open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Tiericide
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7

Author Topic

Templar Dane
Amarr
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2011.02.21 23:09:00 - [121]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
I am stupid, I feel that you have very little clue what you are talking about as far as PVP fittings are concerned, as you seem to believe that every ship should either be able to perform as a jack of all trades, or it's not worth flying at all.



There you go putting words in my mouth again, so I put some in yours. Midslots are a valuable resource, and the non-griffin ewar frigates are behind in that respect, while not being a catch-all like ecm. I never said a frigate isn't good if it isn't a jack of all trades, I said that the **** ewar frigates are **** and need boosted.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

You have no regard for stacking penalties, you seem to think that more modules as opposed to higher quality per module used where one is working with bonuses and percentages automatically makes another ship superior, and you seem to think that every single ship in the game should be able to tackle AND mwd AND fit a massive buffer AND gank, all at the same time.



I am well versed in game mechanics. Having three TDs instead of two is better in all situations except against a single target and is nearly as good when you're up against a single target. Example. 2 bonused TDs with optimal script against a harb loaded with scorch versus the three unbonused TDs is a .4km difference(3.6km optimal/4km optimal plus whatever the falloff difference is)

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Crucifier brawl



Which would be instant death. With the proliferation of neuts and the danger of drones(against the crucifier's weak ehp) it would be better off at 24km with dual light beams and aurora...which is 42dps with craptacular tracking and it sacrifices to fit them because of it's gimped fittings. And hey, having a TD rifter there adds more dps/tackle, and those are always good...non-ecm ewar is hit and miss.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

rubbish about painters



There's this thing called a web that doesn't require you to have a friendly targeted and helps you keep a target from getting away called A FREAKING WEB. Not only does it give YOUR ENTIRE GANG a 60% bonus to tracking, it also has half the cycle time of a painter!

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Rokh



No amount of tracking links will make a rail rokh not suck, period. Even if you were going to go with a rokh, you'd be better off having another tackler rather than some stupid frig/cruiser there tracking linking something.



Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

I have had to make use of fits like this to counter Rokhs like this using smaller, less experienced gangs of new players, as well as be the one doling out the punishment using the Rokh.



I'll give you a piece of advice. If you want to snipe in a rohk, do it at 200-249. If you're wanting to do it at the ranges you are specifying(where other sihps can target you and put ewar on it USE A PULSE APOC INSTEAD. Cheaper, more dps, better tracking, lots of room for eccm/etc.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

I suspect you cannot imagine how fights like this work, as you seem to believe that EVE is, without fail, either solo-pvp or nothing but a blobfest.



I imagine you warping in at 100km and thinking you're going to own everything in sight, is pretty funny.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

most gank on a Rokh, .....better.



"Gank" and "Rokh", doesn't correlate unless somebody is ganking a rokh. And whatever it was that you were trying to do with it, instead of having all your corpmates getting in fail ships to boost you, try putting them in rifters...you'll be pleasantly surprised.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

I have actually used all of these ships that you guys are calling crap, that you feel need more slots, that you feel have arbitrary costs.



So have we, but have brains and know they're crap. I don't blame you, the nature of stupidity is that the owners aren't smart enough to know they are stupid. Nominating you idiot of the year.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.21 23:15:00 - [122]
 

Originally by: "Templar Dane"
There's this thing called a web that doesn't require you to have a friendly targeted and helps you keep a target from getting away called A FREAKING WEB. Not only does it give YOUR ENTIRE GANG a 60% bonus to tracking, it also has half the cycle time of a painter!


Tracking and signature radius have nothing to do with eachother, and painters don't require you have friendly ships locked.

This is the part where I really do start ignoring you, as you have proven with just these two sentences that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

Templar Dane
Amarr
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2011.02.21 23:36:00 - [123]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Some people have simply never considered how having someone tracking linking you from 40km+ away as opposed to having to waste one of your mid or low slots for the same module could be valuable. Some simply don't want to see how having a guy that would otherwise not be of much worth to you being around to give emergency cap boosts using an Augoror would be useful.



It doesn't matter if you aren't wasting a midslot, someone in your gang IS.

You know what's better than saving a midslot on your ship by bringing that augoror? Having another USEFUL ship in your gang! Suddenly you've got more dps, more tackle/ewar! Bringing ****ty ships that you think plug holes in your strategy does not work.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Maybe I'm just an arrogant bastard then, but I feel that I have more of a clue when it comes to fitting these ships and can see how giving some of them more slots would severely adversely affect balance. Equalization of some other attributes to increase their potential for survivability? Perhaps. Increases to their PG/CPU? For some of them, most certainly not, while for others it may be worth considering.



That's the nature of incompetence. There's always that one guy that thinks he's the only person that has ever considered a particular idea. No matter how many times you prove to them that something doesn't work, they will cling to that idea.

You are no great thinker. The reason nobody flies those ships, is because you're almost always better off in something else. Look at the econ reports and the ships flown, griffins and rifters make the list...the other frigates DON'T. You seem to think that that's because everybody else is stupid.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Val'Dore, I asked you to specifically list what you would have done to which ships so that you feel they are balanced and to illustrate exactly how you think that would change balance from multiple perspectives; you have failed to deliver in that regard and have seemingly adopted a "lol you're an idiot, I'm not even going to bother" attitude. I have an opinion that does not agree with yours, and as such, being that this forum is for the discussion of ideas, you need to deliver on your part as the OP and explain in adequate detail exactly why any particular point you do not agree on is incorrect in your view.



While it's true that swarms of ewar frigates could get quite annoying, and that that's why they were pre-nerfed...it doesn't change the fact that nobody flies them. Nerf the griffin so nobody ever flies it again, and bring balance!

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Again, I may not be correct woth my opinion,



Maybe there's hope for you yet.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

but that does not automatically make any of you correct with your opinions either; if the changes you want will only break things (again) anyway, then you are incorrect in your assumptions and are going about your desired changes the wrong way entirely.



The goal of eliminating the tier system is to make the unused frigates competitive. While there is a chance that there will be a new FOTD frigate...bring it on. I'd love to see the listed frigates actually pose a threat, instead of the hysteria that follows after seeing one on dscan.



Templar Dane
Amarr
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2011.02.21 23:39:00 - [124]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
Originally by: "Templar Dane"
There's this thing called a web that doesn't require you to have a friendly targeted and helps you keep a target from getting away called A FREAKING WEB. Not only does it give YOUR ENTIRE GANG a 60% bonus to tracking, it also has half the cycle time of a painter!


Tracking and signature radius have nothing to do with eachother, and painters don't require you have friendly ships locked.

This is the part where I really do start ignoring you, as you have proven with just these two sentences that you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.


Saved for posterity. Laughing

Your post was too long, I had to cut much of it to keep my own post under the character limit. You were going on about tracking links and painters, so I combined the subject. A web is superior to both a painter and a tracking link(where tracking is concerned)

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Tracking and signature radius have nothing to do with eachother



And you were insulting my knowledge of game mechanics? LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing

Ravenal
The Fated
E.Y
Posted - 2011.02.22 02:41:00 - [125]
 

This is mostly true ... more true for frigates and cruisers than bc and bs at least.

The differences between tiers of frigates is silly really. They don't have different fitting options or any "roles" to speak of but just an increase in effectiveness. Yes, there are EW and scan frigs but who would't pick a rifter over all the other minmatar frigs for example when push comes to shove?

This is different from BS where you have different choices depending on which ship you pick. Their overall effectiveness is about the same depending on situation, different situation = diffent ship = different fitting ... not so much for frigs or cruisers even.

Thus, tiericide ftw :)

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.22 03:26:00 - [126]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 22/02/2011 03:30:12
Originally by: Templar Dane
Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Some people have simply never considered how having someone tracking linking you from 40km+ away as opposed to having to waste one of your mid or low slots for the same module could be valuable. Some simply don't want to see how having a guy that would otherwise not be of much worth to you being around to give emergency cap boosts using an Augoror would be useful.



It doesn't matter if you aren't wasting a midslot, someone in your gang IS.

You know what's better than saving a midslot on your ship by bringing that augoror? Having another USEFUL ship in your gang! Suddenly you've got more dps, more tackle/ewar! Bringing ****ty ships that you think plug holes in your strategy does not work.



Originally by: "Templar Dane"
That's the nature of incompetence. There's always that one guy that thinks he's the only person that has ever considered a particular idea. No matter how many times you prove to them that something doesn't work, they will cling to that idea.


Cap transfers are highslot modules and only ships that have a bonus to cap transfers are truly worth using, as any other ship will be burning the majority of cap 'given' up in simply running the module.

That's twice in a row you've made these kinds of mistakes, even after 'seeing' your first one, further owing to my thinking that you really have absolutely no clue what you are talking about as far as fitting these, or many (any?) other ships is concerned.


Originally by: "Templar Dane"
Originally by: "AnonyTerrorNinja"
Tracking and signature radius have nothing to do with eachother

And you were insulting my knowledge of game mechanics?


Tracking:
How quickly a guy with the world's biggest shotgun can turn on the spot

Signature radius:
How big the target is that that guy's shotgun has to shoot at when it's 100 meters away


Tracking and signature radius have nothing to do with each other, so I'm not really insulting your knowledge, I'm pointing out your lack of it.
Furthermore, missiles don't rely only on the target being as slow as possible, the target also has to be painted to bring its signature radius back in line with the missile's explosion radius.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.22 08:45:00 - [127]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
Val'Dore, I asked you to specifically list what you would have done to which ships so that you feel they are balanced and to illustrate exactly how you think that would change balance from multiple perspectives; you have failed to deliver in that regard and have seemingly adopted a "lol you're an idiot, I'm not even going to bother" attitude. I have an opinion that does not agree with yours, and as such, being that this forum is for the discussion of ideas, you need to deliver on your part as the OP and explain in adequate detail exactly why any particular point you do not agree on is incorrect in your view.


I already stated that I'm not going to get into a details game of shenanigans over individual ships, this thread is about killing the tier system and the entire concept of it. The details are for other topics and CCP to mull over.

Quote:
Again, I may not be correct woth my opinion, but that does not automatically make any of you correct with your opinions either; if the changes you want will only break things (again) anyway, then you are incorrect in your assumptions and are going about your desired changes the wrong way entirely.


Nothing will be broken by any of the changes in the OP. Unless CCP bungles it up, but that is a separate problem.

Quote:
Ensuring that no new ship class added will ever have a significant 'tiering' system that, in whichever way, automatically creates ships 'lower in tier' obsolete through there being 'automatically superior' ships


CCP tried to make lower tiered ships more useful, sort of. Killing the tier system would have just been better for everyone.

Quote:
Ensuring that the ships' prices are not balanced by what find to be some arbitrary tier system that makes up the only cost-factor and finding some other way to balance prices instead


A ship's resource value should be based on its mass (that's just logical), but a ship's mass should not necessarily be the same across all ships in that class.

Quote:
Reevaluation of the roles ships have so that there is a more distinct distribution of ship capabilities so that no one ship is better to use "because it can do what ship x can do and more"


Actually, it was more of a reevaluation of the ships in that role. But that just makes sense, ships should always have good bonuses for their role.

Quote:
4. Force slots and point


?

Quote:
to determine what the ships are designed to do without causing faults in fittings that still make it possible for another ship to "do what ship x does, and more"


What does this even mean?

Quote:
If you want something changed about the game, then damnit, you need to actually take the time to explain how you want them changed with details.


I did, just not the details YOU wanted. You want me to get specific about specific ships, so you can argue about the details. You are trying to do that anyway rather than argue about the entire point of the thread.

Quote:
You go in there, you look at that guy with the big eye like a man, and you tell him exactly how you are going to throw that idea into the volcano, detailing each and every single step you take up its craggy path to the peak.


I've been doing this longer than you and your lack of imagination is not my problem.

Quote:
Val'Dore, you are like Sam. You are just an idle character that sits at the side and has something 'witty' to say about what everyone else says, and tell everyone that they're wrong without taking the time to specifically detail anything.


I didn't realize I was supposed to help you derail and troll my own thread.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.22 08:48:00 - [128]
 

Originally by: Templar Dane
Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Tracking and signature radius have nothing to do with eachother



And you were insulting my knowledge of game mechanics? LaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughingLaughing


That is pretty much the sum of his participation in this thread, just spewing out BS rather than staying on topic.

There is no valid argument for keeping tiers. None. And any relics someone can dig up to defend it are just that... relics.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.22 10:04:00 - [129]
 

Originally by: "Val'Dore"
I did, just not the details YOU wanted. You want me to get specific about specific ships, so you can argue about the details. You are trying to do that anyway rather than argue about the entire point of the thread.


You did not. What you did was say that something is wrong, give only an overview of why you think it is wrong and did not present any plausible ways to make it right. You merely sat there and said "and it's broken and needs to be removed to fix things".

If you want to do that, then you need to go the assembly hall and present an issue to the CSM, not come to the features and ideas discussion forum, say that something is wrong and then have other people argue about the ways in which your 'issue' may be true or may not be true, and try to argue for you the various ways in which it might be fixed.

Really, you did nothing in this thread. That you are even arrogant enough to state that you have "been doing this for longer"; if you've been doing it for so much longer and have such vastly superior creativity, then please, for the sake of all of us that lack creativity, show us your masterpiece!

This forum is designed for people to argue about the details, so that people might work towards an agreement on what details work and what details don't, and which details should be used. The guy that suggested the Noctis didn't come here and simply say "hey it would be cool if we had a dedicated salvaging ship based on the Primae!", he came and gave a well thought out set of attributes for the ship that doesn't render it a paperweight in space but also doesn't afford it such survivability that it could become a novelty 'problem ship', or worse, a superior ship for ninja-salvagers.

Dozens of other ship designs have been suggested here with entire fittings, and some have been shot down while others have been well received; you on the other hand refuse to get into ship details.


If something is wrong with a particular ship then take the time to detail exactly what is wrong with it and how you would go about fixing it. It is not for CCP to mull over, because if it were for them to mull over they would have to decide for players what players' opinions are, and that is not the way to go about changing ships that have been in the game for years.


You are a pathetic excuse for an op in this forum category; I've seen obvious trolls put more work into their threads than you did in this thread.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.22 10:19:00 - [130]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
did not present any plausible ways to make it right.


I stopped reading there. I'm pretty certain I gave six plausible ways.

You shouldn't bother posting again. We know you won't ever provide a reason to keep the tier system. And at this point you are just trolling.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.22 10:55:00 - [131]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 22/02/2011 10:55:19
So it's trolling to ask of the op to detail how they want something changed instead of provide an overview of how they want something changed. Right.

I feel you and Templar are the only ones trolling here.

Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
Posted - 2011.02.22 11:17:00 - [132]
 

Edited by: Hirana Yoshida on 22/02/2011 11:19:39
Originally by: Templar Dane
..The goal of eliminating the tier system is to make the unused frigates competitive.

They don't even have to be competitive. I'd settle for "worth flying" to be honest Very Happy
Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
So it's trolling to ask of the op to detail how they want something changed instead of provide an overview of how they want something changed. Right.

When CPP has said that they prefer broad strokes and ideas rather than minute details then yes, asking repeatedly for details that has no bearing on the actual discussion could be considered trolling. Smile

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.22 11:37:00 - [133]
 

Edited by: AnonyTerrorNinja on 22/02/2011 11:37:51
Quote:
4) This is for Features and Ideas - not simple requests. Threads like "I want XXX module. Give it to me now," are not constructive. Please put some ideas into it, even if it's just a suggestion or two to spark a thread.


Op did the former, I carried through with the latter, op didn't like that I did and refused to specifically address anything.

If the op would specifically address certain ships, then I would never have needed to get nasty, and might have been able to take into consideration what they were saying as well thought about. Instead, they have for virtually every single response to the thread done nothing but make 'witty' one-liner comebacks to anything said, whether by me or others.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=1#3
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=1#5
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=1#12
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=1#21
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=1#24
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=1#25
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=2#49
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=2#50
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=3#76
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=3#78
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=3#80
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=4#95
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=4#96
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=4#99
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=4#102
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=4#109
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=4#113
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=4#117

This is a list of every one of the op's responses to this thread, not counting those on this page. If you take the time to look at them and look at how he addressed points raised by others, you may notice a specific tendency to simply ignore a point or regard it as 'not worth addressing', which is not conduscive to discussing an idea, only to maintaining a stoic position regarding your own opinion and regarding anything said by anyone else to the contrary as false, baseless or trolling.

The op has handled this thread with a position of apathy except where they could pipe up and have something to say about the opinions of others in a snide manner, not to actually provide a rebuttal.


Repetition seems to be my strong suite, because I've had to say it more times than I care to count; the op has not made any effort in this thread to actually discuss anything, just to sit there and be snide.

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2011.02.22 17:33:00 - [134]
 

Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 22/02/2011 17:33:21
You know.. some people don't want to discuss their suggestions in the first place Wink

And I'm pretty sure exactly the kind of self opinionated chest-beating, mocking and flaming that dominates this thread makes most devs simply ignore it. It's strenuous and annoying just to read through it.

Which is a shame actually, since there could have been some nice balance adjustments as a result from this.
To be able to take criticism and make concessions is no sign of weakness. Quite the opposite.

Sheledra
Posted - 2011.02.22 18:26:00 - [135]
 

Originally by: Templar Dane

I imagine you warping in at 100km and thinking you're going to own everything in sight, is pretty funny.



This right here is why you don't get it. This right here is the entire problem. Sometimes you are not supposed to own everything. Sometimes you are just there so that other people can own everything in sight, or make sure that the enemy can't do the same to your allies. Sometimes you are not even meant to survive, just keep the enemy occupied long enough that the more expensive ships can get away. Sometimes being awesome doesn't get the job done. That's what these ships are for, and they do these jobs well.

The problem is this kind of thing doesn't fit well with the mentality of most of the people who play this game. Most of the people who play this game care more about killmails than actually accomplishing something. Winning isn't always about blowing **** up. But the majority of players just go on stupid pointless roams, with no goal other than to kill something. These people don't have any need of the lower tier ships. The rest of us do.

Ravenal
The Fated
E.Y
Posted - 2011.02.22 18:42:00 - [136]
 

the basic question is, why can't I have a 3 missile/1 turret rifter a 4 blaster tristan or any option of weapon system not tied into tiers of ships.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.22 20:42:00 - [137]
 

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja
So it's trolling to ask of the op to detail how they want something changed instead of provide an overview of how they want something changed. Right.


Details would be redundant since the topic is tiericide, not roleicide. The entire premise of the thread is a general change to a lot of ships. I for one won't presume to know the best way to balance all these ships to be on 'equal tiers' and I believe nitpicking over that minutiae is counterproductive to the actual topic. Nothing you have said or hinted at has anything to do with tiers since tiers have nothing to do with roles. You address the topic of the thread and I'll be happy to show you there is no valid defense of the tier system.

Quote:
I feel you and Templar are the only ones trolling here.


You are posting off topic. You are posting in a manner that obviously shows intent to derail the thread and/or just fill it with junk so CCP ignores it. You have not addressed the issue of the tier system except with anecdotal evidence that has no bearing on the subject at hand. You are the troll.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.22 20:47:00 - [138]
 

Originally by: Tarron Sarek
To be able to take criticism and make concessions is no sign of weakness. Quite the opposite.


I don't have issues with criticism, when it is on topic. Nor making concessions, when there are concessions that can be made.

This thread is simple. The core of it is to get rid of the tier system as a balancing mechanism and a method to 'prenerf' half the tech 1 ship lineup for no other reason. I haven't seen any criticism of the idea that is actually related to the idea and what concessions could there possibly be that don't just propagate the current problem and make it just another issue to be addressed again later.

Templar Dane
Amarr
Amarrian Retribution
Posted - 2011.02.22 22:42:00 - [139]
 

Edited by: Templar Dane on 22/02/2011 22:49:51
Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja


Cap transfers are highslot modules and only ships that have a bonus to cap transfers are truly worth using, as any other ship will be burning the majority of cap 'given' up in simply running the module.



I wasn't talking about cap transfers, I was talking about cap boosters. It's better to sacrifice a mid for a cap booster than to start a cap transfer daisy chain.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

That's twice in a row you've made these kinds of mistakes, even after 'seeing' your first one, further owing to my thinking that you really have absolutely no clue what you are talking about as far as fitting these, or many (any?) other ships is concerned.



I've not made a mistake in this thread yet(other than perhaps getting involved and wasting time on you), if anything it's you misunderstanding.

Originally by: AnonyTerrorNinja

Tracking:
How quickly a guy with the world's biggest shotgun can turn on the spot

Signature radius:
How big the target is that that guy's shotgun has to shoot at when it's 100 meters away

Tracking and signature radius have nothing to do with each other, so I'm not really insulting your knowledge, I'm pointing out your lack of it.
Furthermore, missiles don't rely only on the target being as slow as possible, the target also has to be painted to bring its signature radius back in line with the missile's explosion radius.


FYI.

Tracking is dependent on four things.

1. Turret tracking speed
2. Turret signature resolution
3. Target signature radius
4. Target speed/direction in relation to the speed/direction of the attacking ship


Sheledra
Posted - 2011.02.22 23:35:00 - [140]
 

Originally by: Val'Dore


Details would be redundant since the topic is tiericide, not roleicide.



You don't seem to understand the fact that you can't separate tier from role. Both the crucifer and and the executioner speed tank. The crucifer goes slower than the executioner because it makes up the difference by reducing their opponents tracking speed. If they both had the same stats they would not be balanced. The condor does not have as good a tanking potential as the merlin because it has ecm to make up for it. At the same time the condor must have a more limited damage potential to prevent it from being overpowered. Saying that these differences are because of tier does not take into account the fact that tier is defined by roll.

Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.23 00:27:00 - [141]
 

Originally by: Sheledra
Originally by: Val'Dore


Details would be redundant since the topic is tiericide, not roleicide.


You don't seem to understand the fact that you can't separate tier from role.


They are already separate.

Quote:
If they both had the same stats they would not be balanced.


Nobody has suggested that they should.

Quote:
The condor does not have as good a tanking potential as the merlin because it has ecm to make up for it.


A: Merlin has a tanking bonus.
B: Merlin is tier 3. Condor is tier 2.
C: Condor has no ECM bonuses last I checked.
D: All of the Above.

What was your point?

Quote:
At the same time the condor must have a more limited damage potential to prevent it from being overpowered.


I agree, but not for that reason. It has a different role than the Merlin.

Quote:
Saying that these differences are because of tier does not take into account the fact that tier is defined by roll.


That is not a fact. Tier came before role, loong before.

Sheledra
Posted - 2011.02.23 01:42:00 - [142]
 

Oops i ment the griffin not the condor.

The point remains. The griffin has ecm, the condor speed tanks, all the merlin has is shields and weapons; therefore it must be better at using them. If that were not true the game would not be balanced.

Ok we are not talking about how the game used to be. We are talking about it now. Tier used to be meaningless, so they fixed it. Whenever anyone talks about a tier 1 cruiser they are talking about logistics. Whenever someone talks about a tier 3 frig they are talking about dps. Tier no longer has any existence outside of categorizing role. Now tier= role. You can not get rid of one without getting rid of the other.

People keep giving you examples that disprove your premise, and you just claim that that ship doesn't count. BS. There is no such thing as "the exception that proves the rule." If there is an exception then there is no rule. If even low tier one ship can compete with a higher tier ship then the whole thing is bunkus. Ships are not biased by tier for the following reasons:
Arbitrator
Armageddon
Dominix
Scorpion


The only time tier means anything at all other than simple division of roles is when you are talking about Tec 1 mining barges and in that case it's the highest tier of ship that's never used.

Normalizing fitting stats and hp would A) unbalance pvp in favor of ewar frigs that need those handicaps And B) perpetuate the tradition of people giving up some of their ships usefulness just so they can mindlessly cram tackle gear onto everything. Every ship has exactly the right amount of fitting resources to fit the modules related to it's intended purpose. If there isn't enough cpu to fit something on a ship chances are that's because it's not supposed to be on there.


Val'Dore
Word Bearers of Chaos
Word of Chaos Undivided
Posted - 2011.02.23 02:39:00 - [143]
 

I had a nice reply all ready to go, but I don't feel like doing it over again on my phone.

Short version:

Role has **** all to do with Tier. Period.

Sheledra
Posted - 2011.02.23 02:56:00 - [144]
 

Originally by: Val'Dore
I had a nice reply all ready to go, but I don't feel like doing it over again on my phone.

Short version:

Role has **** all to do with Tier. Period.



You keep saying it but offer nothing as proof. Maby the used to not be related but everything i have seen in the game indicates that they are more or less synonymous now. Show me one thing in the game that indicates otherwise. And no, no one cares about how things used to be.

Mikalya
Amarr
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2011.02.23 04:45:00 - [145]
 

Originally by: Sheledra

Arbitrator


And this ship is a PERFECT example of what the entire Tier concept should be abandoned.

The Arbitrator is a GOOD ship, regardless of its tier. Why? Because it fits its "Role" perfectly. In comparison, the Maller HAS no role it fits but is a higher tier. Consequently, it is doomed to be a crappy ship that is expensive simply because it is a higher tier, NOT because of actual functionality. I know it might seem odd to you but failure of a higher tier ship to perform isn't a reason the tiers should exist, quite the opposite.

Ships should be balanced, slotted and bonused by their ROLE as viewed by their faction, not because of an arbitrary tier system.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.23 05:09:00 - [146]
 

I addressed your points in the first few posts, op.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=1#4
This is where I repeated myself in saying that the build costs are not arbitrary (ie based purely on tier), which was entirely on-topic.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=1#5
Here is where you repeated yourself by claiming that build costs are purely based on tier, ignoring my request to extrapolate on why you feel the tier system alone causes their prices to be the only determining factor, and thus abritrary. This was the first time you ignored me regarding something that was entirely on topic.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=1#6
This is where I gave you the basic version of the same argument I had to repeat time and again with regards to how the sum of a ship's components (such as its defensive systems, its crews' range of skills, its propulsion systems, its hull construction, its electronics systems, its power backbone, etc etc etc) is what determines the total build-cost of the ships.


http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=1#12
This is where you started talking about role. You do not use 'tier 1 cruisers', so 'who else uses them?'. If stats and slots were the sole factors determining who ever used which ships, then nobody would ever use any other ship than the Rokh, Abaddon, Maelstrom or Megathron (and I'm only saying Mega here since you seem to have a particular dislike for the Hyperion). And yet, people are using 'crap-tier' ships every day in EVE, you just don't see them using them so you assume they don't. You don't see them at the top of economical reports (which are largely based on peoples' favorite purchases, and favoritism, as has been proven in this thread alone, tends to have no bearing on how useful things actually are), citing this as some kind of magical link between tier and usefulness, arbitrarily and indirectly rendering 'lower tier, and thus less useful ships worse for a role'.

Templar himself has been consistently talking about roles, and yet, you're perfectly willing to support his statements made against me or even insulting me, because it fits in with your arrogance and helps you keep the focus off of your lack of communication in this thread.

Moving on...


http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=1#13
This is where I specifically addressed your points again, stating you want the tier system removed (fixed) for no other reason than "nobody uses these because they are tier x", which has to do with the block of text just preceeding this one.

I go on to give very basic examples of why I think your assumption is incorrect, and begin calling you biased in that you ignore those ships on the basis of not finding them worth your while, regardless of how useful they might be to people other than yourself, even in their current forms.

I include the 'skills barrier', which I feel is a valid and necessary determining factor of ability to use ships, because it gives brand new players a brief waiting period during which they might learn to start taking into consideration ships' various attributes and bonuses in conjunction with their cost; a factor which, for a starting player, has a very large role to play in their mentality going forward.


I additionally addressed your claim that the tier system is solely responsible for rendering ships of a lower tier 'obsolete' in every way, shape and form, and again address your claim of tier being the sole factor in ship costs, again highlighting that the ship's systems complexity, or the sum of the cost of its components, does. For another real-world example of this, look at high-speed consumer-class vehicles vs high-speed luxury vehicles;

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.23 05:11:00 - [147]
 

arguably, both serve exactly the same functions, having similar technology on the inside, but the cost of the leather, the wood dashboard and gear-lever's head, the special electronics involved in the seats' memory-mapped positions, little things like this that have no real function as far as getting from point A to point B is concerned, they add to the cost of the vehicle - these are factors you don't see from the outside of your ship, but they're still there and are still having an impact on the ship's cost.

I also highlight how you are essentially improving a vehicle license for these ships with CONCORD, which is something you believe has nothing at all to do with this. I am fairly certain that I have read somewhere through the chronicles available on th EVE site that CONCORD are the regulating body that decide which ship designs are allowed to be used by civilians and capsuleers (NPCs and players), and which aren't. Even some ship descriptions carry traces of this.


After this post, Tippia and I argue briefly about how ship costs are determined and how roles and tiers are causing a disparity in ships' overall attributes (slots, stats, bonuses), which as far as you would be concerned is off-topic.



http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=1#21
And this is where you begin with your snippets-posting, beginning your apathetic arroange trip. You are, yourself, discussing ships' roles here, not their tiers, because you want to know if I have ever used any of these ships and for what (roles - I can't use a ship for its tier, that would just be daft, because I'm going to get very little done trying to mine in a Rupture vs a Scythe).

And to quote you
Originally by: "Val'Dore"
But what is the role of the ship?


And again to quote you
Originally by: "Val'Dore"
The cost of the ship is 100% related to its tier.


The first quote pertains to your own 'going off topic'. Does this mean that it's fine for you to talk about roles, but not for me to talk about them? Looks like it to me.

Originally by: "Val'Dore"
But it is inferior to the Drake in every way that actually matters. I fly the Ferox rather than the Drake, but that is because I'm a gunnery nut.


They can achieve similar buffers and resists, where the Ferox is able to achieve its damage at long ranges uses what is refered to as 'direct damage'; you don't snipe with missiles because they have travel time, making 'alpha strikes' extremely difficult to control.

Their DPS? Superior to that of a Drake. How? Because with turrets, assuming you are tracking the target fine and its signature radius is equal to or greater than your turrets' signature resolution, you are going to get an average of 1.5x in hit-types, a factor that missiles do not have. ~250dps * 1.5 = 375dps. This can be achieved at roughly 74km assuming you have someone tracking linking you from behind, such as someone in a Scythe, a Scimitar or an Oneiros.

This is the kind of concept that has Templar Dane fall out of the boat; he is adamant that all ships should be able to be brawlers and be entirely competent in 1vs1. He does not say it in so many words, but instead says it with the summary of every one of his posts, particularly where he ignores points made regarding ships' designs placing them far away from the action, not in the middle of it.


Originally by: "Val'Dore"
Why not? They are the same class of ship and there is no timeline based obsolescence occurring. As in ships are not replacing them for their role.


This is where you believe ships within a class should have equivalent pricing. I can guarantee you that if, as an example, the Abaddon and Armageddon had to be priced the same, we would only ever see Abaddons in the field.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.23 05:15:00 - [148]
 

Why? Because they have an 'unequivocally superior' tank when working with any remote repair whatsoever, and as it happens, virtually noone among elitists these days uses anything but remote repair in their fleets; using a local tank just isn't the done thing; all this while not necessarily losing any qualities worth being concerned about. Similarly, we would see Blaster Rokhs taking over all focus among the Caldari lineup, possibly even stealing thunder from Gallente, as the cost barrier between a Rokh and a Megathron is suddenly destroyed, meaning that players are able to get that range they've so longed for whilst also getting a great tank as far as remote repair is concerned, yet again.

Does this mean that 'eliminating the tier-based costs' is a good thing? No. It means that you are now doing nothing but rendering ships obsolete by removing a factor that had a large role to play in their usage; cost. Cost is measured against effectiveness for a specific role, and cost-effectiveness is a massive part of any player's choice as to what ship to use for any specific purpose.


In this capacity, the way Templar Dane again seems to believe, the lower-tier frigates and cruisers aren't broken based purely on the 'miniscule split in cost' of their tiers (which is, by the way, technically disagreeing with you in that he feels tiers hardly have anything to do with frigates and cruisers' costs [not that they have nothing to do with it, but that the cost difference is so minute that it's a matter of 'who cares?'], and yet you never addressed him on this). If module costs are what are breaking the use of ships up, then I would again propose that modules be broken up into pieces the way I think I had a thread up for a long time ago.

That is to say, currently, it costs exacttly the same to fit an Invulnerability Field II to a cruiser or battlecruiser as it does to a Battleship, despite the fact that the Battleship has that much larger an area that needs to be covered in order for the field to do its job.

As a proposed fix, the modules themselves would be 'tokens' towards the module's total.

A frigate would use 1 token
A cruiser would use 2 tokens
A battlecruiser would use 3 tokens
A battleship would use 4 tokens
A Carrier 6, a supercarrier 8 and a Titan 10 or 12

This would have it that he costs of fitting each ship would actually become balanced against their size, which would instantly make the 'crap-tier' frigates more attractive since, to fit them, you are no longer spending exactly as much as for their cruiser counterparts only to get what amounts to an inferior ship overall.


In fact, if I can't find the thread, I'll simply go post up the suggestion again, as the last thread will have long since been locked.


Anyway, back to you, since this is all about you.

Originally by: "Val'Dore"
Balance is not always about the obvious, sometimes it is subtle. And if differentiating combat from mining ship is so gorram important... why are there not civilian parallels to the combat ship skills?


There are. They exist in the forum of ore processing skills, refining skills, research skills, manufacturing skills, the skills required to get into a Freighter or Jump Freighter, or into an exhumer, mining barge, the Orca or a Rorqual.

They exist, and have virtually no use whatsoever to a 'combat pilot', and yet take up an equal amount of time to train for what they provide the player in capability.


http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=1#25
Here, I addressed your specific question of whether or not I used any of those ships.
You responded by being snide and, in the context of the specific question that was asked, off-topic.


From there it just dilutes into what I addressed in my post yesterday, namely you becoming nothing but arrogant, snide and doing little to nothing to support discussion of your own thread's topic.

AnonyTerrorNinja
Minmatar
Atomic Geese
Posted - 2011.02.23 05:21:00 - [149]
 

This all pertains to these posts, in case there is any confusion.

http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=5#137
http://www.eveonline.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=1469347&page=5#138


It is not off-topic to further explain a point so that an opinion might be defended or better supported where someone disagrees with it.
You disagree with me in your position that role and tier have nothing to do with eachother, which in certain contexts may be true, but in others not (namely the fact that tiers would be recreated by players to decide that ship x is superior in 'every way that matters' to ship y, should ships all be brought in line with eachother). It is also not off-topic to ask that you actually take part in the discussion of your own thread properly rather than being the guy that sits at the sidelines and throws insults at people or goads them into fighting with you further (read: trolling).


As I said already, if you simply want 'this issue' to be looked into, then you are in the wrong forum category; the Assembly Hall is for raising issues that may or may not have already been discussed so that the CSM can 'mull over the details' and then 'help CCP understand why something needs to be fixed, changed, added or removed'. The F&I category is for actually discussing your ideas, or at the very least, keeping out of discussion if you have nothing to contribute to it.

Mikalya
Amarr
Interstellar Brotherhood of Gravediggers
The 0rphanage
Posted - 2011.02.23 05:26:00 - [150]
 

Well ATN, I can say that regardless of whether I agree with you or not at least you aren't afraid to put it down in writing where your beliefs are Laughing

I believe the tier system hinders ship balance and allowing them to be the preferred ship for their role and think that slot layouts, bonuses and skill requirements should do it instead. But in the end the important part is that every ship can adequately fulfill its role AND be the preferred ship to do it.

By any semi-modern military thinking so many of the ships in Eve shouldn't even be assembled anymore unless MAYBE to be sold to a third world country where you can guarantee you can defeat them.... I mean ships like the Scythe are about as effective in Eve as a Sherman tank is on today's battlefield Laughing


Pages: 1 2 3 4 [5] 6 7

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only