These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
Previous page123Next page
 

The Ship Balancing Schedule

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#21 - 2013-01-29 00:49:34 UTC
They actually did do a lot of balance changes before hiring Fozzie. And also, it's not as though they would have hired him if the business side of things hadn't decided to prioritize ship rebalancing.

God damn man, with as ******* awesome as you obviously are at everything you've ever done - why don't you apply to be a game designer at a super successful game company?

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-01-29 00:53:25 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
They actually did do a lot of balance changes before hiring Fozzie. And also, it's not as though they would have hired him if the business side of things hadn't decided to prioritize ship rebalancing
They did next to **** all. It was spotty at best ... and at the rate they were tackling it (before the Fozzie hire), it wouldn't have got done until 2020.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#23 - 2013-01-29 00:55:09 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
I must have imagined the blaster, projectile, and laser rebalancing. I must have imagined the AF buff. I must have imagined the Sansha changes and the pirate ship changes. Completely ******* imagined them.

-Liang

Ed: Let's not forget the various nano nerfs, the damp changes, the various ECM changes, the script changes, and the 100 million Titan/Supercap iterations, and and and and and and and.

And finally, let's not forget the fact CCP has a successful IP. There's more to game balance than making sure the players find everything to be EZ mode.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#24 - 2013-01-29 01:02:08 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
There's more to game balance than making sure the players find everything to be EZ mode.
What is this strawman? How did an easymode argument make its way in here?
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#25 - 2013-01-29 01:03:01 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Completely ******* imagined them.
You're apparently imagining the speed at which these changes were made.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#26 - 2013-01-29 01:09:41 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
There's more to game balance than making sure the players find everything to be EZ mode.
What is this strawman? How did an easymode argument make its way in here?


It's actually not a straw man argument at all. I wasn't kidding - there's more to game balance than rotating game balance. There's more to game balance than making sure that every number lines up on a spreadsheet exactly. There's this crazy concept called "fun" which really needs a surprising amount of attention. For instance, there's this constant argument that low sec and null sec should be more rewarding than high sec. And truth be told - they already are. And really, if the players got their way it would actually be worse off for the entire game.

Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Completely ******* imagined them.
You're apparently imagining the speed at which these changes were made.


Not at all. But they were doing changes, and fairly frequently. Perhaps not to the breadth that everyone wanted, but they were there and working. You make it sound like the CCP devs literally let the game sit and languish for years, and that's absolutely false.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
mkint
#27 - 2013-01-29 01:44:59 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
There's more to game balance than making sure the players find everything to be EZ mode.
What is this strawman? How did an easymode argument make its way in here?


It's actually not a straw man argument at all. I wasn't kidding - there's more to game balance than rotating game balance. There's more to game balance than making sure that every number lines up on a spreadsheet exactly. There's this crazy concept called "fun" which really needs a surprising amount of attention. For instance, there's this constant argument that low sec and null sec should be more rewarding than high sec. And truth be told - they already are. And really, if the players got their way it would actually be worse off for the entire game.

Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Completely ******* imagined them.
You're apparently imagining the speed at which these changes were made.


Not at all. But they were doing changes, and fairly frequently. Perhaps not to the breadth that everyone wanted, but they were there and working. You make it sound like the CCP devs literally let the game sit and languish for years, and that's absolutely false.

-Liang

I guess :18 months: doesn't quite qualify as years.

Isn't the logical conclusion to endless balancing homogenization? I mean, the range of scorch ammo isn't balanced with the range of null ammo, so eventually to be balanced they must be the same? Same with every other inequity. It might not reach that point quickly by any means, but isn't that the logical conclusion on an indefinite timeline? I wonder if the goal of true balance is even a good idea. The goal of fun, on the other hand...

Also, posting in a self-promoting ranting poetic stanziel thread. Nobodys ever gonna read your blog. I think it's time to stop with the poorly concealed desperate advertising.

Maxim 6. If violence wasn’t your last resort, you failed to resort to enough of it.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#28 - 2013-01-29 02:12:13 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:


I disagree. We'll need to remain open to large revamps on every balance pass. Whatever we come up with will always need more changing, either in response to unforeseen balance issues or just to shake things up. Add to that the fact that we plan to keep adding new ships now and again, as well as the areas where EVE's core formulas will eventually need tweaking, and I think the time for drastic changes will never be completely behind us.

The idea that at a certain point all that will be left is "tweaking" is no more true today than it was 5 years ago. Such is the nature of a live game, especially a mature sandbox like ours.

Apathy is death, as a character we don't own the trademark to would say.


Some of this statement I like - tweaking Eve's core formulas and the tracking formula perhaps? Some of this statement gives me pause. When you look at all the ships in the small and medium category as well as all they difficulty and time spent balancing them - how many variations of gank and tank do you need? And the large ship category with BS, Mauraders and such - almost forgotten in the PvP realm.

I'm open to new ships. But I think those ships should serve very specific purposes and be part of solutions to long standing issues. How about a ship that cloaks other ships surrounding it from appearing in local? Or ships and mods that allow a pilot to tap into moon goo the same way a thief taps into a Nigerian oil pipeline? (perhaps with comical, explosive results?) See where I'm going?

How about the capital and supercapital realm? Titans and Supercarriers are to Battleships what Dreads and Carriers are to noob ships. There is lots of room for improvements, upgrades, and additions. The gap between BS and capitals is also quite large and could use some additions.

Just please - no T3 frigates or even more tank and gank subcaps!
CCP Fozzie
C C P
C C P Alliance
#29 - 2013-01-29 09:14:30 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:

Just please - no T3 frigates or even more tank and gank subcaps!


This is a statement I agree with strongly Smile

And beyond that I'm going to vacate this thread since I've said my peace and I doubt I could say anything more that would convince Poetic that my understanding of CCP's game balance plans is accurate.

Game Designer | Team Five-0

Twitter: @CCP_Fozzie
Twitch chat: ccp_fozzie
Malcanis
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
#30 - 2013-01-29 09:24:22 UTC
Well what would you know about it anyway?

"Just remember later that I warned against any change to jump ranges or fatigue. You earned whats coming."

Grath Telkin, 11.10.2016
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2013-01-29 10:32:25 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
... Poetic that my understanding of CCP's game balance plans is accurate.
Hmm? I'm sure you and CCP know what you'd like to do ... come two/three years from now, that could very well be a different story.

Hell, man, you guys still don't have your **** in order for the 2013 summer expansion ... you can't really expect anybody to believe you all know what the plan is post-2014/15.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#32 - 2013-01-29 10:34:47 UTC
Malcanis wrote:
Well what would you know about it anyway?
If he doesn't know what the feature set for Summer 2013 is going to be (nobody at CCP seems to know; according to the CSM, it's still in discussion), then he doesn't know what the plan is going to be 2014/15.
Hakan MacTrew
Konrakas Forged
Solyaris Chtonium
#33 - 2013-01-29 11:29:42 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Well what would you know about it anyway?
If he doesn't know what the feature set for Summer 2013 is going to be (nobody at CCP seems to know; according to the CSM, it's still in discussion), then he doesn't know what the plan is going to be 2014/15.

Update...

So yeah, give them 6 more days and its there.

Friends
Sinzor Aumer
Planetary Harvesting and Processing LLC
#34 - 2013-01-29 11:29:57 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:

Just please - no T3 frigates or even more tank and gank subcaps!


This is a statement I agree with strongly Smile

What's wrong with T3 frigates? Just asking.
Heinrich Hoss
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#35 - 2013-01-29 11:53:20 UTC
The moment you stop rebalancing, the moment the game starts getting boring and "old". Hopefully they will never stop rebalancing the game. Every time you introduce a new ship, every other ship (should) be considered for tweaking and balancing.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#36 - 2013-01-29 16:10:20 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Well what would you know about it anyway?
If he doesn't know what the feature set for Summer 2013 is going to be (nobody at CCP seems to know; according to the CSM, it's still in discussion), then he doesn't know what the plan is going to be 2014/15.


You are so goddamn ignorant and smug about it. Fuuuuck it makes me /rage/. Have you ever worked... anywhere? Like, at all? Do you have any real world experience? ~rage~

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Reikoku Ao
High Seas Empire
#37 - 2013-01-29 16:32:08 UTC
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Well what would you know about it anyway?
If he doesn't know what the feature set for Summer 2013 is going to be (nobody at CCP seems to know; according to the CSM, it's still in discussion), then he doesn't know what the plan is going to be 2014/15.

Have you ever done any long term planning?

It is easily viable to decide the exact actions for the immediate future (like CCP is doing right now) while already having a clear longer term plan. I.e. there is no need to have every single step figured out and presentable to the audience in order to know what your plan is.
chris elliot
Lazerhawks
L A Z E R H A W K S
#38 - 2013-01-29 17:46:59 UTC
CCP Fozzie wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:

Just please - no T3 frigates or even more tank and gank subcaps!


This is a statement I agree with strongly Smile

And beyond that I'm going to vacate this thread since I've said my peace and I doubt I could say anything more that would convince Poetic that my understanding of CCP's game balance plans is accurate.



The fact that you got hired by CCP and stanzel has not should vindicate you whether you stuck around in this thread nor not tbh.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#39 - 2013-01-29 20:30:45 UTC
Reikoku Ao wrote:
Poetic Stanziel wrote:
Malcanis wrote:
Well what would you know about it anyway?
If he doesn't know what the feature set for Summer 2013 is going to be (nobody at CCP seems to know; according to the CSM, it's still in discussion), then he doesn't know what the plan is going to be 2014/15.
Have you ever done any long term planning?
Sure. That's a question you could have asked CCP six months ago. :)

Someone save this thread ... we'll revisit it 6 months after the final ships have been balanced.
Poetic Stanziel
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#40 - 2013-01-29 20:31:18 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Fuuuuck it makes me /rage/.
You're hilarious. And so easy.
Previous page123Next page