Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Roime
Shiva Furnace
2359
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:18:00 -
[271] - Quote
unimatrix0030 wrote:So will a blaster-talos be able to hit a large tower after this nerf? If not there won't be any gallente ship usuable to remove posses from C1 wormholes... .
Rail Talos.
This TE change doesn't really mean much, but the nerd rage of the whinematards is highly amusing. As clueless as ever, they keep equalling ship speed and range to player skill, and go on about complaining that removing OGBs hurt skilled players in the same post.
Furthermore there really aren't that many blaster ships that use TEs and would suffer in any meaningful way from this tweak.
-á- All I really wanted was to build a castle among the stars - |
Hakan MacTrew
Caledonian Light Industries Sick N' Twisted
428
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:18:00 -
[272] - Quote
At least there will be more reason to fit a TC over a TE now. I never understood why an active module could not match the performance of a passive module.
Any word on wether there has been any progress on a missile version of the TE/TC and what will be don't about missile TDs? MODULAR DRONES
MORE ORE SHIPS |
Liang Nuren
Heretic Army Atrocitas
3231
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:19:00 -
[273] - Quote
Roime wrote:unimatrix0030 wrote:So will a blaster-talos be able to hit a large tower after this nerf? If not there won't be any gallente ship usuable to remove posses from C1 wormholes... . Rail Talos. This TE change doesn't really mean much, but the nerd rage of the whinematards is highly amusing. As clueless as ever, they keep equalling ship speed and range to player skill, and go on about complaining that removing OGBs hurt skilled players in the same post. Furthermore there really aren't that many blaster ships that use TEs and would suffer in any meaningful way from this tweak.
Hmmm... Talos, Brutix, Vigilant, Deimos... that's about it really. I'm super curious how this will all pan out.
-Liang Normally on 5:00 -> 9-10:00 Eve (Aus TZ?) Blog: http://liangnuren.wordpress.com PVP Videos: http://www.youtube.com/user/LiangNuren/videos Twitter: http://twitter.com/LiangNuren
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
490
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:21:00 -
[274] - Quote
Caelum Dominus wrote:I agree with your sentiments on Remote Sensor Boosters, but I don't think you need to nerf Tracking Enhancers. They may break some ships, yet on most they are fine. I think you should look at those ships instead. Or maybe this was intended all along and the ships are properly balanced based on this?
You don't think TE needs nerfing because you have reasons for it, or because you use them so much? |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:23:00 -
[275] - Quote
We all see who's most active in this thread - pandemic legion. This proves that PL is controlling the game as they please.
This is newest idea from PL - to nerf tracking falloff and optimal.
|
idontcare4
NO LOCAL INDUSTRIES
14
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:23:00 -
[276] - Quote
In all honesty there does not need to be a nerf to falloff and optimal. Minnie ships have been nerfed, I would consider great caution before you nerf all kiting ships too greatly. If say talos cane etc are going to have **** falloffs then there's going to be very little skill left within eve for people to expand ability. Kiting is a concept of its own, but had well know counters. You will be to a great extent be making this skill and ability null and void. Would refrain from any hasty daft decisions. If everything is going to be nerfed to the extent that you have to sit ontop of the hostile to do affective damage then again think, there's little skill on sitting ontop of your enemy, as the more powerful ship or the better fit ship will win without being able to use skill to avade if needs be. I just see TEs as dumbing eve further down. Enough damage has been created by doing this is the past![/i][/i] |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
490
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:24:00 -
[277] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:We all see who's most active in this thread - pandemic legion. This proves that PL is controlling the game as they please.
This is newest idea from PL - to nerf tracking falloff and optimal.
Please stop posting |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:25:00 -
[278] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:PAPULA wrote:We all see who's most active in this thread - pandemic legion. This proves that PL is controlling the game as they please.
This is newest idea from PL - to nerf tracking falloff and optimal.
Please stop posting or what ?
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1356
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:25:00 -
[279] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:We all see who's most active in this thread - pandemic legion. This proves that PL is controlling the game as they please.
This is newest idea from PL - to nerf tracking falloff and optimal.
Yes, I'm going to nerf your fall off and rule the universe in brawling Moa's. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
490
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:28:00 -
[280] - Quote
idontcare4 wrote:In all honesty there does not need to be a nerf to falloff and optimal. Minnie ships have been nerfed, I would consider great caution before you nerf all kiting ships too greatly. If say talos cane etc are going to have **** falloffs then there's going to be very little skill left within eve for people to expand ability. Kiting is a concept of its own, but had well know counters. You will be to a great extent be making this skill and ability null and void. Would refrain from any hasty daft decisions. If everything is going to be nerfed to the extent that you have to sit ontop of the hostile to do affective damage then again think, there's little skill on sitting ontop of your enemy, as the more powerful ship or the better fit ship will win without being able to use skill to avade if needs be. I just see TEs as dumbing eve further down. Enough damage has been created by doing this is the past! In all honesty, yes they need a nerf.
Define "sh**" falloff. Is going from 25 to 22km "sh**"?
Besides, if everything is nerfed, then nothing is nerfed.
If every ship in the game got all stats multiplied by 10, would they have been buffed? Literally nothing would change, since every ship would perform EXACTLY the same compared to the rest of the ships. |
|
McBorsk
Multispace Technologies Inc Yulai Federation
10
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:28:00 -
[281] - Quote
To make up for this, you should up the optimal for artillery turrets by 20%. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
490
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:30:00 -
[282] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:PAPULA wrote:We all see who's most active in this thread - pandemic legion. This proves that PL is controlling the game as they please.
This is newest idea from PL - to nerf tracking falloff and optimal.
Please stop posting or what ? It's the truth. By this logic, the flying spaghetti monster is real, god exists, homeopathy works and vaccines cause autism.
What do they all have in common? Oh that's right. NO EVIDENCE. |
Kaal Redrum
The Tuskers
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:31:00 -
[283] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:Kaal Redrum wrote:I guess the AC shield - Cane, Tornado, Rupture, Stabber, Vagabond, Lokis, Sleipnirs and Scram kiting - Slasher, Rifter, Firetail, Wolf, Jaguar all died with a collective smash across the face (add gallente to the list)
They really hate ACs or really want Matari pilots to use Arties when shield tanking
Please fix unbonused EWAR usage rather than try and ruin the frigate, cruiser, destroyer, BCruiser balance youve spent months achieving with this stupidly unneeded change. The Applied damage nerf to every blaster and AC ship is so far reaching, i dont think youve thought this through. so how they die with that small nerf ?tell us oh and add gallente to the list... :D that makes me laugh butthurt arent you?
Naomi Knight: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Naomi+Knight
For a moment I thought I might just explain you, step by step, how it ruins shield tanked AC ships and scram kite AC ships... then I saw ur BC profile.
I wont bother - go kill something, anything, learn this game, then youre welcome to have an opinion on fittings and PvP balance.
Till then, keep trolling son.
If you'de like to be schooled about TE mechanics and how this 33% nerf ruins above fits, just look me up ingame. I don't mind helping noobobs.
(And if youre posting with an alt, then stop failing and post with your main)
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1356
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:31:00 -
[284] - Quote
beware my moa army. |
Ouya Sfahei
Horizon Corp
8
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:33:00 -
[285] - Quote
Maybe you guys need these,
Tracking Enhancer Rebalancing
Remote Sensor Booster Balancing |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
490
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:33:00 -
[286] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote:Naomi Knight: http://eve.battleclinic.com/killboard/combat_record.php?type=player&name=Naomi+KnightFor a moment I thought I might just explain you, step by step, how it ruins shield tanked AC ships and scram kite AC ships... then I saw ur BC profile. I wont bother - go kill something, anything, learn this game, then youre welcome to have an opinion on fittings and PvP balance. Till then, keep trolling son. If you'de like to be schooled about TE mechanics and how this 33% nerf ruins above fits, just look me up ingame. I don't mind helping noobobs. (And if youre posting with an alt, then stop failing and post with your main) You know, it's not a 33% total range nerf.
Fire up EFT and fit TE I's instead of TE II's and you see how this does NOT break any fits |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1356
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:34:00 -
[287] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote:
If you'de like to be schooled about TE mechanics and how this 33% nerf ruins above fits, just look me up ingame. I don't mind helping noobobs.
School me, most of those ships you listed lose under 3km falloff and 1km optimal. Tell me how that massive loss in range makes those ships no longer viable. Tell me how they've died.
Use actual numbers, show me what the actual number differences are and then tell me how that ruins those fits.
I'll wait right here while you do the math on your fits., or you can post them and I can do the math for you, then we can talk it over.
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
490
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:35:00 -
[288] - Quote
Ugh, horrible site.
Here is the imgur album:
http://imgur.com/a/1U5qj |
Rek Seven
DEEP-SPACE CO-OP LTD Polarized.
652
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:36:00 -
[289] - Quote
So CCP want to make it harder to insta lock people at gates, by reducing the scan res bonus on remote sensor boosters. Genius!
... Oh wait, what's stopping these gate camping fleets from using more remote sebo's to compensate?
What you should be doing is making all T2 modules better than the meta 4 variants. It's ridiculous that many of the meta modules in game have less fitting requirements but are just as strong as their T2 variants. Is my bitter vet membership card in the mail? |
Lev Arturis
Dark-Rising
19
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:41:00 -
[290] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:So CCP want to make it harder to insta lock people at gates, by reducing the scan res bonus on remote sensor boosters. Genius!
... Oh wait, what's stopping these gate camping fleets from using more remote sebo's to compensate?
Stacking penalties...
|
|
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
490
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:42:00 -
[291] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote: ... Oh wait, what's stopping these gate camping fleets from using more remote sebo's to compensate?
Stacking penalties |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1358
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:47:00 -
[292] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote: Oh wait, what's stopping these gate camping fleets from using more remote sebo's to compensate?
You're aware of stacking penalties right?
You're aware that after 3 mods the diminishing return on investment makes it not REALLY worth it right?
From 1-3 Rsebo's you get a noticeable difference, then from 4-6 you can't even reach the same boost as the first Rsebo that was applied.
|
War Kitten
Panda McLegion
1798
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:51:00 -
[293] - Quote
Fon Revedhort wrote:AWESOME! I'm really suprised it took you that long, though
This.
I remember my jaw dropping when TE's got boosted to the level they're at now and thinking it wouldn't be long until they got nerfed back into balance. That was what, about 4 years back when Minnie guns sucked and overnight became Winmatar.
I guess it was long in coming, but better late than never.
I find that without a good mob to provide one for them, most people would have no mentality at all. |
Kaal Redrum
The Tuskers
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:55:00 -
[294] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Kaal Redrum wrote:
If you'de like to be schooled about TE mechanics and how this 33% nerf ruins above fits, just look me up ingame. I don't mind helping noobobs.
School me, most of those ships you listed lose under 3km falloff and 1km optimal. Tell me how that massive loss in range makes those ships no longer viable. Tell me how they've died. Use actual numbers, show me what the actual number differences are and then tell me how that ruins those fits. I'll wait right here while you do the math on your fits., or you can post them and I can do the math for you, then we can talk it over.
Lets take the standard Shield-AC Cane. Fit used: [Hurricane, Shield 425s T2] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II Large Shield Extender II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M Med Neut
any Shield Rigs you like
344 cold gun dps at 22km with current TEs 297 cold gun dps at 22km with new TEs ~14% loss in applied DPS at the desired engagement range
The latest version of the Shield AC Cane with -1 Med Neut already was below a Drake or Scorch Harby or HAM Prophecy's applied DPS at above ranges - in gank, tank and utility. (Speed still in its favor, barely)
Would you like to more?
Maybe you want me to now run the math with links included? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
491
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:58:00 -
[295] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote: Lets take the standard Shield-AC Cane. Fit used: [Hurricane, Shield 425s T2] Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Gyrostabilizer II Tracking Enhancer II Tracking Enhancer II Damage Control II
Experimental 10MN Microwarpdrive I Warp Disruptor II Large Shield Extender II Large F-S9 Regolith Shield Induction
425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M 425mm AutoCannon II, Barrage M Med Neut
any Shield Rigs you like
344 cold gun dps at 22km with current TEs 297 cold gun dps at 22km with new TEs ~14% loss in applied DPS at the desired engagement range
The latest version of the Shield AC Cane with -1 Med Neut already was below a Drake or Scorch Harby or Prophecy's applied DPS at above ranges - in gank, tank and utility. (Speed still in its favor, barely)
Would you like to more?
Maybe you want me to now run the math with links included?
You should post at which range they have the same DPS.
Also, why are you whining? It's a nerf, it's supposed to be like this. And can you honestly tell me that you have perfect control when orbiting, staying at exactly 22km at all times? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1360
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:08:00 -
[296] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote:
Maybe you want me to now run the math with links included?
Who cares bout the links, your numbers are static against a sitting target at the edge of your fall off (actually past the edge of your fall off to the point that you're in your second tier of falloff). Realistically you'll be doing about 200 DPS with the post buff cane and 250 with your current cane.
Tell me more about how a collective change of 50 dps when fighting at the worst possible range kills the ship as a whole.
The collective change for those that are wondering on his fit for ranges?
Pre TE Nerf:
1.9+20
Post TE Nerf:
1.8+17
I'm going to tell you honestly that you'll likely never notice that difference. You're not as good at Eve as you think you are, the likely hood that you'll be consistantly able to hold at 22km is pretty damn slim, you will bounce in and out of that range with a fair degree of consistency.
So tell me more about your on paper DPS and how the collective change of 50 DPS at the extreme end of your range nerfs your ship.
The truth is the difference isn't really that big. Lets do another fit that you're claiming is "dead". |
Xyris Rixx
Haruspex Industries Wrong Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:08:00 -
[297] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:Xyris Rixx wrote:Is there a current trend to nerf shield tanking into the ground when compared to armor tanking? For years shield tanking was almost obsolete and irrelevent with megas and apocs being the ships of choice for fleet combat. I dont know who told you this but its an outright lie. Dominion launched 4 years ago, the Maelstrom was one of the most common main line battleship across that 4 years. The welp cane, the tengu, the munin fleet. I'm not sure who told you that shield tanking was obsolete but you should be mad at them.
Sure , but 4 years is not a massive amount of time in comparison to the 10 years the game has been runing and in that time we have seen quite a shift away from BS's being the sole workhorse to include things like AHAC/tengu fleets. I remember being in massive sniper apoc/mega double-doomsday tanked BS fleets - this was before projectile weapons were buffed. For years armor tanking was the preferred option for large fleets, and if it appeared I was saying that shield tanking was currently obsolete then I have not explained myself.
My point was that we are seeing a trend to buff armor fleets - their main disadvantages were that reps at the end of the cycle were ****** under pre-tidi lag which has now been fixed and overall armor reps are more efficient. The agility buff has significantly reduced the agility advantage shield tanked BS's had, and the effective devaluing of free lowslots with this nerf starts to tip the scales in favor of armor taning as a mainline doctrine. Both CFC and HBC are switching to Techfleet/foxcats as a main fleet comp - both of which ar armor tanked.
So no - I'm not bitching about this nerf - as your previous posts showed, this is not a massive nerf and more of a refocusing, I was really just trying to get clarification on CCPs opinion of the shield/armor tanking choice atm - is it considered to be fair, is one over powered and is there an internal decision to pull one into line withthe other - especially since the uniquness between the two systems is starting to be blurred. |
Paikis
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
726
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:09:00 -
[298] - Quote
ITT: People who think you should be able to KITE with SHORT RANGE weapons using SHORT RANGE ammo (ACs) Also ITT: People who think you should be able to KITE with the SHORTEST RANGE weapons in the game. (Blasters)
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1360
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:11:00 -
[299] - Quote
Xyris Rixx wrote:, I was really just trying to get clarification on CCPs opinion of the shield/armor tanking choice atm - is it considered to be fair, is one over powered and is there an internal decision to pull one into line withthe other - especially since the uniquness between the two systems is starting to be blurred.
CCP have stated on several occasions that they believe that Shield tanking is a bit skewed and too strong at the moment and have been taking steps to bring armor tanking back in line.
|
Little Dragon Khamez
Guardians of the Underworld White Mountain Coalition
88
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 10:12:00 -
[300] - Quote
Ganthrithor wrote:I don't really get the RSB nerf either. Guy guys we need a way to make burning back to gates easier. Because this game really needs to be more forgiving of pilot error.
You make a mistake, you die. The system is perfect. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |