These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Have Goons become the very thing they hated?? (i.e. BoB)

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
stoicfaux
#141 - 2014-01-10 15:28:59 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:

The hard part is coming up with a re-balancing/nerf that doesn't
a) step all over the hard work a player organization did to build up such a sizable fleet,
b) arbitrarily decide the outcome of a player versus player war (i.e. CCP shouldn't be picking winners,) and
c) isn't a PR nightmare for CCP.


If we insist on hitting all 3 of those points, then drone assist is the lynchpin to hit, I agree.

But as far as "a" goes:

Kinda their fault for all their eggs in one basket. If you actually allow people to make that complaint legitimately about nerfing something overpowered, we might as well just revert the capital tracking nerfs. After all, people did a lot of hard work to get ahold of those too.

So I discount "a" in it's entirety.

You have a point about the inherent riskiness of having all your eggs in one basket, however, if you take away 'a', then you're implicitly taking away 'b' and 'c', which would be inappropriate, IMO.

Having said that, "punishing" the egg people could still work *if* you remove "a" over time, in order to give people a chance to adapt/react to the change.

For example, CCP could state that a new disruptive technology has been developed by some Faction to counter drones, such as Jenn aSide's drone oriented ECM idea. This new anti-drone ECM module, ECM bomb, super-wide area Burst ECM, "drone chaff", etc. will become available in a month or two, thus giving all sides a chance to adapt to it (and preventing CCP from rushing out out with a hacked/arbitrary rebalance hotfix.)

From a lore perspective, given how the introduction of DDAs have promoted drones to a primary weapons system, it stands to reason that a technology arms race would rush to develop counters to the bump in drone power.

Pon Farr Memorial: once every 7 years, all the carebears in high-sec must PvP or they will be temp-banned.
Logical 101
PowerCow Farm
#142 - 2014-01-10 15:31:34 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
The problem, of course, is Goons and the irrational hatred people have for them. i've killed so many Goons (and been killed by them) in my time there should be a statue of me erected right next to Molle's house (lol) and I don't fly into irrational rage every time i hear the word 'goon'.

No, the problem is these ridiculous capital fleet compositions. And the Goons have a legit gripe.

To be blunt, this "irrational hatred" you mentioned stems from a time when Goons forum warriored the ever-loving **** out of CAOD, mocking pretty much everyone in the game who wasn't GSF. Everything was "pubbie scum" this and "pubbie scum" that, and the troll MO was clear. That said, I have noticed a significant change in their forum policy since the middle of the last decade, and the overall quality of their posting has actually gone up. On top of that, significantly fewer of them post here than in the past, and the ones who do post have replaced the intentionally abrasive and provocative tone that was once the status quo with a less derogatory (although slightly more aloof) manner of communicating with others. The old recruitment scams and freshly minted pilot blobs right through to the blistering propaganda associated with Burn Jita cemented their reputation as "the enemy".

This didn't happen over night. It was cultivated over almost a decade, and carefully so.
Ka'Narlist
Dreddit
Test Alliance Please Ignore
#143 - 2014-01-10 15:35:27 UTC
I really love all those goon tears about this subject Lol (at least until ccp gives in to them What?)

That you don't drop your supers on them is not because they have so much more, if they really had more as the biggest coalition in eve that sat on the tech throne for years you guys actually deserve to loose against them (well in case you didn't deserve it anyways ;)). The thing is that you are affraid that you will welp them because you have no clue how to use them in contrast to your enemies.

But you don't really need to endanger your precious caps and can ontinue to let them rot by just doing what you did in earlier wars and claimed to be able to do constantly: field 1000k or more battleships and insta blap those archons you can loose around 6 BS per carrier to come out even and if they drop dreads you can loose even more to win the isk war. And those BSes are replaced far easier as caps.
Or is the problem that you are not able to field so many BSs constantly (like the bragging about a carrier in every hangar, or a dread in every hangar) and thats why you cry to ccp to be able to kill those caps with a handfull of BSs and kitchensink stuff?


PS: I like how you constantly try to put yourself in the good spot here by saying "if we can't destroy those cap blobs how should anyone else be able too?" where without the cfc there wouldn't even be such a large other coalition to counter you.
DRGaius Baltar
Perkone
Caldari State
#144 - 2014-01-10 15:42:44 UTC  |  Edited by: DRGaius Baltar
Josef Djugashvilis wrote:
If BoB use to publicly beg CCP to alter the game mechanics to help them in a war, then the goons have indeed become BoB.

If not, then the goons are trying to set a new benchmark in the game, and as such, are not like BoB.


No they only had a Dev in their back pocket, but it stands to reason if they derp enough fleets to N3/PL and make the argument that "slowcats are too OP because we can't win fast enough" CCP might listen. But CFC has all the tools needed to kill "Leonidas and his 300" it's called the Naglfar! There's no fricking reason why you can't get 600+ bros blapping archons all over the map, esp. When the capital ship requirments for battleship have been lowered from V to III.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#145 - 2014-01-10 15:46:25 UTC
Ka'Narlist wrote:
But you don't really need to endanger your precious caps and can ontinue to let them rot by just doing what you did in earlier wars and claimed to be able to do constantly: field 1000k or more battleships and insta blap those archons you can loose around 6 BS per carrier to come out even

How long can we lose 6 BS per carrier before we're no longer able to kill carriers?

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#146 - 2014-01-10 15:48:26 UTC
stoicfaux wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
stoicfaux wrote:

The hard part is coming up with a re-balancing/nerf that doesn't
a) step all over the hard work a player organization did to build up such a sizable fleet,
b) arbitrarily decide the outcome of a player versus player war (i.e. CCP shouldn't be picking winners,) and
c) isn't a PR nightmare for CCP.


If we insist on hitting all 3 of those points, then drone assist is the lynchpin to hit, I agree.

But as far as "a" goes:

Kinda their fault for all their eggs in one basket. If you actually allow people to make that complaint legitimately about nerfing something overpowered, we might as well just revert the capital tracking nerfs. After all, people did a lot of hard work to get ahold of those too.

So I discount "a" in it's entirety.

You have a point about the inherent riskiness of having all your eggs in one basket, however, if you take away 'a', then you're implicitly taking away 'b' and 'c', which would be inappropriate, IMO.

Having said that, "punishing" the egg people could still work *if* you remove "a" over time, in order to give people a chance to adapt/react to the change.

For example, CCP could state that a new disruptive technology has been developed by some Faction to counter drones, such as Jenn aSide's drone oriented ECM idea. This new anti-drone ECM module, ECM bomb, super-wide area Burst ECM, "drone chaff", etc. will become available in a month or two, thus giving all sides a chance to adapt to it (and preventing CCP from rushing out out with a hacked/arbitrary rebalance hotfix.)

From a lore perspective, given how the introduction of DDAs have promoted drones to a primary weapons system, it stands to reason that a technology arms race would rush to develop counters to the bump in drone power.

Again, refer back to the nerfs to tracking titans, AOE doomsday, drone supers, etc.
CCP has never had a problem with nerfing expensive fleet compositions that alliances took years to amass.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#147 - 2014-01-10 15:48:32 UTC
Ka'Narlist wrote:
I like how you constantly try to put yourself in the good spot here by saying "if we can't destroy those cap blobs how should anyone else be able too?" where without the cfc there wouldn't even be such a large other coalition to counter you.
…which does not invalidate or in any way address the actual question and the concerns behind it.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#148 - 2014-01-10 15:52:46 UTC
Jenn aSide wrote:
Tippia wrote:
This already exists. It's called drone delegation, and should be a fairly trivial rule swap-in since there already is a class of drones that follows that particular rule.
The problem with drone delegation as it stands is that it uses the drone controller's drone bandwidth. It would punish groups that use drones in pve (incursions, lvl 5 mission fleets etc) as well as in defensive gate camps (where you assign drones to a frig/ceptor in an attempt to decloak a cloaky intruder) which would make low and null safer as a result which imo is a bad idea. That's the biggest problem in my mind, How do you fix a problem that is only a problem in large groups (like slowcat fleets) without screwing over other legitimate gameplay.
Limit assisting to "within wing" instead of "within fleet" or something like that. Or create modules to permit more assisting than a normal ship could. Let's say all ship can be assisted by a maximum of 100 drones when naked. Create a XXX slot module wich give additionnal assist bandwidth like +50 to assisting drone limit. You could have ship bonused for it if needed too.
Anya Klibor
Native Freshfood
Minmatar Republic
#149 - 2014-01-10 16:04:57 UTC
EI Digin wrote:
Never listen to anything DBRB has to say. Ever. No matter what.


The nodes pray you all listen to this!

Leadership is something you learn. Maybe one day, you'll learn that.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#150 - 2014-01-10 16:06:36 UTC
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
To the goon who says there is no counter to carriers+sentrys bullsh#t bring your own


I'd like to point out that "get one yourself" or any variation thereof in defense of something is not a good way to claim that it's not overpowered.

it works wonders when applied to OGB tho....

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#151 - 2014-01-10 16:08:24 UTC
OGB makes it a little easier for smaller forces to engage larger ones and win. It shouldn't be nerfed.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Charlie Firpol
Brutor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#152 - 2014-01-10 16:09:49 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:

Again, refer back to the nerfs to tracking titans, AOE doomsday, drone supers, etc.
CCP has never had a problem with nerfing expensive fleet compositions that alliances took years to amass.

True, but a normal CCP nerf hammer would at this point just win the war for you. We need a cleverer solution.
The rebalance team hasnt rebalanced any caps yet, but they did a really good job on T1 subcaps. I fully expect them to be able to solve this properly.
I would just wish they could "train" capital rebalancing a bit beforehand, like they did with the frigates when tiericide started.
Then again, I am sure they know that, too. Whatever rebalancing will happen, it will take some time and it will be on Sisi for quite some time, too. That will then give both N3PL and the CFC some time to react before the changes hit Tranquility. Every fast and untested rebalance would really mess things up and quite surely just win the war for the CFC.

The Butcher of Black Rise - eve-radio.com
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#153 - 2014-01-10 16:11:16 UTC
Ka'Narlist wrote:
I really love all those goon tears about this subject Lol (at least until ccp gives in to them What?)

That you don't drop your supers on them is not because they have so much more, if they really had more as the biggest coalition in eve that sat on the tech throne for years you guys actually deserve to loose against them (well in case you didn't deserve it anyways ;))..


Time for a history lesson.

The reason for the current super/titan onesidedness is the fault of the old NC. They freely sold capitals to any and all and at the time nobody cared much. Some corps and alliances started to collect these status ships while most spent their isk on more needed things. The numbers just kept on building untill these alliances had enough of them to make them invincible. It was at this point that the old NC was attacked and crushed in a matter of weeks, their next move was against us in VFK which very nearly fell. One tiny mistake in bridging half the supers and getting them stuck for several days was what saved us.

After then the supers were nerfed but they did not die. This is the big issue. Far too few supers and titans have died and it has been impossible to catch up with these relec supers, we just keep on adding onto years of growing supercap numbers which has resulted in one side dominating supercaps with the runner up forever chasing to catch up. Everyone else is so outmatched they simply do not stand a chance.

So no, its not cowardness its simple numbers. In a supercap war we will run out before they do which will leave us unable to defend our space. We will ciontinue to slowly catch up and overtake them in a few years. This issue has been getting on for a decade in the making but this is a matter for another time
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#154 - 2014-01-10 16:15:20 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
Kaarous Aldurald wrote:
Quote:
To the goon who says there is no counter to carriers+sentrys bullsh#t bring your own


I'd like to point out that "get one yourself" or any variation thereof in defense of something is not a good way to claim that it's not overpowered.

it works wonders when applied to OGB tho....


Which can die in a fire as far as I'm concerned.

A force multiplier that does not require you to risk it on the field is a broken concept.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#155 - 2014-01-10 16:16:47 UTC
There once was a PaL named Pat.
He had a nice looking cap.

He also had drones
and some bats on the phones
and cried about madeupshit crap.

bingo, his pig not being a goat doesn't make the pig wrong, just him an idiot for shouting at his pig "WHY ARENT YOU A GOAT!" (Source)

-- Ralph King-Griffin, about deranged people playing EVE ONLINE
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#156 - 2014-01-10 16:18:04 UTC
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I guess what we can conclude is that NPC forum alts have nothing interesting to say.

if you can not beat argument you always can target author

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#157 - 2014-01-10 16:20:13 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I guess what we can conclude is that NPC forum alts have nothing interesting to say.

if you can not beat argument you always can target author

HAHAHAHAHA good one.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Angelica Dreamstar
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#158 - 2014-01-10 16:22:24 UTC
March rabbit wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I guess what we can conclude is that NPC forum alts have nothing interesting to say.

if you can not beat argument you always can target author

an. the.

Considering the number of people who spread bull and hatred against the goons, it's understandable why npc forum alts are being dismissed. If one has something to say, he can say it on his main. People who lack balls should suffer the consequences.

bingo, his pig not being a goat doesn't make the pig wrong, just him an idiot for shouting at his pig "WHY ARENT YOU A GOAT!" (Source)

-- Ralph King-Griffin, about deranged people playing EVE ONLINE
DRGaius Baltar
Perkone
Caldari State
#159 - 2014-01-10 16:29:28 UTC
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I guess what we can conclude is that NPC forum alts have nothing interesting to say.

if you can not beat argument you always can target author

an. the.

Considering the number of people who spread bull and hatred against the goons, it's understandable why npc forum alts are being dismissed. If one has something to say, he can say it on his main. People who lack balls should suffer the consequences.


No Knightwhiting here, that DBRB article speaks for it self.
March rabbit
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#160 - 2014-01-10 16:37:18 UTC  |  Edited by: March rabbit
Angelica Dreamstar wrote:
March rabbit wrote:
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
I guess what we can conclude is that NPC forum alts have nothing interesting to say.

if you can not beat argument you always can target author

an. the.

Considering the number of people who spread bull and hatred against the goons, it's understandable why npc forum alts are being dismissed. If one has something to say, he can say it on his main. People who lack balls should suffer the consequences.

1) replace "npc forum alt" with "char with goon mark" in first sentence. Funny thing is: sentence stay correct.
2) not every char without mark 'goon' is a forum alt. Some people actually play Eve outside of this bunch of ....

The Mittani: "the inappropriate drunked joke"