Upcoming Feature and Change Feedback Center

Blops are essentially paper thin at least compared to other bs. If carriers were so op with insta locking and massive alpha you would think that they could at least kill one or two of them when dropped - yet when H3, wrecking crew and the arton boys drop on carriers in provi/catch - they never lose anything - thats why they bring widows (or maybe its just provi/volt being bad). As far as I'm concerned everything is balanced - it just requires bringing the right tools to do the job.

I mean generally, there's no reason to restore the ECM immunity to siege or bastion mode either. That was a good change that made the game more interesting and stopped people from entirely shutting down an important aspect of combat. I don't understand why you would instantly revert that change without letting it play out, while leaving in things that are obviously unbalanced for years that PL and other ~elite~ groups aren't complaining about.

Capitals were rebalanced to be better at killing subcaps, and part of that change was they became more vulnerable to subcaps. Now, suddenly, they're losing that downside and keeping the upside. That seems like a dumb design decision, and if you want to go that direction then HAWs and light fighters should get nerfed into the ground as well.



Triage gave you a significant boost to ECM resistance. It wasn't like a single falcon could jam a FAX: you need a LOT of ecm to do it. If you have that much ECM, then you have sacrificed a lot of dps. If you've forced the hostile fleet to bring enough ECM you can't effectively triage then you're already significantly ahead.

Please give the avatar more base cpu, and also you will need to add more powergrid to the naglfar :P

Without the angryness, this is actually a problem. Capitaladvantage in wormholes was always strong if people know what they were doing. Ofc very few did. Neuts were the way to fight triage, now it was ecm for a short time.

You've got a utility high, you know.... *hint hint*

And being jammed by the same EC-300 in a freaking Titan is not a big deal?

You must be new here. Rebalancing here means only to look at things people cry the most and the loudest about and then appease them by making random *balancing* choices without giving reasons.
/end sarcasm

I would like to see Dev posts in the future list the changes and the reasons for them (eg: Added ECM immunity, because .... ; Decreased scanres on NSA, because .....)
It is more easy to follow their train of thought for the player base and easier to spot fallacies.

Adding extra CPU but no power grid for the 3rd gun is a mistake.

80-100k should do.

CCP, please really think about some of these changes.

The biggest points I see are the obvious fitting to compensate for nags. I will 100% self destruct on the undock for insurance if something isn't done because currently it will place the nag far behind all other dreads for fitting/tank. Already with this patch you are killing a lot of the utility that it has had - not saying it wasn't needed though. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing a small buff to armor for nags ie giving more raw hitpoints or something that way armor nags can compete with shield nags more competitively unless your intention is to make nags and phoenixs exclusively shield and moros and revs exclusively armor. Maybe give the moros a similar option for max dps & tracking + shield tank?

Please tread carefully on the fighter changes. Carriers have always been able to blap frigates and other light tackle with a set of lights + drone navigation computers. If you nerf fighter tracking too hard there will be no way to kill light tackle on a carrier and a single atron can perma hold a carrier. If you want to look to balance carriers dps focus on giving the missile salvos more ammo before reload, faster rof, and less volley so that it balances out and spreads the damage out while taking the same amount of time to reload.

As a first piece of feedback, I really urge CCP as a whole to invest in a professional approach to managing change with your customers. We have for years been consistently treated with disdain when it comes to communications and the constant wave of threadnoughts is not always a sign of healthy debate but more so anger and frustration from your customers.

Can I request that any time you introduce any change which impacts us, can you:

a) articulate the change in detail
b) explain your reasoning for the change (we do not have to agree but an opportunity to voice our feedback is fine)
c) articulate how this is going to impact the player
d) explain how you will measure the impact of this change and what you see as a successful outcome

In most examples (and herein) you only address point a) which is never enough. It may sound like a lot of additional work to provide the remaining detail I am suggesting and asking for but it pays dividends. All the ranting and supposition on why these changes are being made (you're a terrible game designer, mad, in the pocket of XL alliance, etc ...) go away and ppl can only debate the point.

We accept that there will be change especially after new features, but I think a little more consideration to your customer base is warranted especially when these changes can impact us significantly.

Let's look at an example:



^
Why are you making this change? You have not explained any rational reason for this significant change. It's not surprising people are jumping to conclusions about your reason for doing so.

What is the impact on players? I have not personally seen any evidence or suggestion that shield capitals are overly tanked (if you provide the detail and rationale we can understand).Many players, corps, alliances may have invested in shield capitals which is not only a significant amount of ISK but also significant effort. With this change there is a risk that all their effort is completely wasted and they have lost their investments if it turns out that shield caps are going to be garbage compared to armor caps (*if). There are hypothesis that this is going to be offset by implants etc but why do we have to guess and hedge our bets?

How will you measure the impact of this change? Impossible to answer this one unless you hope players will refrain from flying shield capitals because of whatever reason we are not party to.

Now apply the above to the other change statements (triage and siege immunity to preserve the whining upper classes, the desire to needlessly nerf the Naglf into the ground or inability to perform basic arithmetic) in the patch notes please and give us the level of detail we should hopefully have in the first instance.

I can guarantee your customer satisfaction will increase and the time you need to spend on managing these threads will decrease if you invested more in some change management best practice.

Off topic but can you investigate and balance:

1. Armor T3 (quite why they have been left in such a dominating position for years despite the stated design goal is a mystery to me).
2. Svipuls
3. Titan HAW