These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

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

Ships & Modules

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

CCP, to Bring Balance, Nerf AC's (or Remove Blasters).
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#261 - 2011-11-15 03:50:42 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

(re)introduce combat that was never meant to be taken out?


Not sure if it was unintentional, tbh.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#262 - 2011-11-15 03:53:45 UTC
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

(re)introduce combat that was never meant to be taken out?


Not sure if it was unintentional, tbh.


Please justify this opinion. I was there and there was literally no conversation about this until much after the fact. Its an easy thing to miss, too.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#263 - 2011-11-15 04:04:46 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

(re)introduce combat that was never meant to be taken out?


Not sure if it was unintentional, tbh.


Please justify this opinion. I was there and there was literally no conversation about this until much after the fact. Its an easy thing to miss, too.

-Liang


Well, in the beginning there was no 250km ceiling on targeting range.

That in and of itself hurts the few (mostly rail) ships that are comfortable close to that range. IIRC a lot of people thought 250 was too short at the time and I don't recall CCP's logic when it was changed. My point was simply that much was probably deliberate. Not that they necessarily intended to nerf rails (probably ecm or something else abusing the range), but the ultra long-range niche had to be considered at the time.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#264 - 2011-11-15 04:07:33 UTC
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

(re)introduce combat that was never meant to be taken out?


Not sure if it was unintentional, tbh.


Please justify this opinion. I was there and there was literally no conversation about this until much after the fact. Its an easy thing to miss, too.

-Liang


Well, in the beginning there was no 250km ceiling on targeting range.

That in and of itself hurts the few (mostly rail) ships that are comfortable close to that range. IIRC a lot of people thought 250 was too short at the time and I don't recall CCP's logic when it was changed. My point was simply that much was probably deliberate. Not that they necessarily intended to nerf rails (probably ecm or something else abusing the range), but the ultra long-range niche had to be considered at the time.


The 250km cap was put in place over grid mechanics. So... we're back to this particular opinion not holding much merit at all.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#265 - 2011-11-15 04:13:06 UTC  |  Edited by: Nimrod Nemesis
Liang Nuren wrote:
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

(re)introduce combat that was never meant to be taken out?


Not sure if it was unintentional, tbh.


Please justify this opinion. I was there and there was literally no conversation about this until much after the fact. Its an easy thing to miss, too.

-Liang


Well, in the beginning there was no 250km ceiling on targeting range.

That in and of itself hurts the few (mostly rail) ships that are comfortable close to that range. IIRC a lot of people thought 250 was too short at the time and I don't recall CCP's logic when it was changed. My point was simply that much was probably deliberate. Not that they necessarily intended to nerf rails (probably ecm or something else abusing the range), but the ultra long-range niche had to be considered at the time.


The 250km cap was put in place over grid mechanics. So... we're back to this particular opinion not holding much merit at all.

-Liang


Are you assuming that both lock range cap and on-grid probing were implemented without giving rail snipers a second thought? I think that's a bit far-fetched. CCP knew that they were adversely effecting that combat niche, they just decided the collateral damage was worth it.

I'm not saying homogenizing rails is the answer, but the idea CCP inadvertently nerfed long-range sniping more than once is far fetched.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#266 - 2011-11-15 04:17:11 UTC  |  Edited by: Liang Nuren
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:


Are you assuming that both lock range cap and on-grid probing were implemented without giving rail snipers a second thought? I think that's a bit far-fetched. CCP knew that they were adversely effecting that combat niche, they just decided the collateral damage was worth it.


No, I didn't say that at all. I said that the 250km lock limit was put in place over grid mechanics. Furthermore, 250km is still quite a difficult range to hit and we still have that 250km lock limit now. Even still, ancient history has literally nothing to do with why you think that they deliberately removed long range fighting from the game with the probe changes.

-Liang

Ed: BTW, I'm not interested in arguing just to argue. So please don't start the bullshit with me. Your proposal has literally no merit as far as I can tell, and I'm reasonably sure that I saw a dev post/tweet/something that indicated it was not an intended side effect. Also, no I'm not going to hunt this down and you can take it with a galaxy sized grain of salt for all I ******* care.

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#267 - 2011-11-15 04:27:56 UTC  |  Edited by: Nimrod Nemesis
Liang Nuren wrote:
No, I didn't say that at all. I said that the 250km lock limit was put in place over grid mechanics. Furthermore, 250km is still quite a difficult range to hit and we still have that 250km lock limit now. Even still, ancient history has literally nothing to do with why you think that they deliberately removed long range fighting from the game with the probe changes.


Considering rails were some of the few ships capable of hitting beyond that 250 I think it does have something to do with it. If CCP implemented a minimum lock range for mechanical reasons it would adversely effect blasters. Probing was a far bigger deal, imo, but both played a part in making ships like the rokh and tach poc a thing of the past.

Liang Nuren wrote:

Ed: BTW, I'm not interested in arguing just to argue. So please don't start the bullshit with me. Your proposal has literally no merit as far as I can tell, and I'm reasonably sure that I saw a dev post/tweet/something that indicated it was not an intended side effect. Also, no I'm not going to hunt this down and you can take it with a galaxy sized grain of salt for all I ******* care.


I'm proposing there is no reason to assume all the changes that ultimately ended extreme rail sniping were completely unintentional. There is no proof either way at the moment. So your adamant stance that doubt has no merit here is unfounded. Feel free to disprove my doubt with that post/tweet if you like. I can't prove it was intentional, but in the absence of any evidence, I can't agree it was totally unintentional either.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#268 - 2011-11-15 04:45:58 UTC
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:

Considering rails were some of the few ships capable of hitting beyond that 250 I think it does have something to do with it. If CCP implemented a minimum lock range for mechanical reasons it would adversely effect blasters. Probing was a far bigger deal, imo, but both played a part in making ships like the rokh and tach poc a thing of the past.


The apoc wasn't capable of hitting 250km when the lock limit was introduced. I think only the Rokh was, and not in anything that was considered to be a realistic fit. Furthermore, it was really about grid mechanics so I'm sure we can stop arguing that if CCP decided to **** over something else it'd be about ******* over that thing.

Quote:

I'm proposing there is no reason to assume all the changes that ultimately ended extreme rail sniping were completely unintentional. There is no proof either way (unless you get off that high horse and show me the tweet/post you're referring to, i've been looking for just that) at the moment. So your adamant stance that doubt has no merit here is unfounded.


Two things:
- Occam's razor (and a mythical dev post that I'm not going to spend hours hunting down) say that you're wrong.
- I'm not going to argue for the sake of argument. I know you want to but I've got better **** to do with my time than argue with someone who doesn't even really believe the bullshit he's spouting.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#269 - 2011-11-15 04:56:34 UTC  |  Edited by: Nimrod Nemesis
Liang Nuren wrote:

The apoc wasn't capable of hitting 250km when the lock limit was introduced. I think only the Rokh was, and not in anything that was considered to be a realistic fit. Furthermore, it was really about grid mechanics so I'm sure we can stop arguing that if CCP decided to **** over something else it'd be about ******* over that thing.


We can agree and I don't think they decided to make the changes for the expressed purpose of nerfing rails. But I don't recall them making up for the collateral damage they caused either. I think this is where we part. You seem to be arguing CCP was completely oblivious of the damage they did on these two occasions. I don't think that's a justified statement.

Liang Nuren wrote:

Two things:
- Occam's razor (and a mythical dev post that I'm not going to spend hours hunting down) say that you're wrong.
- I'm not going to argue for the sake of argument. I know you want to but I've got better **** to do with my time than argue with someone who doesn't even really believe the bullshit he's spouting.


Occam's razor tells us the most likely solution is the simplest solution. What does that have to do with this argument? Wether or not CCP knew of the side-effects of 250km locking range or on-grid probing doesn't complicate or simplify the process of implementing said changes. Occam's razor does not apply.

For someone who hasn't produced a shred of evidence himself, you sure do have a lot of bluster. I like this new Liang. Half the posting, twice the butt-hurt.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#270 - 2011-11-15 05:08:06 UTC
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:

We can agree and I don't think they decided to make the changes for the expressed purpose of nerfing rails. But I don't recall them making up for the collateral damage they caused either. I think this is where we part. You seem to be arguing CCP was completely oblivious of the damage they did on these two occasions.


I'm going to ignore the rest of your shiptoast, because this is really the meat of it. So, a few comments:
- The 250km lock range appears to have been implemented in 2004 (quick googling of the issue).
- The Rokh was introduced in 2006. Until the Apoc was buffed, it was the only turret ship capable of realistically hitting 250km.
- The Apoc was boosted in early 2008 when it was also able to realistically hit 250km.
- The probe changes were easy to miss and nobody commented on the impending demise of almost all long range combat. That's something that CCP has repeatedly referred to as "emergent gameplay".

So, in short: yes - CCP was oblivious in more than a few ways. This shouldn't really surprise you.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#271 - 2011-11-15 05:09:36 UTC  |  Edited by: Roosterton
Quote:
ITT we also learn that Neutron Blasters can get 1314dps at 39km. Void gets the 1314dps, and Iron gives you 14.4+12.5km range.


Hilarious, you're so witty. Roll

Quote:
Hmmm.... A 3% CPU implant costs 18mil. Why, let's spend 18mil on the Cane!
1% projectile damage: 1.7mil
1% faster ROF: 1.2mil
3% armour: 10.5mil
Monocle fund: 4.6mil

Suddenly, my wonderful Cane has 671dps and a 71k ehp tank! Marvellous!


Okay, so... Use a t2 ANP, and trade 2.5k tank for 18mil? I don't know, it's your choice. This is why they teach you those problem solving skills in elementary school.

Quote:
Yes, because it fits with 425s. Lol


....With AWU 5. Either way, the difference between 425's and 220's is about 20 DPS. Do you want me to add 20 dps to my original post to make your e-peen happy?

Quote:
2. Myrm being attacked by multifrequency can tank 533dps.
Myrm being attacked by fusion can tank 349dps.
Wrong!


Stop failfitting and fit an explosive hardener. I have never seen an active Myrm which doesn't do this.

Quote:
2. Let's calculate how long it takes for a Cane to catch a Harby! Let's say they start at 24km.
Harby is trying to keep distance by MWDing away at 896m/s (heat). Cane is in pursuit, at 1025m/s (heat). Relative speed is 185m/s for the Cane.
21 seconds: 19km remains. Cane has dealt 7875 damage. Harby has dealt 8820 damage. Harby will now be in optimal.
59 seconds: 12km remains. Cane has dealt 25450 damage. Harby has dealt 28960 damage. Cane begins reloading. Both stop overheating. Cane has 129m/s speed advantage.
69 seconds: 11km remains. Cane has dealt 25450 damage. Harby has dealt 34210 damage. Both use their webs. Harby MWDs at 372m/s. Cane MWDs at 452m/s. Cane is 80m/s faster.
94 seconds: Cane has dealt 39450 damage. Harby has dealt 47710 damage. Harby used its scram. Cane can't get any closer. Both overheat their guns. It's now 675dps of the Cane vs 600dps of the Harby.
The Cane is firing fusion, so the damage-modified 70k ehp Harby has 30k left.
The Harby is firing scorch, so the damage-modified 86k ehp Cane has 39k left.
It will take another 65 seconds for the Harby to kill the Cane.
It will take another 44 seconds for the Cane to kill the Harby.
Cane wins.


Correction: with heat, it's 707 DPS of the 'cane verus 690 of the Harby. And people accuse me of skewing my EFT numbers...

Regardless, though, I still see that you're comparing the two ships in a 1v1. If the "better ship" could be determined by which one wins a 1v1, then all people would ever fly are Rattlesnakes because of their 1500+ dps passive tank. Running out of quotes, so I'll now use quotation marks:

"4. Here are the battleships faster than a Harby (896m/s):
Shield Raven with 1 nano: 936m/s
Shield Scorp with 1 nano (lol): 913m/s
Shield gank Domi: 1005m/s
Dualrep Domi: 913m/s
Armour gank Hyperion: 905m/s
Dualrep Hyperion: 919m/s
Shield gank Hyperion: 1041m/s
Armour gank Megatron: 900m/s
Shield gank Megathron: 1052m/s
Shield Maelstrom with 1 nano: 913m/s
Shield gank Tempest: 1067m/s
Armour gank Tempest: 914m/s
Shield gank Typhoon: 1154m/s
Armour gank Typhoon: 989m/s
Shield gank Vindi: 1109m/s
Armour gank Vindi: 950m/s
Shield gank Mach: 1505m/s
Armour gank Mach: 1287m/s
Shield Rattlesnake with 1 nano: 936m/s"

I was under the impression we were talking Minmatar battleships, as that's what everyone is calling "OP." in fact, half of this list is Gallente. Lol

I'd hasten to consider any Mael faster than a Harb, since most Maels don't fit nanos, and hell, many don't even fit MWDs. And Machs don't count because they're OP as hell. Angel does need a nerf, but not AC's in general.

"1. Good luck even getting in range to scramble, neut and web it!
How are you going to catch a frigate in a Harby? 896m/s MWD speed. 11.2s align time. 7.9s lock time.
A Cane, on the other hand, has 1025m/s MWD speed, 10.5s align and 4.7s lock time with a sebo. It doesn't need a cap booster, so I fit my armour Canes with a sebo. The cookie 200mm Rifter ABs at 968m/s. An armour Cane is faster than a Rifter."

The cookie cutter 200mm Rifter fights at close range. And since Harbingers with hammerheads can get "soloed by rifters," they will be right up close to you, amirite?

"1. Armour Cane is only 13m/s slower than a HML Drake. It just needs to surprise-overheat the MWD and escape.
Alternatively, it may fly towards the Drake as the Drake is approaching, switch to EMP, and proceed to proceed at a high enough speed get within 10km and melt the poor Drake's face. A Harby will either try to overheat its MWD to escape, and get caught out due to not being significantly faster than the Drake, or turn around and attempt to melt the Drake, but the Drake will make things a bit awkward and turn the other direction before Harby gets in web range."

So the Hurricane either
A) Gets close enough to kill the Drake before taking enough HML damage that the fight is over (even if the Hurricane gets close enough, it might already be too late to save the fight, depending on when this happens)
B) Escapes the HML Drake without getting a kill
C) Dies slowly and painfully to HMLs

OTOH, the Harbinger either
A) Drives off the Drake with scorch
B) Catches the Drake and slays it.

So the Hurricane might die, but also has a slightly higher chance of winning. The Harb will pretty much will not die unless it is terrible, but has a slightly lower chance of winning.

Of course, we're still going on the assumption that every fight is a 1v1. Ugh
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#272 - 2011-11-15 05:14:37 UTC
New boosters do not have side effects. Any Minmatar want an extra 11% falloff to go with their TE? How about a 7.5% reduced sig? You can take two boosters at once now. Roll
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#273 - 2011-11-15 05:16:18 UTC
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
New boosters do not have side effects. Any Minmatar want an extra 11% falloff to go with their TE? How about a 7.5% reduced sig? You can take two boosters at once now. Roll


What, where?

And claiming that this only benefits Minmatar is stupid. Straight
Nimrod Nemesis
Doomheim
#274 - 2011-11-15 05:24:56 UTC
Liang Nuren wrote:

- The probe changes were easy to miss and nobody commented on the impending demise of almost all long range combat. That's something that CCP has repeatedly referred to as "emergent gameplay".

So, in short: yes - CCP was oblivious in more than a few ways. This shouldn't really surprise you.


I guess I don't buy the idea nobody projected the demise of LR combat. I'm not shocked CCP did something with extra consequences, but to adamantly assert it was not considered would require you to show CCP acknowledging the problem after the fact and admitting that they had missed it.

It's fully within the realm of possibility they did know about this new "emergent gameplay," and simple decided it would affect only a small number of ships so the trade-off was worth it. It wouldn't be the first time.
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#275 - 2011-11-15 05:30:17 UTC
Roosterton wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
New boosters do not have side effects. Any Minmatar want an extra 11% falloff to go with their TE? How about a 7.5% reduced sig? You can take two boosters at once now. Roll


What, where?

And claiming that this only benefits Minmatar is stupid. Straight


Does this mean there's an 11% no penalty optimal one too? MAH LAAAAZZZOOORRRSSSSS!!!! Bwahahahahaha...

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#276 - 2011-11-15 05:31:57 UTC
Roosterton wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
New boosters do not have side effects. Any Minmatar want an extra 11% falloff to go with their TE? How about a 7.5% reduced sig? You can take two boosters at once now. Roll


What, where?

And claiming that this only benefits Minmatar is stupid. Straight


Sissi. Right now. Also the final build. Cards are on de table! Yeehaw! P
Zarnak Wulf
Task Force 641
Empyrean Edict
#277 - 2011-11-15 05:33:01 UTC  |  Edited by: Zarnak Wulf
Liang Nuren wrote:
Roosterton wrote:
Zarnak Wulf wrote:
New boosters do not have side effects. Any Minmatar want an extra 11% falloff to go with their TE? How about a 7.5% reduced sig? You can take two boosters at once now. Roll


What, where?

And claiming that this only benefits Minmatar is stupid. Straight


Does this mean there's an 11% no penalty optimal one too? MAH LAAAAZZZOOORRRSSSSS!!!! Bwahahahahaha...

-Liang


Clever girl. Lol

11% optimal
11% falloff
11% cap
20% tracking
7.5% sig reduction
15% shield boost
15% armor rep
Liang Nuren
No Salvation
Divine Damnation
#278 - 2011-11-15 05:33:52 UTC
Nimrod Nemesis wrote:
Liang Nuren wrote:

- The probe changes were easy to miss and nobody commented on the impending demise of almost all long range combat. That's something that CCP has repeatedly referred to as "emergent gameplay".

So, in short: yes - CCP was oblivious in more than a few ways. This shouldn't really surprise you.


I guess I don't buy the idea nobody projected the demise of LR combat. I'm not shocked CCP did something with extra consequences, but to adamantly assert it was not considered would require you to show CCP acknowledging the problem after the fact and admitting that they had missed it.

It's fully within the realm of possibility they did know about this new "emergent gameplay," and simple decided it would affect only a small number of ships so the trade-off was worth it. It wouldn't be the first time.


Now you're just arguing to argue. I'm done with the conversation.

-Liang

I'm an idiot, don't mind me.
Roosterton
Sebiestor Tribe
Minmatar Republic
#279 - 2011-11-15 05:42:17 UTC
Quote:
Now you're just arguing to argue. I'm done with the conversation.

-Liang


I really should have tried this line at some point during the past two days. Lol
Firelord Ozai
Garoun Investment Bank
Gallente Federation
#280 - 2011-11-15 06:18:16 UTC  |  Edited by: Firelord Ozai
Roosterton wrote:
[quote]

And Machs don't count because they're OP as hell. Angel does need a nerf, but not AC's in general.



~all I can do is sigh... at the idea of nerf'ing anything so far beyond insurable...should never happen, EVER