Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 5 post(s) |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
126
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 00:13:00 -
[1] - Quote
I'll skip the part describing that I've tried all EVE professions and so on, which - while being true and perfectly applicable for my case - is something every CSM candidate should have done by default.
My main interest within the game have always been small-scale PvP and that's the area I seem to be decently good at. Let my movies speak for me here.
Really enjoying rich, thrilling and creative environment this way of gaming provides, I can safely state there are certain things I'd like to see changed/fixed/improved for the benefit of those sharing - in general - my view and my idea of fun in EVE. I'm pretty confident that my pathological aspiration for truth may cost me some votes.
That said, I'm still going to list my thoughts on an appreciable number of questions. This includes, but is not limited to: rigs, cyno mechanics, buffer and active tanking, Electronic Warfare, overused modules, capitals and supercapitals, low-sec space and a number of other issues we deal with on a daily basis.
So, things I'd like to see addressed:
1) Rigs. All of them.
Rigs have never been changed (bare very few units) since the very introduction of them in 2006! Some of them are way too good (popularity speaks for itself), some just don't induce proper penalties, some don't have penalties at all, some aren't even stacking penalized while costing merely 50 calibration points and providing very useful bonuses. Insanity, to put it mildly.
2) Buffer vs. active tanking.
Tanking in general is a very powerful ability. It doesn't matter what the ship itself does on a battlefield or how it's affected by other stuff, but it still dies by taking damage. One's ability to tank that damage is to come with proper cost. At the moment active tanking comes with: high CPU and grid requirements, high capacitor usage. On the other hand, current buffer tanking, while being very potent and popular (yet again, numbers speak for themselves), is hardly associated with any significant penalties. That is especially true for shield tanking, where increase of signature radius is simply a (bad) joke.
There's a great number of ways we can improve buffer tanking (so that it becomes balanced), but the idea of decreasing mobility for using HP modules is something hardly anyone will argue with. Decreased mobility should be there no matter whether you go for shield or armour. Wanna move fast(er)? Go for active tanking then. What is really cool, it's the fact this change hardly affects fleet warfare: the difference between everyone going at 1km/s and say 700-800 is pretty much non-existent. Great Nano Fix reduced velocity values by about the same margin, yet people still blob just fine.
I'm surely perfectly fine with CCP introducing instead some other proper penalties for buffer tanking, but these changes should then come in significant shifts - you can not just increase PG usage of pesky Large Shield Extenders by 20 MWs and consider it done. Nothing will change.
As for repairing/boosting values, these are fine as they are. Increasing them will just ruin small-scale PvP. We don't want to meet unbreakable monsters on each gate. The game is meant to be fun and dynamic, so the stuff must explode. Increasing tanking values just forces people to bring more numbers with them and that's it. By the way, that's why there are so much blobs around - the whole game is already overtanked (thanks to buffer tanking being so good) and people can't achieve anything within reasonable timeframe without bringing in a gazillion of teammates. Or at least they think they can't, which is a whole another story - I've already tried my best busting these myths with my movies, so please don't make me elaborate on it here with mere words at my disposal.
3) Cyno mechanics
Just as rigs, cynoes haven't been changed since they were initially released. Or at least I as a 2005 player can't recall anything in this regard. Current primitive mechanics was probably OK for the old days where capitals were few and the galaxy was vast, but became totally inacceptable even by 2009, much less nowadays.
Let's just face it - being able to throw in a ship instantly while retaining its combat capabilities is really overpowered. More so for small-scale PvP. As a player with massive game experience, I'm perfectly fine with power-blocs and other blobs hot-dropping each other 23/7, they may enjoy this as much as they want to.
However, there's not a single reason for the same rules to apply both in a) on an 'epic' battlefield with thousands of ships present and b) on a gate or belt where some casual dude in his cruiser meats another one. We can easily make separate cynoes to meet ultimate game needs. An these needs are governed by balance. So, that's how I for one see it:
- sovereignty warfare cyno. Can be activated only withing sov structures, such as POSes, outposts, claim units etc. Heck, I think I'll be fine with that new cyno even if they make no further changes and don't introduce any of these (needed) features: spool-up timer, resistances penalties, inability for the cyno- equipped ship to lock things upon cyno activation, disclosuring bloom around cyno-equipped ship, proper cyno cost, proper CPU/grid usage etc.
- general combat cyno. Can be activated at any location, but goes with spool-up timer, which can be of inverse relation to the number of ships present in grid, so the more ships are there, the sooner hot-drop arrives. It's surely welcome to introduce some additional features (like disclosuring bloom) and make some tweaks (so that killing a cyno-fitted ships brings you some isk in loot), but an instantaneous power-projection should be fixed no matter what. 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
126
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 00:13:00 -
[2] - Quote
- covert cyno. May even retain its current stats, but I personally believe spool-up will greatly improve it, too. But it's also important to note that this point is very dependent on how CCP is resistant to clueless screams advocating for Black Ops buff. Black Ops are mostly fine and any changes beyond Sin overhaul and probably minor tweaks here and there (fuel bay etc.) will result in this shipclass being way too attractive while still remaining next to impossible to counter. We surely don't want this to happen. Covert-ops and any kind of 'silent' and 'safe' engaging should never be comparable to regular combat means.
4) Overused modules
- Tracking Enhancers provide way too good falloff bonus and result in making autocannons FOTM and blasterboats even less appealing. I'm a firm believer that it's not the range of blasters we need to blame, but rather the fact how great is the range of missiles and how massively OP Tracking Enhancers became with Dominion. So, falloff bonus for both Tracking Enhancers and Tracking Computers is to get reduced to 15% (for tech2), which is in line with the general game spirit: check rig and implant values - all pairs there provide equal bonuses for falloff and optimal.
- Damage Control. It's way too good. It's used so often that it might as well be built-in. If something is that popular we should always ask ourselves - is it actually good for the game? As for me, I'm pretty sure DC is to be brought down somehow.
!! to be continued by:
5) Electronic Warfare 6) Combat Recons vs. Force Recons - better defined roles etc. 7) Danger of new supercapitals (speculations) 8) Heavy missiles range 9) Cruise missiles
etc. 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
126
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 00:13:00 -
[3] - Quote
reserved 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys. |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
126
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 00:14:00 -
[4] - Quote
reserved yet again 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys. |
Akirei Scytale
Test Alliance Please Ignore
632
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 00:16:00 -
[5] - Quote
way too many people running for CSM.
I forsee nothing but power bloc representation at this rate |
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
267
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 00:22:00 -
[6] - Quote
Ya got some interesting points, GL. Signature removed, CCP Phantom |
Ogi Talvanen
Enlightened Industries Test Alliance Please Ignore
93
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 01:17:00 -
[7] - Quote
We need more ppl like you! |
Lyris Nairn
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
9166
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 01:21:00 -
[8] - Quote
You have my like! Sky Captain of Your Heart; Lyris Chronicles of Narnia in the World of Tomorrow's Goonfleet dot Com; Good Poster Extraordinaire and Spacebook Superstar : RIFTERSWARM Vote Lyris Nairn for CSM. |
Robokick
Russian Thunder Squad Against ALL Authorities
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 05:42:00 -
[9] - Quote
Go go Fon! |
DarkAegix
Acetech Systems
908
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 06:57:00 -
[10] - Quote
1) Agree 2) Agree 3) Agree 4) Agree
+1 |
|
SPIwere
Iris Covenant The Gorgon Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 11:09:00 -
[11] - Quote
good post, +1like |
JaoDo
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 12:25:00 -
[12] - Quote
+1 |
Glinorezka
Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 12:27:00 -
[13] - Quote
+1 |
G1zmo
Fake Empire. DarkSide.
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 12:56:00 -
[14] - Quote
+1 |
Ane Mary
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 13:26:00 -
[15] - Quote
+1 |
Ramzes Razares
GOP KOHTOPA
23
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 13:35:00 -
[16] - Quote
+1 |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
250
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 13:44:00 -
[17] - Quote
I'll try to get some points added in the weekend.
Any questions on stuff already covered 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys. |
Jowen Datloran
Science and Trade Institute Caldari State
302
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 13:49:00 -
[18] - Quote
People like you need no platform to run on so save yourself the work. Mr. Science & Trade Institute, EVE Online Lorebook-á |
Psihius
Anarchist Dawn U N K N O W N
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 15:20:00 -
[19] - Quote
Fon Revedhort is a known figure of the forum.eve-ru.com, but to many of us there he has too narrow views on the game and some suggestions he has made are very contreversial to the game and could ruin it.
Maybe my post is a little personal, but I had caution you - this man has too big ego :) |
Blawrf McTaggart
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
414
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:30:00 -
[20] - Quote
Fon Revedhort for CSM |
|
Sverige Pahis
Thunderwaffe Goonswarm Federation
657
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:32:00 -
[21] - Quote
If Fon gets into the CSM I'm going to buy all the nighthawks in jita because buff incoming~~ |
C Spawn
Perkone Caldari State
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 16:45:00 -
[22] - Quote
Yep, that person is well known on eve-ru.com by some following facts:
- the fact that this specific man admires many of war criminals of **** Germany, including those who were sentenced to death by Nuremberg Trials; - the fact that this specific man denies **** Germany war crimes, including death camps and mass civilians executions; - the fact that this specific man could quote Goebbels books as easy as you click your mouse, especially about racial segregation;
So if you don't care about this, then sure, you could vote for that **** fan.
But personnaly I wouldn't do this. |
Liam Mirren
250
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 18:48:00 -
[23] - Quote
I'll back any good, proven, EVE player who wishes to break up the 0.0 block hegemony in favour of a more solo/small gang pvp focussed view.
+1 Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.
My guides: http://mirren.freeforums.org |
HELIC0N ONE
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
82
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 19:12:00 -
[24] - Quote
C Spawn wrote:Yep, that person is well known on eve-ru.com by some following facts:
- the fact that this specific man admires many of war criminals of **** Germany, including those who were sentenced to death by Nuremberg Trials; - the fact that this specific man denies **** Germany war crimes, including death camps and mass civilians executions; - the fact that this specific man could quote Goebbels books as easy as you click your mouse, especially about racial segregation;
So if you don't care about this, then sure, you could vote for that **** fan.
But personnaly I wouldn't do this.
Did somebody say Nazi? |
jmz
Xenobytes Stain Empire
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 20:56:00 -
[25] - Quote
Go Fon, +1 |
Argonicus
Wastion Dominion W.A.S.T.Y.A.
0
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 21:14:00 -
[26] - Quote
+1 |
StarXaker
UA Industry Pandemic Legion
1
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 22:22:00 -
[27] - Quote
+1. I don't care about his views. if he wants to make our game better - he'll get my vote |
Fon Revedhort
Monks of War DarkSide.
310
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 22:52:00 -
[28] - Quote
StarXaker wrote:+1. I don't care about his views. if he wants to make our game better - he'll get my vote Thanks. I really feel like a politician now, with people pulling out totally irrelevant stuff as innuendos.
Anyways, back to the point.
Post #2 has been updated with the following:
5) Electronic Warfare
6) Combat Recons vs. Force Recons
2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys. |
Sarmatiko
509
|
Posted - 2012.02.10 23:46:00 -
[29] - Quote
+1 |
Rythm
True Power Team
11
|
Posted - 2012.02.11 07:09:00 -
[30] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:StarXaker wrote:+1. I don't care about his views. if he wants to make our game better - he'll get my vote Thanks. I really feel like a politician now, with people pulling out totally irrelevant stuff as innuendos. Anyways, back to the point. Post #2 has been updated with the following: 5) Electronic Warfare 6) Combat Recons vs. Force Recons
Can you add some movie links for the general public ?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |