EVE General Discussion

The ship meta needs to be fixed and in order to fix it, power creep is a necessary evil.
BCs are in a bad place, BSes are in a place where BCs should be.
CCP and the playerbase are so strongly against the idea of allowing power to flow as it should.

I've made this thread because I feel power creep is currently necessary in order to fix ship meta, I want to hear arguments against the idea of power creep.

I really like your picture! I don't know enough about this to form an opinion, but at least I admit it and don't ignore it, like most posters below!

I made three attempts at a reply out of courtesy to the OP. But all three times I had to admit that I dont understand the post well enough to add anything usefull.

Until now! Yay! I posted!

Below you tho.... :(

dw yarda, i acknowledge your posts :3

Power creep is inevitable - using nerfs to restore balance isn't popular even if it is obviously the right choice. The problem with power creep is that you don't restore balance - you just move the problem somewhere else. If the Talos gets more DPS, should freighters get more EHP? How about the gate guns - should they be buffed to restore their original capability?

When you toss a rock in the pond, it isn't just about the splash - you need to chase the ripples.

Not always, but depends on where you start and what you are doing. If power creep is caused by certain character / tool / archetype / strategy ("toolset") stands out because it allows player to adapt and setup variety of options with some foresight and skill to get upper hand against other bland and boring toolsets, then maaaybe it's where others should be instead of OP one being out of place. If something becomes strong because it has one oppressive gameplan that couldn't care less about whatever opponent is trying to do, then it's probably not correct direction to go.

Just keep in mind that if every toolset allows a ton of options and styles, then they probably will start overlapping, causing lose of diversity, which is often the goal behind asymmetrical balance in the first place.

You must have missed the bit where it was stated that "BCs are in a bad place". If you can't argue against this, then I take it you agree with it?

In that case, I hope you don't lose something you treasure to a BC you've underestimated

I don't think power creep is the same as balance though. So in that, no. Doesn't mean some ships can't be a little stronger in ways, pref different ways, but that it balances out with other ships as they should as well as with the environment, their true intention.

Power creep in games I've seen means a select class, gear or whatnot is bumped up in advantage over others, or all bumped up against the environment were say here rats seem much weaker.

Power creep, gear progression, or... er like special classes designed to be overpowered the word escapes me. Like privileged classes. Example would be like Jedi in SWG, but their compensation for being OP was perma-death which bounty hunters were given full opportunity to enforce hehe. Oh prestige class, yep.

I favor balance. That is a challenge though in a pvp/pve environment, if taken seriously. In some cases, new things dropped into a game can be OP and not fit, for one reason or another but sometimes that reason is "hey look at we just made, isn't it glorious?". More of a PR thing I think, and when it wears down it gets nerfed.

That stuff may get a pass in a level progression themepark, but imo not so welcome in a openworld sandbox simulator.

that's not an argument


but you asked people to argue against it. how can anyone look at your idea if it's not presented

if it can't stand to scrutiny it's not even worth pretending the idea is solid

Thanks for making my point. I made this thread to scrutinise the philosophy behind anti-power creep mentality. This is the existing idea I'm challenging. You're telling me to challenge my own idea before it exists rather than challenging the existing mentality.