Quantum Rise Release Date Set
- Thread starter Scott Tortorice
- Start date
-
- Tags
- ccp eve online quantum rise
Dr Zaius
Chief Defender of the Faith
- Joined
- May 1, 2001
- Messages
- 8,902
- Reaction score
- 408
- Location
- The Forbidden Zone
- First name
- Don
- Country
-
Anyone have any thoughts on Quantum Rise so far?
Scott Tortorice
Senior Member
My subscription lapsed again....
pward
Member
From my reading up on the patch notes, it looks like an ok patch for my playstyle.
I would have preferred a command hulk (fewer lasers, with command links) rather than the Orca, but eh, it's just another ship that has its uses.
Major changes to combat, affecting both PvP and PvE, but I can't really disagree with any of their changes. And there are two sides to every nerf...
PvP small gang players complain about the loss of "nano fitted" ships, compared to the folks complaining about the OMGWTFBBQPWNMOBILE nano fitted ships that routinely take on larger gangs and smoke em...
My normal mantra for any MMO WRT balance: you can't balance anything more complex than tic-tac-toe in an online world with tens of thousands (or more) of players looking for that edge over the other players.
Once upon a time (before I played) there were speed fits that had multiple AB or MWD stacking with each other to get astronomical speeds from heavily armed and armored ships. Nerfbat was swung on those sorts of fittings. Folks went out and did the best speed fit left to them; certain implant sets, gang warfare links and implants in the FC, and massive quantities of speed altering modules. Still deemed overpowered and the nerfbat swung again...
My personal take on ship balancing is that most if not all but weapons modules should be "one use only", with the following caveats:
1. Shield/armor hardeners only count if they are the same type, with omni counting as a 5th type and passive/active being separate as well. (So one EM passive, one EM active, one Thermal active and one Omni is ok.)
2. Most hull and overdrive modules would be limited to one of that type. So 5 overdrives is a no-go, but an overdrive, nanofiber and the other speed mod would be fine.
3. Some "weapon" systems would be "active on one target each", including using your buddies ship to add in more <whatever>. So no tacklers with an almost guaranteed tackle of 3-4 warp disruptors for 6-8 warp strength on one target. Also works for EW type modules, no uber jam from 5 modules on one ship or super-paint, or whatever effect is considered.
Players would likely consider that "vanilla" ship fitting, but in the long run I think it would reduce the I-Win button designs, and force ships into being more multi-role, rather than min-maxed for just one job. Doesn't do a thing about blobbing and I don't have any good ideas about that anyhow.
Without an active account, I can't post on the EVE forums, but I've been reading up on some of the complaints about the patch. I think in this particular release they altered the game mechanics quite a bit and have angered many different "factions" (missile users, blaster nano-boat users, etc.) in an effort to achieve what they think of as balance.
I don't see a way to get back to small gangs fighting each other for control, unless you start making it really expensive to go to war, and/or figure out how to level the playing field "per-system controlled" for those alliances out in null-sec. Large blocs of players with money to burn end up with the best toys and tend to keep folks out of the most lucrative areas. That's what you want to see, but I think there needs to be a size penalty based on number of systems/constellations/regions controlled. Call it the unseen NPC bureaucracy required to manage the stations and outposts under your control.
I would have preferred a command hulk (fewer lasers, with command links) rather than the Orca, but eh, it's just another ship that has its uses.
Major changes to combat, affecting both PvP and PvE, but I can't really disagree with any of their changes. And there are two sides to every nerf...
PvP small gang players complain about the loss of "nano fitted" ships, compared to the folks complaining about the OMGWTFBBQPWNMOBILE nano fitted ships that routinely take on larger gangs and smoke em...
My normal mantra for any MMO WRT balance: you can't balance anything more complex than tic-tac-toe in an online world with tens of thousands (or more) of players looking for that edge over the other players.
Once upon a time (before I played) there were speed fits that had multiple AB or MWD stacking with each other to get astronomical speeds from heavily armed and armored ships. Nerfbat was swung on those sorts of fittings. Folks went out and did the best speed fit left to them; certain implant sets, gang warfare links and implants in the FC, and massive quantities of speed altering modules. Still deemed overpowered and the nerfbat swung again...
My personal take on ship balancing is that most if not all but weapons modules should be "one use only", with the following caveats:
1. Shield/armor hardeners only count if they are the same type, with omni counting as a 5th type and passive/active being separate as well. (So one EM passive, one EM active, one Thermal active and one Omni is ok.)
2. Most hull and overdrive modules would be limited to one of that type. So 5 overdrives is a no-go, but an overdrive, nanofiber and the other speed mod would be fine.
3. Some "weapon" systems would be "active on one target each", including using your buddies ship to add in more <whatever>. So no tacklers with an almost guaranteed tackle of 3-4 warp disruptors for 6-8 warp strength on one target. Also works for EW type modules, no uber jam from 5 modules on one ship or super-paint, or whatever effect is considered.
Players would likely consider that "vanilla" ship fitting, but in the long run I think it would reduce the I-Win button designs, and force ships into being more multi-role, rather than min-maxed for just one job. Doesn't do a thing about blobbing and I don't have any good ideas about that anyhow.
Without an active account, I can't post on the EVE forums, but I've been reading up on some of the complaints about the patch. I think in this particular release they altered the game mechanics quite a bit and have angered many different "factions" (missile users, blaster nano-boat users, etc.) in an effort to achieve what they think of as balance.
I don't see a way to get back to small gangs fighting each other for control, unless you start making it really expensive to go to war, and/or figure out how to level the playing field "per-system controlled" for those alliances out in null-sec. Large blocs of players with money to burn end up with the best toys and tend to keep folks out of the most lucrative areas. That's what you want to see, but I think there needs to be a size penalty based on number of systems/constellations/regions controlled. Call it the unseen NPC bureaucracy required to manage the stations and outposts under your control.