These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Good Work on The Cruiser Rebalance
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Ptraci
3 R Corporation
#21 - 2012-12-24 22:06:49 UTC
Rain6637 wrote:
tl;dr


Not sure anyone cares about your short attention span.
Gibbo5771
AQUILA INC
#22 - 2012-12-24 22:19:30 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Gibbo5771 wrote:
The only problem I see with this is the effect it has on solo players/very small gangs, duo's and trios lose a lot of DPS/tackler/scouter to bring a Logi and well, the solo player does not have either of them.

So the ability to have even the most low skillpoint pilot hop into a logi is effectively another way of killing solo pvp, much like anyone with caladari cruiser 3 can jump into a blackbird and fit it all with specific jammers, taking SP investment and real skill completely out of the equation.

ASB's is a good example of a solo pvp killer, was fine when no one was using them but when everyone starts to use them, the solo player starts to struggle when it comes to killing things in a timely fasion.

However, defo good job on it CCP, Aquila have had a few t1 cruiser roams that have been awesome, wish we could encourage more of it.

"Complaining about support roles in a game that revolves around group interatcions and dynamics." ???

Which, by the way, your post is really confusing. You're complaining about CCP killing off solo and small group play, and then congratulating them for the changes they've made? Is it sarcasm or are you saying good on them for understanding that groups shoudl be thier priority and not the solo pvper?



In fact,
Why is it that EVE more than any other MMO revolves around groups of individuals; yet people complain whenever CCP does things that don't prop up the solo player. You think those people would have figured out by now that CCP isn't interested in catering to you guys, but to those people that actually participate in the wider game and actually play with others.

As if no one can see what happens when the largest MMO on the market continually caters to the solo player.
WoW contiually gained subscribers when it catered to group and raid gameplay. As soon as they gave every person access to the same content though a Q, millions of people started to move to other games.

You would think the players and more developers would have put two and two together and figured out by now that most people actually want to play MMO's for the group dynamics.

if we wanted to play a game that revolved and catered to the solo player, we'd fire up a SINGLE PLAYER game.



I'm glad CCP gets that and isn't catering to the solo guys.


I love it when people mention solo pvp and people instantly think you want to play a single player game, what am I shooting myself you idiot?

I am shooting the other various gangs flying around, I play for the group dynamic but when no one is around what am I going to do? log off and wait for my blob to log in or take the fight solo? If CCP manages to kill solo pvp A LOT of players will be logging off when the TZ switches over due to inactivity, people do not seem to see the issue with this.

I am congratulating them for actually balancing clearly broken ships? are you thick? just because I have a view of how this will effect a certain aspect of the game does not mean I am dissin' the changes, this WILL effect solo pvp as it will become harder for solo'ers to attack smaller gangs if they have t1 logis that are widely available to many players of many SP levels.
Shadowschild
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#23 - 2012-12-24 22:21:01 UTC
Now they have to boost the t2 variants.

35m vs ~200m
Thomas Orca
Broski is ded
#24 - 2012-12-24 22:22:21 UTC
Tippia wrote:
ElQuirko wrote:
T2 is going to need to get much better to compete with these new changes...

Nah. They are now what T2 should be to T1 — better in every way but not as to completely obsolete the T1. The last thing we need is an arms-race and power-creep between the two tiers.


I don't know. I feel like T2 Logistics are lacking in the range bonus when comparing them to T1, and that HACs are now in a pretty bad place. Only slightly better than T1, and significantly worse than their T3 counterparts.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#25 - 2012-12-24 22:33:53 UTC
Shadowschild wrote:
Now they have to boost the t2 variants.

35m vs ~200m
As luck would have it, cost is not a balancing factor, so no, they don't.

Thomas Orca wrote:
I don't know. I feel like T2 Logistics are lacking in the range bonus when comparing them to T1, and that HACs are now in a pretty bad place. Only slightly better than T1, and significantly worse than their T3 counterparts.
Well yes, HACs are a completely different kettle of fish and they've had their specialisation usurped by the T3s. Getting that fixed will require T3s to be scaled back rather significantly and having the HACs gain a bit more bite. As the for Logis' range bonus, I'd say it's decent enough. Again, it's strictly better than the T1 without being silly (and making it silly wouldn't necessarily be worth-while anyway since you'd still want to be kind of close to the fleet you're supporting).
Natsett Amuinn
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2012-12-24 23:27:45 UTC  |  Edited by: Natsett Amuinn
Gibbo5771 wrote:
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
Gibbo5771 wrote:
The only problem I see with this is the effect it has on solo players/very small gangs, duo's and trios lose a lot of DPS/tackler/scouter to bring a Logi and well, the solo player does not have either of them.

So the ability to have even the most low skillpoint pilot hop into a logi is effectively another way of killing solo pvp, much like anyone with caladari cruiser 3 can jump into a blackbird and fit it all with specific jammers, taking SP investment and real skill completely out of the equation.

ASB's is a good example of a solo pvp killer, was fine when no one was using them but when everyone starts to use them, the solo player starts to struggle when it comes to killing things in a timely fasion.

However, defo good job on it CCP, Aquila have had a few t1 cruiser roams that have been awesome, wish we could encourage more of it.

"Complaining about support roles in a game that revolves around group interatcions and dynamics." ???

Which, by the way, your post is really confusing. You're complaining about CCP killing off solo and small group play, and then congratulating them for the changes they've made? Is it sarcasm or are you saying good on them for understanding that groups shoudl be thier priority and not the solo pvper?



In fact,
Why is it that EVE more than any other MMO revolves around groups of individuals; yet people complain whenever CCP does things that don't prop up the solo player. You think those people would have figured out by now that CCP isn't interested in catering to you guys, but to those people that actually participate in the wider game and actually play with others.

As if no one can see what happens when the largest MMO on the market continually caters to the solo player.
WoW contiually gained subscribers when it catered to group and raid gameplay. As soon as they gave every person access to the same content though a Q, millions of people started to move to other games.

You would think the players and more developers would have put two and two together and figured out by now that most people actually want to play MMO's for the group dynamics.

if we wanted to play a game that revolved and catered to the solo player, we'd fire up a SINGLE PLAYER game.



I'm glad CCP gets that and isn't catering to the solo guys.


I love it when people mention solo pvp and people instantly think you want to play a single player game, what am I shooting myself you idiot?

I am shooting the other various gangs flying around, I play for the group dynamic but when no one is around what am I going to do? log off and wait for my blob to log in or take the fight solo? If CCP manages to kill solo pvp A LOT of players will be logging off when the TZ switches over due to inactivity, people do not seem to see the issue with this.

I am congratulating them for actually balancing clearly broken ships? are you thick? just because I have a view of how this will effect a certain aspect of the game does not mean I am dissin' the changes, this WILL effect solo pvp as it will become harder for solo'ers to attack smaller gangs if they have t1 logis that are widely available to many players of many SP levels.

Obviously I'm an idiot.

Did you not go on About the new logi ships killing "solo" pvp.

Yeah, I'm an idiot.


Ps: if it was obvious, the first part pointing out the confusion of what you wrote was directed at you. The giant gap between the rest of what I wrote meant I wasn't actually addressing that part towards you.

It was a general comment on something I've observed. Try not to be as sensitive as a 6 year old girl.
Dorian Wylde
Imperial Academy
Amarr Empire
#27 - 2012-12-25 00:22:40 UTC
Natsett Amuinn wrote:
[quote=Gibbo5771]

Which, by the way, your post is really confusing. You're complaining about CCP killing off solo and small group play, and then congratulating them for the changes they've made? Is it sarcasm or are you saying good on them for understanding that groups shoudl be thier priority and not the solo pvper?


.



It's the same reasoning behind Arenas being so popular in WoW, and the constant screaming for arenas in this game, as well as the incessent whining about blobs (a blob of course being defined as them having more people than us)
GreenSeed
#28 - 2012-12-25 01:06:43 UTC  |  Edited by: GreenSeed
honestly, t2 logis just need a minor rebalancing, maybe increasing the hp on their non primary buffer? (shield on oneiros, armor on scimi) that way their ehp goes up, but they don't become unkillable under heavy reps.

another way of buffing them would be to allow them to have an extra midslot, for eccm/links even on gang scenarios, i haven't flown a linked oneiros in years on pvp, only on pve.

maybe making the extra mids only be able to fit links?

new links like a resist bonus ship to ship link?

idk, i feel that if the diff between t1 and t2 shouldn't just be more hp and more reps, there needs to be something more... maybe a custom UI only on t2 ships allowing for a much better control of gang reps?
Thomas Orca
Broski is ded
#29 - 2012-12-25 09:10:05 UTC
Tippia wrote:
As the for Logis' range bonus, I'd say it's decent enough. Again, it's strictly better than the T1 without being silly (and making it silly wouldn't necessarily be worth-while anyway since you'd still want to be kind of close to the fleet you're supporting).


The T1 range bonus is actually better :ssh:
Shadowschild
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#30 - 2012-12-27 18:01:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Shadowschild
The concequences of boosting the t1 cruisers & leaving the t2 untouched was a bit shortsighted. I would have prefered if they gave the t2 versions more shields or armor & more power. Otherwise the price differene is too great.
Minerva Zen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#31 - 2012-12-27 19:18:52 UTC
Shadowschild wrote:
The concequences of boosting the t1 cruisers & leaving the t2 untouched was a bit shortsighted. I would have prefered if they gave the t2 versions more shields or armor & more power. Otherwise the price differene is too great.


If CCP buffed said T2, wouldn't the price just go even higher? I'm thinking one of us is misunderstanding cause and effect here.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#32 - 2012-12-27 19:19:59 UTC
Shadowschild wrote:
The concequences of boosting the t1 cruisers & leaving the t2 untouched was a bit shortsighted. I would have prefered if they gave the t2 versions more shields or armor & more power. Otherwise the price differene is too great.

T1 vessels first, faction and T2/T3 vessels later.
There were several ways to approach this, but in the end this makes the most sense. In fact, doing things in this order encourages people to try out the T1 versions of these ships, which is a good thing.

I rather like the idea of T1 logistics having less rep power and survivability, but longer range to somewhat compensate and make them usable. T2 should concentrate on more repping power (to a degree) and resists, better against jamming... however they have to get in closer to the fight to be effective (thus promoting teamwork).

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Shadowschild
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#33 - 2012-12-27 19:30:07 UTC  |  Edited by: Shadowschild
Minerva Zen wrote:
Shadowschild wrote:
The concequences of boosting the t1 cruisers & leaving the t2 untouched was a bit shortsighted. I would have prefered if they gave the t2 versions more shields or armor & more power. Otherwise the price differene is too great.


If CCP buffed said T2, wouldn't the price just go even higher? I'm thinking one of us is misunderstanding cause and effect here.


I think your the one who is misunderstanding. By narrowing the gap they devalue the t2 equivalents.

Right now I'd have to shell out an extra 165m for a slightly better ship. Whereas, if we follow the logic of other t1/t2 ships, I should be getting a much better ship. If they keep this design & buff the t2 varient i'd be happy to pay more because it's worth more.

Example: Scythe / Scimitar. I don't find it worth the expense & the alliances with SRP's probably aren't too eager to refund scimitars when their t1 varients do just as well in a spider tanked setup. At least with the HACs (like the munin) they keep the existing cruiser bonuses & tack on optimal range & tracking bonuses. It's just overall a much better advancement on the orginal design.

Everyone who trained for logistics did so because there wasn't a t1 version available. I invite you to compare a fully trained scythe vs scimitar. The scythe has more range, does about 300 hp less per cycle (1300 vs 1600) has an extra low slot and similar power grid, shield, armor etc. It's like they were thinking backwards.
Maire Gheren
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#34 - 2012-12-27 19:46:45 UTC
Shadowschild wrote:
Right now I'd have to shell out an extra 165m for a slightly better ship.

How this is any different from the people who shell out an extra few million to fit their ship with a slightly better module, and tell people that you can't PVP without the best gear and skills at V, i'm not totally clear on. I don't see people abandoning the t2 ships as long as they have even a minute edge over the t1's.
Shadowschild
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#35 - 2012-12-27 19:51:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Shadowschild
Maire Gheren wrote:
Shadowschild wrote:
Right now I'd have to shell out an extra 165m for a slightly better ship.

How this is any different from the people who shell out an extra few million to fit their ship with a slightly better module, and tell people that you can't PVP without the best gear and skills at V, i'm not totally clear on. I don't see people abandoning the t2 ships as long as they have even a minute edge over the t1's.



Those modules are optional. If you have the cash & don't mind the loss, then fine. But when we are discussing ships hulls (& their bonuses) there is nothing optional about them. EVeryone buys the same ship. Frankly minute edges don't mean **** in a fleet fight. You think your 5% more dps for the dread gurista mod you put on makes any real difference? You need to reach for the 40 or 50 % difference.
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#36 - 2012-12-27 19:52:55 UTC  |  Edited by: Ranger 1
Shadowschild wrote:
Minerva Zen wrote:
Shadowschild wrote:
The concequences of boosting the t1 cruisers & leaving the t2 untouched was a bit shortsighted. I would have prefered if they gave the t2 versions more shields or armor & more power. Otherwise the price differene is too great.


If CCP buffed said T2, wouldn't the price just go even higher? I'm thinking one of us is misunderstanding cause and effect here.


I think your the one who is misunderstanding. By narrowing the gap they devalue the t2 equivalents.

Right now I'd have to shell out an extra 165m for a slightly better ship. Whereas, if we follow the logic of other t1/t2 ships, I should be getting a much better ship. If they keep this design & buff the t2 varient i'd be happy to pay more because it's worth more.

Example: Scythe / Scimitar. I don't find it worth the expense & the alliances with SRP's probably aren't too eager to refund scimitars when their t1 varients do just as well in a spider tanked setup. At least with the HACs (like the munin) they keep the existing cruiser bonuses & tack on optimal range & tracking bonuses. It's just overall a much better advancement on the orginal design.

Everyone who trained for logistics did so because there wasn't a t1 version available. I invite you to compare a fully trained scythe vs scimitar. The scythe has more range, does about 300 hp less per cycle (1300 vs 1600) has an extra low slot and similar power grid, shield, armor etc. It's like they were thinking backwards.

T2 variants are currently more survivable.

Keep in mind that cost is not a balancing factor in EvE, you tend to pay significantly more for small advantages... because those small advantages add up.

That being said, T2 variants will be balanced as well but only after T1 is complete. There are significant advantages to doing it this way, including the inherent incentive to give the T1 ships a whirl.

Everything at it's proper pace, they can't do them all at once. Well, they could, but everyone would be highly irritated at having to wait a year or so before seeing ANY of the balancing work... not to mention the ability to get feed back from people using the base models on the live server BEFORE attempting the balancing work on the more specialized variants.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.
Maire Gheren
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#37 - 2012-12-27 19:57:26 UTC
Shadowschild wrote:
Maire Gheren wrote:
Shadowschild wrote:
Right now I'd have to shell out an extra 165m for a slightly better ship.
How this is any different from the people who shell out an extra few million to fit their ship with a slightly better module, and tell people that you can't PVP without the best gear and skills at V, i'm not totally clear on. I don't see people abandoning the t2 ships as long as they have even a minute edge over the t1's.
Those modules are optional. If you have the cash & don't mind the loss, then fine. But when we are discussing ships hulls (& their bonuses) there is nothing optional about them. EVeryone buys the same ship.

And everyone buys the same modules, too. I'm not seeing anything that explains how the rules of marketing and behavior that govern what kind of ammunition or gun someone buys to put on their hull are somehow completely suspended when they go to buy the hull itself.
Minerva Zen
Federal Defense Union
Gallente Federation
#38 - 2012-12-27 19:58:24 UTC
Maire Gheren wrote:
Shadowschild wrote:
Right now I'd have to shell out an extra 165m for a slightly better ship.

How this is any different from the people who shell out an extra few million to fit their ship with a slightly better module, and tell people that you can't PVP without the best gear and skills at V, i'm not totally clear on. I don't see people abandoning the t2 ships as long as they have even a minute edge over the t1's.


This.

The use of the market to gauge ship effectiveness is what seems bogus to me. If it isn't bogus, then you may be seeing a market opportunity. Buy a bunch of whichever ship looks underpriced to you and resell when everyone catches on. If that looks like bad advice to you, then you're starting to get my point.
Previous page12