These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

[Updated][Winter] Missile Rebalance 2.0 + Hurricane tweak

First post First post First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#3121 - 2012-09-26 19:02:51 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:

Exactly. Lallante got it so completely wrong, its next to pointless to quote him/her anymore, seriously ... we are talking of the CALDARI weapon system, not of some specialised logi/ewar stuff here! Break every projectile ship in t1 for winmatar, break every laser-ship t1 for Amarr, just leave the Frigs alone. Then you see what you want us to accept.


What? There are only 5 medium missile platforms for Caldari including t2 and t3. Of these 2 are OP, 1 is fine (caracal) and 2 are never used. Caracal is rebalanced around the new HMLs and we have been promised the 2 never used ones will be addressed in turn.

What exactly is being broken? Name a currently working ship that will be broken post changes?
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#3122 - 2012-09-26 19:08:15 UTC
Lallante wrote:


There are 7 Non frig Winmatar projectile ships:
Thrasher
Stabber
Rupture
Cyclone
Hurricane
Tempest
Mael

Of this list all ships are good.


Yes, I know.

Lallante wrote:

Compared to 5 Non-frig Caldari missile platforms:
Blackbird
Caracal
Drake
Scorpion
Raven

Of the latter list only the Raven is not viable for PVP (maybe the scorp a bit) and we know BSs are to receive rebalancing love next year and likely so is Ewar.


The Blackbird and the Scorp are no damage dealers, and you know that very well. Both are completely different in their role in comparison to any of the Winmatar ships you named, and also in comparison to Drake, Caracal and Raven. So yes, Caldari have only 3 combat missile tech 1 hulls above frig size. 1 of them is the Raven which is broken (even you seem to see that ..) another one is the Caracal. By no means the Cara is comparable to its adversaries. It shines only in a niche or two - anti-frig warfare and long range damage. Everything which does not include that leaves it way behind Winmatar, Gallente or Amarr-cruisers. So no, its not viable for PvP apart from niche stuff.

Your list goes down to one single ship. Maybe you understand now why there are so many Drakes on kills, be it giving or receiving, and why HML are prime weapon system? Its the only thing an ENTIRE race has, if they want to pewpew AND be competitive.
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3123 - 2012-09-26 19:12:07 UTC
Posting to new page


@CCP

With most ships getting dps adjusted to a rof buff, have y'all considered increasing the ammo capacity of hams, hmls, torps, and cruise, or has this been overlooked?

Secondly, missiles already have a lot of issues with waisted volleys, have y'all considered a substantial velocity buff in exchange for reduced flight time in order to negate how much ammo an increased rate of fire will consume?

Lastly, I feel that increasing velocity in exchange for reduced flight time to the point where an individual ship would never have more than one volley in the air would not only nullify waisted volleys, but would also bring missiles more in tune with turrets on engagement time(though still having a delay) thus engagement time would be less of a factor in balancing.
Also, this would have the added benefit of catching targets faster, and reducing server lag, but wouldn't change their effectiveness against targets because great flight velocity does not effect dps.
So, that said, have y'all been considering a change like this in any way.


Ok, that wasn't the last thing.
Can y'all give us any information on the suggestions/ideas y'all are considering that we/yourselves have provided on this subject?
I know y'all may be afraid to put out any of this information, but i think you may not realize that we understand anything mentioned in this thread is subject to change just as ur OP is subject.
So, giving us that information would not harm anything, and maybe lead to some actual agreement on some of what y'all are now considering.


Here's hoping for a reply from you guys...............
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#3124 - 2012-09-26 19:17:28 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
Noemi Nagano wrote:


The Blackbird and the Scorp are no damage dealers, and you know that very well. Both are completely different in their role in comparison to any of the Winmatar ships you named, and also in comparison to Drake, Caracal and Raven. So yes, Caldari have only 3 combat missile tech 1 hulls above frig size. 1 of them is the Raven which is broken (even you seem to see that ..) another one is the Caracal. By no means the Cara is comparable to its adversaries. It shines only in a niche or two - anti-frig warfare and long range damage. Everything which does not include that leaves it way behind Winmatar, Gallente or Amarr-cruisers. So no, its not viable for PvP apart from niche stuff.


As someone who flies caracals in a corp that flies and kills more caracals than any other corporation in game, I'm calling bullshit on this. Caracals are at least as viable as any other same tier or lower cruiser of any race. They are the t1 cruiser of choice other than ruptures for small-medium gang PvP. After the balance changes this is even more true as they can sit at range with TCs in mids and plow smaller ships into the dust (or provide decent DPS support on larget targets). They will also make a reasonable HAM platform with vigil TP support.

Quote:

Your list goes down to one single ship. Maybe you understand now why there are so many Drakes on kills, be it giving or receiving, and why HML are prime weapon system? Its the only thing an ENTIRE race has, if they want to pewpew AND be competitive.


So you are saying keep the drake as overpowered because Caldari has nothing else worth flying? You are an idiot if you think that is true let alone an effective balancing arguement.

What is the problem with changing HMLs if, as you claim, it only effects one ship which you must accept is OP?
Marlona Sky
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3125 - 2012-09-26 19:23:37 UTC
I'm still waiting for someone to show me a fit on another battle cruiser that has the range, dps, alpha, selectable damage type, EHP and utility high slot that the Drake has in one fit.

Anyone? Show me a fit that is close to it.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#3126 - 2012-09-26 19:26:50 UTC

Its all been answered, why would they bother replying to you specifically just because you are too lazy to read their replies. Just for you ill do it for them.

HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Posting to new page


@CCP

With most ships getting dps adjusted to a rof buff, have y'all considered increasing the ammo capacity of hams, hmls, torps, and cruise, or has this been overlooked?

Its deliberate and no.

Quote:

Secondly, missiles already have a lot of issues with waisted volleys, have y'all considered a substantial velocity buff in exchange for reduced flight time in order to negate how much ammo an increased rate of fire will consume?

They said they would consider it, but not for HMLs as they are happy with their current flight time.
Quote:

Lastly, I feel that increasing velocity in exchange for reduced flight time to the point where an individual ship would never have more than one volley in the air would not only nullify waisted volleys, but would also bring missiles more in tune with turrets on engagement time(though still having a delay) thus engagement time would be less of a factor in balancing.
Also, this would have the added benefit of catching targets faster, and reducing server lag, but wouldn't change their effectiveness against targets because great flight velocity does not effect dps.
So, that said, have y'all been considering a change like this in any way.


They said lag wasnt a major issue for missiles anymore and they have no desire to make missiles any more like turrets than they already have.
Quote:

Ok, that wasn't the last thing.
Can y'all give us any information on the suggestions/ideas y'all are considering that we/yourselves have provided on this subject?
I know y'all may be afraid to put out any of this information, but i think you may not realize that we understand anything mentioned in this thread is subject to change just as ur OP is subject.
So, giving us that information would not harm anything, and maybe lead to some actual agreement on some of what y'all are now considering.

For this one just read the 5 or 6 devposts littered through this thread, and the CSM minutes. T
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#3127 - 2012-09-26 19:27:23 UTC
Garviel Tarrant wrote:



HML's are a long range weapon.. Stop comparing them to short range weapon and stop being so bad.

Compare them to arties/beams if you want a comparison (Also have fun fitting beams on a non gimpy ship)


I am sorry to disagree here, but he was right to compare them with each other - it was Lallante who claimed HML were so OP they even would beat a short range weapon system. This utter BS had to be shown to those who maybe dont know it better. Lallante is beyond any hope, but still there have to be people who show how false all that stuff is he posts here.

Apart from that I agree with you about arties and beams having ranges where they have a fair bit less DPS than HML. But I hope you do see also, that there are ranges where they DONT have less DPS, but in fact more, do you?

And in a Drake damage is pure kinetic. If its not, its 25% less (and thats a LOT). Some can be mitigated (and no, using an MWD is not the best bet to do so ... at least not when your timing sucks ;) ), and you dont even need to keep transversal high, its just speed you need. If you cant adapt to that, then you are doing it wrong. There are tons of skilled BC-pilots who CAN adapt, and kill Drakes out there, in fair and square fights.

Those ridiculous high numbers of Drakes in killmails just come from null sec fleet stuff, and everyone with their brains sorted right knows that (and admits that fact ...).
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#3128 - 2012-09-26 19:31:35 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Garviel Tarrant wrote:



HML's are a long range weapon.. Stop comparing them to short range weapon and stop being so bad.

Compare them to arties/beams if you want a comparison (Also have fun fitting beams on a non gimpy ship)


I am sorry to disagree here, but he was right to compare them with each other - it was Lallante who claimed HML were so OP they even would beat a short range weapon system. This utter BS had to be shown to those who maybe dont know it better. Lallante is beyond any hope, but still there have to be people who show how false all that stuff is he posts here.

Apart from that I agree with you about arties and beams having ranges where they have a fair bit less DPS than HML. But I hope you do see also, that there are ranges where they DONT have less DPS, but in fact more, do you?

And in a Drake damage is pure kinetic. If its not, its 25% less (and thats a LOT). Some can be mitigated (and no, using an MWD is not the best bet to do so ... at least not when your timing sucks ;) ), and you dont even need to keep transversal high, its just speed you need. If you cant adapt to that, then you are doing it wrong. There are tons of skilled BC-pilots who CAN adapt, and kill Drakes out there, in fair and square fights.

Those ridiculous high numbers of Drakes in killmails just come from null sec fleet stuff, and everyone with their brains sorted right knows that (and admits that fact ...).


No, I was proved right. HMLs do almost the same damage (within 10 - 20% as close range turrets using their long range t2 ammo (i.e. the ammo they use most of the time and certainly when fighting a tengu or drake).

In comparison the long range turrets are 30%+ lower dps at long range.

As has been stated a dozen times, Long range turrets using short range ammo means you ****** up or are ganking someone. You should ALWAYS be at long range when using a long range turret if you can help it. If you are going in at short range you should be using short range turrets.

The correct comparison is therefore using long range ammo, and here the HML is 30 - 40% higher DPS and higher range.


Again you ginfore the fact that the drake damage bonus to kinetic is VERY likely to be changed to a RoF or all damage bonus just like all the other caldari missile ships balanced so far.

If Drakes were balanced they wouldn't be used 6 x more often than Harbingers.
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#3129 - 2012-09-26 19:33:21 UTC
Lallante wrote:


So you are saying keep the drake as overpowered because Caldari has nothing else worth flying? You are an idiot if you think that is true let alone an effective balancing arguement.

What is the problem with changing HMLs if, as you claim, it only effects one ship which you must accept is OP?


You always do repeat the same old story "the Drake is OP", but you fail to prove that claim. With every post I ask you for facts, and you say "look at those numbers" (even when you do know *exactly* where the numbers come from, and thats not small scale / med size gangs in low, but just null sec!) or repeat the story of "best tank and best DPS" which has been proven wrong by me and others ... the Drake is OP in PvE in comparison to other BCs, yes. And it may be OP in blobs in null. Its NOT OP in low sec or high sec PvP at all, never was, and never will be. Its fine as it is there, its a good ship, and the only option for missile using Caldari *COMBAT* pilots above frig size. So no, I dont want it nerfed, and both reasons are given: first it is NOT OP, and second its the only thing Caldari can use. Give Caldari other choices, check if Drake is still so "overused" (dont forget there are many Caldari pilots .. just because carebears have been told Caldari are good for PvE for ages, and some carebears grow a pair over time ..) and THEN react.

And again, cant say it often enough - no, I dont accept your lies here.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#3130 - 2012-09-26 19:37:35 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Lallante wrote:


So you are saying keep the drake as overpowered because Caldari has nothing else worth flying? You are an idiot if you think that is true let alone an effective balancing arguement.

What is the problem with changing HMLs if, as you claim, it only effects one ship which you must accept is OP?


You always do repeat the same old story "the Drake is OP", but you fail to prove that claim. With every post I ask you for facts, and you say "look at those numbers" (even when you do know *exactly* where the numbers come from, and thats not small scale / med size gangs in low, but just null sec!) or repeat the story of "best tank and best DPS" which has been proven wrong by me and others ... the Drake is OP in PvE in comparison to other BCs, yes. And it may be OP in blobs in null. Its NOT OP in low sec or high sec PvP at all, never was, and never will be. Its fine as it is there, its a good ship, and the only option for missile using Caldari *COMBAT* pilots above frig size. So no, I dont want it nerfed, and both reasons are given: first it is NOT OP, and second its the only thing Caldari can use. Give Caldari other choices, check if Drake is still so "overused" (dont forget there are many Caldari pilots .. just because carebears have been told Caldari are good for PvE for ages, and some carebears grow a pair over time ..) and THEN react.

And again, cant say it often enough - no, I dont accept your lies here.


The actual numbers, i.e. DPS, EHP and effective range, have been posted literally a dozen times in this thread and prove you are wrong. I'm done arguing with you when you have no numbers to back up what you are saying except drawing false comparisons (e.g. using close range ammo on long range guns, or comparing HMLs to short range turrets and saying they are even so are balanced).
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#3131 - 2012-09-26 19:41:43 UTC
Lallante wrote:


No, I was proved right. HMLs do almost the same damage (within 10 - 20% as close range turrets using their long range t2 ammo (i.e. the ammo they use most of the time and certainly when fighting a tengu or drake)..


No, you were not. You cant claim short range turrets have to be checked with long range ammo to compare their *actual* performance vs a Drake when you say the complete opposite about ammo-choice just 4 sentences later!

Lallante wrote:

In comparison the long range turrets are 30%+ lower dps at long range.

As has been stated a dozen times, Long range turrets using short range ammo means you ****** up or are ganking someone. You should ALWAYS be at long range when using a long range turret if you can help it. If you are going in at short range you should be using short range turrets..


.... 1:0 for me and you are the only one who scored, go on :)

Lallante wrote:

The correct comparison is therefore using long range ammo, and here the HML is 30 - 40% higher DPS and higher range..


apart from at the edge of HML-range (and thats not the one which people always quote here, and you know that too ;) ) HML deal ZERO DPS, and turrets dont.

Lallante wrote:


Again you ginfore the fact that the drake damage bonus to kinetic is VERY likely to be changed to a RoF or all damage bonus just like all the other caldari missile ships balanced so far.

If Drakes were balanced they wouldn't be used 6 x more often than Harbingers.


That repetition of the Harbinger argument .. lol. The Harbinger is indeed not exactly as strong as Drake and Cane. Its very common in lowsec though, and due to its dronebay far from being weak. Apart from that, Amarr have plenty of other ships they can use, which are just better performing, esp. in comparison to their Caldari counterparts. There are not more Drakes in lowsec than Canes, and there are next to no Ravens in lowsec, but tons of Amarr, Winmatar and Gallente BS. So figure, why do people use the Drake? Because they have to. Not because its OP, because it is NOT.
Warde Guildencrantz
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#3132 - 2012-09-26 19:45:38 UTC  |  Edited by: Warde Guildencrantz
I really hope caldari can get some combat type missile ships, instead of all the missile ships being attack type.

I can see that the kestrel was supposed to be a combat frigate, but its defences aren't exactly combat-ish. I'll live with it, but seriously, caldari can't have every single combat ship larger than a frigate be a hybrid boat.

TunDraGon ~ Low sec piracy since 2003 ~ Youtube ~ Join Us
HELLBOUNDMAN
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#3133 - 2012-09-26 19:47:11 UTC
Lallante wrote:

Its all been answered, why would they bother replying to you specifically just because you are too lazy to read their replies. Just for you ill do it for them.

HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
Posting to new page


@CCP

With most ships getting dps adjusted to a rof buff, have y'all considered increasing the ammo capacity of hams, hmls, torps, and cruise, or has this been overlooked?

1) Its deliberate and no.

Quote:

Secondly, missiles already have a lot of issues with waisted volleys, have y'all considered a substantial velocity buff in exchange for reduced flight time in order to negate how much ammo an increased rate of fire will consume?

2) They said they would consider it, but not for HMLs as they are happy with their current flight time.
Quote:

Lastly, I feel that increasing velocity in exchange for reduced flight time to the point where an individual ship would never have more than one volley in the air would not only nullify waisted volleys, but would also bring missiles more in tune with turrets on engagement time(though still having a delay) thus engagement time would be less of a factor in balancing.
Also, this would have the added benefit of catching targets faster, and reducing server lag, but wouldn't change their effectiveness against targets because great flight velocity does not effect dps.
So, that said, have y'all been considering a change like this in any way.


3) They said lag wasnt a major issue for missiles anymore and they have no desire to make missiles any more like turrets than they already have.
Quote:

Ok, that wasn't the last thing.
Can y'all give us any information on the suggestions/ideas y'all are considering that we/yourselves have provided on this subject?
I know y'all may be afraid to put out any of this information, but i think you may not realize that we understand anything mentioned in this thread is subject to change just as ur OP is subject.
So, giving us that information would not harm anything, and maybe lead to some actual agreement on some of what y'all are now considering.

4) For this one just read the 5 or 6 devposts littered through this thread, and the CSM minutes. T


.......

Ok, quit answering the questions you want to answer them.

Last time I checked they were addressed to CCP.

Also.

1) The ammo capacity WAS deliberate. With changes to missile boats increasing damage through RoF as compared to what used to be a damage modifier, the capacity of ham launchers and up are not compensated for this.

2) They were considering an increase in velocity, HOWEVER, I stated a SUBSTANTIAL increase, and not a small one. What I'm suggesting is actually a redesign of missiles as opposed to a simple buff. They would still go the same range, only get there much faster.

3) Lag is always a factor. Secondly, I'm not suggesting to bring missiles in line with turrets, I'm suggesting that significantly increasing velocity in exchange for reduced flight time would reduce the engagment time advantage turrets have over missiles by a significant amount. So, a turret at 80km will still hit instant, but a missile will hit in 4 seconds (rough number). This means turrets would still have engagement time advantage, but missiles wouldn't be so far behind, thus allowing them to be a bit easier to balance.

4) No where in this thread has CCP Fozzie given any information on what has changed since the OP was created, nor has he specified what suggestions they have taken from this or any other source, and are actively discussing/testing/whatever.


So, either understand the question before you answer, or don't answer a question that isn't addressed to you.
Noemi Nagano
Perkone
Caldari State
#3134 - 2012-09-26 19:49:14 UTC
Lallante wrote:


The actual numbers, i.e. DPS, EHP and effective range, have been posted literally a dozen times in this thread and prove you are wrong. I'm done arguing with you when you have no numbers to back up what you are saying except drawing false comparisons (e.g. using close range ammo on long range guns, or comparing HMLs to short range turrets and saying they are even so are balanced).



You just pick numbers without a meaning, and I made more than one posting to show how wrong you are. For a very last time.

EHP and DPS, and range are important. What you neglect is: Drone bay, ability to fit more than one viable fitting, utility slots (and no, the Drake has none - because there is simply no room to fit anything reasonable except a small neut which wont help against ANY BC), speed, signature, damage application, even the difference between instant dps and flight time delayed DPS ... agility and last but not least you neglect also the fact there is no slave set for shieldtanks, so all those EHP numbers for armor tanks can be changed a LOT without a booster alt.

As a matter of fact - the Drake is NOT OP in low sec and high sec PvP. The problem is in null sec, and should be solved in another way then destroying something which is working AND which is the only thing an entire race can do if they want to use a tech 1 hull AND their races signature weapon system.

And if you say "they will change that, it will be no problem" then yes, I am not having the same faith. Usually they screw up even more than we expect them to do.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#3135 - 2012-09-26 19:57:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Lallante
Noemi Nagano wrote:
No, you were not. You cant claim short range turrets have to be checked with long range ammo to compare their *actual* performance vs a Drake when you say the complete opposite about ammo-choice just 4 sentences later!


Do you actually PvP, or are you disputing that both short and long range turrets in anything larger than 1v1 usually will use long range ammo?

Quote:

.... 1:0 for me and you are the only one who scored, go on :)

Do you actually PvP, or are you disputing that both short and long range turrets in anything larger than 1v1 usually will use long range ammo?
Quote:

apart from at the edge of HML-range (and thats not the one which people always quote here, and you know that too ;) ) HML deal ZERO DPS, and turrets dont.


At the edge of HML range, which is 84km, none of the LR turrets deal damage at all. :roll:
Quote:

That repetition of the Harbinger argument .. lol. The Harbinger is indeed not exactly as strong as Drake and Cane. Its very common in lowsec though, and due to its dronebay far from being weak. Apart from that, Amarr have plenty of other ships they can use, which are just better performing, esp. in comparison to their Caldari counterparts. There are not more Drakes in lowsec than Canes, and there are next to no Ravens in lowsec, but tons of Amarr, Winmatar and Gallente BS. So figure, why do people use the Drake? Because they have to. Not because its OP, because it is NOT.


Apart from the Drake and Hurricane (which is ALSO being nerfed), a few people use Harbs and Myrms and noone uses the other tier 1 or 2 BCs. Compare the Drake to the Ferox or the Prophecy or the Brutix or Myrm you like - I picked the Harb because its the third most used!

The Harb and Myrm are balanced, many of the other BCs need a boost and both the Drake and Hurricane are OP.

The Drake is used 7x more than the most used BS, the Maelstrom. Your argument fails. Even adding ALL the t1 gallente (83543) or t1 amarr ships (109,392) together and its less than half as many as drakes alone (215572)! The only reason the same isnt true of minmatar is the overpowered hurricane and highly favoured Mael and Tornado. You can extract all these stats easily from Eve-Kill. This completely invalidates your argument that people only fly Drakes because there are no other caldari options - people are crosstraining to drakes from Gallente and Amarr because they are so OP!

Try defending your argument with some figures rather than baseless claims.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#3136 - 2012-09-26 19:58:41 UTC
HELLBOUNDMAN wrote:
bllllleuuuurgh.


Nice. I'm sure you will soon be banned for spammign the same post over and over.
Lallante
Blue Republic
RvB - BLUE Republic
#3137 - 2012-09-26 20:00:00 UTC
Noemi Nagano wrote:
Lallante wrote:


The actual numbers, i.e. DPS, EHP and effective range, have been posted literally a dozen times in this thread and prove you are wrong. I'm done arguing with you when you have no numbers to back up what you are saying except drawing false comparisons (e.g. using close range ammo on long range guns, or comparing HMLs to short range turrets and saying they are even so are balanced).



You just pick numbers without a meaning, and I made more than one posting to show how wrong you are. For a very last time.

EHP and DPS, and range are important. What you neglect is: Drone bay, ability to fit more than one viable fitting, utility slots (and no, the Drake has none - because there is simply no room to fit anything reasonable except a small neut which wont help against ANY BC), speed, signature, damage application, even the difference between instant dps and flight time delayed DPS ... agility and last but not least you neglect also the fact there is no slave set for shieldtanks, so all those EHP numbers for armor tanks can be changed a LOT without a booster alt.

As a matter of fact - the Drake is NOT OP in low sec and high sec PvP. The problem is in null sec, and should be solved in another way then destroying something which is working AND which is the only thing an entire race can do if they want to use a tech 1 hull AND their races signature weapon system.

And if you say "they will change that, it will be no problem" then yes, I am not having the same faith. Usually they screw up even more than we expect them to do.



Try posting some facts/figures/statistics/setups to support your arguments. So far I've supported everything I've claimed and you just launch into your own personal opinions.
Jorma Morkkis
State War Academy
Caldari State
#3138 - 2012-09-26 20:01:29 UTC  |  Edited by: Jorma Morkkis
Noemi Nagano wrote:
apart from at the edge of HML-range (and thats not the one which people always quote here, and you know that too ;) ) HML deal ZERO DPS, and turrets dont.


I would like to see Cane doing 400 dps @ 70 km.

Bonus points if you can hit moving cruiser @ 10 km with same fit.
Veshta Yoshida
PIE Inc.
Khimi Harar
#3139 - 2012-09-26 20:06:28 UTC
Jorma Morkkis wrote:
Noemi Nagano wrote:
apart from at the edge of HML-range (and thats not the one which people always quote here, and you know that too ;) ) HML deal ZERO DPS, and turrets dont.


I would like to see Cane doing 400 dps @ 70 km.

Bonus points if you can hit moving cruiser @ 10 km with same fit.

How many remote tracking link/Sebo alts am I allowed to use? Big smile
Daniel Plain
Doomheim
#3140 - 2012-09-26 20:08:37 UTC
Lallante wrote:
Daniel Plain wrote:
Thaddeus Eggeras wrote:
Enjoy turning EVE into every other game out there


Not to sound like a hipster but this is a major concern for me. The reason i play EVE is that frankly, all other MMOs feel the same. you played one, you played all (and i did play some). Now with the watering down of item names, homogenizing ship hulls, power creep and rash nerfs to FotM ship hulls and weapon systems, i feel dreadfully reminded of WoW...



So wait, you are complaining about both Power Creep, and Nerfs to OP hulls?

Make up your mind!

nice straw man there. of course i didn't say anything about overpowered ships. you also seem to have the incorrect notion that there is never any way of achieving balance other than nerfing one thing or buffing all the rest.

Quote:

Having **** item names that even I, a 10yr+ player, sometimes struggle with (dont even get me started on old hardwiring names...), isnt a "feature" its a fuckup.

There have been people like you calling each and every change since release the end of the world. You have and always will be wrong. If you cant adapt or cant deal with having an overpowered setup changed then please go play a softcore MMO with all the other cry babies.

if you are not capable of memorizing the item names and too lazy to click 'show info' to look up the effect, maybe YOU are the one who should move to a softcore MMO. just sayin'. i for once enjoy knowing item names because it gives me an edge over people like you and this is a great feature of the game, at least to me.
also, again a nice straw man fallacy. i never said anything about the end of the world, we all know it will happen in december this year.

Quote:

Balance is an ongoing process. Balancing should be done frequently. all the time. It keeps things interesting and rewards early adopters and strategic thinkers

this blanket statement will not hold. for example, there have not been any 'balancing' changes to the game of chess for about 200 years and yet its meta game has developed constantly up till now.
frequent balancing passes, especially such crude ones as this, greatly disappoint players who have invested months if not years into their favorite hulls and weapons. therefore i think that balancing in EVE should be done much more slowly and carefully than is currently the case, at least wherever long training times are concerned.b leave it to LoL and WoW to cater to the FotM crybabies.

I should buy an Ishtar.