These forums have been archived and are now read-only.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 page123
 

CCP SoniClover: "Uber-balanced utopia vs ever-changing environment".

Author
DarkAegix
24th Imperial Crusade
Amarr Empire
#41 - 2012-01-18 01:25:23 UTC
Change is good as long as it's constant, and one race/ship/fit/mechanic doesn't remain in the lead for a huge amount of time.
Vaerah Vahrokha
Vahrokh Consulting
#42 - 2012-01-18 01:32:22 UTC  |  Edited by: Vaerah Vahrokha
The only bad thing about this ever change is that it's still CCP who intrudes in the sandbox to apply the "evolution". It's an hard coded thing.

Would be VERY refreshing and incredibly original if they could just feed us the tools to evolve EvE ourselves.
We'd have the first MMO that evolves on its own, with no developer intervention beyond creating general guidelines to keep such evolution in check.

EDIT

A possible idea: random rigs for modules.

I could be given a BPO that would create a module rig with random +stats and -stats but that also uses random +CPU / PG.

The possible number of variations you can get by fitting multiple rigged modules is huge and therefore we could have our own "personal" ship.

Or we could have each module accept 1 rig (frigate) to 3 rigs (BS) to 5 (capitals)... with bonuses and maluses like the regular rigs.
Herzog Wolfhammer
Sigma Special Tactics Group
#43 - 2012-01-18 01:36:14 UTC
I for one welcome our tactical-aspect fluid environment where we have to THINK.

Of course it's hard for a lot of people to think these days. Poor bastards. Shuffling around looking for something to eat all the time.

Bring back DEEEEP Space!

Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#44 - 2012-01-18 01:46:04 UTC
Nova Fox wrote:
Just saying all of the new battlecruisers are empire comissioned.


The ships pretty much have to be; given they are branded predominantly as Empire ships. That doesn't mean the modules have to be. Most modules are developed seperately from the actual ships; and there is really very little information supporting those modules being made in any fashion other than aftermarket technologies.

The Empire modules and ammunition are all achievable through faction LP; rather than as an off the market item available to all.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Mars Theran
Foreign Interloper
#45 - 2012-01-18 01:48:34 UTC
Vaerah Vahrokha wrote:
The only bad thing about this ever change is that it's still CCP who intrudes in the sandbox to apply the "evolution". It's an hard coded thing.

Would be VERY refreshing and incredibly original if they could just feed us the tools to evolve EvE ourselves.
We'd have the first MMO that evolves on its own, with no developer intervention beyond creating general guidelines to keep such evolution in check.

EDIT

A possible idea: random rigs for modules.

I could be given a BPO that would create a module rig with random +stats and -stats but that also uses random +CPU / PG.

The possible number of variations you can get by fitting multiple rigged modules is huge and therefore we could have our own "personal" ship.

Or we could have each module accept 1 rig (frigate) to 3 rigs (BS) to 5 (capitals)... with bonuses and maluses like the regular rigs.


I for one, am very glad it's CCP and not the players who do this. If it was the players, I would have quit a long time ago, because this game would be so absurdely unbalanced as to be unplayable, and all the 'special effects' would make me wish I was blind with any real prolonged exposure.
zubzubzubzubzubzubzubzub
Tau Cabalander
Retirement Retreat
Working Stiffs
#46 - 2012-01-18 01:54:45 UTC
Elzon1
Pandemic Horde Inc.
Pandemic Horde
#47 - 2012-01-18 04:33:21 UTC
I'm up for adjustable tech 3 mods and ammo.

Imagine adjusting shield/armor resistances mid battle.

Imagine changing your ecm type mid battle.

Imagine changing range, explosion radius, velocity, and damage type of ammo mid battle.

In situ tactical fitting change could add an interesting dynamic to fleet fights I think.
canflipper
Infested U.E.D.
#48 - 2012-01-18 06:07:36 UTC
CCP SoniClover wrote:
... balanced ...


CCP SoniClover wrote:
... Starcraft II ...


Someone's never heard of Marauders.
Lord Lewtz
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Caldari State
#49 - 2012-01-18 10:57:09 UTC
Change is good.

Even SC2 is constantly balancing the units so GTFO with that reference.
Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#50 - 2012-01-18 11:22:49 UTC  |  Edited by: Tanya Powers
Gripen wrote:
Following is a quote from F&I subforum but I think it outlines important development question which is worth a thread on its own so it won't be lost by community attention spotlight.

CCP SoniClover wrote:
Just a quick note on why we're looking into adding new modules, rather than focus completely on fixing/balancing existing stuff - what we're looking into is creating a fluid tactical environment that shifts over time. So we're not looking into creating an uber-balanced utopia ala Starcraft II that, once achieved, we can then walk away from. Rather, we want to achieve a more chaotic environment where 'best' fittings change rapidly and the value of items (modules, rigs, ships) is relative based on the current metagame rather than fixed in eternity. The idea is that a fluid, ever-changing environment like that will have more long-term appeal in a game like EVE than a static uber-balanced system does.

I just want to know am I the only one who is really disappointed by such approach? Isn't this "fluid, ever-changing environment" is a synonym to the constant FOTM race and lack of complex balance vision what we had in EVE all the way since 2003? How can one reference an existing commercial product and utopia in the same sentence without implying that there is no way to create something even close to other people archivements? Shouldn't you always aim high? And balance doesn't mean there couldn't be any changes. Talking about after-mentioned SC2: it's supposed to be released in three parts so that's the same game sold three times in a row just because of changes supposed to shake the game environment.

There is no debate that changes are needed but the question is "new stuff for the sake of new stuff" or "changes to improve depth without ruling out old stuff". More choices at any given time vs constant shift of the focus from time to time.



They're just admitting their inability or incapacity to actually address hybrids/Gallente situation, that simple Lol

If most were that good than CCP Punkturis, by the way charming lady your UI job is just awesome (sig), hybrids would be balanced at the first announcement, man now we've got blasters ammo rebalanced, in 6 months Diemos will probably receive enough PG to fit what it needs to be useful but still not the necessary speed witch will come with next winter expansion...dammit.

Lol
Liam Mirren
#51 - 2012-01-18 11:30:42 UTC  |  Edited by: Liam Mirren
Change is good as long as Minnie and Amarr stay on top, right? I mean, we can't have a Caldari ship suddenly actually be more useful (Naga) than the minnie one (tornado) . NERF THAT **** REAL FAST! Also, Talos is not at all overpowered, we need to buff it some more. The fact that it dominates lots of solo/small fleet scenarios is not important at all, THE ONLY THING THAT COUNTS IS BLOB WARFARE BALANCE (in favour of Amarr and Minnie).

Excellence is not a skill, it's an attitude.

Drew Solaert
Aliastra
Gallente Federation
#52 - 2012-01-18 11:44:48 UTC
I'm all for a fluid changing dynamic

I lied :o

Tanya Powers
Doomheim
#53 - 2012-01-18 11:57:30 UTC
Drew Solaert wrote:
I'm all for a fluid changing dynamic



Such nice words Lol
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#54 - 2012-01-18 15:09:36 UTC
What we finally give the caldari a useful gunboat now everyone is jealous?

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Gripen
#55 - 2012-01-18 16:02:36 UTC
Tau Cabalander wrote:

I read this article and I think that first comment is a good tl;dr of it:
Quote:
Unbalanced gameplay is good, because everytime we nerf a gameplay element it forces people to invest again a whole load of time training other skills. And it allows us (CCP) to ignore the game and do other things with our time. What a load of *** from CCP marketing. Im only reading excuses upon excuses why CCP isnt working on the game.


From monetary point of view there is of course a group of players called FOTM-chasers who gladly train for the new FOTM but is it safe to bet that there are more of such people than players who would leave the game after their specialization becames useless with another boost-nerf cycle or people who will leave because of shallow gameplay FOTM concepts always inherent? It's no wonder why there is such a low retention rate in EVE with such design priorities.

And argument about always discovering something new makes no sense to me either as it takes mere hours after patchnotes release for the experienced player to figure out what would be a new FOTM and for beginners or those who don't like to think by themselves it's just a question of one line in the corpchat: "link me a current FOTM fit please".
Nova Fox
Novafox Shipyards
#56 - 2012-01-23 19:53:03 UTC  |  Edited by: Nova Fox
Either way I strongly belive in military escalation. So many games or sci-fi's dont have it. (cough Star Trek the worst offender)

I don't see why people are complaining about my list of horrible ideas, the US military list of bad ideas easily makes mine look intelligent at times.

Like the Gay Bomb.
Or Bat Bombs

Hell even a pidgeon guided missiles.

Dust 514's CPM 1 Iron Wolf Saber Eve mail me about Dust 514 issues.

Nicolo da'Vicenza
Viziam
Amarr Empire
#57 - 2012-01-23 20:01:27 UTC  |  Edited by: Nicolo da'Vicenza
Gripen wrote:
I just want to know am I the only one who is really disappointed by such approach?
I hope so. Changes in the environment is what spurs continuous evolution and growth of all life on earth. While EVE is nowhere near as complex as the biosphere or evolution in general, the game through hundreds of thousands of players making millions of good and bad choices selects good behaviors from bad, strong alliances from weak due to a harsh risk/reward system. Without continuous change in the environment providing external stimulus, playstyle in EVE would eventually reach stasis. This doesn't happen in the real world because the real world is constantly being bombarded by rocks, volcanoes, stellar phenomenon, recession in its rotation, new technology being discovered, etc. EVE's tactical and alliance status however without continuous developer input (new tools, new risks, new rewards) is in complete stasis and, eventually, complete stagnation.
Previous page123