Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 144 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Nofonno
Amarr Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:12:00 -
[241]
I got to page three of the comments by now; so essentially I'm TL; DR-ing (sorry for that).
I have never used a MWD, but my general feeling is that it should never have been introduced into the game. Same goes for various other modules.
I really wonder if anyone flies vanilla anymore. It appears from the vocal peoples on the forums, that everyone has top implants, T2 rigs and what-not. Everyone has become a bean-counter and no-one just plays for fun?
I will be connecting to SiSi on Monday for sure to see the changes in action.
---
A scientist must be an optimist at heart - to have the strength to rally against a chorus of voices saying "it cannot be done". |
Plave Okice
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:12:00 -
[242]
Edited by: Plave Okice on 25/07/2008 13:12:21
Originally by: Slanty McGarglefist You really think it's fair to survive against 3, 4 or 5 to 1 odds?
I didn't say winning, or even surviving, I think we should have a chance of fighting, rather than just sitting and dieing.
The blob mentality is bad enough in this game as it is, it's about to get much worse. Some of us like being able to go and fight in ones and twos without 34 gang mates before we undock.
Would you like to know more? |
atrophocy
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:12:00 -
[243]
alot of very major changes to the most basic of given norms in pvp, yet the exact details are often vague. way to many "maybe's" for such crucial changes to so many ships. CCP seem now to base their changes based purely off the inexperienced and ignorant complaints of pilots who have likely never flown a "nanoship" or flown against one.
Also concerning is the systematic removal of any tactical usefulness of recon class ships. it started with the nos/neut changes which have essential rendered the pilgrim near useless. Changes to damps recently while not affecting the lachesis and arazu as badly, have made them fractionally as effective in their role as they used to be. Now the minmatar recons get their turn with their only real bonus becoming "50 to 60% less effective". While i can appreciate the need to make damps and nos less effective on ships not designed to use them, nerfing them without giving the race specific recons a bonus effectively cripples the recon class leaving them of little strategic value.
It seems once again ccp are making sweeping changes with little thought, insight or understanding of what actually happens on TQ.
|
Ambo
Dirty Deeds Corp. Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:13:00 -
[244]
Change is good --------------------------------------
Trader? Investor? Just want to track your finances? Check out EMMA |
Jor Renalt
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:13:00 -
[245]
I want a cape!
|
Mad Ilya
Erasers inc. Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:13:00 -
[246]
So imo best idea to add small web drones was totally discarded?
Small bunch that had the isk to get all that fancy stuff hits the whole playstyle through all the whining? I didn't have any problems with nanogangs - if you don't have counters for it, don't engage. Even the previous comments about 'current modules giving battleships ability to nano' have been plain stupid. I mean, when have you seen a nanophoon last time (they're expensive and quite easy to catch these days, yet I bet fun to fly)? Who wants to go roaming to hostile space with slow ships that will have serious problems to survive?
Quote: one could fit 6 of them without being affected by a stacking penalty. In a nutshell, this is whatÆs happened with nanofibers and overdrives.
What are you flying and who's the EFT player with this in mind? I don't think noone fits low slots like that. Especially after putting polys in the ship.
Worrying trend of nerfing stuff that does have counters (or could work with buffing them) continues. * Insert the mandatory I quit -line * :P
|
NaBeRa
DRUCKWELLE Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:14:00 -
[247]
hey, nice work, expecially the AB/MWD and scrambler part :)
|
Martin Mckenna
D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:14:00 -
[248]
hydra have devs
---------------------------------------------
|
Xephys
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:15:00 -
[249]
Oh, this is fantastic, I thought, when I first saw the blog. This will finally get fixed!
I was happier to hear of how harsh they were going to be on the nano***s that abuse this game mechanic.
But then, suddenly, I hit a brick wall.
'Webifiers
Currently when youÆre webbed itÆs pretty much game over unless youÆre doing more DPS or have a better tank. The 90% speed reduction makes combat too static and predictable when webifiers have been applied. To address this, webifiers in our proposed changes have been reduced in effectiveness down to between -50% and -60%.'
....
That's it, now, I shouldn't even bother trying to LOOK at EW ships for minmitar. Target Painters are already useless, WHY do you insist on nerfing the other bonused item that we get? I just think that's stupid to implement without a buff to Target Painters, which I thought could be part of the solution in nanoed ships anyway.
I'm pretty dissapointed on that note, seeing as this speed nerf is going to also affect minnies the most. Not very fair, CCP. Not very fair at all.
/rant
|
unite01
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:16:00 -
[250]
i didnt read the 9 page so it may have been proposed already
why dont make a "speed oriented" bunch of ship, up to cruiser hull (so tech 1 too :D), for all race Oo ? (so not only vaga's break record :D ) with bonuses like "no penality for stacking speed mods" while other ships can only fit a certain amount of speed mods or get big deacrease on the speed mods effectivness
my 2 isk
|
|
Kery Syander
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:16:00 -
[251]
CCP, can I get a list of exactly what you think is going to keep smaller roaming gangs viable and why exactly? Because if this and station services are your ideas behind VIABLE SMALL GANG ACTION I really have to wonder just how out of touch with this playstyle you are. -----
|
Areo Hotah
Paxton Industries Paxton Federation
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:16:00 -
[252]
Edited by: Areo Hotah on 25/07/2008 13:18:08 I am on the receiving end of (AAA) nano-hacs daily. I have had an invasion of the old TRI in my space.
Observations from me fighting nano gangs: -nobody takes booster pills -Claymores are quite rare to see, and tend do die a lot. -Hardly anyone uses snakes -There are plenty of ways to kill (part of) a nanogang, without everybody being in a Rapier or Huginn. They bring a specialized ship to do something, so you have to do something specialized to counter them. Nothing wrong with that. No standard gang (some inties, ewar and DPS) should be able to counter 95% of enemy gang types. Eve should be rock-paper-scissors -I like fighting them. Some people have even begun to count their kills in polycarbs/week.
I think there is nothing wrong with HACs going 3-5km/s.
I think there is nothing wrong with players investing 1Bn isk in snakes and going 8km/s.
I agree there is something wrong that practically every single HAC can go faster than a standard fitted inty.
There is nothing wrong with having speeds that makes you more or less immune to missiles and drones. These offensive weapons take minimal player skill to use (hence their popularity for mission runners), while good players can avoid the damage of turrets, simply by manual piloting (and vice versa, a good player in a turret boat can maximize his damage potential). A better solution would be to have significantly reduced damage, but not 0, for hurling missiles and drones at fast targets.
I think you should never ever nerf warfare links, as they are really a team-based module, and nerfing decreases the incentive to field one is bad. A good nano gang has a Claymore, so they go even faster. So what? Kill the Claymore first.
Nerfing all at once is bad (damps anyone?). Just start by adjusting the polycarbs to be worse than t2 nanofibers, and modify the 3 "speed" stats (mass, max velocity, agility) into 2, so more stacking penalties get applied.
Making warp scramblers useful is good (maybe do something with warpcore stabs too).
Changing a web from 90% to 60% is a 400% nerf (max speed of webbed target from 10% to 40%); nothing in the history of eve has been nerfed so hard.
Once again, I fear that the Devs are listening too much to whines, without seeing the real problem. I think they should have focussed their time solely on their last "mission statement": Guerrilla warfare must remain a viable combat tactic. Please make more ways to make this possible, than simply nano'ing it up.
Cause: Skilled players should be better than defending blob in crap ships. Skilled defenders should be able to beat cookie-cutter setups.
Areo
|
schneirder
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:18:00 -
[253]
I am SO glad this is happening. I really miss tanked ships and other tactics than just speed and things to counter speed. The worst thing is as speed crept up, real life reflexes became more and more of an issue, you have very little time to respond to things or change directions to avoid other ships when everyone is going 5-8k/s.
I have terrible reflexes and most of my deaths these days are because everyone is zooming around so fast I can't react quick enough, I stumble into a bunch of webs and die. At least I might have a fighting chance if it takes 10 seconds for a ship to reach me rather than 5!
|
atrophocy
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:18:00 -
[254]
Originally by: Nofonno I really wonder if anyone flies vanilla anymore. It appears from the vocal peoples on the forums, that everyone has top implants, T2 rigs and what-not. Everyone has become a bean-counter and no-one just plays for fun?
this is what happens when you read the forums too much. myself and my corp/alliance have been flying predominantly nanoships for a long time now, well over a year or more, and i could count on one hand the number of people i know that use highgrade implants and t2 rigs.
We do play for fun. We fly "nanoships" because going fast, is fun. we fly fast ships, because when you are constantly outnumbered often 3,4,5 to 1, when your opponents like dropping carriers, mothership, even titans on your gangs, either you go fast, or you die. and dying everytime with no way to fight sure as hell aint fun.
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:19:00 -
[255]
Edited by: Tobias Sjodin on 25/07/2008 13:20:04
Originally by: atrophocy alot of very major changes to the most basic of given norms in pvp, yet the exact details are often vague. way to many "maybe's" for such crucial changes to so many ships. CCP seem now to base their changes based purely off the inexperienced and ignorant complaints of pilots who have likely never flown a "nanoship" or flown against one.
Also concerning is the systematic removal of any tactical usefulness of recon class ships. it started with the nos/neut changes which have essential rendered the pilgrim near useless. Changes to damps recently while not affecting the lachesis and arazu as badly, have made them fractionally as effective in their role as they used to be. Now the minmatar recons get their turn with their only real bonus becoming "50 to 60% less effective". While i can appreciate the need to make damps and nos less effective on ships not designed to use them, nerfing them without giving the race specific recons a bonus effectively cripples the recon class leaving them of little strategic value.
It seems once again ccp are making sweeping changes with little thought, insight or understanding of what actually happens on TQ.
Originally by: Xephys Oh, this is fantastic, I thought, when I first saw the blog. This will finally get fixed!
I was happier to hear of how harsh they were going to be on the nano***s that abuse this game mechanic.
But then, suddenly, I hit a brick wall.
'Webifiers
Currently when youÆre webbed itÆs pretty much game over unless youÆre doing more DPS or have a better tank. The 90% speed reduction makes combat too static and predictable when webifiers have been applied. To address this, webifiers in our proposed changes have been reduced in effectiveness down to between -50% and -60%.'
....
That's it, now, I shouldn't even bother trying to LOOK at EW ships for minmitar. Target Painters are already useless, WHY do you insist on nerfing the other bonused item that we get? I just think that's stupid to implement without a buff to Target Painters, which I thought could be part of the solution in nanoed ships anyway.
I'm pretty dissapointed on that note, seeing as this speed nerf is going to also affect minnies the most. Not very fair, CCP. Not very fair at all.
/rant
I agree with these two posts. It's just meh to cripple the Huginn/Rapier. No one uses the target painting bonus, ever. :P
edit: Oh, can I say capital ship boost? :D
Black Hand.
|
nutropar v3
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:20:00 -
[256]
I am so glad something is finally being done about them. Maybe we can actually fight nano ships now, rather then watch them kill you or watch run away. YAY :)
|
Cailais
Amarr VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:21:00 -
[257]
Interesting. Nano-hacs will probably still be viable to a degree - with Assualt Frigates (note their speed is increased) becoming nano-hac tacklers. So a boost to AF's then.
The much nerfed Arazu / Lachesis also looks much more tantalising under these proposals. And to an extent so does the Pilgrim (if it can get close enough).
It's a hard nerf for the anti-nano stalwart the rapier / huggin though. Im not sure how viable (if at all) these ships will be under these proposals unless their web amount is increased (note CCP: dont make the same mistake you made with the amarr, gallente and caldari recons after the nos, ECM and Damp nerfs!).
Webifier drones suddenly became more valuable (even with a nerf to them) as combined with a regular web I think you'll get around about the same effect as a un-nerfed web. Blasterboat pilots will need these me thinks.
More blobs? Hard to say.
C.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:21:00 -
[258]
Originally by: Kazuo Ishiguro
Originally by: Bellum Eternus The last time something like this happened (Warp to Zero, for example), everyone said "oh, don't freak out, it's just on the test server, it won't be going live, it's to crazy of a change..." and look what happened.
STFU.
I think a lot of people forget that the test server is only one of a series of different testing environments that CCP uses. It can take a quite a bit a work just to get some changes test-server viable, and that's not going to happen unless there's a pretty good chance of implementation.
Changing the values of webs doesn't fall into this category, but changing the whole function of scrams (and a bunch of other mods) is probably a lot more complicated to do.
By "forget" you mean that you're implying that I didn't know this (multiple tiers of test environments) in the first place. Completely wrong.
In fact, by the time CCP has arrived at the point to even announce things like this, they're so far down the development path that they're basically 99% committed to their current direction and probably arn't going to change much of anything at all. Certianly not the key concepts (like 50% webs and MWD killing scrams).
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Innominate
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:23:00 -
[259]
This blog makes it absolutely clear that the devs have no understanding of speed in eve.
Sticking a t2 mwd on an unfitted ship doesn't give you a fair speed baseline.
|
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:24:00 -
[260]
I'm not sure that this will really affect nanocruisers that much. Yes, they'll be a bit slower, but they'll retain their speed advantage over other ships, so they'll still be able to disengage largely at will. They'll be more vulnerable to turrets and missiles, but they have the EHP to survive a respectable amount of damage, allowing them to disengage if necessary.
The new scramblers won't be an issue - yes, they shut off MWD, but that's what the current 90% webs effectively do. In return, webs are being reduced in effectiveness, so it'll be harder to slow the nanocruiser down in the first place.
|
|
Droljica
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:26:00 -
[261]
The best dev blog ever after Castor expansion.
This will put good old pvp back on track.
Nano***s go die.
|
XxAngelxX
Amarr The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:26:00 -
[262]
Please, if you want to make a dev blog that radically changes 1 fundamental PVP style, don't include sentences like:
"What's more is that speed, alas, can only be countered properly with yet more speed"
because you just group yourself in with the rest of the speed-whiners who are too idle, too uninterested in PVP and just want those nasty hostiles to go away, to learn to combat them with already available tactics.
Why must it always be the PVPers who have to adjust to game changes? Why can't those that perhaps don't like PVP so much because it interrupts the way they want to play the game, adapt to the PVPers? --------------------------------------
Dance Puppets, Dance |
SARPIDON
Revival.
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:26:00 -
[263]
Watching the tears in this thread from certain ' elite ' corps / alliances who revolve around one style of ' broken ' gameplay is priceless. A really public display of throwing your toys out of the pram.
Wait till the patch hits and work around it like everyone else.
|
SetInEdill
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:27:00 -
[264]
solo PvP will die =( i loved this game, but now... i don wont be a miner
|
Sid Zero
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:27:00 -
[265]
Originally by: Ruoska
...however, your goals state that gorillawarfare should remain viable, and speed has been alarmingly large factor in that, yet the blog makes no mention on how this will be made up for that kind of fighting.
I demand gorillawarfare buffs!
^ What the man said!
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:28:00 -
[266]
Originally by: SARPIDON Watching the tears in this thread from certain ' elite ' corps / alliances who revolve around one style of ' broken ' gameplay is priceless. A really public display of throwing your toys out of the pram.
You will just see rapiers --> falcons. Have fun.
|
Wrayeth
Inexorable Retribution
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:28:00 -
[267]
Originally by: XxAngelxX Please, if you want to make a dev blog that radically changes 1 fundamental PVP style, don't include sentences like:
"What's more is that speed, alas, can only be countered properly with yet more speed"
because you just group yourself in with the rest of the speed-whiners who are too idle, too uninterested in PVP and just want those nasty hostiles to go away, to learn to combat them with already available tactics.
Why must it always be the PVPers who have to adjust to game changes? Why can't those that perhaps don't like PVP so much because it interrupts the way they want to play the game, adapt to the PVPers?
Angel, not to put too fine a point on it, but...
STFU and adapt, n00b.
Seriously, you were part of the crowd telling everyone else to adapt to nanos. Now it's your turn to adapt. -Wrayeth n00b Extraordinaire "Look, pa! I just contributed absolutely nothing to this thread!" |
XxAngelxX
Amarr The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:29:00 -
[268]
Originally by: Wrayeth
Originally by: XxAngelxX Please, if you want to make a dev blog that radically changes 1 fundamental PVP style, don't include sentences like:
"What's more is that speed, alas, can only be countered properly with yet more speed"
because you just group yourself in with the rest of the speed-whiners who are too idle, too uninterested in PVP and just want those nasty hostiles to go away, to learn to combat them with already available tactics.
Why must it always be the PVPers who have to adjust to game changes? Why can't those that perhaps don't like PVP so much because it interrupts the way they want to play the game, adapt to the PVPers?
Angel, not to put too fine a point on it, but...
STFU and adapt, n00b.
Seriously, you were part of the crowd telling everyone else to adapt to nanos. Now it's your turn to adapt.
Oh we will adapt. Instead of jumping into your ridiculous titan blobs and trying to havea fight, we'll just not bother and you can go back to mining. Happy? --------------------------------------
Dance Puppets, Dance |
Zikka
Hematite Rose Bionic Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:29:00 -
[269]
Overall the changes look promising. I'll definitely be popping onto the test server when I get a chance to try them out.
Blaster tracking may need improvements though.
|
Sexy Traderin
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 13:31:00 -
[270]
Originally by: Gypsio III
The new scramblers won't be an issue - yes, they shut off MWD, but that's what the current 90% webs effectively do. In return, webs are being reduced in effectiveness, so it'll be harder to slow the nanocruiser down in the first place.
old webs will equal sram+web. in mathematical terms:
Speedreduction old web: 0,9 Speedincrease MWD (vary quite a bit, lets assume): 500%-625% Speedreduction new web: 0,6 Speedreduction scram [(0,2 to 0,16) * 0,6]: 1 - 0,12 to 1-0,095 so same as old webs if you assume that you are in range of 7,5km and switch scram and webber on.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 144 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |