EVE General Discussion

I'm switching to lasers, as I'm sure many more will. People keep championing for ners to other weapaons as if it some how will make them better players. It won't. The next weapon to get nerfed will be the one most switch to. Pray it isn't lasers .

I personally recommend players to try pulse lasers, as beams are already pretty screwed up with fitting requirements :).

Oh here we go again. Tippia, whose modus operandi is straight out of 1984....
Yes, lowering range and an across the board reduction in heavy missile damage is an "improvement".
Completely wiping out a weapon system in mission running is an "improvement".

I won't even try to argue with you. You have to be insane to argue these are improvements to those weapon systems.

HML is going to be in line with the other long range medium weapons and all missiles are going to benefit from TE and TC. I cant wait to get testing these things on my new and improved caracal hull!

I can't wait to chuck HAM at OP with my Bellicose!

EVE is dead. Long live EVE.

And no one (well, save the OP lol) is saying it is, I'm saying it's wrong headed, being handled in the same way that other changes to the game have been handled ie poorly. I just don't want that cycle to continue and hope wiser heads prevail. It won't be the end of the world, but there are potential negative consequences that we should really not have to deal with (nor should ccp have to waste time money and resources on) over and over again.

Remember the null sec anom/upgrade nerf/buff/nerf? The incursions nerf/buff/nerf. I personally have had enough of that kind of thing.



"Adaptation Fallacy". I could adapt to the loss of my left arm, that's doesn't make the loss of my left arm a favorable outcome. I could adapt to ccp going out of business and EVE dying by playing something else (i'd just play even on my etch-a-sketch and make pew pew sounds with my mouth), but is the fact that we coudl adapt make that a good thing?

A change needs to be judged not on "can I adapt past it" (I can by the way, like TC Navy Raven to replace my null sec tengu and such and the AI change isn't going to affect me one bit as I don't use drones and every ship I bring into an anom or mission can already tank the anom/mission by itself), but "is this the right thing to do, is it being done right, and what are the consequences (intended and otherwise) of the change". On it's own merits, so to speak.

The stated reason for the AI change is to "make pve more engaging", but it only does that for people who use drones and "engaging" seems to mean "irritating as hell". I dual both mighty ships in pve, I won't even notice the change.

A Wiser course to follow would be to revamp the drone control interface/scheme AND change the way AI works. Leaving the horrible drone interface as it is but allowing npcs to switch aggro is just going to shift people into other ships (or dual box a frig killer like I do), how is that an optimal outcome?

The Stated Reason for the HML changes (the word nerf is over used) is to "bring them in line with other long range weapons", which doesn't seem to take into account missiles the special issues, differences and vulnerabilities of the specific weapon. The change is indeed a buff to damn near ever other missile type (which is cool, i honestly want to see what a Torp Raven can do with tracking mods), but "other missiles are getting better" is STILL not a rational reason to change HMLs so much when simply changing the HML abusing ships might be enough.

The point of all that is: a Change needs to be considered on it's own merits. No, not in a vacuum, the rest of the game must be considered, but again "you can just do something else/adapt", in and of itself, it not a "reason".

Have you considered the consequences to the game if you are wrong and the changes turn out to be bad rather than good. If I'm wrong (and I hope time proves that I am and was worried about nothing), the game doesn't suffer, if you and other supporters of the changes are wrong, do you understand what that costs?

This is why I am only advocating caution on CCP's part, you and I both know what has happened in the past when they made reckless changes based on what seemed good rather that taking a more studied and cautious approach.

But to do so ignores that while the OP might be over the top, that doesn't mean the gist of what he is saying is wrong. Truth is only time will tell whether he is right or not, but shouldn't reasonable people at least consider to consequences of proposed changes?


How exactly?

The fallacy is the belief that just because a change isn't the end of the world and can be adapted to, that somehow makes it a good change.

I've said it up and down these forums, I'm all for good changes to the game that but provides us as players with a better experiance and keeps the game going (and thus money flowing to the company that makes and runs our spaceship hobby), I'm against change for change's sake, or ill conceived change that, even though it won't negatively affect me personally (hellfire and damnation, missile ships + TCs/TEs is something I've wanted for a long time) that will probably end up sucking scant dev resources away from even greater things.

What exactly is wrong with a more cautious approach to change in our very complex and interconnected sandbox?