These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Ship rebalancing is pointless and a waste of time.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
#21 - 2012-09-13 19:35:19 UTC  |  Edited by: BoBoZoBo
Relax - The problem here is your interpretation of "rebalance"

Normally I would agre with you, but I do not think in this case they are trying to make it "perfect" They are trying to make it logical at the base level. You will be not locked in to a hull utility. You will still be able to change ship function based on load-out. However, fitting your ship to augment its base characteristics will always be a good practice just like now.

I think it will be OK.

Primary Test Subject • SmackTalker Elite
Jake Warbird
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#22 - 2012-09-13 19:36:38 UTC
Stop posting. You're giving us NPC corp posters bad rep.

Sugar Von MurdererTits : Jake Warbird gets my vote for most intriguing and attractive male character in Eve.
Robert De'Arneth
#23 - 2012-09-13 19:38:12 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Doddy wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Doddy wrote:
Just No


Lol. Why not? Are you afraid of the training wheels being taken off and you being responsible for how your ship actually functions?


Yep, because without balancing and new ships everyone would have been flying stabbabonds for the last 7 years. Except they wouldn't cos no one would play that broken crap and the game would have died in 2006 or something.

in any case your premise is entirely flawed, all ships in eve have been designed with a role always. If you had actually read the ship descriptions you would know that. All that ccp is doing with this rebalancing is refining them. Post balancing people will be just as likely to use fits outwith the role as they are now, the difference will be that some hulls will not be automatically worse to use regardless because they are a lower tier. Balancing the ships while removing tiers will actually make it far more likely players will try new fits and new ways of flying a ship.

And the "against the sandbox" stuff is crap as well. Eve is a sandbox, ccp provides us with the sand and the walls. If they change the amount of sand or the height of the walls its still a sandbox.



CCP is not giving you the sand and the walls, ccp is placing you on rails and telling you what to do. The mining barge changes are the most recent egregious example of this. Hulk is for null, retervier is for afk mining, skiff is for tank, this one is for yield, that one is for safety...

I am not saying that balancing is not needed - rather I am saying balancing should be left up to the players. Give the players the freedom to decide if they want tank or yield or whatever. And no, this will not necessarily lead to everybody flying the same ship with the same configuration - as CCP will be freed up to focus on content and with more available content, ship design changes will inevitably follow.



I kind of figured he was really crying over Mining and how he cannot Gank as easy. :)

I'm a nerd, you can check my stats!! Skilling Int/Mem at 45 sp per minute is how I mack!     I'm like a lapdog, all bark no bite. 
Ensign X
#24 - 2012-09-13 19:42:35 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
this will not necessarily lead to everybody flying the same ship with the same configuration - as CCP will be freed up to focus on content and with more available content, ship design changes will inevitably follow.


And this is where your entire argument falls flat on it's face. In a true sandbox mmo, the content is created by the players. You're asking CCP to stop re-balancing ships so they can create more content and turn EVE into more of a theme park mmo. The problem with that logic is, if 99% of the ships suck and all we're doing is piloting the 1% that don't suck, EVE becomes incredibly boring, stagnates and then dies and we all suffer because of it.

However, because we are most important content creators in EVE, keeping us interested and engaged with new and re-balanced ships gives us greater incentive to go out and fly those ships and continue creating the content that makes EVE so alive and vibrant.

If what you really want is less player-created content and more hand-holding from the developer might I suggest "Mists of Pandaria"?
MisterNick
The Sagan Clan
#25 - 2012-09-13 19:49:46 UTC
Thee already done round of frigate balancing has been excellent, imo

"Human beings make life so interesting. Do you know that in a universe so full of wonders, they have managed to invent boredom."
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#26 - 2012-09-13 19:56:40 UTC
Robert De'Arneth wrote:



I kind of figured he was really crying over Mining and how he cannot Gank as easy. :)


Speaking of which, our Bat engineers may have found a way to deal with the miners.
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
#27 - 2012-09-13 20:00:55 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
The mark of a theme park mmo is the constant rebalancing efforts...

BLAH BLAH

... By giving ship design over to the players, ccp breaks free of the balancing trap and frees up developer resources to actually focus on content. Hence for both the players and ccp less hulls equals more freedom.


No, the hallmark of a themepark MMO is tons of developer-created content.

All games need balance, it's not an MMO thing. MMOs just go through it a few times because they have extended life cycles.





I don't judge people by their race, religion, color, size, age, gender, or ethnicity. I judge them by their grammar, spelling, syntax, punctuation, clarity of expression, and logical consistency.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#28 - 2012-09-13 20:05:29 UTC
Ensign X wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
this will not necessarily lead to everybody flying the same ship with the same configuration - as CCP will be freed up to focus on content and with more available content, ship design changes will inevitably follow.


And this is where your entire argument falls flat on it's face. In a true sandbox mmo, the content is created by the players. You're asking CCP to stop re-balancing ships so they can create more content and turn EVE into more of a theme park mmo. The problem with that logic is, if 99% of the ships suck and all we're doing is piloting the 1% that don't suck, EVE becomes incredibly boring, stagnates and then dies and we all suffer because of it.

However, because we are most important content creators in EVE, keeping us interested and engaged with new and re-balanced ships gives us greater incentive to go out and fly those ships and continue creating the content that makes EVE so alive and vibrant.

If what you really want is less player-created content and more hand-holding from the developer might I suggest "Mists of Pandaria"?



lol -- I dont see how you turn a call for more player control into a call for a more wow like game. . .
And ccp does create "content" - wh, incursions, etc. . . .

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#29 - 2012-09-13 20:09:26 UTC
Robert De'Arneth wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Doddy wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Doddy wrote:
Just No


Lol. Why not? Are you afraid of the training wheels being taken off and you being responsible for how your ship actually functions?


Yep, because without balancing and new ships everyone would have been flying stabbabonds for the last 7 years. Except they wouldn't cos no one would play that broken crap and the game would have died in 2006 or something.

in any case your premise is entirely flawed, all ships in eve have been designed with a role always. If you had actually read the ship descriptions you would know that. All that ccp is doing with this rebalancing is refining them. Post balancing people will be just as likely to use fits outwith the role as they are now, the difference will be that some hulls will not be automatically worse to use regardless because they are a lower tier. Balancing the ships while removing tiers will actually make it far more likely players will try new fits and new ways of flying a ship.

And the "against the sandbox" stuff is crap as well. Eve is a sandbox, ccp provides us with the sand and the walls. If they change the amount of sand or the height of the walls its still a sandbox.



CCP is not giving you the sand and the walls, ccp is placing you on rails and telling you what to do. The mining barge changes are the most recent egregious example of this. Hulk is for null, retervier is for afk mining, skiff is for tank, this one is for yield, that one is for safety...

I am not saying that balancing is not needed - rather I am saying balancing should be left up to the players. Give the players the freedom to decide if they want tank or yield or whatever. And no, this will not necessarily lead to everybody flying the same ship with the same configuration - as CCP will be freed up to focus on content and with more available content, ship design changes will inevitably follow.



I kind of figured he was really crying over Mining and how he cannot Gank as easy. :)


No not at all. I'm concerned with the hit to the sandbox the changes are causing. IMO the players should determine how a ship is fitted and flown. A ship should not have its role designated as, tank, yield, ecm, utility, etc. . . Roles for ships imo should come from the players exclusively.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Spurty
#30 - 2012-09-13 20:13:24 UTC
Op has his belt pulled too tight to keep his pants on his head

There are good ships,

And wood ships,

And ships that sail the sea

But the best ships are Spaceships

Built by CCP
Toroup
Prometheus Deep Core Mining and Salvage
#31 - 2012-09-13 20:27:16 UTC

[/quote]
CCP is not giving you the sand and the walls, ccp is placing you on rails and telling you what to do. The mining barge changes are the most recent egregious example of this. Hulk is for null, retervier is for afk mining, skiff is for tank, this one is for yield, that one is for safety....[/quote]

I use the Hulk for Hi-Sec and ATK with the Mack - so your rant just fell apart because I choice to use the what they give me in the way that I want. If they said that you could only undock the Hulk in null sec then that would be rails.


Rellik B00n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#32 - 2012-09-13 20:34:50 UTC
working as intended, and working very well at that.

I for one look forward to welcoming our soon-to-be Gallente overlords.
[Of a request for change ask: Who Benefits?](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=199765)
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#33 - 2012-09-13 20:40:07 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
The mark of a theme park mmo is the constant rebalancing efforts engaged in by their developers to achieve the mythical land of perfect balance between their various characters.
Yeah, uhm… that's not what they're doing.

Quote:
CCP is not giving you the sand and the walls
And no, that's pretty much exactly what they're doing.

You're confusing balance and content, and you're apparently not very familiar with their balancing efforts and strategies. You should probably fix those two flaws before trying to “correct“ what they're doing.
Robert De'Arneth
#34 - 2012-09-13 20:40:26 UTC
Fair enough I guess, however I would rather trust the devs in this part of the sandbox. :) I have seen some suggestions from players. And I do not even want to think of how these fourms would be on player made content like that!! I am not sure if you read the notes on the ship changes? It gives players options, options open up the sandbox. :)

I'm a nerd, you can check my stats!! Skilling Int/Mem at 45 sp per minute is how I mack!     I'm like a lapdog, all bark no bite. 
Cpt Gobla
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#35 - 2012-09-13 20:45:52 UTC
Riot Girl wrote:
Agreed. In my opinion, CCP should stop designing ships altogether and leave it to the corps to build their own ships. When corps build OP ships, other corps design ships to exploit their weaknesses. Ships become obsolete, new ships become more advanced and the wealthier corps develop better technology. It's not fair, it's not balanced but who cares? As long as people are QQing, that's all that matters.


Right....

Corp 1 designs ship with 100% resists.
Corp 2 designs ship which kills any ship regardless of resists by locking them to counter Corp 1.
Corp 1 designs ship which insta-kill ships whilst cloaked to counter Corp 2.
Corp 2 designs ship which kills all enemy ships in local to counter Corp 1.
Corp 1 designs ship which kills all enemy ships in all space everywhere to counter Corp 2.
Corp 2 designs ship which kills everything, including the servers, to counter Corp 1.

EVE dies.

Ow wait... you mean an actual balanced system for designing ships? So instead of designing balanced hulls CCP'd take on the much harder and much more time-intensive task of designing a balanced system for designing balanced hulls. Ow yeah, that'll surely lead to major improvements...
Ensign X
#36 - 2012-09-13 20:50:28 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
lol -- I dont see how you turn a call for more player control into a call for a more wow like game. . .
And ccp does create "content" - wh, incursions, etc. . . .


You aren't asking for more player control. You're asking CCP to shift their priorities into "creating more content". Instead, what they're doing, is cleaning up all the turds left in the sandbox by poor design that left the vast majority of the ships in the game completely useless.

Those who are interested in a true sandbox experience would rather the sand we have be sifted and cleaned once in awhile rather than simply piling more and more sand into the box. You, otoh, are just asking CCP to put some pandas into the sandbox for you to play with. No, thanks.
Riot Girl
You'll Cowards Don't Even Smoke Crack
#37 - 2012-09-13 20:53:49 UTC
Cpt Gobla wrote:
you mean


1. That's your idea, not mine. Don't try to tell me what I mean.

2. I never said my idea was a good idea, nor did I claim it would lead to improvements.

3. I like it when people QQ a lot. Especially when they are really stupid people.

Oh god.
Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#38 - 2012-09-13 21:02:37 UTC
Yea, just to get on the pile...

1) Post on your main you coward

2) If you think the balancing efforts have been silly then i suggest you time warp 2 years back and try your hand at t1/t2/dessy pvp. After your done trololololing about how awesome the dram is, please come back and tell me what an utter waste of time it has been making nearly every frigate based hull actually useful in engagements.

3) 0/10

4) Players designing layouts without boundaries would be fun for about 1 month, maybe, MAAAYYYYBEEEEE

5) This refocusing of effort has been 1000% in terms of the gameplay improvements we saw in dominion, tyrannis, incursion and incarna (there was other badass stuffz in there, but i mean things you felt on the battlefield)

I has all the eve inactivity
Jack Traynor
Doomheim
#39 - 2012-09-13 21:10:05 UTC
Look at it this way: Everything changes over time. Improvements are made, manufacturing flaws/processes are fixed, sometimes making the "thing" better, sometimes making it obsolete. When the first Model A was released, that wasn't the last car model ever made (obviously). When the Jeep Cherokee was put out, it wasn't the last Jeep Cherokee ever. Newer models were released, fuel injection replaced Renix, and so on.

Change is always going to happen. Just remember that people whine about changes they think are bad (ie, ASB), while others love those changes. I'd wager there have been more than a few buffs you, OP, have agreed with and not bothered to whine about.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#40 - 2012-09-13 21:20:17 UTC  |  Edited by: Vol Arm'OOO
Jack Traynor wrote:
Look at it this way: Everything changes over time. Improvements are made, manufacturing flaws/processes are fixed, sometimes making the "thing" better, sometimes making it obsolete. When the first Model A was released, that wasn't the last car model ever made (obviously). When the Jeep Cherokee was put out, it wasn't the last Jeep Cherokee ever. Newer models were released, fuel injection replaced Renix, and so on.

Change is always going to happen. Just remember that people whine about changes they think are bad (ie, ASB), while others love those changes. I'd wager there have been more than a few buffs you, OP, have agreed with and not bothered to whine about.


Jeeze, maybe there is some fundamental problem with the way I phrased the op, but I dont see why folk keep thinking that im anti-change. I'm not. The sole issue here is who should be behind the change. IMO, ship balancing should come from the players not ccp. As I said in the op, the players should have more freedom to make more changes to ship design. As people innovate and circumstances change, this should lead to greater diversity in ship design as the players can act faster then ccp can. All the players need to effect "balance" is the tools which they currently lack.

Just as an example - with the barges - IMO it would have been preferable if ccp consolidated the hulls into one or two choices and then gave the players the flexibility to choose whether they would be tanky, yield fit, some combo of both, etc. . .

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.