Can you make all relevant data and graphs and stuff available to everyone?
This fits with how things are typically with ships and modules in EVE anyways: seemingly marginal increases in performance are quite expensive.
Personally: I like the ferox as a BC for its flexibility. I donât use it for shooting POCOs (the oracle is better for that) but it is great for general cruising and fighting. Get in under the guns tracking speed and I die horribly.
I think they could even show it at EVE Vegas. Gives them few whiles to prepare the talk and solutions.
1 Like
Heh. What is a railgun but a modernized ballista?
Still, I do tend to agree with you in general on the issue of âbalanceâ in conflicts. One of the old complaints in competitive tabletop Battletech was against âmunchkinâ builds: custom 'mech designs that were âtoo goodâ. But well, âtoo goodâ is a kind of ridiculous thing to complain about in a weapon, isnât it? You donât hear about âoh my god, the F-22 is too good, itâs not fair to poorer countriesâ or âChinaâs anti-ship missiles arenât fair to US Navy carrier groupsâ.
âFairâ is a completely alien concept being layered on top of things to preserve âitâs a gameâ.
But⌠it is a game. And it should be a game thatâs fair to the players.
I completely agree. Itâs why I think the T3Cs should be slightly less effective at any given role than the T2 ships that specialize for that role, but more effective than T1 ships (because of barrier to entry) that can fill it. Part of the problem there is that some of the roles the T3Cs are being set up to fill (ie: CCPâs design of them, not our use) arenât primarily cruiser roles⌠or cruiser roles at all.
Nullified travel ships and Scanning ships: these are mostly frigates. Boosting ships: These are battlecruisers otherwise. So how do you balance something that isnât just competing against its weight class, but against ships a full weight class smaller and half a step larger, all at the same time?
1 Like
I hate the Ferox as a Battlecruiser. I hate literally 75% of the battlecruisers as battlecruisers. But that has nothing to do with game balance, and everything to do with âbattlecruisersâ.
A âBattlecruiserâ is a lightly-armored ship that maintains relatively high mobility while carrying larger-than-normal guns for its size. It does this (and maintains that mobility) precisely because itâs lightly armored. Itâs a cruiser, with battleship guns. A relative glass cannon, in many ways.
Talos, Tornado, Oracle, Naga. These are battlecruisers. The others are not.
The others are âArmored Cruisersâ or âHeavy Cruisersâ. Basically cruiser-weight ships with cruiser-sized guns that move a little bit slower because theyâre packing on the armor and defensive systems for either survivability or in order to serve as command and control platforms.
But thatâs just me, and I donât expect EVE to conform to actual terminology and usage. Still annoys me, though. 
(Plus, I think actually delineating ships out like that might help the devs get a better handle on what kinds of ships are supposed to be useful for what kinds of roles, and how to balance the whole mess, but again, thatâs just me.)
I submitted an idea earlier regarding linking wars into citadels with a war rigs but since more information has come to light.
The new information is that the key issue is player retention and these are being affected by just having a war dec , not necessarily dying. Then there is zero fixes that will solve that problem other then removing the war mechanic, which we know cannot happen.
The problem is, no one can seem to discuss this without saying were defending the mechanics, you have to understand this subject has been talked about for years, on forums, reddit and war dec project discord with countless ideas and solutions from every background & person in Eve and yet CCP has yet to find a viable solution. So you have to understand when I read âIncrease the costsâ 6 times in a thread from people who mine in a Retriever in null sec or have no knowledge of the mechanics my replies soon become very blunt.
We are not defending it, we are happy for change but every person (including yourself) has different opinions as to what the issues are with war decs, you believe there should be a victory condition, CCP believe its a player retention issue, another guy said about invulnerability windows, another said no reason to engage in the mechanics.
One fix wonât solve all them.
Just like one fix wonât solve all of the different issues with Force Auxiliaries, or Rorquals, or nullified combat ships, or T3Cs⌠because thereâs multiple issues, and those issues relate to multiple aspects of things.
This is what happens when there isnât a coherent vision thatâs being communicated to the players. If we had that, we could all discuss if there are problems with the vision, hammer out those issues, and then turn our eyes toward what kinds of systems would work to promote that, instead of what we have now. And weâd all be on the same page to start that process.
2 Likes
Chess is fair in a way EVE can never be fair.
In order for EVE to be fair, every ship will be identical and all PvP actions will face off an essential mirror of their own fleet. All Feroxâs will be fit the same way and all Muninâs will be fit the same way and each fleet will have equal numbers of them.
But, because that removes flexibility, you have inherent unfairness by natural design. You can never achieve equality in that regards so tech is either adapted or improved to counter the unfairness of the opposing side. (Hey! America! Nerf that F-22!)
You cannot. You either find a new use for the tech or abandon it completely.
I have no problem with that. I just use the term CCP has applied to the ship irregardless of their relation to actual naval usage. But this gets into why trying to conform the ships and modules in EVE to a term is a problem: people get hung up on the preconception that a BC should be better than a Cruiser but not better than a Heavy Cruiser. Why should any of that be true when the nature of variety means inequality?
Nah. The fairness in EVE is in the potential. Everyone could run a perfectly optimized fitting⌠but they use ships different ways, and that means the optimization changes. And everyone has the chance to be that one radical nutjob who thinks of something crazy like âIâm gonna make Ishtars that run 2500m/s and donât carry guns⌠and obliterate fleets of battleships with themâ.
The fact that that kind of insanity does work⌠that adds fairness. Because anyone can be that nuts.
Or just donât try to make it overly-broad in application. T3Ds work a lot better than T3Cs, after all. Flexibility, but less open-ended flexibility.
Itâs because of those barriers to entry. A Battlecruiser needs an additional skill over a cruiser (Racial Battlecruisers), but it doesnât need you to get Cruiser V before training that skill, which the Heavy Assault Cruiser needs. Thatâs where the expectations come in: if itâs harder to get into something, that something needs to be more rewarding to use. And the reward in PvP is winning, so it has to win more.
Gotta be a better way to approach variation and specialization. As long as that math stays the same, youâll see those expectations perpetuated.
1 Like
Removing HS will fix everything
1 Like
In that itâll more or less slowly kill the game, sure. Not having an area that people can let themselves think is reasonably safe means even more player retention issues. Yes, the people most likely to stay are the folks who get blown up, but thatâs because theyâre the people who are interacting with other people. And usually, they get blown up when they think theyâre reasonably safeâeven the 13.5% who get âlegallyâ blown up.
Telling new players âBE PARANOIDâ from the word go isnât gonna get them to stay. You have to ease them into it, let them get the hook deep into their mouths. Then you give it a yank so they canât get it out.
You are wrong on this, the war dec is the issue as it is because there is no reason to fight back, just log out, what the changes will give is a reason to fight back and gang up and you get some decent content. You need to make a step in seeing what could happen if they go the way of the structure that the war dec is linked to and make it so that anyone war decked can shoot them.
Youâre both saying the same thing: the deterrent to activity is in the existence of the wardec, not in the âI blew upâ.
Of course, however if we have the Jinâtaan suggestion there is a reason to get in a ship, get in a fleet and go for it and that in itself makes content and will be fun and worth doing.
I really hope this happens, it will change hisec a lot!
if you enjoy PvP. If not⌠it wonât be fun, no matter what. Some people donât. They just want to mine or mission.
3 Likes
Technically he is not wrong. Plex does have the potential to generate isk. This is why people grind isk to pay for plex. However it would be just as accurate to say without customers no isk is generated.
But you get into situations that if facets can be leveraged open (Supers in unrestricted Anoms) and tasks so simple. You compound the issue as you are not relying on your personal bank account to pay the sub but you instead have a considerably cheap source of in game money. This is what makes RMT potent to point that people are botting in Supers and Titans now days.
CCP is inundated with RMT activity on a scale never seen before for the restriction on ones bank account is gone. And they are all racing to the bottom. And to turn more profit all they need to do is make more characters and run them more in Supers.
PLEX does not generate ISK. In-game activities generate ISK. PLEX simply allows you to get ISK that was produced by those in-game activities. To take it to the level of âwithout customers no isk is generatedâ is equivalent to saying âif the sun explodes, ISK generation will slow downâ. Yes, the complete eradication of life on Earth would result in a reduction in ISK generation, but itâs rather something of an indirect cause.
That is in the same vein of reasoning as âThanos did nothing wrongâ. This is as simple as cause effect are there good reasons why Plex exist yes are there bad ones yes.
If one thinks as Plex as a nonissue with no down side we only have to look at Serenity Server in its last iteration to see that does in fact contribute to RMT and isk generation.
Plex is just the infinity stones. Capable of solving issues but it can cause issues as well.
then one is thinking of a different issue than âdoes PLEX generate ISK?â
Please donât try to put words in my mouth.
Yes some people do not want to fight and just want to mission or mine, but does that mean that you give up and make no effort to give people a reason to fight, which could end the war dec earlier? In 2009 I joined a hisec indy copr, they got a war dec, and jumpe dinto combat ships. I think hisec is a shadow of that, but there are people around who are interested in fighting if they have a valid reason to do so. This gives it.