Heinrich Jagerblitzen
D3LTA FORC3
Inver Brass
744
   |
Posted - 2013.08.27 23:16:00 -
[1] - Quote
Flyingconejo wrote:To be honest, what I've read so far looks like a nerf to vehicles, but we won't really know if you don't tell us the numbers.
CCP, we can't give you meaningful feedback without numbers.
All we have are vague worlds like "long cool down timers", "short engagements", "ultra long cool down timers", "too slow to be used in the heat of battle", etc.... For all we know it could be a buff, but until you give us proper numbers we wont be able to give you good feedback.
We need numbers like:
- Hull specifics: ISK cost, slot layout, CPU/PG, base HP, etc...
- Module specifics: ISK cost, CPU/PG requirements, bonus, duration, cooldown, etc...
- Turret specifics: ISK cost, CPU/PG requirementes, damage, ammo, rof, etc...
There are a lot of experienced pilots and AV guys in the community. Give them those numbers in advance, and they will help you make this work.
I think you're missing the point of this thread. We've been asking CCP for months now not to just post numbers up right before a patch is released, but to engage the community in more advanced discussion about design intent - before they even get to the stage where numbers start being adjusted. Thankfully, they've obliged and I hope that this is the beginning of a new trend. It's exactly the sort of communication that the CPM has been pushing for.
When balancing anything, whether its weapons, dropsuits, or vehicles - you have to start with an outline of how you want the game to play out on the battlefield - and this discussion doesn't have to include numbers in any way. Once you establish good goals, numbers become the means to an end - the tools with which you execute a design strategy. Typically, all players have received in the past are those numbers - and without the accompanying discussion of intent. This is completely backwards: there is little value in CCP wasting time balancing numbers according to a plan that the players may or may not agree with. What's the point in "fixing" vehicles if CCP disagrees on what needs to be fixed?
All that to say - numbers come in to play towards the end of this discussion, once goals are tweaked and finalized. If there's any major red flags here, CCP is saving a ton of time and money by allowing you to point them out now before they sit down to crunch numbers.
This is also why all the QQ about "OMG THIS NERFS MY ________" is fairly irrelevant and premature - no one should be making assumptions about other variables (AV weaponry, WP accrual) being fixed. AV will certainly need adjustment, that goes without saying. Again, tweaking AV numbers to balance against this new design strategy is something that is done during its execution - not during the initial community sanity-check, which is what this thread is really about. Once they move into the number-tweaking phase, you can than evaluate the values adjusted based on the criteria established by the design strategy: They'll clearly either support the concept or they won't.
Many thanks to those that HAVE been patient and realize that this sort of communication is exactly what we want to encourage CCP to participate in - and shelved the bitching and moaning about buffs, nerfs, and numbers for the time being to focus on the merits (or lack thereof) in the strategy outlined in the OP. |