EVE Search - Speed Rebalanced: Feedback thread

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Speed Rebalanced: Feedback thread

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

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)
Andnowthenews Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.08.25 10:51:00 - [2221] Edited by: Andnowthenews on 25/08/2008 10:55:38 Originally by: Andnowthenews This is what NANO does for EVE: 1. Fly a combat fitted ship in pvp instead of a ratting ship. 2. Work and improve as a team. 3. Actually gain some combat piloting skills instead of just "lock target - f1-f8". 4. Fly a variety of ships and use a variety of fittings to be effective. Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Assuming you are talking about the nano HACs are you really suggesting that without them there would be no pvp or teamwork in Eve? Did i say there would be no team work or pvp in EVE if NANO HAC's are removed?....NO i did not Although less skill team work will be needed for certain, and ppl will be less willing to engage in the first place if a simple alpha strike can kill them while they are untackled. Originally by: Neutrino Sunset If so, firstly can you support this seemly nonsensical assertion, and secondly why are you even making this point? There is no plan to get rid of fast HACs, the only plan on the table is to slow them down to the point at which frigates, drones and missiles can actually catch them. Slowing them to a point where you do not need to web them or tackle them to kill them is reducing the skill and team work needed to kill them. At the moment you need to web, or nuet and point them to kill them. If the stupid nerf happens they are slowed to a point where most if not all ships can hit them so all you will need is alpha strike. So if you think that "lock target, hit f1-f8" takes the same amount of skill and team work (or any at all tbh) as having to use webs and point on tacklers while defending the tacklers from hostile ships then your a dreamer. Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Additionally are you also suggesting that no other playstyle other than nano entails any combat skill whatsoever? If so, can't you recognise how incredibly self-indulgent that is going to make you appear to everyone here?. Ive suggested nothing of the sort (although it is the most skilled and it forces ppl to be skilled to beat it) but you seem to want ppl to think im implying things like that in order to help you disregard points you are either too unskilled and experienced to understand or you just find inconvenient. Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Undoubtedly nano tactics do increase the variety of fittings available to certain ships, but obviously so does any other tactic requiring specific modules. So again what is your point? That removing NANO or "any other tactic requiring specific modules" is a reduction in skilled pvp, are to to ignorant to see that obvious point or do you just not want to?. Originally by: Neutrino Sunset And lastly. If you stick to explaining your views and discussing the issues in a friendly and open-minded fashion instead of throwing around juvenile accusations of lying and incompetance, there will be far less chance of you coming across as an utter knob. I have no tolerance for liars neither good ones or bad ones if you do not like that or the fact that i point out how bad they are at lying tough.
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.08.25 13:28:00 - [2222] Originally by: Neutrino Sunset The distinctions that can be emphasised are that HACs are specialised cruiser hulls while BCs are a size class up, HACs acquire their extra capabilities through advanced technologies (resistances, boni) whereas BCs aqcuire their extra capabilities by being larger platforms. So when balancing these classes the distinctions we want to emphasise are that HACs should in the main do extra damage through better boni whereas BCs should do better damage through more guns. HACs should tank better due to harder resistances and smaller sig whereas BC should tank better due to more hp and greater cap. The problem with this is that this leaves both HACs and BC doing very much the same things, but HACs costing a lot more to do it. Therefore HACs need one or more significant additional advantages. Those advantages are/should be cruiser classed mobility, enhanced electronics/technologies. With their greater number of slots and in some cases faster base speeds HACs already have better than cruiser classed mobility, and I know we all hope that the coming speed nerf does not upset that balance too much but instead just curtails the so called 'ridiculous speed'. Looking through the stats though it appears to me as if the advanced nature of HACs is not adequately reflected in their signature resolutions and sensor resolutions with them in some cases having near identical signature resolutions and 1 point higher sensor strength than their T1 equivalents. I would consider buffing HAC sig resolutions and sensor strengths across the board and attempt to rebase their price at something closer to 40-50M isk. Those changes along with an across the board T1 cruiser buff to my mind leave the classes quite nicely balanced. The odd anachronism remains. For one I don't like the way the Ishtar can field 5 heavy drones when Gallente drone bonused BCs and command ships cannot even field 3 as part of a full flight of 5 drones in space. And as to whether a HAC should be able to pwn a BC I would say no it shouldn't be able to (although it should be fairly close), and that this isn't a problem because the HACs superior mobility prevents the BC from being able to pin it down and kill it anyway. great post ... I can only agree ... btw once HACs loose their status, they will come down in price. f.e. some recons cost around 70m isk, I managed to buy a lachesis for 28m isk. don't tell me a falcon is so much more expensive to build than a lach. price is relative to popularity for all non-t1 items. btw Andnowthenews, I noticed you are using nano hac gangs as the only team work and skill needed ships. all others are quickly named blobs. --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
Andnowthenews Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.08.25 13:37:00 - [2223] Edited by: Andnowthenews on 25/08/2008 13:38:16 Originally by: Hugh Ruka btw Andnowthenews, I noticed you are using nano hac gangs as the only team work and skill needed ships. all others are quickly named blobs. I claim that hac gangs are the "only team work and skill needed ships".....id be interested to see a snip and paste where i make that claim.
KIAEddZ Caldari KIA Corp KIA Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.25 13:43:00 - [2224] Having read about 20 random pages of this monster, it seems to me that there are a lot of selfish people that play Eve. "Nano" are totally dominating Eve warfare right now, I should know KIA has flown them exclusively for about 12 months. Something MUST be done, okies the nerf bat looks to be heading large, and really going to change the PvP, and some peoples old and tested styles and thier long hours of practice will be wiped out in a flash, but tbh, its about time. It needs changing, its plainly ridiculous to have a sacrilege or ishtar doing 11k/s. And whilst that is highly skilled and expensive, its very very easy to get 6k/sec from almost any hac, and totally inexpensive. My only concern is the Vaga and Huggin/Rapier. I would like CCP to serioulsy think about these 2 ships, and ensure that they dont get nerfed out of existence. KIA EVE Home KIA in game Public Channel "KIA" KIA are Currently recruiting active PvP minded players. Contact Imperius Blackheart
DeadDuck Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.25 14:03:00 - [2225] Originally by: KIAEddZ Having read about 20 random pages of this monster, it seems to me that there are a lot of selfish people that play Eve. "Nano" are totally dominating Eve warfare right now, I should know KIA has flown them exclusively for about 12 months. Something MUST be done, okies the nerf bat looks to be heading large, and really going to change the PvP, and some peoples old and tested styles and thier long hours of practice will be wiped out in a flash, but tbh, its about time. It needs changing, its plainly ridiculous to have a sacrilege or ishtar doing 11k/s. And whilst that is highly skilled and expensive, its very very easy to get 6k/sec from almost any hac, and totally inexpensive. My only concern is the Vaga and Huggin/Rapier. I would like CCP to serioulsy think about these 2 ships, and ensure that they dont get nerfed out of existence. Aye ________________ God is my Wingman
Andnowthenews Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.08.25 14:12:00 - [2226] Edited by: Andnowthenews on 25/08/2008 14:14:32 Originally by: KIAEddZ Having read about 20 random pages of this monster, it seems to me that there are a lot of selfish people that play Eve. "Nano" are totally dominating Eve warfare right now, I should know KIA has flown them exclusively for about 12 months. NANO dominate eve warfare????. Q. How many POS or POS modules have you destroyed with nano?. A. None, Capitals and battleships do that. Q. How many motherships or titans have you killed with NANO?. A. None, Capitals and battleships are needed for that. Q. How many Sniper+support blobs guarding a home system gate from a invasion have you killed with NANO?. A. None, invasions on that scale are done with snipers and support. Q How many RR BS gangs have you defeated with NANO gangs?. A. None, NANO is ineffective at breaking the spider tank of RR BS and if it gets to close it gets nueted and insta popped, you need capitals or your own RR BS gang. Q. How many NANO gangs that entered your space have you beaten with a pure NANO gang?. A. None, the best defense against a NANO gang is a mixed fleet that includes some NANO ships but also needs a lot of non-NANO ships to be fully effective. NANO dominate eve warfare????????..apart from being ok as far as versatility is concerned when your roaming far from home and cannot swap to a "better" or more useful ship to beat what you come across they can do nothing but roam.
Kepakh	Posted - 2008.08.25 14:18:00 - [2227] Originally by: KIAEddZ Having read about 20 random pages of this monster, it seems to me that there are a lot of selfish people that play Eve. "Nano" are totally dominating Eve warfare right now, I should know KIA has flown them exclusively for about 12 months. Something MUST be done, okies the nerf bat looks to be heading large, and really going to change the PvP, and some peoples old and tested styles and thier long hours of practice will be wiped out in a flash, but tbh, its about time. It needs changing, its plainly ridiculous to have a sacrilege or ishtar doing 11k/s. And whilst that is highly skilled and expensive, its very very easy to get 6k/sec from almost any hac, and totally inexpensive. My only concern is the Vaga and Huggin/Rapier. I would like CCP to serioulsy think about these 2 ships, and ensure that they dont get nerfed out of existence. Watching your killboard is funny...do you do something else apart from gatecamping? So...how nano ships dominate low sec piracy? How nanos dominate in medium to large gang warfare? How many 11km/s HACs you see per day? 6km/s inexpensive Zealot? 4-6km/s moving HAC is wrong? Please elaborate your claims. As I already said, the fact that some tactic is used more than others for certain objectives does not make the game unbalanced or 'exploited'. One Carebear to rule them all, One Carebear to find them, One Carebear to bring them all and in the web range bind them.
Tash D'Angst Sturmgrenadier Inc Cosmic Anomalies	Posted - 2008.08.25 17:02:00 - [2228] Originally by: Meina Lamia I have to say I am impressed with Neutrino Sunsets post, it sums up alot of what I have been thinking with a few differences. Ouch. Hate to see your strong ideas (although they are vastly different from my own) degraded by support from the wrong areas. Sorry, Neutrino! Originally by: Meina Lamia When you take into consideration on how most T1 weapons work compaired to each other in range and damage, the T2 version looks decently more effective but not absurdly so. Unless you are talking about base T1 (made from seeded BPO's), you're... well, just plain wrong. I'm too lazy to look at every weapon class right this second, but I know for a fact that the top Meta Level T1 Projetile Weapons and Missile Launchers function identically to their T2 variants, though they come with lower CPU and PG needs. The only reason to fit T2 is for the use of T2 Ammunitions. Often, these ammo types are useless in comparison with Faction ammo-- thus, you see a lot of Arbalest Launchers and Scout Projectiles used to save on fitting. I would imagine this is the same for Hybrids and Lasers. Certainly holds true for other modules-- Remote Armor Reps, Heavy Energy Neuts, etc. Some top tier T1 items are better than their T2 counterparts. 1600mm Rolled Tungsten Plates, anyone? Originally by: Meina Lamia And imo, the Insane costs of these ships is used as the bases for game breaking speeds. Which to me just points out that Costs are just as much a factor as the speed itself. HACs cost the same no matter how you fit them. Those that are never Nano'd are comparably expensive to their "always nano'd" counterparts. Likewise, the cost does not come from the modules. T2 Nanofibers are probably the cheapest commonly used T2 item in the game. Overdrive II's aren't expensive, either. The high pricetag comes from the Polycarbons. As Alloyed Trit Bars are used for little else but Astronautics Rigs (disclaimer-- as far as I know), their price is determined almost solely by high demand. If price is such a huge factor, you're talking about rig costs-- not ships. Originally by: Hugh Ruka btw once HACs loose their status, they will come down in price. f.e. some recons cost around 70m isk, I managed to buy a lachesis for 28m isk. don't tell me a falcon is so much more expensive to build than a lach. price is relative to popularity for all non-t1 items. Are you kidding? Because HACs are the only ships that use T2 components in their construction. Because everyone has T2 BPO's from which they can produce ships so expensively, negating the need for invention costs. Because every Region has Lachesis for sale that cheap. To be perfectly honest, if HACs are made unviable, no one will invent them anymore, leaving ONLY the T2 BPO holders to dominate the market. With a monopoly, their price will only lower so far. This is, of course, sheer theory and contrivance-- not an Economist myself. Price is most certainly NOT relative to popularity for all non-T1 items. You have it backwards. The high meta T1 items that are only dropped via PvE are priced based on popularity. Everything else has cost factors tied in with their production. That would be mineral costs, BP research/copying/invention (if it applies), etc., etc. Also, your claims ignore the effect of competition. High Meta T1 items spawn at a finite rate-- it's difficult for anyone to just jump into the market. However, things created from BP's allow folks to jump in on a popular item and progressively drop its price. Given, T2 BPO's have ruined this system in many ways, but I'm sure there's people out there who Invent T2 mods and sell them off for near-nothing profit margins. Cripes, I leave this thread for eight hours and the drivel starts coming out of the woodwork. --Tash
DOARota Gallente Guns of Liberty	Posted - 2008.08.25 17:25:00 - [2229] Leave everything except for webs as it is . Just make it so a web acts like hitting loose sand and slows the target immediately.Introduce bs sized T2 webs with a 24 km range. They would be less effective at sniping but would also make the tackler less effective too. It would force snipers to gimp their set up and tacklers to be very careful on range. The biggest problem with ships at such stupid speeds is that even if you web them they coast out of range before slowing enough to get hit.Just jam the bs and kill it as usual, until the falcon gets fixed that is hehe. (Sorry for going against the grain and poasting with main)
Neutrino Sunset Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.08.25 18:08:00 - [2230] Originally by: "Andnowthenews" Did i say there would be no team work or pvp in EVE if NANO HAC's are removed?....NO i did not Originally by: "Andnowthenews" I claim that hac gangs are the "only team work and skill needed ships"???????.....id be interested to see a snip and paste where i make that claimShocked. Originally by: "Andnowthenews" you seem to want ppl to think im implying things like that in order to help you disregard points you are either too unskilled and experienced to understand You've raised these concerns about how your comments are being portrayed. Well firstly if you look closely you'll see that I haven't ascribed any specific meaning to your comments, I've instead asked you to clarify what you actually meant by them. The words 'are' and the question marks at the end of the sentences are the giveaway. Originally by: "Neutrino Sunset" are you really suggesting that without them there would be no pvp or teamwork in Eve? Originally by: "Neutrino Sunset" are you also suggesting that no other playstyle other than nano entails any combat skill whatsoever? If it's not clear to you why you are being asked these questions let me break it down for you. When you state stuff like this: Originally by: "Andnowthenews" This is what NANO does for EVE as ppl need to:- 1. Fly a combat fitted ship in pvp instead of a ratting ship. 2. Work and improve as a team. 3. Actually gain some combat piloting skills instead of just "lock target - f1-f8". 4. Fly a variety of ships and use a variety of fittings to be effective. The obvious inference is that you are ascribing these attributes to nano gangs in particular. Because the alternate inference, that you are ascribing these attributes to many/all playstyles but simply pointing out that they are also shared by nano gangs, would clearly be rather irrelevant wouldn't it? And then when you go on to state stuff like this: Originally by: "Andnowthenews" So if you think that "lock target, hit f1-f8" takes the same amount of skill and team work (or any at all tbh)... Followed by: Originally by: "Andnowthenews" Originally by: "Neutrino Sunset" are you also suggesting that no other playstyle other than nano entails any combat skill whatsoever? Ive suggested nothing of the sort It's going to look to most people as if you are contradicting yourself within the space of two sentences. The one question you did raise in response to my post was this: Originally by: "Andnowthenews" Originally by: "Neutrino Sunset" Undoubtedly nano tactics do increase the variety of fittings available to certain ships, but obviously so does any other tactic requiring specific modules. So again what is your point? The point is obvious to anybody who is not ignoring it cos its inconvenient:- That removing NANO or "any other tactic requiring specific modules" is a reduction in skilled pvp, are to to ignorant to see that obvious point or do you just not want to?. To which my response would be that it's a bit of a pointless question to ask me since I've already clearly stated my view several times that I do not believe there is a plan to get rid of fast HACs, only to rebalance them to the point at which weapons specifically intended to hit them will work. The continuing bleating about 'NANO' being 'removed' is starting to come across as little more than hysterical hyperbole. Anyway, putting all that to one side it appears that what you are trying to say is that you believe that nano HAC gangs require more skill to operate than anything else. I disagree. The basis of your viewpoint appears to be this: ...

Neutrino Sunset Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.08.25 18:09:00 - [2231] Originally by: "Andnowthenews" NANO is at this time the only fitting style that requires a opposing gang to tackle them to be able to kill them (unless pilot stupidity or DDD are involved), and as such is not only the one that needs the most skill variation of ship and fitting to use successfully in gang fighting but also the one that needs the most skill and variation of ship and fitting to defeat. I'd say you have there two definitely faulty premises and one arguably correct premise. Originally by: "Andnowthenews" NANO is at this time the only fitting style that requires a opposing gang to tackle them to be able to kill them Surely this isn't right. It's not even possible to kill a capital let alone a cruiser running back to the gate without tackling it. What are you talking about? Originally by: "Andnowthenews" NANO is ... the one that needs the most skill variation of ship and fitting to use Eh! Don't you realize that they're called a nano gang because they're all fitted the same? Originally by: "Andnowthenews" NANO is ... also the one that needs the most skill and variation of ship and fitting to defeat. And finally, you've actually said something that makes sense! I sort of agree with you, I too think nano gangs probably are one of the hardest types of forces to effectively counter. However you have previously asserted that the best counter to a nano gang is a mixed gang, some tacklers, some recons, some BS etc, and it is here that I disagree somewhat. Firstly a mixed gang of that nature takes times to form up, and longer to get in position. Next, there isn't really a huge amount they can do to keep their own tacklers alive against a HAC gang. And lastly any gang with a few BS in it is a very juicy target. A mixed gang of half a dozen BS plus all the specialized medium ships and tacklers required to tackle a sizeable nano HAC gang is in many cases just a big fat target waiting to get hot dropped. So while in an ideal world of two gangs in a battleground or a tournament a mixed gang of the type outlined above might well be the best counter to a nano HAC gang, in the (real) world of Tranquillity I fear that the sad truth is that far the best counter to a roaming nano HAC gang, is a bigger nano HAC gang. In your 3 premise assertion above there is another issue. You state that a nano HAC gang requires the most skill to operate, but also the most skill to defeat. So which is it? Does a nano HAC gang require the most skill, or does your suggested counter, the mixed gang, require the most skill? It seems pretty clear to me that the mixed gang easily requires the most skill to be successful. For starters they require greater preparation to form up since they require a range of ships fit specifically to work together, whereas the HACs are all homogenously fit. They are more unweildy to manouver into position, and when they engage they have commited themselves, whereas a nano HAC gang is all purpose fit for maximum 'run away' ability. And to a certain extent if mixed gangs were so effective in the face of nano gangs, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, since Eve would be full of mixed gangs all roaming around. But instead there is a preponderance of nano HAC gangs, and I think its pretty obvious to anyone prepared to be even a little bit open-minded that Eve isn't full of nano HAC gangs because they are the most difficult type of gang to be effective with ...
Neutrino Sunset Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.08.25 18:10:00 - [2232] So the long and short of it is that speed tanking is looks likely to take a bit of a hit. We are all hoping that no playstyle is going to be rendered ineffective, (certainly no one here is calling for that, despite some rather disingenuous claims to the contrary). Hopefully no opportunity for skillful flying to make a difference will be lost, and difficulty will not be removed from the game. It will instead just be shifted from one place to another. Mixed gangs will hopefully become more viable in the face of nano HAC gangs, and nano HAC gangs will require greater skill to be effective. And for all those leet PvPers ranting 'lock target hit F1-F8 no skill waa waa' that should be just perfect, because they never wanted to play Eve on easy mode anyway, and 'adapt and change' is the means by which they endlessly pwn the rest of us... right?
Andnowthenews Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.08.25 18:13:00 - [2233] Originally by: Neutrino Sunset I have nothing to add to this discussion so il snip out specific sentences of others posts and past them in such a way that hopefully will lessen their impact. Fixed.
Andnowthenews Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.08.25 18:19:00 - [2234] Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Firstly a mixed gang of that nature takes times to form up, and longer to get in position. Next, there isn't really a huge amount they can do to keep their own tacklers alive against a HAC gang. And lastly any gang with a few BS in it is a very juicy target. A mixed gang of half a dozen BS plus all the specialized medium ships and tacklers required to tackle a sizeable nano HAC gang is in many cases just a big fat target waiting to get hot dropped. 1. Your lack of preparation is no reason to nerf something. 2. Logistics are part of a mixed gang. 3. A gang with BS (high alpha dps nuet), logistics (rep), speed (tackle), nuet (tackle), web (tackle) and ecm (defending tacklers) is a nightmare to a NANO gang. 4. NANO is for roaming in hostile space and ive yet to see a hot drop in a cyno jammed system.
Andnowthenews Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.08.25 18:23:00 - [2235] Edited by: Andnowthenews on 25/08/2008 18:26:17 Originally by: Neutrino Sunset In your 3 premise assertion above there is another issue. You state that a nano HAC gang requires the most skill to operate, but also the most skill to defeat. Correct. Originally by: Neutrino Sunset So which is it? Does a nano HAC gang require the most skill, or does your suggested counter, the mixed gang, require the most skill?. NANO is the most skilled form of roaming and a mixed fleet is the most skilled form of defence against NANO. You find out who has the most personal skill and team work after the fight by seeing who wins although the home team has the odds in their favor.
Andnowthenews Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.08.25 18:26:00 - [2236] Originally by: Neutrino Sunset And to a certain extent if mixed gangs were so effective in the face of nano gangs, we wouldn't even be having this discussion, since Eve would be full of mixed gangs all roaming around. But instead there is a preponderance of nano HAC gangs, and I think its pretty obvious to anyone prepared to be even a little bit open-minded that Eve isn't full of nano HAC gangs because they are the most difficult type of gang to be effective with As you missed earlier with your hot drop comment, a slow moving gang is blob and hot drop fodder when its in hostle space while its highly effective in defending systems with cyno jammers against roaming gangs.
Karad Forsky Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.08.25 19:24:00 - [2237] Originally by: KIAEddZ ...its very very easy to get 6k/sec from almost any hac, and totally inexpensive. No. Most Polycarbed nano-HACs besides the Vagabond land just a little above 4k/s. You need a Skirmish link to achieve 6k/s. Excluding snakes of course, which are not that common.
Neutrino Sunset Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.08.25 20:05:00 - [2238] Lack of preparation is indeed not reason to nerf anything. The best counter to something being more of the same probably is. Your ideal mixed gang response to a nano gang is several of half a dozen types of ships, each type of ship forming a link in a chain of supporting functionality. In small gang conditions that is a fragile situation since the loss of only a ship or two can render you ineffective. A homogenous nano HAC gang does not suffer from this fragility and has greater flexibility especially when operating in non cyno-jammed systems etc. Originally by: "Andnowthenews" NANO is the most skilled form of roaming and a mixed fleet is the most skilled form of defence against NANO. What makes nano gangs a more skilled form of roaming than mixed fleet roaming? Seems like mixed fleet roaming is far more difficult for the reasons already given describing why it is a more difficult form of defense. Originally by: "Andnowthenews" A good what you call "NANO GANG" should have logistics, falcons and command ships among others all of witch are not NANO'd in fact they can and do consist of virtually every ship type in EVE apart from BS That's not what I'd call a nano gang at all, I think you're talking about something different now. The nano gangs which generate the perception that nano roaming is excessively easy and risk free are the gangs that consist of practically nothing other than nano HACs and recons, plus the odd guy in a ceptor who doesn't yet have the skills or isk to fly a HAC. Non-nanoed roaming gangs consisting of as many types of ships as possible that you describe above is exactly what this nerf is striving to promote. If it achieves that then I will welcome it, and a modest curtailment of the value of speed as a tanking mechanism would seem to be a step in the right direction, since that is exactly the sort of thing which will promote greater use of logistics and EWAR, because if speed won't give you such a great tank anymore then you'll have to turn to something else. Originally by: "Andnowthenews" Heavier mixed gang for defense..lighter mixed gang for roaming. I agree this is indeed the desired outcome to aim for. But I'm getting the impression that you think that this is what we already have, whereas I (and I suspect many others) see more pure nano HAC/recon gangs than mixed gangs. Perhaps we just inhabit areas of space with different inhabitants. My experience is mainly in Alliance 0.0, Querious, Catch, the Great Wildlands and the Drone Regions. Nano HAC/recon gangs are two a penny, roaming gangs consisting of Commands Ships, BC, logistics etc are very few and far between. Btw this is my main, I'm currently 'between assignments'.
Andnowthenews Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.08.25 20:32:00 - [2239] Edited by: Andnowthenews on 25/08/2008 20:36:07 Originally by: Neutrino Sunset In small gang conditions that is a fragile situation since the loss of only a ship or two can render you ineffective. A homogenous nano HAC gang does not suffer from this fragility and has greater flexibility especially when operating in non cyno-jammed systems etc. A NANO gang needs as much support as does the defending gang unless it is only ganking solo carebears (and any type of gang can do that), if it is going up against a skilled and well balanced gang it needs all the specified ships working together and is just as vulnerable and crippled if they lose one, in fact more so as they cannot get a easy replacement while roaming. Originally by: Neutrino Sunset That's not what I'd call a nano gang at all, I think you're talking about something different now. The nano gangs which generate the perception that nano roaming is excessively easy and risk free are the gangs that consist of practically nothing other than nano HACs and recons, plus the odd guy in a ceptor who doesn't yet have the skills or isk to fly a HAC. That is because most of the ppl with the perception about NANO gangs consisting of only hacs and fast recons have no idea about NANO, pvp or what a good roaming gang consists off. A solo ratter getting ganked will be just as dead against a BC gang and it takes no skill to kill him with either or any type of ships. But to take on another well skilled and properly setup gang takes a lot more skill and ship types. Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Non-nanoed roaming gangs consisting of as many types of ships as possible that you describe above is exactly what this nerf is striving to promote. Its already here the problem is that the NANO part of the mixed roaming gang is the easy target for the skilless, inept and lazy to blame losing their ship on instead of themselves. Originally by: Neutrino Sunset I agree this is indeed the desired outcome to aim for. But I'm getting the impression that you think that this is what we already have, whereas I (and I suspect many others) see more pure nano HAC/recon gangs than mixed gangs. Perhaps we just inhabit areas of space with different inhabitants. Perhaps but i fly with PL a lot and they have all the ships i named in their roaming "NANO" gangs, do not get me wrong a lot of the ships are NANO due to the fact its a roaming gang but i personally fly a falcon or logistics (un-nano'd obviously) and they and the others are considered essential. I'l not say that there are not ppl that fly pure NANO squads but they are very vulnerable to a mixed hang setup like the one i listed and considerably less effective than a mixed nano gang like we fly.
Andnowthenews Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.08.25 20:34:00 - [2240] Edited by: Andnowthenews on 25/08/2008 20:34:39 Here is the question i used to ask new recruits:- Do you consider yourself a experienced pvper and out of all the ships you have lost in combat what percentage do you feel were due to a mistake you made?. What would your answer be?.

Neutrino Sunset Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.08.25 21:07:00 - [2241] I'd consider myself fairly experienced. I say that most of my ship losses could be attributed to pilot error at least in part.
Kepakh	Posted - 2008.08.25 21:16:00 - [2242] Neutrino: Originally by: Neutrino Sunset What makes nano gangs a more skilled form of roaming than mixed fleet roaming? Seems like mixed fleet roaming is far more difficult for the reasons already given describing why it is a more difficult form of defense. Sure, doing something in less efficient manner often requires more effort. Originally by: Neutrino Sunset That's not what I'd call a nano gang at all, I think you're talking about something different now. The nano gangs which generate the perception that nano roaming is excessively easy and risk free are the gangs that consist of practically nothing other than nano HACs and recons, plus the odd guy in a ceptor who doesn't yet have the skills or isk to fly a HAC. Nano gang consisting of pretty much anything moving +2.5km/s. Very wrong about interceptors. They really do what they are supposed to do: intercept and scout. Contradictory to very common myth, average nano speed is 3-4km/s. You don't send +200M ship to intercept neighborhood system/gate. Also ceptors are viable companions in fights and many people favour them to HACs. Originally by: Neutrino Sunset Non-nanoed roaming gangs consisting of as many types of ships as possible that you describe above is exactly what this nerf is striving to promote. If it achieves that then I will welcome it, and a modest curtailment of the value of speed as a tanking mechanism would seem to be a step in the right direction, since that is exactly the sort of thing which will promote greater use of logistics and EWAR, because if speed won't give you such a great tank anymore then you'll have to turn to something else. Slow boating gangs are ship number dependant, there is where blobs come in. Larger force always beat smaller gang, no chance to avoid it, no chance to disangeage. Even if you lose 20% of your force, you can return home, that is the price for specialized ships(a bit exaggerated bit the principle is there). You simply won't be able to afford loses which is one step from blobbing, you will try to make your gangs as large as possible. Great thing about nanos is that minimum people is required. You just pick smaller targets and avoid dangerous situations which is difficult to achieve in mixed gang. There are ways to fight nanos. Do they require anything special? Not more than nano pilots need their piloting skills. Nanos are not invincible, they get hit easily. Only 'issue' is that they can disengage which is exactly you need to avoid blobbing so they are not braking any mechanic, on the contrary it is very much welcomed. The best and probably the most funny part is, that all this you can do now, you don't need speed nerf. All in all, nano is good. It has specific role, it is the desired diversity all people wish to see. The problem is, most of the people focus on combat purely not taking into account circumstances leading to engagement itself. One Carebear to rule them all, One Carebear to find them, One Carebear to bring them all and in the web range bind them.
Neutrino Sunset Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.08.25 23:00:00 - [2243] Originally by: "Kepach" Also ceptors are viable companions in fights and many people favour them to HACs. In my experience most FCs would ask for a HAC or recon over a ceptor any day, and scouting is generally done by cov ops or force recons. Some pilots might prefer to take a ceptor, again in my experience mostly the pilots that cannot afford to lose a HAC, but I think that to say many pilots prefer to take a ceptor to a nano gang is stretching it a bit. Originally by: "Kepach" You simply won't be able to afford loses which is one step from blobbing, you will try to make your gangs as large as possible. Great thing about nanos is that minimum people is required. You just pick smaller targets and avoid dangerous situations which is difficult to achieve in mixed gang. I advocate making HACs a bit cheaper to ammeliorate exactly the point you are making here, and FCs will almost always try to rustle up as large a gang as possible no matter what gang type is being formed. The notion that if HACs go 1 kms slower than than they currently do nobody will ever come out to fight unless they are part of an uber blob seems exceedingly unlikely. If you're too poor to stomach the potential loss of a T2 cruiser use a T1 cruiser (which I would advocate buffing). If you want fast, small gang combat take frigs, inties and dictors. Originally by: "Kepach" Only 'issue' is that they can disengage I think another important issue is T2 cruisers outrunning frigates, dictors, and light drones and missiles. My understanding of the idea behind the nerf is that post nerf all the playstyles that previously existed will still exist. The main difference will be that T2 cruisers will no longer outrun frigs, dictors, light drones and missiles to the extent that they currently do. That doesn't sound too bad to me, and trying to look on the bright side, if done well it might even breathe a bit more life into the smaller ship classes. However what was rolled out on Singularity last week was clearly in many peoples view not done well, and I share that view, and I know that we all hope that what finally makes it onto Tranquillity is something a little more refined. But for some reason there seems to be a vocal segment of the community that is acting as if a nerf in any form will result in the sky falling in and nobody ever flying HACs again and anyone who disagrees with them must be an incompetent, and to me that attitude just seems unnecessarily over-dramatic. Yes it might be a significant change in the Eve combat dynamic, but I'm sure I'll adapt to it without too much distress, and I expect most other people will too.
Ace Zer0	Posted - 2008.08.25 23:27:00 - [2244] No offense CCP, but you guys really messed this one up. Scrap it and try again
Kepakh	Posted - 2008.08.26 06:26:00 - [2245] Originally by: Neutrino Sunset In my experience most FCs would ask for a HAC or recon over a ceptor any day, and scouting is generally done by cov ops or force recons. Some pilots might prefer to take a ceptor, again in my experience mostly the pilots that cannot afford to lose a HAC, but I think that to say many pilots prefer to take a ceptor to a nano gang is stretching it a bit. Sure, just Cov Ops are specialized, they can't help your gang in fight, ceptors can. As already said, not every HAC/Recon goes light speed and not everyone is flying Vaga, people simply enjoying speed and maneuvering and hop into ceptors that goes double speed of their HAC. Originally by: Neutrino Sunset I advocate making HACs a bit cheaper to ammeliorate exactly the point you are making here, and FCs will almost always try to rustle up as large a gang as possible no matter what gang type is being formed. The notion that if HACs go 1 kms slower than than they currently do nobody will ever come out to fight unless they are part of an uber blob seems exceedingly unlikely. If you're too poor to stomach the potential loss of a T2 cruiser use a T1 cruiser (which I would advocate buffing). If you want fast, small gang combat take frigs, inties and dictors. It is not a matter of ISK, losing specialized ship in mixed gang 'cost' more. Mixed gang losing efficiency with ship numbers rapidly. Therefore more ships in nano gang is handy, but it is not vital as it is for mixed gangs. T2 HAC speed is on edge and any 'adjusment' leading to lower speed hurts them bad. T1 cruisers are generaly too slow for nanoing and it should stay that way, no buff is needed. Only advantage of cruisers is speed. No HP/DMG buff helps them. Originally by: Neutrino Sunset I think another important issue is T2 cruisers outrunning frigates, dictors, and light drones and missiles. My understanding of the idea behind the nerf is that post nerf all the playstyles that previously existed will still exist. The main difference will be that T2 cruisers will no longer outrun frigs, dictors, light drones and missiles to the extent that they currently do. That doesn't sound too bad to me, and trying to look on the bright side, if done well it might even breathe a bit more life into the smaller ship classes. However what was rolled out on Singularity last week was clearly in many peoples view not done well, and I share that view, and I know that we all hope that what finally makes it onto Tranquillity is something a little more refined. But for some reason there seems to be a vocal segment of the community that is acting as if a nerf in any form will result in the sky falling in and nobody ever flying HACs again and anyone who disagrees with them must be an incompetent, and to me that attitude just seems unnecessarily over-dramatic. Yes it might be a significant change in the Eve combat dynamic, but I'm sure I'll adapt to it without too much distress, and I expect most other people will too. HACs do not outrun frigates. Pimped Vaga does not outrun pimped ceptor. However, faction fitted excessive speed might be adjusted, not many people would disagree on that point. Still, HAC and Recons need the speed they can achieve on TQ today - T2 fitted with polycarbs. They don't go that fast as many ppl think. Fast ships avoiding missiles is perfectly balanced and fine. I would nerf them even more. If drones are supposed to catch fast ships, they need to do considerable lower dmg. Leave drones and missiles doing what they are good at - PvE. The vision presented is no fast boats at all. Having HAC speed halved makes them unsuable. Lowering speed in no way adding survivability to smaller ships. On the contrary, it drops their survivability to 0. As already said, T2 fitted HAC with polycarbs are on the edge of effectivity. You slower them down even by 500m/s it is a significant difference and message from CCP was clear - no speed tank. No wonder ppl freak out, we know what CCP is capable of One Carebear to rule them all, One Carebear to find them, One Carebear to bring them all and in the web range bind them.
Hugh Ruka Exploratio et Industria Morispatia	Posted - 2008.08.26 07:54:00 - [2246] Originally by: Andnowthenews Edited by: Andnowthenews on 25/08/2008 20:34:39 Here is the question i used to ask new recruits:- Do you consider yourself a experienced pvper and out of all the ships you have lost in combat what percentage do you feel were due to a mistake you made?. What would your answer be?. That is actualy a funy question. ALL ship losses are caused by a mistake you made. Usualy the mistake is that you did engage the opponent or did not bail when you still had time to do so. If you do not do a mistake, you do not die. Plain and simple :-) --- SIG --- CSM: your support is needed !
Andnowthenews Caldari State War Academy	Posted - 2008.08.26 08:45:00 - [2247] Originally by: Hugh Ruka Originally by: Andnowthenews Here is the question i used to ask new recruits:- Do you consider yourself a experienced pvper and out of all the ships you have lost in combat what percentage do you feel were due to a mistake you made?. What would your answer be?. That is actualy a funy question. ALL ship losses are caused by a mistake you made. Usualy the mistake is that you did engage the opponent or did not bail when you still had time to do so. If you do not do a mistake, you do not die. Plain and simple :-) Its not funny its about taking responsibility. I would answer yes im experienced and 100%. Most ppl say"i was following orders" or "they had blah.." or "we did not have.." but the truth is that if you lose your ships because you were not prepared or because you engaged when you were not ready or any reason you can think of its still 100% your fault for doing so and nobody else's. Everybody knows how to beat a roaming NANO gang, they know that a varied array of ships are needed, they know that they need to fit them a certain way to be part of a effective unit and they should know they need to work as a organized team. But instead of doing that and being prepared for some rather great and tactical fighting a lot of the carebears run crying to ccp looking to change the game and move the goal posts.
Kalintos Tyl Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.26 12:39:00 - [2248] typhoon mass before nerf 100kk raven mass before nerf 110kk raven mass after nerf 93kk mhm something wrong here. CCp want to see 2km+ snaked ravens with 30km torps melting anything?
Cpt Branko Surge.	Posted - 2008.08.26 13:42:00 - [2249] Originally by: Kalintos Tyl typhoon mass before nerf 100kk raven mass before nerf 110kk raven mass after nerf 93kk mhm something wrong here. CCp want to see 2km+ snaked ravens with 30km torps melting anything? Mmmm, they totally messed up the masses. Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint
Lyvv Amarr Personal Vendetta Vendetta Alliance.	Posted - 2008.08.26 15:12:00 - [2250] Edited by: Lyvv on 26/08/2008 15:12:12 Quote: [ 2008.07.28 21:58:09 ] ElweSingollo > still a dev though and sorry but basing your changes on what a minority of the eve population can actually affor i.e. high grade snakes is ****ed [ 2008.07.28 21:58:29 ] sopmac1 > ouch [ 2008.07.28 21:58:30 ] Kanx Alanks > elwesingollo you have no clue what your talking about [ 2008.07.28 21:58:30 ] Yowin > who the hell is going to use a huginn over a rapier now? [ 2008.07.28 21:58:34 ] CCP Atropos > sigh [ 2008.07.28 21:58:36 ] Yowin > no tank, no speed [ 2008.07.28 21:58:38 ] The Judge > ships were too fast without snakes in still [ 2008.07.28 21:58:42 ] Aria Selenis > Whats a huginn. [ 2008.07.28 21:58:43 ] nimbadhe > i need shield :P [ 2008.07.28 21:58:45 ] Captator > hehe atropos you must put up with a lot of this? ^^ [ 2008.07.28 21:58:45 ] CCP Atropos > it's simple really [ 2008.07.28 21:58:50 ] Dante Reborn > lol webs are useless now [ 2008.07.28 21:58:52 ] CCP Atropos > when it becomes the de facto method for fighting [ 2008.07.28 21:58:54 ] Kanx Alanks > rofl you DIDNT NEED SNAKES to hit 6km before learn the godamn game [ 2008.07.28 21:58:55 ] CCP Atropos > it needs ot be nerfed [ 2008.07.28 21:59:00 ] Captator > it isn't defacto [ 2008.07.28 21:59:02 ] CCP Atropos > simple as really I love this guy. "it needs to be nerfed..." Nerf the Devs imo and bring some quality people in there that actually spent some time in the game and, yes, that actually operated HAC gangs and really know the impact of the changes they proposed. ing ****s. Everyone that actually flies and operates HACs or conducts skirmish warfare with HACs (successfully) knows that using HACs will no longer be a viable option, based on the pieces of digital puke that is currently making up Sissi anyways. And this muppet, CCP Atropos, oughta know that the next "de facto method" for small gangs to operate will be RR BS. They gonna do what? Nerf Remote Reppers cause it becomes "de facto"? Where does CCP find these guys, seriously? Import some quality workers from India if you have to, I know your island is rather small and all...but still, come on!



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

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.