you mean like they were used for the time before the citadel expansion? before the mineral-market got screwed? Like when industrial command ships were used as command ships to boost fleets and not as big drilling platforms?
1 Like
I do not agree with the idea that tweaking to rorqual is the way to a healthy economy. I would like to see the game mechanics that encourage more intense player activities. It will ultimately benefit both the economy and gameplay of eve online.
2 Likes
Just say it straight āIf you want to mine on Rorq - join Goons, or forget it, leave the gameā
2 Likes
tl;dr
Gila PVE nerf, FAX nerf & carriers have been made 2x more expensive to lose but still OP and still really the only viable ship class outside of HS for pretty much everything except mining, where you need a Rorq, rorqs never got nerfed.
1 Like
Remove insurance on everything right?
1 Like
And now we will see how the online population will be changing during next monthes. (Imho 27k is too much for CCP thatās why they decided to cut off such a huge part of carebears)
1 Like
Thatās another great result then from these latest round of balances.
It is a good start, but I want to see rorqs nerfed way more
The NSA change is going to rock ratters worlds. I love every bit of this patch.
Itāll be even more interesting to see how many come backā¦
1 Like
At Some point developers need to learn to stay away from balance changes and all this rubbish. Let the players work out how to do it. These is absolutely no need to CCP to interfere with capitals and sub caps. If you think a ship is to powerful get in the and fly it why hurt the people who have devoted there time and effort into getting these ships. CSM you are disgrace for letting these changes go through you need to hang your heads in shame.
4 Likes
Then get out of the CSM these changes are stupid and unwanted.
2 Likes
You can say that, but the graphs show youāre wrong. Note: with a bit more examination, we do get to 4 ābigā reps first.
Again, look at that chart. Iāll even highlight the important bits in horrible, ugly-to-look-at ways!
1 big rep 100%
4 big: 96% (the first āfewā reps are fax-sized. Call it a single fax. That point on the chart is at 4-5)
4 big + 1-2 small: 72%. <ā THAT RIGHT THERE SAYS ITāS NOT THE SIZE. 1-2 more small reps should not, if the critical factor is size, cause more of a drop than another 1-2 fax-scale reps.
4 big + 25 small: 71% (this is the lowest point of that bit, so we know itās all 25 small reps, or 29 total)
6 big + 25 small (because thatās at ā31ā): 93%.
If the ābigā reps were causing the greater dropsā¦ it wouldnāt go back up. Thatās not how that works.
So letās look at this with the numbers plugged in:
1 big rep: 1858hp/s
4 big: 1783.68hp/s each
4 big +1 small: 1337.76 per big rep, 26.856 per small
4 big + 25 small: 1319.18 per big, 26.483 per small
6 big + 25 small: 1727.94 per big, 34.689 per small. - Add those capital reps, and the diminishing returns scale back to pretty much right where they were.
Now, letās assume the smalls have NO reduction on their end. The only stuff coming down is on the capital end. (This, for the record, is the best-case scenario for āitās the big reps that cause the diminishing returnsā):
1 big rep: 1858hp/s
4 big: 1783.68hp/s each <ā to this point, itās the same. The smalls havenāt come in.
4 big + 1 small: 1335.149hp/s big, 37.3 small (no dominishing on the small)
4 big + 25 small: 1251.573hp/s big, 37.3 small
6 big + 25 small: 1717.0608hp/s big, 37.3 small
The capital reps are not causing the majority of the drop. Not according to that graph. So either Riseās math is bad, or his graph is bad. And since one should have generated the otherā¦ option 3 seems to be āheās just wrong about how it ends up workingā.
@Brisc_Rubal - if thereās something off with my math here, man, lemme know. If not, we really are going to need to see how the math for this is set up. Because right now, this does not produce the behavior Rise says it does.
1 Like
LAMO, only by you.
4 Likes
Translation: Let me abuse powerful ships, I donāt care about game balance.
You may not care about game balance, but this sandbox is a game after all. And as a game, it can be much more interesting and varied when every ship has their place, instead of just one type of viable ships and a lot of underpowered rubbish.
4 Likes
Well done!
3 Likes
Next letās make NSA last 3 mins
3 Likes
Except for the part where Rorquals lost 20% mining yield, lost some insurance, can only save 3 excavators instead of 5, lost 1.5 minutes of PANIC invul time, and lost 37% of their current active tank.
5 Likes
Well this is kinda just a ā ā ā ā update all round (not talking about subcap).
titan HAW guns doesnt really phase me too much like w/e they can take a 50% nerf.
Now in small numbers shield carriers against a 100mn fleet is going to need a supporting 10 huginns now to have 5 webs and 5 TPs just to apply 10% of its actual dps, nice great work. but yet in blobs you have changed nothing, ships are still gona die when u have 300 carriers of anything on the field.
NSA nerf, again in small numbers completely wrecks any sort of fun gameplay, im just gona self destruct my ascendancy pod and rip out my hyper rigs on my super, cause no more dunking nerds with them - gameplay ruined unsub(super pilot)? maybe?
FAX nerfs, will have to do more testing but might not be hugely bad for small groups, will wait for comment on that one.
can we just get rid of the CSM alltogether they are a bunch of power hungry nerds that dont actually play the game anyway, all they do is ā ā ā ā over smaller groups in trying to ābalanceā larger gameplay (which is next to impossible to do in a meaningful way) in mass blob fights you have not changed anything, absolutely nothing (other than maybe faxs), but have essentially made smaller scale stuff/solo carrier/super dropping useless (which was a big part of why i still play this game).
should start a petition, but wait you wont actually listen to any1 not on CSM so i guess that makes them necessary, pitty its just a popularity contest instead of people actually looking to help (that are actually competent and know what they are doing).
dead game anyway, i guess we can all just go down the slippery slope togetherā¦
#signingoff
4 Likes
No, theyāre not. Capitals badly need balancing. Iām not sure that the full scope of this is a net positive, and some of the presentation definitely seems offā¦ but yeah, they definitely need balancing. And Iād be willing to bet you good money that every single member of the CSM, including the ones from our coalition, agree with that. I know all our FCs do.
2 Likes