EVE Search - Baby Steps Advocate

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Baby Steps Advocate - Balance Polycarbs

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
APEXrevived Imperium Technologies	Posted - 2008.07.28 22:17:00 - [1] Edited by: APEXrevived on 28/07/2008 22:16:48 I think the reason most of us are so worried about this coming patch is it isn't taking a baby steps approach. We were all prepared for you to balance polycarbs to make them consistent w/ their other t1 rig counterparts. Why didn't you just start there? Easy change that can be implemented on the live servers and then measured and evaluated. Drastic changes such as these in an MMO can be very dangerous. Please respond to this thread if you support a very effective and SAFE first step - to balance polycarb rigs. *Warning: Never name your char by anything starting with an A...* sig stolen from Apolyon I. I support this statement.
Taram Caldar Noir. Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.28 22:28:00 - [2] /signed!!!!!!! Any developer worth a crap will tell you that when changing a product you should make small incremental changes rather than sweeping ones. This is no different. On top of it there was no mention at all of a mass change for minmatar ships but they are suddenly the heaviest ships in the game, in all classes. .
fuxinos Caldari Guys 0f Sarcasm	Posted - 2008.07.28 22:30:00 - [3] i iam (still) under the impression that the TEST-Server will be open for business specially for the nano nerf stuff for at least 6 Weeks before (some of) the changes makes it to the Live server. Lots of testing and finetuning possible in that time thanks, more tears please ;P
Jarvin Kell Task Force Zener	Posted - 2008.07.28 22:36:00 - [4] Yes, yes, yes. Polycarbs have needed balanced for a long time, it's a broken module. It's not going to fix the "problem" (others' words, not mine) by itself but it is one step in fixing things that are BROKEN, not nerfing blindly.
R0NIN Amarr Imperium Technologies	Posted - 2008.07.28 22:57:00 - [5] Edited by: R0NIN on 28/07/2008 23:02:59 It seems like CCP still follows the road of drastic changes rather than "golden middle" approach. Drastic changes indeed can be destructive. I hope that is not the case however based on information already available and from what I've heard the state of affairs is indeed very alarming or about cross dangerous territory. I wish CCP would "throttle down" or fully reconsider some of the nano changes proposed. With best regards. R0NIN. p.s. Truly effective nano setups are far few and between and carrying 800 million & up price tags. If someone invests such sums of isk into the fitting(s) I believe they deserve the effectiveness factor.
APEXrevived Imperium Technologies	Posted - 2008.07.29 00:14:00 - [6] i know some would argue with me, but i just don't see a huge imbalance in PVP right now! sure there are some things that should be tweaked, such as polycarbs, but there are PLENTY counters to nano ships. balancing polycarbs will cut a good chunk of speed off of current setups. i'm no math wiz but i'd guess a good 10-15% reduction in speed just by balancing polycarbs. I was in a gang with 7 nano ships 2 days ago. We fought a raven/guardian gang (yes that's right 7 nano ships versus 2 non-nano). We lost an electronic attack frig and a curse and almost lost an ishtar due to heavy neuting. We engaged with more than 3 times their numbers and came out significantly behind ISK-wise in losses. *Warning: Never name your char by anything starting with an A...* sig stolen from Apolyon I. I support this statement.
Mire Stoude Cash Money Brothers R0ADKILL	Posted - 2008.07.29 00:59:00 - [7] Your logic isn't wrong. But CCP doesn't make baby step nerfs anymore. They over nerf so that they can boost slowly someday "soon". Remember the EOS? Yah. That was somewhat overpowered. Now its a joke. Myrm was again, slightly overpowered, and its really not much better than a Brutix now. Nos was a good module to have once too. Oops, I sort of went off on a tangent there. But you get my point. BTW: I'm Gallente
Jack Soul Freelancer Union Unaffiliated	Posted - 2008.07.29 01:15:00 - [8] /Signed Far to much to soon. Balance polycarbs and maybe stack the speed mods first. Let players adjust, then look at Snakes, gang skills / mods and the other ideas down the line. Dont try to use a sledgehammer to remove a rotten tooth. ********* Blue are the life-giving waters, taken for granted, they quietly understand... Once happy turquoise armies lay opposite ready, but wonder why the fight is on...
Aria Selenis Minmatar AWE Corporation Intrepid Crossing	Posted - 2008.07.29 01:55:00 - [9] Just fixing polycarbs isn't enough. Polycarbs + a stacking penalty, maybe. Or polycarbs + speed reduction. But not all three.
Broegitte Bardot BINFORD Solidus Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.29 03:02:00 - [10] menu for babystepping TQ example: vaga, 3x OD, 2x poly, T2 MWD, cy-1, my-1, zor's hyperlink [aka affordable] -> 6500m/s split up mass reduction (as is the approach) this will chop off -26% mass reduction effect aka +35% speed boost -> replacing polies with low frictions in EFT -> ~5000m/s level speedboost on all MWDs to +500% -> replacing T2 MWD with a T1 in EFT -> ~4600m/s changing zor's hyperlink slot to be the same as CY -> just removing it in EFT -> ~4400m/s remove the +5% speed/lvl ship bonus (tracking..? see fleet stabber) it ruins the whole discussion and, funny enough, all the other minnie ships just suffer from not having this bonus but being subject to its balancing... (i fly scimitar) -> can't demonstrate it in EFT, just believe my math skills when i say -> ~3500 m/s that's a ~46% reduction in top speed. yes, top speed. in a 15km orbit, that would be closer to around 3km/s (~80% "medium" missile reduction) - there's no need to fiddle with overdrives, which is great for afterburners. - i can live with the plain skirmish warfare skill to affect agility - if it's 3%/lvl - snakes, slaves, crystals all down: nobody understands +53% tank whatsoever. just don't include them in balancing as if they were being used by the average joe. - MWD reactivation delay...? hit & ~~run~~ die...? alt of Roemy Schneider (probably lacking game time again)

loot venda	Posted - 2008.07.29 05:38:00 - [11] They have tried small changes. Sometimes you just need to bulldoze a teetering house of cards and start again...
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.07.29 07:06:00 - [12] Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 29/07/2008 07:06:28 /signed 1) nerf polycarbs 2) nerf snakes 3) nerf faction mwds 4) profit
Feyona aurorae pacificas	Posted - 2008.07.29 07:17:00 - [13] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 29/07/2008 07:06:28 /signed 1) nerf polycarbs 2) nerf snakes 3) nerf faction mwds 4) profit /signed and agree
Slade Hoo Amarr xPlaguex	Posted - 2008.07.29 07:30:00 - [14] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 29/07/2008 07:06:28 /signed 1) nerf polycarbs 2) nerf snakes 4) profit has already been done. check sisi.
Feyona aurorae pacificas	Posted - 2008.07.29 07:37:00 - [15] Originally by: Slade Hoo has already been done. check sisi. Really... yes, we know this. In addition to nerfing everything else under the sun.
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Ursa Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2008.07.29 07:43:00 - [16] It's going to be a whole new game, isn't the excitement of the currently opaque possibilities a good enough reason to rejoice?
Auraurious Subjugation	Posted - 2008.07.29 09:11:00 - [17] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab It's going to be a whole new game, isn't the excitement of the currently opaque possibilities a good enough reason to rejoice? CCP are doing too big Changes there will be much shit from this:) Perfection.
Leon 026 Caldari Vorace.	Posted - 2008.07.29 09:29:00 - [18] Edited by: Leon 026 on 29/07/2008 09:29:10 Snakes are directly affected by how fast you go. What's causing the major imbalance is polycarbs (that in turn increases the snake's efficiency). Cutting off polycarbs will rebalance snakes. However, there is no need to go that far and completely making the snakes worthless (+16% to 5k doesnt add a lot...) nor making T2 or faction MWD barely any different to the T1 version. There are barely any difference to a gistii, T1 or T2 MWD now, and the difference of 1 or 2 cap per cycle is hardly noticeable. Recruiting
NvyoU	Posted - 2008.07.29 11:02:00 - [19] Originally by: Taram Any developer worth a crap will tell you that when changing a product you should make small incremental changes rather than sweeping ones. I wish that were true on some of our build days
APEXrevived Imperium Technologies	Posted - 2008.07.29 20:49:00 - [20] Originally by: Rakshasa Taisab It's going to be a whole new game, isn't the excitement of the currently opaque possibilities a good enough reason to rejoice? no - i don't want a completely new game. that's precisely where MMO devs/producers go wrong. We are all subscribing to EVE because it's a certain game. such drastic changes to a game that holds PVP at the highest esteem are very dangerous. it takes some pretty cool devs to strike a balance in PVP. CCP has done this. there aren't huge imbalances right now that require drastic measures. that's my main message. the problems we have now can be solved via a series of baby steps. since the biggest contributors to outrageous speed are polycarbs and the need for stacking penalty changes, why not just make those couple changes? *Warning: Never name your char by anything starting with an A...* sig stolen from Apolyon I. I support this statement.

d3vo The Space BorderLine United For 0rder	Posted - 2008.07.29 20:55:00 - [21] Originally by: Taram Caldar A purely T2 mod un-rigged nano-ship was never considered 'broken' yet on test server a 'pure' T2 fit un-rigged speed setup is HALF the speed it is now on Tranq. In fact, even WITH rigs, the same T2 setup + speed rigs, is 40% slower than my T2 lowslot speed setup on live... (mind you it's not exactly FAST on live either, at only 3k/sec) THIS /signed __________ \(^.^)/
Lilith Velkor Minmatar Oyster Colors	Posted - 2008.07.29 21:09:00 - [22] Originally by: Slade Hoo Originally by: Lilith Velkor Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 29/07/2008 07:06:28 /signed 1) nerf polycarbs 2) nerf snakes 4) profit has already been done. check sisi. Hehe, go on SiSi again, faction mwds also have been nerfed. Nice troll attempt, but you failed halfway
Gypsio III Dirty Filthy Perverts	Posted - 2008.07.29 21:23:00 - [23] Quote: There were exactly 3 things causing 'imbalance' in speed tanks: 1) Polycarbs 2) Snake Implants 3) Faction MWD's. 4) Gang bonuses & Warfare link mods Supporting everything here apart from your counting. 1. Fix these. 2. Wait and see what happens. 3. Make further changes as appropriate.
P'uck	Posted - 2008.07.29 21:26:00 - [24] I could understand adjusting speed through the highend equipment that makes everybody so much faster than the rest, but I dont understand how that can be combined with what the scram does, for instance. too much, not controllable, not analysable. so basically, yay for babysteps.
Rika Arkenana Gallente	Posted - 2008.07.29 21:32:00 - [25] I would have to disagree, because of nanos all smaller ships (afs) have been totally taken out of the game. Webbers need to be brought back in line and how do you do that, you stop the problem where it started nanos. I one am totally stoked at these changes because now AF's can fulfill the role of heavy tackler and take on cruisers again.
P'uck	Posted - 2008.07.29 21:47:00 - [26] Originally by: Rika Arkenana I would have to disagree, because of nanos all smaller ships (afs) have been totally taken out of the game. Webbers need to be brought back in line and how do you do that, you stop the problem where it started nanos. I one am totally stoked at these changes because now AF's can fulfill the role of heavy tackler and take on cruisers again. Nobody is saying anything against that... but breaking a whole part of pvp (not saying it's happening, just saying it's possible) in order to do so is probably not the best approach. Seriously, normally I think CCP has the bigger picture, and I just fail to know everything they do... but this time I start to wonder HOW exactly they are planning their changes. I think it involves voodoo and alcohol. LOTS of alcohol.
Rika Arkenana Gallente	Posted - 2008.07.30 00:16:00 - [27] Originally by: P'uck Originally by: Rika Arkenana I would have to disagree, because of nanos all smaller ships (afs) have been totally taken out of the game. Webbers need to be brought back in line and how do you do that, you stop the problem where it started nanos. I one am totally stoked at these changes because now AF's can fulfill the role of heavy tackler and take on cruisers again. Nobody is saying anything against that... but breaking a whole part of pvp (not saying it's happening, just saying it's possible) in order to do so is probably not the best approach. Seriously, normally I think CCP has the bigger picture, and I just fail to know everything they do... but this time I start to wonder HOW exactly they are planning their changes. I think it involves voodoo and alcohol. LOTS of alcohol. Not trying to argue with you as everyone is entitled to their own opinion but pvp was not broken before the nano age, and in fact was alot more fun from what I can tell than it is now. CCP I'm sure never meant to have Nano's be damn near the be all end all of pvp. Yes their are counters and they die but for the most part to be competitive in pvp you have to nano. This is my point, lets bring back diversity to the game thats what I'm looking forward to.
Tzujeih GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.30 00:23:00 - [28] You dont cure cancer with a bandaid.
P'uck	Posted - 2008.07.30 01:05:00 - [29] Originally by: Rika Arkenana Not trying to argue with you as everyone is entitled to their own opinion but pvp was not broken before the nano age, and in fact was alot more fun from what I can tell than it is now. CCP I'm sure never meant to have Nano's be damn near the be all end all of pvp. Yes their are counters and they die but for the most part to be competitive in pvp you have to nano. This is my point, lets bring back diversity to the game thats what I'm looking forward to. By "killing a whole part of pvp" I didn't actually mean anything specific. All I'm saying is: There are too many changes at once. It's not "opening whole new can of worms", no, it's "blowing up a truck full of barrels of worms". I remember at least one devblog that explained how important it is to change things in a complex game like eve very slowly and cautiously. Telling us in detail how the balancing works and how it can screw up. According to those past devblogs, what they're doing now is whipping out the sledgehammer and cook up a surefire way to accomplish a proper SNAFU of epic proportions. Yes, I agree, speed is getting out of hand. But I surely don't agree on the way it's done. No, I don't have any better solutions, if I had them, I'd probably try to get a job with CCP.
Merin Ryskin Peregrine Industries	Posted - 2008.07.30 01:39:00 - [30] /signed This is exactly right. Nerf snakes/polycarbons/faction speed mods, and see if that solves the problem before trying to do everything at once. While speed tanking is long overdue for a nerf, the current way of doing it is going to create massive balance issues for a long time. If this patch goes through without major changes, expect the next few patches to be desperate attempts to fix all the side effects.



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.