These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
123Next page
 

CCP SoniClover: "Uber-balanced utopia vs ever-changing environment".

Author
Gripen
#1 - 2012-01-17 12:43:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Gripen
Following is a quote from F&I subforum but I think it outlines important development question which is worth a thread on its own so it won't be lost by community attention spotlight.

CCP SoniClover wrote:
Just a quick note on why we're looking into adding new modules, rather than focus completely on fixing/balancing existing stuff - what we're looking into is creating a fluid tactical environment that shifts over time. So we're not looking into creating an uber-balanced utopia ala Starcraft II that, once achieved, we can then walk away from. Rather, we want to achieve a more chaotic environment where 'best' fittings change rapidly and the value of items (modules, rigs, ships) is relative based on the current metagame rather than fixed in eternity. The idea is that a fluid, ever-changing environment like that will have more long-term appeal in a game like EVE than a static uber-balanced system does.

I just want to know am I the only one who is really disappointed by such approach? Isn't this "fluid, ever-changing environment" is a synonym to the constant FOTM race and lack of complex balance vision what we had in EVE all the way since 2003? How can one reference an existing commercial product and utopia in the same sentence without implying that there is no way to create something even close to other people archivements? Shouldn't you always aim high? And balance doesn't mean there couldn't be any changes. Talking about after-mentioned SC2: it's supposed to be released in three parts so that's the same game sold three times in a row just because of changes supposed to shake the game environment.

There is no debate that changes are needed but the question is "new stuff for the sake of new stuff" or "changes to improve depth without ruling out old stuff". More choices at any given time vs constant shift of the focus from time to time.
Mr M
Sebiestor Tribe
#2 - 2012-01-17 12:52:24 UTC  |  Edited by: Mr M
Yes, you're the only one. Change is good.

Oh hang on, it was you. You just don't want to update EFT every time they change something Blink

Share your experience

Write for the EVE Tribune

www.eve-tribune.com

Ciar Meara
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#3 - 2012-01-17 12:54:28 UTC
Stagnation is to be avoided at all costs. The evolution of warfare is based on new discoveries, new goals and new tactics and sometimes new tactics based on discoveries and these goals.

If you take out this element, you get a boring spreadsheet gameplay with only a few fits that are optimal, we have that now in eve on occasion but the "chaotic" element makes it so that things stir up on occasion and new modules/skills/ships/bonuses or changing stats make that possible.

Evolution and change are fun and interesting, stagnation is death.

- [img]http://go-dl1.eve-files.com/media/corp/janus/ceosig.jpg[/img] [yellow]English only please. Zymurgist[/yellow]

Karl Planck
Perkone
Caldari State
#4 - 2012-01-17 12:56:05 UTC
imo its healthy. While there is a great deal of merit to achieving (or pursuing) utopian balance, it is just one method of game structure. Chess is a good example of this kind of balance. Table top games with changing rules is the antithesis of this idea, but changing the rules to promote creativity and experimentation is something i feel fits into eve very well.

I has all the eve inactivity

Razin
The Scope
#5 - 2012-01-17 13:01:36 UTC
No news here. This is how EVE has been up to this point, with the only difference being that the balance updates were few and far between (we'll see if that changes). Looks to me like that statement is just an official admission that the current mechanics are too complex and that any real balance in unachievable. If there is a real effort to have regular balance updates this may be a good thing, and gives a chance to eventually coming up with a stable system, if such a thing is attainable at all.
Aamrr
#6 - 2012-01-17 13:02:53 UTC
Change is good. Vote of confidence for CCP.
Alexa Coates
Coalition Of Misfits
#7 - 2012-01-17 13:04:21 UTC
I like the idea of making more modules instead of balancing others. If everything was balanced then there would be no point in deviating ships and fits. Right now we can change ships and fits and have equal ships while being absolutely different.

That's a Templar, an Amarr fighter used by carriers.

Jade Constantine
Jericho Fraction
The Star Fraction
#8 - 2012-01-17 13:06:40 UTC
Agree with CCP on this one. Constant change and evolution keeps the game interesting. As a gamer I'm certainly motivated by trying to discover "killer fits" and concepts by combining different elements and this aspect of Eve Online fascinated me from the beginning. Putting together Eve pvp gangs (or indeed PVE gangs) can sometimes be a bit like building MTG (magic the gathering) decks and thats a good thing.

The True Knowledge is that nothing matters that does not matter to you, might does make right and power makes freedom

Cyzlaki
Ministry of War
Amarr Empire
#9 - 2012-01-17 13:13:48 UTC
Disagree. Constant nerfing and buffing is the same as WoW, having to re-spec every patch and suddenly all your gear is worthless. Same thing here. Every patch will change the game which is terrible in a game where you have to wait for skills to finish in real-time.

It's just a cop out really. He's basically saying they don't know how to balance the game. If it was truly balanced it would not be stagnant at all, it would always be about player skill, not overpowered ships and modules.
Alara IonStorm
#10 - 2012-01-17 13:14:57 UTC  |  Edited by: Alara IonStorm
Alexa Coates wrote:
If everything was balanced then there would be no point in deviating ships and fits.

Hahahahaha!

No.

Balance doesn't mean everything is the same or equal. It doesn't even come close to that, I wonder what idiot spread that bit of false info I see it everywhere?

Quote:
In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning the relationships between a game's different systems, usually with the goal of preventing any from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers.

I don't know about you but EVE will not get more boring if their is a viable Rail Ferox at the same Time as a viable Nano Cane.

I too am tired of Flavor of the Month. Make every Ship usable to its fullest potential within it's role CCP.

What is Stale is looking at half the Ships in EVE and never flying them then looking at a quarter more and knowing that if I did fly them it is for the lols.

So please CCP balance Ships Roles and Weapons against each other.
Gripen
#11 - 2012-01-17 13:25:49 UTC
Addition based on first replys: there is no debate that changes are needed but the question is "new stuff for the sake of new stuff" or "changes to improve depth without ruling out old stuff". More choices at any given time vs constant shift of the focus from time to time.
Destination SkillQueue
Doomheim
#12 - 2012-01-17 13:29:32 UTC
Alara IonStorm wrote:
Alexa Coates wrote:
If everything was balanced then there would be no point in deviating ships and fits.

Hahahahaha!

No.

Balance doesn't mean everything is the same or equal. It doesn't even come close to that, I wonder what idiot spread that bit of false info I see it everywhere?

Quote:
In game design, balance is the concept and the practice of tuning the relationships between a game's different systems, usually with the goal of preventing any from being ineffective or otherwise undesirable when compared to their peers.

I don't know abut you but EVE will not get more boring if their is a viable Rail Ferox at the same Time as a viable Nano Cane.

I too am tired of Flavor of the Month. Make every Ship usable to its fullest potential within it's role CCP.

What is Stale is looking at half the Ships in EVE and never flying them then looking at a quarter more and knowing that if I d fly them it is fr the lols.

So please CCP balance Ships Roles and Weapons against each other.


This is pretty much my viewpoint exactly. I'm not interested in perfect balance, where CCP does nothing but endless minor changes to fix minor differences in ship and module performance. That doesn't mean I don't want them to bring mostly useless and obsolete ships and modules to a level where they are potentially worth using. I also don't want rapid changes to be made just for the sake of changing things. If they feel things are well balanced but stale, they should focus on bringing new ships, modules and mechanics in to the game, that will reshuffle things again.
Large Collidable Object
morons.
#13 - 2012-01-17 13:53:55 UTC
Change adds long term motivation for new players as they have new goals to train for from time to time just as it keeps the game interesting for higher SP players as they get to develop new fits, fleet concepts and tactics as soon as changes roll out.

To train for the 'best ship' and be stuck with that for the rest of the game would be terribly boring. However, I think it should be done without adding too much new stuff - rebalancing (not balancing by all means) existing stuff without forgetting about the races features every now and then achieves the same without cluttering the database with obsolete modules nobody uses anymore. And of course, all too blatant imbalances such as Minmatar/projectiles being OP or Gallente/Hybrids being broken for the last three years should be avoided.
You know... [morons.](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4gjOx65yD5A)
Wacktopia
State War Academy
Caldari State
#14 - 2012-01-17 13:59:44 UTC
Adapt or die(tm)

Kitchen sink? Seriousy, get your ship together -  Fleet-Up.com

Winters Chill
Unitas Incorporated
#15 - 2012-01-17 14:03:49 UTC
Wacktopia wrote:
Adapt or die(tm)


/thread

This ethos as reported by the CCPer is the epitome of what Eve is about.

Don't stop CCP!

Zagam
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#16 - 2012-01-17 14:04:07 UTC
Change is good. It keeps players subbing, keeps the challenge level up, makes market speculation even more of an art form, and makes the game better overall.

I remember when Minmatar was crap in PvP. Now they're effectively "winmatar". I remember when a battleship fleet was to be feared... now its hot-dropped and its tears are bottled.

Constant change is simply good for the game, and makes EVE a fun game to play.
Borascus
#17 - 2012-01-17 14:09:43 UTC
CCP have a good view towards balance and the quote of SoniClover appears to ask:


Do you want rock, paper, scissors? or want paper to become rock every now and again?


If new modules / stats are introduced you don't end up with a situation where intel in null-sec reports: "x ships of the following types: ......" which would result in: "ok we need x ships fit like this [linked fitting goes here]"


Sounds more utopian as I'm sure there are enough combat statistics out there in the community to have a valid rock paper scissors spreadsheet.

Akrasjel Lanate
Lanate Industries
#18 - 2012-01-17 14:15:27 UTC
So what nerf stuff used for major doctrines by alliances Bear

CEO of Lanate Industries

Citizen of Solitude

Jarnis McPieksu
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#19 - 2012-01-17 14:18:19 UTC
This is good. If done correctly, this is very good.

Magic: The Gathering is a fine example of such a system - it gets four card sets every year, constantly changing the game and altering the balance so you simply cannot use the same strategies year after year. It keeps things fresh.

If done correctly, constant small shifts and changes to things are better than the mythical "balance" that never happens anyway. It forces people to keep experimenting on fits and strategies and it prevents people from falling into a rut with one uber-doctrine (leaving most of the stuff available unused). Yes, it also means that you probably should cross train... Big smile

It also injects quite a bit of action in the markets and manufacturing as "market PvP" guys have to stay on top of any changes - or even predict them - and invest accordingly. Today's top selling PvP fit item might not be the same as it was six months ago. This is a good thing.

Still, the devil is in the details. Such a system requires constant tweaking and maintenance. If CCP, even for a moment, goes all :lolccp: on the subject and abandons it in pursuit of some other shiny thing, things could go south fast. I'm actually impressed they even suggest at doing this as it is a long-term commitment of at least a few guys that have to keep working on this constantly or it'll fall on it's face.
Wot I Think
Doomheim
#20 - 2012-01-17 14:21:02 UTC
TLDR:

OP flys minmatar only.

CCP is going to buff another race.

OP changes from "Win"matar to "Whine"matar.
123Next page