EVE Search - Dear CCP, RE: speed changes....

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Dear CCP, RE: speed changes....

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page

Author	Topic
Willow Whisp Sadist Faction	Posted - 2008.08.06 05:25:00 - [91] Edited by: Willow Whisp on 06/08/2008 05:27:58 Originally by: Ekrid But let's ignore the real problem and cry about how You need to go so fast as to break the game physics engine that speed runs on. Yeah, lets do that instead of looking at the real issues. F'ing tards. Ah, i see. So in an ideal world, you could (at base speed) tank BS AND cruiser guns, and BS AND cruiser missiles, in an interceptor, while doing your job of holding a battleship in a skirmish down, without getting killed. So, really, this whole "If you get hit by a neut and your MWD gets disabled" is a non-issue, since at those (base speeds), you have nothing to worry about, and you should still be safe from cruiser & BS guns & missiles. You should be able to speed tank them, no problem. edit Originally by: Ekrid So stop being idiotic and look at the real problem, which is a needed nerf to Battleships fielding light drones Fixed it for you. Frigates using light drones should still be effective. -- this is my sig.
Ishquar Teh'Sainte Tri Optimum Ev0ke	Posted - 2008.08.06 05:28:00 - [92] Edited by: Ishquar Teh''Sainte on 06/08/2008 05:28:00 @OP: i'm an interceptor pilot (blasteranis) and i think you have no ****ing clue how to fly an interceptor. ___________________ -Skellibjalla- Life is a garden of perceptions. Pick your fruit.
Zeba Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.08.06 05:31:00 - [93] Originally by: Ekrid But the physics engine says, and the devs say NO!. So stop being idiotic and look at the real problem, which is a needed nerf to light drones. Actually the physics engine only broke when they sped up missile velocity and the explosion radius to compensate for the high speed hacs and recons could reach. Slower cruisers and normal current tq speed intys with unchanged weapon mechanics will not break the physics engine. Read the dev blogs a little slower this time and don't be a f'ing nanotroll. inappropriate signature. ~WeatherMan
Ekrid	Posted - 2008.08.06 06:02:00 - [94] Edited by: Ekrid on 06/08/2008 06:04:51 Originally by: Ishquar Teh'Sainte Edited by: Ishquar Teh''Sainte on 06/08/2008 05:28:00 @OP: i'm an interceptor pilot (blasteranis) and i think you have no **ing clue how to fly an interceptor. qft Originally by:** Zeba Originally by: Ekrid But the physics engine says, and the devs say NO!. So stop being idiotic and look at the real problem, which is a needed nerf to light drones. Actually the physics engine only broke when they sped up missile velocity and the explosion radius to compensate for the high speed hacs and recons could reach. Slower cruisers and normal current tq speed intys with unchanged weapon mechanics will not break the physics engine. Read the dev blogs a little slower this time and don't be a f'ing nanotroll. Its more than obvious that if you cant achieve what you need without breaking the physics engine, then the acual REASON that you are trying to achieve it is fundamentally flawed. See nano nerf dev blog. kkthx. /facepalm
NoOth3rDestiny	Posted - 2008.08.06 06:12:00 - [95] The changes on SiSi aren't the final changes yet, so give it time instead of going on crying. Sure post some constructive posts indicating tests you've done with current builds vs certain ships etc, and make a point, but other posts are useless and is what causes the devs to miss valid points and feedback. Inty's should be the fastest, yes, and I believe after the nerf they will be according to the dev info. Should they be fast enough to avoid 100% damage? no. Should they require specialised ships to take them out? no. Should generic pvp ship #83 be able to easily kill an inty? no. Sure in a fleet it might be good to get a ship specialised to take on anything moving fast like an inty before it causes problems, but in small roaming gangs and solo, it will depend on the build and type of the ship. Inty's should take damage from any ships with decent tracking speeds, even at their max, this means cruisers and T1 ships, that may need a tracking comp or so to do it. But then again, it would be quite possible for the inty to realise quickly and escape, as this damage should still be somewhat small, but still should be damage. I think some people can't stand to think that their ship will take damage when it never used to unless in a certain circumstance. No ship should be 100% immune to damage. It would be like superman in real life with super speed, the only time he'd be hit is when he slipped up, or something of similar speed happened. The devs need to find the sweet spot, that standard/semi specialised ships like cruisers with tracking comps etc can possibly do a bit of damage, not enough to insta pop, but enough that they are not immune unless somehow repping. Specialised should easily kill them, but they will be nerfed against other things.
Ekrid	Posted - 2008.08.06 06:16:00 - [96] Originally by: Willow Whisp Edited by: Willow Whisp on 06/08/2008 05:27:58 Originally by: Ekrid But let's ignore the real problem and cry about how You need to go so fast as to break the game physics engine that speed runs on. Yeah, lets do that instead of looking at the real issues. F'ing tards. Ah, i see. So in an ideal world, you could (at base speed) tank BS AND cruiser guns, and BS AND cruiser missiles, in an interceptor, while doing your job of holding a battleship in a skirmish down, without getting killed. So, really, this whole "If you get hit by a neut and your MWD gets disabled" is a non-issue, since at those (base speeds), you have nothing to worry about, and you should still be safe from cruiser & BS guns & missiles. You should be able to speed tank them, no problem. edit Originally by: Ekrid So stop being idiotic and look at the real problem, which is a needed nerf to Battleships fielding light drones Fixed it for you. Frigates using light drones should still be effective. exactly right on the first part. neuts should be a non issue because your base speed should be more than enough to avoid cruiser+ sized guns with your low sig radius. if you think about it, MWD penalties actually work AGAINST you. light drones: Yes, maybe they should still be capable of hitting you, but their tracking should be lowed to acheive somewhere between 10-20% chance to hit on interceptors which are sitting still. remember, they have their own orbit velocity, which is where the tracking comes into play. Nerf this tracking down far enough so that they do some damage, but miss much more often, and you can make them inefficient enough to prefer having an AF or destroyer with you instead of being a solopwnmobile with drones for taking care of any class that could actually do something to you, like tackling for instance. Its these people who are whining about their own deaths, and to what? Not to webbing and large guns, web has been nerfed and large guns should NOT hit inty pilots with good skills and decent implants. Thats where the drones come in, they TRUMP this flaw in BS weaponry by essentially being 5 anti frigate guns which in T2 are extremely deadly to anyone. This is why AFs are more useless, and why destroyers, while they can be fun, and were specifically designed to counter frigate ships are ancillary due to it being more efficient to get in a BS so you can shoot both LARGE and SMALL targets with high effectiveness, based on your equipped guns and drone types in hold. I'm all for removing light drones completely.
Ekrid	Posted - 2008.08.06 06:21:00 - [97] Originally by: NoOth3rDestiny The changes on SiSi aren't the final changes yet, so give it time instead of going on crying. Sure post some constructive posts indicating tests you've done with current builds vs certain ships etc, and make a point, but other posts are useless and is what causes the devs to miss valid points and feedback. Inty's should be the fastest, yes, and I believe after the nerf they will be according to the dev info. Should they be fast enough to avoid 100% damage? no. Should they require specialised ships to take them out? no. Should generic pvp ship #83 be able to easily kill an inty? no. Sure in a fleet it might be good to get a ship specialised to take on anything moving fast like an inty before it causes problems, but in small roaming gangs and solo, it will depend on the build and type of the ship. Inty's should take damage from any ships with decent tracking speeds, even at their max, this means cruisers and T1 ships, that may need a tracking comp or so to do it. But then again, it would be quite possible for the inty to realise quickly and escape, as this damage should still be somewhat small, but still should be damage. I think some people can't stand to think that their ship will take damage when it never used to unless in a certain circumstance. No ship should be 100% immune to damage. It would be like superman in real life with super speed, the only time he'd be hit is when he slipped up, or something of similar speed happened. The devs need to find the sweet spot, that standard/semi specialised ships like cruisers with tracking comps etc can possibly do a bit of damage, not enough to insta pop, but enough that they are not immune unless somehow repping. Specialised should easily kill them, but they will be nerfed against other things. cruisers should NOT be capable of hitting frigates without devoting a major portion of their mids/lows to tracking. We already have light assault missile launchers, which can be fitted to cruisers, and are designed to fire light missiles at a higher rate, meaning more damage than a HAM on frigates. I've tanked HAM in a frig before. got hit by 8 of them and still warped out in armor. But, then you have inefficient use of your PG and CPU, due to the cost of LAMs being just slightly too big for frigs, but very small in comparison to true cruiser sized guns. And thats the way the system SHOULD work, if you're going to trump a lower class' speed tanking ability vs your weapons, you should have to pay a lot for doing that, in terms of sacrificing efficiency and total dps/tank to do so. There are already anti frigate platforms out there in AFs, destroyers, and other T1 frigs.
Zeba Minmatar Pator Tech School	Posted - 2008.08.06 06:27:00 - [98] Originally by: Ekrid Its more than obvious that if you cant achieve what you need without breaking the physics engine, then the acual REASON that you are trying to achieve it is fundamentally flawed. See nano nerf dev blog. kkthx. /facepalm I did kkthx? Hacs and recons are the targeted ships for the nerf. The physics engine only broke down after they tried to counter them with faster drones and missiles. Slowing down hacs and recons and keeping intys current speed will not break the physics engine. I'm feeding the trolls. Fast interceptors have never been the target of whine threads like hacs and recons have. Hacs and recons had the amount of whine threads devoted to them due to the broken nature of the speed mods that let them dance out of range of anything they wanted whilst speed tanking the rest in a complete break from their designed roles which is to put out decent dps whilst tanking like a ship from a larger class. I'm writing run on sentences. Upcoming nerfs to speed are good. CCP inadvertantly nerfed intys in the process so its up to us the playerbase to let them know they need a bit of tweaking. I'm still feeding the trolls. Wtf are you on? Get on sisi and try to tackle a ship for anything near the time it takes for your gang only 1 belt away to warp to zero and take over the tackle before your target wtfpwns you and warps away giving you the finger in local as your gang arrives too late from 1 f'ing belt away. Try it and fraps it. Damn out of troll food. inappropriate signature. ~WeatherMan
ezraniel Caldari An Eye For An Eye Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:06:00 - [99] Originally by: Tobin Shalim I went and tested the Sisi setup against a Rupture, a cruiser-class ship that I have NO problems tanking on TQ (tested after my Sisi fight). The result: I died. Fast. As both Minmatar and Caldari pilot I wonder, what fit did the rupture have? because most ruptures are fit with 425mm T2's, 800 plate or something, gyro's (gank basically) but not for uber tracking. Now if your ruppy had 150's or 220 vulcans and had tracking enhancers/tracking computer (so you try and fit for ceptor killing) then I'm not suprised you died horribly. No offence but I fly crows myself so I'd like to get all the info on the involved ships and Fits used in the tests
ezraniel Caldari An Eye For An Eye Digital Renegades	Posted - 2008.08.06 09:10:00 - [100] Originally by: Sean Forrest Right, so apparently there are only 3 gameplay options in Eve. Fly an inty, fly a normal ship, or fly a ship fitted to kill intys, but not normal ships. Congrats on reducing the game to rock paper scissors Ok lets say you go for a neut & Warrior II fit ship, whats stopping you from using that neut on a active tank ship? or using the warrior II's on another ship? I mean, that neut will kill the inty's cap but it'll sure as hell kill a raven's cap as well.... Neuts should've been buffed (range) as anti nano in my opinion, they are effective vs active tanks and MWD's, I don't see why fitting neuts limits you to only killing inty's?

Savage Roar Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.06 10:28:00 - [101] Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Go kill an orbiting 5km/s interceptor with cruiser guns, come back and tells us all about it. FYI I killed a 7km/s orbitting inty using T2 assault launcher (cruiser size) and precision light missiles. I was in a cara. He was toast fast, taking about 20dmg/missile. You could also use heavy neuts (24km range iirc) to kill his mwd in 1 cycle. Or you could use a ship with web range bonus. Or you could use another ship with neut range bonus and smaller neuts. The point is, everything has counters. There is, as far as I know, not a single ship in eve which you can fit in such a way that it¦s unkillable (provided you¦re a regular player, and not on the CCP team, ofcourse). Some ships are just harder to kill, or require more specialized fits, but it¦s certainly possible. One of my favourite ships, actually, for catching inties, is a sentinel... huge neut range bonus, very fast, many many many drones, decent resists... it¦s perfect. Get over yourselves and learn to fit ships in such a way to kill stuff, rather than whining and causing massive nerfs which do nothing but hurt the game, in the end.
Zaerlorth Maelkor The Maverick Navy Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate	Posted - 2008.08.06 11:47:00 - [102] Originally by: Richard Angevian Interceptors will be more useless than Assault Frigates after this update. They will be slow (barely 1K faster than a nano HAC if that) have no tank at all, no DPS at all, and their tackling is weaker than dictors/hictors which at least can be fitted to be effective in their role and able to take a full volley of something other than another one of their class. You do realize that right now inty's are actually slower than nano hacs, right? ================================================== I should really get a sig.
Savage Creampuff Caldari Privateers Privateer Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.06 12:33:00 - [103] So there I am on sisi in my apoc with t2 tachs and 1 shotting 5.4k crusaders. LOL No, they weren't coming straight at me... On the flip side, if I ever want to take an inty out for a spin, I'll probably buy 20 fitted rifters instead, cruise around at 3.5k and die just as fast. Maybe the nerf hit ceptors a little bit too hard. A little mass reduction, just a little mind you, might be in order. Quote: I've sent in plenty of petitions but it seems that CCP just doesn't care about me. Without knowledge of market dynamics theres no way I can compete with these griefers
Hazzard	Posted - 2008.08.06 12:42:00 - [104] The OP needs to actually read the dev posting. Ceptors will be the fastest thing around...
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.06 14:17:00 - [105] Originally by: Savage Roar Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Go kill an orbiting 5km/s interceptor with cruiser guns, come back and tells us all about it. FYI I killed a 7km/s orbitting inty using T2 assault launcher (cruiser size) and precision light missiles. I was in a cara. He was toast fast, taking about 20dmg/missile. You could also use heavy neuts (24km range iirc) to kill his mwd in 1 cycle. Or you could use a ship with web range bonus. Or you could use another ship with neut range bonus and smaller neuts. The point is, everything has counters. There is, as far as I know, not a single ship in eve which you can fit in such a way that it¦s unkillable (provided you¦re a regular player, and not on the CCP team, ofcourse). Some ships are just harder to kill, or require more specialized fits, but it¦s certainly possible. One of my favourite ships, actually, for catching inties, is a sentinel... huge neut range bonus, very fast, many many many drones, decent resists... it¦s perfect. Get over yourselves and learn to fit ships in such a way to kill stuff, rather than whining and causing massive nerfs which do nothing but hurt the game, in the end. Cool! Now do it in a ship that hasn't been gimped in every other regard for the sole purpose of killing an interceptor. And, let's be honest - at 20 damage per missile, you probably had no chance of actually killing anyone who was opposed to dying. It's not like you could actually lock them down. Reality is that they have defacto immunity to anything that isn't specifically fit to kill them, and even when they encounter someone fit to kill them, they can generally flee. This does not occur with anything non-nano. This is why it's being changed. Deal.
Tobin Shalim Vulcan Foundry United Star Federation	Posted - 2008.08.06 17:15:00 - [106] Originally by: Ekrid Well, for all these people whine (and how!), they certainly never thought that their sig radius had something to do with it. Try turning off your MWD sometime, you might be surprised. at BASE speed, classes under should ALWAYS be speed tanking. I've been gallente, and I liked using drones, but I always felt that they were ****ed, because it can give BSes the power to field 5 SPECIFICALLY ANTI FRIGATE drones, and its THIS and only THIS which RUINS the ability of Inty. But let's ignore the real problem and cry about how You need to go so fast as to break the game physics engine that speed runs on. Yeah, lets do that instead of looking at the real issues. 1. You have never flown an inty, have you? You CAN'T use base speed alone on an interceptor for a speed tank, you don't go anywhere near fast enough. Try doing base speed against a Battleship; you're dead, even to large guns and torps. 2. see #1. 3. Drones are NOT a problem. That's why I fit Rockets on my inty, so I can take out any drones that follow me. And I'm quite good at destroying a T2 drone in a few short volleys. 4. The physics engine was broken by devs testing on their own internal server. AND IT WAS ONLY BROKEN WHEN THEY CHANGED THE SPEED OF MISSILES, NOT BECAUSE OF INTERCEPTOR SPEEDS. The "break" had NOTHING to do whatsoever with the interceptors going fast, and everything to do with their internal test changes to missile speed. Originally by:** Ishquar Teh'Sainte Edited by: Ishquar Teh''Sainte on 06/08/2008 05:28:00 @OP: i'm an interceptor pilot (blasteranis) and i think you have no **ing clue how to fly an interceptor. Why don't you go onto Sisi, and play with the new changes to speed? Use the exact same fittings+skills and see how far you get. And FYI, I do know how to fly an inty. Been doing so quite effectively for months. Originally by:** ezraniel As both Minmatar and Caldari pilot I wonder, what fit did the rupture have? because most ruptures are fit with 425mm T2's, 800 plate or something, gyro's (gank basically) but not for uber tracking. Now if your ruppy had 150's or 220 vulcans and had tracking enhancers/tracking computer (so you try and fit for ceptor killing) then I'm not suprised you died horribly. I don't know what the other guy had, but contact: Neutrino Sunset for info on his fit. As for mine.... Low slot: Overdrive T2(2) Nanofiber T2(1) Med slot: 1mn MWD T2 Rigs: Polycarb T1 Cap Control Circuit T1 (Yes, I know this isn't the best fit I could have had, but I was unable to acquire faction mods on Sisi to reflect my TQ fit, so I had to test both with T2 gear) SurrenderMonkey: inty's are NOT nanoships. Get that idea through your head, if that's possible without involving a diamond-tipped drill. We get our speed through being small, light, and a MWD. NOT nanos.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.06 17:22:00 - [107] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 06/08/2008 17:22:59 Originally by: Tobin Shalim 4. The physics engine was broken by devs testing on their own internal server. AND IT WAS ONLY BROKEN WHEN THEY CHANGED THE SPEED OF MISSILES, NOT BECAUSE OF INTERCEPTOR SPEEDS. The "break" had NOTHING to do whatsoever with the interceptors going fast, and everything to do with their internal test changes to missile speed. Do you really think this distinction is important? They were going to make it so missiles could hit their intended targets. They couldn't do this by simply jacking up missile speed because it broke the physics engine. It's both stupid and disingenuous to say it had "nothing" to do with interceptors/nanospeeds: If they didn't go that fast, they wouldn't have to jack up missiles to engine-breaking speeds to hit them. So, basically it has everything to do with them, as they're the root source of the problem. Quote: Why don't you go onto Sisi, and play with the new changes to speed? Use the exact same fittings+skills and see how far you get. Oh noes, someone might have to fit a ship differently than they do right now. Quote: SurrenderMonkey: inty's are NOT nanoships. Get that idea through your head, if that's possible without involving a diamond-tipped drill. We get our speed through being small, light, and a MWD. NOT nanos. "Nano" in this context is pretty much "shit that goes fast". If you want to futilely argue over semantics like an infant, though, be my guest. It doesn't matter where they get their speed or even why they get it. Their present speed is too high. It's being reduced. Cry about it.
Tobin Shalim Vulcan Foundry United Star Federation	Posted - 2008.08.06 18:37:00 - [108] Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Do you really think this distinction is important? They were going to make it so missiles could hit their intended targets. They couldn't do this by simply jacking up missile speed because it broke the physics engine. It's both stupid and disingenuous to say it had "nothing" to do with interceptors/nanospeeds: If they didn't go that fast, they wouldn't have to jack up missiles to engine-breaking speeds to hit them. So, basically it has everything to do with them, as they're the root source of the problem. Oh noes, someone might have to fit a ship differently than they do right now. "Nano" in this context is pretty much "shit that goes fast". If you want to futilely argue over semantics like an infant, though, be my guest. It doesn't matter where they get their speed or even why they get it. Their present speed is too high. It's being reduced. For the record, I'm only responding to get a bump up to the front page at this point. I am NOT feeding this troll. That said: 1. Actually, yes, I do. They said they were only testing the missile speeds for the nanoships, NOT to hit interceptors. So yea, big distinction there. Go read the dev blog. 2. So they're the root source of the problem for using the modules that were given in game to these ships to begin with by CCP? Oh, and it's not stupid to say that, because the ONLY REASON why this nano nerf is going through is because of the nanovaga, etc ships that are out there. NOWHERE IN THE DEV BLOG DO THEY STATE THEY FEEL INTERCEPTORS WERE GOING TOO FAST. IN FACT THEY PROBABLY DON'T REGARD THEM AS A PROBLEM. 3. Actually, yes. The reason I said to do the exact same on Sisi is because faction mods aren't easy to find there, and it would throw off any real results/data derived if you weren't using the same setups on both servers. So you'd have to stick with T2 only fits unless you already had a faction mod somewhere. 4. You have a different concept of "nano" than the whole rest of Eve if your definition of it is "shit that goes fast". "Nano" only comprises a small select group of ships with a very specific module/implant fitting. Nowhere has anyone ever included "interceptor" in the definition of "nano".
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.08.06 18:56:00 - [109] Edited by: SurrenderMonkey on 06/08/2008 18:56:07 Originally by: Tobin Shalim For the record, I'm only responding to get a bump up to the front page at this point. I am NOT feeding this troll. That said: 1. Actually, yes, I do. They said they were only testing the missile speeds for the nanoships, NOT to hit interceptors. So yea, big distinction there. Go read the dev blog. Apparently you didn't read it very well. Here, let me hold your hand and take you on a mystical adventure through the wonderful world of literacy: Quote: Speed must never reach ludicrous speed, which is defined as speeds where missiles and drones don't intercept the class of ship they were intended for. Hey, guess what! That's all inclusive. They didn't say, "oh...except for interceptors" on the end of that. They didn't say "heavy missiles" or "cruise missiles" or "heavy drones" or anything like that. They used general, all-encompassing terms like "ships" and "missiles" and "drones". So, let's review. I'd draw it out in crayon for you, but I don't have any handy - you'll have to settle for a list. 1. Ships are intended to be struck by the class of weapons that are designed to hit them. No mention was made in the dev blog that this excludes interceptors. 2. Increasing missile speed is what causes problems with the physics engine. 3. We've already established that interceptors are supposed to be hit by missiles and drones designed for them, and that increasing missile speed to intercept "nano" ships breaks the physics engine. Guess what this means? Interceptors have to go a bit slower than they do at present. Quote: 2. So they're the root source of the problem for using the modules that were given in game to these ships to begin with by CCP? Yes. I'm glad you're catching on. More accurately, the fact that they can reach what the devs have defined as "ludicrous speed" is the problem. Since that's a barrier that isn't going to change, they need to be brought under it. Quote: Oh, and it's not stupid to say that, because the ONLY REASON why this nano nerf is going through is because of the nanovaga, etc ships that are out there. If it lets you sleep at night, I guess I can let you believe that. Quote: NOWHERE IN THE DEV BLOG DO THEY STATE THEY FEEL INTERCEPTORS WERE GOING TOO FAST. IN FACT THEY PROBABLY DON'T REGARD THEM AS A PROBLEM. And yet, they didn't go out of their way to make sure they retained their (allegedly) non-problematic speed while everything else got nerfed. Curious, that. Quote: 3. Actually, yes. The reason I said to do the exact same on Sisi is because faction mods aren't easy to find there, and it would throw off any real results/data derived if you weren't using the same setups on both servers. So you'd have to stick with T2 only fits unless you already had a faction mod somewhere. Oh, the humanity? Quote: 4. You have a different concept of "nano" than the whole rest of Eve if your definition of it is "shit that goes fast". "Nano" only comprises a small select group of ships with a very specific module/implant fitting. Nowhere has anyone ever included "interceptor" in the definition of "nano". Everyone keeps calling this a "nano nerf" but reality is that it's a speed nerf. You can tell this from the title of the blog, "Speed rebalanced". It wasn't titled "fast heavy assault ships rebalanced". That being the case, lumping all fast ships in as "nano" is really quite accurate, since we're talking about ships affected by the nerf, which, as previously mentioned, is commonly being referred to as the "nano nerf", but is also affecting interceptors. Had their goal been to simply tone down the vaga, etc. and leave interceptors as is, they could have accomplished this at ship-level on the ships they specifically wanted toned down. Yet, for some reason, they didn't do this. It's pretty amazing that, despite this, you seem convinced that 'ceptors are just collateral damage.
Tobin Shalim Vulcan Foundry United Star Federation	Posted - 2008.08.06 19:16:00 - [110] Originally by: SurrenderMonkey Everyone keeps calling this a "nano nerf" but reality is that it's a speed nerf. You can tell this from the title of the blog, "Speed rebalanced". It wasn't titled "fast heavy assault ships rebalanced". That being the case, lumping all fast ships in as "nano" is really quite accurate, since we're talking about ships affected by the nerf, which, as previously mentioned, is commonly being referred to as the "nano nerf", but is also affecting interceptors. Had their goal been to simply tone down the vaga, etc. and leave interceptors as is, they could have accomplished this at ship-level on the ships they specifically wanted toned down. Yet, for some reason, they didn't do this. It's pretty amazing that, despite this, you seem convinced that 'ceptors are just collateral damage. It has happened with CCP in the past before, so I have no reason to doubt that inty's were overlooked as to how this would effect them. And they could still boost the inty's up in some fashion so that we can get a measure of our speed back, because as things stand, we're getting hit on Sisi using weapons that were NEVER designed to hit an inty, simply because of how slow we are now going. People call it a nano nerf because the changes that were being implemented were really designed to stop the nano-specific type of ships being used. I'm sure that the more radical interceptors out there that do over 20km/s were also intended to be taken down as well, I don't dispute that. What I DO dispute however, is that in working to achieve balance, CCP overlooked how their changes would effect inty's. THAT is why I say they need to take a second look at how it hurts the inty pilots, because it does by them including us in their umbrella of "nano nerf". I really don't think that CCP intended to totally remove the usefulness of the interceptor class ships, but yet that is what they have done, if they realize it or not.

Zeppi	Posted - 2008.08.06 19:32:00 - [111] Does anyone have that Site thats taking CCP to Court in USA for Breaking their Own TOS and EULA? just curious as id like to sign up. sick of the in game dynamics i just want my money back now. couldnt give a rats ass about this pathetic game any longer.
Ash Vincetti Decorum Inc Tygris Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.06 19:44:00 - [112] Edited by: Ash Vincetti on 06/08/2008 19:44:42 Ekrid, you make some good points. I think most of the pilots here are not concerned because "omg speed is nerfed" but mainly because with the speed nerf, the survivability issue really came to light. The fact is, is that there are too many counters for interceptors in existence in medium and large ships. Up until the speed rebalance, the issue was masked due the fact that "ludicrous speed" made it so those counters (which were effective if you screwed up) became even more apparent and noticeable. You named the issues quite well. Medium and Large turrets and missiles, and small and medium drones, due to the game engine, currently do a great job at souring an interceptors' day. It's not really feasible to MWD in, turn the MWD off once in range, and then coast at base speed to do your job while avoiding being hit. Not with the current state of game mechanics. Now we can argue all day long about how exactly you can make it so you don't still have ridiculous speeds, but interceptors aren't nerfed out of their existance. We can also argue all day long about "how to fly an interceptor right". The specifics of both of those really don't concern me. What concerns me is that the issues of the role and survivability of interceptors are addressed. The ball is really on CCP's court at this point, and I only hope that in rebalancing speed, they don't deal away with the interceptor as a viable class of ship. ----- free bree!
Ishquar Teh'Sainte Tri Optimum Ev0ke	Posted - 2008.08.06 19:52:00 - [113] Edited by: Ishquar Teh''Sainte on 06/08/2008 19:56:20 Originally by: Tobin Shalim Originally by: Ishquar Teh'Sainte Edited by: Ishquar Teh''Sainte on 06/08/2008 05:28:00 @OP: i'm an interceptor pilot (blasteranis) and i think you have no **ing clue how to fly an interceptor. Why don't you go onto Sisi, and play with the new changes to speed? Use the exact same fittings+skills and see how far you get. And FYI, I do know how to fly an inty. Been doing so quite effectively for months. been on sisi. was quite fun. fyi i fly my ceptors 99% of the time without any lowslot speedmods. yes, even now my interceptor just flies 4k. infact the "speednerf" will be quasi a boost to me, as now there won't be many ceptors around that go more than twice as fast as mine. and no, i don't lose ceptors because my ship flies only 4k - i only lose ceptors because of getting **y/stupid. ___________________ -Skellibjalla- Life is a garden of perceptions. Pick your fruit.
Tobin Shalim Vulcan Foundry United Star Federation	Posted - 2008.08.06 20:24:00 - [114] Originally by: Ishquar Teh'Sainte and no, i don't lose ceptors because my ship flies only 4k - i only lose ceptors because of getting ****y/stupid. edit: as a hint - before the "age of nano" people actually fitted plates and stuff on their ceptors. I wasn't around for the "plate" inty's myself so I can't attest to how they flew. All I know is that I've long relied on my speed to keep me from getting killed in 15 seconds. I would assume\guess that even with fitting a plate that you were still fitting MWD's and OD's, but you were still going decently fast. If you tried that on Sisi, you might be able to fit the plate, but you would lose all your speed, negating any advantage to fitting said plate. Don't plates also kill your speed further by adding mass? Note: I don't have skills to fit plating, so I cannot comment on a factual basis for if it would work or not, just speculate.
Tobin Shalim Vulcan Foundry United Star Federation	Posted - 2008.08.07 16:03:00 - [115] bump ----- Originally by: Haakkon I feel a great deal of patriotism at being a part of Goonswarm. We've accomplished great things... we're just mainly jerks about it

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: 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.