|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
   |
Posted - 2008.07.25 16:02:00 -
[1]
Too much, too soon.
The changes miss the mark. The biggest change, that to the scrambler, has no impact on nanocruisers, which operate outside of web range. The changes in speed have no real impact in ability to disengage (the real power of nano) because the changes are across the board.
The changes are way too big. They should be done slowly, one at a time. This is balancing. When you balance something, you change things slowly, one at a time, until you've hit an equilibrium. There are at least 5 or 6 massive changes in this blog that will impact EVERY ship - not just nanoships.
Binary effects - get rid of them!! You said you wanted rid of the binary style of the current webifiers, then you go and add an absolute binary module in the form of the new scrambler. WTS: Some consistency.
Horrible blog. right intentions, completely the wrong implementation.
|
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 16:04:00 -
[2]
 Quote:
No special named modules etc.
Originally by: CCP Dionysus
Implants. full snake set.
Quote:
full snake set.
Quote:
snake set
...
|
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 16:13:00 -
[3]
don't worry guys. Last time a developer got this defensive, it was zulupark and the carriers, and we all know how quickly those changes went thr- oh wait.
|
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 16:18:00 -
[4]
Originally by: CCP Dionysus
eg, Crow with speed setup vs a harp at extreme range, vs a kestrel with light missiles, and vs a drone boat using light drones. - or a vagabond vs a set of cruisers using turrets, missiles, and med drones to try to hit it etc.
Would you like to rent my JCB? It digs faster that that shovel.
|
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 16:18:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Dungar Loghoth
Yeah but these are all knee-jerk reactions to CCP's exhausting 5 hour discussion of options! Not like last time at all!
Whoah well if they spent 5 hours on it i guess we're all just being obtuse and whiny. guys, everyone back down. CCP must be right.
|
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 16:23:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Entelechia
An even mildly correctly fit interceptor can catch that, so you're pretty dumb really.
Can catch it, but can't hold it down. At least not if the vaga pilot is halfway competent.
|
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 17:05:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Ephemeron
I speak from a point of view of experienced fighter, specializing in battleships, small scale pvp fights. There are a few points I want to say
1. Nerfing in general is a bad thing. If you feel that there is no other way to fix an important game problem, try to find a solution that involves as little nerfing as possible. I think the currently proposed changes are excessive.
2. EVE works as it is now. You can't deny that EVE is a successful game and that it is not failing because of nanoships. Therefore, it should be in our interest to try be careful with the game design changes and avoid redesigning big parts of the game. The game design currently proposed by Nozh involves too many changes. Why not just make another space game - different game mechanics and all? There are still lots of people who want to play EVE as it is now.
Ok, now to the real issues.
Nozh sets up his arguement based on all the possible speed increasing methods availale in game. All those best modules and implants happen to be rare items. They are officer loot, top complex loot, multibillion isk implants.
Now that we have that fact in mind, lets consider game balance as a whole. From point of view of perfectly balanced PvP system, rare loot has no place in it. Good balance relies on standardized modules, easily accessible modules. That way, the power and performance of ones ships becomes a matter of choosing the right module combination and using the right tactic. It shouldn't be influenced by ability to afford some modules that are clearly better than all other variants.
Simply put, we can't have good balanced system if we allow rare modules to exist. We need to choose, either we have these rare modules, and allow small percentage of people to have unbalanced performance in combat. Or we make all the best modules easily affordable, so everyone has a choice in their setups, and everyone is equal in their ability to fit ships.
What we absolutely should not do, is to take rare and expensive modules as proof of broken balance, and then nerf all the related modules across the board. Alternatively, you can choose to nerf a combination of rare modules, but not a combination of common modules, based on the initial example that consists of purely rare modules.
Lastly, for game balance changes related to speed, we need more solid evidence to base our solutions on. It is not sufficient to give an example of a ship that combines all the rare modules and implants. We need actual statistics, we want analysis of ship kills and losses with respect to the type of modules they are using. We need to make analysis of isk gained and destroyed. It is the minimum that should be done to seriously consider such massive sweeping game changes.
How fast will this go after the nerf?
|
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 17:08:00 -
[8]
Edited by: Elmicker on 25/07/2008 17:08:29
Originally by: Haradgrim
Cerberus is now the best HAC, Raven now the best non-fleet PVP BS, c/d? 
D. Cerb does **** damage and has a **** poor tank. Sac's better.
|
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 17:14:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Cur
A greater variety of ships ...
This is incorrect. The mid-range hacs that lack tank and now lack speed, such as the deimos, ishtar and zealot will be left without roles in small gang warfare. You'll be seeing a much narrower variation in shiptypes now, potentially reduced to just the vagabond.
|
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 17:22:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Haniblecter Teg
Still thinking like a nano-pilot. Maybe people start tanking--gasp--or brining BCs/BS's to small gangs--gasp--or use frigates for speed--gasp!
Try tanking an ishtar. Try tanking a zealot. Try tanking a deimos. Try tanking a cerb. See what happens. These are the most common ships at the moment because they can be half-nanoed. A nerf to nanos as severe as the one proposed will leave them without the ability to pvp as none of these ships can really join in with the big boys. Dominance in pvp will shift from fast moving (not necessarily nano) gangs, to RR BS gangs and capital hot drops.
Whoo, that's fun
|
|
|
Elmicker
Wreckless Abandon
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 17:24:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Cat Gilligan
Why not improve webs?
This. Adding signature radius and falloff mechanics to webs would go a long way to solving a lot of what CCP see as a problem, without leaving swathes of ships useless and without breaking blaster boats.
|
|
|
| |
|