Dev Blog: October Balance Pass!

nor are Any of your supporting arguments for this nerf. none of them. your are compelling me to need to take a shee-it tho

My problem with this narrative is that it applies to just about everyone in NS. When looking at the data, as best we can given how aggregated it is…the same can be said of all the alliances in the north. They are there bearing it up just as much. I even went back to the regional data and added Querious’ ratting and mining value towards the Delve and divided by the 41,000 or so pilots in the Imperium (i.e. I excluded all the other alliances in Querious) and I also added the Kalevala Expanse to the North…and I get a result similar to what I had before. On a per pilot basis we end up with Goons slightly ahead…but then not all the ratting and mining value in Querious is from Goons.

If your narrative is “right” then it isn’t just Goons…it’s everyone.

Sure, I’ll agree with that. Once again: I have never said this change was a good one. It won’t change a damned thing except ‘which hull do we use?’

1 Like

or perhaps making piloted/probe bubbles effect nullified ships, while the nullified ships remains nullified to the anchorable ones. this would promote ships in space, and not just bubble spam. just a thought. not mine, someone else mentioned it, but its more emergent than just nerfing 4 hulls because 1 is in heavy use.

interceptors carry cyno’s that bring in bombers? this must be more null play your speaking of. titan bridge is not what you are proposing we balance interceptors around is it??

more deflection, and an attempt to tell us you are thinking higher than everyone here by anticipating ppl’s responses; sure, THATS you keep saying dumb things. if you say so it must be true…ly garbage

see my response to your porpoise idea. still lol’ing over that btw.

glad to see you aren’t letting arrendis carry ALL your water. wb

he only cares about the label because he didn’t want to address your relevant points on the matter. deflection. distraction. its what ppl do when they Kno they are wrong but refuse to admit it.

1 Like

you are wrong. even puppies CAN fight back. some do. some don’t.

ps, don’t kick puppies. its mean mmkay?

well by t2 bubbles i did mean t2 interdiction launcher and bubbles to clarify, they could even add some sort of bubble that has a decloak burst type effect, or web or neut like the stuff we see on citadels now; could make things a lot more interesting than simply nerfing interdiction nullified ships.

as long as ppl engage him on side topics, he will continue to troll. he know’s what he’s doing. we should at least take note aswell.

And not a bad one. But it’s not ‘twisting a few knobs’, so they’re not gonna want to do that. (Note: I AM NOT SUGGESTING THEIR APPROACH IS THE RIGHT ONE. Since, you know, you seem to need the obvious explained to you repeatedly.)

another idea that is Better than this crap patch.

kicking puppies would b better than this crap patch. not for the puppies, but you kno…

2 Likes

pretty sure you did say that

lets not shortchange sebo’s tho. technically its THREE counters built into it. but I know what you meant; conters damps and ecm, just it technically counters damps in both of its forms.

not nitpicking; adding.

this is the primary reason ppl are upset with the derp on ecm. I cant even call it a nerf. its a straight derpaderp.
if they go through with it, then they are ‘balancing’ ecm and Breaking a half a dozen caldari ship hulls or more. in other words; NOT BALANCE.

1 Like

ikr?!?!

1 Like

I guess we can be friendly again?

That doesn’t mean I think ‘let’s take bubble immunity off of 4 hulls and claim that’s gonna do squat’ or even ‘let’s take bubble immunity off of 4 hulls and see what happens!’ is a good idea.

Lemme, again, lay this out:
I might think bubble immunity and insta-warping as a combination doesn’t belong on combat-capable ships. That doesn’t mean I support half-assed changes and patches that get done without a clear idea of what the effects will be, or are a knee-jerk response to people complaining about something.

I think the right way for CCP to make changes is for them to have a clear, consistent vision for the whole of EVE, one that they can explain, lay out in front of their players, and get feedback on before making any changes. Then, with that goal clearly marked, make changes and explain how they think those changes will bring them closer to that well-understood goal.

This is not that. Their process is not that. We saw that pretty clearly when they were talking about the Force Auxiliary changes, and could not even clearly explain what problem they were trying to address. ‘Faxes are OP’ is not a problem. ‘Faxes are OP’ is a vague statement of no real meaning. What about force auxiliaries is too powerful? Local reps against subcaps? Remote reps applying to subcaps? Remote reps in capital fights? The combination of local tank and buffer? They either couldn’t, or just wouldn’t, tell us.

Similarly here, they’re not telling us why this change has to hit the whole group of Combat Interceptors. They can say ‘fighting Claw fleets isn’t fun’, but how does that reflect on the Taranis or Raptor, which don’t fight the same way? Nothing said about that. Nothing said about ‘there’s a line of thought saying bubble immunity should go away on all interceptors and we’re gonna see if this provides us data for looking into that’.

Even if I agreed with the effect of this change—which, given its incomplete and arbitrary scope, I do not—I think the process is fatally flawed and cannot produce good results in the long term, even if occasionally, the blind squirrel finds the empty shell of a nut.

4 Likes

I was asked not to continue the side-discussions that had gotten off-topic. As a reasonable request, I acceded to it, and did not. I will not, beyond this response, respond to any of your statements seeking to continue them.