Dev Blog: October Balance Pass!


(Arrendis) #1442

What’s ironic? It’s murder when we do it, too.

We don’t deny that.

It is. I don’t see why they don’t understand that.

(Yrgrasil) #1443

you don’t make it better honestly, the wording in that case is more a perspective thing. Since its shooting something with guns, you can call it a fight. That you, i, and most other prefer to call it a gank, or murder, or rape or whatever, makes it still not false.

(Cletus Graeme) #1444

Because utility his-slots are actually a thing?

Hi-slots are mainly used for damage.
Mid-slots have multiple uses - propulsion, tackle, ewar, tank
That’s why Mids are probably the most valuable (individually) although you should always (of course) take the overall slot layout and ship bonuses into consideration.

I’m not saying I support his suggestion but it’s worth consideration.

(KRISDOX) #1445

yeah he’s just taking the discussion away from the main topic, just call it a fight or whatever and get on with the discussion about the changes

(Mina Sebiestar) #1446

OP kindly rename title to nulltober “balance” pass.

(Yrgrasil) #1447

btw new infos Update on HICs and Wormholes

(KRISDOX) #1448

Yeah I know my suggestion is not the best maybe but we should explore this and other suggestions from other players

(Arrendis) #1449

That’s definitely not correct. Just because you shoot at someone, that doesn’t make it a fight. A fight means you’ve actually got a reasonable chance to lose. We blew up 4 keepstars yesterday. One or two of them were even gunned. They used the DDs to kill things.

There was no fight. Nobody involved claimed to have won a fight. We blew up some structures. That’s it. Killing a POS that shoots back on its own, or even one that’s gunned, isn’t a fight. It’s just a structure bash.

(KRISDOX) #1450

It’s a fight, you can call it what you want. This discussion is irrelevant to this forum and you should stop this

(Yrgrasil) #1451

afaik the official definition of the term “fight” is that someone gets engaged in combat, a argument etc. It does not necessary mean that the other side defends itself.

(Cletus Graeme) #1452

Don’t apologise! I think it’s a reasonable suggestion because it’s worth considering if ECCM should be moved from mid to low/hi slots. In fact, it might be a good idea to just avoid dedicated ECCM modules (as CCP have already done by replacing them with a script) and instead buff Signal Amplifiers and also give them a hislot equivalent. However, this thread is about the October “Balance Pass”, so suggestions like this are Off-Topic but probably deserve their own thread.

(Iowa Banshee) #1453

Always being able to lock someone will kill solo play for a host of ships

@CCP_Falcon This is providing a counter without penalty to the user
Create a script that makes the SEBO able to lock the jammer even if jammed - or do something that does not give a “free pass” without having to fit a module to counter.

(Khan Wrenth) #1454

Just make it a part of the existing SEBO script. Worst-case scenario is you spiked your sensor strength, still got jammed, but you can attack the jammer. But you still had to put in the effort to equip and use the established countermeasure. Best-case, you spike your sensor strength, avoid the jam, and there you go.

(Iowa Banshee) #1455

AND if you choose not to fit a SEBO then that’s your bad choice.

… just like If I choose to NOT to fit an EM buff to my tank I don’t get to complain that lasers are eating through my tank too quickly

(Norbi Wroclawianin) #1456

I like ECM. and I play solo with Griffin Navy Issue and Rook - which are not for me anymore … ;(

(Arrendis) #1457

Or just the SEBO itself, maybe. Not everyone carries them, right? :wink:

(Khan Wrenth) #1458

All a part of preparedness. Since they rolled SEBO and ECCM together, you only need one module and you can swap out scripts as you see threats develop on the battlefield. One module alone counters two different types of EWAR and is very powerful against either one when scripted appropriately.

But if you fail to do so, you live or die by the consequences, same with everything else here in EvE.

(Arrendis) #1459

Right, I’m just saying they could make that a default property of the Sebo, instead of sticking it onto the ECCM script. Either way would work more or less fine, I think.

(Khan Wrenth) #1460

I think that’s a bit much of a buff without the script. How about a compromise. It is a part of the SEBO that is one of the inherit properties lost when scripting for range or scan res? That way you at least have to keep it unscripted to get the “target jammer” bonus alongside the increased sensor strength.

(Arrendis) #1461

That’d work, too, yeah.