These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Stop using ship or weapon popularity for any balancing related topics.

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
S Byerley
The Manhattan Engineer District
#41 - 2013-08-20 00:55:27 UTC  |  Edited by: S Byerley
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Exactly, there all the same, unless you count the parts that are different, which apparently some of us don't. What was the great difference that people are referring to being lost that isn't there now?


MAH MINMATAR UTILITY HIGHS KEEP DISAPPEARING.
Maldiro Selkurk
Radiation Sickness
#42 - 2013-08-20 01:21:03 UTC
TheBlueMonkey wrote:
TBH it should be rock, paper, scissor balancing. Even if you base that on popularity.

Every system should have an ideal counter to that system and people should realise that.

Say you're roaming around in an armor brawler gang and you run into a shield sniping gang.
If they have some long points in the shield gang and the armor gang tries to fight, they're going to lose.
This doesn't make the shield gang overpowered. It makes it a fight that the armor gang should withdraw from.


The rock, paper, scissors model is a horrible combat model. Played wow for 8 years and the more wow moved away from their initial RPS model of combat the better the pvp became.

Yawn,  I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#43 - 2013-08-20 01:27:35 UTC
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
TheBlueMonkey wrote:
TBH it should be rock, paper, scissor balancing. Even if you base that on popularity.

Every system should have an ideal counter to that system and people should realise that.

Say you're roaming around in an armor brawler gang and you run into a shield sniping gang.
If they have some long points in the shield gang and the armor gang tries to fight, they're going to lose.
This doesn't make the shield gang overpowered. It makes it a fight that the armor gang should withdraw from.

The rock, paper, scissors model is a horrible combat model. Played wow for 8 years and the more wow moved away from their initial RPS model of combat the better the pvp became.

So we need specific pvp ships that will wtfpwn the specific pve ships?

Sounds good.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Ioci
Bad Girl Posse
#44 - 2013-08-20 01:39:03 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Ioci wrote:
EI Digin wrote:
Anyone complaining about homogenization has obviously never experienced the "FC, can I bring my Drake" era.


Funny you mentioned Drake because it was nerfed purely on the popularity it had as the go to fleet Ops sub cap. Much like all Nerfs, they failed to control blobbing because the problem is and always has been the primary alpha system in EVE.

The reason nerfing popularity isn't working, the reason it never will. No ship in this game, none, was designed to have 200 people locking it.

It made an easy goto as far as cost, training ease and effect. Apparently offering too much in CCP's opinion. What I don't understand is the reasoning that a nerf to the drake was ever intended to break up the blob. No stat change on a ship can ever counter the fact that n+1 > n all other things being equal.


Killing by popularity is by definition killing the blob. Blobs burn through more ships that other combat styles.

If I see a situation I know I can't win, I dock up and log out. 10 guys can dock up and play station games. 800 guys won't do that. They will just burn their fleet. Considering the only way CCP can track popular ships is through kill mails, most popular is Blob.

Frankly I think they are wagging the dog. Most of EVE was always inert. Small details being nullified by blap power. It just takes some longer to see it than others and either bow down to the blob or just stop playing.

R.I.P. Vile Rat
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#45 - 2013-08-20 02:06:02 UTC  |  Edited by: Tyberius Franklin
Ioci wrote:
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Ioci wrote:
EI Digin wrote:
Anyone complaining about homogenization has obviously never experienced the "FC, can I bring my Drake" era.


Funny you mentioned Drake because it was nerfed purely on the popularity it had as the go to fleet Ops sub cap. Much like all Nerfs, they failed to control blobbing because the problem is and always has been the primary alpha system in EVE.

The reason nerfing popularity isn't working, the reason it never will. No ship in this game, none, was designed to have 200 people locking it.

It made an easy goto as far as cost, training ease and effect. Apparently offering too much in CCP's opinion. What I don't understand is the reasoning that a nerf to the drake was ever intended to break up the blob. No stat change on a ship can ever counter the fact that n+1 > n all other things being equal.


Killing by popularity is by definition killing the blob. Blobs burn through more ships that other combat styles.

If I see a situation I know I can't win, I dock up and log out. 10 guys can dock up and play station games. 800 guys won't do that. They will just burn their fleet. Considering the only way CCP can track popular ships is through kill mails, most popular is Blob.

Frankly I think they are wagging the dog. Most of EVE was always inert. Small details being nullified by blap power. It just takes some longer to see it than others and either bow down to the blob or just stop playing.

CCP killing popularity by way of nerfing a single ship has little to do with number driven combat decisions so I'm not sure where you are going with your line of reasoning. It literally sounds like you are saying that large fleets just smash themselves into each other like a car into a reinforced wall and after seeing enough wrecks CCP decides the car needs nerfed to keep people from running into walls. It doesn't work like that. If people want to collide with walls, they will.

The fact is that blobs can and will move to something else. They can't be stopped or broken up by nerfing a particular tool that's popular. And the number of ships lost is just a function of the size of the blobs using it and what/who they are using it against, which ensures that something will always fill that spot.

Killing popularity is by definition relocating the blob to another hull. Ship balance cannot nerf the blob.
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#46 - 2013-08-20 02:28:46 UTC
the hell is this ****? quality and intelligence on these threads is quite lo- owait, General Discussion.

carry on, and do keep with the whaawhaawhaa.

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Alavaria Fera
GoonWaffe
#47 - 2013-08-20 02:40:55 UTC
Blobbing is the best.

Triggered by: Wars of Sovless Agression, Bending the Knee, Twisting the Knife, Eating Sov Wheaties, Bombless Bombers, Fizzlesov, Interceptor Fleets, Running Away, GhostTime Vuln, Renters, Bombs, Bubbles ?
Destoya
Habitual Euthanasia
Pandemic Legion
#48 - 2013-08-20 04:28:00 UTC  |  Edited by: Destoya
Why do you people keep thinking the new vaga is bad in any way? Even if you consider that off-grid tengus/lokis wont exist forever the new ASB vaga is really one of the most scary ships you can 1v1 and one of the best kite-brawlers, even flown the way you fly a LSE vaga right now, with the massive effective buffer and incredible speed to pick fights and ranges of its choosing
Grauth Thorner
Vicious Trading Company
#49 - 2013-08-20 10:25:33 UTC
S Byerley wrote:
Grauth Thorner wrote:
It doesn't make PvP less dynamic, it's not like every ship should only have one ship to be strong against, one ship to be weak against and one ship to be equal against (or switch the word ship for tactic if you would). It means that every ship should have about the equal amount of ships it's strong against, weak against and equal against. This also doesn't mean that each ship can only be used for one tactic, it can be used for multiple tactics but as long as the chosen tactic is one of the tactics the ship is designed for, then the amount stated above should be more or less the same


The point was that pre-determined outcomes make for less frequent and boring PVP. I mean, your example had the first fleet warping off because there was nothing they could do.

That wasn't my example but TheBlueMonkey's example. I agree that pre-determined outcomes make for less frequent and boring PvP, however, that's not the case. For instance ship A may have several fittings. Say it's designed for 3 kinds of fittings, just to keep it easy. Now we have ship B, which can also have multiple kinds of fittings but for now let's say it's fitted the same in each outcome. The chart might (or should) look like this:

A1 vs B1 -> strong fitting
A2 vs B1 -> equal fitting
A3 vs B1 -> weak fitting

This is pretty much pre-determined, just like any fight is when you don't take the skills of the player (not the character) into consideration. But since ship B can also have several fittings, it's the task for ship A's pilot to find out which kind of fitting ship B has, which is nearly impossible unless you've met the pilot before. Meaning the outcome might be pretty much pre-determined (again, without taking the player's skills into consideration) but both pilots can't tell what the exact outcome is, making it not pre-determined at all for them at that moment.

The bad thing about keeping popular ships popular by not nerfing them once in a while (no matter for what reason the ship is as popular as it is) is that it takes away a lot of the diversity EVE has to offer, thus making fights more pre-determined because players would only have to learn about several kinds of ships and their fittings, because they rarely see other ships/fittings than these.

Also, if a player likes one kind of ship, which happens to be one of the weaker ships against a popular ship, this pilot pretty much has a problem. He would be more or less forced into a different kind of ship if he wants to be able to win in more situations, which can't be the way to go either.

View real-time damage statistics in-game

>EVE Live DPS Graph application forum thread

>iciclesoft.com
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#50 - 2013-08-20 11:03:12 UTC
I am very much looking forwards to the T3 nerf after seeing all of the rage and fear over the t2 changes.
Lephia DeGrande
Luxembourg Space Union
#51 - 2013-08-20 12:13:38 UTC
Grimpak wrote:
the hell is this ****? quality and intelligence on these threads is quite lo- owait, General Discussion.

carry on, and do keep with the whaawhaawhaa.


Congratulation, your the first one who troll this Thread by arguing its a classic General Discussion Troll Thread.

Trollception.

Meet the Mario Kart 8 - Capsuleer Club Cup
Grimpak
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2013-08-20 13:02:59 UTC
Lephia DeGrande wrote:
Grimpak wrote:
the hell is this ****? quality and intelligence on these threads is quite lo- owait, General Discussion.

carry on, and do keep with the whaawhaawhaa.


Congratulation, your the first one who troll this Thread by arguing its a classic General Discussion Troll Thread.

Trollception.

oh ****, where's my Totem....

[img]http://eve-files.com/sig/grimpak[/img]

[quote]The more I know about humans, the more I love animals.[/quote] ain't that right
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#53 - 2013-08-20 16:19:34 UTC
Alavaria Fera wrote:
Maldiro Selkurk wrote:
TheBlueMonkey wrote:
TBH it should be rock, paper, scissor balancing. Even if you base that on popularity.

Every system should have an ideal counter to that system and people should realise that.

Say you're roaming around in an armor brawler gang and you run into a shield sniping gang.
If they have some long points in the shield gang and the armor gang tries to fight, they're going to lose.
This doesn't make the shield gang overpowered. It makes it a fight that the armor gang should withdraw from.

The rock, paper, scissors model is a horrible combat model. Played wow for 8 years and the more wow moved away from their initial RPS model of combat the better the pvp became.

So we need specific pvp ships that will wtfpwn the specific pve ships?

Sounds good.


Thats asking for a better rock (pvp ship) to break scissors (pveship) but your real problem is they mostly fly in paper (high sec) so you will always lose your rock.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#54 - 2013-08-20 16:50:45 UTC
W0lf Crendraven wrote:
Performance is in no way equal to popularity. Those are quite different.

Also my opinion is far from uneducated, at least in matters of subcapital performance not that that has anything to do with my opening post.



Please dont turn this into another ahac thread. This is about ccp using popularity as a important figure in balancing (or it coming across as such) while its really not.


Thats why the Dominix Is OP and sales are way up.

Thats why the Machariel got nerfed and sales are way down.

Thats why nanoships were super popular before the nano nerf.

What you are trying to say, but unable to articulate, is that every balance change should not be based solely on the number of people using the ship.

CCP does not do this, has never done this, and likely won't ever do this.

So your entire thread based on one statement is highly irrelevant.

3/10 because you don't even know you're trolling.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it
Mr Kidd
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#55 - 2013-08-20 18:54:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr Kidd
Cipher Jones wrote:

Thats why the Dominix Is OP and sales are way up.

Thats why the Machariel got nerfed and sales are way down.

Thats why nanoships were super popular before the nano nerf.

What you are trying to say, but unable to articulate, is that every balance change should not be based solely on the number of people using the ship.

CCP does not do this, has never done this, and likely won't ever do this.

So your entire thread based on one statement is highly irrelevant.

3/10 because you don't even know you're trolling.


Lets look at the Domi and the Armageddon.

Both are drone boats. The Domi gets a 10% falloff and tracking bonus to drones and the Armageddon gets a neut distance bonus. They get the same drone dps bonus. But, due to the Domi being "over powered" is going to lose its 10% falloff and tracking drone bonus. So, the "drone" race won't be able to field even an equivalent boat. They'll have the same drone stats but the Armageddon can fit more neuts and for greater range. One on one, which BS is going to win....the Armageddon because all else being more or less equal, it'll out neut a Domi while applying the same amount of drone DPS. The Domi won't even be able to out dps's the Armageddon because, blasters require cap, and I don't care how many cap boosters you have, against 5 or 6 neuts outside of blaster range means no dps.

And to top it off, vamps are getting a buff......seeing how rebalancing is in full swing, as far as I'm concerned and being a Domi pilot, the Armageddon is going to be over powered as of Odyssey 1.1. So, it's not like CCP is actually doing anything to balance the game. In fact, they're creating other imbalances.

I have no problem with the Geddon neuting better than a Domi.....but what is the Domi going to better? Die, is about it.

Don't ban me, bro!
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#56 - 2013-08-20 19:04:47 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:


Lets look at the Domi and the Armageddon.

Both are drone boats. The Domi gets a 10% falloff and tracking bonus to drones and the Armageddon gets a neut distance bonus. They get the same drone dps bonus. But, due to the Domi being "over powered" is going to lose its 10% falloff and tracking drone bonus. So, the "drone" race won't be able to field even an equivalent boat. They'll have the same drone stats but the Armageddon can fit more neuts and for greater range. One on one, which BS is going to win....the Armageddon because all else being more or less equal, it'll out neut a Domi while applying the same amount of drone DPS. The Domi won't even be able to out dps's the Armageddon because, blasters require cap, and I don't care how many cap boosters you have, against 5 or 6 neuts outside of blaster range means no dps.

And to top it off, vamps are getting a buff......seeing how rebalancing is in full swing, as far as I'm concerned and being a Domi pilot, the Armageddon is going to be over powered as of Odyssey 1.1. So, it's not like CCP is actually doing anything to balance the game. In fact, they're creating other imbalances.

I have no problem with the Geddon neuting better than a Domi.....but what is the Domi going to better? Die, is about it.


Its still going to have a drone tracking bonus, just not as good as it is now.
Guttripper
State War Academy
Caldari State
#57 - 2013-08-20 19:15:04 UTC
I would be curious on how much the Alliance Tournament influences their decisions...
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#58 - 2013-08-20 19:21:14 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:

Lets look at the Domi and the Armageddon.

Both are drone boats. The Domi gets a 10% falloff and tracking bonus to drones and the Armageddon gets a neut distance bonus. They get the same drone dps bonus. But, due to the Domi being "over powered" is going to lose its 10% falloff and tracking drone bonus. So, the "drone" race won't be able to field even an equivalent boat. They'll have the same drone stats but the Armageddon can fit more neuts and for greater range. One on one, which BS is going to win....the Armageddon because all else being more or less equal, it'll out neut a Domi while applying the same amount of drone DPS. The Domi won't even be able to out dps's the Armageddon because, blasters require cap, and I don't care how many cap boosters you have, against 5 or 6 neuts outside of blaster range means no dps.

And to top it off, vamps are getting a buff......seeing how rebalancing is in full swing, as far as I'm concerned and being a Domi pilot, the Armageddon is going to be over powered as of Odyssey 1.1. So, it's not like CCP is actually doing anything to balance the game. In fact, they're creating other imbalances.

I have no problem with the Geddon neuting better than a Domi.....but what is the Domi going to better? Die, is about it.

I'm somewhat curious as to what you thought was happening with the domi. Did you think they were replacing the bonus? The stated nerf to 7.5%/lvl still makes the drones on a domi superior, which makes the entirety of your post objectively false so I'm left wondering what you thoughts were.
Swordfingers
The Swollen Horse Society
#59 - 2013-08-20 20:07:58 UTC
It's CCPs job to keep the game fresh and entertaining. Due to the nature of community (internet spaceships is serious bussines and you don't want the most fun, but the most optimal), minmaxed cookie-cutter fits and fleet doctrines emerge and form a stagnant and boring meta, which needs to be shaken up from time to time.

tl;dr: everyone and their mother's sheep flying a cane does not a fun game make. Ergo CCP nerfs the cane.

false edit: and don't give me crap about sandbox. The sandbox resulted in winmatar being win for more than 4 ******* years.
Cipher Jones
The Thomas Edwards Taco Tuesday All Stars
#60 - 2013-08-20 20:28:37 UTC
Mr Kidd wrote:
Cipher Jones wrote:

Thats why the Dominix Is OP and sales are way up.

Thats why the Machariel got nerfed and sales are way down.

Thats why nanoships were super popular before the nano nerf.

What you are trying to say, but unable to articulate, is that every balance change should not be based solely on the number of people using the ship.

CCP does not do this, has never done this, and likely won't ever do this.

So your entire thread based on one statement is highly irrelevant.

3/10 because you don't even know you're trolling.


Lets look at the Domi and the Armageddon.

Both are drone boats. The Domi gets a 10% falloff and tracking bonus to drones and the Armageddon gets a neut distance bonus. They get the same drone dps bonus. But, due to the Domi being "over powered" is going to lose its 10% falloff and tracking drone bonus. So, the "drone" race won't be able to field even an equivalent boat. They'll have the same drone stats but the Armageddon can fit more neuts and for greater range. One on one, which BS is going to win....the Armageddon because all else being more or less equal, it'll out neut a Domi while applying the same amount of drone DPS. The Domi won't even be able to out dps's the Armageddon because, blasters require cap, and I don't care how many cap boosters you have, against 5 or 6 neuts outside of blaster range means no dps.

And to top it off, vamps are getting a buff......seeing how rebalancing is in full swing, as far as I'm concerned and being a Domi pilot, the Armageddon is going to be over powered as of Odyssey 1.1. So, it's not like CCP is actually doing anything to balance the game. In fact, they're creating other imbalances.

I have no problem with the Geddon neuting better than a Domi.....but what is the Domi going to better? Die, is about it.


From a strictly PvP standpoint you are semi correct in theory, a bit off in practice if you watched the tourney.

The Armageddon gets the neut bonus but not a warp scram bonus or web bonus so a MJD domi will beat it every time. It will not apply the same amount of drone DPS AND has less DPS overall. After all, a range bonus is a DPS bonus.

internet spaceships

are serious business sir.

and don't forget it