| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
ArmyOfMe
hirr
Morsus Mihi
    |
Posted - 2008.07.30 19:03:00 -
[991]
Originally by: SATAN
They have no interest in a balanced game, what they want is their IWIN mechanics and will not take no for an answer.
LOOOOOOOL, you meen like you guys crying when they nerfed damps or ecm(cant remember wich one got nerfed back then)? or stabs?
please dont come here on this forums taking a moral high ground when your own corperation is famous only for exploiting current game mechanics as much as possible.
Im gonna keep this quote just so i can throw it in your face the day they hopefully make cloaks useless on ships with no cloaking bonus
 |
TZeer
BURN EDEN
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 19:11:00 -
[992]
Edited by: TZeer on 30/07/2008 19:13:40
Great, 4 replies, all trolling....
No actual numbers, no testing results from SISI, nothing...
Possible for you to actually post some numbers, what you feel is overpowered or wrong? And examples?
Quote:
LOOOOOOOL, you meen like you guys crying when they nerfed damps or ecm(cant remember wich one got nerfed back then)? or stabs?
As far as I remember whole eve cried when damps got nerfed, people even said arazu`s was useless then.
 |
Gort
Storm Guard Elite
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 19:17:00 -
[993]
I have read hundred's of posts and listened to many discussion on this issue over the years.
As a long-time non-nano Matari/Vaga/etc. pilot, my impression is:
1) Something, indeed, needed to be done about game-breaking "ludicrous" speeds and the proliferation of "nano" ships that were never designed or intended for ohmygod speed.
2) The present approach is yet another example of the game developers' historically heavy-handed over-nerfing of way too much, just to get the basic job done. Quit throwing out the baby with the bathwater.
My first and last comment. Time to move on.
G
--
When in doubt, empty the magazine. |
Tovran
Neh'bu Kau Beh'Hude
Ushra'Khan
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 19:19:00 -
[994]
Edited by: Tovran on 30/07/2008 19:22:41
I think with the fix to stacking penalties, the cap/boost changes to mwds (not the reactivation delay although the scram thing is also sort of neat) and the nerf of polycarbons/snakes it would end up with about the perfect speed for game mechanics. Also the frigate speeds boosts are very nice. However, I would suggest bringing overdrives back to normal/close to normal as a ship fitting mwd and 3 speed mods was never really a problem, especially with the new mwd boost capped at t1 level (which is fine). Also the changes to agility may have been really heavy handed for some ships.
This would put high skilled inty pilots just at about a level where precision light missiles on a good skilled characater would hit for around half damage, and specialised turret fits for fast tracking can hit them, while allowing for avoidance of heavy missiles and cruiser turrets while under mwd, around 5.5km/s without resorting to rigs and snakes. Even with said snakes they would just be a little over the speeds of normal t2 and auxilary thruster rigs fits today. Personally I feel that is about perfect, and HACs will still be significantly slower with stacking changes but can still speed tank effectively (2.5-3km/s or about 4km/s for a vaga). It means a ship specialised in speed can get hit by something of the same size fit with mods to allow for hitting fast things. That sounds logical to me atleast, that a ship with say precision heavies can do about 1/3 dps to a vaga or 1/2 dps to other fast ships. With the idea I have next it should work out quite nicely.
The one thing I really do not like is the web nerf. Webs do not need a nerf they need a complete change. The problem with them as I see it is that webs are a flat thing. They always effect whatever they hit the same no matter what, one of the few mods out there now that does so. Intereceptor and BSes are webbed exactly the same. A MWDing ship and an ABing ship are webbed exactly the same.
This is why mwds were always better, the sig penalty meant crap all as the only thing that effects a web is raw speed, namely enough of it to not get webbed. A mwding ship can always catch a non-mwding ship and then web you so what was the point of an AB. The fix however is actually pretty simple. Make webs signature based. There is a very good thread about this in the Features and Ideas forum posted here. Some numbers may need tweaking but with the changes I have mentioned I think it would present a very good boost to eve combat as a whole. I have run through a lot of different scenarios with the changes dicussed in that thread in mind and they all seem to work out quite nicely. It simply makes for many more tactical decisions which I think is a good thing.
Anyway, that is my opinion for what it is worth.
|
Andnowthenews
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 19:25:00 -
[995]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: SATAN
stuff
You seem to know a lot about what other people do or dont do.
Fact is the current implementation on SiSi needs some major tweaking.
How long did you bother to test btw? More than 8 hours? I did only log onto TQ to change skills since the patch came, now tell me, how much testing did you actually?
Long enough to sat yaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay our cruise missiles now hit every nano hac in the game unless its a 10 bil or so fit.
|
Mikhalio
KIA Corp
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 19:32:00 -
[996]
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; NanoFs 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 fentry nicheF 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 MMOFs. So without any doubt I can see the sudden desire to fnerfF 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 fas intendedF 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 fludicrousF 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 fproblemF 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. CrowFs post patch), such that evasion tanking becomes signature tanking (and gives target painters a new role). A nano canFt kill what they canFt 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.
5.Anti-missile and drone warfare needs to be redesigned. Mid or Low countermodule
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 19:52:00 -
[997]
Originally by: TZeer
Edited by: TZeer on 30/07/2008 19:13:40
Great, 4 replies, all trolling....
No actual numbers, no testing results from SISI, nothing...
Possible for you to actually post some numbers, what you feel is overpowered or wrong? And examples?
Quote:
LOOOOOOOL, you meen like you guys crying when they nerfed damps or ecm(cant remember wich one got nerfed back then)? or stabs?
As far as I remember whole eve cried when damps got nerfed, people even said arazu`s was useless then.
Well, I just tested it in two gatecamp-like situations. See this thread for my after action reports:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=834572&page=2
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc.
eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 19:55:00 -
[998]
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.
|
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 20:21:00 -
[999]
If things stay like they are on Sisi, I look forward to using my Arazu with the hilariously broken and overpowered Domination Deathscram and my Alt in either a Locus'd Pilgrim or a Locus'd Zealot, confident in the knowledge that no tacklers will ever survive my righteous fire.
Everything else is sucking pretty hard, though. It kind of seems like CCP is trying to punish us for making 0.0 fun.
(buy deadspace ABs while some people still don't know about this :V)
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 20:24:00 -
[1000]
Originally by: Darahk J'olonar
People don't tank HACs not because a Tier 2 BC does it better but because they take advantage of ridiculous speed mechanics in game. The word assault by definition is "The concluding stage of an attack in which close combat occurs with the enemy." Close combat no matter how convoluted your view or opinion is means getting in tight and dishing out damage. Nothing to do with running around really fast and chuckling because nothing can track you or hit you.
Where did you get close combat from? I found this:
"assault: a military attack usually involving direct combat with enemy forces".
If you really want to get into RL analogies (even if it has 0 relevance to eve), military assaults on enemy forces nowadays almost always are carried out very quickly and in a fashion to minimize friendly losses, or even avoid them completely.
Maybe look up air strike or rapid reaction force in your dictionary. While you're at it, also look up asymetrical warfare.
|
|
Darahk J'olonar
Gallente
Trans Eve Organization
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 20:27:00 -
[1001]
Originally by: Andnowthenews
Originally by: Malachon Draco
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.
Just did a test of nano hacs/recons vs long-mid range BC CS and cruisers (and a couple of logistics in both fleets) both were well led by fcs and had voice comms.
NANO lost most of there ships the cruisers and CS BC did not lose a single ship or drone.
Now one question if you would? Would it be possible to test the inverse to see what results you get? HACs w/ tank in close and orbiting with an T2 AB?
 |
Dzajic
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 20:29:00 -
[1002]
Edited by: Dzajic on 30/07/2008 20:30:53
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; NanoFs 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 fentry nicheF beyond interceptors.
Issue is, Ewar frigs are mostly too fragile, and dont get the full ewar range bonus recons have. And not to mention that all other ewar other than ECM is meh at best (neuts and nos arent ewar). Painters, tracking disruptors and now even damps are too weak. (compared to ECM, which CAN fully disable a ship at any range). If you want to tackle, use a ceptor.
Assault frigs are a joke. Only thing remaining for entry level are ceptor, dictors, cov op frigs and stealth bombers (another useless class of ships, yeey, EVE is perfectly balanced, only 20% of ships and 30% of modules are useless)
Interdictors have gotten several nerfs, need rather high skills, and have a very very specialized role.
New player is expected to stay in empire and learn skills for 8-10 months before he gets real minimal skills needed to fly PVP ships with any effectiveness.
And PVE in EVE is incredibly unbelievable mindbogglingly boring and repetitive. Whether missions or mining... Belt rating in low sec and 0.0 is exciting only because you risk way too much. I personally rat in low sec only for thrill of being the hunted all the way. ISK wise empire missions pwn all. And even if you nerfed L4s or removed them from empire, people would do L3s in empire. Risk reward ratio is too bad in low sec. It was bad before Momship pirate gatecamps, and before sensor boosted HICtors.
If CCP wants low SP people to join and enjoy PVP they have to boost and give life to Asault Frigs, Electronic Atack frigs and bombers. And give at least some interesting and challenging (maybe even group, it is a MMO, right?) PVE content to pass the time and earn the ISKies.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr
Ore Mongers
Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 20:40:00 -
[1003]
Originally by: SATAN
CCP Nozh,
I just hope that you read through all the bs being posted by 99% of the people in this and the other threads.
They have no interest in a balanced game, what they want is their IWIN mechanics and will not take no for an answer. Fact of the matter is they wont even attempt to log into the test server to TEST what they are whining about.
Out of the 30+ pages of feedback, there are maybe 5 people that have actually even tested beyond the initial "OMG I dont do 15k sec anymore".
Fact is current SISI speeds are fine for most ships, some need a bit of work like dictors but for the most part you can still get the job done with intis/hacs/frigs/etc/etc/etc.... While giving others the ability to defend them selves.
Just so you know, my nano HAC builds have always been between 3-4km/s. To reach that level with this patch, it will cost far too much to even try. At 3-4km/s, I never had an "IWIN" button. Also, while going 3-4km/s, I did about 30% of my max damage, which puts me in the ball park of around 110-140 dps.
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 20:41:00 -
[1004]
Originally by: Dzajic
New player is expected to stay in empire and learn skills for 8-10 months before he gets real minimal skills needed to fly PVP ships with any effectiveness.
Actually, Grath killed his first Raven when he was less than 9 hours old.
Goons take noobies on ops on a regular basis. The only thing that keeps you in Empire till your "minimal" skills are trained is your own nerve.
Most alts start with a relatively decent level of combat skills that are perfectly suited for the first thing a new pilot should learn: tackling
IF these changes go through, that may no longer be the case, as new pilots will need all manner of tanking skills to tackle effectively, since they can no longer simply speed tank a rifter and hold on while help comes.
|
Freakdevil
Explora Empire
Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 20:51:00 -
[1005]
Overall a very interesting patch...
Ship class tested:
BS - Slower but more variety and tactics play a huge role = Nicely done
BC - Much of the same now - good ships (albeit Myrmidon drone bay still irks me)
Cruier = Excellent
AF - Ship is fun and exciting again = Perfect!
HAC - Ships are being fitted according to thier bonuses once again = Very good
I say the above with some fairly intensive testing. I was ganked, ganked others and generally ran around looking for issues in the FFA. I like that now even if you are tackled, you have choices and escaping is a possibility if fitted correct. In many scenarios that currently would have ended my ships life (on TQ), I was able to tank damage, return fire and in some circumstances run from the blob...
Suggestions:
1. Vagabond (and only Vagabond) - a little tweak to make the Vagabond a tad bit faster. If their design is speed, then it seems that it is barely faster than the stabber. DPS is good, but that didnt help the two Vagas that tackled my Ishtar. Both died.
2. Rapier - maybe look at giving the rapier a web buff of some sort (maybe range and effectiveness) - Ship was essentially useless on test. In many gank secenarios, they were a non factor and were easily killed.
3. Raven - Torps - they are a bit overpowered compared to blaster weapons
4. Blasters - Not really the guns but the ships that fly them are a really a tad bit slow.
Note: Grid to fit blasters is still an issue...but I am dating myself here...always an issue.. maybe a little buff to make them easier to fit?
It was a blast to test and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Some more 'Official' feedback on any tweaks or changes would be a welcome treat.
Best Regards,
-FD
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 20:52:00 -
[1006]
Originally by: Grath Telkin
IF these changes go through, that may no longer be the case, as new pilots will need all manner of tanking skills to tackle effectively, since they can no longer simply speed tank a rifter and hold on while help comes.
What I personally hate most with this nerf is that I actually never used polycarbon rigs on speedtanked ships, I rather went for the el-cheapo setups that werent broken at all, my 130mill isk vaga goes around 5km/s and is perfectly easy to kill if you know how.
Now it is useless, and I am expected to either:
1) invest billions in fittings and implants to make it viable again
2) tank it up and leroy
My point is that highend setups were broken, now the people that had the isk to abuse game mechanics before still have their fun although they got hit too, while it is no longer an option in the low-end range.
Basically some billionaires abused it, and those that played fair and square the whole time are getting punished 
|
Desoro
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 20:59:00 -
[1007]
Originally by: Darahk J'olonar
Now one question if you would? Would it be possible to test the inverse to see what results you get? HACs w/ tank in close and orbiting with an T2 AB?
How is a HAC going to survive while slow-boating out to a sniper at 200km from the gate going 500 m/s?
|
Dzajic
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:01:00 -
[1008]
Originally by: Grath Telkin
Originally by: Dzajic
New player is expected to stay in empire and learn skills for 8-10 months before he gets real minimal skills needed to fly PVP ships with any effectiveness.
Actually, Grath killed his first Raven when he was less than 9 hours old.
Goons take noobies on ops on a regular basis. The only thing that keeps you in Empire till your "minimal" skills are trained is your own nerve.
Most alts start with a relatively decent level of combat skills that are perfectly suited for the first thing a new pilot should learn: tackling
IF these changes go through, that may no longer be the case, as new pilots will need all manner of tanking skills to tackle effectively, since they can no longer simply speed tank a rifter and hold on while help comes.
OK, you can tackle within weeks, and do it for next 6 months. For fully T2 fit ceptor you need 2-3 months, more if you want to max navigation skills. Cruisers are almost obsolete, frig swarms can be used only to make your opponent accuse you of lagbombing him. Like I said, rest of frigate T2 hulls are either very specialized or useless.
You can talk about "being able to PVP effectively immediately". A friend in 0.0 alliance read me his marching orders:
"Bring:
several fleet BSes,
CS and HACs when possible,
Ceptors, preferably HICtors,
do not bring T1 crap like frigs cruisers and BCes".
Yeey. And I know most 0.0 alliances are nearly same. Ehose "elite PVP non territory holding alliances (AKA pirate aliances)" with their elite nanoHAC brigades need even more skills to effectivly fly.
|
Commander Tigre
Minmatar
Killed In Action
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:01:00 -
[1009]
Edited by: Commander Tigre on 30/07/2008 21:01:39
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Grath Telkin
IF these changes go through, that may no longer be the case, as new pilots will need all manner of tanking skills to tackle effectively, since they can no longer simply speed tank a rifter and hold on while help comes.
What I personally hate most with this nerf is that I actually never used polycarbon rigs on speedtanked ships, I rather went for the el-cheapo setups that werent broken at all, my 130mill isk vaga goes around 5km/s and is perfectly easy to kill if you know how.
Now it is useless, and I am expected to either:
1) invest billions in fittings and implants to make it viable again
2) tank it up and leroy
My point is that highend setups were broken, now the people that had the isk to abuse game mechanics before still have their fun although they got hit too, while it is no longer an option in the low-end range.
Basically some billionaires abused it, and those that played fair and square the whole time are getting punished
I absolutely agree with this. Ludicrous speeds are those over 10km/s. Honestly what percentage of the eve population actually traveled this speed? The answer is very small. Why are the rest being punished?
"We Choose to listen to the lies we don't want to hear. The truth is, your already dead." - Commander Tigre |
Grath Telkin
Amarr
The Illuminati.
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:10:00 -
[1010]
Originally by: Dzajic
OK, you can tackle within weeks, and do it for next 6 months. For fully T2 fit ceptor you need 2-3 months, more if you want to max navigation skills. Cruisers are almost obsolete, frig swarms can be used only to make your opponent accuse you of lagbombing him. Like I said, rest of frigate T2 hulls are either very specialized or useless.
You can talk about "being able to PVP effectively immediately". A friend in 0.0 alliance read me his marching orders:
"Bring:
several fleet BSes,
CS and HACs when possible,
Ceptors, preferably HICtors,
do not bring T1 crap like frigs cruisers and BCes".
Yeey. And I know most 0.0 alliances are nearly same. Ehose "elite PVP non territory holding alliances (AKA pirate aliances)" with their elite nanoHAC brigades need even more skills to effectivly fly.
yea, alot of alliances are like this, some are not. The point is, that you will have to spend EVEN LONGER training skills before you can actually tackle with these changes. Max navigation skills are now only a small bit of what you need to be able to even think of tackling another ship.
|
|
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:10:00 -
[1011]
Edited by: Haakelen on 30/07/2008 21:19:38
My favorite ship on TQ right now is my Ishtar. It goes 3,6ks, straightline. It is terrible at turning. Missiles barbecue it. Pulse lasers scare the living christ out of me, a friend of mine in an absolution got me into structure before I had time to yell at him to stop on Vent. Despite the rumors, Ogre IIs are not impossible to shoot. They, in fact, are quite fragile.
I have seen, in my time in Eve (and 0.0 in particular), One Nano-Mach. It was hitting up towards 8.5k/s.
It died.
e: here it is http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/pk/view.php?type=player&name=Predator%27s&id=3265895&page=1&filter=losses#mail
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Elaine Celeste
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:13:00 -
[1012]
Originally by: Commander Tigre
Edited by: Commander Tigre on 30/07/2008 21:01:39
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Grath Telkin
IF these changes go through, that may no longer be the case, as new pilots will need all manner of tanking skills to tackle effectively, since they can no longer simply speed tank a rifter and hold on while help comes.
What I personally hate most with this nerf is that I actually never used polycarbon rigs on speedtanked ships, I rather went for the el-cheapo setups that werent broken at all, my 130mill isk vaga goes around 5km/s and is perfectly easy to kill if you know how.
Now it is useless, and I am expected to either:
1) invest billions in fittings and implants to make it viable again
2) tank it up and leroy
My point is that highend setups were broken, now the people that had the isk to abuse game mechanics before still have their fun although they got hit too, while it is no longer an option in the low-end range.
Basically some billionaires abused it, and those that played fair and square the whole time are getting punished
I absolutely agree with this. Ludicrous speeds are those over 10km/s. Honestly what percentage of the eve population actually traveled this speed? The answer is very small. Why are the rest being punished?
Nobody will deny that ludicrous speed IS indeed possible, but very few people are able to achieve it. And when they do, a tiny little mistake will cost them many many hundreds of millions, if not billions of ISK.
Quite frankly, assuming similar skills and similar setups, I'd always expect the person who invested 1 billion into their ship to beat the person that merely invested 100 million. But screw up just slightly and next time you run into a couple of people that can counter your speed, and you're a goner.
A nano-HAC that can go 3-4km (no implants) easily costs 200mill+ and can be insured for rather little, while a battleship with fitting still only costs a few dozen mill after insurance. Even then, the nano-HAC only really has speed over the battleship. Flown correctly, the battleship has far more gank and tank, although admittedly it does need some support to damage the nano-HAC at times, though not always.
CELESTE LOTTERIES |
Andnowthenews
Caldari
State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:29:00 -
[1013]
Originally by: Desoro
Originally by: Darahk J'olonar
Now one question if you would? Would it be possible to test the inverse to see what results you get? HACs w/ tank in close and orbiting with an T2 AB?
How is a HAC going to survive while slow-boating out to a sniper at 200km from the gate going 500 m/s?
We have tested:
NANO VS snipers....snipers owned
NANO VS battle cruisers/hacs and recons(general mix tbh)..mixed fleet owned
NANO VS RR bs....rr bs fleet owned
NANO VS Other nano (although im not sure why)...lol
Conventionally Tanked hacs vs a mixed gang of BC....mixed gang owned.
In all of the serious tests the hacs lost all if not 90% of there fleet while the other ships lost nothing in also virtually all casses.
The guys assigned as the "hacs/roaming gang" eventually got p*ssed off and hot dropped the assigned "defender team" with a large fleet of RR bs and carriers .
|
Damion Zyne
Des Esseintes Social Club
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:33:00 -
[1014]
In regards to the web nerf:
As far as I understand your ideas behind the nerf to webs are:
-overall lower speeds, webs need to get in line
-to make AB setups more viable
-to make smaller ships (esp. AF) more viable again
The side effects of your proposed nerf are fex.:
-Huginn / Rapier / Hyena get hit hard
-Tracking becomes an issue for AC / blaster
-T2 BS web bonus gets shafted
Instead of nerving webs and later fix all the problems you created by this, I would suggest just a small downgrade to web effectivness to, lets say, 80% but to also make web strength sig radius dependent (50% vs ceptor like sized ships full 80% BS). This will achieve the web nerf goals as AF / Ceptors with lower sig get webbed less, the AB with no sig radius penalty unlike the MWD is more usefull, BS vs BS (with blaster / AC) can web and track as before but smaller targets can dodge dmg as intended. This will also keep the Rapier / Huginn and the Hyena alive and will actually make the TP bonus usefull.
|
Dzajic
Gallente
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:34:00 -
[1015]
Im not supporting changes, nor dumbing down EVE, just agreed with the first guy who said, that from financial survival standpoint, CCP have to create viable interesting PVP options for younger players, and that only good thing in this patch in so far, is the slight revival of assault frigs.
|
Elaine Celeste
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:38:00 -
[1016]
Edited by: Elaine Celeste on 30/07/2008 21:40:27
Edited by: Elaine Celeste on 30/07/2008 21:39:00
Originally by: Dzajic
Im not supporting changes, nor dumbing down EVE, just agreed with the first guy who said, that from financial survival standpoint, CCP have to create viable interesting PVP options for younger players, and that only good thing in this patch in so far, is the slight revival of assault frigs.
It takes a fair bit of time getting into an AF, though not as much as it takes to get into a HAC, of course. Might as well skill up for a cruiser or battlecruiser and have a better tank and more damage. Takes even less time and you're far more useful.
EDIT: Additionally, the problem with assault frigates isn't just their speed/mass, but also their bonuses. The Ishkur is great, and the Jaguar/Wolf are ok too, but that's about it. Just take a look at the Amarr ones...
CELESTE LOTTERIES |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:44:00 -
[1017]
As far as viable PvP paths for new (1-2 month) players, in my corp we've had luck with:
Caldari chars using Blackbirds
Gallente chars using Vexor drone snipers, assigning their drones to the interceptor pilots, or Celestii (not so much)
Amarr chars using Mallers (Mallers are tough little bastards)
Minmatar chars using Ruptures (A better tech 1 cruiser, there isn't in the game). And seriously, the Rifter. A Rifter+Blackbird team can have some incredible fun screwing with people considerably older, quite easily.
There's useful gang ships for everyone, it varies on the race, but hey. That whole diversity thing is what made Eve fun: different races specialized in different things, giving depth and scope to the game, making it feel wide and open. No more.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Cypher Run
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 21:58:00 -
[1018]
Originally by: Freakdevil
Overall a very interesting patch...
Ship class tested:
BS - Slower but more variety and tactics play a huge role = Nicely done
BC - Much of the same now - good ships (albeit Myrmidon drone bay still irks me)
Cruier = Excellent
AF - Ship is fun and exciting again = Perfect!
HAC - Ships are being fitted according to thier bonuses once again = Very good
I say the above with some fairly intensive testing. I was ganked, ganked others and generally ran around looking for issues in the FFA. I like that now even if you are tackled, you have choices and escaping is a possibility if fitted correct. In many scenarios that currently would have ended my ships life (on TQ), I was able to tank damage, return fire and in some circumstances run from the blob...
Suggestions:
1. Vagabond (and only Vagabond) - a little tweak to make the Vagabond a tad bit faster. If their design is speed, then it seems that it is barely faster than the stabber. DPS is good, but that didnt help the two Vagas that tackled my Ishtar. Both died.
2. Rapier - maybe look at giving the rapier a web buff of some sort (maybe range and effectiveness) - Ship was essentially useless on test. In many gank secenarios, they were a non factor and were easily killed.
3. Raven - Torps - they are a bit overpowered compared to blaster weapons
4. Blasters - Not really the guns but the ships that fly them are a really a tad bit slow.
Note: Grid to fit blasters is still an issue...but I am dating myself here...always an issue.. maybe a little buff to make them easier to fit?
It was a blast to test and I thoroughly enjoyed it. Some more 'Official' feedback on any tweaks or changes would be a welcome treat.
Best Regards,
-FD
Thanks! It's hard to find tested unbiased feedback through these pages.
|
Alski
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 22:03:00 -
[1019]
Edited by: Alski on 30/07/2008 22:04:13
Let me preface my opinions stated below by saying that when I first read the devblog I was hopeful that CCP had thought this through well, as evidenced by the vast amount of changes and the inventive nature of some of them (ie: the scram change) and like many I saved most of my concerns until testing on SISI.
Having done that, I’m now less optimistic….
- Interceptors are less survivable, mwd orbit speed of a target is slower and drones hurt a little more, disengaging from a target is slower and more hazardous in lagy conditions.
- Interdictors are slow to accelerate, have too low a top speed, too large a sig, probably even not enough hitpoints, AB fit is not viable (too slow), in short they are even more of a flying coffin than they were before, far fewer people fly dictors already because of the last nerf to their speed and now they are even slower.
- Overdrive/Nanofiber stacking nerf / reduction is excessive, normal speed modules are less of an issue than rigs, the concept of fitting for speed is near broken as two of the three main modules that allow you to do it do not add an equivalent advantage of even a poor standard tank – ie: using speed to avoid damage is now less viable than just tanking it.
The stated objective of these changes is to make nano ships less capable of avoiding any fight / disengaging at any time, not to kill nano ships completely.
This is a concern since unless a HACs extra manoeuvrability, speed and survivability adds up to something special, there is no reason to fly them over a tier 2 tech 1 BC, you should not have to nano them, but it should remain a viable option.
- Much less effectiveness per isk when comparing T2 microwarpdrives/overdrives/nanofibers to T1 and some named – maybe the prices will come down after the patch, but with current TQ prices the price/performance is a bit messed up, this is really a "entire nano-fit concept now questionable" issue.
- Snakes seem useless now (I don’t care personally since i don't own em, but its an issue)
- Pilots who sunk ~1,850,000 SP into acceleration control 5 and high speed manoeuvring 5 are getting less out of both of those skills due to the overdrive/nano nerf and the mwd cap use/penalty changes
- Afterburners are not sufficient to make them used in PVP, 135% will NOT help you close range on a target fast, re-approach a gate, avoid an enemy, or get out of a bubble quickly, therefore they are useless.
- X-Instinct’s -7.5% signature reduction is utterly useless.
I mean 7.5%.
7%.
Really?
- 10 second mwd reactivation delay = Wrong.
Interceptors and other classes of ships need to at times pulse or unexpectedly reactivate their mwd to keep range or evade in some situations, this is another small ship nerf (ceptors, dictors, frigates, destroyers, assault frigates, EAS..............)
This actually seems to me like it was done because it was the easiest way of coding the warp scrambler / mwd-disableing effect, I hope I’m wrong because it is NOT a good game mechanic.
- Some blaster ships and particularly close range "glass cannon" fits might be negatively impacted by the web strength reduction because of their need to close range before laying down high DPS – some may now need to pulse their mwd’s to stay within web range when fighting certain targets. (another reason mwd reac delay is bad)
My old neutron/magstab brutix seems very slugish 
- Ship class speed rebalance is not quite right, interceptors should go faster than they currently do on SISI, as should interdictors, T1 frigates, T1 destroyers, EAS frigates, and assault frigates (its nice that AF’s got a speed boost, but they are still slow, weak and vulnerable) – ALL these ships depend on their transversal velocity and small signature to evade incoming fire, also fast acceleration to maximum velocity is another factor in many situations and is also now significantly slower (esp. interdictors)
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Alski
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 22:05:00 -
[1020]
damn charicter limit...
- Nerf to gang speed mod / skirmish warfare skill / mindlink seems hugely excessive for the amount of personal sacrifice and specialisation that goes’s into providing them.
Random, Only Slightly Sarcastic Side Note:
Webber drones / SW-900’s.
-Make them 5m3/5mbit
-Higher Base Speed
-Expand all drone carrying ships cruiser size and above bronebay’s (but not bandwidth) by 25m3.
-Change drone link aug to 50km from 20km.
Theres ya nanonerf ya were looking for 
seriously though there were ways to do this purely by boosting other aspects of the game, it’s a shame the playerbase was not asked for input first, as there were many other good ideas like that one out there.
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |