These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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

Permanent Ship Balancing
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#21 - 2014-04-08 19:16:21 UTC
The make work project will go on forever.
They simply keep nerfing a group of ships, and then realize that put another class of ships out of whack with the rest.

Right now, 3 of the 5 pirate cruisers are being hammered.
Next, they are going after the faction BS's, which will just be a barrel of laughs (Rattlesnake with 2 uber bonused Heavies?)

Then, they look at the T3's, and say, hey, they are really OP compared to the faction cruisers.
They will be nerfed into oblivion, for the reason above, plus the fact that the null sec cartels can't control wormhole income from T3 sales, so it is in their best interest to ruin T3 sales.

Then we will see T2 recons go under the knife, and then the whole cycle starts up again.

Newsflash.
Not EVERY ship was broken in the game. The majority were not.
But the dev's in question can find faults with just about every one, or at least they THINK they are faults.
Lugia3
Federal Navy Academy
Gallente Federation
#22 - 2014-04-08 19:24:55 UTC
So your saying you liked the days where the only viable ship was the Hurricane, compared to today where every ship is viable?

"CCP Dolan is full of shit." - CCP Bettik
Nevyn Auscent
Broke Sauce
#23 - 2014-04-08 19:48:03 UTC
Dinsdale, you may have some point about how a lot of the changes lately have favoured Null in the overall scheme, but really, trying to claim that T3's getting nerfed is a Null Conspiracy?
T3's are out of balance, they are more specialised than T2, rather than better than T1 & broader & more adaptable than T2. That's been known for years.


Anyway, the way to break the blob. Line of Fire mechanics, more space terrain that matters & affects tactics, and spreading fights out more. So a fleets versatility starts to matter.
Muestereate
Minions LLC
#24 - 2014-04-08 20:09:47 UTC
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:
Muestereate wrote:
Velicitia wrote:
Wrong section.

Also, no - this'll just mean that instead of 1 fleet, you'll have 10 fleets so that the BS (or slowcat, or whatever doctrine) numbers stay the same.



If its not a new idea, its a redundant post isn't it? I asked to discuss not propose. I posted it here because of a broader cross section of talent. Features and Ideas impresses me as ship centered rather than group play. If the mods disagree, so be it but my first thought is that the idea has merit and creates new possibilities so much so that you would like to see the discussion be derailed and locked before it can see the light of dayI see new names, thanks for your responses.

I understand that the numbers will gravitate towards the blob mentality. This isn't to nerf blobs, its to divert resources from the bottomless pit of re-balancing. It will never end unless something else changes and quite frankly, I hate balanced ships. This shouldn't be a game about ships, it should be a game about people. Blob battles should be won on strategy and leadership and the ability to work together.

If you have ten fleets instead of one, you now need ten fleet commanders. for one this opens up leadership positions and another point is that it raises the bar from a competitive standpoint because it makes it harder to coordinate. team skill weigting rises as a proportion of overall difficulty and energy expenditures. Fatigue becomes a factor and additional errors increase the probability of a "turn of the tide" mistakes. These increase the potential content creation and drama. Of course in addition to more potential for errors is a somewhat increased strategic options available. Since force is not as concentrated, its free to split and handle the new broader range of threats.

Though the initial tendency would be to counter with the simplistic addition of fleets, more creative commanders could enjoy broader fleet comps under their control.


More creative commanders can "enjoy broader fleet comps under their control" right now.


but they don't because they are under no constraints that guide them to be creative



If you have ten fleets instead of one, you still only need one commander. You just (maybe) have to spend more time screwing around with your links, which is annoying and not fun.

These are out of game solutions around the current problems, the current tactics need not be recreated



Explain how there is more "fatigue" and then, if that explanation makes sense, explain why that's good for a video game.


  1. have you ever tried to command multiple wings, say Ewar and Logistics while managing dps targeting and calling? fatigue comes after the adrenaline wears off.
  2. All outcomes are a product of probabilities. Risks become "fuzzy". More situations appear tenable = increased engagements = better for game.
Your just kind of stretching for some idea that is so flawed at its base that it's almost pointless to shoot it down.

I appreciate your lack of comprehension, It shows a lack of communication on my part, thanks for helping me develop the idea
Muestereate
Minions LLC
#25 - 2014-04-08 20:14:59 UTC
Lugia3 wrote:
So your saying you liked the days where the only viable ship was the Hurricane, compared to today where every ship is viable?



YES :) ABSOLUTELY!! I love the cruiser rebalance, after that it seems a downhill race to a vanilla generic bottom to me because it evades the real problem. Fixing symptoms instead of causes has a tendency to do this. Someone threw out the bait and CCP bit into it. THey are now like gut hooked flounder.
Adrie Atticus
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#26 - 2014-04-08 21:14:15 UTC
Bizzaro Stormy MurphDog wrote:


Need five times the boosters. Don't need anyone with the FC skill trained.

Did I win?


Here, have a like.
Erufen Rito
Republic Military School
Minmatar Republic
#27 - 2014-04-08 21:21:36 UTC
Muestereate wrote:
As I see it the core of the ship balancing problem, which costs huge amounts of development time, is not about the ships.

There is no such thing as perfect balancing. persuing it is a waste of resources.

The true problems occur when very minor imbalances are multiplied a thousandfold by big fleets.

Eliminate this ability by tweaking the max amount of the same ship to the number in a fleets wing (50). This would force no more than 50 of the same ship in each fleet. when carried into the logical conclusion of blob balancing. Each fleet would end up with 5 ship types.

FC's and wing commanders would be more involved.
More variety on the battlefield.
Still enough alpha if a supreme commander directs multiple fleets.
And more development time for things other than ship nerfs.

To name a few, I'm sure more could be added as well as presenting new problems to solve but I think a core game changer???

Good, bad, impractical, unfair?

Discuss?

Man, this is a pretty bad idea, because it fixes nothing and creates more issues. It already is a logistical nightmere to coordinate a huge fleet. It'll be that much harder to coordinate 500 smaller fleets. It'd create more issues as well, thanks to the overview not being entirely player friendly for customization

Wait, I think i'm onto something. Lets do this. That way, when Goons can't form up and their blues start shooting more blues and the fail cascade starts, they can cry about a bad overview configuration window, and THEN we get a nice UI fix for that ugly thing.

Grr goons.

This is as nice as I get. Best quote ever https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=4137165#post4137165
Ralph King-Griffin
New Eden Tech Support
#28 - 2014-04-08 21:26:45 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dinsdale, you may have some point about how a lot of the changes lately have favoured Null in the overall scheme, but really, trying to claim that T3's getting nerfed is a Null Conspiracy?
T3's are out of balance, they are more specialised than T2, rather than better than T1 & broader & more adaptable than T2. That's been known for years.


Anyway, the way to break the blob. Line of Fire mechanics, more space terrain that matters & affects tactics, and spreading fights out more. So a fleets versatility starts to matter.

He's still bitter about how ccp "nerfed" marauders.

Murderers of Negotiable Motivations

=]|[=
Marsha Mallow
#29 - 2014-04-08 21:43:50 UTC
What on earth are you bawwing about now? Devs have explicitly stated on camera whilst rambling on during some AT that they deliberately create imbalances [for a bit] then nerf them when the time is right. Because they are like that. No I will not find the linky - go find it yourself, it's possible I just imagined it.

The sensible approach is simply to grab whatever they did by the horns, abuse the hell out of it, then find the next 'window of opportunity'. You don't even have to do it yourself, usually the most mouthy eft-warriors will run up and down declaring their new doctrine, so that everyone else can copy it. Cos, they are like that too. Conveniently. This attitude is all dependent upon whether you fall into the half full/half empty brigade and how hard you really enjoy squealing.

These are bored cranky vet, those-with-brain-cells-left tweaks. It's not like the rest of the numpties (no offense, I am in this category) will even notice anyway, unless it affects Lvl 4 missions.

Ripard Teg > For the morons in the room:

Sweets > U can dd my face any day
Tosawa Komarui
State War Academy
Caldari State
#30 - 2014-04-08 21:47:26 UTC
its not so much balancing as making all the ships have uses, which is what they are trying to do, and i think its great
Kaarous Aldurald
Black Hydra Consortium.
#31 - 2014-04-08 22:09:15 UTC
All this would do is make people sub divide fleets into a bunch of smaller groups.

It's pretty much the same suggestion as "nerf alliance numbers because Grr Goons!", when all that would do is make coalition logistics a little bit harder.

They've already been circumventing fleet size restrictions for a while, this wouldn't be any different, just slightly more of a pain in the ass.

The solution is just to fix the damned ships, not to make the game less fun.

"Verily, I have often laughed at the weaklings who thought themselves good because they had no claws."

One of ours, ten of theirs.

Best Meltdown Ever.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#32 - 2014-04-08 22:15:01 UTC
The fact you expect this to work indicates you have no idea what you are talking about.

Nullsec alliances routinely circumvent the fleet size limits as part of any CTA.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Muestereate
Minions LLC
#33 - 2014-04-08 22:19:10 UTC
THere is a way to broadcast targets and reps to more than 255? I think if thats possible it might fit into the realm of an exploit. Could you please elaborate. All ideas have conditions and constraints to consider as well as the regard of inteested parties.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#34 - 2014-04-08 22:20:59 UTC
Muestereate wrote:
THere is a way to broadcast targets and reps to more than 255? I think if thats possible it might fit into the realm of an exploit. Could you please elaborate. All ideas have conditions and constraints to consider as well as the regard of inteested parties.


Oh man, he has us now Roll

I used to PVP and FC before the broadcast system was implemented, so all it takes is not being lazy and having organized and disciplined comms.

But if that is outside the scope of your fleet, you might have a problemCool

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Muestereate
Minions LLC
#35 - 2014-04-08 22:22:52 UTC
multiply the difficulties and people passing on orders times five, do the chances for mistakes and fatigue increase?
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#36 - 2014-04-08 22:25:49 UTC  |  Edited by: masternerdguy
Muestereate wrote:
multiply the difficulties and people passing on orders times five, do the chances for mistakes and fatigue increase?


I don't recall it being that much harder before broadcasts. You just took more advantage of watch lists, listening to the FC's verbal instructions (because "Primary ABC in the Drake" is so hard to understandRoll) and kicking disruptive people from fleet (and primarying them of course).

Broadcasts only made people lazy, they were at no point needed for huge blob combat to happen. Heck, blobs happened before alliance level standings were even implemented!

So please continue to explain how your plan hurts people like me.

EDIT: Anything you need a fleet and broadcast to do can also be done using a chat channel and proper overview setup.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Dinsdale Pirannha
Pirannha Corp
#37 - 2014-04-08 22:27:03 UTC
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dinsdale, you may have some point about how a lot of the changes lately have favoured Null in the overall scheme, but really, trying to claim that T3's getting nerfed is a Null Conspiracy?
T3's are out of balance, they are more specialised than T2, rather than better than T1 & broader & more adaptable than T2. That's been known for years.


Anyway, the way to break the blob. Line of Fire mechanics, more space terrain that matters & affects tactics, and spreading fights out more. So a fleets versatility starts to matter.


It is not some dark conspiracy.
It is pretty straightforward.

Null sec cartels cannot control the income streams from wormhole space.
Though I am sure that the cartels have a large presence in wormholes, they can't control them as they have null sec.
And how many null sec groups have a huge FW presence?? Lots.
And we all can see how the cartels have directed the destruction of high sec income.

The last place they have no real control on the economy is wormhole space.
So they are directing the dev's to trash T3's so less are sold, hurting wh players, and everyone else who likes to fly them.

As for T3's being over-powered, that is silly.
Always has been. They have never been OP.

When I can fit a T1 cruiser to outgun any T3 but a gank Proteus, they are far from overpowered.
Do they have great resists, and excellent tanks? You bet.
But when you end up paying 40 times what you do for a T1 cruiser, yeah, they should be vastly superior.

I own a Proteus and Loki.
Loki was setup for low sec exploration work.
Proteus was set up for mission running, and was about to be retasked for low sec mission work.

Then the first drone nerf hit with the wrecking of drone range with the Omni's.
Then the 2nd direct nerf to T2 sentries hit.

So I guess I will either stick with a terrible DPS Loki for low sec work, or upgrade to a Stratios, that still is marginally better than then Loki in DPS, even after the wrecking of drone damage. And once the T3 nerf hits, the Loki won't be able to tank or apply any kind of DPS.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#38 - 2014-04-08 22:29:12 UTC
Dinsdale Pirannha wrote:
Nevyn Auscent wrote:
Dinsdale, you may have some point about how a lot of the changes lately have favoured Null in the overall scheme, but really, trying to claim that T3's getting nerfed is a Null Conspiracy?
T3's are out of balance, they are more specialised than T2, rather than better than T1 & broader & more adaptable than T2. That's been known for years.


Anyway, the way to break the blob. Line of Fire mechanics, more space terrain that matters & affects tactics, and spreading fights out more. So a fleets versatility starts to matter.


It is not some dark conspiracy.
It is pretty straightforward.

Null sec cartels cannot control the income streams from wormhole space.
Though I am sure that the cartels have a large presence in wormholes, they can't control them as they have null sec.
And how many null sec groups have a huge FW presence?? Lots.
And we all can see how the cartels have directed the destruction of high sec income.

The last place they have no real control on the economy is wormhole space.
So they are directing the dev's to trash T3's so less are sold, hurting wh players, and everyone else who likes to fly them.

As for T3's being over-powered, that is silly.
Always has been. They have never been OP.

When I can fit a T1 cruiser to outgun any T3 but a gank Proteus, they are far from overpowered.
Do they have great resists, and excellent tanks? You bet.
But when you end up paying 40 times what you do for a T1 cruiser, yeah, they should be vastly superior.

I own a Proteus and Loki.
Loki was setup for low sec exploration work.
Proteus was set up for mission running, and was about to be retasked for low sec mission work.

Then the first drone nerf hit with the wrecking of drone range with the Omni's.
Then the 2nd direct nerf to T2 sentries hit.

So I guess I will either stick with a terrible DPS Loki for low sec work, or upgrade to a Stratios, that still is marginally better than then Loki in DPS, even after the wrecking of drone damage. And once the T3 nerf hits, the Loki won't be able to tank or apply any kind of DPS.


You know that nullsec loves Lokis right? They're usually setup as a brick tanked armor Huginn.

Things are only impossible until they are not.
Muestereate
Minions LLC
#39 - 2014-04-08 22:37:41 UTC
masternerdguy wrote:
Muestereate wrote:
multiply the difficulties and people passing on orders times five, do the chances for mistakes and fatigue increase?


I don't recall it being that much harder before broadcasts. You just took more advantage of watch lists, listening to the FC's verbal instructions (because "Primary ABC in the Drake" is so hard to understandRoll) and kicking disruptive people from fleet (and primarying them of course).

Broadcasts only made people lazy, they were at no point needed for huge blob combat to happen. Heck, blobs happened before alliance level standings were even implemented!

So please continue to explain how your plan hurts people like me.

EDIT: Anything you need a fleet and broadcast to do can also be done using a chat channel and proper overview setup.


I'm sorry if you interpreted my idea as a personal attack on you. I tried not to offend any particular person or group though its largest impact would be very large fleets that magnify very minor imbalances and overstress hardware and personnel resources by exposing these minor imbalances instead as broken mechanics.
masternerdguy
Doomheim
#40 - 2014-04-08 22:45:37 UTC
Muestereate wrote:
masternerdguy wrote:
Muestereate wrote:
multiply the difficulties and people passing on orders times five, do the chances for mistakes and fatigue increase?


I don't recall it being that much harder before broadcasts. You just took more advantage of watch lists, listening to the FC's verbal instructions (because "Primary ABC in the Drake" is so hard to understandRoll) and kicking disruptive people from fleet (and primarying them of course).

Broadcasts only made people lazy, they were at no point needed for huge blob combat to happen. Heck, blobs happened before alliance level standings were even implemented!

So please continue to explain how your plan hurts people like me.

EDIT: Anything you need a fleet and broadcast to do can also be done using a chat channel and proper overview setup.


I'm sorry if you interpreted my idea as a personal attack on you. I tried not to offend any particular person or group though its largest impact would be very large fleets that magnify very minor imbalances and overstress hardware and personnel resources by exposing these minor imbalances instead as broken mechanics.


Actually, I find this pretty funny.

I've made a case how I will adapt and thrive despite your efforts, however you are unable to adapt to current game mechanics.

Things are only impossible until they are not.