The wrong carrier nerf

(March rabbit) #41

They didn’t want to kill you. They wanted you to leave them alone. And they succeeded at it.

(Old Pervert) #42

That’s like saying a police officer wasn’t in danger because they shot the bad guy. If you’re taking a fight that was an inevitable loss, you dun ■■■■■■ up long before that fight even happened.

Exactly this. In our corp we call them no-fun-fleets. By denying you the content you are looking for, you don’t come back. If you do, we keep denying you the content you’re looking for, until eventually, you get known for being not fun to roam.

In this case, their kitey ■■■■■■■■ fleet was just looking to catch a few dumbs that would let themselves get kited. The answer is to tell everyone to dock up everything, and drop something that can’t be kited.

(Herzog Wolfhammer) #43

From the looks of it, it’s feeling like an argument in the rain using a subject lacking in umbrellas.

For that matter, were it up to me, I would “let the players handle it”. With options.

Perhaps tracking systems need to be more flexible so that players can screw up… uh… modify them to their needs.

Imagine if you will you have a big ship. So a big ship might be able to fit multiple tracking systems, accommodating radar dishes and all that science stuff. If you have a big ship expecting smaller targets then you might want to have multiple smaller tracking systems that would have low range but faster acquisition and tracking speed. Such a ship would be a nightmare for fleets of smaller ships.

Or perhaps you need some big fat guns that need to reach out far and just use up all the tracking slots for that one big fat tracking system. It’ll only be good for large ships, like yours.

Thus having it hard-wired into the hull, with modifications possible via modules, may not simply be enough. They went with the “Star Trek” approach to tracking - one large ship with good tracking versus the Star Wars approach : Star destroyers being festooned with smaller tracking systems. Notably the two genres founded on two entirely different ship types and concepts.

But a battleship that’s specifically geared for smaller kitey ships would be hilarious until another battleship showed up and started plugging it from 100KM away. “That’s not how fleet support is… WTF?”

Give the really big ships more flexibility. With that comes openings for more vulnerability and surprises. A good time will be had by all.

Or continue the way things are with these “balances” and “nerfs” and at least we have forum whining level 6.

(Elena Laskova) #44

It\s nothing of the sort /lol. You’re just sharing some of the “bittervet narrative” without thinking it through. Consider suicide (edit:adding 1 word) ganking for example - you’re blaming the victim.

(Old Pervert) #45

Eve has no victims (of gameplay, meta things like Judge can definitely create victims). It has winners and losers. In every case, both parties play the game knowing they’re playing it, and choosing to play it. Even in the case of the whole CO2 getting ■■■■■■ thing, one can argue that was a risk that was improperly assessed.

You are expected to assess risk, and act accordingly. You are not expected to take a fight you deem too risky, you are not expected to fight fair. Quite the opposite. But whether it is fair, has nothing to do with whether a loss was inevitable or not. It was merely a failure of one side to keep up to the other, be it in fittings, intel, or strategic choice.

(Dracvlad) #46

CCP are looking to put line of sight into the game at some point, this will change the game in a very good way and I look forward to it.

As someone who used carriers and I was intending to use a carrier to ahem cough…, pick some stuff up in NPC null in a ninja way for a challenge, the inability to strip tackle put paid to my plan because I do things where I have a chance to succeed, but if I am unable to remove a single interceptor I won’t bother. If CCP wants to go down that route perhaps adding warp strength would have balanced that out a bit…, but this is yet another example of CCP not thinking though all the balance aspects.

(Elena Laskova) #47


You’re moving away from the sub-topic. Into your comfort zone, I suppose, but there’s no useful content in your last post.

Let’s go back a bit …

I said (approximately) that the risk/reward setup in today’s EVE is “broken”. It doesn’t matter if it was ok earlier. it doesn’t matter if there are exceptions either. On aggregate it’s a mess.

It was never part of our discussion that there’s something intrinsically bad about one-sided PvP as such - just that the risk isn’t balanced. This is obviously because the inevitable winner chooses whether or not to initiate combat.

The real trouble with this is that it’s boring for one party.
If I had to guess, I’d say that more than 50% of the “actual combat person-hours” are just boring. Note that I don’t mean “waiting around for a target” in combat hours - it’s the actual fighting.

(Old Pervert) #48

And my comments apply to Eve here and now. So there seems to be a difference of opinion here.

The “inevitable winner” chose to initiate combat for no reason other than that they knew they had an advantage. Perhaps that was by sheer luck, more often than not it’s the result of proper planning.

(Herzog Wolfhammer) #49

Well you know that’s in my wheelhouse, this issue that a small frigate somehow comes up with the ability to “anchor” a ship the size of a city. It makes as much sense as a freighter wreck having 500 HP yet that was fixed rapidly when the buttered side of the bread complained about it.

Line of site shooting would be a good thing. THIS, I think, would have been the best solution for ECM and damping. For too long players have had to just sit and wait to die because they got jammed up seven ways to Sunday. But if the ECM/Damp can be strafed then that’s a fighting chance.

And a fighting chance is all anybody who is honest can ask for.

In b4 the dishonest…

(Elena Laskova) #50

Re “EVE here and now” - this is what got us into the ‘EVE has changed’ “micro-topic”:

It’s reasonable enough to claim the game design has been fairly stable for most of the life of EVE. But it’s not reasonable to claim there’s a meaningful relationship between risk and reward. “Risk averse” is the only rational position when there’s no benefit to accepting risks.

The highest incomes in todays EVE come with the lowest risk and vice versa.
On the subject of one-sided PvP we finally seem to be converging. Given that it’s one-sided, and it’s extremely difficult for the target to take the initiative, all that’s left is to consider whether the average target thinks it’s interesting gameplay or a boring waste of time.

I can imagine a professional hauler (experienced, skilled, perhaps with access to scouts and guards) finding the process is interesting.

But (obviously) I believe that there are many players for whom it’s boring, and a good reason not to log on. Rather than the reverse: a lot of people play multiplayer games mainly for the combat.

(Kalpel) #51

No no, I can assure you this wasn’t the wrong nerf! If you want to hit subcaps hard you should be in a HAW Dread! or a subcap yourself!

(Rroff) #52

Have to say I was never a fan of HAW - if you are hitting sub-capitals hard in a capital it should be because you have webs and painting support. I am not a fan however of a single small ship being able to hold a capital hostage indefinitely - ideally that would be because the capital had anti-tackle or bailout support on hand but the reality ingame can be a bit different to what is ideal.

Was amusing with the old carriers how you could amp em up so a fighter could one hit kill an interceptor going any speed but totally broken at the same time.