EVE General Discussion

Thus, your point is that, if they do SOME damage any and all other imbalances are acceptable/negligible? That seems to be what your getting at. I would posit that's a ridiculous supposition on your part.

Truth.

The problem with threads like this is that they get polluted by idiot carebears.

Actually I wasn't referring to you, while you've made some silly mistakes in your posts you've actually been trying to construct rational arguments, although obviously this hasn't been very successful when it's come to torp range.

I'm referring to the fools who whinge about wanting a Cruise Naga (which would have been hilariously bad), people criticising painters because they're not missile-exclusive and people saying that missiles are bad then immediately stating that they have no SP in missiles.

Actually I'll just plainly disagree. Variety is a good thing because it causes tactics to change. Sound wave in a interview at fanfest states "If we add something to the game and everyone complains because now they have to change fits or tactics then I think we've done a good thing."

Without variety there is no guessing it's just all cookie cutter, and game play stagnates. (Everyone is going to use the same thing) Options are always a good thing.

Giving missile mods will not change missile boats into some amorphous blop in which they're all the same, just like turret mods don't to turret ships.

I'm not seeing as you say a "surprise my drake is HAM fit!" v. standard HML is going to take away surprise because well it would add more by the shear factor that there are now more options to be had.




Once again this doesn't make sense or you're not backing up your argument very well that more mods == dumber game play. Also combat in eve is already a dice roll with player actions helping to narrow negative dice rolls (missing glancing shots, but given the random component in the formula someone with perfect skills in a scenario can still have a poor shot due to this.)

I'm not being clear and it is sort of a subtle point. But maybe answer my question about allowing all sorts of variations in modules that can adjust every statistic. That is why don't they allow manufacturers of ships and mods to design them such that they can modify the stats on everything that is a stat. That would increase variation wouldn't it? Do you know why that would be bad for the game?

Knowing what ship(s) you are fighting currently gives you a decent amount of information which you can use to actually form a decent plan. For example if you see two drakes are 70 km off you know you can likely engage a ship that is closer so long as you pull it outside 70 k from the drakes. Your knowledge of the game helps you in that encounter and produces a fight.

If drakes all of a sudden get mods that help their range well your knowledge of drakes becomes less relevant. The lines become blurred in a way were the only thing you can rely on as to whether or not you should take a fight is - whether you have a bigger group.

It is a balance. I am not saying every ship should be a cookie cutter and right now they are not. But I am saying that people should be able to learn about the game from experience and it shouldn't be that for the sake of variety in the abstract you never can get an educated guess of the limits of the ships in the game.

As far as soundwave saying we need to shake things up that is ok - and it is a seperate issue. You can do that by just changing the stats of the modules that already exist. So long as they do that with some balance Im ok with that as well. Personally I was getting tired of having to update eft every month and refigure out ships. Give me some time to actually fly the ships I do figure out before the game changes again. But anyway that is a seperate issue because he can do that by changing existing modules.

But when we *add* modules that allow ships to overcome inherent weaknesses they have, then experienced players will not benefit from their knowledge of those weakeness as much. Hence tactics based on wisdom will be less important and replaced with just numbers of ships in fleet.

1. I totally agree

2. Perhaps making cruise missiles the masters of long range alpha? Sure the mael-pilots will **** and moan, but they woudl still have great alpha, but combined with instant damage.

Another way would perhaps being only being redboxed when shot at by missiles when they actually hit. But that would require messing with other stuff I don't see CCP very willing to do. It would certainly make missiles more interesting. I hate how every balancing 'solution' of CCP just turns missiles more and more into turrets.

Sure, plenty of people got CONCORDOKKEND when those crazy torpedos still did AoE damage, but at least they were different, unique and awesome.

Edit: ok we have bombs now ofcourse, but CCP should just remove the idiot-protection and allow those in empire.

Unfortunately I think it's much more complicated than that. Cruise is a multifaceted problem involving the 150 km soft range cap, the need for smaller gangs to fly more mobile ships firing more flexible ammo (HMs) and the relative rarity of targets for which Cruise is appropriate. More alpha is nice, but unless it's silly alpha it won't override all the other drawbacks. There's almost no environment where Cruise is useful today, and changing that requires changing more than Cruise.

Agreed - I don't really care how it is done, but Light Missile Launchers are a pain to fit onto a frigate at the moment. So whether it is Powergrid/CPU buff or lower fitting needs for the modules themselves, I'm not bothered.

I suspect another reason CCP dropped Missiles from the Naga before Crucible was released, was because they realised they shouldn't create any more missile boats until they rebalanced Missiles. It might even have been said somewhere too, although I can't quite remember.