EPTFozzie doesn't know his ass from his elbow and it has made solo pvp considerably harder. I probably feel this less than anyone because I fly a ship with infinite dps but I still experience it.
EVE Corporation - Page 1505
| Forum Index > General Games |
KwarK
United States42738 Posts
Fozzie doesn't know his ass from his elbow and it has made solo pvp considerably harder. I probably feel this less than anyone because I fly a ship with infinite dps but I still experience it. | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On April 04 2013 05:45 Shootemup. wrote: He did make a pretty strong statement about logi frigs. Is this statement true? [1] In my experience it is not [2] I would be more inclined to entertain the idea of a CCP conspiracy [3] to drive away committed paying customers by destroying the part of the game they enjoy if it weren't for the fact that CCP has been "trying to kill off solo PvP" for years and yet people all over Eve are still getting solo kills. [4] Nerfs != evil conspiracy. [5] [1] If you wanna be really technical, it's probably not true. But here we have Michael Harari, a well-educated physicist and medical doctor, speaking to a non-technical audience. Most people wouldn't understand what he said if he had instead said something like "this increases the difficulty of solo pvp non-linearly". You'll find that in every environment which is not full of people with mathematical backgrounds, people will say "exponential" when they mean "non-linear". Now as to whether it's true that solo PvP difficulty has been increased non-linearly - it quite obviously is by such changes. I hate to make arguments based on "if you can't see it, you can't see it" which I feel is the case here. If you don't have a sufficient hold on all the variables involved in ship-to-ship interaction and how that plays out in game balance (the theoretical world) and in the actual game (the theoretical world but influenced by things like "common knowledge" and crowd-based opinion), then you won't see it. It would take me many many hours of writing to explain the dynamics of this system to get the point properly across - and it still wouldn't be a properly complete writeup. But I'll go for an analogous example. + Show Spoiler [Multi-level Interdependent Balance] + Consider a game played with a six-sided die. The players of this game win when they roll 2 or better (i.e. 2,3,4,5,6). That means they have 5/6 probability of winning whenever they play. You can nerf this "playstyle" of rolling the dice to win by changing the barrier for winning. You can change the rules so that they only win on 3+ (2/3 probability) or 4+ (1/2 probability). The game space for this game is just a list of numbers 1 to 6. The variable we can change to balance this game is the win barrier. This is a simplified model of how 99% of people view game balance, including (quite apparently) CCP. Consider a different game played with 2 such dice. The players win whenever either of the two dice rolls is 2+. Doing some math, you can figure out that the game space is a 6x6 grid of possible rolls. The only way for players to lose is to roll double 1s now (1 out of 36 possible results). That means they have 35/36 probability of winning. So how about we make it 3+. Now they have 4 possible ways to lose - 31/36 to win. With 4+, they have 9 possible ways to lose - 27/36 to win. You're making a linear change to one variable and causing a non-linear change to the dynamics of balance. Now consider the game if a player's opponents can add or remove dice from the player. Let's say we have the 2+ to win rule in place. The player starts with 2 dice. The player's opponent decides to remove 1 of those dice. How does that change the player's chance of winning? We went from 2+ on two dice to 2+ on one die. That's 1 possibility to lose in both cases, but the probability to win with two dice is 35/36 (97%) whereas with one die it is 5/6 (83%). Now what if the player can add a third dice? That's 1 possibility to lose out of 216 (6x6x6 cube of game space) - 215/216 (99.5%) to win. So removing one dice from the player at 2+ goes 3D - 99.5% 2D - 97% 1D - 83% At 3+ it goes 3D - 96.3% 2D - 75% 1D - 67% Making a linear change to a system-wide variable with many interdependent pieces results in a non-linear change to the system. Now let's try to make this analogous to EVE. Flying a ship is playing with a certain dice configuration. Maybe a Vindicator uses few 20-sided dice whereas a Tengu uses many 4-sided dice. Some ships in the game exist solely to remove dice from other ships (Recons). Some ships both remove enemy dice and add friendly dice (Logi). If you have a fleet of ships, you have a fleet brimming with dice. If you have one ship, you have that one dice configuration on that one ship. In the context of EVE, that means the game space that exists for solo PvP is already incredibly small compared to the game space as a whole. Things like recons and logi actively remove solo PvP game space - i.e. the theoretical game space in which solo ships can exist (their viability) is diminished. Because of the game mechanics in EVE, logi removes a set amount of dice from the enemy fleet. A large part of the reason that nullsec has huge megabattles is because people keep bringing more logi, thus you need more and more dice to counter them. If the enemy fleet is 1 guy, he's probably gotten all his dice removed and thus cannot hope to win. To mention something specific in this analogy, nerfing TEs is a terrible change. They are trying to target specific ships (Talos, Tornado, Oracle). Why nerf potentially every other non-missile ship in the game to get at these 3 ships? The Talos is cruising around with 12-sided dice - it's loaded. How about decreasing that to 10- or 6-sided dice? Instead what they are doing is changing the system-wide requirement of non-missile ships from 2+ to 3+. It just doesn't make any sense and has far-reaching consequences way outside the scope of the targeted nerf. [2] If your experience is that the introduction of a logi ship has not diminished the game space for solo PvP, the only conclusion I can come to is that this ship is so bad that it isn't used. The argument against the idea that CCP is nerfing solo PvP is thus reduced to "well they didn't actually nerf anything because this ship they released is useless and thus didn't change the landscape of PvP". If that's true, there are two problems instead of just one. [3] Ok, let's get this straight. CCP can't even conspire to install Pyfa or EFT. Michael is not arguing against CCP for deliberately lessening the quality of the game. The whole point of all the arguments surrounding new patches is that CCP is trying to accomplish something but not seeing the collateral damage it will cause - this is the antithesis of the concept that CCP is deliberately trying to nerf solo PvP. I bet if they tried, they would accidentally buff it instead. [4] What changes have CCP made in the past few years that diminish solo PvP? You mean like buffing T1 frigates and cruisers? Introducing new combat ships like the Talos? I guess they did technically nerf solo PvP when they changed Titan tracking. Other than that, what? The HML nerf (stupid) and Hurricane nerf (less stupid) arguably increased the viability of more solo fits. [5] Complaining about CCP making a mistake != CCP knowing what they are doing. /edit - added something specific about the TE nerf | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
The general populace of eve online makes horribly suboptimal decisions, and that extends to gang composition. While theoretically logi everyone would ruin solo pvp, it hasn't, because you have people thinking that running double hictors in a 6 man gang is a good idea. I'm not sure what you could do to 'fix' logi, my tentative idea would be to change the "optimal" of an xfer module to "falloff" (which would be essentially an across-the-board range nerf as well). They are trying to target specific ships (Naga, Tornado, Naga). fixed that. It's not even that CCP is targeting nerfs at these ships that's concerning (that's not what is going on), but the fact that they have no clue which ships are being affected by their changes. Hurricane nerf (less stupid) I don't see what you mean. The Hurricane, at the time of its nerf, was already obsolete tech. And balance changing based on null combat is pretty silly, the main content is social, not tactical. | ||
|
Ramiel
United States1220 Posts
At the end of the day remember this: Few people in eve really understand pvp at a deep enough level to really weigh in on many of the topics covered. 99% of the eve player base thinks they are '1337 pvpers' but in reality are complete shit and don't understand anything. IE. anyone that thinks that minmitar are 'the best race ever' / 'winmitar' / 'need a nurf matar' clearly have no idea what they are talking about. Whats sad is CCP is part of the 99% and in some cases worse- many of their 'balancing' decisions are completely pointless, and are really not accomplishing any of the types of goals they set them selves in the first place. Sadly the group of people in eve online that really understand solo / small gang pvp in the current eve environment is a very very small minority. Because of the minority status, you have little community support (because most of the community thinks that what we do is impossible / links do all of the work) with little community support you also have no representation on the CSM and CCP is less likely to listen to the cries of the outspoken few if those few are drowned out by thousands of idiots patting CCP on the back for a nerf well done. | ||
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34491 Posts
<3 <3 <3 | ||
|
419
Russian Federation3631 Posts
now imagine sc2 balance whining (i know, difficult, isn't it) now imagine an sc2 balance whining without a matchmaking system that is eve online And the 1% of the players that actually know what they're doing go about it in a horrible way, either by insulting CCP on third party forums or by missing deadlines for applications that may actually give them the chance to help CCP get things right. "the only way to win is not to play" | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On April 04 2013 07:41 419 wrote: fixed that. It's not even that CCP is targeting nerfs at these ships that's concerning (that's not what is going on), but the fact that they have no clue which ships are being affected by their changes. [1] I don't see what you mean. The Hurricane, at the time of its nerf, was already obsolete tech. [2] [1] Exactly right. [2] Hurricanes with dual medium neuts were a pretty big, scary wall to any kind of brawl-then-run ship (except other Hurricanes). They pretty much single-handedly made every other non-kiting ship obsolete. Now that they only have 1 medium neut, they are still pretty strong against these kinds of ships, but not to such a high degree as before. The stupid part of the nerf was everything else they did to it. I agree completely that Drakes basically obsoleted Hurricanes. Just like when Tier3 BCs came out they obsoleted Drakes. I was talking mainly about ships lower on the food chain. | ||
|
Impervious
Canada4200 Posts
| ||
|
Shootemup.
United States1044 Posts
On April 04 2013 07:38 DefMatrixUltra wrote: [1] If you wanna be really technical, it's probably not true. But here we have Michael Harari, a well-educated physicist and medical doctor, speaking to a non-technical audience. Most people wouldn't understand what he said if he had instead said something like "this increases the difficulty of solo pvp non-linearly". You'll find that in every environment which is not full of people with mathematical backgrounds, people will say "exponential" when they mean "non-linear". Now as to whether it's true that solo PvP difficulty has been increased non-linearly - it quite obviously is by such changes. I hate to make arguments based on "if you can't see it, you can't see it" which I feel is the case here. If you don't have a sufficient hold on all the variables involved in ship-to-ship interaction and how that plays out in game balance (the theoretical world) and in the actual game (the theoretical world but influenced by things like "common knowledge" and crowd-based opinion), then you won't see it. It would take me many many hours of writing to explain the dynamics of this system to get the point properly across - and it still wouldn't be a properly complete writeup. But I'll go for an analogous example. + Show Spoiler [Multi-level Interdependent Balance] + Consider a game played with a six-sided die. The players of this game win when they roll 2 or better (i.e. 2,3,4,5,6). That means they have 5/6 probability of winning whenever they play. You can nerf this "playstyle" of rolling the dice to win by changing the barrier for winning. You can change the rules so that they only win on 3+ (2/3 probability) or 4+ (1/2 probability). The game space for this game is just a list of numbers 1 to 6. The variable we can change to balance this game is the win barrier. This is a simplified model of how 99% of people view game balance, including (quite apparently) CCP. Consider a different game played with 2 such dice. The players win whenever either of the two dice rolls is 2+. Doing some math, you can figure out that the game space is a 6x6 grid of possible rolls. The only way for players to lose is to roll double 1s now (1 out of 36 possible results). That means they have 35/36 probability of winning. So how about we make it 3+. Now they have 4 possible ways to lose - 31/36 to win. With 4+, they have 9 possible ways to lose - 27/36 to win. You're making a linear change to one variable and causing a non-linear change to the dynamics of balance. Now consider the game if a player's opponents can add or remove dice from the player. Let's say we have the 2+ to win rule in place. The player starts with 2 dice. The player's opponent decides to remove 1 of those dice. How does that change the player's chance of winning? We went from 2+ on two dice to 2+ on one die. That's 1 possibility to lose in both cases, but the probability to win with two dice is 35/36 (97%) whereas with one die it is 5/6 (83%). Now what if the player can add a third dice? That's 1 possibility to lose out of 216 (6x6x6 cube of game space) - 215/216 (99.5%) to win. So removing one dice from the player at 2+ goes 3D - 99.5% 2D - 97% 1D - 83% At 3+ it goes 3D - 96.3% 2D - 75% 1D - 67% Making a linear change to a system-wide variable with many interdependent pieces results in a non-linear change to the system. Now let's try to make this analogous to EVE. Flying a ship is playing with a certain dice configuration. Maybe a Vindicator uses few 20-sided dice whereas a Tengu uses many 4-sided dice. Some ships in the game exist solely to remove dice from other ships (Recons). Some ships both remove enemy dice and add friendly dice (Logi). If you have a fleet of ships, you have a fleet brimming with dice. If you have one ship, you have that one dice configuration on that one ship. In the context of EVE, that means the game space that exists for solo PvP is already incredibly small compared to the game space as a whole. Things like recons and logi actively remove solo PvP game space - i.e. the theoretical game space in which solo ships can exist (their viability) is diminished. Because of the game mechanics in EVE, logi removes a set amount of dice from the enemy fleet. A large part of the reason that nullsec has huge megabattles is because people keep bringing more logi, thus you need more and more dice to counter them. If the enemy fleet is 1 guy, he's probably gotten all his dice removed and thus cannot hope to win. To mention something specific in this analogy, nerfing TEs is a terrible change. They are trying to target specific ships (Talos, Tornado, Oracle). Why nerf potentially every other non-missile ship in the game to get at these 3 ships? The Talos is cruising around with 12-sided dice - it's loaded. How about decreasing that to 10- or 6-sided dice? Instead what they are doing is changing the system-wide requirement of non-missile ships from 2+ to 3+. It just doesn't make any sense and has far-reaching consequences way outside the scope of the targeted nerf. [2] If your experience is that the introduction of a logi ship has not diminished the game space for solo PvP, the only conclusion I can come to is that this ship is so bad that it isn't used. The argument against the idea that CCP is nerfing solo PvP is thus reduced to "well they didn't actually nerf anything because this ship they released is useless and thus didn't change the landscape of PvP". If that's true, there are two problems instead of just one. [3] Ok, let's get this straight. CCP can't even conspire to install Pyfa or EFT. Michael is not arguing against CCP for deliberately lessening the quality of the game. The whole point of all the arguments surrounding new patches is that CCP is trying to accomplish something but not seeing the collateral damage it will cause - this is the antithesis of the concept that CCP is deliberately trying to nerf solo PvP. I bet if they tried, they would accidentally buff it instead. [4] What changes have CCP made in the past few years that diminish solo PvP? You mean like buffing T1 frigates and cruisers? Introducing new combat ships like the Talos? I guess they did technically nerf solo PvP when they changed Titan tracking. Other than that, what? The HML nerf (stupid) and Hurricane nerf (less stupid) arguably increased the viability of more solo fits. [5] Complaining about CCP making a mistake != CCP knowing what they are doing. /edit - added something specific about the TE nerf It is pretty obvious that CCP have no clue what they are doing (apparently the TE nerfs nerf Amarr more than Minmatar which presumably the opposite of what they want), but some people (Chessur comes to mind but I am sure there are more out there) have said that CCP hates solo/small gang PvP. I suppose most of what I said was directed at that viewpoint and is not really applicable to Michael as he never said anything suggesting that. | ||
|
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34491 Posts
| ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On April 04 2013 08:32 Shootemup. wrote: It is pretty obvious that CCP have no clue what they are doing (apparently the TE nerfs nerf Amarr more than Minmatar which presumably the opposite of what they want), but some people (Chessur comes to mind but I am sure there are more out there) have said that CCP hates solo/small gang PvP. I suppose most of what I said was directed at that viewpoint and is not really applicable to Michael as he never said anything suggesting that. And people say that "nature abhors a vacuum" but nature is incapable of feeling or intention at all. It is a big complicated system whose rules result in the minimization of vacuum. | ||
|
KwarK
United States42738 Posts
| ||
|
Ramiel
United States1220 Posts
If a recon shows up on the field, you can instantly be dead. It has happened to me many times while flying a 100mn. Rapier decloaks with 60K webs 108 with links, and i can't warp out in time before i am dual webbed and dead. The arazu has the same problem to a lesser extent with the scram. A heavy neut curse or just normal curse does the same thing to a turret ship. You are either instantly capped out from 80K or your turrets do nothing. Falcon: Thats obvious Arazu- again with 30K your scrammed, and dead. If its damp fit- you can't do shit. Couple all of that with the fact that if you plan to kite you ship selection is very limited. All medium projectile ships really don't have that great of DPS at 25/28K All medium blaster ships are for the most part pointless for solo work. As the size of gang you can engage is very dependent on your tank. You need to get so close to apply DPS All medium laser ships have nice DPS and nice range. The only problem is- they have a lighter tank, and can have a problem taking down light tackle when solo. Missile ships: Are complete shit unless you are flying RLM. And if you fly RLM your dps is only marginally better than projectile ships at the same range. On the other hand, missiles are my favorite weapon system because damps, ecm, are only marginally effective vs me while TD's are useless. Sadly the EHP of all ships is sky rocketing. Armor tanked cruisers along with BC's are now becoming insane with the EHP they can field. So not only do you have sub optimal DPS, but now you also have more EHP to chew through. If that wasn't worse enough, a single logi ship will stop you cold in your tracks. You either prime the logi and kill it before doing anything else, or you run away. Logi used to be difficult to get into and you didn't see them as often. But with the advent of t1 cruiser logi, a complete noob just a few weeks into the game can completely neutralize my damage. Its frustrating. | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On April 04 2013 11:11 Ramiel wrote: Well in my humble opinion, (stuff) Logi and recons shit all over solo PvP and encourage people to make huge gangs because they are force multipliers. The thing is, if there was some kind of counter to hard tackle, none of them would be an issue for solo and small gangs. That would 'fix' ECM, TD's, logi, and recons in one go and allow for more ships lower on the food chain to solo PvP. | ||
|
Not_Computer
Canada2277 Posts
On April 04 2013 11:35 DefMatrixUltra wrote: Logi and recons shit all over solo PvP and encourage people to make huge gangs because they are force multipliers. The thing is, if there was some kind of counter to hard tackle, none of them would be an issue for solo and small gangs. That would 'fix' ECM, TD's, logi, and recons in one go and allow for more ships lower on the food chain to solo PvP. Ancillary Warp Core Stabilizers. An active module with no targeting range penalties. Each activation cycle requires one unit of Cap Booster 6400 and gives a single burst of infinite warp core stabilizing strength. Cycle time 10 minutes. Limit one module per ship. Industrials can now move freely through any gate not bubbled, 10 minutes at a time. You can also still bump tackle. | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On April 04 2013 13:37 Not_Computer wrote: Ancillary Warp Core Stabilizers. An active module with no targeting range penalties. Each activation cycle requires one unit of Cap Booster 6400 and gives a single burst of infinite warp core stabilizing strength. Cycle time 10 minutes. Limit one module per ship. Industrials can now move freely through any gate not bubbled, 10 minutes at a time. You can also still bump tackle. What I was alluding to is microjump drives in the original way they were presented. That fell through badly, however. | ||
|
Shootemup.
United States1044 Posts
On April 04 2013 14:14 DefMatrixUltra wrote: What I was alluding to is microjump drives in the original way they were presented. That fell through badly, however. I have one on my Mach, it has saved me from being quad webbed and pointed by Rapiers. | ||
|
DefMatrixUltra
Canada1992 Posts
On April 04 2013 15:03 Shootemup. wrote: I have one on my Mach, it has saved me from being quad webbed and pointed by Rapiers. Congrats. If you're being longpointed by a Rapier in a Machariel, I suggest shooting at it until its hull goes to 0. It can't be used on anything except BS and is countered by exactly the same thing that counters MWDs. The only difference between using a MJD and warping off is that warping off doesn't work against longpoints. In its current iteration, this module is a depressingly useless waste of a mid slot. /edit - Just to be clear here. If you had said "my Megathron" or "my Vindicator" I would have nodded my head and moved right along. But you're using a MJD (countered by scram) on a kiting MWD ship (countered by scram) that is good at long-range projection (can kill things at longpoint range) and bad at dealing damage close up (countered by scram). The MJD makes sense on a Vindicator, particularly if it's armor fit, because it can kill everything apart from an Arazu that is in scram range and then just MJD away. With a Machariel, what you're doing is trading a mid slot to counter situations where you are longpointed by a Rapier or Arazu and cannot kill them. There is a stark difference in the window of viability for this module on a Machariel vs. a Vindicator. | ||
|
Firebolt145
Lalalaland34491 Posts
| ||
|
Shootemup.
United States1044 Posts
On April 04 2013 15:18 Firebolt145 wrote: Technically if you're only long point + webbed, but with a bunch of other stuff shooting you/preventing you from killing the rapiers, an MJD would save you there. But yeah you really shouldn't be getting caught in that in the first place, so MJD = wasted mid if you're flying properly. Yeah I was also damped to like 15km lock range, so it was definitely what saved me. It is definitely a situational module but it can be very good. | ||
| ||
