EVE Search - They won't stop at nerfing the Drake...

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

They won't stop at nerfing the Drake...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Reply to Topic \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Carniflex StarHunt Broken Toys 8	Posted - 2012.01.20 16:17:00 - [31] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Otherwise it will continue until it reaches your favorite craft to fly. I am a bitter vet. I can fly it all. Something will be FOTM.
Nyssa Litari Pator Tech School Minmatar Republic 25	Posted - 2012.01.20 16:40:00 - [32] - Quote Krixtal Icefluxor wrote: And why can I do Level IV's in a freaking cruiser (Strategic) for sakes???? Because it is a Tech 3 cruiser that uses reverse engineered Sleeper technology. A Jovian frigate could solo Level V missions. It may be the case that the training times are too low for Tech 3.
Corina Jarr Spazzoid Enterprises Purpose Built 514	Posted - 2012.01.20 16:54:00 - [33] - Quote This is a buff, not a nerf. 25% resists (which has rediculously low effect when you have high resists) will not be the end of the world. By my (and other's) estimates in EFT and from experience, you will still be able to tank any level 4. Just can't make a huge mistake and still be fine.
Endeavour Starfleet Center for Advanced Studies Gallente Federation 602	Posted - 2012.01.20 21:52:00 - [34] - Quote Lors Dornick wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: (Under greenlight from the CSM instead of telling us about it before them) Are you aware of the concept known as an NDA? A legally binding non-disclosure agreement? Something that all members of all CSM's has signed. Is it possible that such a fact might have something do with why CCP shares their ideas with the CSM before they release those (possibly modified) ideas to the general public? What does the NDA have to do with drake nerfs? This isn't a new graphical engine or new plans for team goals. There is no reason that should be an NDA topic.
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings 321	Posted - 2012.01.20 21:55:00 - [35] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: What does the NDA have to do with drake nerfs? This isn't a new graphical engine or new plans for team goals. There is no reason that should be an NDA topic. Usually NDAs cover any material "exclusively available to privileged eyes only" and you are only allowed to squawk about it if the subject is explicitly public/non-restricted. To prevent crazy market explosions, the final changes are probably going to be secret until they hit SiSi.
Mag's the united Negative Ten. 5180	Posted - 2012.01.20 21:56:00 - [36] - Quote I look forward to the changes, CCP are going to make. Also great thread, would read again. CCP Zulu..... Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience.
Spineker 101	Posted - 2012.01.20 22:00:00 - [37] - Quote Lazors and Autos are going to one shot it now because those two groups with there over powered ships whine like little girls. Bunch pussies crying when they get wooped by a BC and can't one shot it. Now they can just whack it in a shot with their unbalanced ships and weapon systems. GOOD ******* JOB CCP
Lyrrashae Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition 156	Posted - 2012.01.20 22:02:00 - [38] - Quote Petrus Blackshell wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: What does the NDA have to do with drake nerfs? This isn't a new graphical engine or new plans for team goals. There is no reason that should be an NDA topic. Usually NDAs cover any material "exclusively available to privileged eyes only" and you are only allowed to squawk about it if the subject is explicitly public/non-restricted. To prevent crazy market explosions, the final changes are probably going to be secret until they hit SiSi. ^^This is logical. You do realise that that sort of thing has no place in threads like this, right? (And just so we're clear where I stand on this, see my sig., and my post in this thread-naught, post #345.) NO to Drake and Tier 2 Battlecruiser nerfs. NO to Alliances in Faction Warfare NO to "wormhole mass-stabilisers." **** NO to the cancers that are sov-nullsec Alliances metastasising throughout EVE!
Petrus Blackshell Rifterlings 321	Posted - 2012.01.20 22:07:00 - [39] - Quote Lyrrashae wrote: Petrus Blackshell wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: What does the NDA have to do with drake nerfs? This isn't a new graphical engine or new plans for team goals. There is no reason that should be an NDA topic. Usually NDAs cover any material "exclusively available to privileged eyes only" and you are only allowed to squawk about it if the subject is explicitly public/non-restricted. To prevent crazy market explosions, the final changes are probably going to be secret until they hit SiSi. ^^This is logical. You do realise that that sort of thing has no place in threads like this, right? Oh **, I forgot this is GD. ahem** LOL DReak noob tears cry more becasue your win butan ship was nerfd. NDA doesnt matter at all becos Mitani is in goons and he tells them everything so goonswarm can conquer all of eve and create A GIANT NULLSEC RMTING NAPFEST. WAKE UP SHEEPLE
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide. 109	Posted - 2012.01.20 22:08:00 - [40] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: For those that are cheering on CCPs nuking of the Drake from orbit (Under greenlight from the CSM instead of telling us about it before them) Do you seriously think that ships like the Tengu will be spared? I do hope it will not 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys.

Vera Algaert Republic University Minmatar Republic 4	Posted - 2012.01.20 22:16:00 - [41] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: This is a "misery loves company" approach and should be protested against. Otherwise it will continue until it reaches your favorite craft to fly. if you wnt balance you have the choice between "misery loves company" and stat inflation. I prefer the former.
Atticus Lowa Lowa Corp Industries and Security 5	Posted - 2012.01.20 22:23:00 - [42] - Quote so they are planning on removing damage resit for speed? that sounds more like a buff, its actually HARDER to make a ship faster than to buff its dmg resits. and for the tengu to be nerfed would mean other SCs be nerfed too, plus the big reason its a mess, the SC is inherintly too powerful, each subsystem GIVES boni to the ship for its skill, this means a SC gets 6 skill-based buffs... the only option if there such an issue is to get rid of them entirely, in other words the SC cannot be nerfed to a point where its no longer "OP" its DESGINED to be OP, if anything id ask for strategic frigates or strategic battleships, THAT would be a mess... still, some nerfs are needed, but somehow doesn't this open a wound? caldari ships kinda suck outside of the drake and tengu, theyd have to revist caldari ships or risk angering the MAJORITY of eve players, still even i plan to use mammoths indies, and mining barges/exhumers are technically gallente so.....
Lili Lu 140	Posted - 2012.01.20 22:25:00 - [43] - Quote Fon Revedhort wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: For those that are cheering on CCPs nuking of the Drake from orbit (Under greenlight from the CSM instead of telling us about it before them) Do you seriously think that ships like the Tengu will be spared? I do hope it will not One nerf that was mentioned about a year ago is an overall reduction in HM range. This could be why the new Drake was hinted at having a velocity bonus. It may end up with about the same range on HM but the velocity bonus would benefit HAM fits. Similarly a HM range reduction (probably in flight time, as then it would not further delay damage) will impact one of the things that makes Tengus proliferate - their range. Other than that, it appears CCP is concerned about tech III cruisers obsoleting HACs and Command ships. The link subsystems appear to be headed for alteration, and Commands getting a buff. Not sure if there is any plan to nerf combat subsystems to restore HACs or if HACs will be getting a buff. I would rather the latter. A buff to HACs would be nice to give them a leg up on tier 3 BCs, as it is not only tier 2 BCs and tech III cruisers that impact the utility of HACs. edit- and yes with a buff to cruisers and frigs in general for all races this will benefit everyone hopefully and Caldari will nto be stuck thinking Drake, Tengu, ECM boat or nothing (not that I agree it has ever been that way anyway). 2nd edit - Endeavor, patience is what this game is about. Train some. Noone posting on threads atm other than Devs and maybe CSM (under an NDA) know what is coming. Really, learn to love rebalancing. If you still hate it after it hits the test server that would be the appropriate time to post that the sky is falling (whether objectively it will be or not). Oh and train a second race for some perspective on the game as a whole.
Hanoch Wheel Free Wheeling Industries 20	Posted - 2012.01.20 22:35:00 - [44] - Quote Atticus Lowa wrote: so they are planning on removing damage resit for speed? that sounds more like a buff, its actually HARDER to make a ship faster than to buff its dmg resits. and for the tengu to be nerfed would mean other SCs be nerfed too, plus the big reason its a mess, the SC is inherintly too powerful, each subsystem GIVES boni to the ship for its skill, this means a SC gets 6 skill-based buffs... the only option if there such an issue is to get rid of them entirely, in other words the SC cannot be nerfed to a point where its no longer "OP" its DESGINED to be OP, if anything id ask for strategic frigates or strategic battleships, THAT would be a mess... still, some nerfs are needed, but somehow doesn't this open a wound? caldari ships kinda suck outside of the drake and tengu, theyd have to revist caldari ships or risk angering the MAJORITY of eve players, still even i plan to use mammoths indies, and mining barges/exhumers are technically gallente so..... Proposed change is to remove Shield and Kinetic damage bonuses and add bonuses to Rate of Fire and Missile Speed, not ship speed. It is arguably a buff not a nerf, but the refocusing would seem to be unneeded and cause all the drake pilots to have to figure out how to fight with their ship again. It also makes the Drake more like the Caracal which is not a terribly successful ship. Since their stated reasoning is clearly to nerf, I think the fear is that it won't stop there. Not touching the Tengu part of your post. I think the days of wandering around with a nerf bat playing wack-a-mole with the playerbase should probably end. Sure sometimes a nerf may need to happen, but it inevitably alienates players. Not something CCP needs right now, so IMHO that option should be held to a last resort. I think balance via measured and small buffs to other ships over time is the answer.
Conrad Makbure Division One Security 2	Posted - 2012.01.20 22:39:00 - [45] - Quote Nick Bison wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: ... This is a "misery loves company" approach and should be protested against. Otherwise it will continue until it reaches your favorite craft to fly. I fly Gallente, all my ships come pre-nerfed or have already been nerfed to near uselessness. Welcome to the club ... Nick PS - obligatory, "you mad?" This. I'm looking at other empire faction ships now because it's just stupid how weak Gallente is compared to other empire factions. I fly a Hyperion fit for lev 4's and I'm about 6 days away from flying an Abaddon, empty. Probably time to go holy.
Hanoch Wheel Free Wheeling Industries 20	Posted - 2012.01.20 22:48:00 - [46] - Quote Vera Algaert wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: This is a "misery loves company" approach and should be protested against. Otherwise it will continue until it reaches your favorite craft to fly. if you wnt balance you have the choice between "misery loves company" and stat inflation. I prefer the former. That's very EVE of you. I'd say the latter is a more winning strategy. As much as I recognize the value of schadenfreude in this environment, I think the nerf bat needs to be reserved for cases where it absolutely must be used. What you call "stat inflation", I would call progress. In a far future simulation with a wartime economy our ships should be getting better over time. From an in game perspective CCP has a need to make the player base happy with there own game play situation (therefore retaining players and better word of mouth for getting more) and stop pissing people off. Measured buffs on lesser used ships are far more useful than just picking the most used and messing with it until is no longer as popular. So for the sake of a better simulation, a more enthusiastic playerbase, and more cash... CCP, stop messing with whats not broken and fix what is.
Fon Revedhort Monks of War DarkSide. 109	Posted - 2012.01.20 23:52:00 - [47] - Quote Lili Lu wrote: Fon Revedhort wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: For those that are cheering on CCPs nuking of the Drake from orbit (Under greenlight from the CSM instead of telling us about it before them) Do you seriously think that ships like the Tengu will be spared? I do hope it will not One nerf that was mentioned about a year ago is an overall reduction in HM range. This could be why the new Drake was hinted at having a velocity bonus. As a missile user I think range reduction is a huge buff since it will make the game much more interesting and players would have to actually make some trade-offs in their setups. Missile velocity rigs will become useful! That's awesome. Pre-fitted ships are boring. At the moment there's just too much long-range weapons around. I hope TE fix fill follow as well. 2008, CCP Zulu(park): "command ships are fine as is" 2011, CCP Greyscale: "is the Nighthawk actually underpowered?" Nice progress, guys.
Xolve Intaki Armaments Important Internet Spaceship League 711	Posted - 2012.01.20 23:53:00 - [48] - Quote Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Max Von Sydow wrote: NERF? I'd almost call that a buff. Without the tank the drake is useless. A bit of extra range wont help when your expensive BC hull is instapopped by a small alpha fleet. Mise well fly a BS cruiser to get through the CTA and then go puke in some belt in frustration while an alliance leader counts this months moon goo production. Confirming 25m is expensive now. Excuse me while I laugh myself out of my chair. I do love when pubbies speak of moon goo and CTAs, and call drakes expensive ships... Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator.
Lyrrashae Crushed Ambitions Reckless Ambition 156	Posted - 2012.01.21 05:28:00 - [49] - Quote Xolve wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: Max Von Sydow wrote: NERF? I'd almost call that a buff. Without the tank the drake is useless. A bit of extra range wont help when your expensive BC hull is instapopped by a small alpha fleet. Mise well fly a BS cruiser to get through the CTA and then go puke in some belt in frustration while an alliance leader counts this months moon goo production. Confirming 25m is expensive now. Excuse me while I laugh myself out of my chair. I do love when pubbies speak of moon goo and CTAs, and call drakes expensive ships... Going by the classic definition of that gratingly stupid word, you're as much a pubbie as those you're trying to insult, pubbie. So why don't you just like, close that second ***** in your face? Pubbie. NO to Drake and Tier 2 Battlecruiser nerfs. NO to Alliances in Faction Warfare NO to "wormhole mass-stabilisers." ** NO to the cancers that are sov-nullsec Alliances metastasising throughout EVE!
Mag's the united Negative Ten. 5180	Posted - 2012.01.21 14:00:00 - [50] - Quote Lyrrashae wrote: Xolve wrote: Confirming 25m is expensive now. Excuse me while I laugh myself out of my chair. I do love when pubbies speak of moon goo and CTAs, and call drakes expensive ships... Going by the classic definition of that gratingly stupid word, you're as much a pubbie as those you're trying to insult, pubbie. So why don't you just like, close that second ***** in your face? Pubbie. You really burned him with that post, I'm not sure he'll ever recover tbh. CCP Zulu.....** Forcing players to dock at the captain's quarters is a form of what we actually wanted to get through, which is making Incarna a seamless part of the EVE Online experience.

Andski GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation 1606	Posted - 2012.01.21 14:07:00 - [51] - Quote the issue isn't the drake, it's the fact that it overshadows literally every other missile platform in the game short of the Tengu buff the nighthawk, make the Cerberus relevant again and round out the Tengu so that it doesn't make literally every missile ship irrelevant done!
Xolve Intaki Armaments Important Internet Spaceship League 715	Posted - 2012.01.21 14:56:00 - [52] - Quote Lyrrashae wrote: Going by the classic definition of that gratingly stupid word, you're as much a pubbie as those you're trying to insult, pubbie. So why don't you just like, close that second ******* in your face? Pubbie. Going by the classic definition, yes I am a member on the SomethingAwful Forums, therefore your argument is invalid. Have a nice day! Pubbie. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator.
Nephilius Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State 291	Posted - 2012.01.21 15:11:00 - [53] - Quote Krixtal Icefluxor wrote: Endeavour Starfleet wrote: For those that are cheering on CCPs nuking of the Drake from orbit (Under greenlight from the CSM instead of telling us about it before them) Do you seriously think that ships like the Tengu will be spared? Under this new return to the Incarna mindset in my opinion. It is not about fixing lower tier or higher class craft so they actually get used in fleet battles. It is about nuking anything that is actually useable for a solo pilot or small group. The Tengu will coming if you sit back and let this Drake nerf go on without protest. This is a "misery loves company" approach and should be protested against. Otherwise it will continue until it reaches your favorite craft to fly. Between my Drake and my Tengu......a Nighthawk or Vulture are REDUNDANT options. That Drake has been too overpowered for FIVE years at least. Time for it to get a zap. And I love my Drake. And why can I do Level IV's in a freaking cruiser (Strategic) for sakes???? The game ships are indeed imbalanced and this is a much welcome change. Instead of nerfing though, why don't they buff? The Nighthawk and its t2 brethren should stand head and shoulders above their t1 variants, and yet they really don't in some cases. It really doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me to leave what is broke still broken, and instead look somewhere else for the problem. Don't get me wrong, I am interested to see how the new bonuses would play out. It just seems like CCP doesn't have a clue how to fix the things that need fixing and instead give us something else totally unrelated in order to placate us. In the grand scheme of things, the Drake is pretty far down on that list. If you bring down a giant, you're a hero. If you kill something weak-even if it has to die-then you will endure contempt.
Jaroslav Unwanted Brutor Tribe Minmatar Republic 1289	Posted - 2012.01.21 15:13:00 - [54] - Quote just fix cruise missiles .. and be done with it .. who need 270km range dont mind me.
Berendas Clandestine Vector THE SPACE P0LICE 176	Posted - 2012.01.21 15:55:00 - [55] - Quote Why should the Tengu be spared? It's just as overpowered as the Drake is. Points at the alliance tournaments [Queue Caldari pilots' victim complex]
Kahega Amielden Rifterlings 107	Posted - 2012.01.21 16:04:00 - [56] - Quote Oh my, I'm getting flashbacks. One of the most dumbest arguments (and yet very often repeated) against the nanonerf years ago was that it was an intended nerf to small gang PVP. The nanonerf didn't have anything to do with balance, the fact that afterburners were completely useless, the fact that web/MWD was mandatory, or the fact that some ships were simply uncatchable...it was because CCP just really hates small gangs. ...It was a stupid argument then and it's a stupid argument now. Yes, things that are overpowered also happen to be overpowered in small groups or solo. The drake's features which lead people to think it is overpowered apply equally well to solo/small gang and to fleets - it's not like drake blobs are unheard of in 0.0.
Skydell Space Mermaids 112	Posted - 2012.01.21 16:07:00 - [57] - Quote This isn't the first time they nerfed in EVE. Hell it isn't the first time they nerfed Drake. Missle nerf was a Drake Nerf. People think the Drake is OP'ed now, you should have seen them before the nano nerf. What makes me question these things is the focus on the ships. Has EVE truly been reduced to ship bonus? Nothing is being "fixed" if your answer is to tweak a few ship bonuses. That just tells me they ran out of ideas.
Asuka Solo Stark Fujikawa Stark Enterprises 1114	Posted - 2012.01.21 16:19:00 - [58] - Quote Under this goon/testie supported CSM, the Eve Online sandbox is slowly turning into a 0.0 napfest swarm alliance favored, no-PvE sandfort box game focused on 1 thing only. Sub cap PvP in blobs with Caldari being the new minmatar, while caps and supers are reduced to useless doorstops. This drake nerf is only the tip of the ice berg. Watch this space.
Xolve Intaki Armaments Important Internet Spaceship League 716	Posted - 2012.01.21 16:21:00 - [59] - Quote Berendas wrote: Why should the Tengu be spared? It's just as overpowered as the Drake is. Points at the alliance tournaments [Queue Caldari pilots' victim complex] In all fairness.. a Tengu plus Subsystems costs about 20-25 times what a drake does (and that is not factoring in mods..). So yeah in that price range I would expect it to perform on a much greater wavelength then a 20m isk battlecruiser. Inappropriate signature removed. Navigator.
Skydell Space Mermaids 112	Posted - 2012.01.21 16:24:00 - [60] - Quote Asuka Solo wrote: Under this goon/testie supported CSM, the Eve Online sandbox is slowly turning into a 0.0 napfest swarm alliance favored, no-PvE sandfort box game focused on 1 thing only. Sub cap PvP in blobs with Caldari being the new minmatar, while caps and supers are reduced to useless doorstops. This drake nerf is only the tip of the ice berg. Watch this space. Goons? They died years ago, sold the name to a bunch of internet lawyers and politicians. They are part of the problem, a big part. EVE has no balls anymore.


	Reply to Topic
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.