| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
element
   |
Posted - 2003.06.13 20:55:00 -
[1]
This isn't going to be a post where I whine about MWD and how it sucks now etc. More importantly, I just want to talk about the general idea of balancing a game. Maybe some people do not realize how hard this it to do but it is obviously extremely difficult because you are bound to please some people and **** off others.
The best way to deal with this I think is to balance in small changes. For instance, adding one medium slot to some cruisers is a great idea because it is a slight change with less variables to confuse the end result.
The changes to MWD were clearly drastic. They made it so it is completely illogical to use one if you expect to be in any combat...and in this game, combat can come anytime unexpected.
whats the advantage of drastic changes? It seems that this causes 'nerfing' which generally just aggrivates players. What is the harm in changing MWD values slightly? Testing it at 20% reduction, 30, 40, etc and finding which one has the best balance of practicality. At this point I doubt I am going to use MWD just because it would cripple my ship so badly. Additionally, statis webs have a higher range now and more police carry them.
I don't mean to whine or anything, I just don't see the logic in these kinds of changes.
|
Archon Stormrage
|
Posted - 2003.06.13 21:35:00 -
[2]
I would just like to point out that adding a Med slot to the other 3 level 3 cruisers (ie not the Moa) is not a small change. Slots are priceless and not enough was done to compensate the loss of an advantage in EW combat. The Moa is becoming a much worse ship.
I know that having 2 slots on other cruisers was a pain but the Moa should be balanced better, removing some cpu or shields on the Maller etc is not enough. Maybe give it an extra low slot. (also hearing things about the thorax now as well)
Also big changes are never good. Small ones over time are better. The MWD needed a nerf but the pirate ones now have no advantage over the market ones when it comes to the disadvantage. Imho the market ones should be -30% shields and - 20% cap whilst the pirate ones would be slightly better.
|
Torval Sontu
|
Posted - 2003.06.13 21:51:00 -
[3]
I don't think they should affect your shield or cap they should have tweaked the power cost and and boost up and down as to fit better.
They tuned them down from beta in retail then put in a huge penalty that makes it a worthless module.
I don't mind tweaking and slight nerfs that are well thought out or went through some sort of review to see how much change it causes.
I DO NOT like a drastic left turn in a module such as this or for any skill or module that takes oodles of REAL time to train only to become worthless?
I feel it is a change that is not unlike making it so you have to train mining level 5 and astrology level 1 before you can even mine an asteroid.
Anyways they seem to be learning from their previous mistakes which is good and taking on certain suggestions of improvement. CCP is doing pretty good overall despite a few stumbles. Events coming soon even if they are rather light among various features and tuning to make the game more immersive and enjoyable.
I am greatful they are seemingly listening to the community of players. I hope next time we can avoid this huge sweeping change with more open contact like asking for what players think should be changed on a certain or what would be fair. CCP in the end of course can change it how they wish but getting the opinion of thousands of people in theory helps explore all avenues.
Ok done work is over and I get to play with my MWD before I recycle them tomorrow =\.
|
Napalm SW
|
Posted - 2003.06.13 22:09:00 -
[4]
Yeah,
It would have been nice if all these tweaks were done in Beta. When you spend 80 mil isk on a crusier BP or 1 bil isk on BattleShip it hits home when ship stats are ajusted. Now another ship may have been a better buy =)
I will not loose much sleep over this, but I hope these ajustmets are over soon =)
Cheers!
|
Xzragath
|
Posted - 2003.06.13 22:12:00 -
[5]
Well in general I applaud them for making these changes.
They are taking the flavor of the week and placing them into effective tools that perform their jobs with a trade off. That is the way it should work.
MWD's had almost no down side, now it is something that you must think about using instead of a must have item, maybe we will see ships without them, bringing the inherent speed of particular ships back into relevance.
As for the Moa they did a great job, instead of nerfing it they just improved some of the other ships. The Moa is still an excellent ship it is just not the only choice as some people seemed to think so I have no problem with that change either. Especially since I never planned on owning one.
The security changes are just catch ups with where the game should have been initially. It will change the dynamics of the game and make guards for miners more valuable.
So good job on the changes and keep up the good work.
|
Raven DeBlade
|
Posted - 2003.06.13 23:18:00 -
[6]
Well again have we spent money AND time on another useless thing in EVE... first training Afterburner and Navigation to level 4, then the money on the skill High Speed Maneuvering...
"To hunt pirates you need time and patience, because even monkeys fall from the trees"
"Any statements made above this line are my persona" |
Sanru
|
Posted - 2003.06.13 23:31:00 -
[7]
These changes weren't all bad. Before the changes to weapon mods, fights were stupidly fast and favored the attacker quite heavily.
Also missile weapons were frankly rendered worthless. Top end missiles deal about 500 damage. They take time to reach their target and can be destroyed, they're also expensive. That says to me CCP wanted that level of firepower to be restricted. The fact that a combination of weapon and weapon mods not just equalled that, but exceeded that shows an imbalance. Why would you spend money on a weapon that is so expensive when you can use a low cost laser that does much better damage and can't be blocked.
MWD's would also let you outrun said missiles.
Granted you can still shootdown missiles or use smartbombs, but those are legitimate countermeasures. It's also possible with good timing to overload both systems and land missiles on your target.
Nothing should outdamage or outrun missiles.
|
Risien Drogonne
|
Posted - 2003.06.13 23:32:00 -
[8]
They're not time wasted. Navigation 4 and Afterburner 4 are still very nice skills to have.
|
Panzer
|
Posted - 2003.06.14 00:21:00 -
[9]
Yes i agree, they nerfed advance weapons upgrades ie hydraulic stabalizers and MWD into udder uselessness. I mean hydraulic stabalizers are only a tad bit better than the gyros but are so much rarer and harder to find. Also i agree that weapon upgrades needed a nerf, but they went to far.
BTW archon the moa has always been the best cruiser around. It can dish out the damage with 4 turrets and 2 missiles, it can be very adaptable with 4 medium and 4 low slots. In my opinion it was too strong at the time.
|
Eldon Tyrell
|
Posted - 2003.06.14 00:24:00 -
[10]
has it ever occurred to anyone that MWD make it really easy for pirates to get away with murder and escape attack from police. I am not saying pirates should not have a chance to escape all I am saying is that it should be more risky to use a MWD. I think CCP knows what they are doing.
|
SISQO
|
Posted - 2003.06.14 01:16:00 -
[11]
I was fine with MWD being nerfed, but -50% to shields is over kill. They've basically turned cruisers into frigates. Thank CCP for being extremists that either don't nerf something enough, or nerf it drastically to the point where the module is a useless piece of ****. Not including peoples wasted time and money spent acquiring them, fortunately in this case, After Burners, and Navigation will still be useful, except for the 340k wasted on High Speed Manuevering.
|
Maximilum Godsnotlingson
|
Posted - 2003.06.14 01:43:00 -
[12]
I'm sorry. But I'm in full agreement with the changes made to MWD's. If you want Huge ships, then you should accept that they are going to be slow and lumbering. It never looked right seeing cruisers out accelerating and going faster then my Exec which I have stripped for speed.
An articulated lorry tractor unit can be turned into a racing machine, but no matter what you fit to it it'll never be able to compete with a formula 1 car, hell it'd probably never be able to compete against any sports road car.
At the end of the day you just can't have your cake and eat it. If you want big and heavy with lots of armour, then you have to accept that you will be slow. If you want super fast, then you have to accept that it's at the expence of armour and the ability to use lots of heavy power use equipment.
I think that CCP have got this spot on, and it shows to me that they are listening to everybody. They've changed things to try and make PvP pirates lives more difficult, and they've listened to pirates complaints that 'target' ships are just too damned fast. And I think even the hardes core pirates will accept that a frigate stripped for speed, and with all the petrol head kit will always be difficult to engage, unless the use their own petrol heads too.
There was a thread a couple of days ago saying that frigates would be redundent in a few weeks time, well I think this has put the frigate back right up there with the cruiser, and battleship, when they arrive.
Now we have different tools for different jobs. If you want to try and beat your way through a blockaid you have your heavy armoured big guns, if you want to try and run the blockaid, you have your small, nimble speed machines.
|
Setec
|
Posted - 2003.06.14 01:58:00 -
[13]
I'm very happy with the changes.
___________________________________________
Space Invaders website: http://www.si-corp.net |
Morkt Drakt
|
Posted - 2003.06.14 02:03:00 -
[14]
Dont give two hoots about MWD.
I want to know why modules such as damage control were nerfed?
Could it be that CCP think combat takes too long?
"Hell yeah! Too many HPS on those ships - they broke the 10 seconds combat barrier! Nerf the DC modules that nobobdy uses because they suck anyway!"
....
erm
?
anybody?
|
Sanru
|
Posted - 2003.06.14 02:18:00 -
[15]
I don't think it was the length of fights neccessarily. But I do think allowing regular weapons to exceed the damage of the (current) top end missiles was a mistake.
On paper missiles deal the biggest damage, but have a number of drawbacks to limit them. They don't instantly hit, but have to track their target. Limited flight time means their target can't be too fast or too far away. They can be targetted and shot down. There are missiles for shooting down other missiles. They can be smartbombed. And of course, they're very expensive.
Now why would you use missiles when you can have greater firepower without such costs or restrictions using damage modifiers and regular turrets ?
I also think they want combat to be more than "lock, fire and destroy before your target can even finish loading".
|
Shock
|
Posted - 2003.06.14 02:26:00 -
[16]
This whole issue would have been way less blown out of proportions if CCP would just dropped ten lines here and gave some motivation.
I't's called feedback CCP, something crucial to a manage a community of loudmouth easily disgruntled people in puberty or people who already are beyond that but can't let it go.
Can't you guys see that the tactic 'God spoke and all were silent and worshipped Him' can be used here with guaranteed success?
I mean one GM certainly has the time to drop a line here whispered in his ears by the almighty devs, if FOUR GMs had the time to throw out some cows out of Mara (very unsuccesfully if I might add) where ONE would be equally effective (I've seen the loot that comes from afk GM CONCORD batleships in beta and I reckon you 'didn't balance thos, now did you?).
---
soonÖ |
Shock
|
Posted - 2003.06.14 02:34:00 -
[17]
 Quote:
On paper missiles deal the biggest damage, but have a number of drawbacks to limit them. They don't instantly hit, but have to track their target. Limited flight time means their target can't be too fast or too far away. They can be targetted and shot down. There are missiles for shooting down other missiles. They can be smartbombed. And of course, they're very expensive
No they most certainly aren not the most powerful weapons. You are forgetting the rate of fire that has a catastrophic effect on it's damage;time ratio.
It takes 18 seconds for a heavy lancher to fire a torpedo of 400 damage. This even longer then it takes to reload it! A basic 250mm rail just comes way to close to that to make torpedos a good choice. As for the rest ot the missiles: either the range is ridiculous, the damage is a joke or the speed is even for modern technology nothing. And for rockets the miniscule blastradius even results in it doing no damage to ships flying away from it at about 200m/s.
Edited by: Shock on 14/06/2003 02:36:13
---
soonÖ |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |