Jita Park Speakers Corner

 
^ Back to top

Topic is locked indefinitely.

8 Pages123Next pageLast page
 

Fon Revedhort - CSM7

Jump to first DEV post
Author
#1 Posted: 2012.02.10 00:13  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
I'll skip the part describing that I've tried all EVE professions and so on, which - while being true and perfectly applicable for my case - is something every CSM candidate should have done by default.

My main interest within the game have always been small-scale PvP and that's the area I seem to be decently good at. Let my movies (another list) speak for me here.

A brand new movie (released 6.3.2012) Motorization of Disciples \o/

Really enjoying rich, thrilling and creative environment this way of gaming provides, I can safely state there are certain things I'd like to see changed/fixed/improved for the benefit of those sharing - in general - my view and my idea of fun in EVE.

I'm pretty confident that my pathological aspiration for truth may cost me some votes. That said, I'm still going to list my thoughts on an appreciable number of questions. This includes:
1) rigs
2) Buffer vs. active tanking.
3) Cyno mechanics
4) Overused modules
5) Electronic Warfare
6) Combat Recons vs. Force Recons
7) Danger of new supercapitals (speculations and thoughts)
8) High-security space
9) cruise missiles
10) Low-sec.

So, some details on things which I'd like to see addressed:

1) Rigs. All of them.

Rigs have never been changed (bar very few units) since the very introduction of them in 2006! Some of them are way too good (popularity speaks for itself), some just don't induce proper penalties, some don't have penalties at all, some aren't even stacking penalized while costing merely 50 calibration points and providing very useful bonuses. Insanity, to put it mildly.

2) Buffer vs. active tanking.

Tanking in general is a very powerful ability. It doesn't matter what the ship itself does on a battlefield or how it's affected by other stuff, but it still dies by taking damage. One's ability to tank that damage is to come with proper cost. At the moment active tanking comes with: high CPU and grid requirements, high capacitor usage. On the other hand, current buffer tanking, while being very potent and popular (yet again, numbers speak for themselves), is hardly associated with any significant penalties. That is especially true for shield tanking, where increase of signature radius is simply a (bad) joke.

There's a great number of ways we can improve buffer tanking (so that it becomes balanced), but the idea of decreasing mobility for using HP modules is something hardly anyone will argue with. Decreased mobility should be there no matter whether you go for shield or armour. Wanna move fast(er)? Go for active tanking then. What is really cool, it's the fact this change hardly affects fleet warfare: the difference between everyone going at 1km/s and say 700-800 is pretty much non-existent. Great Nano Fix reduced velocity values by about the same margin, yet people still blob just fine.

I'm surely perfectly fine with CCP introducing instead some other proper penalties for buffer tanking, but these changes should then come in significant shifts - you can not just increase PG usage of pesky Large Shield Extenders by 20 MWs and consider it done. Nothing will change.

As for repairing/boosting values, these are fine as they are. Increasing them will just ruin small-scale PvP. We don't want to meet unbreakable monsters on each gate. The game is meant to be fun and dynamic, so the stuff must explode. Increasing tanking values just forces people to bring bigger numbers with them and that's it. By the way, that's why there are so many blobs around - the whole game is already overtanked (thanks to buffer tanking being so good) and people can't achieve anything within reasonable timeframe without bringing in a gazillion of teammates. Or at least they think they can't, which is a whole another story - I've already tried my best busting these myths with my movies, so please don't make me elaborate on it here with mere words at my disposal.


3) Cyno mechanics

Just as rigs, cynoes haven't been changed since they were initially released. Or at least I as a 2005 player can't recall anything in this regard. Current primitive mechanics was probably OK for the old days where capitals were few and the galaxy was vast, but became totally inacceptable even by 2009, much less nowadays.

Let's just face it - being able to throw in a ship instantly while retaining its combat capabilities is really overpowered. More so for small-scale PvP. As a player with massive game experience, I'm perfectly fine with power-blocs and other blobs hot-dropping each other 23/7, they may enjoy this as much as they want to.

However, there's not a single reason for the same rules to apply both in a) on an 'epic' battlefield with thousands of ships present and b) on a gate or belt where some casual dude in his cruiser meats another one. We can easily make separate cynoes to meet ultimate game needs. And these needs are governed by balance. So, that's how I for one see it:

- sovereignty warfare cyno. Can be activated only within close proximity to sov structures, such as POSes, outposts, claim units etc. Heck, I think I'll be fine with that new cyno even if they make no further changes and don't introduce any of these (needed) features: spool-up timer, resistances penalties, inability for the cyno- equipped ship to lock things upon cyno activation, disclosuring bloom around cyno-equipped ship, proper cyno cost, proper CPU/grid usage etc.
CCP proves CSM is a joke
Finally on par with Garmon?..

#2 Posted: 2012.02.10 00:13  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
- general combat cyno. Can be activated at any location, but goes with spool-up timer, which can be of inverse relation to the number of ships present in grid, so the more ships are there, the sooner hot-drop arrives. It's surely welcome to introduce some additional features (like disclosuring bloom) and make some tweaks (so that killing a cyno-fitted ships brings you some isk in loot), but instantaneous power-projection should be fixed no matter what.

- covert cyno. May even retain its current stats, but I personally believe spool-up will greatly improve it, too. But it's also important to note that this point is very dependent on how CCP is resistant to clueless screams advocating for Black Ops buff. Black Ops are mostly fine and any changes beyond Sin overhaul and probably minor tweaks here and there (fuel bay etc.) will result in this shipclass being way too attractive while still remaining next to impossible to counter. We surely don't want this to happen. Covert-ops and any kind of 'silent' and 'safe' engaging should never be comparable to regular combat means.

4) Overused modules

- Tracking Enhancers provide way too good falloff bonus, which results in making autocannons FOTM and blasterboats even less appealing. I'm a firm believer that it's not the range of blasters we need to blame, but rather the fact how great is the range of missiles and how massively OP Tracking Enhancers became with Dominion. So, falloff bonus for both Tracking Enhancers and Tracking Computers is to get reduced to 15% (for tech2), which is in line with the game spirit: check rig and implant values - all pairs there provide equal bonuses for falloff and optimal.

- Damage Control. It's way too good. It's used so often that it might as well be built-in. If something is that popular we should always ask ourselves - is it actually good for the game? As for me, I'm pretty sure DC is to be brought down somehow.

5) Electronic Warfare

I guess I won't be far from truth saying that EW affects small-scale combat in a devastating way, while its impact on large battles is pretty meaningless. I've got no idea how to make it better at large scale, but it seems like a solution of making it more balanced at small-scale warfare is available. I believe all EW effects should decrease the strengh over time if the attacking ship keeps disrupting the same target for a long time. RP-wise it makes sense in terms of sensors/electronics adapting to the incoming disruption, which is always electronic-based. It sounds reasonable: you can adjust your sensors to fight ECM etc., that's surely not the same thing as, say, rebuilding armour to make it more resistant.

So I'm saying: each successful cycle of jam or dampening or tracking disruption should reduce efficiency of further jamming/dampening/disruption performed by the very same attacker over the very same target. This idea is written in details in the link below, have a look if interested.
https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&m=704241#post704241

6) Combat Recons vs. Force Recons

Some may think they are in close relation. I strongly object and state they're of about the same difference as covert-ops frigates and interceptors (or EAFs). I do think Combat and Force Recons are separate ship classes and should be treated as such. But the mind boggles seeing claims of Pilgrim not being a match to Curse. Why should it in the first place!? Pilgrim gets a covert-ops cloak - an extremely powerful module allowing it to sneak and perform sudden attacks. That costs a lot! And so it should. Take a look at Tech3 cruisers - covert-ops subsystem greatly reduces their combat capabilities. And that's great. That's exactly what makes it balanced. So, in contradistinction to what some say, Pilgrim is OK without neut range bonus. Moreover, Curse/Pilgrim pair is exactly how all the Recons are to be balanced - there should be a choice between range and cloak. Having both of the worlds should not be allowed, otherwise it brings us to such a situation where Rook is hardly used and we're forced to give him massive offensives, which is kind of stupid for a Recon ship. I'd even say that Rook will never be used as much as Falcon no matter what - as long as EW range is equal, things will stay the same.

The ultimate conclusion is: reduce range bonuses for tackling mods of both Rapier and Arazu (may be make them match corresponding tech3 hulls), give Rook an EW range bonus.
CCP proves CSM is a joke
Finally on par with Garmon?..

#3 Posted: 2012.02.10 00:13  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
Why vote for me?

Give it a thought - power-blocs will be over-represented anyway, hi-sec dwellers are mostly unknown and are unlikely to get sufficient number of votes. Small scale PvP wasn't really represented much throughout entire CSM history. If you want to see EVE both fun and casual and don't treat internet spaceships as a serious business, I'm right there with you.


Will I really have any impact on CSM and CCP?


I can't promise anything, but I don't see how giving an honest opinion on various issues is harder than engaging 10+ people with a multibillion ship knowing you can easily die in a fire in seconds. But I'm giving it a try anyway.
CCP proves CSM is a joke
Finally on par with Garmon?..

#4 Posted: 2012.02.10 00:13  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
7) Danger of new supercapitals (speculations and thoughts)

It's always easier to avert a fire than to fight it.

Some believe that supers were OK back in the days when used in small numbers and/or rarely. Well, by this very logic we should agree that exploits and bots are also OK since only a relatively small percentage of players use them. That's surely a nonsense.

Instead of this pharisaism we should accept an idea that any given thing is balanced only as long as it doesn't break the game. Rate of its use has nothing to do with this. Thus, if CCP ever decides it's a good idea to release a new breed of capitals, we should make sure they aren't game-breaking, but instead balanced from the very introduction. It's a brain fallacy to assume that giving someone an ability to insta-pop loads of ships with no particular effort and in a way which has no countermeasures (no tracking or explosion radius etc.) is good for the game. It's also a brain fallacy to make ships totally immune to something on a mere grounds of these ships costing 'a lot'. My Machariels also cost a lot in comparison to Griffins, yet the latter ones can easily jam me. It's equally stupid to think that one's ability to instantaneously portal ships is 'balanced cause the portal can be mounted on Titans only', which 'are expensive'. Remember Band of Brothers portaling freighters loaded with NPC goods and making billions that way? That's a nice sample of how the very idea of portal is short-sighted.

So we, as experienced and competent players, should make sure CCP won't screw it up once again. Any new supercap must adopt the idea that its damage potential can be fully utilized only when special conditions are met. Like: a)it's used in sov-warfare b)the targets actually suit the guns while on top of that targets are slowed down and painted. And finally c)there's enough screening on the battlefield. The last one is there to prevent such a nonsense, when caps are more desired by FCs than regular ships! That's outrageous. Releasing new supercapitals in pre-boosted mode - like they were in 2006 - will have extremely detrimental impact on EVE. For instance, the entry bar for sov-warfare will skyrocket. We don't want this to happen.
CCP proves CSM is a joke
Finally on par with Garmon?..

#5 Posted: 2012.02.10 00:14  |  Edited by: Fon Revedhort
8) High-security space

First of all, I don't hate high-sec dwellers. My main concern is that dangerous parts of space should retain advantage in terms of income and I guess content-wise as well. Else there would be no point in venturing into them in the first place. But given how lucrative w-space is and how 0.0 never misses attention among neither devs nor CSM, I think we can agree to keep high-sec the way it is. I definitely won't be willing to move level4 missions into low-sec as it's often proposed. As for the actual improvements, I'd say that COSMOS stuff needs some love - as far as I know (haven't been there for ages), Gallente and Matari Cosmos missions are still somewhat lacking. It'll be nice to see them expanded to match those of Amarr and Caldari. The entire cosmos module lineup needs an overhaul, as some stuff hardly matches even low-meta mods in terms of performance while having a huge pricetag. As a general rule, if there are 2 cosmos mods of the same class, one of them is a complete waste and the other one is actually quite good. It makes no sense since they both require more or less the same components for their build. It would be very nice to see both being useful, just in different ways.

9) cruise missiles

At the moment they've got far too great range while lacking DPS. No one needs that much range since it's literally impossible to capitalize on it. Mission runners don't need to shoot missiles at 150-250km and in PvP projecting missiles that far wasn't a good idea even before current scan mechanics was introduced, much less nowadays. The thing is, cruise missiles are kind of build around the idea of utilizing them specifically at those insane ranges - cause at short to medium range warfare they are just underwhelming and overshadowed by pretty much anything. Heavy missiles aren't that far DPS-wise, while having way better actual damage application. As a side note: Raven's base lock range is 100 km less that its missiles flight distance, so the ship needs 2 Sensor Boosters to even start shooting at its full range.

All in all, cruise missiles need an overhaul. I'd suggest a minor DPS increase (say, 10%) and optionally - reduction in flight time. Alternatively, we can just change tech2 missiles (fury) into close-range ones. It surely has to be done with caution since we don't want to see those overshadowing torpedoes. But given the difference in numbers we've got at the moment, it's unlikely to happen.

10) Low-sec.

CCP states Incursions are awesome. I don't feel like denying that particular thought, but let's just talk about whether running Incursions is in line with other low-sec stuff. You can basically run missions, plexes and anomalies. Also you can mine and kill rats in belts. Add in PI, moon mining, hauling - and that's pretty much it.

The thing is, none of the above requires a fleet of 30-50 people in it. Everything's usually being done in very small groups, sometimes even solo. It's pretty easy for pirates to attack those and thus establish social interaction. Those pirates in turn attract third parties and it all escalates pretty good. Incursions, on the other hand, require quite a lot of people initially and - given there are multiple logistic ships as well - are very unlikely to attract something lesser than a blob, which would seem to be more suited for 0.0 roams. That's a huge contradiction - most activities are aimed for small-scale game play while Incursions require significant numbers .

I'm in no way advocating for Incursions removal, though. What I'm saying is: low-sec space needs more small-scale, casual stuff. Something easily available equally for bored pirates and carebears on their first venture out of high-sec. Something fast, which won't require probing out neither the site nor the ships within it. The latter one is a reason why adding level5 agents to each and every dead-end probably won't cut it, but still I don't see why CCP can't spread out level 5 missions across low-sec. Some areas are just plain deserted. Back in my newbie days there was a reason to go search for those empty pockets - one could mine out there. At the moment low-sec mining is a joke, thus dead-end systems are mostly of no use.

I don't see anything wrong with adding special low-sec missions for pirates (sec status below -5) alone. It sounds reasonable to introduce lesser factions - like EoM - which basically aren't present, but could become a nice alternative to regular navy forces. Give 'em a bit of new content - faction rigs, anyone? - and we'll have it basically done!
CCP proves CSM is a joke
Finally on par with Garmon?..

#6 Posted: 2012.02.10 00:16
way too many people running for CSM.

I forsee nothing but power bloc representation at this rate Lol
#7 Posted: 2012.02.10 00:22
Ya got some interesting points, GL.
Signature removed for inappropriate language - CCP Eterne
Caldari State
#8 Posted: 2012.02.10 01:17
We need more ppl like you!
Goonswarm Federation
#9 Posted: 2012.02.10 01:21
You have my like!
Sky Captain of Your Heart

Reddit: lyris_nairn
Skype: lyris.nairn
Twitter: @lyris_nairn
Gallente Federation
#10 Posted: 2012.02.10 05:42
Go go Fon!
Amarr Empire
#11 Posted: 2012.02.10 06:57
1) Agree
2) Agree
3) Agree
4) Agree

+1
The Gorgon Empire
#12 Posted: 2012.02.10 11:09
good post, +1like
Gallente Federation
#13 Posted: 2012.02.10 12:25
+1
Minmatar Republic
#14 Posted: 2012.02.10 12:27
+1
#15 Posted: 2012.02.10 12:56
+1
Caldari State
#16 Posted: 2012.02.10 13:26
+1
Caldari State
#17 Posted: 2012.02.10 13:35
+1
#18 Posted: 2012.02.10 13:44
I'll try to get some points added in the weekend.

Any questions on stuff already covered Question
CCP proves CSM is a joke
Finally on par with Garmon?..

U N K N O W N
#19 Posted: 2012.02.10 15:20
Fon Revedhort is a known figure of the forum.eve-ru.com, but to many of us there he has too narrow views on the game and some suggestions he has made are very contreversial to the game and could ruin it.

Maybe my post is a little personal, but I had caution you - this man has too big ego :)
Goonswarm Federation
#20 Posted: 2012.02.10 16:30
Fon Revedhort for CSM Blink
8 Pages123Next pageLast page
Forum Jump