Player Features and Ideas Discussion

Try making some constructive content. I can't believe you guys are wasting man-hours on some of these ridiculous Rubicon 1.1 changes that seem to be added 'just because'

Yes CCP Phantom senior community representative please do answer these important questions about game balance.

You definitely have to consider edge fits, but they have to be targeted and excluded from the rest. My point about balancing around an edge case is that if you do it broadly, you can unintentionally nerf things that aren't a problem.



Hrm. I'm not sure about all this. I didn't propose any particular change. I subscribe to the RTS School of Balance -- which may or may not be derided in this community.

The school is: you change as little as possible to have the effect you want. You always divide things into smaller and smaller sections to identify the one specific number that needs to be changed -- and change it by the smallest amount to bring the offending edge case back in line.

The smaller the total set is of changed things there are, while still killing the edge case -- the better the balance change was. That's one thing I like about the RTS approach -- they always seek the most elegant/minimalist approach possible except in things like expansions or massive content changes.

You have a blurry view of what peak performance relatively represents (comparing fits to other fits), but no absolute magical power number to "balance" around.

For instance you would almost never see a change like:
"All medium units move slower."

There's a pretty big issue there for that balance method to work. With regard to tracking there is a small set of numbers: skills, base weapon tracking, and module/implant modifiers; and furthermore all but one effects a much wider range. So really, in this case "All medium units move slower." is still pretty narrow when compared to "All units move slower" or "All non-medium units move faster"

Edit: Actually, this isn't entirely true. One could create special rules governing the use of the same module at different levels of ship, though that method has it's own spiderweb of issues including creating a gap between the ability to predict an effect based on common rules and the actual result when creating fits.

With Rubicon 1.1, I am convinced that CCP is trying to reignite interest in the game by irritating as many people as possible. These collective changes are designed to recreate the stunning success of Incarna and end the stagnation in Eve. How else do you explain changes that were not called for by anyone, do not address fundamental issues, and manage to affect nearly everyone who plays the game? Well played, CCP. Well played.

*Snip* Please refrain from spreading baseless rumors. ISD Ezwal


Totally disapprove of a change like this in the middle of a War! Srsly?

Was consideration given to capitals ability to refit and how commonly that is done on the battlefield? Burn out a tracking comp, refit another one...?

Another not needed random nerf.
1.1 is turning into a running joke CCP.

Dear CCP,

Please slow down the rate at which you are "balancing" the game. I as a player appreciate that you guys wish to work directly on mechanics on the game in the hopes of trying to make the game better. But the speed that you wish to "fix" the game is very quickly paced and if anything Rubicon 1.1 is a prime example of this. Drones are being slightly nerf'd (which is reasonable) but who was the one to make them so powerful? CCP. Interceptors are fast, and this became apparently obvious when you made them faster with Rubicon, now in Rubicon 1.1 you are making them slightly less agile. What this shows is the overall lack of foresight that CCP has, ideas which seem good are implemented quickly and with haste only to be changed in a sub patch on the SAME EXPANSION.

So CCP I implore you to focus and slow down with these ADHD derived patches that seem to wish to "balance" many different aspects at once.

Man if you hadn't quoted yourself I'd have never seen your post. Thanks for that.