These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Ship rebalancing is pointless and a waste of time.

First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Barrogh Habalu
Imperial Shipment
Amarr Empire
#81 - 2012-09-14 17:53:21 UTC  |  Edited by: Barrogh Habalu
Roime wrote:
Candidate for worst OP in GD September 2012

Before tiericide: tons of crappy ships
After tiericide: tons of awesome ships that will bring a massive amount of FRESH into New Eden.

This means pure win to everybody, except maybe you. This is not just creating new FOTMs (which will evolve even without continuous balancing work btw), but a revolution in fleet comps.

I for one welcome our wonderful new T1 ships, and frankly haven't been this excited about any expansion before.

Let's just hope that tiericide will be done about right in every class/iteration. Ideally we will be getting this then.

Another good thing is that we'll (hopefully) be getting more viable cheap ships for people to fly if they want some casual (or even not so casual maybe) pew.

Future of T3 cruisers - multi-tool they aspired to be instead of sledgehammer they have become
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#82 - 2012-09-14 19:43:43 UTC
I just had this thread pointed out to me, and not in a good way. Shocked

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!
Hans Jagerblitzen
Ice Fire Warriors
#83 - 2012-09-14 19:52:45 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Freedom over slot layout, hardpoint numbers and types, engine types, etc.... Of course there have to be some limits on the designs; hard rules to govern the players, but ultimate choices of how a hull should be fit and used should be left to the players. By giving ship design over to the players, ccp breaks free of the balancing trap and frees up developer resources to actually focus on content. Hence for both the players and ccp less hulls equals more freedom.


Ahhhhh, I got it. You're saying that all EVE ships should be as well-balanced as the Tech 3 cruisers. Roll

I'm sure that will mean the end of any kind of balancing work after that, certainly. Tech 3's were perfect right off the assembly line!

CPM0 Chairman / CSM7 Vice Secretary
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#84 - 2012-09-14 19:55:53 UTC
Barrogh Habalu wrote:
Roime wrote:
Candidate for worst OP in GD September 2012

Before tiericide: tons of crappy ships
After tiericide: tons of awesome ships that will bring a massive amount of FRESH into New Eden.

This means pure win to everybody, except maybe you. This is not just creating new FOTMs (which will evolve even without continuous balancing work btw), but a revolution in fleet comps.

I for one welcome our wonderful new T1 ships, and frankly haven't been this excited about any expansion before.

Let's just hope that tiericide will be done about right in every class/iteration. Ideally we will be getting this then.

Another good thing is that we'll (hopefully) be getting more viable cheap ships for people to fly if they want some casual (or even not so casual maybe) pew.


Fozzie seems to be doing a great, great job. (Besides the drone thing)

I think we will see much more logistics and ewar used in the future, which puts more emphasis to gang comp planning and coordination... we might see more varied fleet comps <3

Also better logis and ewar pilots, when they can fly usable ships right from start, and not wait until they reach T2.

.
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
#85 - 2012-09-14 20:00:30 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Freedom over slot layout, hardpoint numbers and types, engine types, etc.... Of course there have to be some limits on the designs; hard rules to govern the players, but ultimate choices of how a hull should be fit and used should be left to the players. By giving ship design over to the players, ccp breaks free of the balancing trap and frees up developer resources to actually focus on content. Hence for both the players and ccp less hulls equals more freedom.


Ahhhhh, I got it. You're saying that all EVE ships should be as well-balanced as the Tech 3 cruisers. Roll

I'm sure that will mean the end of any kind of balancing work after that, certainly. Tech 3's were perfect right off the assembly line!



Yeah, there is always a baseline that is constantly getting tweaked. You can never have complete freedom, it just isn't possible from a design or balance standpoint. Currently, that baseline is already pretty diverse, you can choose from all sorts of modules how to build your ship.

Fear and Loathing in Internet Spaceships
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#86 - 2012-09-14 20:01:19 UTC
Taranius De Consolville wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Doddy wrote:
Just No


Lol. Why not? Are you afraid of the training wheels being taken off and you being responsible for how your ship actually functions?



So what ur saying is and this is EXACTLY what your saying...

Lets leave loads of ships useless and never used

Lets keep bringing out so many new ships that eve has thousands of cruisers and battle crusiers etc

Lets ignore the massive market crash that would follow

I pay for eve therefore it is done my way

My response?

**** off back to wow

oh and

Post with your main coward :)


No -- what I am saying is consolidate the useless ships into fewer hulls, and give the players more freedom over how to design their own solutions to the balance problem. In particular, give the players the freedom to reconfigure slot locations, and hardpoint types and most importantly eliminate ship roles. Free up ship design to allow the players to create their own "roles" for ships. Tiericide is well meaning but misdirected. In six months or a year or so, ccp is going to be back to square one having to rebalance the ships to stamp out the new fotm that they created, in this round of ship balancing. Consequently it would be much better to throw the issue back to the players and let the players fix their own problems.

IMO people who want the dev's to design their ships for them are the real wow-babies -- so back to wow with you.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Seleene
Body Count Inc.
Mercenary Coalition
#87 - 2012-09-14 20:03:42 UTC
Those who fail to adapt become a victim of Evolution.

2004-2008: Mercenary Coalition Boss

2007-2010: CCP Game Designer | 2011-2013: CSM6 Delegate & CSM7 Chairman

2011-2015: Pandemic Legionnaire

2015- : Mercenary Coalition Boss

Follow Seleene on Twitter!
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#88 - 2012-09-14 20:10:18 UTC
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Freedom over slot layout, hardpoint numbers and types, engine types, etc.... Of course there have to be some limits on the designs; hard rules to govern the players, but ultimate choices of how a hull should be fit and used should be left to the players. By giving ship design over to the players, ccp breaks free of the balancing trap and frees up developer resources to actually focus on content. Hence for both the players and ccp less hulls equals more freedom.


Ahhhhh, I got it. You're saying that all EVE ships should be as well-balanced as the Tech 3 cruisers. Roll

I'm sure that will mean the end of any kind of balancing work after that, certainly. Tech 3's were perfect right off the assembly line!


What you fail to recognize is that balance is an impossible goal. It cant be achieved. Maybe they can with alot of effort smooth out the bumps to bring the ships closer in alignment, but in the process they will make their players howl from nerfs. Consequently, it would be much better if ccp trusted the sandbox and gave the tools to players to make the ships themselves.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Tyberius Franklin
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#89 - 2012-09-14 20:41:03 UTC
Roime wrote:

Fozzie seems to be doing a great, great job. (Besides the drone thing)

Drone thing?
Lili Lu
#90 - 2012-09-14 20:42:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Lili Lu
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Freedom over slot layout, hardpoint numbers and types, engine types, etc.... Of course there have to be some limits on the designs; hard rules to govern the players, but ultimate choices of how a hull should be fit and used should be left to the players. By giving ship design over to the players, ccp breaks free of the balancing trap and frees up developer resources to actually focus on content. Hence for both the players and ccp less hulls equals more freedom.


Ahhhhh, I got it. You're saying that all EVE ships should be as well-balanced as the Tech 3 cruisers. Roll

I'm sure that will mean the end of any kind of balancing work after that, certainly. Tech 3's were perfect right off the assembly line!


What you fail to recognize is that balance is an impossible goal. It cant be achieved. Maybe they can with alot of effort smooth out the bumps to bring the ships closer in alignment, but in the process they will make their players howl from nerfs. Consequently, it would be much better if ccp trusted the sandbox and gave the tools to players to make the ships themselves.


To support a rebalancing is not the same as saying there can be perfect balance. The game will always change. It already has been. There have been plenty of nerfs and buffs. It is the pace and scale that will change. The pace has been very slow for years. The process will be speeding up and it will stay continuous. Just because you are butthurt to lose whatever op ship you are currently flying is no reason not to try to fix the situation.

If CCP doesn't put an effort into rebalancing the game we will end up with a stagnant Drakes and Tengus Online. Everyone rolls Caldari and everyone flies those ships. The game stagnates and bleeds players that don't want to be Drake number 9000. The game dies.

Now stfu and regret your OP. Your prescription, to do nothing, is the sureest way to lose player base and have the game die. It is as stupid an argument, to do what you ask, as your avatar protrait looks.

edit - And post with something other than your noob corp trolling alt.
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
#91 - 2012-09-14 20:53:27 UTC
Seleene wrote:
I just had this thread pointed out to me, and not in a good way. Shocked


Im not sure what this means.
Vol Arm'OOO
Central Co-Prosperity Union
#92 - 2012-09-14 20:53:54 UTC  |  Edited by: Vol Arm'OOO
Lili Lu wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Freedom over slot layout, hardpoint numbers and types, engine types, etc.... Of course there have to be some limits on the designs; hard rules to govern the players, but ultimate choices of how a hull should be fit and used should be left to the players. By giving ship design over to the players, ccp breaks free of the balancing trap and frees up developer resources to actually focus on content. Hence for both the players and ccp less hulls equals more freedom.


Ahhhhh, I got it. You're saying that all EVE ships should be as well-balanced as the Tech 3 cruisers. Roll

I'm sure that will mean the end of any kind of balancing work after that, certainly. Tech 3's were perfect right off the assembly line!


What you fail to recognize is that balance is an impossible goal. It cant be achieved. Maybe they can with alot of effort smooth out the bumps to bring the ships closer in alignment, but in the process they will make their players howl from nerfs. Consequently, it would be much better if ccp trusted the sandbox and gave the tools to players to make the ships themselves.


To support a rebalancing is not the same as saying there can be perfect balance. The game will always change. It already has been. There have been plenty of nerfs and buffs. It is the pace and scale that will change. The pace has been very slow for years. The process will be speeding up and it will stay continuous. Just because you are butthurt to lose whatever op ship you are currently flying is no reason not to try to fix the situation.

If CCP doesn't put an effort into rebalancing the game we will end up with a stagnant Drakes and Tengus Online. Everyone rolls Caldari and everyone flies those ships. The game stagnates and bleeds players that don't want to be Drake number 9000. The game dies.

Now stfu and regret your OP. Your prescription, to do nothing, is the sureest way to lose player base and have the game die. It is as stupid an argument, to do what you ask, as your avatar protrait looks.

edit - And post with something other than your noob corp trolling alt.


Stop putting words in my mouth - my prescription is not to do nothing. Rather it is to give the players the tools to fix it themselves. And in a world where the players have tools to design their own ships, then there is no reason for some player to ***** that he is just a reiteration of some other ship as he can always go out and design a new ship that suits him If he is flying drake number 9000 he only has himself to blame.

It just boils down to simply fact that even in eve - a nominally sand box game -- there are still folk such as yourself who feel the need to rely on the crutch of the devs. Just because you like the creativity and the imagination to design your own things doesnt mean the game wouldnt better off if the chains were taken off so the rest of us could design the ships as we see fit.

I don't play, I just fourm warrior.
Shizuken
Venerated Stars
#93 - 2012-09-14 21:12:12 UTC  |  Edited by: Shizuken
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Freedom over slot layout, hardpoint numbers and types, engine types, etc.... Of course there have to be some limits on the designs; hard rules to govern the players, but ultimate choices of how a hull should be fit and used should be left to the players. By giving ship design over to the players, ccp breaks free of the balancing trap and frees up developer resources to actually focus on content. Hence for both the players and ccp less hulls equals more freedom.


Ahhhhh, I got it. You're saying that all EVE ships should be as well-balanced as the Tech 3 cruisers. Roll

I'm sure that will mean the end of any kind of balancing work after that, certainly. Tech 3's were perfect right off the assembly line!


I think what the OP was getting at, putting the dramatic title aside, is that MMO game balancing is like Soviet Russia staking its legitimacy on its ability to provide material wealth to its citizens. There is no such thing as ideal "balance" in life, so how can you expect it to exist in an MMO? Unless of course if you just cookie cutter the tech for all four factions and make it look different. Trying to deliver true balance is futile.

Instead of doing that, or retroactively making changes to values in a spreadsheet, they need to mimic real life. There need to be designs that have finite production that are continuously refined, remade, rereleased etc. This would increase their value, but not make valueless, prior versions that may be less expensive but also less capable. There is still a market for used cars even though new ones are ubiquitous. That is because they get the job done but cost considerably less. This is true with every kind of RL durable good I can think of.

If the entire process were more organic from the start CCP would not need to be constantly going "X is too Y! We need to change the numbers." Instead some development subgroup could be coming up with a natural counter to the "X" advantage. This is a real arms race, and a balance found in an equilibrium of competition.
Higgs Maken
The Metal Box Company
#94 - 2012-09-15 01:57:58 UTC
Shizuken wrote:
Hans Jagerblitzen wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Freedom over slot layout, hardpoint numbers and types, engine types, etc.... Of course there have to be some limits on the designs; hard rules to govern the players, but ultimate choices of how a hull should be fit and used should be left to the players. By giving ship design over to the players, ccp breaks free of the balancing trap and frees up developer resources to actually focus on content. Hence for both the players and ccp less hulls equals more freedom.


Ahhhhh, I got it. You're saying that all EVE ships should be as well-balanced as the Tech 3 cruisers. Roll

I'm sure that will mean the end of any kind of balancing work after that, certainly. Tech 3's were perfect right off the assembly line!


I think what the OP was getting at, putting the dramatic title aside, is that MMO game balancing is like Soviet Russia staking its legitimacy on its ability to provide material wealth to its citizens. There is no such thing as ideal "balance" in life, so how can you expect it to exist in an MMO? Unless of course if you just cookie cutter the tech for all four factions and make it look different. Trying to deliver true balance is futile.

Instead of doing that, or retroactively making changes to values in a spreadsheet, they need to mimic real life. There need to be designs that have finite production that are continuously refined, remade, rereleased etc. This would increase their value, but not make valueless, prior versions that may be less expensive but also less capable. There is still a market for used cars even though new ones are ubiquitous. That is because they get the job done but cost considerably less. This is true with every kind of RL durable good I can think of.

If the entire process were more organic from the start CCP would not need to be constantly going "X is too Y! We need to change the numbers." Instead some development subgroup could be coming up with a natural counter to the "X" advantage. This is a real arms race, and a balance found in an equilibrium of competition.


Germans are considering a one time wealth tax. I have extracted from an economist article (http://www.economist.com/node/21562237) , who do they consider rich and thus be tax.
Quote:
The first question is who counts as rich. DIW based its analysis on a starting point of €250,000 ($315,000) of individual wealth. But that would hit the middle-class. So the talk shows, an important political stage in Germany, took up the debate. The consistent answer seems to be that “rich” is anybody who has more than the person answering the question


Isn't it the same when it comes to MMO's balancing, what is imba? Whatever kills me. Even in your scenario of " Unless of course if you just cookie cutter the tech for all four factions and make it look different." It's isn't balance to them, remember good old CS? Have you snipe people with your trusted AWP, and have them nerd rage about you being a loser using imba weapon. If it's imba why didn't they use it in the first place?

I do somewhat agree with OP: trying to balance the game is fruitless, but I disagree leaving balancing to players because it isn't optimum. Just like AWP i brought up, opponents are going to argue about it's damage and totally ignore it's cons: reload time, and skills required to actually hit something.
Alekseyev Karrde
Noir.
Shadow Cartel
#95 - 2012-09-15 03:08:52 UTC
Seleene wrote:
Those who fail to adapt become a victim of Evolution.


I got that reference!

Alek the Kidnapper, Hero of the CSM
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#96 - 2012-09-15 07:26:34 UTC
No amount of ship balancing is going to save me from my lame ship fittings. Oops

Bring back DEEEEP Space!
Doddy
Excidium.
#97 - 2012-09-15 11:51:01 UTC
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Taranius De Consolville wrote:
Vol Arm'OOO wrote:
Doddy wrote:
Just No


Lol. Why not? Are you afraid of the training wheels being taken off and you being responsible for how your ship actually functions?



So what ur saying is and this is EXACTLY what your saying...

Lets leave loads of ships useless and never used

Lets keep bringing out so many new ships that eve has thousands of cruisers and battle crusiers etc

Lets ignore the massive market crash that would follow

I pay for eve therefore it is done my way

My response?

**** off back to wow

oh and

Post with your main coward :)


No -- what I am saying is consolidate the useless ships into fewer hulls, and give the players more freedom over how to design their own solutions to the balance problem. In particular, give the players the freedom to reconfigure slot locations, and hardpoint types and most importantly eliminate ship roles. Free up ship design to allow the players to create their own "roles" for ships. Tiericide is well meaning but misdirected. In six months or a year or so, ccp is going to be back to square one having to rebalance the ships to stamp out the new fotm that they created, in this round of ship balancing. Consequently it would be much better to throw the issue back to the players and let the players fix their own problems.

IMO people who want the dev's to design their ships for them are the real wow-babies -- so back to wow with you.


Why would playesr want balanced ships? Players want iwin buttons. I don't think you understand gamers.
Ukrane Bob
Center for Advanced Studies
Gallente Federation
#98 - 2012-09-15 13:12:35 UTC
Dude! Have you seen some of the **** fits some players use? And you want to give those players the tools to design theirs and your ships?

Sorry, but I refuse to fly a Mr. Potatohead special edition rocket sled even if it was powered by an Illudium Q-36 Explosive Space Modulator and delivered by Thundarr the Barbarian himself!

They already give us chances at designing the aesthetics of a ship on occasion. Lets not go asking for the keys to the office doors. I would rather play the damn game and let them deal with the balancing headaches than have to deal with the stupid balancing crap the players would come up with.

[b]I like to piss people off.. Get Over it.. Adapt .. Survive![/b]
Lin-Young Borovskova
Doomheim
#99 - 2012-09-15 13:19:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lin-Young Borovskova
I don't want CCP ships, I want to build my own, will have 8 hard points+2 utility slots, can fit cover ops cloacking device, is nullified and +4 warp strengh immune, has 10 mid slots and enough PG/CPU to fit 4 XL-ASBs, base T3 resists, can fit 2 gang links with +15% bonus per level, base speed 800m/s aligns in 1.2sec ans warps at 12AU speed, 10 low slots for funky stuff and some cargo expanders, 5 rigs slots of course.

Roll

Edit: just forgot to mention the hull has a +25% hybrids range and tracking bonus, you can now snipe at 150km with blasters. Cool

brb
Roime
Mea Culpa.
Shadow Cartel
#100 - 2012-09-15 13:29:16 UTC
Tyberius Franklin wrote:
Roime wrote:

Fozzie seems to be doing a great, great job. (Besides the drone thing)

Drone thing?


They want to make drones "a more mainstream weapon, and not leave Gallente pilots alone in the dark" by giving other ships drones as well.

Check the EWAR cruisers and exploration frigates.

Basically taking the functional and interesting specialization of a largely broken race, one that remedies the numerous shortcoming of the ships and watering it down by putting drones everywhere. One less reason to choose Gallente, like there were many in the first place.



.