These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Drone's getting nerfed?
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#301 - 2014-01-05 15:17:02 UTC
Pinky Hops wrote:
You're right.

CCP does not carefully select the mineral prices (or LP costs - whatever) for ships and does not align this at all with the balance of said ships.

Shocked

Wait, that wouldn't make any sense, and does not match up with the reality of the game. So we can safely say that isn't true.


i didn't know minerals were NPC seeded and thus sold at a price specified by CCP, please tell me more

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Meyr
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
OnlyFleets.
#302 - 2014-01-05 15:19:17 UTC
If these ships are catching reps, you guys can't kill them?

DO YOU SERIOUSLY INTEND TO STATE THAT THE ENTIRETY OF GOONS & CFC CAN'T CONSTRUCT AN E-WAR FLEET?

The guys who started out by blobbing with Rifters can't utilize T1 E-War frigates en-masse?

Really?
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#303 - 2014-01-05 15:20:15 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Andski wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
You're right.

CCP does not carefully select the mineral prices (or LP costs - whatever) for ships and does not align this at all with the balance of said ships.

Shocked

Wait, that wouldn't make any sense, and does not match up with the reality of the game. So we can safely say that isn't true.


i didn't know minerals were NPC seeded and thus sold at a price specified by CCP, please tell me more


Minerals cost the same no matter what you use them for.

If a ship costs more minerals to make, it costs more overall.

This is hard concept.

Maybe in your mystical fantasy land, minerals cost more when you are making subcaps, and cost less when you make carriers.
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#304 - 2014-01-05 15:21:12 UTC
Meyr wrote:
If these ships are catching reps, you guys can't kill them?

DO YOU SERIOUSLY INTEND TO STATE THAT THE ENTIRETY OF GOONS & CFC CAN'T CONSTRUCT AN E-WAR FLEET?

The guys who started out by blobbing with Rifters can't utilize T1 E-War frigates en-masse?

Really?


Supers cannot be jammed.
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#305 - 2014-01-05 15:22:50 UTC  |  Edited by: Alphea Abbra
baltec1 wrote:
You are literally arguing for a stalemate situation where two superpowers dominate null and are unable to gain victory over eachother while everyone else (the vast bulk of EVEs population) find it impossible to do anything to us.
You're right, two superpower blocs are bad for the game.
Let's end the stalemate and get one.

Right?

Andski wrote:
i didn't know minerals were NPC seeded and thus sold at a price specified by CCP, please tell me more
You said before that it makes you look like am imbecile to put words in peoples mouth...
So I guess you must have some pretty mallable ethics.
Is it either a "it's ok for me, but none else", or "let's avoid the tough questions/comments, just claim they're strawmanning!"?
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#306 - 2014-01-05 15:22:58 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Meyr wrote:
If these ships are catching reps, you guys can't kill them?

DO YOU SERIOUSLY INTEND TO STATE THAT THE ENTIRETY OF GOONS & CFC CAN'T CONSTRUCT AN E-WAR FLEET?

The guys who started out by blobbing with Rifters can't utilize T1 E-War frigates en-masse?

Really?


Supers cannot be jammed.


Here is a helpful quote from your corp-mate:

Andski wrote:
it's a good thing titans and supercarriers don't use regular drones so they're totally irrelevant in a discussion about drone assist
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#307 - 2014-01-05 15:25:18 UTC  |  Edited by: Alphea Abbra
baltec1 wrote:
Meyr wrote:
If these ships are catching reps, you guys can't kill them?

DO YOU SERIOUSLY INTEND TO STATE THAT THE ENTIRETY OF GOONS & CFC CAN'T CONSTRUCT AN E-WAR FLEET?

The guys who started out by blobbing with Rifters can't utilize T1 E-War frigates en-masse?

Really?


Supers cannot be jammed.
I too spend 25+B to get a logistic ship.
And then sub an account for that purpose.

Edit: And aww, I fell for a red herring. t_t

Your argument doesn't apply.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#308 - 2014-01-05 15:26:10 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Alphea Abbra wrote:
baltec1 wrote:
Meyr wrote:
If these ships are catching reps, you guys can't kill them?

DO YOU SERIOUSLY INTEND TO STATE THAT THE ENTIRETY OF GOONS & CFC CAN'T CONSTRUCT AN E-WAR FLEET?

The guys who started out by blobbing with Rifters can't utilize T1 E-War frigates en-masse?

Really?


Supers cannot be jammed.
I too spend 25+B to get a logistic ship.
And then sub an account for that purpose.


Yeah, now he's going to cry that you can't jam a 25b supercarrier with a frigate.

...And somehow use that to imply that Archons are overpowered. Which can be jammed.
Meyr
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
OnlyFleets.
#309 - 2014-01-05 15:28:00 UTC
The topic under discussion is Drone Assist.

Specifically, that "We can't break the tank of remote repping Archons.

To which I responded "WTF? You lot can't imagine using E-War?"
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#310 - 2014-01-05 15:31:55 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Meyr wrote:
The topic under discussion is Drone Assist.

Specifically, that "We can't break the tank of remote repping Archons.

To which I responded "WTF? You lot can't imagine using E-War?"

Who said the reps were coming from the other Archons?
Because they aren't. The Archons are now filling their high slots completely with DLA IIs. The reps are coming from supers, which cannot be jammed or sensor dampened.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
baltec1
Bat Country
Pandemic Horde
#311 - 2014-01-05 15:32:18 UTC  |  Edited by: baltec1
Pinky Hops wrote:


...And somehow use that to imply that Archons are overpowered. Which can be jammed.


Why would I?

The logistic supers alone are not an issue. Its when you couple the massive tanking abilities of these capitals with the sentries of effectively two domi fleets and drone assist that allows them to alpha just about any subcap every volley.

This is exactly the reason why supers were stopped from carrying drones several years ago.
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#312 - 2014-01-05 15:32:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Pinky Hops wrote:
Minerals cost the same no matter what you use them for.

If a ship costs more minerals to make, it costs more overall.

This is hard concept.


the "cost" of supercarriers and titans has increased substantially - even in relative terms- compared to the cost of subcapitals, as a consequence of the drone loot nerf

at the same time, they have not seen any major adjustments to account for that increase in cost - in fact, the only adjustment made to those ships since then was the titan tracking nerf

now, why is this the case? because while the cost of losing an insured capital or subcapital didn't increase substantially, titans and supercarriers can't be insured - GMs will no longer move supercapitals to stations to allow their pilots to insure them, and pilots who insure those ships when they end up in stations through any means face punitive action - increasing their "cost"

please tell us more about cost being a balancing factor, N3 sockpuppet

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#313 - 2014-01-05 15:34:00 UTC
unless supercarriers and titans literally doubling in cost without any positive changes made to their performance is a minor exception to this "rule" you're stating

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#314 - 2014-01-05 15:35:44 UTC  |  Edited by: Pinky Hops
Andski wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
Minerals cost the same no matter what you use them for.

If a ship costs more minerals to make, it costs more overall.

This is hard concept.


the "cost" of supercarriers and titans has increased substantially - even in relative terms- compared to the cost of subcapitals, as a consequence of the drone loot nerf

at the same time, they have not seen any major adjustments to account for that increase in cost - in fact, the only adjustment made to those ships since then was the titan tracking nerf

now, why is this the case? because while the cost of losing an insured capital or subcapital didn't increase substantially, titans and supercarriers can't be insured - GMs will no longer move supercapitals to stations to allow their pilots to insure them, and pilots who insure those ships when they end up in stations face punitive action - increasing their "cost"

please tell us more about cost being a balancing factor, N3 sockpuppet


I have no idea why you would think that because costs aren't adjust after the fact, that they are not a factor in balance.

Costs are decided initially, and then are progressively balanced throughout the years without adjusting cost (usually). That doesn't mean cost is not a factor in balance, it just means they already got the cost approximately right and adjust the ship to make sure it isn't too good or too terrible within that bracket.

Complex stuff, I know. Mind blowing.
James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#315 - 2014-01-05 15:42:50 UTC
No, mineral/component requirements are decided initially, not cost. It's not done with regard to mineral costs at the time of the decision, it's done so that requirements are similar across all ships of the same class, and appropriately more than that of classes below it.

It's something I argued too for the longest time because I really did not understand it. Like I said earlier, I once thought cost was a balancing factor. I wasn't kidding about that.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#316 - 2014-01-05 15:43:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Andski
Pinky Hops wrote:
I have no idea why you would think that because costs aren't adjust after the fact, that they are not a factor in balance.

Costs are decided initially, and then are progressively balanced throughout the years without adjusting cost. That doesn't mean cost is not a factor in balance, it just means they already got the cost approximately right and adjust the ship to make sure it isn't too good or too terrible within that bracket.

Complex stuff, I know. Mind blowing.


you argued that everything in the game maintains a constant relative cost compared to other items, which is demonstrably untrue

this "cost bracket" nonsense is just that, nonsense, because titans and supercarriers moved to an entirely different bracket after the drone loot nerf - feel free to argue that literally doubling in cost means they remain in the same "bracket" - while the costs of carriers, dreads, and below increased only marginally, as they are insurable

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#317 - 2014-01-05 15:45:53 UTC
Andski wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:
I have no idea why you would think that because costs aren't adjust after the fact, that they are not a factor in balance.

Costs are decided initially, and then are progressively balanced throughout the years without adjusting cost. That doesn't mean cost is not a factor in balance, it just means they already got the cost approximately right and adjust the ship to make sure it isn't too good or too terrible within that bracket.

Complex stuff, I know. Mind blowing.


you argued that everything in the game maintains a constant relative cost compared to other items, which is demonstrably untrue


Actually, all I said was that cost was a factor in balance.

Do you disagree?
Andski
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#318 - 2014-01-05 15:46:17 UTC
you can also argue that nobody insures their ships, but when you base the cost of a ship on the cost of its potential loss, you have to factor insurance into that as it makes a significant difference in the cost of a loss

Twitter: @EVEAndski

"It's easy to speak for the silent majority. They rarely object to what you put into their mouths."    - Abrazzar
Alphea Abbra
Project Promethion
#319 - 2014-01-05 15:48:33 UTC
baltec1 wrote:
Pinky Hops wrote:


...And somehow use that to imply that Archons are overpowered. Which can be jammed.


Why would I?
I don't know why you would - it was you who did it, so you're probably the one who knows.
What was your reason to imply that Archons are overpowered because they can be repped by supercarriers?

Quote:
The logistic supers alone are not an issue. Its when you couple the massive tanking abilities of these capitals with the sentries of effectively two domi fleets and drone assist that allows them to alpha just about any subcap every volley.
No, not effectively two domi fleets. Effectively 1.33 domi fleets with worse tracking/optimal (Assuming an equal ratio of Gal BS to Amr Carrier).
So wait, when you use a number of shiptypes that each take months or years of dedicated training to fly effectively and each ship is worth an equivalent of at least 8 battleships, and combine them, they're 33% better than a battleship fleet in all aspects except the survivability?
OH MY GOD *GHASP* THIS IS HORRIBLE!

Quote:
This is exactly the reason why supers were stopped from carrying drones several years ago.
No.
Why are you trying to rewrite history?
The supercarrier nerfs were because supercarriers were able to either win or log off, and the intended purpose for them was anti-capital and anti-structure more than anti-subcapital. If you want to deal with a subcapital fleet, bring a subcapital fleet or carriers.
Pinky Hops
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#320 - 2014-01-05 15:49:00 UTC
Andski wrote:
you can also argue that nobody insures their ships, but when you base the cost of a ship on the cost of its potential loss, you have to factor insurance into that as it makes a significant difference in the cost of a loss


Still waiting.

Do you agree or disagree that cost is a factor in balance?