Dev Blog: October Balance Pass!

[Theodarum]

Thanks @Brisc_Rubal o7

[Rivr_Luzade]

@Brisc_Rubal

Removing nullification on interceptors isn’t going to make nullsec any safer than it already is.

It will make it a whole lot safer because it will be a whole lot easier to deny entrance to certain areas, deny leaving certain with your ship; it will force people to log off instead of flying around and it will reward the incompetent people without them changing a single tiny little bit.

@Brisc_Rubal

Not for the folks in those interceptors.

Quoted for posterity: Thank you for finally speaking what you and the GSM really are after: Safe ratting grounds but excessively dangerous scenarios for interference potential. Thank you for that openness. It was overdue.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Rivr_Luzade

It will make it a whole lot safer because it will be a whole lot easier to deny entrance to certain areas, deny leaving certain with your ship; it will force people to log off instead of flying around and it will reward the incompetent people without them changing a single tiny little bit.

It’s not going to make much of an impact, other than give folks the opportunity to catch a few interceptors on the way in and the way out that couldn’t be caught before.

@Rivr_Luzade

Quoted for posterity: Thank you for finally speaking what you and the GSM really are after: Safe ratting grounds but excessively dangerous scenarios for interference potential. Thank you for that openness. It was overdue.

That’s not what that sentence said.

Here’s a little advice - if you want me to read what you say and actually think about it, stop being such a partisan and stop with the constant jabs and insults. They’re unnecessary. You disagree, that’s fine - do it without being a jerk and perhaps you’ll change my mind.

[Rivr_Luzade]

@Brisc_Rubal

do it without being a jerk and perhaps you’ll change my mind.

It is exactly what you said. There is not a shred of doubt about this.

I tried it with arguments, I tried it with examples, I tried it with listing direct counter-evidence to every single point that you bring forward regarding combat ceptors. You do not listen. Not a single time. I do not care about you but the agenda that you support and approve is disgusting. I am not interested in changing your mind, that’s not possible with logical reasoning when you argue with such a narrowminded personality; I want you to stay exactly like you are because that way you are way more fun to deal with.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Rivr_Luzade

It is exactly what you said. There is not a shred of doubt about this.

I tried it with arguments, I tried it with examples, I tried it with listing direct counter-evidence to every single point that you bring forward regarding combat ceptors. You do not listen. Not a single time. I do not care about you but the agenda that you support and approve is disgusting. I am not interested in changing your mind, that’s not possible with logical reasoning when you argue with such a narrowminded personality; I want you to stay exactly like you are because that way you are way more fun to deal with.

You have been raging like a two year old this entire thread. Your first post through this one you have not managed to say a single thing without insulting everybody and everything who disagrees with you.

It’s pointless even wasting my breath here, but maybe if you take a minute and look back on everything you’ve said, you’ll start to understand why you make zero progress. It’s not because your ideas are bad, it’s because you can’t present them in a way that anybody could possibly find appealing (unless they already agree with you).

[Xsagaroth]

@Brisc_Rubal

Why is everybody assuming that the October patch notes won’t include any buffs? I don’t know if they will or if they won’t, but just because it wasn’t mentioned specifically here doesn’t mean it’s not possible or it won’t happen.

Because the the announcement states only the change and nothing about buffing the ships at the same time - only that they are thinking about it- you yourself in previous posts have pretty much said the same? (I can scroll up and quote if needed, but im sure that isnt necessary).

[Rivr_Luzade]

@Brisc_Rubal

It’s not because your ideas are bad, it’s because you can’t present them in a way that anybody could possibly find appealing (unless they already agree with you).

Appeal is of no concern to me. Lies do not deserve appealing responses, and you keep lying. Every time you write something about combat ceptors, it is demonstrably false or distorting the reality so that it suits the narrative of the GSM. Maybe you want to stop lying, then I may consider a friendlier tone. After all, I can have nice discussions with people like Nevyn, who is not in full agreement with me, but neither in agreement with you.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Rivr_Luzade

Appeal is of no concern to me. Lies do not deserve appealing responses, and you keep lying. Every time you write something about combat ceptors, it is demonstrably false or distorting the reality so that it suits the narrative of the GSM. Maybe you want to stop lying, then I may consider a friendlier tone. After all, I can have nice discussions with people like Nevyn, who is not in full agreement with me, but neither in agreement with you.

Right. Because anytime somebody expresses an opinion that differs from your own, that’s a “lie.”

You must be everybody’s favorite guest for Thanksgiving dinner.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Xsagaroth

Because the the announcement states only the change and nothing about buffing the ships at the same time - only that they are thinking about it- you yourself in previous posts have pretty much said the same? (I can scroll up and quote if needed, but im sure that isnt necessary).

Yes it did: “The downside here is that in the short term, balance for ships focused on ECM may be a bit out of whack. We are looking at some small buffs to fitting and tank for ECM ships with this release to help them survive against return fire, and long term we hope to be able to increase jam strength to make ECM more consistent across the board.”

[Rivr_Luzade]

If something is proven false by evidence, yet it is still being repeated and used as argument against something, it is a lie. Or alternative fact, if you are from the other side of the pond.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Rivr_Luzade

If something is proven false by evidence, yet it is still being repeated and used as argument against something, it is a lie. Or alternative fact, if you are from the other side of the pond.

We’re not talking about facts, we’re talking about opinions.

[Luigi_mon-de-sound]

Well @Brisc_Rubal, if

@Brisc_Rubal

we’re talking about opinions.

Then i want to know what

@Luigi_mon-de-sound

you think of ECM being changed from Lock Denier to just lock BREAKING be a better change. If targeted ECM was like ECM burst but on a shorter cycle between 10-17 secs, would you find this viable???

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Luigi_mon-de-sound

you think of ECM being changed from Lock Denier to just lock BREAKING be a better change. If targeted ECM was like ECM burst but on a shorter cycle between 10-17 secs, would you find this viable???

We’ve already got ECM bursts and lock breaker bombs for this - wouldn’t this just be duplicating what already exists?

[Iowa_Banshee]

I see from your manifesto

@Brisc_Rubal

Read the campaign stuff on my website.

That you don’t mind nullification if it is provided via a module - That’s a GREAT idea.

Lets have a module or rig for nullification on interceptors and as you don’t seem to mind T3 cruisers being nullified how about extending that to T3 destroyers as well - a rig maybe.

That will certainly go towards making “New Eden a slightly more risky place to live” and it has the added bonus of giving the interceptor pilots a choice - drawback Vs no nullification.

[Sakura_Hoshizora]

Are you at least doing your job as player representative and bring the concerns of a lot of players here in this thread about the ECM change to CCP? Or is no one bothering to inform CCP (since they apparently don’t read this thread) that a lot of players don’t want this change?

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Sakura_Hoshizora

Are you at least doing your job as player representative and bring the concerns of a lot of players here in this thread about the ECM change to CCP? Or is no one bothering to inform CCP (since they apparently don’t read this thread) that a lot of players don’t want this change?

They’re monitoring all of this, just like me. Just because they’re not engaging doesn’t mean they haven’t seen or don’t care about the feedback.

[Rivr_Luzade]

A lie is about conveying false impressions and presenting falsehoods. Opinions are very good at that. Saying that ceptors have no or only very little impact on people. False impression. Saying that people cannot easily defend or counter against Claws. False impression. Saying that they require a lot of effort to kill. False Impression (Note here: Only Albion fought, except for the dead Flycatcher, everything came after 1830).. Removal of interdiction nullification from combat ceptors won’t make null sec safer. False impression (this will be the norm again).

Enough said.

[Brisc_Rubal]

@Rivr_Luzade

Saying that ceptors have no or only very little impact on people.

Opinion. “Very little” is subjective.

@Rivr_Luzade

Saying that people cannot easily defend or counter against Claws.

Opinion. “Easily” is subjective.

@Rivr_Luzade

Saying that they require a lot of effort to kill.

Opinion. “A lot of effort” is subjective.

@Rivr_Luzade

Removal of interdiction nullification from combat ceptors won’t make null sec safer.

Opinion. “Safer” is subjective.

In each of these situations, you disagree with the opinion - you argue interceptors have a lot of impact on people (which, if accurate, should mean nullsec isn’t safe), that people can easily defend or counter claws (which should mean nobody would use them, because they’re too easy to counter), that they require little effort to kill (which, again, should mean nobody would use them), and removal of nullification will make null sec safer (which is obviously not true for folks flying interceptors).

So, again, you are throwing around a bunch of opinions and trying to assert that they’re facts when they’re not, and acting like a douche to anybody who disagrees with you, because we all know that this is how people have been changing minds throughout history.

[Bent_Barrel]

Wow, after all those years ECM is still a problem to balance ? I guess not much changed since I left the game some years ago … CCP still does not listen

[Rivr_Luzade]

@Brisc_Rubal

In each of these situations, you disagree with the opinion - you argue interceptors have a lot of impact on people (which, if accurate, should mean nullsec isn’t safe), that people can easily defend or counter claws (which should mean nobody would use them, because they’re too easy to counter), that they require little effort to kill (which, again, should mean nobody would use them), and removal of nullification will make null sec safer (which is obviously not true for folks flying interceptors).

Just because Claws exist and are used does not mean they can completely remove safety from null sec. False impression again.
Just because some people are competent enough to counter Claws and have fun fighting them does not mean they are useless. False impression again.
Null sec will be safer for the incompetent masses in VNIs, AFK carriers, AFK Rorq Excavs, inattentive escalation runners/travelers/etc. False impression again, and deviously stating that null sec should be less safe for attackers but not for ratters.