Originally by: Goumindong

---

Originally by: Pattern Clarc

---

The problem with nos and neuts is that there was no effective counter.

---

The problem with NOS was not that there was not an effective counter(if we consider a counter for a module as something negates the effect)Injectors work pretty well at it(and capless weapons/tank). The problem was that it was both an offensive weapon(it nuked your opponents tank) and a defensive weapon(it powered your own tank). For other weapons to be comparable they would have to either be tonnes better at offensive or also have a defensive capability. Doing either would be very had to balance and so a nerf occurred instead.

---

Originally by: Pattern Clarc

---

Edited by: Pattern Clarc on 28/07/2008 03:02:09

2) Hit mechanics are absolutely awful, there's very little you can do to make it fair until you replace speed/transversal/signature radius hit mechanics with acceleration/vector based ones. This way, acceleration and piloting allows you to avoid hits, raw speed allows you to get out of trouble, with little crossover unlike now where raw speed > all.

---

Originally by: Beltantis Torrence

---

Missiles do less damage than blasters/turrets, especially factoring damage reduction due to signature radius/speed. Making them unable to hit people, in addition, is a bit much.

If not for that fact, I don't think it'd be an issue. FWIW I'd like HACs to be a bit cheaper and have all frigates/AFs go faster. Its sorta dumb that a HAC can easily outfly a T1 frigate or AF or what have you in terms of speed. I'm ok with cruisers going fast, I'm not ok with them going faster than smaller ships and I'm not ok with immunity vs missiles.

Hopefully the speed changes will make this happen. I'm not looking to make a HAC weaker than a BC but I also don't think it shouldn't be viable to have an AF tackle a HAC.

---

Originally by: Trojanman190

---

Originally by: Beltantis Torrence

---

Missiles do less damage than blasters/turrets, especially factoring damage reduction due to signature radius/speed. Making them unable to hit people, in addition, is a bit much.

If not for that fact, I don't think it'd be an issue. FWIW I'd like HACs to be a bit cheaper and have all frigates/AFs go faster. Its sorta dumb that a HAC can easily outfly a T1 frigate or AF or what have you in terms of speed. I'm ok with cruisers going fast, I'm not ok with them going faster than smaller ships and I'm not ok with immunity vs missiles.

Hopefully the speed changes will make this happen. I'm not looking to make a HAC weaker than a BC but I also don't think it shouldn't be viable to have an AF tackle a HAC.

---

I agree with a lot of stuff here... but there were so many other things that could have been done to solve the problem.

For example... precision missiles aren't precise at all, a speed boost so they can go 6km/s with skills and an explosion velocity to match would have been all that was needed to provide an effective non web, non nano solution to the problem.

Webber drones only come in the heavy variety, and are REALLY freaking slow... creating light web drones where 5 of them can slow a ship down to 50% of its speed would have allowed easy tackles + standard missiles would have torn nano ships apart.

Instead, after a 4 hour meeting we get an insane number of nerfs, the possibility of an entire ship class being left near useless, and one ****ed off community.

And to top it off precision missiles will STILL suck.

---

Originally by: Mikhalio

---

Stoat on Scrapheap had an insightful idea I think would be worth posting about:

The mean life of an EvE player is 6 months. Most cancellations feel that the gap between skilled players and fresh from the box gameplay is not worth their time investment, when compared to other games; NanoÆs by their barrier to entry cost of kitting / cross class skill points and effective tank perhaps give off this impression. Based on your recent presentations it would seem the recent frigate ECW platforms did not work in giving new players a æentry nicheÆ beyond interceptors.

On industry comparables the average lifespan of a player in an MMO is a 12 to 15 months. EvE as we know it has been out for 6 years now, implying that despite a head start of 3+ years over the competition (SOE, Vivendi)CCP has yet to craft a product capable of retaining players in lieu of the golden age of MMOÆs. So without any doubt I can see the sudden desire to ænerfÆ the game towards casual play.
Eliminating such ubiquitous concepts as evasion tanking and by implication more unique concepts such as transversal from their MMO, the learning curve is skewed and allows for easier entry.
Comparative kill mail posts highlight this differential esp. those engaged in faction warfare and the ship types commonly fielded.
Due to this singular reason, I can fully expect the patch to go through æas intendedÆ but the expense will be a long term net loss of player growth due to the simplified nature of game mechanics. For a business case study, I direct CCP to the City of Heroes shenanigans involving the player learning curve and their eventual failure to retain a endgame playerbase. In both games, mechanics applied time investments over fixed gear treadmills with similar niche products.
Easier methods of fixing nano-HAC speeds are:

1. Polycarbons rebalanced to their T2 nanofiber module. On multiples this is the most simple change and eliminates the æludicrousÆ speeds on most of the ships on tranquility. Additional ad valorem stacking penalties can easily be implemented to alter tracking or escape issues. Weight on the æproblemÆ ships can also be rejigged to eliminate the agility issues. Broad weight rebalancing will cause problems with both fleet battles (as well as basic game traditions for Matari and Gallante pilots.

2. A module that can both web and scramble a ship is overpowered by game design. It is a good concept but it runs counter to the 1 module, 1 function which is the basis of EvE fitting. Agreed a method of shutting down speed tanks is required beyond the Rapier/webs but must be rethought as it disrupts other modes of play. Furthermore, the disruptor and new bubble issues add a horrible advantage towards gatecamp / blob style of play. Gatecamps are one of the primary issues of server stability and thus this needs a rethinking.

3. Afterburners are still too slow for disengagement and acceleration in real low sec or small null sec warfare. As a rule of thumb, if your speed tank is not mitigating at least as much damage per second as an EHP setup; you will not use the ship for nano/speed combat. Nearly all interceptors & AF will post-patch will suffer from this problem. A similar swap would be to make signature radii a more critical part of the game (ie. CrowÆs post patch), such that evasion tanking becomes signature tanking (and gives target painters a new role). A nano canÆt kill what they canÆt hit and by this token, a signature radius is easier to manipulate then rebalancing every drone, turret and missile in EvE.

4. Electronic warfare and range tanking will become the new nano-***gotry. An interesting suggestion would be to boost dampeners or target painters to counter the permalock and give players new options for forcing speed tanks into acceptable engagement ranges. For most of EvE-o this is within the effective 24-6km range in cruiser warfare, ~80 to 50km for BS.

---

Originally by: Malachon Drako

---

Or for the lazy:

Two fights on Sisi testing the new setups, both fights were setup by bughunters.

The first fight was about 12 defenders vs 12-14 HAC. Defenders had 2 rapiers, 1 or 2 BS, think 2 BCs, 1 or 2 CBCs, maybe a ceptor or two. Something like that. HAC gang was heavy. At least 3 muninns, some zealots, ishtars, 2* cerberus. On jumpin, the cerberuses died fast after getting tackled (there was a big bubble on the gate and the rapiers got some of the nanoships). In terms of shiplosses, the HACs won and practically wiped out the defensive gang. If you had to do it by isk, it was probably closer to a draw, if you estimate that 5 nano-HACs cost 200m each. On the other hand the CBCs and rapiers were not cheap either.

Few remarks, in the first minute about 5 HACs got killed while trying to get out of the bubble, and the HAC gang was significantly outgunning the defence gang. Once the HACs got out of the bubble they could take on the defence gang which was pretty light on firepower.

Second fight there was about 15 in the HAC gang and same in the sniper gang. HAC gang had a claymore, a ceptor a scimitar and mostly snipery HACs. Defensive gang was about 15 as well, with a Huginn, Lachesis and the rest I think BS, I'd estimate about 7-9 Amarr BS and 1 or 2 of each other race. That fight started with the HACs jumping in and MWD aligning to the sun out to 80-100km and primarying the huginn and then the lachesis. Huginn died fast, not sure if the HAC gang took many losses at the start, didn't seem that way. Once the snipers got to focusfiring, the HAC gang was dead meat. Too little repping and heavy sniper DPS. Speedtanking didn't work and the HACs got slaughtered.

Overall I would still say that the nerf has been too much. If HACs get 1, maybe 1.5kms more topspeed and better acceleration they will be able to maneuver better, but I think without making them as invulnerable to heavy guns as they are now. Currently I'd estimate that HACs are 2 to 2.5kms slower than on TQ, if you halve that for the normal HACs (so the HACs that go 4 to 5kms on TQ go 3-4kms after the patch, the situation is salveagable for nanofleets, but they will certainly take more losses in any case unless the enemy are totally unprepared.

---

Originally by: Vengal Seyhan

---

Ah, it's called meta-gaming. (ie Ortho, Meta, Para)... it's playing the game at a higher order; basically playing the game of designing the game.

It's when one team of Devs loves one thing a lot, so they introduce modules, rules and options that they like that boosts their particular style or favourite faction and so on.

Then another team of Devs comes along with a different -or often outright competing- opinion. They also have big egos, just like the first Devs, and something to prove. Maybe they see problems and unintended consequences. So they nerf it, or they think up soemthing cooler in its own way or whatever, because they love the game and want to own it, influence it or whatever.

And so the game oscilates and see-saws for balance, and invariably gets more complex and cumbersome. And in complex systems you have emergent behaviours.

I used to write books a for a pen-and-paper RPG (Shadowrun) and I saw this a lot: The writers all played the game, they loved it, and they each had their favourite things and their own view of the game universe and how the game should be played. They (we & I) also had ego, so in each book and supplement there was competition to write something cooler, newer or more 1337, and to put your stamp on the game. The ego and competition aspect was immense.

Same kind of thing happens with Eve.

Theoretically, the Devs are more professional than a bunch of RPG freelancers, since they draw a full time income from it ... but really, my cynicism about human nature leads me to believe that you'll still have issues of ego and competition at the game design level too.

Probably a post for another forum, but hey.

---

Originally by: "Miryaka"

---

Tested a bit more. Still coming to the same conclusions, namely that too much is changing at once, and balance will be impossible to achieve on any reasonable timetable. Have a look at a small sample of what will need to be carefully rebalanced if you want everyone going significantly slower:

ò Missile velocities, which you've already admitted are a problem. These can just as easily be rebalanced to work fine on Tranquility if a more moderate ultra-speed fix is implemented (again, polys+snakes+gang bonuses+deadspace MWDs).

ò Tracking speeds. Right now, most ships are far too easy to track by higher size-class guns, even small ships fitted with afterburners. Even if afterburners are boosted a bit to compensate and make them more attractive, there remains a secondary problem: even MWD-fitted ships are are totally and completely unable to close distance vs high-optimal range ships, and afterburners will remain even worse for this.

ò Ship optimal ranges, particularly optimal-bonused ships and T2 sniping battleships. Currently way, way too powerful if the fastest possible speed in the game with heat and tens of billions of isk worth of hardware is 7.5km/s. This is a huge, huge problem. Range is now godlike, and well-positioned sniping HACs and ECM boats are untouchable by any ship class, even if you fix the stacking problems with locus rigs. This is worse than any current problem that speed causes, as most fast ships can't also dump out hundreds of 100%-hitting DPS while exercising their one advantage, while ranged ships can. It is only the fact that T2-fit, gang-bonused interceptors can reach speeds approaching ~10km/s or so that prevents sniping ships from being horribly overpowered on tranquility right now. Within the framework of the new system, optimal ranges will need to be shortened or sniping will dominate even more than it did two years ago, when T2 interceptors could still potentially reach 7-9km/s with gang bonuses.

This also affects optimal ranges on ships with tackling gear or neutralizer bonuses, making them overpowered (with the exception of the Rapier, which is largely useless in light of the combined web/speed nerf.

ò NPC speeds and NPCing ship speeds. Afterburner missionrunners will have problems catching kiting NPCs, reducing either missiles or tracking formulas (pulse lasers of all sizes currently track far, far too well with the reduced speeds) will make many types of NPCs far too difficult to damage. In addition, colossal align times mean that you have far less margin for error when escaping a mission room, asteroid belt, complex room, etc that your ship cannot tank.

ò Excess of slots on the few ships that you do make 'fast enough'. Suddenly, with the maximum number of lowslots usable for speed being reduced to four (realistically three) thanks to stacking penalties on a single speedboost-type, the ships you do allow enough speed to be viable in that role will have 2-6 extra slots available for damage mods, capacitor mods, etc. Needing to use 4-8 slots to make a ship 'fast enough' right now is a GOOD THING. It lets you sacrifice all other ship attributes for speed, and so long as that speed isn't excessive (which currently only happens on tranquility with snakes and polycarbons and gang bonuses combined), this is a pretty fair tradeoff.

ò Scramblers shutting MWDs off completely is overpowered. Even without their warp scrambling effect, this would make them better than webs, as again afterburners do not provide enough speed boost for blaster ships or interceptors to get in range of a long-range ship, which is the purpose served by MWDs. The general idea is very good, but without significantly boosting afterburner speeds (in the ballpark of 200%-250% base speed boosts) AND making the MWD-shutdown effect only partial (say reducing MWD speed boost and sig radius penalty equally by 40 to 60% on the target ship), it will never be balanced.

continued

---

Originally by: Miriyaka

---

And this is only what I can think of off the top of my head in five minutes. Hell, I forgot an issue as huge and obvious as light drone speed, which becomes a serious, serious problem under the new system. However, if you reduce that too much, it makes drones an even more tedious weapon system for anything but chasing away a frigate that has you tackled from 10km. Imagine how many other issues will pop out of the woodwork as testing goes on?

This is a pretty huge set of changes to be making without providing the people you're asking for input (you know, us) with a mission statement behind these radical changes. Why? Exactly what problems do you aim to fix with this?

I can't help but wonder what makes certain speeds 'undesirable' in your eyes, and why you think the entire game should move far, far more slowly and emphasize distance and range so much more? Does a mission-running battleship really need to move 100m/s slower? Does a Typhoon need to align more slowly than battleships that have more range, firepower, and apparent size? Should ships that need to slow down to engage anyway be forced to move so slowly that plain T1 missiles can drive them off before they even get in range? Should interceptors be expected to die to a wide array of optimal- and tracking-bonused ships before crossing even 1/10th of their range, even when moving at an 45-80 degree transverse angle to their target?

Why does the balance team want to create so much extra work for itself when the status quo for all of these things on tranquility is amazingly smooth and needs only minor tweaks to the seriously deficient (missile velocities and precision missile explosion velocities, perhaps medium drone speed) and the seriously overpowered (snakes+polys+deadspace MWDs, locus rigs)?

I'm really confused by the silence and bull-headedness from the balance team that's accompanying this radical shift in game balance.

---

Originally by: Natalia Kovac

---

The idea that a Vaga moves as fast as an interceptor is a fallacy. A triple OD/2x poly/T2 mwd Vaga hits about 6k. A triple OD/double poly/T2 Stiletto will be going at least 8 or 9k. Of course whether you want to rig a fragile inty is a different matter. I just leave my inties T2 mods and no rigs, they are fast enough like that.

So a couple points about the 6km/s Vaga. At the current time it costs about 190-200mil fully fitted. That is 80 for the hull, 80 for two T1 polycarbons, and say 30-40 for a T2 mod loadout and some Barrage, maybe a bit of nanite repair paste. Expensive I think you'll agree.

Caps out between 1:30 and two minutes running the mwd. Of course you only usually burst it to get in range or gtfo. It can't apply any significant dps while mwding. It has to run on normal drive at around 600m/s to do damage. At it's preferred range of about 15km (T2 webs overload to 13km now) it does reasonable dps. As you move towards the falloff range of about 20km it does less and less. After 20km the dps is negligable to anything other than say a T1 frig.

A T2 Large Neut zaps 600 cap inside it's 25km range every 24 seconds (base skills). So if a BS has a neut, you can't kill it safely, seeing as a Vaga's cap is about 1000 with a mwd on.

If they have Rapiers or Huginns in gang it's very, very risky to engage. They can web out to like 40km at a strength of 2x 90%. Hyenas are less dangerous, only webbing out to 18-20km where you can kill them, but an MSE Hyena could slow you down for long enough for something else to grab you. The double LSE tank is a decent buffer, but won't survive sustained fire. A fully webbed Vaga is a dead Vaga.

Curses or Pilgrims can cap you out very easily, leaving you pretty vunerable. Also even one or two TDs will screw over you DPS.

And of course Falcons will jam you, leaving you unable to lock anything. You could most likely hang around and wait for a failed jam cycle, or bug out if it turns bad, but you won't be able to kill anything.

Phew!! So I hope you guys realise they ain't the be and end all of combat. Cheers.

---