These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

Player Features and Ideas Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

Nerf < Counter
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Unit562
Good Ole Boys
Sigma Grindset
#1 - 2012-01-14 08:54:46 UTC
I think the topic says enough, but for those stubborn people that dont understand, let me put it this way.

By nerfing a ship, it makes something els more powerful, then the same people whine and moarn about the new ship, it gets nerfed, the cycle repeats its self. Do you see the paradox? its a never ending nerf goat **** that ends up damaging the game. Just like the nerf of missions has done recently.

my 2 cents.
Valei Khurelem
#2 - 2012-01-14 09:01:37 UTC
Yep, this is pretty much the problem with this game and all games of it's type in general, you don't just run around tweaking numbers you make a counter for whatever is overpowered, that said, if you make all the damage values the same for these items and simply make them interact differently physics wise and stuff then it can't be imbalanced to begin with.

Good luck getting these idiots to understand that though.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium
LeHarfang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#3 - 2012-01-14 09:03:50 UTC  |  Edited by: LeHarfang
I kinda agree with you. Seeing solo battleships annihilate an entire NPC fleet is indeed ridiculous. Even if it is a pirate battleship that the player has, the ennemies should have the same kind of strong battleship as its main force. Or are the ships that are given to players special overpowered versions that not even fighters for that faction could even dream of piloting?

But anyway, making missions harder for players could indeed reduce the amount of ISK that enters the market and the inflation rate.

Also, on topic, indeed balancing something means making it and his counter balanced together. Like for example, when trying to balance frigates, we have to compare it with his main counter which are supposed to be the destroyers. Of course, the destroyers were underpowered in their frig-hunting roles so they got a buff and frigates who arent supposed to stand a chance against destroyers, did'nt get anything.

What balancing is about as well, is also having the same amount of chances on each side, whatever the racial ships we're using. Like for example, compare gallente drones and caldari missiles. Of course, drones are usually best at close range like blasters, which goes in line with Gallente's general tactics, Caldari using more long range tactics. What it means here, is that either tactics must be equally viable. Same for Amarr versus Minmattar with some variations.

Speaking of which, what are the general tactics of these two? I know Minmattar is speed, but what about Amarr?
Valei Khurelem
#4 - 2012-01-14 09:11:44 UTC
If we made a cap on the amount of ISK based on how many players there are subscribed and active then there wouldn't be that much of a problem in the first place with inflation because players wouldn't be able to inflate the prices by getting at the infinite amounts of ISK from stuff like mission running and bounties on NPCs.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium
LeHarfang
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#5 - 2012-01-14 09:16:52 UTC
Valei Khurelem wrote:
If we made a cap on the amount of ISK based on how many players there are subscribed and active then there wouldn't be that much of a problem in the first place with inflation because players wouldn't be able to inflate the prices by getting at the infinite amounts of ISK from stuff like mission running and bounties on NPCs.


Adding a ISK cap would take aways from the realism of the game's economy. I don't think its a viable option.
Klingon Admiral
Carcinisation
#6 - 2012-01-14 09:19:15 UTC
Valei Khurelem wrote:
If we made a cap on the amount of ISK based on how many players there are subscribed and active then there wouldn't be that much of a problem in the first place with inflation because players wouldn't be able to inflate the prices by getting at the infinite amounts of ISK from stuff like mission running and bounties on NPCs.


And after a few months, every single ISK in EVE would belong to traders or inactive players... Roll
Valei Khurelem
#7 - 2012-01-14 09:21:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Valei Khurelem
LeHarfang wrote:
Valei Khurelem wrote:
If we made a cap on the amount of ISK based on how many players there are subscribed and active then there wouldn't be that much of a problem in the first place with inflation because players wouldn't be able to inflate the prices by getting at the infinite amounts of ISK from stuff like mission running and bounties on NPCs.


Adding a ISK cap would take aways from the realism of the game's economy. I don't think its a viable option.


Realism? Really? If we're going to talk about realism then I hope you realise that if you print money infinitely then the prices are going to go even higher than they already are, this is what is happening with ISK.

Quote:
And after a few months, every single ISK in EVE would belong to traders or inactive players...


Not my fault you're all too scared of PvP :P besides, you've heard of mining and manufacturing yes? This would actually encourage it.

"don't get us wrong, we don't want to screw new players, on the contrary. The core problem here is that tech 1 frigates and cruisers should be appealing enough to be viable platforms in both PvE and PvP."   - CCP Ytterbium
Klingon Admiral
Carcinisation
#8 - 2012-01-14 09:34:19 UTC
Valei Khurelem wrote:
Not my fault you're all too scared of PvP :P besides, you've heard of mining and manufacturing yes? This would actually encourage it.


Oh yeah, I would love to tell a new player "Before you can run missions, you have to train mining and producing. Don't worry, it only takes about 8 months before you become remotely good at it."

I can literally feel the smile on the face of the new players when they uninstall EVE...
elitatwo
Zansha Expansion
#9 - 2012-01-14 09:43:40 UTC
LeHarfang wrote:
...
Also, on topic, indeed balancing something means making it and his counter balanced together. Like for example, when trying to balance frigates, we have to compare it with his main counter which are supposed to be the destroyers. Of course, the destroyers were underpowered in their frig-hunting roles so they got a buff and frigates who arent supposed to stand a chance against destroyers, did'nt get anything.

What balancing is about as well, is also having the same amount of chances on each side, whatever the racial ships we're using. Like for example, compare gallente drones and caldari missiles. Of course, drones are usually best at close range like blasters, which goes in line with Gallente's general tactics, Caldari using more long range tactics. What it means here, is that either tactics must be equally viable. Same for Amarr versus Minmattar with some variations.

Speaking of which, what are the general tactics of these two? I know Minmattar is speed, but what about Amarr?


I also agree with the topic.
That said, let me quote you here. You know missions were actually made easier because some kids were complaining being too hard.
Years ago level 4 mission were the top of the hill for missions. Then level 5 missions were added and recently all agents got their quality raised to 20.
For ours gods this was a financial decision because even our gods need isk to pay the gods or EVE will go in the hall of legends and no longer called EVE online but EVE offline.
Unfortunately for the more experienced players our favorite space game attracts a much younger audience. For the gods this means more isk and a long life.
Now the younger audience is spoiled by games of recent times like Battlefield or Supreme Commander and such and confuses a complex ecosystem like EVE with it.
This has many bad consequences and devalues a lot of things. You can even read all about it here in the forums.
Most of the new players don't know how good they have it.
Not too long ago a usual EVE day here on tranquility on a sunday evening had a total of 9000 players. Today we have 9000 players one minute after the server startup and a usual sunday has around 50.000 players online or even more.
Now we also have a bunch of terrorists here that demand things by threatening server node crashed or mass deflation / inflation of stuff as way of protest.
If you have a proposition you get flamed at or a child tries to explain to you who to do things.
If you appeal to the gods that there is something going very wrong, you don't get any response. They let anything happen as it is and let the kids do what they need to do.
Then instead of actually taking control - since they are the gods - they make false promises and just add new stuff.
I am not complaining about adding things but EVE already has a lot to offer and to explore for a lifetime.
I think more is not the answer and less is often more but actually noone cares what I think, so flame away.

Eve Minions is recruiting.

This is the law of ship progression!

Aura sound-clips: Aura forever
Gypsio III
State War Academy
Caldari State
#10 - 2012-01-14 17:40:50 UTC
Unit562 wrote:
I think the topic says enough, but for those stubborn people that dont understand, let me put it this way.

By nerfing a ship, it makes something els more powerful, then the same people whine and moarn about the new ship, it gets nerfed, the cycle repeats its self. Do you see the paradox? its a never ending nerf goat **** that ends up damaging the game. Just like the nerf of missions has done recently.

my 2 cents.


For those stubborn people that dont understand, let me put it this way.

By boosting a ship, it makes something els less powerful, then the same people whine and moarn about the old ship, it gets boosted, the cycle repeats its self. Do you see the paradox? its a never ending boost goat **** that ends up damaging the game.

my 2 cents.

got a point tbh
Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#11 - 2012-01-14 17:59:04 UTC
nerfs > counter because counters allow the existing problem to remain, allowing power creep into the game.
Aglais
Ice-Storm
#12 - 2012-01-14 19:29:20 UTC
LeHarfang wrote:
What it means here, is that [any] tactics must be equally viable.


This is an incredibly correct statement. I am still rather unhappy about the fact that if I want to succeed in PvP, more often than not I'll be told to fly something Minmatar (the new FOTM seems to be the Tornado), and if I want to consider flying Caldari I'll either be nudged towards a Drake if I'm ornery about it or told that I'm a moron for trying to play the game how I want.

I'm not necessarily saying that I want to do my own thing and be great for it. Actually, I am. 'My own thing' is making my own choice as to what faction's ships I want to fly, and still be respectable at all levels of ships (T1 frigs and cruisers, HACs, AFs, battlecruisers, battleships, dreads, everything) regardless of what their strengths and weaknesses are, and not HAVE to train one faction for one kind of gameplay, and a completely different one for another. Right now that's not the case. You fly a generic, cookie-cutter drake/cane/tornado if you're poor, and ridiculed if you even think about non-Rupture T1 cruisers or non-Rifter T1 frigates, really. At least in my experience.

Another thing about the 'different factions for different types of gameplay' thing. Imagine if, you have a game somewhere that gives you the option of five classes, wizard, fighter, scout, bard and healer. You choose a class at the start of the game, and quickly discover that your character cannot participate in various actions before 'reclassing' to another. Does that make sense? No. It doesn't. Sorry mage, you're PvE only. If you want to fight other players, better give up your role as a caster and learn how to hit people with pointy sticks and clubs. It kills the variety of what you can expect in PvP, and IMO makes it far less fun. Just imagine if all four factions were equally viable in EVE's PvP. There would be so many more kinds of fleets, so many more ways to fight for sov and such, and there might be a possibility that the overwhelming focus on cookie-cutter drake/cane/etc. fleets would die down because there would be more possible fleets around that could completely smash them.

For a sandbox, there sure isn't alot of... Sandbox right now.
Wolodymyr
Breaking Ambitions
#13 - 2012-01-14 19:49:30 UTC
Nicolo da'Vicenza wrote:
nerfs > counter because counters allow the existing problem to remain, allowing power creep into the game.

Yeah I really agree with this.

Blobs are annoying we need a ship that is really expensive and can chew through blobs. Let's make titans.

Titans are overpowered. OK lets add some tier 3 BCs that are cheap and put out a lot of DPS and are hard to track by large ships that'll fix it.

Tier 3 battlecruisers are too powerful for ganking, they make highsec hulks explode. OK let's introduce some new ganglink modules that let your mining foreman boost your shield resistances.

These new shield warfare links make drake and cane roams too damn powerfull, we need a new kind of ship that kills command ships.

adding stuff to eve to fill it out is great, but adding stuff to fix broken things that just creates more problems is bad.

I honestly think PoCo based sov is a good idea https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=1417544
Goose99
#14 - 2012-01-14 20:38:33 UTC
Unit562 wrote:


By nerfing a ship, it makes something els as powerful as the ship being nerfed, thus achieving balance.


IndeedCool
Unit562
Good Ole Boys
Sigma Grindset
#15 - 2012-01-15 16:18:05 UTC
Goose99 wrote:
Unit562 wrote:


By nerfing a ship, it makes something els as powerful as the ship being nerfed, thus achieving balance.


IndeedCool


dont you feel cool? bring an opinion in moron, not changing quotes.
Goose99
#16 - 2012-01-15 16:35:32 UTC
Unit562 wrote:
Goose99 wrote:
Unit562 wrote:


By nerfing a ship, it makes something els as powerful as the ship being nerfed, thus achieving balance.


IndeedCool


Me MAD! Nerf BAD!


Working as intended.Big smile