -
[80]
balancing, what does it mean? changing things to be more identical? fine.
Do it once and then leave it to **** alone or refund skill points everytime you do it.
|
|
Grimpak
Gallente Trinity Nova KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 11:32:00 -
[81]
while alkeena is somewhat right, I have to agree with Tarminic and Mark Lucious.
one thing that the OP must take into consideration is the fact that most of the eve players are addicted to one thing: DPS. pretty much atm the ship that can dish the most DPS = the best ship.
if they nerf the ability of one ship that is a bit unbalanced because it dishes more dps than the norm, of course that the whinings will start.
dps addiction is what kills the game. ---
planetary interaction idea! |
bogir
War And Peace Construction
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 11:55:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Grimpak while alkeena is somewhat right, I have to agree with Tarminic and Mark Lucious.
one thing that the OP must take into consideration is the fact that most of the eve players are addicted to one thing: DPS. pretty much atm the ship that can dish the most DPS = the best ship.
if they nerf the ability of one ship that is a bit unbalanced because it dishes more dps than the norm, of course that the whinings will start.
dps addiction is what kills the game.
the problem whit this fix is that its not just 1 ship they are hitting whit this.. its ALL ships there use dropes.. one i dont konw jet is do all ships get a higher drone bay whit this. becouse is you still only have 125m3 drone bay you still only have so much space to fit drones in ( the drones you want to mix whit mostly ude a lot of drone space ) and non have told you to allways fit in 5x heavys. you all ways been able to mix the drones that you wanted to fix in whit in the limet of youre drone bay
Ceo of WAPC WE can build it. |
Grimpak
Gallente Trinity Nova KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 12:16:00 -
[83]
Originally by: bogir
Originally by: Grimpak while alkeena is somewhat right, I have to agree with Tarminic and Mark Lucious.
one thing that the OP must take into consideration is the fact that most of the eve players are addicted to one thing: DPS. pretty much atm the ship that can dish the most DPS = the best ship.
if they nerf the ability of one ship that is a bit unbalanced because it dishes more dps than the norm, of course that the whinings will start.
dps addiction is what kills the game.
the problem whit this fix is that its not just 1 ship they are hitting whit this.. its ALL ships there use dropes.. one i dont konw jet is do all ships get a higher drone bay whit this. becouse is you still only have 125m3 drone bay you still only have so much space to fit drones in ( the drones you want to mix whit mostly ude a lot of drone space ) and non have told you to allways fit in 5x heavys. you all ways been able to mix the drones that you wanted to fix in whit in the limet of youre drone bay
while I rarely use heavy drones on ships smaller than BS (bar the ishtar), my setus always revolve arround specific situations where heavy drones are too bulky or too slow for the job, which makes these changes irrelevant to me, or even good, if they are boosting the dronebay sizes.
for the ishkur I usually use it in a anti-frigate role, so valks are a bit too slow here. instead I go for a full drone bay with T2 warriors and I still pack some spares. how will this change affect me? I will be able to pack more than 2 spares now.
for the myrmidon, I go for anti-support with Ewar capabilities, packing 2 wings of valks as the main weapon (they tear cruisers apart. honest) and 1 wing of warriors to fend off frigates that come too close, together with a dual MAR 2 tank, wich makes this ship very sturdy. how will this change affect me? maybe able to pack a 2nd wing of warriors.
however, I do agree that the Eos changes were overboard. The ship was stuck with lousy bonuses to a Warfare link type that was, already by itself, sucky, together with a bad tank. the saving grace was the ammount of firepower that the ship could dish out, making it being used in a role that it wasn't that ship in the first place. so how to change the ship to accommodate the role it should have, together with the changes that are looming there? strip the drone bay bonus, increase substancially the drone bay size, give a 2nd tanking bonus to the ship, so that the tank doesn't suck too much, and double or even triple the bonuses to Information warfare links.
Eos is now a true fleet command ship that can even do some footwork with repair bots to the gang, and no longer the rather overpowered droneboat that was in contradiction with all the other fleet command ships. ---
planetary interaction idea! |
Ryoji Tanakama
Caldari Daikoku Fleet Shipyards
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 12:47:00 -
[84]
Well while you fit your pidgeon hole drones into your homogenised ship, I'll look through all my available drone options, which are currently wider than they have ever been, and I will come up with a setup that will pwn your lack of imagination.
All these threads smack of 'I'm taking my football and leaving' because your favourite advantage is being made more competitive. You have to look at why a specific ship is more popular to it's counterparts and consider that perhaps it is able to do it's job a little too easily. It's great for you, but not for those ships that are marginalised in it's shadow. If one ship is consistently preferred above all others, especially for a PvP function then either the others need a boost or that one needs a nerf.
Now a nerf is easier, as it brings a ship down to the level of the competition and requires only changes to the one ship. A boost effects too many variables in most cases, and can have wider ramifications by knock-on-effect. Therefore, if your ship is the uberest by a significant margin you should expect it to get sat on by the nerf tree.
~Ryoji Tanakama
Daikoku Fleet Shipyards |
Derek Grim
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 13:24:00 -
[85]
I do agree with the OP, and have seen this happen in several MMO's over the years. Though I am new to Eve, and I've always wondered a few things that maybe someone can explain to me.
A) Why have races if there is no real difference? What I mean is, Race A has the same stats as Race B, other than Starting Skills, what really makes them different? They both can cross train if they want. They both can train the same Skills that each other can, and as far as I know there is no boost, nor penalty to learning any skills based on race? So what makes the Races different?
B) Ships. Now then again, I am new so my view may be skewed. There seems to be only Two decent fitting layouts per Ship. As for ship Choice, it seems to me that there tends to be a 'favored' ship of each Class type, and the other ship(s) are just an option for specific situations.
Anyway, sorry for the rambling, I guess overall I like the Idea of what Eve is/was but not enjoying the direction that it may be heading. This has nothing to do with specific nerfs or any Ship, just a general feeling.
Repectfully, -- Derek Grim
Remember - Wherever you go, there you are. |
Matrixcvd
Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 13:48:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Tarminic There's nothing killing EVE - it's been growing consistently for several years now. People are whining, people have whined, and people will continue to whine. If CCP decides to nerf something it will be due to the massive amount of data they have on how various ships or modules are purchased/lost/used primarily and input from the community secondarily.
EVE will survive the carrier nerf, will survive drone bandwidth, and will survive any future nerfs unless they're truly short-sighted and idiotic, which I don't think will ever happen.
You must be a dev, your in everyone of these threads telling us how its all gonna be ok. Are you seriously going to say the lastest batch of nerfs has not brought about a total firestorm, its no longer a whine its a mob and they want blood for screwing with the game in all facets. From BW to Carrier to torp, there are a huge number of threads started, locked restarted discussing these changes, way more than the NOS nerf.
The only thing that is saving Eve at this point is that there is no alternative. These major mechanics shifts are ridiculous. And you said it best, these changes are short sided idiotic and without a true understanding. Take that back to your leader and tell him to leave us alone
|
Garia666
Amarr T.H.U.G L.I.F.E
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 14:20:00 -
[87]
Edited by: Garia666 on 29/10/2007 14:23:10 Edited by: Garia666 on 29/10/2007 14:22:07
i havent read your post but i agree to your topic header..
CCP shouldnt ballance all the ship types. Every race should have his better ships and less good ones.
small example.
in the old days amarr had the geddon with the heat sinks staking.. making it a n effective ship. Amarr was happy and notorious
and so had every race a ship or a couple one`s wit its qualitys. and that was the ballance of the game..
now a days they make something for every race and then ballance them in a way they do all the same .. ( more or less ). you could just create ships with no race atached to it.. and make it availible for everyone.. Just like the ore ships.. you dont hear anyone complaining about ore.. just because of that...
->My Vids<- |
Occara
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 14:20:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Moon Kitten I disagree with the entire premise of your argument.
i approve of your sig
|
Dark Shikari
Caldari Imperium Technologies Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 14:30:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Dark Shikari on 29/10/2007 14:30:40 This has been pretty obvious for a while.
CCP has intentionally been making EVE design changes for the purpose of promoting cookie-cutter fittings and diminishing any actual thought required to play the game.
It is one of many reasons why EVE is pretty much going to die within the next 5-7 years.
23 Member
EVE Video makers: save bandwidth! Use the H.264 AutoEncoder! (updated) |
OneSock
Crown Industries
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 15:00:00 -
[90]
Completely agree.
CCP think Eos must be brought in line with other fleet commands. Ok fine.
Now then CCP, bring the Nano Vagabond in line with the other HACs. Only fair, right ? Right ?
|
|
Mark Lucius
Forbidden Lore
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 15:26:00 -
[91]
Torpedoes are going to be more distinct from Cruise missiles than they used to be, making it so that it becomes a real choice between the two. How is this homogenised (sp?)/ cookie cutter?
Drone bays are going to be bigger, bandwidth is being limited. This means that more choices need to be made, resulting in less cookie-cutter setups. How is this homogenised?
The Gallente battlecruiser and fleet commandship are being brought in line with their racial counterparts. This stops the other BC/CS from being instant underdogs and thus more attractive as choices. Again, more choice. How is this making Eve homogenised?
I do understand what the OP means though. However, the performance difference should not be a quality that is race or ship specific, but should be acquired through clever use of modules and skills.
Examples: Rupture vs. Myrmidon, both with average skills and 'average' pvp setups. Who wins? Given the role, the Myrmidon should be a clear favourite. Nobody will contest this.
Harbinger vs. Myrmidon, both with average skills and 'average' pvp setups. Who wins? This should be unclear, mostly depending on luck. However, I am sure that most of you would clearly favour the Myrmidon.
Now, everybody knows that neither example is comletely realistic, but it is the general concensus. CCP strives to make the second example depend more on skills, fitting and piloting skills and less on exactly which battlecruiser is in this fight. According to his OP, Alkeena is looking for exactly this. ---
|
Matrixcvd
Shadows of the Dead Aftermath Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 16:25:00 -
[92]
Originally by: Mark Lucius Torpedoes are going to be more distinct from Cruise missiles than they used to be, making it so that it becomes a real choice between the two. How is this homogenised (sp?)/ cookie cutter?
Drone bays are going to be bigger, bandwidth is being limited. This means that more choices need to be made, resulting in less cookie-cutter setups. How is this homogenised?
I have to disaggree. Look, bottom line is this game is now about speed in every aspect. Very few encounters in real PVP are going to see torps being used. The raven is a specialized ship for PVE, and sometimes POS warefare with proper skillz, and maybe in fleet fights as drone, logistic support ( No good FC wants to have to wait 25 seconds for his pilot to bring damage to a called target).
Changing torps isn't going to bring a raven into PVP because its useless in pvp. What this does is kill people from making money efficiently and as safe as possible. With proper skills torps are a huge dps improvement over cruise, which is why a ratting raven is all you see the isk farmers use, and all us caldari for that matter.
The drone changes aren't ment to balance anything, they are ment to cover inadequacies in game mechanics and system resources that have been built up over years. Instead of fixing the lag, they recognize drones as a source of lag, and say screw it "we dont want to buy more resources, lets just kill the drone usage"
Again, this goes to disconnect at the Dev level on how this game is played. The changes being made do nothing to balance PVP combat they just hinder everything else the ship is used for. Sorry CCP, you make a ship that people don't want to use for certain functions, that doesn't mean you do an edward scissor hands to a bunch of other stuff unless you stop and think about what is the cause for the major tactical aligment when it comes to ships and thats speed, so screw these stupid changes, torps dont hit vagas or nanos unless their pilot is afk. Everything you are doing is ********
|
Pattern Clarc
Infinitus Odium The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 16:35:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Mark Lucius
Drone bays are going to be bigger, bandwidth is being limited. This means that more choices need to be made, resulting in less cookie-cutter setups. How is this homogenised?
How many ships have had there drone bays enlarged?
Quote: [02:31:17] ISD BH Kestrelprime > The Pally is powerful enough. [02:31:27] ISD BH Kestrelprime > All it needs is a hearthstone so it can Bubblehearth.
|
Mark Lucius
Forbidden Lore
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 16:52:00 -
[94]
Edited by: Mark Lucius on 29/10/2007 16:52:53
Originally by: Matrixcvd
I have to disaggree. Look, bottom line is this game is now about speed in every aspect. Very few encounters in real PVP are going to see torps being used. The raven is a specialized ship for PVE, and sometimes POS warefare with proper skillz, and maybe in fleet fights as drone, logistic support ( No good FC wants to have to wait 25 seconds for his pilot to bring damage to a called target).
Changing torps isn't going to bring a raven into PVP because its useless in pvp. What this does is kill people from making money efficiently and as safe as possible. With proper skills torps are a huge dps improvement over cruise, which is why a ratting raven is all you see the isk farmers use, and all us caldari for that matter.
The drone changes aren't ment to balance anything, they are ment to cover inadequacies in game mechanics and system resources that have been built up over years. Instead of fixing the lag, they recognize drones as a source of lag, and say screw it "we dont want to buy more resources, lets just kill the drone usage"
Again, this goes to disconnect at the Dev level on how this game is played. The changes being made do nothing to balance PVP combat they just hinder everything else the ship is used for. Sorry CCP, you make a ship that people don't want to use for certain functions, that doesn't mean you do an edward scissor hands to a bunch of other stuff unless you stop and think about what is the cause for the major tactical aligment when it comes to ships and thats speed, so screw these stupid changes, torps dont hit vagas or nanos unless their pilot is afk. Everything you are doing is ********
Okie sorry, but you reply is not related to the quoted part. My text was about how design changes affect the diversity instead of claimed homogenization.
Originally by: Pattern Clarc
How many ships have had there drone bays enlarged?
Non so far. I am sure my claim will hold true for a number of ships with the upcoming changes. ---
|
Gorefacer
Caldari Resurrection
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 16:55:00 -
[95]
The change in Torps doesn't really affect cruises. They currently do comparable (slightly less) damage and will retain their range and ability to better hit smaller targets. Now Caldari can choose Hi-DPS/Short Range OR Mid-DPS/Longer Range. How is this destroying a weapon system for Caldari?
Also you want ships of certain races to be overpowered (because people can just cross train races ships), I disagree with this. In my opinion there should be different but loosely comparable ships for all races, or at least that should be the goal. I don't see how leaving in BCs like the Myrmidon or the old Calvary Raven BS would mean the DE-homogenization EVE when MOST people will just train to fly that ONE ship, especially if they KNOW it won't be changed by CCP.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Gorefacer
Caldari Resurrection
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 17:06:00 -
[96]
Originally by: Vyktor Abyss Edited by: Vyktor Abyss on 27/10/2007 11:27:35
Great Posts Alkeena.
I think you're spot on. The devs added variety for example with the BCs - with distinct differences like DPS, tanking, speed - then seem desperate to NERF them into being pretty much identical.
This NERFing seems quite ill thought out since by attacking the differences that exist between the races, they actually make the game a lot more bland for everyone - especially for those older players that just see these balance changes as 'homogenization' (heh...if thats even a word!)...
Spiritual Death?!? - maybe not...but definately heading along the lines of Spiritual Decay by verbose long sermons and kiddy fiddling priests *ahem*.
Alkeena for Community Council Representative! [x]
How are Myrmidons, Drakes, Harbinger and Hurricane IDENTICAL? They have different slot layouts, different weapon systems, different drone bay sizes, different speeds, different ranges, different tanking systems etc.
It's not as dire as you think it is.
I guess with all the nerfing, I should be able to take the mods I currently have for my BC, train another race, use the same mods to fit the different BC, fly the ship the same way Im used to, and I'll get comparable results to my original BC, right?
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Brianna Talnor
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 17:10:00 -
[97]
This thread started out as a cleverly designed myrmidon nerf rant and then suddenly became a very very interesting discussion of homogenization and balance.
On that note...
All the nerfs i've seen so far in this upcoming patch are needed badly except for the cruiser nerf. But the cruiser still needs to be changed.
Torps are now more interesting for PvP but probably still underpowered. Does this make it bad news for a weapon system that will now underperform in both PvE and PvP? My take is; oh noess it will take a little longer to afk missions in your raven with cruises...all well.
As for PvP, that is less predictable and will have to wait to be seen.
|
Ryoji Tanakama
Caldari Daikoku Fleet Shipyards
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 19:18:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Garia666
in the old days amarr had the geddon with the heat sinks staking.. making it a n effective ship. Amarr was happy and notorious
The geddon with no heatsink stacking penalty was no effective, it was insane. Every other ship was a geddon simply because they were SO MUCH better than everything else. They got nerfed and for a time things were more sensible... then they got sat on by the 'tanking boost' and haven't really been the same since.
~Ryoji Tanakama
Daikoku Fleet Shipyards |
Ryoji Tanakama
Caldari Daikoku Fleet Shipyards
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 19:27:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Gorefacer The change in Torps doesn't really affect cruises. They currently do comparable (slightly less) damage and will retain their range and ability to better hit smaller targets. Now Caldari can choose Hi-DPS/Short Range OR Mid-DPS/Longer Range. How is this destroying a weapon system for Caldari?
I think the problem is that now a choice has to be made. Now it's Cruise or Torps where before it was just Torps. Torps never saw extensive PvP use anyway, and in those situations torps will be more effective, as you've always needed tacking support to ensure effective application of such a slow weapon. In PvP they have always had a much shorter effective range than their actual range. If anything torps will now be better for small squad PvP as you'll be doing more damage overall while your buddies hold the target in place for you.
What this means is that some mission runners will have to alter their tactics, it's really not going to be that difficult but you will need to consider what you're likely to encounter in the mission or fit some speed modifications or whatever. The world hasn't really ended here. It's not tough to get in range of 30km for some battleship nukage, perhaps the problem is not being able to sit on the next acceleration gate and watch the next episode of heros while you make a profit?
~Ryoji Tanakama
Daikoku Fleet Shipyards |
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 22:46:00 -
[100]
Originally by: Ryoji Tanakama It's not tough to get in range of 30km for some battleship nukage, perhaps the problem is not being able to sit on the next acceleration gate and watch the next episode of heros while you make a profit?
Not tough, but highly ineffective.
I'm so tired of people saying that ridiculous line, as if this was a nerf to afk missioning, when clearly it isn't. Torps are only more effective then cruises if properly controlled. If you're afk, you're wasting torps like crazy.
Afk raven is a cruise raven, and it won't be changed at all.
|
|
Devious Syn
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 23:44:00 -
[101]
Edited by: Devious Syn on 29/10/2007 23:44:17 /me agrees with the op
"lets kill all fun or imagination in the game for the sake of "balance".
Very re.tarded way to design a GAME.
|
Hellspawn01
Amarr Shadow Rebellion
|
Posted - 2007.10.29 23:56:00 -
[102]
Ships should not be brought in line with each race, they should get a role. You cant just take a ship and turn it into a killer when it wasnt a killer before or wasnt designed to be one. Take the scorp for example. At start it was (and perhaps still is) the best ECM BS. Then it got its role more specialized by changing the ship bonus. Or look at the domi. It had almost the same bonus at the mega at start, now it has bonuses to drones. Megathron close range, apoc+arma both close/long range and more tanks than ganks Imo, tempest long range, typhoon close range missile/close range gank ship and so on.
Does that mean all ships must be able to kill any other ship of their class in a 1vs1? For the devs, yes. For me, no. Let ships stay with their role and stay with the idea of a multiplayer game where you have to do things "TOGETHER" like flying in gangs and such.
Thats just my opinion about this.
Ship lovers click here |
Cz Ire
Minmatar Unitas Nusquam Est FOUNDATI0N
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 21:08:00 -
[103]
/signed
ive noticed this myself and was talking about it, and until alkeena mentioned to me she had written this post didnt know this thread existed.
the torp issue is meant more that before missle bs's were not short OR long range, they were kinda omni-range, unlike the other races, and this change is makeing it so you caldari have to choose between long and short range. and from what ive seen, depending on where in eve you go there is plenty of close-range fleet combat to be had, not everyone flys around in 200km sniper blobs.
the myrmidon was undoubtably a very powerful ship - but t2 fit myrm vs a t2 fit autocane, as it is, if the cane pilot has even the slightest brain to keep out of web/nos range and pop the heavy drones first the myrm is pretty easy to take down. its not the god-mobile that everyone thinks it to be, and the nerf its takeing maybe a bit excessive, although i like the idea of the bandwidth, it should be a buff not a nerf - allow us to launch as many drones as before and still carry more in the hold. this allows for more variety. I think the ops point for the myrmi though was that drones basically *were* the myrmi's weapon system, as it is the ishtars and domi's, and nerfing them makes them more like the other ships - drones are now a "extra" weapon system, instead of "the" weapon system. which is bad, if people want to not have guns and rely on drones, they train gallante and there should be ships that can do that role.
The teir2 bc's that came out were nice and diffrent at the start, but as other posts have mentioned the distinguishing features of each of these ships is being nerfed down - drakes tanks, now myrmi's drones - whats next, loosing another turret slot on the cane?
but the teir 3 battleships were not so diffrent. all 4 races got a 8 turret battleship. even the drone race. even the missle race. even the speed/mixed weapon type race. 8 turrets for everybody. that's dissapointing.
and for the new ships comeing out, they are breaking a somewhat unwritten rule of racial ewar. target painting and webbing bonus's are minmatar ewar, so why are all the other races getting ships that have bonus's to either webbing or painting? surly these ships could have had bonus's in other ways to compensate (double tracking bonus's perhaps, or a bonus reduction to weapon sig radius?) Whats next, a gallante drone boat with curse-range-nos's? or a 40km scram capiblbe vagabond? Even if those ships are meant for pve, they will still be used in pvp like every other ship. Soon, will every race have a ship that can do something compairable to every other race's ship?
minmatar ships, my specialty, ive noticed a trend that worrys me there as well. Minmatar ships have generally been considered "skill intensive" or "hard mode" due to mixed weapon systems - yet the focus on missles have been shrinking drastically on the newer ships. even our missle-heavy battleship, the phoon's (and lets face it, most people considered the missles and drones to be the real fit for the ship, ac's were an afterthought) t2 version is a turret ship, with not a single launcher to be found, and NONE of the new ships for minmatar have ANY missle bonus's. split the bonus's but give us an extra highslot or two to make up for lost dps, and id be much happier - flying mixed setups is why i started minmatar. Im sure other races have similar complaints.
and finally, amarrian players, relax, your not so hard-done as you think. some of the top damage dealers in pvp i know are amarrian, and while it sucks to have a primary damage type with lasers that is the base strongest armor resist, t2 minmatar ammo has the same problem with sheilds (ever try to shoot a drake using barrage? dont work so well....) and while we could swap ammo to compensate for that, thats over 10 seconds of lost dps, which can still loose you the fight easy, where you guys have infinite ammo/1sec crystal change for ranges. (nerf muninn armor em resist agreed tho)
---
someone make a 65 days of static pvp vid pls!! |
Kenneth McCoy
Vale Heavy Industries Molotov Coalition
|
Posted - 2007.11.20 21:32:00 -
[104]
I'm not reading four pages worth, but I must say, that was a very well written post, and I do agree in spirit.
My opinions and views are not the official views of my Corp. |
Grace
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 03:55:00 -
[105]
Edited by: Grace on 21/11/2007 03:56:24 Edited by: Grace on 21/11/2007 03:55:52
Originally by: Alkeena
What I had intended to say, in not so many words, is that Eve seems to be loosing it's particular flavor and uniqueness. Yes there are still decisions to be made, yes pilot skill still factors in, but I believe it is this holds true to a much lesser extent than it has in the past. This, in turn, makes the game less appealing to me. Perhaps that is sound financial accumen. I loathe WoW, for instance, but it's highly successful and enjoyed by many.
~Alkeena
How is Eve *not* losing uniqueness when the majority of the population begins to train and fly a ship that is clearly holding an advantage over others. Like you mentioned, you now can and have to make a choice as to which, in the case of your argument, Command Ship to fly, because, supposingly after the changes and balance are made, there is no clear winner as to which ship is better. You have to choose the ship that fits your style the most, and is the most useful in the type of encounter you plan to engage in.
|
Brunswick2
coracao ardente Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 05:46:00 -
[106]
Edited by: Brunswick2 on 21/11/2007 05:52:13 Remember when Revelations II was killing EVE? Remember when Revelations was killing EVE? Remember when Red Moon Rising was killing EVE?
For being a dead MMO, it sure has a lot of subscribers.
Oh, and if you want to talk about a lot of ships having the same role, try flying amarr bs.
|
prathe
Minmatar Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 06:58:00 -
[107]
is eve dead no but alot of the new changes dont seem to be adding depth but rather cumbersome changes to a difficult and chalenging game already . i just dont see the logic in making a fast paced game with overly complicated game mechanics .
honestly tho the new grafx are cool and the heavy dictor will be sweet but ide rather see the rest of the patch scrapped . it doesn't really achieve anything but make life in game more difficult and less fun . as far as i see the devs just dont communicate with players in a real open fashion its more like we thought about it decided on a solution and and you get little or no say . look at the mothership nerf and what it took just to get devs to re-examine their thinking . it's like the player base has to put a gun to their head b4 they acknowledge an issue sometimes . signature removed - please email us to find out why (include a link to the image URL) - Jacques([email protected])
why dont you just tell me ? |
Paeniteo
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 07:12:00 -
[108]
Edited by: Paeniteo on 21/11/2007 07:13:56
Originally by: Alkeena Bthron will do the same damage but have to close to 5km and deal with concurrent cap and tracking issues to pull it off instead of just sitting and spamming at 30km
Originally by: Alkeena (worse, actually, it's tank + links is terrible in comparison)
I think the nerf herders and homogenized carebears are getting to you
|
Vasili Z
Beasts of Burden YouWhat
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 07:32:00 -
[109]
In a whine thread I am. -------
Everything I say represents my corporation and their views. |
Gaia Thorn
Villains
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 08:57:00 -
[110]
Cant say this enough times now but for me what killed the flavor of eve was the 50%hp boost. It turned everything to as much gank as possible to just kill 1 ship. CCP wanted to prolong combat which in my eyes promote blobs, which if i recall correctly was what they wanted to combat ?
the art of solo flying is gone now it's the time of "gangs" which doesnt require you to have a special fitting. Just fit as much gank as possible then try and jump people before they jump you.
But i haggle on hoping that CCP removes the boost and brings back the solo aspect of eve.
|
|
Xtreem
Gallente Knockaround Guys Inc. Privateer Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 09:34:00 -
[111]
agree with the op
things being changed that iv used/fought against without issues for YEARS then they change them now as people suddenly whine they dont like it any more.
tbh is driving me mad, nerfing things (not tweaking, but full nerf) of things that are fine, always been fine and would have been fine.
I doubt i will last much past the 5 year mark at this rate
|
Moghydin
Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 09:51:00 -
[112]
I believe CCP base their decisions on the statistics of FOTM usage. Yes, drones are getting nerfed, because drone ships are still overpowered. It was brought in line slightly with the NOS nerf so it prevented drone boats from completely sucking the cap out of the victim, having full tank and gank with drones. Torps should be different from cruise missiles, right now cruise are just light torps. I would change it the other way, torps - massive slow long range damage. Cruise - fast short-mid range missiles.
I think that when you look at different statistics and see that some ship is used way above its alternatives this ship needs to be balanced.
Press alt+F4 to reduce lag |
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 10:06:00 -
[113]
I agree with the theory behind the OP, but don't follow the examples. I know nothing of missiles so I ignored all that.
From my reading on the addition of bandwidth, it seems the idea is that ships will be able to carry more drones without allowing any firepower increases due to this, i.e. a cruiser which could carry 2 heavies can now carry 3 but only launch 2 or whatever. Decoupling the limitations on drone firepower and drone storage like this seems to allow greater variety of loadouts and more tactical usage of them, the opposite of what the OP was talking about. Am I missing something? -
I wish I was a three foot female doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes. |
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 12:03:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Esk Esme yea my english sux ignore me
Fixed based on actual probable outcome. -
I wish I was a three foot female doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes. |
Cpt Branko
The Bloody Red
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 13:16:00 -
[115]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 21/11/2007 13:26:08 Title: "Balance is killing EVE"
Fail thread is fail.
Edit: I utterly fail to see logic in "making people fly different ships" makes eve more "homogenous". You don't different ships for different races, you want inferior ships for different races. There's a difference.
With the new changes, preety much all 4 tier two BCs will be, in fact, quite balanced and still have very different flying / piloting styles.
|
Harisdrop
Gallente Omega Enterprises Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 13:32:00 -
[116]
Oops I have heard this every major patch. As we have 200k subscribers I guess CCP is doing the right thing.
At one time they had faction bonuses. Therefore your race made your ships better. Boy that made the Gallente that flew Ravens mad. I say make a spcialized char better than a guy that can fly the flavor ship of the day.
|
Neutrino Sunset
KDM Corp Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 13:47:00 -
[117]
I share the OP's concern about growing homogeneity. I have another example not mentioned here related to the latest interceptor changes. One of each races interceptors is losing one of its interceptor bonuses and having it replaced with a propulsion jamming range bonus that is identical across the board for all races. I think this is a bad idea as it increases the similarity between them, and the interceptors of some races were not particularly distinctive to start with. What really hacks me off though is that it horribly nerfs the Stilleto to what I consider the point of uselessness. The Stiletto previously had a falloff bonus that made it stand out from the other inties, it badly needed this bonus because it only has two guns. Rather than go into that in detail I'll just point you to this very short post I made about it in the Ships and Modules channel.
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=638601&page=1#20
Why couldn't they have just given interceptors that bonus on top of the bonues they already had?
|
Kasiie
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 14:05:00 -
[118]
Just make LSEs and 1600s battleship only
|
Gorefacer
Caldari Resurrection
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 14:08:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Ryoji Tanakama
Originally by: Gorefacer The change in Torps doesn't really affect cruises. They currently do comparable (slightly less) damage and will retain their range and ability to better hit smaller targets. Now Caldari can choose Hi-DPS/Short Range OR Mid-DPS/Longer Range. How is this destroying a weapon system for Caldari?
I think the problem is that now a choice has to be made. Now it's Cruise or Torps where before it was just Torps. Torps never saw extensive PvP use anyway, and in those situations torps will be more effective, as you've always needed tacking support to ensure effective application of such a slow weapon. In PvP they have always had a much shorter effective range than their actual range. If anything torps will now be better for small squad PvP as you'll be doing more damage overall while your buddies hold the target in place for you.
What this means is that some mission runners will have to alter their tactics, it's really not going to be that difficult but you will need to consider what you're likely to encounter in the mission or fit some speed modifications or whatever. The world hasn't really ended here. It's not tough to get in range of 30km for some battleship nukage, perhaps the problem is not being able to sit on the next acceleration gate and watch the next episode of heros while you make a profit?
I don't personally see the problem with having a choice coming up between torps and cruises. It seems that people are frustrated that their "best" tool for the job will not necessarily be the "best" anymore. This may be bad for them, but I don't see it as being bad (killing) for EVE.
My main point was that people that used to use torps, can still use cruises to nearly comparable effect. They can be frustrated that they may have to train up another skill(s) and that there isn't as clear a best setup for what they like to do, but this does not homogenize EVE, if anything it does the opposite.
Note: I have Torpedo Spec to lvl 4 and I've used torpedoes very effectively in mission running and ratting (the ease and rate at which I farm rats/ISK in 0.0 is great, but also ridiculous compared to others I rat with that use almost any other ship). I am still looking forward to the change, if it turns out I can't use torpedoes in the way I used to, Ill train cruise missiles instead. I am perfectly alright being slightly less overpowered in my PVE capabilities, it's fair, and in return maybe I can start using Ravens in PVP more effectively.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Miyamoto Uroki
Katsu Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 14:22:00 -
[120]
Wish I got one cookie for every oh-so-unfair-treated whiner since announcement of this patch...
People often fail to see the reasons why ccp changes things, as it seems. You now can too easily predict the fittings of a particular ship? First of all, no you cannot be sure it's THE standard fitting. And second: whining about nerf of way too strong ew mods? One could tell almost every ship fitting in the current situation. Shall I try? Med slots: sensor booster and dampeners. Done. That's for sure THE standard fitting for pvpers nowadays. So stop whining plz.
Originally by: Puupuu dude... your face
|
|
JeanPierre
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 14:47:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Drizit The only thing overpowered in this game is the nerf bat.
I'm all for balance, there should be a certain amount of versatility that allows everyone, no matter what race they are, to do what they want without having to cross-train to fly the only ship in the game capable of it.
The problem recently is how they have balanced the game - with nerfs
Reducing the effectiveness of one always makes another more powerful. Take away the top card and the card underneath always becomes the top card. All this does is creates a continual round of removals from the top until there's no cards left. The only way you can ever achieve a true balance is by reducing the DPS of every ship to zero then it just becomes space tag. Oh but that makes Minmatar too powerful so we have to nerf their speed... And so it goes until nothing is left but ambulation and it becomes a chat room game.
Stop with the nerfs already. In WW2, did some ultimate dev nerf the aircraft because it was too powerful? No, someone invented the anti-aircraft gun and flak cannon to counter it.
Stop nerfing by subtraction, lets have some nerfing by addition instead.
Outstanding post. And the OP's point makes perfect sense if you look at it from the perspective of somebody who has seen a lot of changes on EVE over the years.
Unfortunately I've seen Devs directly state that anytime they see "real life" in a post, they stop reading. So when you use examples like "Did some ultimate dev nerf aircrafts in WW2? No, the other side created anti-aircraft weapons", you'll quickly hear the mental walls of the Devs slam shut.
What you say makes perfect sense. What they Devs heard was 0% of what you stated after you said "in WW2".
What sucks about that is, you're right. When human beings come up against something they can't immediately beat, they find a way to beat it. What they don't do is fall on their knees and pray to the Ultimate Nerf Dev to smite the "overpowered" others. Well, they do, but nothing ever happens, so they go ahead and find a way to beat it on their own. That's how humans work. How the Devs can state that they ignore these things is beyond me.
The OP's point is 100% valid. Nerfing "Just Because" in order to make all races the same is plain, well, dumb.
------------------------------
Ever notice that people who spend money on beer, cigarettes, and lottery tickets are always complaining about being broke and not feeling well? |
JeanPierre
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 14:58:00 -
[122]
Originally by: Tona Beqa
Originally by: Owi Edited by: Owi on 27/10/2007 07:13:26
What wouldt be better for a game ?
Balancing it for the average mass or balancing it on results that made from a handfull strong players ?
To keep the mass happy - sure its better balancing / reducing the skill-level . But for the game itselfs it is bad because it gets balanced with little faults init.
Balance it on a handfull strong players wouldt raise the level and make it better.
CCP maked to much nerfs early.
To find a way between the both examples wouldt been probably the best.
How bout a "Nerf Filtersystem Managment" CCP ;-)
Currently, 'the masses' fly Myrmidons, Carriers or use torpedoes. What are you on about?
And?
I don't fly a Myrmidon (can, but don't) Don't fly a character (could, but don't see the need) Don't use torpedos (can, even have them at T2 training, but don't, use hybrid rails, thanks).
The "masses" fly ships that correspond to the job they're trying to do. That is all.
------------------------------
Ever notice that people who spend money on beer, cigarettes, and lottery tickets are always complaining about being broke and not feeling well? |
Ulstan
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 15:06:00 -
[123]
Quote: Those that hold this position are ruining what makes eve unique: flexibility and the true sandbox nature of Eve.
Don't be obtuse. The people arguing this aren't doing it because they dislike unique ships, they are doing it because they perceive cruisers able to field lots of heavy drones as overpowered.
You cannot defend overpoweredness on the grounds that it makes the game more unique.
You can defend *differences* on those grounds, so what you must do is show that a cruiser that fits heavy drones isn't actually more powerful than it's peers, just different.
|
08891
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 15:15:00 -
[124]
Originally by: Cpt Branko Title: "Balance is killing EVE"
Fail thread is fail.
Edit: I utterly fail to see logic in "making people fly different ships" makes eve more "homogenous". You don't different ships for different races, you want inferior ships for different races. There's a difference.
With the new changes, preety much all 4 tier two BCs will be, in fact, quite balanced and still have very different flying / piloting styles.
I support this post.
A lot of the people agreeing with the OP are gallente which isn't surprising with the recent nerfs. What's more shocking is the kind of reasoning being displayed here. We're beyond the "not overpowered" arguments now it's "imbalance is good the game because of um... variety".
|
Brianna Talnor
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 15:29:00 -
[125]
Originally by: 08891
Originally by: Cpt Branko Title: "Balance is killing EVE"
Fail thread is fail.
Edit: I utterly fail to see logic in "making people fly different ships" makes eve more "homogenous". You don't different ships for different races, you want inferior ships for different races. There's a difference.
With the new changes, preety much all 4 tier two BCs will be, in fact, quite balanced and still have very different flying / piloting styles.
I support this post.
A lot of the people agreeing with the OP are gallente which isn't surprising with the recent nerfs. What's more shocking is the kind of reasoning being displayed here. We're beyond the "not overpowered" arguments now it's "imbalance is good the game because of um... variety".
Hahahaha, isn't rhetoric awesome! This guy is taking the reason to nerf things and then using it against itself.
|
Sainna
Minmatar Siorai Iontach Brotherhood of the Spider
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 15:29:00 -
[126]
Originally by: Saris Dadra I think most of the posters here seem to be missing the OP point.
Balance is wonderful, balancing everything by making it the same is not.
For example a passive shield tank and an active shield tank are very different beasts. Now suppose a change comes around that makes them less so. Perhaps, the optimal recharge rate is removed and shield recharge rates are boosted slightly to compensate. Now the two tanking styles are fairly similar. All damage is repaired in a linear fashion so you just chose the one that does it slightly better. The change may not even drastically change the effectiveness of any particular ship, but it removes a certain flavor of the game, which is something I think should be avoided.
I'm not a big missile user so I cant offer much of an opinion the torpedo changes. But if the changes are being made because every other race has long and short range weapons, not because torpedos in their current form are overpowered then it is a bad change. Balance doesn't mean that every race has long and short range weapons, it means that every race is just as viable to play as the next one.
Likewise nerfing the Myrm for the REASON it can fit Large sized weapons is bad. Nerfing the Myrm for the REASON it OMGWTFPWNs all other battle cruisers is a good thing, and I think it is the real reason for nerf. Still it makes me rather sad to see a rather unique ship made into an oversized Vexor, and I wish there was another way to nerf the ship that didn't destroy its uniqueness.
/signed
I agree with you and the OP.
/signed Recruitment Thread
|
Gripen
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 15:36:00 -
[127]
Absolutely agree with the OP. But it could be a good idea to change the topic name as the most of people who are not agree didn't get it right.
|
JeanPierre
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 15:39:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Harisdrop Oops I have heard this every major patch. As we have 200k subscribers I guess CCP is doing the right thing.
At one time they had faction bonuses. Therefore your race made your ships better. Boy that made the Gallente that flew Ravens mad. I say make a spcialized char better than a guy that can fly the flavor ship of the day.
Apparently "the right thing" is defined by number of subscribers.
Meaning, WoW is doing the mostest right things ever. How's your Paladin faring over there m8?
------------------------------
Ever notice that people who spend money on beer, cigarettes, and lottery tickets are always complaining about being broke and not feeling well? |
Moghydin
Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 16:08:00 -
[129]
I completely disagree with the OP. Balance is good for the game it gives more variety, not less. Lack of balance is what kills variety. You want a good battlecruiser? Myrmidon! HAC where you can run from an engagement you can't win? Vagabond! Speed, and mad gank? nano-Ishtar. You are training for an interdictor and not going to use Sabre? You must be mad. PvE? Raven. You see? Where's the variety? It's all very predictable.
Look at alliance killboards and you see that some ships in their ship-class are used much much more than their counterparts. You say it's because they do their job well. No. It's because other ships fail in doing theirs. Now, CCP has two choices, either to buff everything that is not FOTM (and FOTM users would still whine because their FOTM is no longer FOTM), or nerf the FOTM ship and the said pilots would whine again - the only reason why they trained for that ship is gone.
Press alt+F4 to reduce lag |
Augeas
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 16:38:00 -
[130]
Originally by: Moghydin I completely disagree with the OP. Balance is good for the game it gives more variety, not less. Lack of balance is what kills variety. You want a good battlecruiser? Myrmidon! HAC where you can run from an engagement you can't win? Vagabond! Speed, and mad gank? nano-Ishtar. You are training for an interdictor and not going to use Sabre? You must be mad. PvE? Raven. You see? Where's the variety? It's all very predictable.
Look at alliance killboards and you see that some ships in their ship-class are used much much more than their counterparts. You say it's because they do their job well. No. It's because other ships fail in doing theirs. Now, CCP has two choices, either to buff everything that is not FOTM (and FOTM users would still whine because their FOTM is no longer FOTM), or nerf the FOTM ship and the said pilots would whine again - the only reason why they trained for that ship is gone.
QFFT.
The OP desires diversity ū but complains about the torp changes, even though this makes shield-tanked Raven a viable close-range BS, distinct from armour-tanking gunboats?
The OP desires diversity ū but complains when the Myrm is balanced better with the other BC, thereby increasing the diversity of BC seen?
The OP desires diversity ū but complains when the Eos is changed such that it no longer duplicates the Astarte?
The OP desires diversity ū but does not want to carry multiple sets of different types of drones?
The OP does not desire or recognise diversity. The OP desires his ships to be better than the ones he fights, so he can happily carry on Gallenteasymoding around the galaxy.
|
|
Kolwrath
Amarr Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 17:18:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Augeas
Originally by: Moghydin I completely disagree with the OP. Balance is good for the game it gives more variety, not less. Lack of balance is what kills variety. You want a good battlecruiser? Myrmidon! HAC where you can run from an engagement you can't win? Vagabond! Speed, and mad gank? nano-Ishtar. You are training for an interdictor and not going to use Sabre? You must be mad. PvE? Raven. You see? Where's the variety? It's all very predictable.
Look at alliance killboards and you see that some ships in their ship-class are used much much more than their counterparts. You say it's because they do their job well. No. It's because other ships fail in doing theirs. Now, CCP has two choices, either to buff everything that is not FOTM (and FOTM users would still whine because their FOTM is no longer FOTM), or nerf the FOTM ship and the said pilots would whine again - the only reason why they trained for that ship is gone.
QFFT.
The OP desires diversity ū but complains about the torp changes, even though this makes shield-tanked Raven a viable close-range BS, distinct from armour-tanking gunboats?
The OP desires diversity ū but complains when the Myrm is balanced better with the other BC, thereby increasing the diversity of BC seen?
The OP desires diversity ū but complains when the Eos is changed such that it no longer duplicates the Astarte?
The OP desires diversity ū but does not want to carry multiple sets of different types of drones?
The OP does not desire or recognise diversity. The OP desires his ships to be better than the ones he fights, so he can happily carry on Gallenteasymoding around the galaxy.
Spot on. For both Moghydin and Augeas!
Nice to see some reason and truth through all the rhetoric and other nonsense in this thread.
Originally by: Chaos Space Marines
Do you hear the voices, too?!?!
|
Buyerr
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 17:21:00 -
[132]
the thing that kills eve the most is all those stupid people screaming and whining as crazy anytime something is changed
|
Neutrino Sunset
KDM Corp Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 17:44:00 -
[133]
I can't believe the number of people in this topic that are missing the point. Just not sure how much of it is deliberate.
Originally by: Cpt Branko I utterly fail to see logic in "making people fly different ships" makes eve more "homogenous".
Lets say for examples sake the Vaga gets nerfed back to closer the speed of a Stabber, now some people that did fly Vagas fly Stabbers instead because there are much cheaper and they consider the Vaga no longer worth the expense. The result of this is that you have made someone fly a 'different' ship in the sense that that is not the ship they would have chosen to fly prior to the introduction of the nerf, but on the other hand the ship they are now flying (the Stabber) is less different to the all the other ships than the Vaga was prior to the nerf, because part of what made it different in the first place does not exist anymore to the extent it did.
If for example all cruisers get completely perfectly balanced, ie no cruiser is much faster than another, no cruiser does much more dps than another, no cruiser can use bigger drones than another etc, then in theory everyone can fly whichever one they want based on which types of weapons they prefer or which ships they think look the coolest. The best that this can result in is that everyone ends up flying ships with different names, but the ships do not actually have the same degree of different stats as they did prior to the 'balancing'.
In reality this does not happen anyway because sooner or later some creative individual will come up with a fitting that gives his 'perfectly balanced' cruiser slightly better success rates against a slightly greater range of targets. At that point people will start to get wind of it and jump on the bandwagon, at which point others will start 6itching that this particular cruiser is overpowered and so continues the great circle of nerfing.
It seems to me those that have been playing Eve the longest have seen this cycle many times and so are generally the ones who call for moderation with the use of the nerf bat, while those players who have not been around as long only know that what is currently the flavour of the month ship which seems to be killing them more than anything else and are understandably questioning whether that is balanced.
The Vaga is a case in point. It is a very fragile and very expensive ship, it has qualities which make it appeal to a large number of people like the ability to dictate range and pick its fights, therefore there are a lot of them around at the moment, and lots of new players are complaining about it. But against a gang of pilots who actually understand the Vaga's weeknesses and are fitted accordingly they are not such a problem that they need the game mechanics to be revised.
Nobody wants ships that are overpowered, but equally nobody wants ships that are balanced in ways that dilutes the differences between them. A lot of people in this thread understand this and are trying to debate whether the current round of rebalancing is a)necessary, b)achiving balance without destroying uniqueness. Which is good. What's not good is that there are far too many tards in here trying to suggest that half the people engaged in this debate are just whining because their iWin buttons got taken away.
Originally by: Cpt Branko You don't different ships for different races, you want inferior ships for different races. There's a difference.
Disagreeing with someone and stating your own point of view is all fine and dandy, telling someone else what their own point of view is, when you have misunderstood/misrepresented them in the first place is fairly poor form.
PS I don't fly Vagas by the way, or Myrmidons or Eos's.
|
Moghydin
Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 18:00:00 -
[134]
When one ship is viable in numerous situations but to counter that ship you need a specific anti-"that ship" approach, said ship is unbalanced. No one is calling to nerf vaga to the death, but vaga (as an example) should not fly as fast as an interceptor. Myrmidon shouldn't have the ability to field 5 battleship-sized weapon systems. Why? Because no other battlecruiser can (give me 5 Tachs on my Harbinger and I'd be happy, damn, give me even 4 Tachs and enough cap to use them and it will still be good).
Drones and speed is a very delicate matter. They are extremely hard to balance. Speed is tank in many situations, speed dictates range which is "win" in many situations. When you fail to dictate range it doesn't matter how powerful your ship is, because it becomes useless. Drones allow ship to a gimp ship DPS in favor of super-tank or neuts/nos and still have a full gank. Ship that is not a drone boat can not do it in any possible way. Those things need to be balanced, or other ships should be buffed. When everyone and their dog is flying the same constant set of ships, something is wrong.
Press alt+F4 to reduce lag |
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 18:51:00 -
[135]
The problem is there are so many muppets out there copying someone's perfect ship setup, that many others ships lose their luster and impact. Case and point... vagabonds are littered everywhere nanoing about. People tend to find the most effective tactic, the hardest to counter, and the best possible outcome. All that leads to a few good ships to handle the tasks.
So yes... Eve needs constant balancing. Change is good... didn't your mama ever tell you that?
|
Neutrino Sunset
KDM Corp Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 22:25:00 -
[136]
Originally by: Moghydin stuff...
Sorry Moghydin I really don't want it to look like I'm tearing into your statements for the hell of it, but if you think a well fitted Vaga flown by a skilled pilot is as fast as a well fitted Interceptor flown by a skilled pilot then you need to do more research. If you're pointing out that a well fitted Vaga flown by a skilled pilot is faster than an unfitted Interceptor flown by a noob then I fail to see what possible value that comparison has here.
Originally by: Pithecanthropus stuff...
There is change already but you might not notice it if you have not been in Eve for a long time. Vagas did not use to be this prolific, players turned to them as the tool of choice as the environment has changed. In regions where Vagas are prolific clever players fit setups that neutralize the Vaga's advantages and it only needs one or two modules and some intelligent tactics, once enough Vaga pilots have lost their billion isk worth of ship, faction fittings and implants and realize that this region is not filled with noobs they either choose to fly something else or go elsewhere. For me this is the prefered mechanism of change, players making choices which shape the environment rather than players calling on the devs to modify the game to suit themselves. On the other hand regions full of noobs running around with full PvE setups probably attract Vagas like flies on sh1t, maybe this is another reason why it is mostly newer players calling for stuff to be nerfed.
Vagas have already been nerfed at least twice directly (Barage tracking nerf, nano nerf) and another time indirectly, the introduction of heat and overloaded webs is a huge nerf to a Vaga's effectiveness. But this is getting off topic, there are other threads out there that explain all this very clearly, I think more people need to read them with an open mind.
For me this isn't about which nerf happens and which doesn't, I don't really care personally about any of the nerfs in the offing. I'm more interested in what is the driving motivation for the nerfs. If its just the devs tweaking stuff on the basis of their own judgement then fine, but if it is even partly driven by players complaints about the game then for me that's a concern. And given the amount of noise from these forums it's difficult to believe the devs can operate entirely uninfluenced by it.
I also think this is a popular topic of debate now because of the sheer scale of the changes. I can't remember any upgade that has nerfed anywhere near as much stuff as this upgrade has the potential to. Carriers, drone boats, any module that has more than one effect, arguably some of the interceptors (the Stiletto nerf is the only one I'm personally cheesed off about). There are even rumblings about yet another Vaga nerf but I don't believe it myself. But like I say if it just fixes stuff that was overpowered its all good, although I can't actually remember anyone complaining that tracking computers and sensor boosters were overpowered in the first place.
Looking at the Myrmidon though, I can't help but notice that every single tier 2 BC has now been nerfed in turn (except for the Amarr one, which knowing the Amarr they will probably claim was nerfed in the design phase), first the Hurricane lost a turret, then the Drake lost some tank, and now it's the Myrmidon's turn. And call me cynical but I can't help but ask myself, 'were all these ships really totally out of balance with each other and the whole of the rest of the game but it's just taken a long time for the devs to notice, or have each of these ships been nerfed in turn as players have picked up on each ship's unique ability and used that as an excuse to complain about it being overpowered'.
...
|
Neutrino Sunset
KDM Corp Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 22:26:00 -
[137]
I honestly don't know which it is, I just hope to God it's not the second. What I like most about Eve is the suprising and creative ship fittings and the tactics they make possible. I never want the day to come when having seen a ship on the scanner I can guess with almost complete certainly what fitting it has before it fires a shot. But with the propensity for more specialization and upholding the principal of 'balance above all things' it's feels like it's coming closer. We already have no ECM on non-Caldari ships, with nerfs to sensor damps and tracking computers and other modules, only certain sized drones on certain ships and torp changes I wonder how many other interesting setups that I never had the opportunity to try out will no longer be possible after Trinity.
|
Pithecanthropus
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 22:50:00 -
[138]
Deal with it people. Whenever you get a massive lean toward a single sided tactic, or whatever... that causes less useful tactics among everything else... CHANGE IS NEEDED!
Look at sports... rules change all the time... look at common laws... those change all the time. Call it a nerf or a boost... whatever you call it, its NEEDED. Otherwise Eve turns into a single sided muppet show with the latest and greatest tactic.
Change... I welcome you. To all the others that oppose this, so sorry, so sad. I've been here two weeks after the Eve launch... so I know all about change.
|
Cybarite
Gallente Aristotle Enterprises Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 23:23:00 -
[139]
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset I honestly don't know which it is, I just hope to God it's not the second. What I like most about Eve is the suprising and creative ship fittings and the tactics they make possible. I never want the day to come when having seen a ship on the scanner I can guess with almost complete certainly what fitting it has before it fires a shot. But with the propensity for more specialization and upholding the principal of 'balance above all things' it's feels like it's coming closer. We already have no ECM on non-Caldari ships, with nerfs to sensor damps and tracking computers and other modules, only certain sized drones on certain ships and torp changes I wonder how many other interesting setups that I never had the opportunity to try out will no longer be possible after Trinity.
QFT
honestly I don't like the nerf, as a myrm pilot I'll come right out and say it, IMO the nerf doesn't need to be to it's drones, it needs to be to it's tank. The stated purpose of a battlecruiser is to be something between a cruiser and a BS, with a greater focus on firepower than a cruiser and better agility than a BS, which is exactly what a myrm has, and most other BC's don't.
I'd be much happier with myrms if they buffed other BC's and nerfed the myrm's tank, what they are doing looks like it'll cut the myrm's DPS by at least 20% which is massive. More importantly I feel like the myrm is about what a BC should be, a ship killer with poweful weapons and good agility but lacking a battleship's pure power, where as most BC's feel like the bastard children of a cruiser and a BS with no real place in the game.
in short, myrm maybe a little to tough, drones are fine, buff other BC's to make them useful. ... Why do I PvP? Because I love the feeling I get when I see the pretty lights and know that someone somewhere is screaming incoherently at their computer screen. |
Sapeian
Caldari SwEaTy ArMpIT RaIDeRs Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.11.21 23:37:00 -
[140]
TBh i just think ccp hate caldari pilots :p Missles..no good. sheilds..no good. ships..no good.. ok well some are ok but really i think people look at this the wrong way. some ships are over powerd.. but every race has an over powerd ship in some way.
vagabond.. super fast and super lethal drake.. very good sheild tanker myrm.. damn good for pvp with the droens and tanking. and well..tbh ..what's their name's again? oh yeh amar.. well they are dying like the jove tbh :p sorry guys.
|
|
Teraos
Genos Occidere The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 06:33:00 -
[141]
I agree with the OP.
|
J Valkor
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 07:31:00 -
[142]
Edited by: J Valkor on 22/11/2007 07:33:15
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset tldr
No.
Let CCP do their thing. Believe it or not, they have a lot more to stake in this game than you. Sig removed, lacks Eve-related content. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
ZerKar
Caldari Zen'Tar
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 08:25:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Sapeian TBh i just think ccp hate caldari pilots :p Missles..no good. sheilds..no good. ships..no good.. ok well some are ok
I got that impression as well lol. Though I think their hate started with the Amarr and migrated to us Caldari LOL. I mean we are the Villians right? (Though for the Caldari I fail to see why really) Anyway...
There is a flying misconception here which is that unless we make every ship par with ever other ship there will be no diversity of tactics. That is fine to say, but if every ship is par with every other ship then we may as well just have one race and be done with it. Nothing very specail about being of one or another. Furthermore, it becomes much more likely that people will just say "Put these Mods on that Class of Ship and Train These Skills and that is the Uber Setup." and it will work for every ship. Quite boring IMO.
What they fail to see is the possibility that races CAN be good at different aspects. In the Real World not every group of people will make the same ships or make them as good as the others in all the same ways. So why is EvE any different? Let us take a closer example.
Right now the Minmatar deal a good amount of DPS. They have designed these fast ships with good fast shooting guns. However, they are not too techno savy so their Ewar is sort of laughable and they do not have huge resources so their Armor is a bit thin and those shield thingies are kind of tricky to figure out.
Why cannot the Races each be good in their own way instead? Why cannot we have a Cruiser from race A that is a good DPS Flinger but would be Rendered all but useless by a Cruiser from Race B that is a great Ewar boat but cannot kill enemies to save its life, Whilest Cruiser from Race C comes over and starts Boosting the Sensors of Race A's Cruiser without too much fear of its own Death because of its great Tank but can also not deal much DPS, while finally Cruiser from Race D Pops in out of nowhere, Rains Damage on Crusier A to try to kill it for Cruiser B before its now Locking Guns kill it but when Cruiser A turns its attention to Cruiser D that Cruiser runs for the hills and gets out of there?
Diversify with Races. Every race does not need to be the King of Ganking, or Tanking, or Speed, or Ewar. Those 4 aspects are the major things that determine the outcome of any battle. Can you deal enough DPS? Can you Tank enough DPS? Can you Outrun your Opponent? Can you Disable your Opponent? Why cannot each race specailize itself more (not 100% super intensely but 25% more maybe, or 5% per level seems how this is EVE LOL!) towards one of these ends with nice little additives here and there? Strengths and Weaknesses that are unique to each Race not common across the board?
As far as I am concerned that is the big problem with Gallente right now. They have a lot of Strength, serious Gank and Tank, but besides being a bit slow (which does not matter much with Drones btw) they have no weaknesses to speak of. Meanwhile the Amarr seem to be without much of a particular niche to fit into at all. What DO they DO best?...Anything? I do not know what it is, and that mostly tends to tell me that they really just do not have anything right now. +++++++++++++++ I saw the Sign...!
O.o |
Gamer Maximus
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 08:27:00 -
[144]
EVE needs something to make each race unique without overpowering them. Some quick examples:
Minmatar gets speed boost of +75% for all ships, shield strength reduced to match armor strength for each ship (major speed advantage, but weaker shields)
Caldari gets +50% shield recharge rate and/or +25% shield power (better tank), -25% armor/structure strength (very, very weak), +25% sensor strength (long range advantage), -25% speed (can't stay at long ranges for extended periods). -25% capacitor (their weapons don't use any, so they would need less as a result)
Armarr gets +100% armor strength and +50% structure strength (better armor tank), -50% sheild strength (an afterthought), +50% capacitor (lazers can actually RUN now), A NEW WEAPON SYSTEM (they need a long range AND short range attack option), -25% (-50%?) speed (slow but deadly)
Gallente gets +100% dronebay size (ships can carry heaver drones then other races, BC's should be able to field 4 heavy assault drones). Shield strength is raised to match armor strength (average shield and armor). Their carriers/motherships can carry a new type of drone (heavy fighter) that no other races ships can carry many of due to their size (Gallente motherships could carry 5, other races can fit only 1-2 + 3-4 fighters, a distinct advantage).
In short:
Minmatar gets a huge speed boost to try and AVOID damage, but has the weakest mix of shield/armor
Caldari have toughest shields and longest range, but die fast when shields go, and has lowest capacitor, limiting their fitting options
Armarr gets massive armor/structure (highest TOTAL combined HP), but takes far more damage over a period of time due to slow speeds
Gallente can carry more/heavier drones/fighters, and is average at everything else.
Each race would feel unique, each with distinct advantages and disadvantages. Percents can change, but the underlaying ideas are sound.
|
Syc Sadomasochist
Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 09:55:00 -
[145]
sometimes they go to far in the name of balance
when they take something from the top and move it mils below everything else....that is not good balance eather
from my short time playing eve I've noticed that different ships have different bonuses because they are built for different things...you can look at these bonuses and be able to say that ship is a : a blaserboat or a tank or a droneboat and this is great because there is that uniqueness. But balance should not mean taking that away...making a ship taht is a "blasterboat" be able to fit the same amount as all the other same "class ships" or reducing the bonus to nill would mean its not much of a blasterboat anymore. A myrmidon may be a battlecruiser but it is specilised in being a drone-boat.....so why nerf the drones so they are like all the ther battlecruisers....perhaps other batlecruisers should be given there own style instead of always taking away.
Mostly it is good because bonuses and consequences....you can't have speed module or cargo module wihtout say loss of velocity example......but that is how balance should be...not balanece as in make all the same.
|
Gorefacer
Caldari Resurrection
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 10:27:00 -
[146]
Originally by: JeanPierre
Originally by: Drizit The only thing overpowered in this game is the nerf bat.
I'm all for balance, there should be a certain amount of versatility that allows everyone, no matter what race they are, to do what they want without having to cross-train to fly the only ship in the game capable of it.
The problem recently is how they have balanced the game - with nerfs
Reducing the effectiveness of one always makes another more powerful. Take away the top card and the card underneath always becomes the top card. All this does is creates a continual round of removals from the top until there's no cards left. The only way you can ever achieve a true balance is by reducing the DPS of every ship to zero then it just becomes space tag. Oh but that makes Minmatar too powerful so we have to nerf their speed... And so it goes until nothing is left but ambulation and it becomes a chat room game.
Stop with the nerfs already. In WW2, did some ultimate dev nerf the aircraft because it was too powerful? No, someone invented the anti-aircraft gun and flak cannon to counter it.
Stop nerfing by subtraction, lets have some nerfing by addition instead.
Outstanding post. And the OP's point makes perfect sense if you look at it from the perspective of somebody who has seen a lot of changes on EVE over the years.
Unfortunately I've seen Devs directly state that anytime they see "real life" in a post, they stop reading. So when you use examples like "Did some ultimate dev nerf aircrafts in WW2? No, the other side created anti-aircraft weapons", you'll quickly hear the mental walls of the Devs slam shut.
What you say makes perfect sense. What they Devs heard was 0% of what you stated after you said "in WW2".
What sucks about that is, you're right. When human beings come up against something they can't immediately beat, they find a way to beat it. What they don't do is fall on their knees and pray to the Ultimate Nerf Dev to smite the "overpowered" others. Well, they do, but nothing ever happens, so they go ahead and find a way to beat it on their own. That's how humans work. How the Devs can state that they ignore these things is beyond me.
The OP's point is 100% valid. Nerfing "Just Because" in order to make all races the same is plain, well, dumb.
I don't think it makes any sense at all. Game balance should have nothing to do with RL comparisons. Heres another RL example devs could copy if that's the way you really wanted it. Some people are born with defects, it's totally random chance, others develope deseases, maybe the game should be setup so the you lose SP or attribute point randomly to reflect that, or maybe some characters should permanently die randomly to mirror the unfairness of life. Sounds crappy to me, I'd say leave RL examples out of it, it's the reason I play this game and not Flight Simulator.
Also arguing to leave in unfair advantages for some in the game on the basis that things weren't balanced in WWII is slightly psychotic. "Hey, millions of Japanese died because of the destructive power of the atom bomb, lets draw a parralel of this to EVE, 'too bad for the Japanese' = 'too bad for certain races in EVE'". Think about what you are posting next time. Sometimes humans overcome adversity, nobody overcomes death in the long run, these concepts have NOTHING to do with balancing a video game so that a maximum number of people enjoy playing it.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Neutrino Sunset
KDM Corp Firmus Ixion
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 11:42:00 -
[147]
Originally by: J Valkor Edited by: J Valkor on 22/11/2007 07:33:15
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset tldr
No.
Let CCP do their thing. Believe it or not, they have a lot more to stake in this game than you.
Lol, that's always the problem with replying to posts that you either can't read or are too lazy to read isn't it, you risk replying to what you think a post says instead of what it actually says.
If I give you the abridged version it's simply, I hope that CCP are making all these changes because they believe they are required and not because they are responding to the endless calls from these forums for everything to be nerfed.
:) You see, if you'd read it you have realized you actually agree with me, and that would have saved you the bother of posting.
|
Mr Breakfast
F.R.E.E. Explorer Atrum Tempestas Foedus
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 12:21:00 -
[148]
I think the nerf cycle keeps things interesting. An MMO as complex as EVE is impossible to balance, because every nerfed flavor of the month forces a new fad to take its place. Rarely is the FotM actually unbeatable, but nerfing it once in a while gives new segments of the player population a chance to whine it up.
|
Sauromugue
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 12:26:00 -
[149]
I don't know man, some of these nerfs just seem random as hell. I like how the Eris got nerfed. THE ERIS. As well as the Flycatcher, infinitely slower than it's Interceptor counterpart, yet they were all nerfed to "differentiate between interceptors and interdictors."
I've come to the conclusion that the people who wield the nerf bat at this point in time don't know what the hell they're doing. Particularly Zulupark.
|
Siigari Kitawa
Gallente The Aduro Protocol The Fifth Race
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 12:47:00 -
[150]
I do not like this idea of how people think that if you put two ships of the same class in a room together they should be a 100% even match.
Come on.
The Moros vs. the Revelation?
The Navitas vs. the Bantam?
The Vexor vs. the Scythe?
The Megathron vs. the Raven?
GIVE ME A BREAK.
You guys need to understand each ship does something unique, and is what makes it stand apart. There I listed the ships pitted against each other in their respective roles, but I don't think it's fair for people to put all 4 ships of the same class in a room and rate them as "best, second best, third best, worst." That takes away from the spirit of the game in terms of making something into something useful, rather than making it into something that can be as good as this other ship. _________________ Burn. |
|
Ichabod Dirange
Backwater Security Systems
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 14:06:00 -
[151]
One can only hope they've learnt any from previous nerfs when they've gone too far, almost as if punishing the players for finding the flaws in their designs.
Sure work over the Eos some but at least make it as useful as the Sleipnir, proposed changes doesn't say that, it says sell now and never look back.
Cloners Wanted |
Die Unknown
Amarr New Age Solutions New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 14:16:00 -
[152]
Originally by: Ichabod Dirange One can only hope they've learnt any from previous nerfs when they've gone too far, almost as if punishing the players for finding the flaws in their designs.
Sure work over the Eos some but at least make it as useful as the Sleipnir, proposed changes doesn't say that, it says sell now and never look back.
Sleipnir is Field Command Ship. Eos is Fleet Command Ship.
|
Ichabod Dirange
Backwater Security Systems
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 14:21:00 -
[153]
So a lesser ship no matter how you dice it.
Cloners Wanted |
Die Unknown
Amarr New Age Solutions New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 14:25:00 -
[154]
Sleipnir is Field Command Ship. Eos is Fleet Command Ship.
|
Ichabod Dirange
Backwater Security Systems
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 14:30:00 -
[155]
So a lesser ship no matter how you dice it.
Cloners Wanted |
Die Unknown
Amarr New Age Solutions New Age Solutions Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 14:32:00 -
[156]
Sleipnir is Field Command Ship. Eos is Fleet Command Ship.
|
Gorefacer
Caldari Resurrection
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 15:02:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Siigari Kitawa I do not like this idea of how people think that if you put two ships of the same class in a room together they should be a 100% even match.
Come on.
The Moros vs. the Revelation?
The Navitas vs. the Bantam?
The Vexor vs. the Scythe?
The Megathron vs. the Raven?
GIVE ME A BREAK.
You guys need to understand each ship does something unique, and is what makes it stand apart. There I listed the ships pitted against each other in their respective roles, but I don't think it's fair for people to put all 4 ships of the same class in a room and rate them as "best, second best, third best, worst." That takes away from the spirit of the game in terms of making something into something useful, rather than making it into something that can be as good as this other ship.
I've heard that on sisi with the changes coming up, the new Raven will melt the Megathron now at close range. Before it was reversed. If CCP's balance attempts cause the Raven to overtake the Megathron in a certain role, how is this bad for the game according to what you state you want? Was it OK when the Gallente ship was more powerful, but now not OK when the Caldari ship eclipses it in DPS?
According to your logic, you should be happy that the Raven is a better damage dealer than the Megathron now, or that many drone ships will be less effective in combat than some of their counterparts, because at least all the ships aren't equal in effectiveness, right?
The fact of the matter is, all ships will never be completely equal, so don't worry, what you apparently fear will never happen, the strongest ship for a role will just change.
"You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus |
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 16:09:00 -
[158]
Changes keep the game interesting by challenging you to adapt. The alternative is boredom and/or everyone flying the same ships. -- (Battle hardened industrialist)
[Brackley, UK]
My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned. |
Sauromugue
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 18:39:00 -
[159]
Boredom? Uh, I don't know what game you're playing, but I want to have fun with what I TRAINED FOR, not have my damn ship class crippled every other month.
What's the point of having goals any more?
|
Moghydin
Confederation of Red Moon Red Moon Federation
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 18:44:00 -
[160]
Originally by: Sauromugue Boredom? Uh, I don't know what game you're playing, but I want to have fun with what I TRAINED FOR, not have my damn ship class crippled every other month.
What's the point of having goals any more?
That's actually the point. You trained for a FOTM and now the "I Win" button is getting nerfed. FOTM is actually a ship that ppl train for, because someone invented a creative setup that allows that ship to be significantly better than other ships of its class. Now tell me why it shouldn't be nerfed?
Press alt+F4 to reduce lag |
|
Mark Lucius
Forbidden Lore
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 19:53:00 -
[161]
The uniqueness you and all the Gallente fanbois in this thread are advocating is the ease in which the Myrmidon can* outperform the other tier 2 battlecruisers. We all know this is true and if you don't believe it watch how people will scramble to find their new 'unique' ship.
If you think I am wrong, you should petition CCP en masse to have the Myrmidons turret slots and drone space+bandwidth halved (making it even more unique). When this has happened and everybody is still flying Myrmidons as zealously as they do now because of its uniqueness, you will have convinced me of the error in my arguments.
(*Disclaimer: I said 'can', not 'always will'.) ---
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes |
Andrue
Amarr
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 20:51:00 -
[162]
Edited by: Andrue on 22/11/2007 20:52:59
Originally by: Sauromugue Boredom? Uh, I don't know what game you're playing, but I want to have fun with what I TRAINED FOR, not have my damn ship class crippled every other month.
What's the point of having goals any more?
It's the same game I've been playing for over 3.5 years. Well actually it isn't and that's my point. If it was the same game I wouldn't still be playing it.
If every ship you fly is getting crippled that often then it would suggest that you don't understand Eve. It suggests that you are continually trying to find the 'I win' button. Eve is not supposed to have such a thing and you'll do far better if you stop trying to chase that impossible dream.
Stop putting all your eggs into one basket. Learn how to adapt. Become flexible. You will develop a far better character and achieve more in the long run by doing that. Let the other fools follow a narrow path down a dead-end while you keep your options open. -- (Battle hardened industrialist)
[Brackley, UK]
My budgie can say "ploppy bottom". You have been warned. |
Adunh Slavy
Ammatar Trade Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 21:55:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Andrue
Stop putting all your eggs into one basket. Learn how to adapt. Become flexible. You will develop a far better character and achieve more in the long run by doing that. Let the other fools follow a narrow path down a dead-end while you keep your options open.
Andrue brings up a good point here. Specialization may allow a player to own a role, but that's all that player will have. It is very time consuming to be a jack of all trades, we poor sots don't do anything great, but we can do lots and lots of things well enough to get by.
Think of nerfs as big asteroids that from time to time plow into the planet. The dinos that had furry stuff became birds, the little creepy things running around in holes in the ground started climbing trees, those same odd little tree climbers invented the Internet, despite Al Gore's claims to the contrary.
Specialization wins some PVP, but it does not win Eve. Eve can not be won, so much as survived.
-AS
The Real Space Initiative (Forum Link) |
Mentonak
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 22:19:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Tarminic If the Myrmidon is 3 times as popular as any other battlecruiser despite only 35% of players being Gallente (example numbers) then they figure it needs to be balanced.
Um. This may be a silly question... but why?
Since all players can play all craft (with apropriate skill training. why would it be a problem if 75% of BC pilots flew 1 type of ship. how does this possibly detract from the game?
In any game there will allways be items / skills / spells / ships that no one uses because they are crap. This never really ruins the game... But making everything the same does kinda dumb down a bit and remove the fun.
|
Misses Gap
Caldari The Lantern Mining Corporation
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 22:30:00 -
[165]
Op hits spot on !
Diversity is needed.
If Eve Devs would balance the two different human RL genders, no one would want to have sex anymore.
Gap Attention you need. Children play in the snow aloud. The cat has been podded! |
Crumplecorn
Gallente Eve Cluster Explorations
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 22:33:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Mark Lucius Edited by: Mark Lucius on 22/11/2007 20:01:14 The uniqueness all the Gallente fanbois in this thread are advocating is the ease in which the Myrmidon can* outperform the other tier 2 battlecruisers. We all know this is true and if you don't believe it watch how people will scramble to find their new 'unique' ship.
If you think I am wrong, you should petition CCP en masse to have the Myrmidons turret slots and drone space+bandwidth halved (making it even more unique). When this has happened and everybody is still flying Myrmidons as zealously as they do now because of its uniqueness, you will have convinced me of the error in my arguments.
(*Disclaimer: I said 'can', not 'always will'.)
/thread -
I wish I was a three foot female doll with a watering can and heterochromatic eyes. |
Ione Hunt
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2007.11.22 23:12:00 -
[167]
Well, drones have been an alternative weapon, now they've been nerfed to a sort of "add-on" which on its own won't be able to kill any clever target.
If speed gets nerfed too, we'll have BLOB Online instead of EVE Online and the last best counter to blobs will die...and so will small-scale or solo combat.
I can live with the drone nerf (even though I think they overdid it), but if speed gets nerfed to the point where I have to fit a tank on current nano-ships like the Vaga (shield booster??) I won't bother anymore with this game... _______________
|
Neesa Corrinne
Black Watch Legionnaires
|
Posted - 2007.11.23 11:58:00 -
[168]
The next patch is the only patch in two years that I am NOT looking forward to being released.
That says a lot about the state of the game. The whiners seem to pick a different aspect of the game every couple of months, spam the forums with "that's not fair!" threads and then CCP capitulates to them.
Is there an option I can click on to NOT accept the next patch? Cause TBH, I'm not even remotely interested in it... including the new ships being released.
|
Qui Shon
|
Posted - 2007.11.23 13:18:00 -
[169]
Originally by: Andrue ...I've been playing for over 3.5 years....Stop putting all your eggs into one basket.
See how that is a problem for a new player? A new player HAS to specialize in order to compete with older players. (Sure sure, you can bring friends too, i.e. blob warfare.)
Personally, I will always go jack of all trades route, in everything I do, and therefore I'll never match same age specialized characters, nor older jack- players like yourself. I can live with that, but I well understand those who can't.
|
General Coochie
New Justice Minuit.
|
Posted - 2007.11.28 21:51:00 -
[170]
Edited by: General Coochie on 28/11/2007 21:54:29 Wow. its like one mind I totally agree with OP.
English isn't my 1st language and I'm not the best with writing down my arguments, but this thread says exactly what I wanted this thread to say
Balanced combat and EvE. --------------------------------------------------------------------------
- Sig originally by Kel Solaar
Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
|
|
Orbital123
|
Posted - 2007.11.28 22:14:00 -
[171]
yeah and Amarr laser gunners are just pleased as punch and peachy keen
/sarcasm
|
Guntaro
|
Posted - 2007.11.28 23:36:00 -
[172]
Edited by: Guntaro on 28/11/2007 23:38:43 People invest a lot of time and money training for certain ships and setups only to have that ship nerfed. That equals time and money wasted because now you need to train a new area. Thats the problem with constant changes to this game. Take away all the skill intensive requirements and I couldnt care less if they change the game every day.
|
Kurogauna
|
Posted - 2007.11.28 23:57:00 -
[173]
Edited by: Kurogauna on 29/11/2007 00:03:28 Edited by: Kurogauna on 29/11/2007 00:02:08 In modern warfare, weapons, and sometimes wehicles are higly specialized. i am a big player of advance wars, and the game is quite fine balanced (not an mmo, i agree).
Ah-64 apache (helicopter) is an anti infantry - anti tank ... and only this. Useless against ships and aircraft.
HH-60H seahawk (helicopter again) can fire a deadly anti ship missile, a torpedoe or put some sonars. Useless against infantry (lol swimmers?).
Heavy tank, like M1 Abrahams are useful against other ground vehicles and deadly against infantry. useless against aircraft and so on.
Shilka (tired of us things) is an anti aircraft tank. Useful too against infantry but cannot kill a heavy tank.
Sabot shell (ammo) is a penetrative armor, usefull against heavy armored things, but useless against strutured unarmored objects like humans or civil buildings
HEAT shell (ammo is a high explosive shell, very suppressive against infantry (the inverse of aboce) and useless against heavy tanks.
AA missile (missile) explode out of its target in order to damage plane enough to make it crash
Slam missiles (anti ship missiles) explode inside of its target in order to destroy machinery.
I think there is enough examples.
What i mean? Replace infantry by drones, interceptors by .. interceptors, DCA by destroyers and so on...
I mean ships could have bonus against specific targets. Eve destroyers could be a true antri frig ship with a +50% scan res, +50% tracking, +50% dmg and so on against drones an frig size ships. but a huge penalty against heavier targets.
Another example, bombers could have bombs that inflict huge damage against heavy target ( already exist ? =)
We could have guns (not ammo, because every one will become jack of all trades) that gives bonus against a unique class of ships and not to the others.
Then, in eve, we could see different races doctrines. For example, amarr prefer BS anti BS and frigs anti frigs while gallente prefer Frigs anti BS and BS anti frigs (subversives =).
I know there is a huge RPG problem: how a noob could bare a gun that can one shot an elite battle ship...
... Its a rpg conception ... i have no answer to this.
- Real men tank hull. |
Minmatar Citizen 4521577
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 01:18:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Kurogauna
I know there is a huge RPG problem: how a noob could bare a gun that can one shot an elite battle ship...
... Its a rpg conception ... i have no answer to this.
Naw. The problem is that most of the people are using tanks. So when the apache comes they whine about not being able to hit it.
And, since your army is actually paid by those 95% tanks, unless you somehow get rid of those apaches you can say bye to your army.
Not looking forward this patch really. Nothing interesting.
|
Ruciza
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 12:30:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Augeas
The OP does not desire or recognise diversity.
The latter probably.
|
AntonioBanderas
Empirius Enigmus Navy
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 14:22:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Alkeena
...blah-blah-blah... ...No longer do you really have to question what setup a particular ship may be using... ...blah-blah-blah...
Oh yes... can you gess how was 97,5% dominixes fitted before the NOS nerf? Or what was the percentage of Myrms witout t2 heavys (providing that pilot had the skills...)? I won't even go into the nberness of eos.
Oh, yes. You're Gallente. Now i understant your post.
|
Matrixcvd
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 15:19:00 -
[177]
Originally by: Andrue
If every ship you fly is getting crippled that often then it would suggest that you don't understand Eve. It suggests that you are continually trying to find the 'I win' button. Eve is not supposed to have such a thing and you'll do far better if you stop trying to chase that impossible dream.
A large part of this game is a space combat "simulator" This isn't tic tack toe or some mindless game of checkers. This shouldn't be about fighting fair, because if you are, you are doing something wrong. This is about exploiting the weaknesses in your opponent by any means necessary. Granted, with a game complex as this, tweeks to the game play are necessary but this nonsense of balancing ship types so that statistically 1 BC is used accordingly as others is nonsense and utter garbage.
And its morons that think just because they fly a BC, means they can go after and kill any other BC, or an AF, with crap fittings, crap logic, and crap execution.
The game has grown to the point where no one can concieve of every ship fit type and too many times, people just don't think about what they are doing and call a particular ship the "I win" button. Outside of the cyno DD which was flat out stupid, no ship has truley been the IWIN. Even nanophoons. For every one of these ships, i can find an equivalent counter which is less expensive and but still effective, maybe not a single ship but no more than 3.
Whining about dying to superior might, EPIC FAIL!
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates Enuma Elish.
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 21:28:00 -
[178]
Originally by: MasterEnt Agreed
This is why weapons and modules has CPU/MW requirements. If you want to fit a "L" weapon on a meduim ship.. should should be able to.. just knowing that your resources will be limited.
Too Much
Yes. Bit like having a bandwidth limitation really. I mean, you can't fit a rack of cruise launchers on a drake, but you could probably shoehorn a couple on. -- Crane needs more grid 249km locking? GMP and TNP |
Sauromugue
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 21:34:00 -
[179]
Edited by: Sauromugue on 29/11/2007 21:36:50
Originally by: Andrue Edited by: Andrue on 22/11/2007 20:52:59
Originally by: Sauromugue Boredom? Uh, I don't know what game you're playing, but I want to have fun with what I TRAINED FOR, not have my damn ship class crippled every other month.
What's the point of having goals any more?
It's the same game I've been playing for over 3.5 years. Well actually it isn't and that's my point. If it was the same game I wouldn't still be playing it.
If every ship you fly is getting crippled that often then it would suggest that you don't understand Eve. It suggests that you are continually trying to find the 'I win' button. Eve is not supposed to have such a thing and you'll do far better if you stop trying to chase that impossible dream.
Stop putting all your eggs into one basket. Learn how to adapt. Become flexible. You will develop a far better character and achieve more in the long run by doing that. Let the other fools follow a narrow path down a dead-end while you keep your options open.
Yeah, Heretic is totally an "I win" button. What with ANYTHING cruiser class and above being able to kill me easily if I try to engage on my own, Interceptors outrunning me no matter what, and being able to kill only T1 frigates reliably, totally overpowered.
Get real, you're obviously not playing the same game I am.
You know what "adapting" means in this case? Getting polycarbs/snakes just so I can go the same speed I used to. Oh, what's that? Now it's FOTM? Damn, I guess I can't adapt, right?
|
Arktiger
Gallente MacroIntel United Corporations Against Macros
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 03:20:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Jatonix You want to know what is actually killing EVE? People who whine and complain about EVERYTHING instead of adapting like you.
There isn't much to adapt too when everything becomes almost the same.
|
|
Akira2501
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 04:39:00 -
[181]
I agree with the original poster ū well said.
If I want short range high damage, IĘll fit blasters. Why make torps the same?
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 12:01:00 -
[182]
Edited by: Gabriel Karade on 30/11/2007 12:06:06
Something's always 'killing Eve'ą. and you guys are always proven wrong.
Every single balance change since Castor (can't comment about 'before' as I wasn't here then) has benefited the game.
You see, you mistakenly equate imbalance with flexibility/diversity.
Well that's the dumbest argument that regularly crops up round here. I suppose Dual MWD's encouraged 'diversity'? Or the original Gankageddon was the manifestation of ędiversityĘ Or that cruise missiles on frigates encouraged 'diverse setups'?, or Heavy drones with infinite range and no tracking attribute made for diversity in drone selection? Or torpedoes and cruise missiles always smacking frigates full on for 100% damage was ędiversityĘ? ...
...whatĘs the common thread running through all of those cases? Oh thatĘs right... Everyone, their mother and their dog ended up using them...
----------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: [one page] |