|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
    |
Posted - 2008.07.28 16:27:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Kay Han
But hey lets all skill for drakes right now. Seems to be the superiour ship after the patch
Please, god, someone who can log into the test server and has BS 5/T2 Blasters try out a Mega and see if it's been destroyed too.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 16:38:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Kay Han
Well my opinion as blasterthron pilot ist the following:
either you fit a scram and a web.. so you once get your target tackled it will be toast. Nothing changed at all.
Or you fit a disruptor then you could have teh problem that the target will outspeed you so you dont get in range and your cap runs dry over time through the perma MWDing.
I think vindicators will raise in price even more through thier 5th med slot. thouigh about to sell mine. But i think iŠll keep it (overloaded faction disruptor + disruptor + web = win ^^) also vigilants. ;)
It could be worse. I guess. I suppose I should feel happy about Getting a Vindi for 899M yesterday then 
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 16:54:00 -
[3]
Unless the modifications in this nerf are changed significantly, missiles will need to be looked at seriously.
Going by the words of the Devblog itself, missiles will not be able to be outrun (ie: out tracked). With the broad spectrum speed nerf, they will be doing nearly full damage against almost every ship except interceptors. There are FOFs. Damage type can be selected. Average damage per hit will still be high. There's no gradient in regards to long range vs. short range missiles in the spectrum of Cruisers/BCs/HACs/CSes. Defenders are 100% useless, but they are not a realistic counter anyway, as they are launched from missile hardpoints, and Gallente/Amarr generally lack those.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 17:18:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Trent Nichols
Originally by: Haakelen
Originally by: Kay Han
But hey lets all skill for drakes right now. Seems to be the superiour ship after the patch
Please, god, someone who can log into the test server and has BS 5/T2 Blasters try out a Mega and see if it's been destroyed too.
Oh yea, forget the standard blaster mega. Your cap will be gone before (if) you get there and you cant stop your prey with a web. Yes I tested this on Sisi.
Ill echo most of the sensible replies Ive heard so far. This nerf was needed but its impact is far too broad.
I hate 8000kms vagabonds but 3200 is just silly.
This is very not good, and I seriously hope the Devs look into it immensely. Blasters have serious tracking and range issues that gallente pilots have dealt with JUST FINE for years and DO NOT need to be buffed/changed but the inability to get into range, keeping a target there, or getting them trackable would completely destroy the PvP ability of the Megathron, Astarte, Eos, Brutix, Thorax, Deimos, and Hyperion.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 17:51:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Exlegion
This change is allowing Caldari-specialized characters to actually have better PVP options. I think it's a good change. Caldari ships will actually fair better in PVP.
I'm looking forward to the changes.
Because the Phoenix isn't good. The Onyx is an awful HIC. The Crow? Sweet JESUS, please give me a Taranis! The Rokh? God I'm starting to see your point here. Torp Ravens? Low DPS tbh.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 18:15:00 -
[6]
At the absolute very least, the MWD reactivation penalty and Scrams shutting off MWDs needs to go. It messes up far too much.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 18:22:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Fish Brain
clearly not because:
CCP Nozh > we're taking a look at missile speed and explosion velocity to balance it out.
If you believe that'll happen, you're high. The entire genesis behind all this is Caldari crying because they're too stupid to realize that just because heavy missiles on a Drake or Caracal can't instaown a HAC like they can NPCs, something has to be changed.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 18:30:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Exlegion
It isn't about missiles "instaowning". That's the other extreme from where they are now. It's about missiles hitting nanos for decent damage. Missiles compared to guns are subpar and this change addresses the issue. Precision heavies may be worth something on PVP now.
Missiles are only 'subpar' for PvP in the broadest sense, if you expect to use them as a 100% analog of guns. THEY ARE NOT. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF EVE: WEAPON SYSTEMS HAVE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. Things do not act the same with different names.
Using current mechanics, a cerberus can be fit for very specific anti-nano duty and do an excellent job. Torpravens are good ships for solo/small gang DPS. HAM Nighthawk has great DPS and ROF. HAM Drake when not fit for pure tank (think outside the PvE box, you noobs) works great. Crow. What else do you want? For non-missile ships you have the Rokh, which is the best Hybrid fleet sniper. There's the Eagle, which just recently got a fifth turret.
Caldari as a whole with this is completely overpowered. ECM is the only effective Ewar. Passive shield tanking is ridiculous.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 18:45:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ikoras
Originally by: Exlegion
Edited by: Exlegion on 28/07/2008 18:27:07
It isn't about missiles "instaowning". That's the other extreme from where they are now. It's about missiles hitting nanos for decent damage. Missiles compared to guns are subpar and this change addresses the issue. Precision heavies may be worth something on PVP now. Nano should be a different flavor tank, not invulnerable to missiles.
I'm sure this has been said before and I'm sure after I say it it will be said again. W/o support ya, caldari isn't the greatest. Caldari is one of the strongest if not the strongest fleet race. So when your rapiers and other battleships tackle these "un hittable " nano ships that I hear all you carebears crying about. You sit there and deal insanely amounts of dmg. not to mention caldari's ecm abilities make or break a fight.
Take a Vagabond. Put 15 Drakes on a gate, + a Rapier cloaked. Let him think he's fine to screw around. Begin firing missiles at the Vagabond. Decloak the Rapier, web the Vagabond.
Marvel as 250 Heavy missiles come slamming into him in 2 seconds, where all hybird/projectile charges and laser bursts fired at him before would've not done a thing.
Yeah, missiles are totally useless, how dare we suggest they might have a reason to exist.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 18:51:00 -
[10]
Caldari have more effective ships for PvP than some other races. The problem is people don't want to take the time to skill up in specific areas or learn how to fit things unconventionally.
Think before you die. You have a brain and the ability to think laterally for a reason.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
|
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 18:57:00 -
[11]
Jesus tapdancing christ.
You seriously can't read, that's what I'm getting out of this.
You do not need FIFTEEEN DRAKES TO KILL A VAGABOND WITH A RAPIER.
I was making a point that missiles slam into webbed targets, until they time out. Turret-based weapons don't.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 19:07:00 -
[12]
Hell, you want to counter a Vaga with only Caldari ships, Warhead Flare Catalyst rig a Cerberus with precision lights. You will barbecue nanos, current mechanics. Are you smart, and don't buy into the 'one ship = one ship to counter' argument? Awesome. Falcon + Crow + DPS boat, doesn't matter which one. Drake, Cerb, Raven, etc.
Amarr have neuts and Pulse (Seriously look at the tracking sometime). Gallente have drones and neuts. Caldari have ECM and missiles (when used intelligently). Minmatar have speed. There's only 'No racial counter' if you're intentionally ignoring the facts.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 19:52:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Ferocious FeAr
sadly most of EVE are nano pilots so you will indeed only get negative feedback from them.
According to ineve, 16% of characters out of their 62,000 player sampleset are HAC pilots. You cannot assume every one of them uses a HAC for PvP, and even then nanos it, either. Your assumption is false.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 20:17:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Grath Telkin
EDIT: so no alliance tourney this summer AND your raping a whole style of play. Brilliant CCP
They must be reeeeeally sure of themselves that Vampire MMO is going to pay off.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 20:44:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Ferocious FeAr
Originally by: Haakelen
Originally by: Ferocious FeAr
sadly most of EVE are nano pilots so you will indeed only get negative feedback from them.
According to ineve, 16% of characters out of their 62,000 player sampleset are HAC pilots. You cannot assume every one of them uses a HAC for PvP, and even then nanos it, either. Your assumption is false.
Okay name the last time you saw a Sacrilege tank? Name the last time you saw and Ishtar tank? Name the last time you saw a Zealot tank? Name the last time you saw Mach tank? ......I rest my case.
You can reply and say you have but everyone that knows that its all speed tank in the game right now. OH MAN WHAT TO DO!?!?! YOU MEAN I HAVE TO TANK A HAC?????
People don't tank HACs because, as it has been said thirty thousand times in the past, Tier 2 BCs do it better in every situation. Machariels are by nature the fastest Battleships, of course people are going to use that to their advantage.
HEY LOOK I CAN POST DUMB SHIT IN CAPITAL TEXT TOO
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 21:15:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Vision Threads
Seriously, the changes are cutting more than one way here.
Don't forget blasters.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 21:25:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Thorradin
Originally by: Chr0nosX
Vaga when flying 3000m/s can't do any damage because its guns won't track with barrage.
Fit something other than barrage?
Try flying a Vaga sometime.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 21:32:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Vision Threads
Actually I'm looking forward to getting back to the days when flying a T2 cruiser is distinctive and elite. Not every tom **** and harry flying one because "sure it's expensive but you can usually disengage". Flying an elite cruiser should be the mark of an elite player who has ISK to burn. Just like flying a faction ship, you should fly a T2 cruiser just for the pimp factor. I would fly mine even if they were worse than T1 just to show off.
Originally by: Vision Threads
If all you want to do is fight, you can do that in any old ship.
If all you like doing is gathering into a blob and using zero real tactics.
Originally by: Vision Threads
But EVE is sorely lacking in bling to spend my billions of ISK on to show it off.
Could you please take your internet spaceship dressup shit somewhere else, ****ing hell.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 21:37:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Thorradin
He probably thinks 5-10million SP in one area = 5-10million in another, which is a common mistake.
Yeah, for instance, Signal Dispersion 5 and Signal Suppression 5. Signal Dispersion 5 is actually useful.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 21:40:00 -
[20]
No, eve is about blobbing, you see.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
|
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:18:00 -
[21]
Thorradin, as usual, you're missing the point. Because you're a narrowminded, myopic little ***** who can't think outside the box.
If you weren't, you might realize that I'm pointing out that missiles already fired will catch up to a webbed ship. Charges and laser firings don't.
PS: if you caldari militia people weren't such total idiots you might try using warhead flare catalysts and precision T2 light missiles and see what they do against nanoships, hint: they make them explode very easily.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:28:00 -
[22]
My alt can fly one. What's your point? I wasn't talking about the Nighthawk. I was talking about the Cerberus and to a lesser extent Caracal and drake.
If you're arguing the Nighthawk was pointless before this nerf, you obviously have no business using one, as you don't know how to fit it.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:34:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Haakelen on 28/07/2008 22:35:13
Originally by: Thorradin
You're wrong if you think people don't want to see overkill FOTM/Y crap nerfed.
Then let's nerf passive tanks, ECM, missile explosion velocity, and torpedo DPS next.
Afterall, if it's not 'fair' that 'every PvP ship has an MWD permanently taped onto it', then it's not 'fair' that 'every PvP ship bigger than a BC has an ECCM permanently taped onto it', now is it?
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:44:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Haakelen on 28/07/2008 22:44:47
Originally by: Thorradin
Nanos right now are no different than ECM and damps were before they got nerfed into line.
If you think ECM got 'nerfed' at all, you're a ****ing idiot.
PS: 'Not being useful on every ship' vs. 'Being ****ing overpowered on a Falcon' are two different kinds of broken, the latter is true, the former WAS true.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:52:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Thorradin
shit not worth reposting
Every single post you make, Thorradin, is essentially, 'more ships. Bring more ships. More ships should be better.'
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 23:22:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Haakelen on 28/07/2008 23:23:48
Way to not read. I said every ship bigger than a BC. If you're flying a RR BS, and you don't fit ECCM, you're a moron. I've been tempted to put an ECCM on my Ishtar once or twice because it seems like everyone and his ****ing dog has a ****ing Falcon alt they can use to **** up any situation they desire.
If HACs weren't designed for Guerilla warfare, what the **** point do they have? Tier 2 BCs outclass them in every way. They have literally no purpose if you get your way.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 23:42:00 -
[27]
Edited by: Haakelen on 28/07/2008 23:42:12
^^^ you're good at this trolling shit, /\
Originally by: Thorradin
Wait, what HAC does worse than its T1 counterpart?
Every single one tanks worse. Most have to scale down to lower-tier weapons to tank significantly at all.
There is no reason to fly a HAC without nano.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 23:48:00 -
[28]
also state protectorate 
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 00:38:00 -
[29]
Locus-rigged Zealots and Apocs are, just like nanos, a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself.
Why do people do locus scorch zealots and apocs? They're fun. Mid-range stuff, supposedly what Amarr was meant for, is interesting and provides flavor. Long-range sniping in fleets is goddamn boring.
The problem is not the Locus rigs and their use, though it is unbalanced and should be looked at. The problem is that the current 'way things are supposed to be' is ****ing boring, so people are working around it.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 00:48:00 -
[30]
Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 00:53:40
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
4) MAYBE make the 7.5km scram changes. Web range is already death to speed tanks anyway, so shutting off the MWD at even closer ranges won't make that much of a difference.
I could argue on the rest, I won't. This, however, is beyond the pale.
It ****s up battleships too. It ****s up blasters, regardless of size. There is no reason to do it, considering the broad spectrum changes that they're proposing. It's insult to injury.
It's also completely obvious what CCP is doing- including a few clearly unreasonable changes to an omnibus game mechanic overhaul (in one patch no less), and 'graciously' remove those to 'show they care', while continuing to implement other changes too harshly/too soon/too ham-fisted.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
|
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 00:59:00 -
[31]
Missiles needed some looking at. The problem is, with the kind of changes they're doing, you're seeing shit like this:
Originally by: erimon
Turret BS are the big losers.
Originally by: erimon
A maller will be pretty much helpless
Originally by: erimon
While i can dodge turret fire reliably a torp raven means my death in a cruiser.
Stuff like that makes reasonable people believe that CCP is turning missiles into the perfect weapon system in every situation. Adding passive shield tanks and ECM into the mix, it gives the whole 'Caldari Online' thing perspective.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 01:12:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
I don't really see how it hurts blaster ships all that much.
On paper, it wouldn't. In practice, with the addition of the weakened webs (Why?), it really becomes painful. Blaster tracking was already meh.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 01:22:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Originally by: Haakelen
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
I don't really see how it hurts blaster ships all that much.
On paper, it wouldn't. In practice, with the addition of the weakened webs (Why?), it really becomes painful. Blaster tracking was already meh.
Note that I specifically did NOT include the web changes. Those are a fundamental change in game mechanics, and would require a complete re-balancing of tracking in addition to their effects on speed. While it could be argued that a black and white choice of full speed or webbed to .0001m/s is not a very good idea, this is not the time to be adding in such a complicated and delicate balance problem.
The problem is, as I've been noticing, is that apparently CCP's new mechanics don't scale up at all. Because what they're looking to do is completely killing speed tanking in any capacity. The mechanic changes trickle down onto the battleships, and mess them up. They mess with the blasterboats, and Hurricanes/Tempests/Maels.
Look at the Energy Locus rigs for an example of what I'm talking about. In general, rigs need to be carefully, carefully considered, because it sure seems like in many situations they're messing things up, requiring ridiculous overhauls to bring things 'in line' (whether they're 'out of line' and where or what that line is, is up for discussion). That creates problems. Namely, close range weapon systems that aren't pulse lasers or torps.
CCP could add a '-60% penalty to MWD speed boost' to every ship that gets nanoed currently, but that'd be hilariously ridiculous. So to get a similar result, they're making sweeping mechanical changes, which mess up other things. Nano problem or not, that CREATES a problem.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 01:30:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Miriyaka
How is this so hard to comprehend? Augh.
I really think it's just the usual :ccp: way, unfortunately.
You want an orange. You have apples. You drive past the grocery store to the genetic engineering company next door and spend 25 years modifying the DNA of an apple into an orange.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 01:48:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 01:50:52
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
But you know what's really funny? Guess what all the nano pilots are using as a fundamental argument: "nanos are the only working strategy for solo/small-gang pvp, remove them and all you have are blobs". How good can these alternate strategies be when even the nano pilots admit they have a clearly dominant strategy?
It's dominant because it's more fun. Remote rep battleships and completely force recon fleets can work in similar situations, but they have downsides. RR setups are slow and vulnerable if cutoff from the friendlies (and ECM, of course, hence why my Dominixes have two ECCM at all times). Recons are thinner even than nanos, have very low DPS, and don't fare well in 'better fights' (more suited to quick ganks followed by GTFOing)
When your nearest enemy is 45 jumps, do you want to go romping around in a plated trimarked abaddon?
RR works best around entry points and chokes. Nanos allow pushing deeper into enemy territory and disrupting operations harder than you can with recons. There's other ways of course, but it provides the most excitement.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 01:53:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Atrei Capital
Riskiest? That's a good one.
I can tell you've never flown a nano, and watched a rapier or curse decloak nearby.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 02:02:00 -
[37]
If you're contenting that only the Curse and Rapier are scary to nanos, again, it's obvious you don't fly them, and probably don't deal with them with conviction.
A Falcon can easily jam a few HACs. Falcon + Inty(ies) = lol. Esp. short-range gank inties like taranises, which usually fit webs.
This is not a thread about counters to nanos, there's a million of those already, and the ideas behind them are obvious enough if you think outside the box. That's not the problem.
The problem is that CCP can't seem to answer a question.
Is the problem speed, and the symptom is nano hacs, or is the problem blobbing, and the symptom is nano hacs? That is a gigantic difference. The first one is an endorsement of blobbing and an utter refusal of the concept of Guerilla/Asymmetric warfare. The second one is an endorsement of the idea but not the execution of nanos.
The result could be the same, speeds being reduced. The first one results in a simple nerf, with few other changes. The second creates new mechanics.
If they'd answer that, maybe we could go somewhere productive with this discussion. Until then, back to the flaming! 
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 02:17:00 -
[38]
You're not worth my time. 'Falcons jam HACs, not kill them'. No shit sherlock, notice, 'Falcon + Inty or inties'.
You and people like you will get ganked by people who know what they're doing. This is the way it is. There will be one less tool for it, unless common sense wins the day. Keep at it. 
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 02:29:00 -
[39]
Maybe it's because you've only been in Science and Trade Institute for 1 day? vOv
but seriously, your metric of success is hard to gauge. Because on a cursory inspection it kinda sounds like 'all ships on grid must either die or be an involved party on a killmail'.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 02:38:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Atrei Capital
stuff
Metric of success mother****a, do you have one
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
|
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 02:44:00 -
[41]
this dude has obviously never lived in fountain (or any other NPC 0.0)
if he had he would realize the entire concept of 'dictating a fight' is skewed.
a highly tanked battleship will 'dictate its fight' by deagressing and docking. ECM-heavy gangs will 'dictate their fights' by jamming stuff it dislikes.
This is called tactics.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 02:48:00 -
[42]
I was ready to give him the benefit of the doubt at first but it got ridiculous. He still hasn't answered my question about success and determining it.
And they never do. Why? Because deep down they want to say what they can't usually publicly admit (see Haniblecter Leb in the other thread): What amounts to instanced, static fleet fights with the occasional chance of reinforcements, where there's a completely clear winner and loser, demarcated with easy-to-understand, non-nebulous numbers to fap over. 
Which isn't eve. Yet
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 03:06:00 -
[43]
Which is the problem. CCP is being quiet.
There's two ways to interpret the current state of Sisi.
1.)They believed (or at least, acquiesced to) the forum whines, and the current implementation is the way they want to go. This is bad.
2.)They're throwing the worst possible option at us, to get us willing to negotiate.
Neither one is particularly fun to be in. A rebalance is something.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 11:08:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Kagura Nikon
Originally by: Azilia Nefetti
Only thing i dont really like is the -% to web speed,
its a bit low now.
70-80% would of been reasonable.
naa in fact its pretty good. Go test on the server. Works very well with the idea tha AB shoudl be usefull an AB ship whiel webbed still reach its nominal base speed. While MWD ships if webbed and scrammed are in way worse situation. The 50-60% is key to make AB usefull again (sicne speed tanking agaisnt turrets can only be achiebved in VERY close ranges now).
It does more damage to Blasterboats than you think. The MWD reactivation, Deathscram, and Weak webs need to go.
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 12:55:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 12:58:10
Originally by: Seldarine
thinking back, this so called nano problem only came about when ccp had the FANTASTIC idea of introducing rigs into the game to vary the setups possible on the ships.
I was pondering this yesterday. Rigs broke a lot of things. EHP (with the HP boost), Energy Locus rigs, speed, etc. CCP is trying to smack things down to fit around rigs instead of vice versa. Ain't good.
Here's something to consider, CCP: Viable PvP above a Tech 1 Cruiser means rigs. Did you intend this?
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 13:18:00 -
[46]
Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 13:18:52
Originally by: Dominious
After reading many posts on this thread suggesting there will be more blobs after the nano nerf I'd like to put forth my own experience on the matter. Everybody blobs. It doesn't matter if it's nano or not. Everybody, including the most vocal alliances defending nanos in this thread. I've been blobbed by roaming nano gangs in 0.0 while ratting. And I don't just mean with nano ships. They go as far as releasing 30+ drones on a single ratting ship as if 10+ nanos won't do a fast enough and good enough job.
And before the pro-nano brigade comes along countering my opinions and experience with "lolhydra", as it is usually customary with Triumvirate, Pandemic Legion, and corresponding alts (their burning hate and rage for Hydra is more than just obvious), I'd like for you, once your disdain for my alliance ticker is proclaimed, to answer me how exactly nanos curb blobs. As I see it they don't. What this change now allows is for nanos to ALSO be susceptible to blobs, just as armor/shield tankers are. Just as lone ratting ships or mining ships are susceptible to your superior nano numbers.
If the issue is indeed with blobs I suggest you start looking at your own blobs and start offering solutions to curb all blobs, not just those negatively impacting nanos.
hydra lol
but seriously: nanos do not stop you and people like you from making disorganized blobs to try to drive out invaders, it allows a numerically inferior but tactically and skillwise superior force to evade badly-placed traps and defenses. So that maybe you'd... learn, and try something new? vOv, not our fault you don't get it
the part about 'ganking ratters' is good though
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 13:26:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 13:27:11
Originally by: Dominious
But how can you seriously be so against blobs while blobbing yourself? I've seen it time and time again where nano gangs blob, even against a mining ship. It doesn't matter nanos blob.
How come a blob of nanos is considered intelligent and tactical fleet warfare and everything else disorganized blobs?
A fleet that is properly organized requires more effort and knowledge to lead and operate inside. It is compounded by the fact that very small mistakes in flying nanos can result in quick death. If you move 2km too far in a Raven or Drake, you probably won't be dead in 3 seconds.
Define blob too, because when in 0.0 alliances I've seen 40-50 person gangs created to dispatch relatively small roaming gangs, on the assumption that more was better, especially in one place. You cannot expect that having the most people available to press F1-F8 will always create success.
I've been in shitty 0.0 alliances too (KOS), so I commiserate, /\
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 13:38:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 13:39:57
Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 13:38:47
Originally by: Dominious
This is circular logic. A fleet that is properly organized is a nano fleet.
Never said that son. Ever done a remote rep fleet? How about Recons?
ps: CCP has boosted Armor/Shield tankers against blobs, using teamwork. remote repping.
Originally by: Dominious
It's the excessive numbers used that I find quite hypocritical
10 ships raining glorious hellfire upon your raven is not a blob. The blob is the thing you call for in the intel channel during and afterwards
Originally by: Dominious
the truth is that unless a nano gang is dispatched along with Rapier or Huginn, there will be little chance in catching such a gang. Notice how I emphasized "catching".
must not make catching joke
ok, you're not thinking again. lateral. Falcon + Inty or inties. Arazu + Curse. Traps. Bait. Killing it before it has a chance to warp out (Not hard with most Nanos, protip: the shield extenders don't do shit against 100 heavy missiles)
also why is it any different when a nanoship tries to get out when it sees a huginn or a rapier, than when a 'conventionally' fitted ship stays aligned in case a blob shows up on grid please explain it to me tia
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 13:49:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 13:52:47
Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 13:50:09
Dear Hydra guy. Do you have a metric for success? What is a win and a loss in a fight? Is it an easily quantifiable 'these many ships were had by this side, these many by the other, and so and so many died'? Is it ISK? Is it organizational and tactical/strategic skill?
This is very important, because it kind of sounds like you want fights to be dictated by size, and that any ships on grid during a fight must either die or be involved in a kill, otherwise something's wrong.
e: vvvv MY RAVEN WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
he's lost 3 ratting ravens, one to zealot/vaga/curse/arazu/scimi, one to two vagas, and one to ishtar deimos deimos cerb ishtar vaga cerb ishtar sabre sabre eagle raptor
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
Haakelen
Gallente
Genesis Rising
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 14:16:00 -
[50]
Originally by: Archimedes XVII
Just like the ecm-on-every-ship fad etc that has "broken" gameplay in the past.
Because Falcons aren't broken at all. Certainly not in relation to damps on Arazus!
My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks. |
|