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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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”.
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.
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 ?
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).
I mean, saying that you will get back to it “someday”, is not what people wanted. ECM will need ships rebalanced, so they will be ok even when flying solo without ECM fitted. Combat Interceptors needs to be more combat oriented, tougher or dps higher, wormholers, well, the best thing would be to add a “higgs something” fitted to a cruiser class ship and providing more mass for a short time.
They could simply reuse the same code that prevents you from activating an ab and a mwd at the same time. That would cause much less impact on everyone. Just let it act like a bubble is yet another prop mod.
Cloaking camping has never had a real counter. Very little to no risk vs reward and this has been brought up repeatedly over the years and NOTHING has even been proposed, why?
