EVE Search - Speed Rebalanced: Feedback thread

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Game Development Forum

Speed Rebalanced: Feedback thread

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]


Author	Topic
Rathion	Posted - 2008.07.29 19:12:00 - [1] Heaven forbid you should actually have to choose to commit to a fight before getting in Scram range.... I mean seriously I understand why people nano ships.... Because you can choose when to and when not to engage. This nerf still allows HAC's to be faster then other stuff. There still fast enough to avoid some damage, and if they commit to it and fit for it they can fight a BS inside web range and Win. The problem is now once they have tested the waters and found out they can't win they can no longer get out... too bad. Shame you actually have to commit yourself to a fight now....
Rathion	Posted - 2008.07.29 19:28:00 - [2] Originally by: teji Edited by: teji on 29/07/2008 19:18:21 Edited by: teji on 29/07/2008 19:17:28 Originally by: Rathion This nerf still allows HAC's to be faster then other stuff. Yea, they are still faster than titans, freighters, carriers, dreads, and even some battleships! I mean what more can you ask for. Yes there still Faster then everything Larger then them HOLY SHIT smaller stuff goes faster then HACs, stop crying. AND with the Web nerf and speed changes they are still FAST ENOUGH to speed tank albiet now they have to do it where it was meant to be done, Up close. Now on a constructive note to add to this topic, the only 2 things that need looked at on top of the other changes is maybe change missiles / Light drones a little to give Inties some breathing room, I agree Precision lights should hurt and kill Ceptors, and I agree Light drones With a Drone nav computer should as well. But I don't think the stock Warrior II's should be able to run down Inties as it just allows to many ships to pwn them. Also I am against the whole scripting of the scrambler as it would detract from Frigates / Assault Frigates as viable Tacklers.
Rathion	Posted - 2008.07.29 19:43:00 - [3] Originally by: teji Originally by: Rathion Yes there still Faster then everything Larger then them HOLY SHIT smaller stuff goes faster then HACs, stop crying. AND with the Web nerf and speed changes they are still FAST ENOUGH to speed tank albiet now they have to do it where it was meant to be done, Up close. Too bad battlecruisers will match the speed / agility and do better in the dps and tanking department. Also as a bonus be insurable. I will adapt, I doubt most of the people here will. They will just call upon ccp to nerf something else because they still suck. Teji, you really fail at this, Do you know Why you don't see ANY nano' BC's right now, BECAUSE BATTLE CRUISERS ARE TO FAT AND SLOW TO NANO, this has not changed, HAC's are fast enough to do this, Battlecruisers are not.
Rathion	Posted - 2008.07.29 20:15:00 - [4] Originally by: teji Originally by: Rathion Teji, you really fail at this, Do you know Why you don't see ANY nano' BC's right now, BECAUSE BATTLE CRUISERS ARE TO FAT AND SLOW TO NANO, this has not changed, HAC's are fast enough to do this, Battlecruisers are not. Sorry had to edit taken out of context thats not quite true, right now on SiSi HAC's are still fast enough to speed tank but only inside web range Battlecruisers are not. Go try it. I never said to nano out a battlecruiser. After all as you stated they are too fat to nano. After these changes goes through you won't see nano HACs either as they will be too fat to nano as well. If you don't nano a close range hac generally you are better off in a BC hull. Patch intended to make more ships viable breaks one ship type and the game keeps right on going. Just a minor speed bump in relegating HACs to AF status. Teji, Thats the point, You can currently On SiSi, TANK FIT your Hac, and still AB Speed tank inside web range against battleships, the Battlecruisers are however to fat to do this, thats the advantage of a HAC vs BC.
Rathion	Posted - 2008.07.29 20:41:00 - [5] Originally by: Malachon Draco Originally by: Rathion Originally by: teji Originally by: Rathion Teji, you really fail at this, Do you know Why you don't see ANY nano' BC's right now, BECAUSE BATTLE CRUISERS ARE TO FAT AND SLOW TO NANO, this has not changed, HAC's are fast enough to do this, Battlecruisers are not. Sorry had to edit taken out of context thats not quite true, right now on SiSi HAC's are still fast enough to speed tank but only inside web range Battlecruisers are not. Go try it. I never said to nano out a battlecruiser. After all as you stated they are too fat to nano. After these changes goes through you won't see nano HACs either as they will be too fat to nano as well. If you don't nano a close range hac generally you are better off in a BC hull. Patch intended to make more ships viable breaks one ship type and the game keeps right on going. Just a minor speed bump in relegating HACs to AF status. Teji, Thats the point, You can currently On SiSi, TANK FIT your Hac, and still AB Speed tank inside web range against battleships, the Battlecruisers are however to fat to do this, thats the advantage of a HAC vs BC. You base your assumption on a BS sitting there alone. What happens if there is not 1 BS but 5, and they have 10 interceptors as support? Then your HAC is just as dead as a BC, but the BC is cheaper and stronger. This is not about ganking a lone BS. This is about gang warfare. And in gang warfare, webbed = dead. Ok So the ship is FAIL because it cannot SINGLE handedly kill 1 of the enemy ships when facing a entire well balanced group.... Right If you want a ship that can do that why not just request a IWIN button....
Rathion	Posted - 2008.07.29 20:50:00 - [6] Originally by: Andnowthenews Edited by: Andnowthenews on 29/07/2008 20:45:09 Originally by: Rathion Ok So the ship is FAIL because it cannot SINGLE handedly kill 1 of the enemy ships when facing a entire well balanced group.... Right If you want a ship that can do that why not just request a IWIN button.... The ship's (HAC'S) and this nerf are fail because it is reducing gang combat to a stationary slug fest between BC's (proly drakes tbh). And those ever so fast Battlecruiser are going to do so well trying to tackle a battleship and holding it there. Seriously Combat has roles again not a do everything Tech 2 Cruiser Hull. And you want a cheaper ship for heavy tackling the Assault Frigs are viable as a gang heavy tackler as well.
Rathion	Posted - 2008.07.29 21:09:00 - [7] Originally by: Andnowthenews Edited by: Andnowthenews on 29/07/2008 21:02:18 Originally by: SuiJuris So your disapointed because you cannot use a full gang of HAC hulls, and a well balanced gang with battleships+ support will take them out? I don't see a problem in a Diverse gang being able to take out 1 where people just spam 10 of the same class of ship... So you do not want the nerf to happen either cos thats exactly as things are now if the mixed gang have any combat experience and reasonable in game gang skills tbh. No I do want the Nerf to happen I like the changes. because with the changes most ships HAVE to commit to a fight and stick it out. You can't just speed tank outside web range and if shit goes south gtfo. You have to commit to get the kill that adds a whole new element to the PVP, Greater risk you can't just lower your risk with your wallet.
Rathion	Posted - 2008.07.31 00:30:00 - [8] Grath the point is now there is a CHOICE between Diruptor or Scram, MWD or AB. MWD can be easily used to Dictate range of combat on the AB ships. Everyone is testing AB's because for the first time in a VERY LONG time they are finally viable. The reactivation delay needs looked at but now both have uses.

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.