These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#41 - 2012-09-13 21:29:02 UTC
The primary problem I see is ensuring that there is a variety of viable options. This proved rather difficult with the advent of T3 cruisers, which appear to be the closest thing currently available to what you envision.

It also means that individual modules and mechanics need to be much more delicately balanced than now as such a system would be able to handle the imbalances the current system tolerates.
Lady Spank
Get Out Nasty Face
#42 - 2012-09-13 21:32:41 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Terrible idea from another npc alt poster.

(ಠ_ృ) ~ It Takes a Million Years to Become Diamonds So Lets Just Burn Like Coal Until the Sky's Black ~ (ಠ_ృ)
Creedling
#43 - 2012-09-13 21:40:06 UTC
OP refers to EvE as themepark MMO and then says that they need to focus more on content.

1/10
Burseg Sardaukar
Free State Project
#44 - 2012-09-13 21:48:27 UTC
Some ships are just utterly useless. Sure there is FOTW, but when was the last time anyone flew 90% of the frigates? 75% of the cruisers?

My Alliance sucks at everything and thus sticks to T1 fit T1 cruisers/frigs; and hell we won't touch most of them because they are below OUR crappy standards.

Can't wait to dual box my Dust toon and EVE toon on the same machine!
Rellik B00n
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#45 - 2012-09-13 22:06:50 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:

The sole issue here is who should be behind the change. IMO, ship balancing should come from the players not ccp.




The problem with asking players what they think is that they will tell you.



and purely for fun let me add an afterthought to that solid sentence:

who controls the CSM?
Are the people that control the CSM representative of the playerbase?
if CCP were to ask for player input (re: ship design) who would end up controlling it?
[Of a request for change ask: Who Benefits?](https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=199765)
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#46 - 2012-09-14 00:13:26 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
The players currently have a great deal of input into ship balancing, which is exactly why the current ship re-balancing has been so successful... for mining vessels as much if not more than the T1 frigates.

The true effect of what you suggest is for CCP to throw out a few generic hulls with a big blob of slots, stats and special abilities to throw around. The end result of which would be a month of chaos before players finally settled on the 1 or 2 min/maxed designs that were the most effective.

Diversity in ships and fittings comes from maximizing their designed strengths and/or getting around their designed weaknesses in creative ways. Without those rough metrics, which you prefer be taken away in favor of a completely free form design, the end result is the creation of a FOTMBED (Flavor of the Month Before Eve Death).

Successful game design is far more involved than you apparently realize.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Herr Hammer Draken
#47 - 2012-09-14 00:19:09 UTC
But what is so cool is being the guy that discovers the flavor of the month. The followers are just meh...

Herr Hammer Draken "The Amarr Prophet"
Skogen Gump
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#48 - 2012-09-14 00:25:53 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. These efforts, however, never work and always lead to the rise of a new flavor of the month which in turn leads to new rounds of whining on the forums by the fans of the various classes of characters and ultimately new rounds of balancing by the developers. Hence, an endless cycle of nerfing and buffing is engaged in that usually leaves more people dissatisfied then happy.

Eve as a sandbox type game should be immune from this sort of nerf/buff cycle, and yet the dev's have jumped into a full scale round of re-balancing. This re-balancing is fundamentally anti-sandbox. CCP is going so far as to actually tell us which hulls are for tank, which dps, which hulls are for null (eg the hulk), which are for afk mining (eg reteriver), etc. . . Ultimately, none of this balancing will work as all it will do is create new flavors of the month, which will, in turn, force new rounds of nerfs/buffs.

Eve is a unique game and its approach to balance should be in keeping with the spirit of the game. As such, imo, ccp should forego any effort at balancing the various hulls. Instead, CCP should consolidate the hulls and give the players more freedom of design. Freedom over slot layout, hardpoint numbers and types, engine types, etc.... Of course there have to be some limits on the designs; hard rules to govern the players, but ultimate choices of how a hull should be fit and used should be left to the players. 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.


When you've been around since 2004, you'd want a rebalance.

The very fact that CCP are doing it and taking a long time over it should fill you with confidence that they're absolutely trying to avoid FOTMobiles. I and many many other vet's can't wait to get some use out of ships long conscined to the mental rubbish bim, heck - it's going to feel like a new game!

The very fact that CCP is introducing broad tactical specialisation is in-fact introducing more player freedom because now, if I want an T1 ECM ship, I can do more than get in blackbird.

A lot more.
Herping yourDerp
Tribal Liberation Force
Minmatar Republic
#49 - 2012-09-14 00:29:45 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
fail post.


yes you are correct. everyone should train for the exact same ships and fits. long live minmitar supcaps and amarr/gallente super caps.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#50 - 2012-09-14 00:31:15 UTC
I would love to see "one up one down" rack conversion modules.

Imagine a module where you can put it in a slot and it occupies, say, a low slow, and it's a "one up" module, and therefore you get a new mid-slot. How about a "one down" module in a high slot or mid slot, gaining a new mid slot or low slot?


This would blow the margins of expection clearly out of the water. But my experience in ship fitting is lacking in such a manner that I cannot get a feel if this would make some ships OP.
(for example, I can't imagine someone using "one down" modules to come up with a destroyer having 8 mids, and having a use for it).


Bring back DEEEEP Space!
rodyas
Tie Fighters Inc
#51 - 2012-09-14 01:15:12 UTC
^ Well a lot of ships have a worthless top slot or two, so down slotting them would add an overpoweredness to the ship.

With modules you can kind of down slot or up slot ships, but there is a lack of useful hi slot modules though. If anything more of those would be helpful.

Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Aiwha
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#52 - 2012-09-14 01:49:34 UTC
I'm going to say two words, then walk away.


Battle


Badger



Sanity is fun leaving the body.
ISD Dorrim Barstorlode
ISD Community Communications Liaisons
ISD Alliance
#53 - 2012-09-14 01:50:43 UTC
Aiwha wrote:
I'm going to say two words, then walk away.


Battle


Badger





You forgot Invasion Iteron.

ISD Dorrim Barstorlode

Senior Lead

Community Communication Liaisons (CCLs)

Interstellar Services Department
philip the 4th
Local Spatial Phenomena
#54 - 2012-09-14 04:54:00 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. These efforts, however, never work and always lead to the rise of a new flavor of the month which in turn leads to new rounds of whining on the forums by the fans of the various classes of characters and ultimately new rounds of balancing by the developers. Hence, an endless cycle of nerfing and buffing is engaged in that usually leaves more people dissatisfied then happy.

Eve as a sandbox type game should be immune from this sort of nerf/buff cycle, and yet the dev's have jumped into a full scale round of re-balancing. This re-balancing is fundamentally anti-sandbox. CCP is going so far as to actually tell us which hulls are for tank, which dps, which hulls are for null (eg the hulk), which are for afk mining (eg reteriver), etc. . . Ultimately, none of this balancing will work as all it will do is create new flavors of the month, which will, in turn, force new rounds of nerfs/buffs.

Eve is a unique game and its approach to balance should be in keeping with the spirit of the game. As such, imo, ccp should forego any effort at balancing the various hulls. Instead, CCP should consolidate the hulls and give the players more freedom of design. Freedom over slot layout, hardpoint numbers and types, engine types, etc.... Of course there have to be some limits on the designs; hard rules to govern the players, but ultimate choices of how a hull should be fit and used should be left to the players. 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.



I didn't bother reading this, but decided to comment on the title:

Your face is pointless!

There, equal value... now go away!
Zera Kerrigan
The 420th Token
#55 - 2012-09-14 04:55:00 UTC
The same could be said about this forum thread you know...
pussnheels
Viziam
#56 - 2012-09-14 06:20:57 UTC
seems to me yto me the OP is worried his minmatar pwnmobile will have serious competition in the future and is crying how unfair it is that he will have to think harder for his kills in the future

I do not agree with what you are saying , but i will defend to the death your right to say it...... Voltaire
Bagrat Skalski
Koinuun Kotei
#57 - 2012-09-14 07:12:04 UTC
I want to build MY OWN frigate, not CCP frigate.

Custom ship skins, character creator style "repaint". Bring it!
Seleia O'Sinnor
Drop of Honey
#58 - 2012-09-14 07:28:20 UTC
I actually enjoy the tears on thr forums when the nerf bat hits and of course my own tears. The Eve community is highly capable of adapting. the tears will dry, some will unsub, life goes on. It all depends on how much butthurt CCP is going to inflict with the mighty paddle of luv. It's good that they do it from time to time and it's looking pretty moderate atm: Some fresh air.

Odyssey: Repacking in POS hangars for modules +1,  but please for other stuff too, especially containers. Make containers openable in POS hangars.
Ghazu
#59 - 2012-09-14 07:37:48 UTC
This is so dumb the ISDs are going to allow a few more pages before lock.

http://www.minerbumping.com/ lol what the christ https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2299984#post2299984
Ensign X
#60 - 2012-09-14 08:02:51 UTC
Ghazu wrote:
This is so dumb the ISDs are going to allow a few more pages before lock.


Now that you're here, maybe it will expedite the process. Blink