Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
DHB WildCat
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:27:00 -
[1]
Edited by: DHB WildCat on 01/04/2009 16:29:23 With my last post, some points came up that tbh were great points. It was meant as a "remember those days post" but has become something more.
Some ideas -
Go back to pre-nano nerf era. However bring some post nano-nerf mods / ideas with it.
What I'm proposing. -
Give the ships their speeds back, keep scramblers ability to shut down MWD's, Give back 90% webs. Give both webs and scrambler ranges a boost to 15km. Nerf gallente / minmatar recon bonuses to stay in line with what they are now with 10km webs / scramblers.
What this will all do!
1) Bring variety back to ships. Obviously speed tanking would be viable agian.
2) Fast ships would still be able disrupt out side web / scramble range, but make it much harder! One mistake and scramed / webbed / nueted Nano ship = DEAD! Overloading would make these mods even deadlier.
3) Would bring back blaster ships!!! As they would be able to web and scram their targets and pound them.
4) Give an alternative to killing falcons / rooks, as ships would be able to burn to them quickly!
I dont know if this would be a good idea or not tbh. I think it is and tbh it was brought up by the eve community.
Recap - It would be a Gallente blaster boost - Speed Boost and nerf - Web / Scram boost - Recon Boost - Falcon Nerf -
WildCat
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:30:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Furb Killer on 01/04/2009 16:30:20 1 April? ---------------------------------------------
Originally by: Neth'Rae Military experts are calling this a troll.
|
DHB WildCat
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:32:00 -
[3]
Actually no this is legit
WildCat
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:32:00 -
[4]
Then just no. ---------------------------------------------
Originally by: Neth'Rae Military experts are calling this a troll.
|
Evanade
Rionnag Alba Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:33:00 -
[5]
90% webs with 10km range were, in retrospect, a bad idea from the start. No other mod has such a huge effect on a fight and to be honest gang pvp is better off without them.
The great dumb-down in velocities could use some more variety though, especially now that BS'es are per definition 'extremely slow' with nothing you can do about it.
|
Marcus Druallis
Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:34:00 -
[6]
Originally by: DHB WildCat Edited by: DHB WildCat on 01/04/2009 16:29:23 With my last post, some points came up that tbh were great points. It was meant as a "remember those days post" but has become something more.
Some ideas -
Go back to pre-nano nerf era. However bring some post nano-nerf mods / ideas with it.
What I'm proposing. -
Give the ships their speeds back, keep scramblers ability to shut down MWD's, Give back 90% webs. Give both webs and scrambler ranges a boost to 15km. Nerf gallente / minmatar recon bonuses to stay in line with what they are now with 10km webs / scramblers.
What this will all do!
1) Bring variety back to ships. Obviously speed tanking would be viable agian.
2) Fast ships would still be able disrupt out side web / scramble range, but make it much harder! One mistake and scramed / webbed / nueted Nano ship = DEAD! Overloading would make these mods even deadlier.
3) Would bring back blaster ships!!! As they would be able to web and scram their targets and pound them.
4) Give an alternative to killing falcons / rooks, as ships would be able to burn to them quickly!
I dont know if this would be a good idea or not tbh. I think it is and tbh it was brought up by the eve community.
Recap - It would be a Gallente blaster boost - Speed Boost and nerf - Web / Scram boost - Recon Boost - Falcon Nerf -
WildCat
Wellll, if you look at the drawing board there is mention by CCP about somehow integrating high speeds back. lol. CCP is a laugh. --
|
Marcus Druallis
Quantum Industries RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:35:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Evanade 90% webs with 10km range were, in retrospect, a bad idea from the start. No other mod has such a huge effect on a fight and to be honest gang pvp is better off without them.
The great dumb-down in velocities could use some more variety though, especially now that BS'es are per definition 'extremely slow' with nothing you can do about it.
ECM anyone? Personally I had no problem with 90% webs. You just knew to not get within its range. But then people *****ed and moaned and somehow speed got nerfed, and webs became useless unless STACKED. --
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:36:00 -
[8]
It's a good thing that range is more meaningful now. It's a good thing that a cruiser can't burn 200 km across grid in just 30 seconds.
|
Enden Assulu
Caldari Blood Money Inc. Blood Money Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:41:00 -
[9]
Enjoyed the nano age, would be fun to bring it back.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:42:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Furb Killer on 01/04/2009 16:46:30 Before nano nerf it was basicly: 10km/s outside overloaded web range 0m/s inside overloaded web range.
As soon as you were in web range (and your inertia didnt get you almost immediatly outside it again), you were immediatly dead in the water. There was no point in flying somewhere, since you were way to slow to reach anything within 2 years when webbed.
Then with 15km webs the difference is that people who sleep will be easier to catch when they are nano'ing arround, blasters might as well be removed from the game. And nano ships got to pay for a faction disruptor and can still disengage at will. The only nano ship really affected by this would be the vaga since it would need to fight further in fall off. Which was the only ship which was supposed to be really a nano ship.
Meanwhile besides blasters you might as well also remove AFs from the game. Drone ships will again need to use anti frigate drones against cruisers to be able to have a chance to hit them.
Edit: I want attention too ---------------------------------------------
Originally by: Neth'Rae Military experts are calling this a troll.
|
|
Holy Lowlander
Lone Star Joint Venture Wildly Inappropriate.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:44:00 -
[11]
would be fun if it came back. I want to post in collor tooo ! they stole my sig :'( |
Terianna Eri
Amarr Scrutari
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 16:52:00 -
[12]
Sure, I'd love a 90%, 15km web on my Zealot. As it is I have to worry about someone webbed still creeping into my range, but now even if we're both webbed, I'll still be in my optimal while the poor blasterboat is in optimal + 4x falloff! :D ... No, 15%, 90% webs make it take longer to close range, and results in blaster boats getting slowed down sooner, further away from their targets.
... How is this a good idea?
I think having frigates not replaced by nanohacs is good for the game. I like that there are now degrees of speed and that the slow speed of a BC is notable over a HAC. I like that Ishtars and Zealots don't go as fast as my Vagabond. I like that my vagabond doesn't instantly lose all of its speed advantage when webbed. I like that afterburners are at least viable when flying defenseively (although they're still crap for chasing someone down). I like that lasers are disadvantaged at close range because they have lower tracking; 90% webs let you track pretty much anything. Hell, I can hit close range frigs in missions with megapulse on my paladin, with a 90% web. I like that the overall lower speeds of ships has made midrange combat more viable, and sniping more dangerous.
15km webs and scrams (read: 18km) means that anything with 18km of another ship is travelling at 10% speed and can't use its microwarpdrive. This is a more dangerous, harsher on-off switch than before and it affects all ships, not only nanoships.
I would look forward to flying a 700-dps beam harbinger with 15+km optimal. How long you think it'll take a brutix to close to blaster range? This change would utterly destroy blasterships.
A scrammed/webbed/neuted cruiser is pretty much dead anyway.
Terrible idea. __________________________________
Originally by: CCP Whisper Boo hoo. Cry some more.
|
adriaans
Amarr Ankaa.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:01:00 -
[13]
Bring nanoes back BUT not the extreme form it used to be (tbh, i dont even mind if it does...), somewhere in the middle of now and what it used to be i think would good. -sig- Support the introduction of Blaze crystals for Amarr!
Originally by: UMEE if ure another fotm re-roller, then dont pvp. you'll fail.
QFT! |
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:29:00 -
[14]
I remember DHB WildCat was one the the semi-insane people shouting in FAVOR of the nano-nerf, using his Claymore boosted high grade Snake set enhanced 4 billion isk ship setups, with overheated MWD no less. Was totally ridiculous basis for balancing action
And now you regret what you have done?
But it's too late now. CCP will never undo its major nerfs. And they have proven they can be just as insane as you are when making important decisions. You can't move them with reason
|
Artemis Rose
Sileo In Pacis
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:34:00 -
[15]
Good lord, how does having 2pt scrams and 90% webs at 15km on every single ship FIX blaster ships?
0/10
You could do better. *** Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine, Self Banstick +2 WTB: +666 E-peen killboard stats |
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 17:56:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Artemis Rose Good lord, how does having 2pt scrams and 90% webs at 15km on every single ship FIX blaster ships?
0/10
You could do better.
That definitely would do more harm than good to overall balance
If you realize and accept that each weapon needs a role with strengths and weaknesses, then the best course of action is to enhance blaster strength to make it more distinct against other weapons. In case of blasters, that strength is raw power - damage modifier And when it comes to nerfing any weapon, the best way would be to emphasize the weakness, rather than decrease the strength. That way diversity of options remains strong.
|
Jonas Cooke
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 18:27:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Marcus Druallis Wellll, if you look at the drawing board there is mention by CCP about somehow integrating high speeds back. lol. CCP is a laugh.
we have interceptors faster than 8km/s, why do they need more speed?
|
Enden Assulu
Caldari Blood Money Inc. Blood Money Cartel
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 18:31:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Jonas Cooke
Originally by: Marcus Druallis Wellll, if you look at the drawing board there is mention by CCP about somehow integrating high speeds back. lol. CCP is a laugh.
we have interceptors faster than 8km/s, why do they need more speed?
That is only with heat, inties will still get omnomnomnom'd by warriors
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:30:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Enden Assulu That is only with heat, inties will still get omnomnomnom'd by warriors
In my experience, a Stiletto with 1MN AB and medium shield extender can tank warrior IIs for a long time, while in 4km orbit
Tho other inties that can't fit med shield extender wouldn't do
|
Hirana Yoshida
Behavioral Affront
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:46:00 -
[20]
With changes like that there would be zero place for anything other than the plated monstrosities from before QR. Lived through the BS being iWin-boats once, that was enough thank you, I like having an option when choosing ships.
For an April 1st it does fall a bit short though, better luck next year.
|
|
Noisrevbus
Caldari Breams Gone Wild
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 19:51:00 -
[21]
Originally by: DHB WildCat
Recap - It would be a Gallente blaster boost - Speed Boost and nerf - Web / Scram boost - Recon Boost - Falcon Nerf -
I think Furb was onto something when he asked about april's fools. Considering that it would also bring back all the problems .
- Scrams wouldn't be used. - AB's wouldn't be used. - AF's wouldn't be used. - Painters would be used even less. - You'd make general engagement ranges less dynamic. - You'd twart signature and size-to-size balance again (with bigger almost always being better).
- Falcons can already be killed, and there are ships now that can burn at them. - Webs and Scrams need no boost, Rapiers are still used in gangs and good ships. - Most 'nano' ships still function in today's environment.
Those ships that don't, and those concepts/modules that don't, are far more isolated and easily adjusted to work in a QR/APO environment.
Blasters could easily be boosted by just giving them twice the range. They'd still be a short range (within tackle-) weapon, but at least with "long range" ammo, they would hit beyond webs and scrams, and the bonused ships would hit beyond that and up to point range. Blasters should also not be boosted so much that CCP forget that Rails (you know, that other Hybrid weapon type) needs just as much love.
Nothing in the proposal "brings back variety to ships", so i'm calling april first on this thread!
|
Tuncan
Minmatar Mortis Angelus The Church.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 20:05:00 -
[22]
Please do not bring %90webs back to game its the death of matari ships. All of them ( well not rapier and huginn ) from frigs to battleships. And its EZ mode for gallentean ships.
It's more balanced right now and u can speed tank with speed tank supposed ships. + ECM is fine,really its a bit harder to press aproach burn mwd and press f1 but its fine.
Even you give matari ship 5000k speed un mwd'd bringing back %90 webs will still kill the whole race
|
TimMc
Gallente The Black Rabbits The Gurlstas Associates
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 20:15:00 -
[23]
April fools!
Just incase this is real, its stupid. The nano nerf removed alot of extremes. 90% webs were insane, scramblers had no purpose since the HIC and people (including myself) were going at insane, maybe immortal, speeds.
CCP did a good job imo.
|
Solid Prefekt
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 20:22:00 -
[24]
As a person that was on the whining bandwagon to not nerf speed, I like the new changes. I like them ONLY because of all the other things that came with the nerf (more agility, weaker webs, less mwd cap). It creates more of a dog fighting atmosphere instead of just spamming your MWD w/Heat.
CCP went against the grain (the majority) and did what was best for the game and I applaud them for it.
|
Zackaryel
Caldari Echolalia. Shangri-La.
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 20:42:00 -
[25]
Originally by: DHB WildCat Stuff
Someone here wants to jump back in his 5km/s CNR hmm ? ----------
http://www.youtube.com/user/Zackaryel |
Megan Maynard
Minmatar Out of Order Tenth Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 21:05:00 -
[26]
TBH all they had to do was get rid of 10k+, add scrams that turn off MWD's, and make web's stack a hell of a lot more and make them 70-80% not 60%.
Game is sluggish since they changed it. Stop, hammer time. |
Sidus Isaacs
Gallente
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 21:13:00 -
[27]
Nanoes are gone, and for good reason.
Webs got hit a tad bit hard, but meh.
|
Ephemeron
North Eastern Swat Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2009.04.01 21:36:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Sidus Isaacs Nanoes are gone, and for good reason.
Webs got hit a tad bit hard, but meh.
If you were capable of objective reasoning and actually followed the 40 page threads discussion all possible aspects of the speed issue, you'd realize that good reason was on the side against the nerf. While those arguing for nerf were usually those unwilling to accept existing tactics and tools for dealing with fast ships.
There was a need for a nerf, definitely, but it was more along the lines of reducing poly rig bonus from 15 to 10%
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |