Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Everyone Dies
Lucky Tampon
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 01:44:00 -
[1]
Check out these great ideas to fix the problem of speed in eve:
http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=728665 here's what the op posted: "Nanoships blessing or curse?
Right now they broke the whole risk vs. reward system that is nicely used if it comes to explain how things should work in EvE. How can we change the speed of ships without breaking those ships who were intended to be really fast, like interceptors?
I don't see anything wrong with a ship that tries to move straight on with fast speed to get away from something. But a cruiser orbiting a ship at a range of 20km - 30km with more than 4000m/s is just wrong, that should be the thing of interceptors only, letting alone the Vagabond for now. Should a cruiser be able to outrun an interceptor? No they don't. Should any other ship be very fast and agile at the same time as interceptors were supposed
to be? I don't think so either. So how can we achieve to get all ship speeds in line again? I got a few ideas about that.
For starters change the way of how overdrives, inertia stabilizers and nanofibers affect the speed. There are two ways i can think of right now...
1. - Overdrives: Change the cargo capacity penalty to an inertia penalty. This would prevent ships from beeing agile and fast at the same time - Inertia stabs: Chance the signature radius penalty to a speed penalty. This would prevent fast ships compensating the lack of agility. - Nanofibers: Leave them alone, they would be a module that affects both attributes a little bit. A ship gets a little more agile and a little faster with an AB/MWD fitted. - Improve the inertia of interceptors so it would compensate the use of two overdrive modules. - Allow only 3 mods or rigs to be fitted at the same time that affect either of the following attributes: inertia, mass, speed
This way people would have to decide to be either very agile or fast, but not both at a time! Interceptors would not be affected very much, cause they are agile as it is and with the inertia improvement they could fit overdrives without having to suffer from a bad inertia. Even covert ops would not suffer from that cause they still could fit overdrives to go fast as they are cloaked.
2. - Overdrives: Change the cargo capacity penalty to an inertia penalty. Change the bonus to be a thrust bonus (AB/MWD) instead of a speed % bonus. This way the speeds of "supposed to be slow boats" wont get through the roof anymore, cause the additional speed is based on the MWD/AB now. - Inertia stabs: Change the signature penalty to a speed penalty. If you want an agile ship you won't go as fast anymore. - Improve the inertia of interceptors so it would compensate the use of two overdrive modules. - Nanofibers: Leave them alone again, little profits for both, speed and agility. - Allow only 3 mods or rigs to be fitted at the same time that affect either of the following attributes: inertia, mass, speed
Even with this solution fast and agile are out of the picture if they were not supposed to be. Interceptors would stay where they are. This of course would change the behaviour of cloaked ships.
As you may see that both suggestions make use of a limit to speed affecting modules, because there are just to many of them. Right now we have 3 attributes that are affecting speed and agility. Speed, mass and inertia. With so many possibilities affecting both speed and agility there needs to be a change to get the ships that are out of line, back into line again. How to do that is not an easy decision, i personally favor my first suggestion. Of course some fine tuning still has to be done, but this way it would not hurt ships that want to be agile, just both at the same time is not possible anymore and would help a lot to get ships into combat again. If you can't get past a specific speed anymore that would help even weapons to track targets again."
|
Everyone Dies
Lucky Tampon
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 01:45:00 -
[2]
Obviously I agree with this issue and believe the OP has many fair and good balancing ideas in regards to the problem of speed in eve.
|
Danton Marcellus
Nebula Rasa Holdings Nebula Rasa
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 01:45:00 -
[3]
It's well beyond a problem, it's the nano plague.
Should/would/could have, HAVE you chav!
Also Known As |
mr mhc
University of Caille
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 02:11:00 -
[4]
how many of you have actually flown a "nano" ship? vaga rapier huggin ishtar nano zealot nano deimos
??? These ships melt like butter. Cost a hell of alot of isk and they cant sustain an MWD forever like an Interceptor.
|
Zeba
Pator Tech School
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 02:21:00 -
[5]
Buff Warrior II's to the point that over time a ship with a drone bay can drive off a single nano ship as they will usualy have sacrificed any tank for the speed fit. Tweak it to be long enough for a gang a few systems away to make it to the kill but not the current perma jam that is available to current nano setups. Nano is fine we just need a counter. --------------------- Q: WTF! Why?! A: Because I can. --------------------- |
In Theory
Abh Empire Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 02:27:00 -
[6]
Well, you can add a many more numerous cruiser class ships (and interdictors) onto the "can-be-nano'd" list. It's not uncommon to nano a Curse...
But the true problem is it's fairly easy to stack speed modules and rigs and keep boosting the speed of ships- irregardless of the ship's class. I'd think it'd be fairly easy to do as several Devs/Mods have claimed is an option they're looking at; penalties for stacking speed mods... fitting 3 overdrives? Only one will get it's full bonus, the rest will barely be worth fitting. Do this only towards modules affecting the same stat-- as in penalties on stacking +% speed mods, but a penalty won't be applied if 1 speed and 1 agility mod are fitted. So it's still reasonable to get a cruiser going pretty fast, but you'll never see anything bigger going much faster.
I'd also like to make it harder for certain ship classes to be fast, but ships like recons can at least get up to a fast enough speed to survive... but a Heavy Assault Cruiser or Heavy Interdictor isn't flying around at 4+km/s. Recon ships are sort of scout ships in their own right, so they should be able to at least get up to 4km/s, interceptors being much faster at 6-10km/s (depending on implants and mods).
A lot of people don't understand though, that to get HACs going 6km/s, it takes a LOT of isk- implants and rigs are not cheap... whereas interceptors needs less to get 6km/s, but if given as much as a HAC puts into speed, they get 10km/s or more.
Just a thought. Anything bigger than a frigate really shouldn't easily outrun missiles... Recon cruisers, if you put the money into them would be ok- but something as destructive as a HAC just shouldn't be a super-fast ship. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Well, that should've worked... |
Darth Pheonix
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 02:30:00 -
[7]
Only problem I see with nano ships is that one nano ship CAN'T KILL YOU. Even the strongest nano ship, the ishtar, with it's 5 heavy drones, puts out a measly 475 dps, which is cake for any competant battleship pilot. So really, what's the real issue here?
BLOBS!
A blob of battleships will kill someone just as effectively as a blob of nano ships. The difference being, when you try to bring your bigger blob to kill the attackers, the nano ships do EXACTLY WHAT THEY ARE SUPPOSED TO DO. They RUN AWAY, with LITTLE OR NO KILLS. So you basically stalemate.
I don't have a problem with the call for nerf (actually, I do, I think you should think your way out rather than whine to CCP, but whatever, babies). However, don't try to shroud it as you believe it's what's good for the game. Just come out and say, "My large blob should beat your blob, and the only way to resolve a fight in EVE is to have someone get killmails".
|
Matrixcvd
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 03:02:00 -
[8]
Eve has no speed problem, stop blowing hot air, you might pass out
|
Kia Rash
The Phalanx Expeditionary Conglomerate Blue Sky Consortium
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 03:04:00 -
[9]
in ne of the inerviews they showed during the tourneys, one of the devs said they were perhaps looking to make all speed and agil mods and rigs have one stacking penalty pool.
that sounded like a good idea.
|
Redglare's Demise
Mutually Assured Distraction
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 03:05:00 -
[10]
Nanos have already been nerfed, remember the nano phoons ect?
Anyway... pretty dumb post IMO.
Not everyone wants to fight with tank n' spank ships all the time.
Giant meatpie foundation |
|
Jade190
School of Applied Knowledge
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 03:06:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Kia Rash in ne of the inerviews they showed during the tourneys, one of the devs said they were perhaps looking to make all speed and agil mods and rigs have one stacking penalty pool.
that sounded like a good idea.
Then all tanking mods should stack nerf each other (as in, different hardeners, like an Thermal and Kinetic, stack nerf each other). Seriously, tanking is out of control. I've seen a battleship tank FIVE crusiers, it's just not fair. ------ Fighting stupidity since before you were stupid. |
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 03:09:00 -
[12]
Speed fits exist because every one else is expecting to fight orbit+web+scram Tank VS DPS.
|
Methesda
The Avengers
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 03:35:00 -
[13]
Quote: Should a cruiser be able to outrun an interceptor? No they don't. Should any other ship be very fast and agile at the same time as interceptors were supposed
to be? I don't think so either.
You lost me here tbh.
Just because YOUR interceptor doesn't go as fast as someone elses nano-cruiser doesn't mean 'a cruiser be able to outrun an interceptor'.
A cruiser with a MWD will outrun an interceptor without.
And don't 'Who the **** runs an interceptor without a MWD???'. One of the most popular Claw setups ever did just that.
This gives me no faith in the rest of your post being thoughtful and well researched.
TBH, speed isn't that bad. There are cases where ships go to the extreme, and as has been pointed out, these are worth a LOT of money, and should these guys lose their ships, they pay for it.
Sure its annoying, but there are counters. I've used Scram drones, navigation (into asteroid belts) and flanking tactics in gang to beat nano's, and I've lost a fair share of nano's to simply being stupid and panicking due to unforeseen circumstances.
We have overheated and/or faction, and recon ships, and also NOS to help. A vagabond does very little damage outside 20km, and an ishatar's drones are NOT nano.
Frankly, I believe that people like you would complain about the next thing that kills you which you don't have, understand, or want to try, if we killed off nano. If it was really as effective as you would have us believe everyone would be flying nano, and that simply isn't even <close> to being true.
|
Infinity111
Red. Red Republic
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 05:08:00 -
[14]
i am nanopilot but i agree with op wholehartedly. i fly now deimos and ishtar which are nanoed but i dont really want to. i do it only because i had to adapt to this rediculous situation. if and when this speed freaking will be brought to end, i will be satisfied. interceptors and other small ships are meant to be fast, not anything bigger.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 05:12:00 -
[15]
Speed fits exist because Webbed VS many = Dead
Webs are the problem as they are one size fits all modules
|
Quesa
Shadows of Valor Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 05:38:00 -
[16]
I've always had a problem with Heavy Assault Cruisers hitting the speeds that they can. I was persued by a Vaga the other day that was doing close to 15k. I DO understand that he's probably got high end snakes, overheating and most likely some officer stuff...but where is the "Heavy" in that assault cruiser?
As the above poster mentioned, Web's are the problem, however I believe they should be buffed and come in different sizes. Or, instead of different sizes, have optimal ranges with falloffs like turrets.
Say you have a "Large" webber that can only fit on BS+, it has an optimal of 20-30k, and a falloff of about 20k, anything past the optimal it starts losing it's effectiveness. So maybe at the end of it's falloff it will only be 50% effective in slowing down it's target. The purpose is not to give EVERY ship a 1v1 ability against nano's, but a group of ships using their webs at the edge of falloff would be able to slow down a nano ship enough to hit it.
Right now the best anti-nano ships are from 1 race, yet so many of the races have extremely viable nano ships.
Also, the creation of some very fast light webber/CapNuker drones, or boosting the speed of light tech2 drones will also help with this.
In the end, I feel there has been an injection of far to much obtainable speed, speeds that should only be reached by interceptors.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 05:45:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Marcus TheMartin on 19/03/2008 05:44:57
Originally by: Quesa I've always had a problem with Heavy Assault Cruisers hitting the speeds that they can. I was persued by a Vaga the other day that was doing close to 15k. I DO understand that he's probably got high end snakes, overheating and most likely some officer stuff...but where is the "Heavy" in that assault cruiser?
As the above poster mentioned, Web's are the problem, however I believe they should be buffed and come in different sizes. Or, instead of different sizes, have optimal ranges with falloffs like turrets.
Say you have a "Large" webber that can only fit on BS+, it has an optimal of 20-30k, and a falloff of about 20k, anything past the optimal it starts losing it's effectiveness. So maybe at the end of it's falloff it will only be 50% effective in slowing down it's target. The purpose is not to give EVERY ship a 1v1 ability against nano's, but a group of ships using their webs at the edge of falloff would be able to slow down a nano ship enough to hit it.
Right now the best anti-nano ships are from 1 race, yet so many of the races have extremely viable nano ships.
Also, the creation of some very fast light webber/CapNuker drones, or boosting the speed of light tech2 drones will also help with this.
In the end, I feel there has been an injection of far to much obtainable speed, speeds that should only be reached by interceptors.
giving ratting battleships anti speed fit modules is not the answer you can fit drone mods to speed up your warrior 2's. Giving battleships a 20-30km web is not what I meant by one sized fits all modules being too powerful. Webs allow you to dictate range with a 20-30km webber battleships are on the top of non capital warfare once again.
Giving webs that are specialized and have reduced effectiveness on other ship sizes (capsule,shuttle,frig,destroyer,cruiser,battle cruiser, battleship, capital) will end the need for speed
|
Quesa
Shadows of Valor Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 05:57:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin Edited by: Marcus TheMartin on 19/03/2008 05:44:57
Originally by: Quesa I've always had ...<snip>... should only be reached by interceptors.
giving ratting battleships anti speed fit modules is not the answer you can fit drone mods to speed up your warrior 2's. Giving battleships a 20-30km web is not what I meant by one sized fits all modules being too powerful. Webs allow you to dictate range with a 20-30km webber battleships are on the top of non capital warfare once again.
Giving webs that are specialized and have reduced effectiveness on other ship sizes (capsule,shuttle,frig,destroyer,cruiser,battle cruiser, battleship, capital) will end the need for speed
Not sure what you mean by the "need for speed", which is a CCP initiative to speed up the server performance.
I was brainstorming ideas where more powerful webs could be utilized by larger ships to extend the range in conjunction with a new functionality to further extend ranges with decreased performance. If anything is once size fits all it's the theory of nano'ing...at least beyond the one size fits all argument about webers.
|
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 06:06:00 -
[19]
4 km/s should be only for interceptors? That's a pretty pathetic interceptor that can only do 4 km/s.
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 06:07:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild 4 km/s should be only for interceptors? That's a pretty pathetic interceptor that can only do 4 km/s.
Taranis is king
|
|
Marcus TheMartin
Deadly Addiction Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 06:16:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Quesa
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin Edited by: Marcus TheMartin on 19/03/2008 05:44:57
Originally by: Quesa I've always had ...<snip>... should only be reached by interceptors.
giving ratting battleships anti speed fit modules is not the answer you can fit drone mods to speed up your warrior 2's. Giving battleships a 20-30km web is not what I meant by one sized fits all modules being too powerful. Webs allow you to dictate range with a 20-30km webber battleships are on the top of non capital warfare once again.
Giving webs that are specialized and have reduced effectiveness on other ship sizes (capsule,shuttle,frig,destroyer,cruiser,battle cruiser, battleship, capital) will end the need for speed
Not sure what you mean by the "need for speed", which is a CCP initiative to speed up the server performance.
I was brainstorming ideas where more powerful webs could be utilized by larger ships to extend the range in conjunction with a new functionality to further extend ranges with decreased performance. If anything is once size fits all it's the theory of nano'ing...at least beyond the one size fits all argument about webers.
Need for speed is the need to have speed fits when raiding in 0.0 (not fleet) due to this
Intel channel X:
Bhlaaaarg 19:35> HOSTILES SPOTED IN W39 X UP! guuuh 19:36> X drake Meh 19:36> X Raven Bleh 19:37> X Megathron
Blob mentality brought on the need for speed fits
Making longer range webs for long range ships is ridiculous until web mechanics get changed i.e Webbed = Dead
Not to mention the prevalence of missile ships in the game when it comes to NPC'ng and the caldari majority of the player populace missiles can only be dodged by mwd's as tracking disruptor's can't stop them where turret ships can.
The lack of missile counters besides MWD's and a wingman in a falcon is also a leading cause to the need for speed fits when raiding in 0.0
|
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 06:25:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 19/03/2008 06:31:06
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Originally by: Reem Fairchild 4 km/s should be only for interceptors? That's a pretty pathetic interceptor that can only do 4 km/s.
Taranis is king
I speed fit all my interceptors, including the Taranis.
The slowest interceptor in the game (the Raptor), will do almost 6 km/s with navigation 5 and acceleration contol 4 trained, and fitted with just tech 2 speed mods (no faction gear, rigs, implants, overloading, gang bonuses, etc. ... ). Hell, even a Rifter with just basic tech 1 fittings will do 3.8 km/s (almost 4 with max skills).
If 4 km/s was the extent of interceptor speed, I'd never fly them. Even if everything else was far slower. That's just not enough speed for an interceptor to survive.
|
In Theory
Abh Empire Ka-Tet
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 06:46:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Marcus TheMartin
Need for speed is the need to have speed fits when raiding in 0.0 (not fleet) due to this Intel channel X: Bhlaaaarg 19:35> HOSTILES SPOTED IN W39 X UP! guuuh 19:36> X drake Meh 19:36> X Raven Bleh 19:37> X Megathron Blob mentality brought on the need for speed fits
It's not blobbing that brought up the need for speed fits-- it's the mechanics of webs, missiles, and warp jamming... being fast is the ONLY way to escape and survive, that is why it has come about. Even 1v1, if you need to run, you need to be able to outrun the other guy's scram range.
If CCP is going to balance speed, they need to first rework scrambling and webbing mechanics so that exactly has been said is no longer true: webbed=dead.
Quote:
Making longer range webs for long range ships is ridiculous until web mechanics get changed i.e Webbed = Dead Not to mention the prevalence of missile ships in the game when it comes to NPC'ng and the caldari majority of the player populace missiles can only be dodged by mwd's as tracking disruptor's can't stop them where turret ships can.
The lack of missile counters besides MWD's and a wingman in a falcon is also a leading cause to the need for speed fits when raiding in 0.0
I could see longer range webs made, but longer range webs have less effectiveness than a shortrange web (10km web has -75%, 20km has 50%, 30km has only 25% for instance)..... BUT this is not a solution, it's still part of the problem and reason for nano'd fits.
Your point about missiles ships is right on, the only way to avoid missiles is defenders (which are rather ineffective) or speed... and at the moment if you want to pilot anything other than a BS or BC for pvp, you generally have to be FAST- hence nano fits.
The final solution would be to reduce the effectiveness overall of all webs (the most effective being 60%, but shortest range)... with a 20km and 30km range variant (with less effectiveness) to help midrange combat actually exist. Reduce web effectiveness, then change the mechanics of scrambling to be more chance based, or simply add align time (with the focused script on Heavy Dictors increasing align time 1000%). A 10km scram may produce something as +300% align time, 20km less effective, etc. Interdictor bubbles increasing align time by 750% or so...
THEN you go about balancing speed mods much how tanking and damage mods are penalized- by what they affect... agility mods are penalized for stacking, speed, etc. Tanking mods ARE stacking penalized, Thermal+Thermal is penalized, Kinetic+Kinetic, etc. There is no reason speed/agility should be treated any differently... but current mechanics of webs and scrams make speed a very necessary exploitation in anything smaller than battlecruisers.
I just hope CCP pays attention and works things out appropriately. =-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Well, that should've worked... |
Aprudena Gist
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 06:48:00 -
[24]
Nano's aren't a problem the only problem is your whining and being a stupid **** and not adapting.
|
Grimpak
Trinity Nova Trinity Nova Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 06:57:00 -
[25]
how to "fix" (and I say this in a way that I don't believe they need fixing), nanos:
tone down polys, and take a look at snake implants.
problem solved.
oh and FYI, I don't nano. makes things waaay to complicated in the end
/me is one of thos guys that traded a vaga for a deimos. ---
Trinity Nova Mercenary Services Web Site - Nominated for the 2008 E-ON Magazine Awards |
Sirial Soulfly
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 06:59:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Sirial Soulfly on 19/03/2008 06:59:38
Originally by: Aprudena Gist Nano's aren't a problem the only problem is your whining and being a stupid **** and not adapting.
Adapting by fitting nano ships is my guess ?
|
Niobius Julius
Mortis Angelus The Church.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 07:01:00 -
[27]
so what you intending to say that if I actually want to solo or do small gang and i dont want to die to the first blob on gate i meet, i have to fly...? dont fly at all?? Or train minmatar??? Cause this kind of nerf will boost minmatar even more, and I WILL CERTAINLY WHINE ABOUT IT!! why only minmatars should have this extra survivability?
I tell you this, such nerf will do one thing - kill soloing and encourage even more blobbing.
I find these whines about nanos really silly, cause most pvpers know how to counter them
|
Rawr Cristina
Naqam
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 07:05:00 -
[28]
There's lots of ways to fight nanos or render nanos ineffective. Nanos however practically guarentee a swift escape if things go bad, which is why they're so popular.
IMO the only issue is that the different types of speed-increasing mods don't have stacking penalties of any kind between them. Overdrives and Snakes for instance don't seem to have a stacking penalty, nor is there anything between Nanos/Polycarbs and ODs.
Nanos seem a bit of a pointless module to me, mind. If you want to increase your Agility, use Inertias. Speed? ODs. Nanos don't really fit in in that regard since they effectively do both as a completely seperate stat... ...
|
Reem Fairchild
Shadow Forces Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 07:12:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 19/03/2008 07:13:09
Originally by: Rawr Cristina Overdrives and Snakes for instance don't seem to have a stacking penalty,
The same is true for all implants. Their bonuses don't get stacking penalties.
Quote: nor is there anything between Nanos/Polycarbs and ODs.
For the same reason there are no stacking penalties between say shield extenders and shield hardeners. They effect completely different attributes, even if the end result is that they fill the same purpose.
|
Sileam
|
Posted - 2008.03.19 07:36:00 -
[30]
/signed for OP
But funny thing is... If a player has a Minmatar photo over his name (or is seen flying Vaga or similar), then the reply is ALWAYS "Nu nu nu! There is nothing wrong with nano... Don't nerf my uber-pwzn0r-ship!"
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 .. 47 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |