open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked So, balance is bad.
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Veronica Kerrigan
Minmatar
Hand Of Midas
F0RCEFUL ENTRY
Posted - 2011.08.11 23:20:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Veronica Kerrigan on 11/08/2011 23:23:19
CCP reveals that they don't want a balanced game! In an interview with CCP Soundwave, it is revealed that CCP doesn't want ships to be balanced, ever. What does the community at large think? I personally agree with CCP, but are there others who don't?
http://www.evenews24.com/2011/07/31/ccp-soundwave-why-balancing-is-bad-and-monkeys-are-good/



In other news, Monkeys are good.


EDIT: Link

Demon Azrakel
Gallente
Defiant..
Narwhals Ate My Duck
Posted - 2011.08.11 23:22:00 - [2]
 

Do you mind providing links?

Also, fix hybrids.

Digital Messiah
Gallente
N7 Corporation
PandaMonium.
Posted - 2011.08.11 23:34:00 - [3]
 

I believe he means "slight" imbalance, which was brought up many times. Here here for hybrids getting some love though.

Kogh Ayon
Posted - 2011.08.11 23:44:00 - [4]
 

So the next time they would probably nerf Heavy missiles and autocannons and boost the hybirds.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2011.08.11 23:45:00 - [5]
 


Complete and utter, absolutely perfect balance can get boring pretty fast, because the main "ingredient" would have to be a high degree of "sameness", with the rock-paper-scissors approach having to be simplified to "rock vs bigger rock".
Perfect balance while maintaining diversity is bordering on the impossible anyway, and if nothing else, metagaming partially "takes care" of that by constantly but subtly shifting the balance between the fleet doctrines.
"Decent enough" balance with periodic variations and many different flavours to pick from, that's the ideal goal. And even that is hard as hell to achieve (at least from where we're standing).
Imperfect balance with more frequent shifts, that's a decent enough compromise, as long as the shifts happen neither too often (demoralizing if you can't even stand a chance to train for "FOTM" and actually use it before it stops being FOTM) nor too rarely (in which case, everybody NOT training FOTM getting screwed).

Ayieka
Caldari
Posted - 2011.08.11 23:47:00 - [6]
 

yeah, perfect balance would mean an ibis would have a chance against a titan, i get what soundwave is trying to say.

Veronica Kerrigan
Minmatar
Hand Of Midas
F0RCEFUL ENTRY
Posted - 2011.08.12 00:00:00 - [7]
 

Alright. I just wanted to make sure I wasn't a secret CCP alt, and was in fact a working human being

Lyta Jhonson
Posted - 2011.08.12 00:08:00 - [8]
 

Originally by: Akita T

Complete and utter, absolutely perfect balance can get boring pretty fast, because the main "ingredient" would have to be a high degree of "sameness"...


Blizzard begs to differ. Ever heard of Starcraft? Wink

Fix Lag
Posted - 2011.08.12 00:49:00 - [9]
 

ITT: another link to the Soundwave comment where he goes "2 years is too often for ship balance. LOL"

Digital Messiah
Gallente
N7 Corporation
PandaMonium.
Posted - 2011.08.12 01:04:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: Lyta Jhonson
Originally by: Akita T

Complete and utter, absolutely perfect balance can get boring pretty fast, because the main "ingredient" would have to be a high degree of "sameness"...


Blizzard begs to differ. Ever heard of Starcraft? Wink
It is not perfectly balanced. Competitive players find the imbalances and use them all the time. Small tweaks are constantly being patched in to make something else balanced and imbalanced. Builds like MMM, cannon rush, shared control zergling rush, etc, are reasons why SC2 is not "perfectly" balanced. Now if you mean everything has a counter? Than yes it is balanced in that aspect. You can build units to counter others and win.

Is eve currently lacking in appropriate counters? Yes.

Will we ever see issues like racial imbalance, super caps, and blob warfare, fixed? No, probably not. How can you ever beat numbers or mechanics that have no direct opposition?

Derath Ellecon
Posted - 2011.08.12 01:05:00 - [11]
 

I not opposed to some imbalance in any game. The only time it gets annoying is when the imbalance gets too large, then you start seeing too many people flying the same kind of ship (Cough, drake tengu cough).

Trying to perfectly balance everything can also be bad and boring

Simetraz
Posted - 2011.08.12 03:47:00 - [12]
 

Edited by: Simetraz on 12/08/2011 03:47:26
Balancing is bad.

Everything should have it's good and bad points.
Your choices should make a difference.

Personally I think they should have locked down the factions so you can only fly your own faction's ships.
The diversity in battles would have made things a lot more interesting.
None of this flavor of the month thing that is going on now.

Maybe you could fly another factions ships if your personal standings were high enough.

Hmm these changes alone would have made EVE a entirely different game then it is today.
Better I think.

Either way it will never happen now so no worries.

Valei Khurelem
Posted - 2011.08.12 03:57:00 - [13]
 

Are you kidding? There is no other way to have a multiplayer game other than to make it balanced unless you're doing co-op like killing floor! Games like Counter Strike source are awesome because you can pick up any weapon you like and if you shoot someone in the head then the enemy dies. It doesn't matter if it's a pistol or an AWP, they're going to go down.

EVE Online is the opposite end of the scale, you go one on one with a tech 1 ship against a tech 2 or 3 ship then it's obvious you're going to die, that's how stupid this game is, it is nothing more than black and white, rock/paper/scissors, you have no player input in the outcome of your game. Oh and don't tell me that randomly picking what ammunition and modules you're equipping is 'player input' because anyone who's thinking that knows that's a load of garbage.

Barbara Nichole
Cryogenic Consultancy
Black Sun Alliance
Posted - 2011.08.12 04:08:00 - [14]
 

balance is always going to be subjective. you'll never 100% agree with another on what balance is. saying that ccp should perfectly balance things would be setting themselves up to do an impossible task..and thus failure.


fgft Athonille
Posted - 2011.08.12 04:11:00 - [15]
 

balance is bad because it takes hard work. work is bad to ccp all vikings want to do is pork themselves and drink, no work there.

CanIPost Please
Posted - 2011.08.12 07:35:00 - [16]
 

Originally by: Valei Khurelem
Are you kidding? There is no other way to have a multiplayer game . . .

EVE Online is the opposite end of the scale, you go one on one with a tech 1 ship against a tech 2 or 3 ship then it's obvious you're going to die, that's how stupid this game is . . .


Sounds like a disgruntled FPSer. I hope CCP took a different approach to balancing Dust 514.

Magnus Veyr
Posted - 2011.08.12 07:40:00 - [17]
 

Everything being the same is boring, and if different things are "better" than other at different times that forces people to train up new stuff, keeping them in the game. It's like a carrot on a stick in that respect.

Thing is that Soundwave put in quite a few nuances when he stated it.

Thornat
Posted - 2011.08.12 08:39:00 - [18]
 

Edited by: Thornat on 12/08/2011 08:40:04
There are a lot of really interesting ideas here, but this article doesn't speak to all of them. I think what they are talking about here is a far more complex and strategic approach to creating a versitle game. Right now in Eve one might say for example that the Daemos is a crappy HAC for the Gallente and is not worth flying. As a former pilot of that ship I tend to agree, however noteably I still often fly it and actually own more of that ship than ever before because the price of them dropped dramatically and its a more affordable. On the flip side a ship like the Draemial (sorry if Im spelling the ships wrong Im notorious for that) is the king of Frigates (I think most would agree) yet its hefty price tag results in considerably fewer people actually flying. The article even mentioned that not many people actually buy and fly these ships.

The point here is that power and balance isn't always the only reason to fly a ship. If the Draemial is the best frigate in the game because its so unbalanced and powerful why does that not result in everyone who pilots a frigate to pilot that one? Why would anyone fly for example Merlin instead? The answer is that balance isn't just a matter of power. Often a player will choose a ship because its cheaper. He has skills that result in him being able to fly a particular ship better, or if your like me you might choose the Daemos simply because it looks bad ass.

I think the point of all this is to illustrate that balance is really in the eye of the beholder and even if their is a mass confirmation of a particular ship being "the best" still doesn't result in everyone flying it. There are many reasons to choose ships in Eve and being over powered is not nescessarly the only motivation to fly it. There are all sorts of factors that lead players to fly all sorts of ships, despite any concieved or even confirmed unbalances. I fly a Daemos! Why, because I think it looks cool, I love the tactics I can use with it and I have the skills to fly it well (both player skills and character skills). I know its not the best ship, hell I have more than once run from consierably smaller ships that another, better, HAC should be able to take easily. To me however the power factor is just one of many that results in me choosing a ship.

On the flip side the fact that the game is constantly nerfed and buffed in different areas does in fact result in players constantly re-analyzing ships, re-thinking fittings and creating new roles for old ships. I really think this is a awsome feature of the CCP nerfing/buffing program. It means that even if you have played for 6 years like me, you are constantly going back and doing stuff like "Hey wait a minute, you know this new Amarr ship that used to suck actually has some potential now, I think I will try it out". If things were stagnet, it would mean that once a ship analysis is done by me and I determine "no thank you", I will probobly never look at that ship again.

All and all, I agree with the strategy. I like the idea that its an evolving game where things constantly change. ya I can suck to have your favorite ship nerfed but their are lots of ships in the game and trying out new stuff is just a part of Eve and its what they are promoting here. I think its the right mentality. Sure at any given time their are going to be ships that aren't worth flying, but some day in the future that ****ty Amarr frigate might become the new fad thanks to a properly implemented buff. Which I personally think is awsome. Every ship has its time.

Serene Repose
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2011.08.12 13:37:00 - [19]
 

Balancing a game has proven to be so ridiculously impossible it's better to say you meant it to be imbalanced than to try to actually balance it. Everybody knows that...well, almost everybody.

Spurty
Caldari
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2011.08.12 13:42:00 - [20]
 

Numbers > skill in EVE

Just bring 50 rifters to a fight VS 5 BS

Balance seems pointless when you scale up

Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
Posted - 2011.08.12 14:43:00 - [21]
 

Originally by: Valei Khurelem
Are you kidding? There is no other way to have a multiplayer game other than to make it balanced unless you're doing co-op like killing floor! Games like Counter Strike source are awesome because you can pick up any weapon you like and if you shoot someone in the head then the enemy dies. It doesn't matter if it's a pistol or an AWP, they're going to go down.

EVE Online is the opposite end of the scale, you go one on one with a tech 1 ship against a tech 2 or 3 ship then it's obvious you're going to die, that's how stupid this game is, it is nothing more than black and white, rock/paper/scissors, you have no player input in the outcome of your game. Oh and don't tell me that randomly picking what ammunition and modules you're equipping is 'player input' because anyone who's thinking that knows that's a load of garbage.


Could you be more wrong? Write me a reply and let's see! /grabs popcorn

Wacktopia
Sicarius.
Legion of The Damned.
Posted - 2011.08.12 14:58:00 - [22]
 

Originally by: Akita T
"rock vs bigger rock"


Yeah - that would be like if everyone just flew Draek, Cane and Abaddon and to win you need to bring more Draek.

PreEdit: Yes joking, no reply needed.

BoBoZoBo
MGroup9
Posted - 2011.08.12 15:29:00 - [23]
 

Edited by: BoBoZoBo on 12/08/2011 15:31:29
Perfect balance along similar lines is VERY BORING, so I agree with CCP to a degree.
I do not agree that Supercaps are an example of a GOOD use of this.

Rodion Romanovich Raskolnikov
The Eleusinian Mystery Cult
Posted - 2011.08.12 15:48:00 - [24]
 

Terrible article full of pop psychology bull****.

Cipher Jones
Minmatar
Posted - 2011.08.12 16:17:00 - [25]
 

Think of it this way;

Any game with a metagame is imbalanced by nature. There would be no meta if all things were equal.

Every game has a metagame.

How imbalanced the game is is the question.

Ranger 1
Amarr
Ranger Corp
Posted - 2011.08.12 17:00:00 - [26]
 

Originally by: Spurty
Numbers > skill in EVE

Just bring 50 rifters to a fight VS 5 BS

Balance seems pointless when you scale up


Except when the BS pilots have good intel and know the Rifters are coming and fit appropriately.

A smart bomb equipped remote rep group makes Rifters go all "asplodie" very quickly... and it's very entertaining to watch. Smile

Mendolus
Aurelius Federation
Posted - 2011.08.12 17:03:00 - [27]
 

Originally by: Ranger 1
Originally by: Spurty
Numbers > skill in EVE

Just bring 50 rifters to a fight VS 5 BS

Balance seems pointless when you scale up


Except when the BS pilots have good intel and know the Rifters are coming and fit appropriately.

A smart bomb equipped remote rep group makes Rifters go all "asplodie" very quickly... and it's very entertaining to watch. Smile


Yea, that's the first thing I ask for when I notice a frigate gang coming down the pipe, but almost everyone looks at me with this blank stare, they've already resigned themselves to OMG FRIGATE BLOB RUN! meanwhile I'm pounding on my desk asking where all the smartie RR battleships with matching resistances are so we can disco the snot out of them and have a hell of a time!

wtb more Ranger 1s, wts Spurtys

Hicksimus
Gallente
Mom's Friendly Spaceship Company
Posted - 2011.08.12 17:25:00 - [28]
 

1st why does balance have to mean everything being the same. 2nd go play TF2 it is very well balanced despite each class being hugely different. The issue in EvE is that some things are different but often imbalanced(mostly due to there being so many things). Ex. Super Carriers are very cool but in many situations when things go wrong they can just log it out and survive. Blackops are unique and cool too but cost a ton and can't use a covert cloak making them generally imbalanced in a negative way.


Kunming
Amarr
T.H.U.G L.I.F.E
Xenon-Empire
Posted - 2011.08.12 17:55:00 - [29]
 

Balance is not flatting out diversity.

Everything should have PROS and CONS, when talking about balance it means neither side should be outweighted by the other.

Zey Nadar
Gallente
Unknown Soldiers
Posted - 2011.08.12 18:26:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: Zey Nadar on 12/08/2011 18:27:24
Originally by: Magnus Veyr
Everything being the same is boring


Unless theres something else like player skills to make it uneven. Then again, skill and MMOs don't really mix. So I guess we have to go with artificial 'imbalance'.

ps. Balance does not mean everything being the same, even though its the only theoretical way of achieving perfect balance. There should be different methods for achieving same results for variety.


Pages: [1] 2

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