Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
sg3s
Battlestars GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 22:25:00 -
[61]
ITT: - Whines - People that fail basic math - People that fail logic - People that fail eve-like reasoning - Goon agreeing with BoB - Arguments based on speculation
It's about time I put something sensible in here, but I couldn't really come up with something so you'l have to do with this. Are you like really bored, or did you not notice this is my sig? |
zacuis
Great Big Research
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 22:26:00 -
[62]
i seem to remember the carrier nerf thread going onto at least page 100 and guess what carriers still got nerfed.
im torn on this issue my self. i very much like the fact that a small well equiped gang of nanos can go into enemy space and smash some heads.
but i also think being able to get my ceptor to go 35km/s is broken,
ive not tested the changes myself on sisi im just crossing my fingers ccp hasnt removed a type of pvp from eve as we`ll all be poorer for it.
|
Dibsi Dei
Salamyhkaisten kilta
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 22:28:00 -
[63]
I like nano-nerf.
But the sad thing is more and more unconsensual pvp is removed from the game.
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 22:45:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Dibsi Dei I like nano-nerf.
But the sad thing is more and more unconsensual pvp is removed from the game.
How is reducing the ability for one side to break away and run a step toward consensual pvp? ------------------------------------------
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari Athanasius Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 22:54:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Batolemaeus on 08/11/2008 22:54:53
Originally by: Avon The reason is simple. The people who are whining are wrong.
Speed needs rebalancing for the good of the game as a whole, and if people can't see past their own self interest, shame.
ITT: Bato agreeing with a bobbit.
In other news, hell has frozen over. ----------------------------------------------
Originally by: CCP Prism X In New Eden, EVE wins you.
|
EspionageX
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 23:14:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Avon The reason is simple. The people who are whining are wrong.
Speed needs rebalancing for the good of the game as a whole, and if people can't see past their own self interest, shame.
This pretty much.
|
Roy Batty68
Caldari Immortal Dead
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 23:18:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Roy Batty68
Ya know it's possible that some people might agree that speed needed nerfing but yet disagreed with the "throw out Risk Analysis and have at the game with a chainsaw" method of nerfing it.
But CCP didn't do that. The whole thing evolved on the test server in several stages, and changes were made continually to maintain or improve balance. I doubt many of they whiners actually took part in that - they'd much rather just run around screaming, and repeating anything they are told. Why should the have to take the time to inform themselves?
PvP on Sisi is quite different in many ways now, and people don't like change as a rule, but it is pretty darn good.
Opinions vary. But the point stands. Your original claim that anyone voting against was simply expressing a self serving desire to maintain their toys was incorrect.
There wasn't a third thread with a, "Yes, nerf speed - No, not like this" option.
----
|
Qordel
Caldari School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 00:21:00 -
[68]
1500 people? Whoa. That's like... 6/10ths of one percent (.006) of the current players!
|
Tobin Shalim
Vulcan Foundry OPUS Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 00:26:00 -
[69]
<- Not a nano pilot
Personally, I hate the speed nerf as it now makes interceptors totally useless for pvping/tackling which is their intended role. They pop as easily (if not more so) than the T1 ships they're based off of. Speed was always our tank, our only way to avoid the massive damage that was directed our way if we had a ship warp scrammed since we have barely anything for shields/armor.
[*]No, I did not faction-fit an interceptor. [*]Yes, I have rigs on, T1's. [*]Yes, I have played on SiSi to test the changes and am instapopped now whereas before I had some degree of survivability before.
However I admit that I have not tried with the 15% sig radius reduction for interceptors yet that's on the test server. -----
Originally by: Haakkon I feel a great deal of patriotism at being a part of Goonswarm. We've accomplished great things... we're just mainly jerks about it
|
Allen Ramses
Caldari Typo Corp
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 00:28:00 -
[70]
I'd bet a lot less than 1500 would be against the nanonerf if it had actually been done correctly.
I'm a missile spewing semi-carebear. I am against the nerf. Not because it was done, but because of how it was done. ____________________ Pimped out Raven to run level 4 missions quickly: 210 Mil ISK. Realizing your 120 Mil ISK Drake gets the job done faster: Priceless. |
|
Lazuran
Gallente Aliastra
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 02:28:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Avon Edited by: Avon on 08/11/2008 21:14:48
Originally by: Crackzilla
Originally by: Avon
Multiple speed boosting mods were in the game longer than nanos have been iWIN, so your arguement is flawed.
Nano ships have been repeatedly nerfed. No multiple mwds. Nano bs's aren't as effective as before etc. And nanos have been boosted with the introduction of rigs.
The reason why nanos work currently is because not just ship attributes, but because of changes in tactics. Either way CCP should have seen this trend and acted a long time ago.
CCP have continually nerfed speed tanking *AND* they should have spotted the trend and acted a long time ago? Which is it?
A clever person may have noticed that CCP had acted against speed tanking several times in the past, and by understanding that trend they may have realised that nanos were going to get a nerf.
That must be why they added polycarbon rigs, 50% heat bonus, boosters...
No matter how you twist it, it's a fact that speed was boosted more often than it was nerfed. But hey, perhaps they did exactly the opposite of what they meant do do ...
|
Minsc
Gallente A.W.M Libertas Fidelitas
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 03:06:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Minsc on 09/11/2008 03:06:59
Originally by: Le Skunk Edited by: Le Skunk on 08/11/2008 21:40:03
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Le Skunk
You appear to be being deliberately dense.
You points over numbers of voters are utterly irrelevant. The system has been actioned on 150 votes (suicide ganking). That might have been (using your logic) 16 people. Yet CCP follow it up.
Are you saying that CCP should do what gets the most votes on the CSM forum, rather than action concerns which fit in to their vision of Eve only?
When the CSM was annoucned (duyring the dev-player incident which helped your alliance) it was announced as:
Quote:
ôA government canÆt just keep saying, æWe are not corrupt.Æ No one will believe them.
ôI envision this council being made up of nine members selected by the players themselves, where you announce your candidacy, and if you win the election, they come here to Iceland, and they can look at every nook and cranny and get to see that we are here to run this company on a professional basis,ö said Mr. Petursson, CCPÆs chief executive. ôThey can see that we did not make this game to win it.ö
In the new york times never the less.
In its present form it is a bit of a talking shop, where farcical joke threads are considered (trombones in ambulation formaly put to CCP) game styles are crushed due to 200 votes(suicide ganking)and the three biggest protest threads are utterly ignored.
I personally would like CCP to recontact the new york times and say they implemented none of the measures the opriginally siad they would, and instead are left with a PR sham, they
a) ignore because ITS NOT IN OUR VISION OF EVE INNIT? b) action then crow about FANTASTIC PLAYER DEV COMMUNICATION CONDUITS to any newspaper/website that will listen.
The reality is they might shuffle the deck around a little to the applause of fanbois (many of whom have raised their tiny pee-brains in this thread) but its the same deck of cards they are dealing from they started with.
SKUNK
They have never stated that the purpose of the CSM was so that the players could dictate how they should develop the game, in fact they've said quite a few times specifically that it was not. If that's what you thought it was for then you missed the point by a few AU's. The purpose of the CSM has always been and still is to allow the players to bring up the most important issues of the overall community in a direct and focused manner and they would then decide to address them through gameplay changes or development ONLY if CCP decides it makes sense and fits within the vision they have of EVE.
If all you thought the CSM was for was to get your wishlist of items put in the game regardless of whether they are actually good for the game or not you have no place being ANYWHERE near the CSM because you are a bad candidate.
Originally by: Sharkbait please for the love of god read the dam stickies
|
Lady Karma
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 03:14:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Gnulpie
Originally by: Holy Lowlander over 1500 votes against the nano nerf , 70 page post
Oh woah ... 1500 votes!
Out of 230.000 subscribers? Yeah, really, cpp MUST act!!
More importantly..what was the point in the CSM, as this thread did indeed receive more votes than any other subject, however not a single thing the CSM brought to the table has been introduced.
As for the speed nerf, I find it funny CCP had to change webs, missiles, agility, command ship bonus, overdrives, poly carbs, have a non scripted module with duel features to shut off an mwd, create a new formula for missile damage...just because a few pilots had snakes.
If speed was overpowered, then just take snakes away, and if you want...poly carbs. The fact they had to change the entire combat engine goes to show it wasn't overpowered.
|
Crackzilla
The Shadow Order
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 03:22:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Lady Karma The fact they had to change the entire combat engine goes to show it wasn't overpowered.
Or it just shows that it wasn't just a few mods that were overpowered.
The other issue is the inflation of isk and skills. It used to be that 5km/s was a fast ceptor. Now folks have a lot more skill points and isk to spend on bling. Boundaries and tactics are being expanded. So previous issues are more apparent.
|
Daan Sai
Polytrope
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 03:32:00 -
[75]
It isn't the reduction in speed I don't like, it is the hamfisted way they are going about it and the collateral damage to other unrelated parts of the game. That plus their inability to present their reasoning in any coherent way, other than disingenuous throwaway lines like "officer webs had ridiculous ranges", or the strange rearrangement of slot 6 for implants affecting other slot 6 implants that had nothing to do with speed.
It is like they have forgotten why the previous design decisions were made, and cannot articulate their reasoning for the new ones, then refusing to discuss it rationally. No wonder people are upset.
Cavalier is putting it mildly.
|
Lady Karma
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 03:35:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Crackzilla
Or it just shows that it wasn't just a few mods that were overpowered.
How does changing the missile formula, the explosion velocity and flight time, and reducing the effectiveness of webs show that speed was overpowered?
If anything, webs should have been increased in effectiveness. Slowing down ships just proved that missiles were overpowered...the only counter was speed.
Just have a look at the huge number of sweeping changes that were made, there were many far simpler and far more rational ways to deal with "ludicrous" speed offered by the players.
|
xhardxcorex
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 04:39:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Dirk Magnum "Majority rule don't work in mental institutions", as the song goes. Speed needed balancing, plain and simple. I bet the majority of the forum whined when stacking penalties were introduced, but stacking penalties are a good thing too. I mean, CCP know what direction they want to take the game, presumably.
QTF and because the song rocks.
|
Gut Punch
Shade. Penumbra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 05:11:00 -
[78]
Originally by: xhardxcorex
Originally by: Dirk Magnum "Majority rule don't work in mental institutions", as the song goes. Speed needed balancing, plain and simple. I bet the majority of the forum whined when stacking penalties were introduced, but stacking penalties are a good thing too. I mean, CCP know what direction they want to take the game, presumably.
QTF and because the song rocks.
So what you're saying is that you can't be arsed into training for speed ships and pvp gear but instead would rather tell people that their play styles are now simply invalid.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 05:14:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Gut Punch
Originally by: xhardxcorex
Originally by: Dirk Magnum "Majority rule don't work in mental institutions", as the song goes. Speed needed balancing, plain and simple. I bet the majority of the forum whined when stacking penalties were introduced, but stacking penalties are a good thing too. I mean, CCP know what direction they want to take the game, presumably.
QTF and because the song rocks.
So what you're saying is that you can't be arsed into training for speed ships and pvp gear but instead would rather tell people that their play styles are now simply invalid.
no offense but speed is now FAR more valid on the test server.
|
Gut Punch
Shade. Penumbra Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 05:16:00 -
[80]
Can you give some examples of how?
|
|
Crackzilla
The Shadow Order
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 05:19:00 -
[81]
Edited by: Crackzilla on 09/11/2008 05:21:46
Originally by: Daan Sai ...it is the hamfisted way they are going about it and the collateral damage to other unrelated parts of the game..."officer webs had ridiculous ranges...
Yep.
I think ccp doesn't understand some basic elements. Such as the office webs were valued for their range, not their strength. If the strength must be nerfed so be it, but leave the range alone.
Stuff like this is why I don't think ccp understands their own game. Too much time on sisi, not enough time on tq.
Quote:
It is like they have forgotten why the previous design decisions were made, and cannot articulate their reasoning for the new ones, then refusing to discuss it rationally. No wonder people are upset.
This is why I feel they don't have someone truely in charge of the direction. Someone with the cajones to say that speed is an issue. It is alluded to in the dev blogs and some of the long term stuff. As you said, someone needs to have articulated this in a dev blog at least a year or two ago.
The issue in a corporate environment is that no one wants to be the bad guy. Design by committee.
Originally by: Lady Karma How does changing the missile formula, the explosion velocity and flight time, and reducing the effectiveness of webs show that speed was overpowered?
The issue was that slowing everything down so the the engine could handle it also meant the death of frigs and nano cruisers. So this meant nerfing everything.
Nerfing webs won't help much as the 9km scram is nearly a better web then the original web. If two ships have each other webbed, most likely it'll still be death to one before it can leave scram range and warp out.
Originally by: Gut Punch Can you give some examples of how?
after burners seemed to be viable. Battleships had problems hitting anything smaller than a barn. Assault frigs almost have a role.
Some hacs and ceptors are no longer an I win, but if folks adapt then speed is still viable.
|
Verx Interis
Amarr Aurora Security Sc0rched Earth
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 05:24:00 -
[82]
Simple:
It means there are 1500 people who only fly nano*** who go on the forums. --------- Your bad loan management perfectly strikes the stock market, wrecking for -777.68 points. Eve job list |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 05:26:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Gut Punch Can you give some examples of how?
sure, an interceptor using a MWD now has almost no increase in sig radius, making it untouchable by bigger ships.
With a long range scram it's an awesome weapon and an even more awesome bloackade runner.
The new HACs have a huge increase in agility and can now solo battleships with out much issue. However for the most part these can become stalemate matches if the battleship can tank the damage as it's not going to catch a cruiser speed fitted after the patch.
Frigates are now much more easily speed tanks with up to 98% damage negated when looking at missle and turret damage, while MWDs now make you take more damage.
weaker webs means much less speed loss and thus longer combat for ships that rely on speed but must get into web range to tackle.
Huggin is now one of the fastest ships in the game and with it's double web set up will do great.
Medium drones now hit smaller targets much less offen, giving more power to cruisers.
A fast Battlecrusier can take down a cruiser with ease, while the more nimble HAC if speed tanks can out run the BCs guns or missles.
The new move to afterburners as the better tanking option, MWD change for interceptors, and web nerf make ships in fact much faster during combat, just slower when getting to the combat or running away.
Also battleships are much slower and smaller ships will now be very very necessary.
Also AFs have had their agility boosted and with the web change and solo cruisers with ease. If speed tanked.
SO basicly now with the changes a speed tank will make you dead meat when fighting a ship of your class if it can catch you (scram plus web equals 95% reducion in speed if using an MWD) so you'll want to tank over speed. Fighting ships bigger than you speed is now the I win key, or at least the I don't take damage and stay safe card.
/ok I'm getting tired and I sure something I've said doesn't make sence but that's about what I've gotten out of the test server.
oh and steath bombers are now 100% useless against smaller ships.
|
Rakshasa Taisab
Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Ursa Stellar Initiative
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 05:40:00 -
[84]
Originally by: Sniper Wolf18
Originally by: Gnulpie Out of 230.000 subscribers? Yeah, really, cpp MUST act!!
Theres more than 230 subscribers and i doubt you can decimalise people either, short of them stepping on a landmine...
Next you'll claim grown adult humans aren't around 1.70 feet tall. ^_^
|
Kahega Amielden
Minmatar Suddenly Ninjas
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 05:42:00 -
[85]
Game design is not a democracy. I'm willing to bet that when someone goes to college for a degree in game design, they aren't taught "Make sure that any gameplay changes you have are voted on by the community"
Originally by: Catharacta My CNR runs on salvager tears.
|
Dez Affinity
Evocati.
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 06:12:00 -
[86]
Originally by: MotherMoon
oh and steath bombers are now 100% useless against smaller ships.
The only thing stealth bombers were ever good for. _______________
|
DFox31
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 08:55:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Avon The reason is simple. The people who are whining are wrong.
Speed needs rebalancing for the good of the game as a whole, and if people can't see past their own self interest, shame.
Of course speed needs some rebalancing but CCP went way over just nerfing the nano's a little bit and pretty much nerfed half of the game.
|
Don Shadow
Viper Squad
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 09:03:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Daan Sai It isn't the reduction in speed I don't like, it is the hamfisted way they are going about it and the collateral damage to other unrelated parts of the game. That plus their inability to present their reasoning in any coherent way, other than disingenuous throwaway lines like "officer webs had ridiculous ranges", or the strange rearrangement of slot 6 for implants affecting other slot 6 implants that had nothing to do with speed.
It is like they have forgotten why the previous design decisions were made, and cannot articulate their reasoning for the new ones, then refusing to discuss it rationally. No wonder people are upset.
Cavalier is putting it mildly.
this^^
|
RabbidFerret
Prophets Of a Damned Universe Arcane Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 09:05:00 -
[89]
really? I can't believe people still have their panties in a bunch about this... it's going to happen, deal with it.
The people whining about CCP really need to spend some time in other MMOs and get a new perspective on life.
RabbidFerret Pod-U
|
Khamal Jolstien
Caldari Product Number 3
|
Posted - 2008.11.09 09:31:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Kahega Amielden Game design is not a democracy. I'm willing to bet that when someone goes to college for a degree in game design, they aren't taught "Make sure that any gameplay changes you have are voted on by the community"
Quoted for the absolute truth.
However, they also warn that changing a project significantly during its lifetime is extremely difficult. Small changes are better than large, sweeping ones. The professors even point to video game history to show just how bad things can get.
That's right. SOE's failure is taught in a classroom now.
CCP better be real careful here. I went on and tested on SiSi (something I swore not to do unpaid. I don't like playing for the opportunity to be a tester, a paid position in most companies), and my -personal opinion- is that the new EVE is much less fun than the current.
I would honestly suggest stopping all changes, and let the speed change sit for a bit. The collateral damage is ridicilous. I would prefer a lowering of boni to mods/implants rather than this sledgehammer of doom.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |