open All Channels
seplocked Jita Park Speakers Corner
blankseplocked [CSM Candidate] Goumindong
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]

Author Topic

Mr Friendly
The Lost and The Damned
Posted - 2008.05.13 09:09:00 - [211]
 

Edited by: Mr Friendly on 13/05/2008 09:28:00
Originally by: Goumindong
I do not ignore reality. Though i will ignore factors that are extraneous to the problem. Mainly skill point differentials, and idiocy. I will only ignore lag when its not a factor that makes a difference.


Err... idiocy, numbers and lag realistically obscure most of the differences in Eve. Level 2 skills only handicap players when those higher skilled players are not stupid, drunk or lagged out or face someone in a 1 vs 1. It's nice you think an extra couple of skill levels matter, but I don't see that they do. 10% better skills doesn't matter if your opponents have 5 ships remote repping the ship you are shooting at... you still die, even though you have twice the SP. Individual differences don't matter since most conflicts in Eve are not individual.

Overwhelming force is common. So is alcohol. So is poor setups. Etc.

Setups (and the requisite importance of setups) don't matter. What does is corp and alliance participation. Thus, Eve is more about blobs than it is about SP/forethought.

Since you focus most of your effort on extraordinarily detailed analysis of one setup over another, you don't address the reality of Eve.

I highly complement you on the time and insightful effirt you spend on individual balance issues from module, to module and from ship to ship and even from lvl5 sp vs lv4 sp impact, but it doesn't matter.

Blobs win battles. Your analysis doesn't consider how blobs make Eve the way it is.
Sadly, you keep framing balance discussions irrespective of lag and player participation.

As you are working from an unusable perspective, your solutions are similarly infected.

Try turning your intelligence to real situations and you'd have better success. More importantly, your ideas would be better accepted.

edit:

1) ideals are excellent to have. As you point out, they are important things to lead from Crap Situation to Better Situation. Good. You have furnished an illustration of 1) and 2), but have presented no linkages between the two. Try a realistic one and then I might have a reason to care about you page after page of postings.


2)Anecdotes drive change. They provide the emotional kick that propels change. This is key for you to understand *people* caring about changes. It isn't about dry statistics or efficacy... it's about personal meaningfulness.

If you don't understand this, you need to. Numbers are not concerns. If a politician convinces me that my car costs 50$ more to operate per month, even if the alternative would cost me more, I'd care about the former BECAUSE A PERSON CONVINCED ME.

Make your arguments personal and I care. Otherwise, it's just numbers.

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.13 10:11:00 - [212]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 13/05/2008 10:21:38
Edited by: Goumindong on 13/05/2008 10:12:00
Originally by: Mr Friendly
Setups (and the requisite importance of setups) don't matter. What does is corp and alliance participation. Thus, Eve is more about blobs than it is about SP/forethought.



Setups absolutely do matter. They simply seem to matter less. This has always been the case and been a design ideal of eve. You will notice that i have stated this many times in my materials.

That does not mean that we should not attempt to achieve balance between setups and styles of combat. All it means is that people looking at eve without objectivity and rationality will have a harder time understanding what is going on than those who do.

It means that you have to understand what changes will make people do and i am clearly the best on that front, with none of the other candidates having any clue about how people react in situations.

Quote:

Since you focus most of your effort on extraordinarily detailed analysis of one setup over another, you don't address the reality of Eve.


This is false. See my CSM document for more information. See my web thread for more examples. See the simply pos spam solution for even more. See all the nano discussions which all revolve around optimal game play choices rather than direct comparison between ships. See tiering arguments. See gang mod arguments. See local arguments.

Quote:

Blobs win battles. Your analysis doesn't consider how blobs make Eve the way it is.
Sadly, you keep framing balance discussions irrespective of lag and player participation.



This is just a flat out lie with a side of half truth. See Titans and all arguments to scalability. I will only frame balance discussions irrespective of lag and player participation when lag and player participation are not part of the balance.

See the documentation linked in the OP regarding local.

Quote:

1) ideals are excellent to have. As you point out, they are important things to lead from Crap Situation to Better Situation. Good. You have furnished an illustration of 1) and 2), but have presented no linkages between the two. Try a realistic one and then I might have a reason to care about you page after page of postings.


This doesn't mean anything. Are you saying I make no arguments as to why any changes I make would make the game better? Are you serious?

Quote:

2)Anecdotes drive change. They provide the emotional kick that propels change. This is key for you to understand *people* caring about changes. It isn't about dry statistics or efficacy... it's about personal meaningfulness.

If you don't understand this, you need to. Numbers are not concerns. If a politician convinces me that my car costs 50$ more to operate per month, even if the alternative would cost me more, I'd care about the former BECAUSE A PERSON CONVINCED ME.

Make your arguments personal and I care. Otherwise, it's just numbers.


When you make your arguments personal then you go from crap solution to even worse solution.

Anecdotes do not drive change. Consistent anecdotes drive change. But consistent anecdotes are not anecdotes

The idea that I only address module and ship balance on a 1v1 static battlefield is laughable. The idea that i only address module and ship balance without understanding player actions is more so.

If have any questions regarding specifics i would love to show you how wrong you are more so than just pointing you towards the stuff i have already said that directly contradicts your assertions.

ed: Forgot the economic threads as an example either. Though i don't think i had linked them.

Xofii
Hedion University
Posted - 2008.05.15 14:52:00 - [213]
 

Question: How do you feel that the balance between modules ship and circumstance are working atm?

Alot of your arguments are based on principles of fixed circumstance and, somewhat correctly, the assumption that the players are acting as is best according to situation. The game theory approach might be a good to analyze balance, but in my experience what actually decides effectiveness is the ability to force circumstance. I know that you have have argued several times that this is what makes "mid range" work for battleships but not for cruisers.

Do you have any explicit ideas for creating easier transitions between different "sets of situations"? I mean trying to create a more differentiated combat dynamic, not just: "HAI guise nanoup" or "git Dread>Carrier>sniper bs>hictors>..." which seems the only form of combat availible in 00 at the moment.

The ability to actually make nanos commit or sniper to fight at close range are what basically dictates the rock paper scissor scheme of today. Imo there are way to few ways to accomplish this which leads to cookie cutter setups and tactics.

Do you see the limited approaches to transition between situations as a problem? How would you fix it?

Atm it seems that alot of the mechanics that dictate situations are very DoOrDie, ie your faster or slower, you have more range or less range, more ppl or less ppl. There are no shades of grey. Could stuff like longer web range but less speed reduction or increased general fall off create a more dynamic setting?

/Xofii

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 15:40:00 - [214]
 

Originally by: Xofii
circumstance


You have hit on one of the prime factors of Eve, which is circumstance. How do you get someone into your optimal circumstance and then make it stick.

I am going to tentatively say that I am O.K. with the current bubble mechanic. Since it enforces circumstance for some amount of time but not indefinitely. This allows people to "try again" if the fight is really dependent on each side getting and holding their win condition. This can mean that fleet battles are not simple win/lose conditions.

But this also means that its harder to score a decisive victory

Probably the two largest problems in enforcing a "win condition" are gates and warp distances. Gates because you cannot decide where you come in(so an RR gang and sniper gang will always kinda sit on each side waiting for the other to jump in), and warp distances because on-grid warping makes getting away and continuing the fight easier.

Whatever it is, there certainly aren't too few ways to transition between situations. But I am not sure how to "fix" the situation without possibly impacting other things with would have negative consequences in unrelated areas of the game.

Longer range webs is something i have liked for a while since it gives more ability to force people to engage, but we would have to cautious when implementing them because of the large changes to combat it means. Whatever is done with that regard it needs to give ships more advantages for being small since small ships are the ones that suffer most from being unable to fight within their area of influence[and which have the smallest area of influence]

Currently i like making longer range webs[not scripted, but different webs] and have them based on signature radius the same way missiles use explosion radius, then changing the three speed mods to +speed, +agility, and -signature radius. Longer range webs would mean more ability to force ships to engage but it would not produce undue harm on smaller ships.

Xofii
Hedion University
Posted - 2008.05.15 15:54:00 - [215]
 

The "black and white" thing then: Alot of the modules etc. have hard capped attributes, IE missiles wont hit you have you enough speed, turrets cant track etc. Doesnt this create a situation where more speed never gets a down side, IE you dont really sacrifice anything by increasing speed from 3k to 7k but you gain alot. If you tripple trimark and double plate a BS it becomes noticeably slower, it aligns slower and hence it becomes harder to escape, which in fleet combat can have an effect.

Doesnt more trade offs create a richer combat environment and a more dynamic warfare, ie getting some speed but still having some tank should in most cases be better than simply stacking up the speed, the same way that having "some" ehp by throwing on as many LSE II's as possible create a better survivability (in this case not sacrificing anything but still). Ideally having some speed and some armor tank "should" be encouraged over pure min-maxing?

Imo the balance issue with nanos are that they create higher survivabilty during a fight AND a better escape opportunity instead of OR. I'm not trying to have a nerf/buff nano discussion, but it seems as the only viable way to force circumstance in the current environment, doesnt that constitute a problem. Namely that it forces a singular fitting scheme if one wishes to take part in skirmish warfare? Can there be other ways of created effective insurgent gangs?

//Xofii

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 16:53:00 - [216]
 

Edited by: Goumindong on 15/05/2008 16:52:54
Originally by: Xofii
The "black and white" thing then: Alot of the modules etc. have hard capped attributes, IE missiles wont hit you have you enough speed, turrets cant track etc. Doesnt this create a situation where more speed never gets a down side, IE you dont really sacrifice anything by increasing speed from 3k to 7k but you gain alot.


Sometimes. There are certainly points where missiles should not hit you. The problem comes in that there are missiles that should not have this limitation.

E.G. an inty should be able to outrun heavy missiles and cruise missiles since no cruiser gun is going to hit it.


it should not be able to out-run precision lights.

There isn't really an attribute in the game where you can increase it at no cost. There are only attributes in the game where you receive disproportionate benefit from its increase.

For nano cruisers is because their high range enables them to disengage fast[pretty much entirely for the most part it offers little defensive advantage, that is gained when trading ewar for LSE]. But because you can disengage so fast you don't have to worry about an enemy gang that is not nano'd up and then can fight them when you have superior forces.

There will pretty much always be trade-offs and there will pretty much always be ways to maximize them problems only really arise when there are some attributes which can be increased to increased value.

The only way to nix that entirely is to make ships have to specialize in killing some certain size of ship. And this is the huge change i was referring to when talking about web changes.

Xofii
Hedion University
Posted - 2008.05.15 17:06:00 - [217]
 

Since I feel a bit inquisitive today I'll ask some more stuff.

Moons: The risk that severe shortage of high end moon minerals might cause an abundance in all other moonminerals and respectively killing he market for these? Is this good?

What is your stance of varying yield in highends, IE a dyspro moon just have a higher probability of returning dyspro but that other moon might temporarily yield dysp etc.?

Or pocket of minable moonmaterial that can be found via exploration, ie a site where you can use a harvester of some sort to actually "mine" dyspro?

Small scale pvp: Do you hae any solid proposals of intermediate goals that smaller forces can accomplish in territorial warfare?

Cap-ships online: Good or Bad and why?

And finally, do you still stand by yout oppinion that the new apoc was boosted so much so that it would obsolete all other sniping ships in the game?

//Xofii

Goumindong
SniggWaffe
Posted - 2008.05.15 17:33:00 - [218]
 

Originally by: Xofii

Moons: The risk that severe shortage of high end moon minerals might cause an abundance in all other moonminerals and respectively killing he market for these? Is this good?


Unlikely and if it happened I am not sure it would be a bad thing, though moon mineral usage in t2 production could be tweaked for different in game effects i don't think that having lots of low end moons being very valuable is very important to the game. You won't run them all out, and it should be possible to manipulate the quantities used to modify moon values in different regions.

Quote:

What is your stance of varying yield in highends, IE a dyspro moon just have a higher probability of returning dyspro but that other moon might temporarily yield dysp etc.?


Differing yields could be a good way to modify value of regions while still offering expandability of the market as price increases allow less efficient production to be profitable. I will look into this and similar options.

Quote:

Or pocket of minable moonmaterial that can be found via exploration, ie a site where you can use a harvester of some sort to actually "mine" dyspro?


Also interseting, but i think it would be better to keep moons as income for PvPers. I.E. something you fight over

Quote:

Small scale pvp: Do you hae any solid proposals of intermediate goals that smaller forces can accomplish in territorial warfare?


Attacking strategic and economic POS modules. Attacking enemy aligned NPCs that are performing specific and valuable functions for the alliance they are aligned with.

E.G. say that you had NPCs roaming your space that took your moon mining materials and move them to stations for you to organize and jump out to sell. [or moved any other sort of stuff like fuel or had a tie in with seeding the market or filled sell orders and then moved the materials out or a simple bounty mechanic]. Enemies can find and kill the NPCs fairly easily. Doing so yields them the stuff it drops for them to sell. Too many people in gang and you saturate an area and reduce profits. Every second that defenders don't mobilize to protect their space is a second that enemies can be denying them money and profiting at the same time.

Quote:

Cap-ships online: Good or Bad and why?


Bad. Small ships need roles.

Quote:
And finally, do you still stand by yout oppinion that the new apoc was boosted so much so that it would obsolete all other sniping ships in the game?


Kinda. Akita T and I had a large discussion about the value of volley damage, DPS, and EHP and looking over the info again, the Rokh is probably as good or better as a unified fleet ship[to the point where i would ask all my mega pilots in an alliance to train Caldari BS for fleet work]. The Apoc is certainly better than the Mega/tempest/maelstrom though and the Pulse-POC via the bugged locus rigs is frankly ridiculous and the only reason to not yell and scream about it is because the locus rig bug is known and ought to be getting fixed.


Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8]

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