Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:36:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker I definitely don't agree with the OP's call for MWDs to be relegated to being an escape module like WCS.
Uh...you mean as opposed to being an escape module when you suddenly can't handle what you took on with no actual downside to yourself, just your opponent?
I for one would like more variety in combat than there is now.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
I'm the Juggernaut, *****! |
Joe Starbreaker
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:38:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Anubis Xian I adapt just fine, but I'm not selfish enough to not see the greater good of the game just because my playstyle could be altered.
Why do you think it's in the greater good of the game that other players' playstyles be nerfed? The plain truth is, if you can't beat players using nano tactics, you're still not going to be able to beat them when they're forced to switch to a new tactic. They'll still be better players than you.
---------------- [insert signature here] |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:38:00 -
[33]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe Edited by: ArmyOfMe on 02/06/2008 23:35:39
Originally by: Anubis Xian
I adapt just fine, but I'm not selfish enough to not see the greater good of the game just because my playstyle could be altered.
hate to inform you but i hardly ever fly nano ships, and the only ship i do nano is the vagabond the few times i take it out for a spin. so nerfing nanos would actually be good for me since i prefer to fly close range ships anyhow. but i still dont see any reason to nerf them
I never indicated you do fly nanoships, I merely stated a solution to roll back the role of MWDs while boosting ships intended to be fast and nerfing ships not intended to be fast.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
I'm the Juggernaut, *****! |
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:39:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Anubis Xian I adapt just fine, but I'm not selfish enough to not see the greater good of the game just because my playstyle could be altered.
Why do you think it's in the greater good of the game that other players' playstyles be nerfed? The plain truth is, if you can't beat players using nano tactics, you're still not going to be able to beat them when they're forced to switch to a new tactic. They'll still be better players than you.
this post is pretty much spot on
|
Joe Starbreaker
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:40:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Anubis Xian
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker I definitely don't agree with the OP's call for MWDs to be relegated to being an escape module like WCS.
Uh...you mean as opposed to being an escape module when you suddenly can't handle what you took on with no actual downside to yourself, just your opponent?
I for one would like more variety in combat than there is now.
Removing MWDs and speed tactics removes variety from combat.
---------------- [insert signature here] |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:40:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Anubis Xian I adapt just fine, but I'm not selfish enough to not see the greater good of the game just because my playstyle could be altered.
Why do you think it's in the greater good of the game that other players' playstyles be nerfed? The plain truth is, if you can't beat players using nano tactics, you're still not going to be able to beat them when they're forced to switch to a new tactic. They'll still be better players than you.
There is no nerf to the nano 'playstyle' suggested here...merely a change to MWD's involvement.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
I'm the Juggernaut, *****! |
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:43:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Anubis Xian
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Anubis Xian I adapt just fine, but I'm not selfish enough to not see the greater good of the game just because my playstyle could be altered.
Why do you think it's in the greater good of the game that other players' playstyles be nerfed? The plain truth is, if you can't beat players using nano tactics, you're still not going to be able to beat them when they're forced to switch to a new tactic. They'll still be better players than you.
There is no nerf to the nano 'playstyle' suggested here...merely a change to MWD's involvement.
however you look at this, the change you propose to mwd's is a direct nerf to the nano playstyle, dont sit there and pretend it isnt.
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:47:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Anubis Xian
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker I definitely don't agree with the OP's call for MWDs to be relegated to being an escape module like WCS.
Uh...you mean as opposed to being an escape module when you suddenly can't handle what you took on with no actual downside to yourself, just your opponent?
I for one would like more variety in combat than there is now.
Removing MWDs and speed tactics removes variety from combat.
English mother fracker! Do you speak it?!
Removing MWDs is not even a suggestion and if removing the mwd from your setup is your solution to the change, that is you adapting to it in your own way.
Removing speed ships and tactics is also not even a suggestion this thread implies.
The resistance to 'nerfing nanos' (which isn't even what this is) is so strong that most of the people opposing the idea proffered are making arguments based on assumptions and half baked knee jerk reactions that don't even include a full comprehension of the reasoning behind it and the probable outcomes.
I have no issue with fast ships...when they have the appropriate weaknesses (Vagabond).
Read. Think. Post.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
I'm the Juggernaut, *****! |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:48:00 -
[39]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
Originally by: Anubis Xian
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Anubis Xian I adapt just fine, but I'm not selfish enough to not see the greater good of the game just because my playstyle could be altered.
Why do you think it's in the greater good of the game that other players' playstyles be nerfed? The plain truth is, if you can't beat players using nano tactics, you're still not going to be able to beat them when they're forced to switch to a new tactic. They'll still be better players than you.
There is no nerf to the nano 'playstyle' suggested here...merely a change to MWD's involvement.
however you look at this, the change you propose to mwd's is a direct nerf to the nano playstyle, dont sit there and pretend it isnt.
Give me an example.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
I'm the Juggernaut, *****! |
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:50:00 -
[40]
you are without a doubt one of the biggest **** posters ive seen on the forums. you come here thinking your solution is the greatest thing that can possibly happen to eve just cause you say so. gtfo or learn to play the game, stop coming to the forums with your stupid halfbaked plans for a problem that only exists in your f**king head
|
|
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:52:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Anubis Xian
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
Originally by: Anubis Xian
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Anubis Xian I adapt just fine, but I'm not selfish enough to not see the greater good of the game just because my playstyle could be altered.
Why do you think it's in the greater good of the game that other players' playstyles be nerfed? The plain truth is, if you can't beat players using nano tactics, you're still not going to be able to beat them when they're forced to switch to a new tactic. They'll still be better players than you.
There is no nerf to the nano 'playstyle' suggested here...merely a change to MWD's involvement.
however you look at this, the change you propose to mwd's is a direct nerf to the nano playstyle, dont sit there and pretend it isnt.
Give me an example.
for the love of god, even your thread title says nanos affected, think before you post. if a change affects nano ship in a way that makes them perform worse then now its a nerf
|
Joe Starbreaker
|
Posted - 2008.06.02 23:58:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Joe Starbreaker on 02/06/2008 23:58:13 No sense posting to this thread anymore. EDIT: Oops! LOL
---------------- [insert signature here] |
Cpt Branko
Surge. NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 00:23:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/06/2008 00:25:07
Originally by: Anubis Xian We all know...well those of us who have been here for a few years know...that MWDs were never supposed to be combat modules.
Yes they are, you're talking rubbish.
But, yeah, let's nerf every damn ship in the game. Sure. Awesome idea
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Tai Paktu
Mortis Incarnatus
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 00:34:00 -
[44]
/me checks calendar
Seems to be about time for another nerf nano thread. Next stop, nerf Falcon...
There's already massive threads on this and other balance issues to discuss if it is an issue and what the possible solutions are. We don't need to flood the forums with "my fix is the best" threads.
And I agree with previous posters that you're killing solo blaster ships with this, admit you're changing the dynamic of most Recons and HACs with this change and explain to those of us who haven't been here for a few years (because it appears 2 isn't enough to know) why MWDs were never meant to be combat modules. For that matter, explain the definition of a combat module if you're basing you argument on the term. ______
http://eve-files.com/sig/TaiPaktu/sig3.PNG |
Cpt Branko
Surge. NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 00:35:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Tai Paktu
And I agree with previous posters that you're killing solo blaster ships with this, admit you're changing the dynamic of most Recons and HACs with this change
And BCs/BS/inties/cruisers/whatever in general Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Tai Paktu
Mortis Incarnatus
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 00:38:00 -
[46]
Heh, yeah. Clearly all ships are affected, but I was referring more to ships that rely more heavily on speed (trying not to generalize as HACs can do more than just speed tank) to either surivive or fulfill their role. ______
http://eve-files.com/sig/TaiPaktu/sig3.PNG |
Nethras
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 00:40:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Anubis Xian Uh...you mean as opposed to being an escape module when you suddenly can't handle what you took on with no actual downside to yourself, just your opponent?
If the main concern is the lack of risk to nanoships, modification to web mechanics, such as inverting the agility modifier from the web when the target is going faster than their current max speed, may be a less drastic way to add risk back in to flying a nanoship, as when they got webbed via overheating, faction webs, or ship web range bonuses, they would be much less likely to coast back out of web range and escape.
On the subject of concerns, if you're going to so vehemently insist that a change needs to be made to the game, explicitly stating what you think the problem is, and how it is hurting the game, will tend to draw much more positive and constructive responses than just flaming people critical of your proposed change, as they could then at least explain why they disagree with your reasons. Sadly, this thread comes across mostly as an insistence that all intelligent people should agree with your idea rather than an attempt at discussion, which is unlikely to persuade CCP to make any changes that they didn't already think needed to be made.
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 05:56:00 -
[48]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe you are without a doubt one of the biggest **** posters ive seen on the forums. you come here thinking your solution is the greatest thing that can possibly happen to eve just cause you say so. gtfo or learn to play the game, stop coming to the forums with your stupid halfbaked plans for a problem that only exists in your f**king head
Your entire argument is made up of sweeping generalization and rhetoric...not to mention some ad hominem attacks.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
I'm the Juggernaut, *****! |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 05:57:00 -
[49]
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
Originally by: Anubis Xian
Originally by: ArmyOfMe
Originally by: Anubis Xian
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Anubis Xian I adapt just fine, but I'm not selfish enough to not see the greater good of the game just because my playstyle could be altered.
Why do you think it's in the greater good of the game that other players' playstyles be nerfed? The plain truth is, if you can't beat players using nano tactics, you're still not going to be able to beat them when they're forced to switch to a new tactic. They'll still be better players than you.
There is no nerf to the nano 'playstyle' suggested here...merely a change to MWD's involvement.
however you look at this, the change you propose to mwd's is a direct nerf to the nano playstyle, dont sit there and pretend it isnt.
Give me an example.
for the love of god, even your thread title says nanos affected, think before you post. if a change affects nano ship in a way that makes them perform worse then now its a nerf
Yes, some 'Nano' ships would be affected, but I guarantee each one of the ones most 'nerfed' aren't supposed to be nano ships in the first place.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
I'm the Juggernaut, *****! |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 06:02:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Tai Paktu /me checks calendar
Seems to be about time for another nerf nano thread. Next stop, nerf Falcon...
What is wrong with the Falcon?
Quote: There's already massive threads on this and other balance issues to discuss if it is an issue and what the possible solutions are. We don't need to flood the forums with "my fix is the best" threads.
I had an idea, I posted it, I'm defending it.
Quote: And I agree with previous posters that you're killing solo blaster ships with this, admit you're changing the dynamic of most Recons and HACs with this change and explain to those of us who haven't been here for a few years (because it appears 2 isn't enough to know) why MWDs were never meant to be combat modules. For that matter, explain the definition of a combat module if you're basing you argument on the term.
Actually, it would only nerf blasterboats if they were the only ships affected by this idea. Maybe Recons and HACs could use some tweaks anyway? As far as I'm concerned a combat module is a module that is designed to be used to help you kill other players. My idea doesn't remove MWDs as combat modules, it just changes them to a different role (yes, a combat role) while making ABs the main propulsion module for combat setups.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
I'm the Juggernaut, *****! |
|
Maeltstome
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 07:15:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Bronson Hughes Edited by: Bronson Hughes on 02/06/2008 19:14:57
Originally by: Anubis Xian
If a BS should be allowed to go 5+ km/s
Show me a reasonable, combat worthy battleship setup that can do 5km/s and still manage to fight. Practical setups, EFT tinfoilhattery need not apply.
Can still hit that in a nano-phoon with snakes, and you dont even need overdrive injectors (meaning a hold full of cap charges, yah!)
Problem is, it really lives on the edge since the nos changes. Also i've noticed jav torps do like full damage to a BS MWD'ing at 2.5-3k/s. And large rails can still track you these days. Sucks really. -------
[12:07] w33Daz: a trained 1 skill fur 24 mins n it took 2 days aff drones lvl 5 [12:07] w33Daz: A WIS LIKE WTF |
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 08:39:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Anubis Xian Yes, some 'Nano' ships would be affected, but I guarantee each one of the ones most 'nerfed' aren't supposed to be nano ships in the first place.
who are you to deside wich ships should be nano
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 10:02:00 -
[53]
Who are you to decide what ships or races should be the defacto nanosoloships?
If one race has the speed advantage, why does that same race also have the best counter to the speed advantage.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
I'm the Juggernaut, *****! |
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 10:21:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Anubis Xian Who are you to decide what ships or races should be the defacto nanosoloships?
Nobody has desided that, the simple fact is that ccp are the only ones that has anything to say about wich ships can be nano'd and as it stands atm pretty much all ships can be nano'd and there simply isnt a damn thing you can do about it other then coming on the forums with your silly ideas of things you feel are broken simply cause your not good enough to kill them.
Originally by: Anubis Xian If one race has the speed advantage, why does that same race also have the best counter to the speed advantage.
so are you now complaining about minmatar having both rapier/huginn and the vaga?? the simple fact of life is that amarr with its awsome tracking and good range is almost just as good a counter to nanos as the huginn/rapier.
it all comes down to adapting and learning to play the game
|
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 10:40:00 -
[55]
For the sake of argument I will tolerate having to repeat myself. My playstyle is rarely affected by nanoships, and when I come across one, I tend to win the engagement. How I play won't change much with this change other than Blasterboats being harder.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
I'm the Juggernaut, *****! |
Astria Tiphareth
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 11:52:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Tai Paktu
And I agree with previous posters that you're killing solo blaster ships with this, admit you're changing the dynamic of most Recons and HACs with this change
And BCs/BS/inties/cruisers/whatever in general
Whilst I don't agree with the OP, this statement just shows where EVE is going. If this is really true, then why not just remove MWDs and give the equivalent bonus and cap reduction to every ship, and get it over with? (I'm joking, but you get the idea, it's pretty dumb if every ship in the game becomes reliant on an MWD to become combat effective). ___ "If you can't debate using logic & fact, and at least recognise other people's point of view, don't waste time posting on forums. It only makes you look like a teenage idiot." |
Anubis Xian
Reavers
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 13:03:00 -
[57]
Which is exactly my point, if speed becomes the most important variable in an engagement, then all that happens is Eve gets faster and has less variety.
Originally by: CCP Oveur The client handles no logic, it is simply a dumb terminal.
I'm the Juggernaut, *****! |
Joe Starbreaker
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 17:58:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Anubis Xian For the sake of argument I will tolerate having to repeat myself.
That must be painful for you.
---------------- [insert signature here] |
ArmyOfMe
hirr Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 19:19:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Anubis Xian For the sake of argument I will tolerate having to repeat myself.
That must be painful for you.
lol, thanks for making the best posts in this thread
|
BlondieBC
7th Tribal Legion
|
Posted - 2008.06.03 20:39:00 -
[60]
First recommend moving mwd to low slots. This effectively removes one slot from nano ships.
Also make shield tankers realitively stronger than armor. Right now, armor tanks dominate.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |