I believe the argument is that certain elements of the game have changed too much to simply change rollback certain things while leaving them the same. That and the arguments for a nerf are fractured and in some cases directly conflicting. One group wants 0.0 industry buffed so that the freighter runs would be largely unnecessary, another just wants people to be forced to run freighter convoys that they can attack for good times all around (except for the people who actually have to defend it), and a small fringe that believe that nerfing logistics will improve the nullsec experience by reducing the population (lolwut?).
You basically end up having to separate them all and address the specific problems with each, or make a broad counter-argument addressing a core deficiency in the proposals. Obviously the latter approach falls short because one argument can simply hand-wave it away with a slight addition or modification while the others never address it, even when such a change would directly contradicts their own proposal. Also, if anyone bothers with the former approach you can pretty much set your watch based on the amount of time it takes someone to say "lol you wrote all that?".
My own opposition is based on three beliefs.
One, that the players playing the game, and the game mechanics have changed. Any attempt to simply "rollback" a specific element of the game like Charmin's toilet paper at Walmart, will not result in the same outcome as when it was originally implemented. Like those rare fish they tried to put back in the wild but they all died because of pollution in the water. Or a more spaceship specific example, remote AoE DD didn't destroy the game when it was released. But if for whatever reason CCP put that mechanic back in the game it would probably signal the end of all nullsec combat in a way that would make Dominion look like a rainy day a year after Noah's Ark was launched. Most people who've every played a less advanced version of a game because it "was just better back then" is probably familiar with this. It's not as fun, because the overpowered stuff is known, acknowledged, and whored mercilessly. The playerbase is typically more skilled so you can't blow through wave after wave of scrubs like you're a hero unit in WC3, and if newer "gear" is available then typically everything goes out of whack.
For a specific example, I'll use the lowly SB. Not much a threat on it's own, any good defensive force circa 2007 would simply vaporize it, before it got a second volley off. Freighter saved, ops success, first round's on me boys. Hey it can fit a cyno, that's a threat, but you should have the titans of any potential hostile actors in your area watchlisted and locator agents running on them to ensure they're not logged in and if they are logged in that they aren't sitting in bridge range of your route. So the lone cloaked guy in local isn't too much of a deal breaker. Cool let's run some freighter ops.
Flash-forward to 2011. Now our little friend can warp around cloaked. Again, not a deal breaker, but now it's quite a bit harder to nail down any potential titans because there is so many. Fine a little more work, a little bit more nail biting, but you can manage. At least now your Hurricanes can just instapop him if he stops to light one no matter what kind of tank he managed to squeeze on there. Except now with the covert cyno. No decent capital pilot is very far from flying a Black ops. No way can you manage to WL every potential threat, and the offense no longer has to place the most expensive ships in the game close enough to bridge in, or anchor a telltale POS to reduce the risk of a counter gank. Instead every system within 3.5LYs (or w/e the BO Bridge range is) can potentially hold a logged off BO gang waiting for the go sign to log in and light the bridge. That solo Cov Ops or SB is now constitutes a real threat to be needs to be managed, as a relatively small number of SBs will kill a Freighter in the first volley, and if they're willing to field recons then the number of potential losses only increases. Your routes in certain areas will almost certainly be static, so they'd only need to cover those areas. Without needing a titan, you can't attempt a counter gank, or even simply rapecage the POS. Cloaks make a reasonable attempt at removing unwanted presences statistically improbable and you have to run these convoys regularly. So it's a pretty good use of an alt to leave one in those handful of choke points.
Two, that any intentional design decisions should be predicated on providing a net gain of fun for all the playerbase. This doesn't mean everyone has to love it, simply that if you decide to make 100 players happy, then the other 299,900 should probably be indifferent about it. A good example of this would be Incursions, the only people who were howlingly mad about them were the leader of a massive AFK renter empire who's couldn't clear the incursion in an armada of supercaps and none of his renters had bots to do them while his JBs were stuck in the OFF position, and like 5 guys on Scrapheap Challenge who were mad as hell at carebears making ISK (in a game they no longer play natch) and just could not abide that kind affront to what they stood for. For everyone else it was a boon of content once they were passed the 3000 ships lost in 24 hours phase. The changes are being seen from only one of two different perspectives. Assuming the guys on offense decide to (or, are able to) make a pass at every 10th convoy. GFs are had 100% of the time (for argument's sake) that means that (assuming even numbers on both sides) one group of players is enduring 90% suck, while the other side has 100% fun. That's poor game design, and actually leads to situations where everyone is Jedi.
For some the burden of providing content falls squarely on "the other guys". They cheerlead things like "0.0 should be more dangerous! More tears for all!" then immediately after say something like "Bring back (unprobable snipers/nano/AoE DD) so that (words that basically mean 'I don't have to die')!" sometimes they even put them in the same paragraph. I can support the first sentiment in that risk inevitably creates content and fun-ness but supporting that precludes me from supporting the second statement. Risk and the burden of content creation should be shared equally, instead of being a nut punch to the other guys.
For an example I'm going to suggest something ridiculous (I am not serious and this idea is dumb and if you debate this idea you are dumb too. It's fake.). I hate supercaps and elite pvp. So therefore all titans and supercarriers should stay in game even when logged out. This will create content because people will be fighting over these ships and be required to defend them whenever they get attacked. It will increase the number of players in 0.0 and give Australians something to do because you'll have to be able to field a fleet capable of defending them until the owner (logs in/is pinged/has a call routed through the speakerphone during a conference with the investors from China) to save his internet spaceship. There, I've put all the burden for my fun (killing supercaps) on to the group I don't like (elite pvp. PS BL don't get mad, I am cool with you guys until you're elite again IE Mfume stops FCing and everyone aligns). I (and probably many others) would have a blast rolling around all over New Eden raping supers and having a knee-slappin' good time doing it, but it'd blow dick for pretty much all the supercap owners, and every alliance not in the Clusterfuck.
Third, a lot of the argument against is predicated on "If you do X to Y mechanic, then players will do Z". It isn't a bad premise, especially where Z is assumed to be something that involves more effort and risk. The targets in your scenarios just sigh in defeat and then bend over to take it. In game they'd probably calculate out their critical needs (T2 ships/modules), stuff them into carriers, eat the costs and produce the ship hulls locally. In 2007 we had 1 carrier pilot in the whole corp, and he managed to cover all of our module/ship needs. Even my decidedly out of place need for meta versions of everything because I couldn't fit anything t2 and my only t2 ship was an Oneiros they made me train so that we could run the Maze.
Having to carrierjump everything down would simply move the bottleneck on me stockpiling ships/modules from the market to the act of importing itself, which is a pretty effective solution to the problem of me reshipping during fights. A better approach would be look at what the counter to the tactic is, and then deciding if it's more hassle that creates content (the JB nerf), or if it's just more hassle because "Fuck you" (the sanctum nerf).
Originally Posted by Malaclypse
Since I'm on grammar nazi patrol tonight, I have to inform you that you probably forgot to mention the object of posession of those nebulae (i.e. "to help with the nebulea's design).
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks