Do you reasonably find this a satisfying answer? The way I interpret it, it’s re-stating the very question at hand, then going on into the technical barrier preventing them to change only M structures (the coupling). That technical barrier is a barrier to CCP development but not players using it in the ecosystem which is the crux of the question.
I’ve never heard players say “if only M structures were balance-able independently from L or XL structures, that itself would solve an unstated core problem”. What is that core problem?
Again, these are technical details. The How. I am not illiterate. What is the vision behind making these changes? Making them more fragile to serve what purpose?
Look, I’m a software engineer too. At a FAANG (or w/e) company. I am sympathetic to “we want to be able to more easily balance M structures in the future by separating their code out”. There is a difference between building that technical ability, and using that technical ability to make adjustments. I understand the former. I am sympathetic to it. The latter is what’s missing, because they are doing both at the same time. Hence why we’re talking past each other.
Or, is my reading of the blog truly that unreasonable to you?
I don’t believe what you’re saying is true in the first place, but if it is true, then this is the alternative.
I disagree. If it works at the 5000 person level, that means the game is working for the majority of players. But this is inherently subjective. I played EVE off and on for ten years in small groups and it never kept my attention. It wasn’t until I got into a big group that I started playing every day. The idea that one playstyle is “better” or another playstyle makes the game “worse” is nonsense. There’s room for everything in EVE, and this change is not going to destroy every small group in existence. These groups existed before citadels and they’ll exist after this change.
Only if you assume the number of groups remains the same. A group of thousand has more players that a group of hundred, but twenty groups of hundred has more than both.
Of course, if you drive away 15 of those 20, the big group is again a majority. But the game will be less for the loss of variety.
We agree, obviously, that it would be best if changes did not break any play. For any size of a group.
I think the problem that is causing the level of disscussion mostly is how can citadels be still viable in all areas of space but not so easily be used and maintained in null to the degree they become a problem .
My suggestion as a possible solution would be attach a 'surplus fuel bay ’ that gets depleted to a significant degree everytime the station reinforces .
Meaning setting up and maintaining stations that are easily attacked but difficult to destroy becomes a much larger logistical and cost problem in null but maintains the balance in wh, low and high sec .
In that null seccers can discousge spam by simply reinfocing sheilds at a significant cost to the ‘spammer’ over many stations but they maintain there current functionality in other space areas were spam isnt the problem
/edit i also think this surplus bay should be seperate from the main fuel bay again costing the defender time and effort everytime they are attacked in that someone needs to visit the station and redistribute the fuel each time it reinforces. Perhaps even have seperate bays for each reinforcment timer because of this .
If you lose a Fortizar every week I think you need to reconsider your position in the eve universe and change your game play or allies. Obviously you are doing something wrong if you are stupid enough to lose a Fortizar a week.
Though, I am sure people who build Fortizars would love for that to happen.
That is what I just asked you, you just repeated the question back at me with a pitiful insult. Obviously you want less people in the game and CCP seems to want the same thing?
The Goons lost a large number of Foritzers in a short period under invasion, should they all give in?
Come on, Drac. Nobody wants fewer people in the game. If this drives players out of the game, then they should revisit it. But I doubt that’s going to happen.
No, you asked me if I thought CCP thinks people should lose a Fortizar every week. I am not CCP so I cannot speak for them. I stated that if you are stupid enough to lose said Fortizar every week then you need to reevaluate your position in eve because you are obviously doing something wrong.
Goons can easily afford to lose plenty of structures I am discussing smaller groups who can afford a fortizar, but not multiple. If you are a small group and you are constantly losing your structures then you need to reevaluate your position.
I have seen so many nerfs of small groups play that I have a genuine feeling that this is the case.
So that was a needless insult, because people lose Fortizars under invasion, nothing to do with stupid.
So you retracted your comment about being stupid to lose a Fortzar every week, make up your mind. Or are you saying it is stupid to be in a small group? Not really sure what you are trying to say here?
Nullsec groups “under invasion” can almost always replace any structure they lose. Nullsec alliances/coalitions have plenty of isk to replace lots of things.
Bud, I am in a small group. Live in lowsec. If we lost our fortizar and other structures then there is a good chance we are not going to throw up new ones in the exact same spot/area. Since we know that if they got blown up once in that spot, great chance it’ll happen again.
If you (a group) lose a structure then put up a new one in the same relative location and then lose it again and then replace it again and repeat that cycle then you are stupid and deserve to constantly lose your structures.
Okay. Since we’re apparently going to use selective quoting to read a sentence and then act like the following 4 sentences explaining it don’t exist, I’ll just quote myself back to you because this was already addressed in my first post.
I do take issue with this and have to disagree with it strongly, particularly because it treats balance changes as a zero sum game. I’m not saying “don’t make positive changes for the rest of the game.” Make positive changes for the rest of the game. Go ahead with this positive change even. But here is a thread to provide feedback, so people are saying “hey, this will be a major problem in this way. Is it possible to address it?” in the feedback thread. And that doesn’t mean don’t implement any change. Its just asking to find solutions to the side effects of this change if possible. That’s the whole point of a feedback thread. It is possible and reasonable to make tweaks to a planned change to make it playable for everyone.
There’s no reason smaller groups need to have a significantly tougher time with it, to the point that their entire playstyle has to be upended so that null life is a little more convenient. It can be designed and balanced so that both sides can thrive and benefit from the changes.
I mean, this is literally also addressed in the same quote of mine already linked above. “Can we maybe find a balance approach that achieves the goals without screwing these people over.” It has been said already.
Anyways, I’m happy to discuss balance issues and implementation, but none of the actual ideas I brought up have been addressed in any way so I’m going to refrain from cluttering the thread with senseless back and forth until they are.
I am discussing smaller groups who can afford a fortizar, but not multiple. If you are a small group and you are constantly losing your structures then you need to reevaluate your position.