These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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.
Previous page12
 

Why not add new ships instead of rebalance?

Author
La Nariz
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#21 - 2013-05-27 02:15:54 UTC
Leaving things broken is dumb.

This post was loving crafted by a member of the Official GoonWaffe recruitment team. Improve the forums, support this idea: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&find=unread&t=345133

Vertisce Soritenshi
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2013-05-27 02:34:49 UTC
There is really nothing more that can be said in this thread other than what the 3rd poster ELQuirko already said...

Bounties for all! https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=2279821#post2279821

James Amril-Kesh
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#23 - 2013-05-27 02:37:48 UTC  |  Edited by: James Amril-Kesh
Mr Epeen wrote:
Monistat Seven wrote:
So now there are going to be an 3D art model of an Apocalypse along with an ancient expired Scorpion in the library of digital heaven. Many ships are getting "rebalanced" (this is such a made up word) and there are new attributes that now invalidates many many years of ship fits.

I'm all for the new attributes, but why not just add more dang ship models using the new 'rebalanced' specs? I've seen Dodge Ram Pickup Trucks be respec'd through my life, but the old ones are still on the road too (oh and some are collectable). Just saying.



To continue your analogy.

If the Dodge Ram model is discovered to have a serious flaw then that model is recalled.

That's how the game works. When a more balanced design is created then all the previous models are 'recalled' and updated to the new specs.

Mr Epeen Cool

Or for an even better analogy given recent EVE rebalancing: a ballistic missile system is found to be in violation of arms limitations treaties and so the number and/or yield of warheads placed on such a missile is actually significantly less than its original design capability.

Enjoying the rain today? ;)

Blake Gates Heleneto
Science and Trade Institute
Caldari State
#24 - 2013-05-27 02:40:48 UTC
Arronicus wrote:
Blake Gates Heleneto wrote:
Arronicus wrote:
Monistat Seven wrote:
Many ships are getting "rebalanced" (this is such a made up word).


http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rebalance
http://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/rebalance
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rebalance

Funny. Seems every dictionary that I check, online, or even the two I have on hand for school, all seem to be convinced that rebalancing, rebalance, or to be rebalanced, are all quite real words. I wonder how much CCP paid them all, to start using that made up word, huh?

Now, even though I'm sure my clearing that misunderstanding up for you has made your day, and allowed you to say to yourself; 'Gosh, how could I possibly have been so foolish? What a silly little man I am', I will be so kind as to even answer your main question.

Rebalancing, as it applies to ship design in Eve, is the matter of reducing the abilities, or boosting the abilities of ships, relative to their own performance, but also relative to the performance of other ships in the game at their class, as well as above and below it. When a ship is dramatically overpowered, it invalidates similarly tiered ships, and makes them not even worth playing by comparison. Take the hurricane for example. as a battlecruiser, it was so powerful, cost effective, and versatile, that not only did it heavily outperform ships in its own ship class like the brutix, ferox, and harbinger, but it made much more expensive, role specific ships, like the muninn, not worth using most of the time.

Now, as you've probably guessed by now, this is a very bad thing. When a ship is overpowered, or out of balance, because of all the other ships near it that it makes not worth playing, it effectively removes those ships from the game as playable ship classes, so when CCP rebalances something like battlecruisers, they aren't simply nerfing one or two classes of ships, they are, in effect, adding 5 or 6 ships to the game. Look at the frigate, cruiser, and battlecruiser rebalances so far. Even the mining barge rebalance. All of these saw lots of ships now getting used, that never used to be flown in any noticeable numbers.

More ships would throw the game out of balance, and REDUCE the number of playable, viable ships in the game. Look at the last time they added ships, tier 3 battlecruisers. Sure, they are cool ships, but they were, and are simply too powerful still. I love flying them, and that's because I know that they outperform battlecruisers and battleships alike, for a middleground price-point.

You're welcome.


Calm the hell down man and go outside. I think it's time for some personal interaction with humans because it isn't this goddamn serious.

Go enjoy some sunlight; it will help you.

You're welcome.



Tried that. Sunlight burned. Experience was NOT pleasant. Thanks-a-lot for nothing, jerk.

You're welcome.


Lol
Ranger 1
Ranger Corp
Vae. Victis.
#25 - 2013-05-27 03:20:15 UTC
Ships being rebalanced to make them all more or less viable is a completely separate issue from ship models being redesigned.

One has nothing to do with the other, except that leaving old ships the same in either case doesn't lend itself well to how the code of EvE is written.

View the latest EVE Online developments and other game related news and gameplay by visiting Ranger 1 Presents: Virtual Realms.

Previous page12