Dev Blog: October Balance Pass!

official
dev-blog

(Iowa Banshee) #1691

This fleet usually has the booster with sensor optimization charges and the sebo’s have strength scripts for quick locking - its for catching peeps in faction warfare areas.

The counter for your ECM fleet was a tactical choice already available to the fleet - the difference being at present when the attacking ECM hits a jam it has an effect.


(Nevyn Auscent) #1692

Personally. I probably won’t, but I didnt fly rooks before either. I can just see spaces remaining in the game for ecm. I’m not disagreeing that they should do at least part 2 with this as well. I’d love to see racial jammers just become scripts for multi spectrum with a decent reload time with this change so it’s not hard to fit a tank for a roam where you dont know the opponents fleet. And stronger ecm doesn’t break the game like it would have prior to this.
But this change doesn’t totally remove the point to Ecm. It still has a place.


(Scooter6976) #1693

a place? yessss…in the trash bin.


(Johney Verbect) #1694

Yup STUPID. new nerfs

INTERDICTION NULLIFICATION! is wrong.


(Geo Eclipse Oksaras) #1695

@Jeremiah_Saken

apparently you haven’t seen the other thread concerning the FIX they came up with for the HIC


(Scooter6976) #1696

the one with no details? fixing something the hard way? rushing something in a pinch with no vetting? like the rest of the ‘pass’? soo many things getting broken for nothing; that’s the theme this month.

make bubble activation force a recycle of ANY prop mod active at the time. upon reactivation the penalties will apply, and it(lurch hic) is fixed! simple! nothing else gets ‘borked’ in the process. no new mods needed. no ‘working in a hurry’ needed. bought by pearl abyss, and now instantly working to make more work for themselves. gg

here is a link, for more comedy :roll_eyes:


(Nevyn Auscent) #1697

So you want them to utterly recode the basic way that modules work as a ‘simple fix’…
Uhhhh
I don’t think you understand coding in the slightest with that sort of claim.

And why do you need exact details.
You know the rough idea they are putting forward, you can make some estimates that they ‘might’ base it off examples thrown out in the thread thus far to create a similar though perhaps not quite as super duper awesome effect.
I mean sure, you don’t “know”. But CCP are fairly predictable in how they balance stuff once they actually get onto doing so.


(Scooter6976) #1698

your right I kno nothing of coding.

they can code a new module, to do a thing, but not the thing they don’t want the old module to do. they cant code a new old module, to behave they want it to? can they code at all? whats the threshold exactly? too hard to code for a company that coded the game in the first place? they can code new modules, like the escalating dmg modules for the new ships. they can code all sorts of new npc behaviors. they can code project discovery. they can code all sorts of new crap. but your going to tell me they cant make the activation of a module force a recycle on another type of module? ok

they came out and said, basically: we want to fix bugs and unfun things. then they broke all the things they touched and half a dozen things related to everything they touched. what part are You missing?


(Jeremiah Saken) #1699

I don’t need to understand coding to get that it is halfassed balance. ECM was in no rush do get this, and the fact that it will produce even more problem is not worth it imo.

Nullification is bigger problem than just remove it from one type of hull, maybe it’s time to remove anchor bubbles - the real elephant in the room?

HIC - if there is problem with coding why rushing it without proper solution?

We all know how CCP works and they worked on their opinion. Stuff was “rebalance” and not touch for years. Why it should be different now?


(Nevyn Auscent) #1700

Hey, I’m in favour of removing anchored bubbles, I’ve spoken about that a number of times over the years.

But know what you are talking about or don’t talk about it, when it comes to things like coding what you are talking about is the most complex situation, and likely to cause massive bugs in other things.
Simply adding in a new module with features that exist on current modules on the other hand is very easy.


(Jeremiah Saken) #1701

but why rushing it? There is a balance pass announced on winter already. Let them finish transition from POS to Citadels first and then focus on things that was neglected because of it. Do you remember fanfest presentation about how T3C balance pass went off? Loki still need to be look at. When? It will be the same now.


(Scooter6976) #1702

then code a new module. make it JUST like the old module, name it the same, implement the hic bubble in Exaclty is current form, and make it auto shutdown props upon activation. and remove the broken iteration that allows for 8k m/s perfect agility hic bubbles whizzing around. your defending the indefensible. unless ccp doesn’t know how to code a new module to perform as they wish? is this what your saying? should this instill confidence than Anything they add or change will net the intended result?

no, your saying (bc they said) code some entirely new module, which by their own words is more ‘work’. one with god knows what game breaking things will come with it. over a bug. its been a loooong time ‘as-is’, for you to argue that ‘coding’ is the obstacle here. good try tho.


(Nevyn Auscent) #1703

The “entirely new module” CCP is talking about uses existing mechanics they already have the code for.
Your idea needs new mechanics.

Perhaps think of code as a tool, like a hammer or a pair of pliers.
The module CCP are proposing would just be a slightly different sized nail, because it uses the hammers mechanics to work.
The module you are talking about would be something totally different, because it needs a new tool to use it.


(Scooter6976) #1704

haha, ok. then make it so. my argument stands imo.


(Jenn aSide) #1705

IMO CCP hasn’t learned to one lesson they should have when ti comes to balance…

Don’t put broken stuff in game to begin with. Sure, no one has a crystal ball, but the haphazard way CCP changes things in the game (and then has to fix them later) is the real problem.

Interceptors should have never been nullified to begin with. ECM (the one form of EWAR that makes you powerless) was dumb the day someone at CCP thought it up. Ditto Faxes.

And when you put this stuff in the game that should have at least had a second round of consideration, and then try to take it away because it borks up the game, well, you see the responses you get. Human nature at work, people learn to exploit things and when you take that away they get really, really upset… Which is why you don’t add stuff like that to a game in the 1st place.

I know there is pressure to innovate, bosses telling you all that “we need something new, or at least with more pffff or something”, and no one wants a stale game. But what CCP could real use is someone who looks at ideas critically and says “ok, lets think this through”. 11 years I’ve played and I’ve seen this cycle (and the self serving outrage from players when you try to fix your mistakes) over and over again and I think it’s preventable.


(Jeremiah Saken) #1706

what I want is someone who will see the bigger picture, or at the distance. They introduce anchored bubbles to “have control over the space”, it’s was cancer so they increase nullification to interceptors (they have to intercept, right?) in the mean time “magic wand” mechanism for capturing space showed up. It’s all connected and nobody see it? At the same time developing process is: “Introduce A to counter B, wait X amount of time to see the results while X amount of time may stretch because we won’t have time to fix it anyway”.


(Nana Skalski) #1707

Only one thing towards CSM.
Why CSM dont ask CCP why they dont solve problems comprehensively.

For example knowing that for wormholers gameplay to stay unhurt, there need to be some kind of mechanics change or module change, but CCP resorts to “we dont even provide a reacharound” dialog.

That needs to change. CCP should provide complete package.


(Agent 5B) #1708

Griffin only tank is it’s jams really, there are a few fits where it has a bit of a tank but they are rare. Griffin Navy kills things it can have a good go at any Frigate or destroyer class ship. Is a Sentinel going to solo kill a worm that isn’t AFK with it’s drones still in bay ?


(Agent 5B) #1709

Holy crap I hope you are still talking about Eve


(Xsagaroth) #1710

Yes and look how many posts this thread has received (mostly negative) and has anyone from the dev team responded? No, no they havent, why? because they couldnt care less, they are making the change and this forum thread is just here to make you feel like you have a say. Do we have a say @CCP_Falcon it doesnt feel like you have consulted any actual players before making these changes, just the blobfest alliances who really play a different game than most of us (if you actually think about it). (Apologies for asking you to think i know its something that does not naturally appeal to a ccp dev).