Power creep is a bad thing since it makes things harder on newbies, creates a cycle of complaints about boosting, makes everything that wasn't boosted almost useless, and we jumped off that cliff years ago. Making things right is probably going to make everyone mad; everyone's favorite ships will have to suffer for it.
Before I tick you off to the point that you stop reading, let me explain the perceived problems in the current state of affairs and apologize for the slight ramblings; this blog post tries to cover a lot of ground.
Power creep, a gradual increase in the power of the tools (ships, weapons, modes of transportation, etc) over time, is fundamentally bad for the game's organically grown collection of ships, modules, game play systems and other features. It is fundamentally impossible to boost something into parity with another something without eventually making them into the same thing; inequalities in performance are something that we are going to need to learn to accept. This doesn't mean accepting the status quo; some features need to be adjusted to be more or less effective than they are today. From the beginning, people have cried "don't nerf, boost!" It's an unsustainable practice; reductions in power are just as valid a tool as boosts in power, and they can be more effective as well.
The obvious form of power creep comes in the aforementioned form of boosting, a prime example of which was the recent changes to tracking enhancers and projectile turrets. One of the most insidious forms of all is stealth boosting; reductions in the performance of modules that increases the effective power of others by removing the viability of their established counter. Slightly less obvious is the introduction of new ships, which often carry exceptional capacities to fit modules over their predecessors.
Ships that can easily fit idealized load outs without making compromise are one of the ugliest forms of power creep that have made themselves manifest in Eve Online. In light of this I propose a Nerf to the CPU and or grid of every ship that can comfortably fit 90% Tech 2 modules of the right size and doesn't leave you in strong want of another module slot in order to force players to choose what their ship is optimized towards, invest in more tech 1 modules, or to invest in faction/deadspace gear.
Most of you probably realize that this proposal impacts ships like the Drake, Hurricane, Harbinger, Myrmidon, Oracle, Tornado, Tempest, Armageddon, and Tengu. Unfortunately, I think this is a necessary evil; these ships, some of the most popular in the game, do not have to make a real choice in how they’re fit; they can be optimized in tank and damage output with ease, taking away a significant portion of innovation in ship fittings while robbing the game of potential depth and complexity. Tech 2 is too much of a linear upgrade over most t1 and meta level N gear to allow Tech 2 modules to constitute a super majority (90% or more) of a ship’s equipment.
So what would a post nerf world look like? Well, let’s look at the Drake. The Drake is a ship that can readily fit a full T2 tank, full rack of tech 2 damage modules, and a full load out of tech 2 missile launchers. With a little less CPU, the Drake can no longer load up a full T2 set of all three. Most of a Drake’s preferred T2 equipment does not have a meta level tech 1 counterpart, which forces the pilot to pick and choose where he’s going to invest his fittings. A subtle change, but the little changes add up over time.
This is no quick fix for all of the game’s ills, but it does begin to address the problem of ships that can equip full tech 2 load outs being inherently better than ships that cannot. There was a time that this wouldn’t have been an advantage, but that day was when the only way you could get Tech 2 gear was to have a Tech 2 Original Blueprint; those days are long gone. Right now, a natural optimum emerges from modules that are a linear upgrade in performance without penalty. To bring opportunities for tactical exploration, those optimums need to stop being viable. What freedom is there in methods and tactics when there’s a defined right way to fit your ship?
It almost seems paradoxical that removing ability increases possibility. What a funny little world we live in, isn't it?
To fit full T2, the Drake already requires a CPU implant, and that's leaving the 8th high slot empty.
ReplyDelete@Mara Rinn
ReplyDeleteTechnically, as always, that depends on the actual load out. There's also a reason I said "90%" ;)
So you then fit faction, or meta 4, or whatever, to get equal performance / fitting.
ReplyDeleteAll you're doing is making the cost to do the same thing higher, which hurts new players, not old. It will also encourage even more blobbing when a "fleet drake" is closer to 100mil than 50mil.
CCP have learned the hard way that cost alone is not a barrier to people using it.
@Khanh'rhh
ReplyDeleteAs opposed to now, where they're not encouraged to use them at all and these modules have no incentive to be used because of their nonexistent price/performance advantage?
Economics work both ways; 1337 PVPers have to spend money just like everyone else and it's not that difficult to earn ISK faster than you earn skillpoints. This argument doesn't really hold water, from my perspective; when you get old enough and rich enough to field those toys, people don't really end up using them more because they often die just like everybody else.
Right now, a accustomed optimum emerges from modules that are a beeline advancement in achievement after penalty.
ReplyDeleteNeedle Arts