| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
    |
Posted - 2008.08.02 22:50:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Reem Fairchild on 02/08/2008 22:51:39
 Originally by: Cpt Constantinus
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Heavy assault ships (with the exception of the snipers) without speed are in the same boat as the assault ships. Not quite as good as, and a lot more expensive than, the tech 1 version of the hull size right above them (for assault ships tech 1 cruisers, for heavy assaults tech 1 battlecruisers), and with no advantages to make up for it.
The reason people were using them before it became popular to speed fit them (after the last "nano-nerf") was that they were status symbols. They weren't as common as they are today and were a lot more expensive (before invention). Using one showed off your wealth.
Hacs are still considerably faster than a battlecruiser and some of em even have a realy nice bonus. If i have the choice between a Zealot and a Harbinger then i will almost always choose the former, even after the nano-nerf.
Speed at those levels don't mean much. There isn't much (if any) practical difference in most Eve combat between a ship going at 1.5 km/s and one going at 1 km/s. You can't speed tank nor run away in either case. The only ships I can think of that it would matter for are the Gallente recons, since they just need to keep range. And they're going to be hurt by the inability to pulse the mwd at will now that they're adding reactivation delay.
And if you're going to talk about fitting afterburner and speed tanking at close range, you can't really roam around in 0.0 without mwd. You could fit both, but that's another valuable mid slot, and a good chunk of powergrid, lost.
As for the Zealot, notice that I said "with the exception of the snipers". The Eagle, Munin, Zealot and (to an extent) the Cerberus can do things that the tier 2 tech 1 battlecruisers can't. Especially so for the Eagle.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
We are pleased to aim!
Or was that the other way around?
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 23:10:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Speed at those levels don't mean much. There isn't much (if any) practical difference in most Eve combat between a ship going at 1.5 km/s and one going at 1 km/s. You can't speed tank nor run away in either case. The only ships I can think of that it would matter for are the Gallente recons, since they just need to keep range. And they're going to be hurt by the inability to pulse the mwd at will now that they're adding reactivation delay.
And if you're going to talk about fitting afterburner and speed tanking at close range, you can't really roam around in 0.0 without mwd. You could fit both, but that's another valuable mid slot, and a good chunk of powergrid, lost.
As for the Zealot, notice that I said "with the exception of the snipers". The Eagle, Munin, Zealot and (to an extent) the Cerberus can do things that the tier 2 tech 1 battlecruisers can't. Especially so for the Eagle.
Firstly, I'm not sure whether if that's true. But I do know that I would much rather have the Gallente Recons temporarily nerfed than keep up all this damn nano***gotry. Not to mention that the Arazu, like any Force Recon, is meant to sneak up on the enemy and disable them before they can use their speed. And most Recon ships only really shine, and are really meant to shine, when in groups. You use them with other Recons or Interceptors.
Not being able to roam around in 0.0 without MWD doesn't mean it should be that way. Personally, I would like to see MWDs cut down to 200% speed increase, or removed from the game entirely.
Finally, when did the Muninn become a sniper?
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 23:31:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Captator on 02/08/2008 23:31:03
Originally by: Aleus Stygian
Again, let me say that I agree with Neo. Now, on to the subject...
Are you proposing that these changes would be made while cutting down on the speed of MWDs, or just be implemented as they are? Because personally, I believe that much of the fault simply lies with the usage of MWDs and not just ABs. When you take a single value, like speed or firepower, and tweak it up so extremely, it's only natural that people will come to focus on it and try and find ways to exploit it, rather than vary their ships and try to find the little niches, tricks and clevernesses to them. IMO, that's a far greater problem than any 'inferiority' to battleships on part of the HACs...
This change would work with the current nanonerf changes, though it would be nice if nanos/polys affected mass once again.
What you would have then is a ship that is still tackleable/pindownable without too much hassle (it won't be going that fast with MWD), but it can survive somewhat better in web range even against for example a tier2/tech2 BC, or against a BS with neuts and webs, by virtue of it being so small and hard to hit, making a fight between a BC/BS and a HAC more down to pilot/player skill than innate 'betterness' of one ship class over the other. With current afterburner speeds, you will be going over 500m/s, and with a sig that small, you will be very hard to track inside web range without painters/webs etc, and crucially, you might be able to weather the approach from 13km (overloaded web) to ~2km orbit.
If you MWD fit you will go maybe 2km/s, and your sig radius will be decreased enough to make speed tanking reasonably effective, but nowhere near as effective as it is on tq currently.
Tracking disruptors are on the test server fine in their ability to shield smaller ships from damage inside webrange from turrets, they do not need a boost - the web change is itself a boost to the tracking disruption script for TDs (I am a recon 5 pilgrim pilot so this makes me very happy).
I don't think you need a sig radius affecting module/rig, or for tracking disruptors to affect missiles, as with a sig that size, BS size guns are going to have no chance of hitting unless you are webbed/not moving, torps will hit for minimal damage, and cruise will hit for limited damage (someone would have to do the maths for this for me), while heavies (particularly precisions, \o/ a role for precisions/painters) would do most of their damage, and lights would be unaffected.
You also have to consider the ludicrous sig (cf: 'ludicrous speed'), with a halo set and a maxed out claymore pilot in gang running the sig link, in that example a zealot would go from a sig of 455m3, to a sig of 267m3, what kind of damage would precision heavies (as these are the missiles designed to kill that kind of target) do to that?
edited: punctuation
|
Reem Fairchild
Minmatar
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 23:37:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Aleus Stygian
Not being able to roam around in 0.0 without MWD doesn't mean it should be that way. Personally, I would like to see MWDs cut down to 200% speed increase, or removed from the game entirely.
MWD isn't an indispensable module because other people fit it. You take it away, you just
Quote:
Finally, when did the Muninn become a sniper?
It has a 10% per level optimal range bonus. What would you call it? Sure, it doesn't reach the distances that the Eagle can, but it still has pretty good range. It beats the Ferox in alpha strike and (to a lesser extent) dps while having about same range, and it beats the other turret battlecruisers in range.
Originally by: CCP Wrangler
We are pleased to aim!
Or was that the other way around?
|
Captator
Universal Securities
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 23:39:00 -
[35]
Quote:
Firstly, I'm not sure whether if that's true. But I do know that I would much rather have the Gallente Recons temporarily nerfed than keep up all this damn nano***gotry. Not to mention that the Arazu, like any Force Recon, is meant to sneak up on the enemy and disable them before they can use their speed. And most Recon ships only really shine, and are really meant to shine, when in groups. You use them with other Recons or Interceptors.
It is true  for better or worse, at that level of difference as reem says, you cannot do much with it, when you start getting to 2km/s I think your options start widening.
Gallente recons get boosted as it stands on SiSi I don't understand the nerf comment, and I agree with the sneaky approach being favoured over the wheeeeeeeeeeeeee approach, admittedly they cannot hold range as well, but everything else has more difficulty getting close to it (shuts off mwd in a 20km radius around it, why would it not fit an AB in that case?) so it is 6 of one half a dozen of the other I think.
Nerfing MWD would render blasterboats completely useless, that is a bad idea, though boosting ABs to that speed would be cool.
Muninn has been a sniper since its inception, look at its bonuses, and its huge amount of grid.
|
Boz Well
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.08.02 23:45:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Aleus Stygian
Originally by: Reem Fairchild
Speed at those levels don't mean much. There isn't much (if any) practical difference in most Eve combat between a ship going at 1.5 km/s and one going at 1 km/s. You can't speed tank nor run away in either case. The only ships I can think of that it would matter for are the Gallente recons, since they just need to keep range. And they're going to be hurt by the inability to pulse the mwd at will now that they're adding reactivation delay.
And if you're going to talk about fitting afterburner and speed tanking at close range, you can't really roam around in 0.0 without mwd. You could fit both, but that's another valuable mid slot, and a good chunk of powergrid, lost.
As for the Zealot, notice that I said "with the exception of the snipers". The Eagle, Munin, Zealot and (to an extent) the Cerberus can do things that the tier 2 tech 1 battlecruisers can't. Especially so for the Eagle.
Firstly, I'm not sure whether if that's true. But I do know that I would much rather have the Gallente Recons temporarily nerfed than keep up all this damn nano***gotry. Not to mention that the Arazu, like any Force Recon, is meant to sneak up on the enemy and disable them before they can use their speed. And most Recon ships only really shine, and are really meant to shine, when in groups. You use them with other Recons or Interceptors.
Not being able to roam around in 0.0 without MWD doesn't mean it should be that way. Personally, I would like to see MWDs cut down to 200% speed increase, or removed from the game entirely.
Finally, when did the Muninn become a sniper?
TBH Reem has this right on the button. 1km vs 1.5km/s is almost meaningless, and would only help you in a few situations, but as far as tanking, those aren't speed tanking speeds, heh. Consider the speed you'd be orbiting at if that's your top range, consider your sig radius with MWD on, and pretty much any gun would be able to track you and missiles will easily hit for 100% damage.
Oh, heh, and Muninn became a sniper when it got optimal bonus.  And while you can fit it with AC's, it's best fit atm with artillery as a cruiser-sized sniper.
Your MWD ideas are naive because gate camps exist, heh. If you change the mechanics of gate camps around, then sure, that could work and might be a good change, but as 0.0 currently is, aving no MWD just means you die. And changing this is going to require substantive changes. With nano's getting kicked hard in the junk by the upcoming poorly thought-out patch, the defenders already have too strong of an advantage against the roaming ships. Removing MWD's would just make this an absurd joke.
Also, keep in mind that as Reem said, fitting both AB and MWD isn't really the solution. In fact, a lot/most ships are packed so tightly in grid/cpu that they can't even think about fitting both, not to mention they lose a mid slot in doing so.
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 00:49:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Boz Well
Your MWD ideas are naive because gate camps exist, heh. If you change the mechanics of gate camps around, then sure, that could work and might be a good change, but as 0.0 currently is, aving no MWD just means you die. And changing this is going to require substantive changes. With nano's getting kicked hard in the junk by the upcoming poorly thought-out patch, the defenders already have too strong of an advantage against the roaming ships. Removing MWD's would just make this an absurd joke.
Naive? I'd rather say idealistic, but hokay. You have a point.
Then again, come on. It's 0.0, yes. People shouldn't jump around carelessly there. But neither should you need to worry quite as much as you do now. Jeez...
Lock times. Align to. ECM range bonuses. Differences in ship speeds. The fact that you jump in at a random spawn point and cloaked.. These things exist because you are supposed to have a bloody shot. Because you are supposed to give things some consideration. MWDs don't help with this. They just **** up the combat system of the game.
Oh, and unless you've noticed... Artillery sucks. Fly a Zealot or an Eagle and machinegun them to death from long range instead.
|
Blitz'Krieg
Caldari
Demon Theory
OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 01:45:00 -
[38]
the difficulty with eve at the moment is the more things are added (heat, rigs, hp buff, pirate implants) the harder it is to kill someone before help arrives. This is turn kills solo pvp and pushes people into either large gangs or ships that have the ability to bug out. How to fix this? Not sure tbh.
|
Boz Well
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 01:59:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Aleus Stygian
Originally by: Boz Well
Your MWD ideas are naive because gate camps exist, heh. If you change the mechanics of gate camps around, then sure, that could work and might be a good change, but as 0.0 currently is, aving no MWD just means you die. And changing this is going to require substantive changes. With nano's getting kicked hard in the junk by the upcoming poorly thought-out patch, the defenders already have too strong of an advantage against the roaming ships. Removing MWD's would just make this an absurd joke.
Naive? I'd rather say idealistic, but hokay. You have a point.
Then again, come on. It's 0.0, yes. People shouldn't jump around carelessly there. But neither should you need to worry quite as much as you do now. Jeez...
Lock times. Align to. ECM range bonuses. Differences in ship speeds. The fact that you jump in at a random spawn point and cloaked.. These things exist because you are supposed to have a bloody shot. Because you are supposed to give things some consideration. MWDs don't help with this. They just **** up the combat system of the game.
Oh, and unless you've noticed... Artillery sucks. Fly a Zealot or an Eagle and machinegun them to death from long range instead.
I think MWD's have their place. I just think CCP is going about balancing it all wrong. I'd love to see both AB's and MWD's have their place in PVP, rather than one being PVE and the other being almost mandatory PVP. All those things you listed are great and all, until you hit a bubble. Your options then become burn it back to the gate (AB/slowboating isn't going to cut it) or try the burst/cloak trick to get out of the bubble. Even the latter relies a good bit on speed, as the longer you're inside that bubble, the more chances of the campers finding you. And hell, even that trick is a little sketchy in mind.
I know what you're saying though, and naive is perhaps too strong. When I first read your post, I thought you meant just make those MWD changes and nothing else, haha, which to me would just be silly.
I think we probably picture the 'ideal' eve in a similar way. I just think CCP would need to make a lot of substantive changes in order to make these things a reality (and balanced). And I just don't see that happening. The sad reality is, rather than making well thought-out changes, their track record and the recent patch seem to suggest that they'll just hit things way too hard with the nerf bat, rather than thinking up a more balanced approach (that would probably take a lot more time/effort to implement).
With this patch, we go from t2 nano's being balanced and high-end nano's being imbalanced, to t2 nano's taking 100% missile damage and being too slow to speed tank anything, and somewhat ironically pimped nano's will probably do okay in the new patch.
On a final note... artillery? Did I say artillery was good? Lol. Considering I'm a bitter Minmatar pilot, lol, I'd be surpised if I ever said those words.  If this was the post where I said the Muninn is a sniper, that's not because artillery is great, but only because it gets an optimal bonus that is useless with auto's. That, and the fact that there are other ships that can handle the cruiser autocannon role quite adequately, makes me think that most decent Muninn fits will be sniper-based.
|
Gimpb
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 02:12:00 -
[40]
We'll just have to see how things turn out for HACs post-nano, but just because they can't go fast enough to outrun missiles doesn't mean they're broken--even the vaga. They'll just have to settle into other niches.
Logistics will probably become very popular in the near future as a way for more organized groups to maximize their effectiveness and minimize casualties against less organized groups. I'm certainly not the first person to say this...
The reason I bring it up is because while BCs and HACs have similar tanks from a 1v1/buffer standpoint, remote reps change everything. Add a few logistics ships to the equation and suddenly the HAC's tank is completely superior.
Just a little something to think about.
|
|
Boz Well
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 02:31:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Gimpb
We'll just have to see how things turn out for HACs post-nano, but just because they can't go fast enough to outrun missiles doesn't mean they're broken--even the vaga. They'll just have to settle into other niches.
Logistics will probably become very popular in the near future as a way for more organized groups to maximize their effectiveness and minimize casualties against less organized groups. I'm certainly not the first person to say this...
The reason I bring it up is because while BCs and HACs have similar tanks from a 1v1/buffer standpoint, remote reps change everything. Add a few logistics ships to the equation and suddenly the HAC's tank is completely superior.
Just a little something to think about.
Perhaps. But the larger problem in my mind is that by sledgehammer nerfing nano's, they're nerfing the incentives for roaming gangs, heh. A HAC with logistics backup has a nice tank, sure, but if you're in enemy space in a plated HAC (in other words, slow, lol), as soon as the superior force arrives (which may well include capital ships, heh), you're not only in trouble, but you can't escape. This kills the incentive to go roaming into enemy territory imo, and logistics aren't going to help that any.
Oh well, we'll just have to see, like you said. Still, I remain pretty pessimistic about this patch. I think CCP is overnerfing things yet again, as they've done before, and making overbroad changes when what's needed is some finesse.
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 03:28:00 -
[42]
Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 03/08/2008 03:35:17
Originally by: Boz Well
I think MWD's have their place. I just think CCP is going about balancing it all wrong. I'd love to see both AB's and MWD's have their place in PVP, rather than one being PVE and the other being almost mandatory PVP. All those things you listed are great and all, until you hit a bubble. Your options then become burn it back to the gate (AB/slowboating isn't going to cut it) or try the burst/cloak trick to get out of the bubble. Even the latter relies a good bit on speed, as the longer you're inside that bubble, the more chances of the campers finding you. And hell, even that trick is a little sketchy in mind.
I know what you're saying though, and naive is perhaps too strong. When I first read your post, I thought you meant just make those MWD changes and nothing else, haha, which to me would just be silly.
At their current level of sheer power and advantage, the problem with MWDs isn't that they don't have a place, but that they have too much of a place. They make ABs completely redundant for anything but missioning. And I am attacking them because of this, and because I feel that nerfing specifically Minmatar ships, blasterboats and implants is wrong, when it's the Microwarps that are the a glaring flaw to start with.
T2 Nanos are imbalanced as it is, but not by an unmanageable amount. I think though that it's only fast Frigates and Interceptors that should be able to clock 2 km/s and outrun missiles enough to speed tank them. And there should be alternatives to speed-tanking missiles, such as ECM options.
And really, I think that reducing the speed of all ships will give all ships more time to warp and escape, thus being more forgiving on pilots. It will probably make fleet combat a bit different, and hopefully reduce the blobbing, especially if you introduce alterations to signature and ECMs at the same time.
Finally, the Muninn's range bonus is useful with Autos. It's sufficient to let it orbit at a better distance, though one might argue that it would need some other bonus to make that distance the optimal...
|
Boz Well
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 04:15:00 -
[43]
Killing nano's will do nothing other than hand victory to the blob. Roaming gangs in enemy territory will all but cease, unless people fly pimped nano's (which might go fast enough to actually tank with speed) or mostly interceptors. The average t2 nano won't go fast enough to mitigate any damage, and even drakes will be smacking him for near 100% damage. A speed tank that isn't fast enough to mitigate damage simply is not a tank. Whether you nerf polycarbs, put in stacking, or nerf MWD, it's going to hurt Minmatar because we rely (at least in the smaller ships) on speed tanking. When we go so slowly that we can't mitigate damage, then we have no tank. This leads to plating, which we tend to be worse at than other races.
It's basically the same thing that is happening to Matar BS... they had quirky ways of winning (alpha, nos, ecm), but those things all got nerfed, and so now they simply are worse gank/tank and have no tricks they can pull out to excel. Now our smaller ships are getting hit with the same sort of thing. Vaga's a one-trick pony, and relies on speed to survive. If it's so slow in a t2 fit that it can't mitigate most of the incoming damage, then it's not going to be worth much.
Plated gangs won't be able to disengage, and will die to the blob. How many small BS gangs do you see roaming sov? Any? The only BS in a small gang I can think of I've seen in 0.0 recently were killmails for me. Would it be any different for a plated HAC? The result is less roaming, which leads to less PVP, but also leads to more blobbage, since blob will be all that matters.
Thinking this patch will boost Matar, or encourage small gangs, or do anything but give glory to the blob is silly imho. It's a sloppy fix that goes too far, makes most nano fits worthless, discourages small gangs and thus PVP, and has a bunch of random consequences as well (screwing with blaster boats). Blobs, Amarr, and Caldari come out looking even stronger, and those things were buff to begin with, heh.
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 04:29:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 03/08/2008 04:30:46
Again, you're talking in extremes and assuming that I want to affect things so severely that it becomes unreasonable. I don't. I want to balance things out, because as things are, the speed-focus of the game is so extremely over the top and reduces the usefulness of all other strategies, and the very point and usefulness of having certain ships, to the point where it becomes silly.
You should only be able to nano and speed-tank ships that are fast and viable for that sort of strategy. And when speed-tanking you should be able to avoid much of the damage, but not all of it, as is the case now. Because anything else will create extremes that are immediately identified, focused on and magnified by the players, thus making everything else obsolete. It's the simple result of selective development, or evolution, or the law of least resistance, call it what you wish. When something becomes obviously superior, it proliferates and takes over. But, since we are talking a game that is supposed to be diverse, and supposed to encourage different roles, niches, approaches, all in order to make use of every last resource and let every player have his spot, this is not a good thing.
EVE was meant for strategy. It is not a fighter simulation. And people should accept that they are not meant to be able to take on entire fleets on their own. Fleets battle fleets, gangs battle gangs, and lone pirates battle lone pirates. Anyone who gets himself into an unfavorable situation will have to get out.
So what's the solution to the blobs? I think that such things as alternate attack and travel routes, jumping and cloaking, toning down all the cynos jamming, bubbles, corporate backup and alliance agreements all come to mind a lot sooner than ship speed.
|
Barsexual
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 04:38:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Aleus Stygian
Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 03/08/2008 04:30:46
Again, you're talking in extremes and assuming that I want to affect things so severely that it becomes unreasonable. I don't. I want to balance things out, because as things are, the speed-focus of the game is so extremely over the top and reduces the usefulness of all other strategies, and the very point and usefulness of having certain ships, to the point where it becomes silly.
You should only be able to nano and speed-tank ships that are fast and viable for that sort of strategy. And when speed-tanking you should be able to avoid much of the damage, but not all of it, as is the case now. Because anything else will create extremes that are immediately identified, focused on and magnified by the players, thus making everything else obsolete. It's the simple result of selective development, or evolution, or the law of least resistance, call it what you wish. When something becomes obviously superior, it proliferates and takes over. But, since we are talking a game that is supposed to be diverse, and supposed to encourage different roles, niches, approaches, all in order to make use of every last resource and let every player have his spot, this is not a good thing.
EVE was meant for strategy. It is not a fighter simulation. And people should accept that they are not meant to be able to take on entire fleets on their own. Fleets battle fleets, gangs battle gangs, and lone pirates battle lone pirates. Anyone who gets himself into an unfavorable situation will have to get out.
So what's the solution to the blobs? I think that such things as alternate attack and travel routes, jumping and cloaking, toning down all the cynos jamming, bubbles, corporate backup and alliance agreements all come to mind a lot sooner than ship speed.
Have you ever done any roaming pvp in 0.0? because according to this post you really don't have a clue.
|
Boz Well
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 04:46:00 -
[46]
Maybe the difference is I'm talking about the game as it is and you're talking about the game as it exists in your head? No offense meant, heh, I'm just saying if you drop MWD's to 200% speed or whatever you're suggesting, then speed tanking is worthless. Hell, speed tanking will be all but worthless as of the next patch. You don't even NEED to drop MWD's any further, lol. Most of my comments are actually directed at the next patch, heh, and its effect on nanogangs and PVP overall, rather than your suggestions. But just know that if you were to take the patch FURTHER, then the concept of speed tanking just becomes a joke, and for a lot of ships it already will be next patch.
Nano's need a nerf, but not a stupid overbroad one. CCP is already going too far in my mind, and rather than adding more counters and tweaking things so that pimped nano's aren't uber-fast, they're smacking it with a sledgehammer and making nanofits worthless for a lot of ships (not to mention their justification of it was a 5 hour meeting and statistics based on "average" gear including a full HG snake set). That said, suggesting they need to go further and nerf MWD's to anything lower is just silly in my mind.
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 04:52:00 -
[47]
Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 03/08/2008 04:57:10
Originally by: Barsexual
Have you ever done any roaming pvp in 0.0? because according to this post you really don't have a clue.
Find me in a Malediction in Fountain.
Originally by: Boz Well
Nano's need a nerf, but not a stupid overbroad one. CCP is already going too far in my mind, and rather than adding more counters and tweaking things so that pimped nano's aren't uber-fast, they're smacking it with a sledgehammer and making nanofits worthless for a lot of ships (not to mention their justification of it was a 5 hour meeting and statistics based on "average" gear including a full HG snake set). That said, suggesting they need to go further and nerf MWD's to anything lower is just silly in my mind.
And I disagree. CCP heavy-handedness aside, I think it's the MWDs that need a toning down, both benefit- and penalty-wise. Because they're the single overblown link in the chain. Because they don't need most of all this other micro-management and hamstringing players and implants if they pull them down, and balance out tracking and missile travel/explosion velocities accordingly, after watching the things in action carefully.
|
Boz Well
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 05:04:00 -
[48]
They aren't touching missiles. They're simply adding a handful of nerfs, and a slight one to MWD's, screwing with blasterboats, kicking Matar recons right in the junk by nerfing the hell out of webs, and on and on... and now what, they should nerf MWD down even lower and add more penalties?
I just don't really get your argument. If the concern is AB/MWD, they could just increase the speeds you gain from AB's to be closer to MWD's, or give AB's a bonus such as agility (or MWD's a penalty such as agility). Nerfing speeds, then nerfing tracking/missiles to adjust for lower speeds, does nothing but slow the game down and keep the balance the same. You'd also have to shrink all the bubbles in the game to account for the lower speeds (they probably need to do this anyways, but even moreso if you cut MWD speeds in half). And all for what? Just so things move a little slower?
If the goal is to get the AB to be more useful, there are more direct routes than changing everything in the game BUT the AB.
|
Adaline Gray
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 05:06:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Boz Well
They aren't touching missiles.
Incorrect. CCP has stated they are looking into adjusting missiles.
|
Boz Well
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 05:08:00 -
[50]
They're looking into a lot of things. Is it on the blog or SiSi? If not, I'll consider it when I see it, haha.
|
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 05:14:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Boz Well
They aren't touching missiles. They're simply adding a handful of nerfs, and a slight one to MWD's, screwing with blasterboats, kicking Matar recons right in the junk by nerfing the hell out of webs, and on and on... and now what, they should nerf MWD down even lower and add more penalties?
I just don't really get your argument. If the concern is AB/MWD, they could just increase the speeds you gain from AB's to be closer to MWD's, or give AB's a bonus such as agility (or MWD's a penalty such as agility). Nerfing speeds, then nerfing tracking/missiles to adjust for lower speeds, does nothing but slow the game down and keep the balance the same. You'd also have to shrink all the bubbles in the game to account for the lower speeds (they probably need to do this anyways, but even moreso if you cut MWD speeds in half). And all for what? Just so things move a little slower?
If the goal is to get the AB to be more useful, there are more direct routes than changing everything in the game BUT the AB.
Again, you misunderstand as you feel is convenient, and you're not being constructive. I said that they should reduce the benefits, and reduce the penalties as well. Proportionately.
And if they aren't looking into missiles now, then they should be. That's the difference here. You're whining, and I'm offering constructive criticism.
|
Boz Well
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 05:21:00 -
[52]
I'm pretty sure I've justified my opinions. I think it's better described as you like your ideas, although they're out of touch with how the game is ATM, and prefer to attack mine as "whining".
As far as being constructive, I don't really know what more you'd expect from me, unless your definition of constructive is simply to embrace your MWD ideas wholeheartedly. I've said before that I agree nano's needed some sort of nerf, but I just disagree with the changes CCP is implementing. I've said I think they're overbroad, and I've said in several posts why I dislike the current changes. I think they're pro-blob and will reduce roaming PVP unless a host of other things are also changed. I've suggested alternatives to the current changes.
Right, whining, not constructive at all.
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 05:39:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Boz Well
I'm pretty sure I've justified my opinions. I think it's better described as you like your ideas, although they're out of touch with how the game is ATM, and prefer to attack mine as "whining".
As far as being constructive, I don't really know what more you'd expect from me, unless your definition of constructive is simply to embrace your MWD ideas wholeheartedly. I've said before that I agree nano's needed some sort of nerf, but I just disagree with the changes CCP is implementing. I've said I think they're overbroad, and I've said in several posts why I dislike the current changes. I think they're pro-blob and will reduce roaming PVP unless a host of other things are also changed. I've suggested alternatives to the current changes.
Right, whining, not constructive at all.
And I think I've justified my opinion that nerfing rigs and implants and webs and ships and all that which players have worked for, trained for, focused on and argued about, and which all seem fairly balanced to start with, is unnecessary, when the thing that really stands out in the whole speed equation is a single module that can be called nothing short of extreme in both its benefits and penalties.
I don't want you to wholeheartedly accept my opinion. I would much rather you try your own perspective, understand my position, work out alternatives, and give feedback. Yes, the removal/nerfing of these extreme speeds from the game is the purpose of this patch, but it doesn't have to be so damn severe, and all these unpleasant side effects don't need to come of it.
And plainly, the way blobs are, even MWD ships often don't have a chance. So it's clear other measures need to be taken there.
|
uzumoreru
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 10:17:00 -
[54]
Edited by: uzumoreru on 03/08/2008 10:17:54
Originally by: Aleus Stygian
And I think I've justified my opinion that nerfing rigs and implants and webs and ships and all that which players have worked for, trained for, focused on and argued about, and which all seem fairly balanced to start with, is unnecessary, when the thing that really stands out in the whole speed equation is a single module that can be called nothing short of extreme in both its benefits and penalties.
MWD is designed as a high speed burst module, originally for Gallente to close range and minmatar to maintain range, if you flew blasterboats, and had a look on SiSi, you would discover that the changes that have occured have made this nearly impossible, as it takes so long now to get upto speed in a blaster BS, and the MWDs are the same old ~575% w/ maxed skills velocity bonus, so lowering this would just further break things.
In a nanocruiser, you require 3km/s to start taking ~25% damage from missiles, which given you don't have a very big buffer, is quite significant damage. 2km/s gets you nowhere damage mitigation-wise, though 2km/s with the sig of a logistics ship I cannot comment on.
In my opinion your fix/change is not desirable, as it has the same problem of breaking other ships that aren't the target of the nerf.
|
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 10:30:00 -
[55]
Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 03/08/2008 10:31:19
Originally by: uzumoreru
In my opinion your fix/change is not desirable, as it has the same problem of breaking other ships that aren't the target of the nerf.
No ships should be targeted by the nerf. Because everyone is using an MWD. And those who can't are generally outperformed or overlooked.
The excessive element of speed should be removed from the game. The CSM is not supposed to punish the speedtankers for perceived offenses. They are meant to remove extremes from the game and to balance it out. And the MWD stands out as excessive and extreme under the circumstances.
There will have to be other alternatives for dealing with what missiles you can't outrun, simply. Not that they don't already have their weaknesses. You people are overlooking the usefulness and purpose of regular high-resist tanks in the first place.
|
Lt Angus
Caldari
Lt Angus Corp
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 10:42:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Haniblecter Teg
Originally by: NeoTheo
before polycarbs existed were hacs utterly useless? in my opinion no...
before poly carbs, if you had a vega doing 3.5 to 4k a sec it was more than exceptable, so why is this all of a sudden "OMG THE SHIPS WORTHLESS"?
this is a serious point, i want to disscuss and LEARN rather than just be flamed, if you can rebutt this point sensibly id be glad to hear it. and raise my counter arguement if i have one.
Personally this is going to mean my nano ishtar and my nano cerb (with snake impants) will no longer be usefull as a speed tank. still tho the cerb will be better at hit and run than a drake due to allign times, and the ishtar better than the mrym and the domi for the same reasons? (especially now there is a agil bonus with some mods that previously didnt have that).
/Theo
Exactly!
These nanotards are complete ******s when it comes to remembering...assuming they played before the nano age.
Post with your main because that character didn't play pre nano
Shhhh, Im hunting Badgers |
Steyr Daghan
thx for all the fish
Zenith Affinity
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 11:23:00 -
[57]
Originally by: Yar0
this nerf is going to hit hard ppl, simply because when you used nano tactics you could operate your small gang in hostile territory.
BS. What it means is you can't operate in small gangs without taking risks anymore. The small nanogang has been able to disengage at will, that's why they are popular. That's why people dare to fly into combat with 2 bil worth of snakes in their heads. Now there'll be no more free kills and uncatchable nanogangs. You gotta get smart instead of relying on speed alone.
Nanowhining was expected but it's a fact that the nerf was expected, a good thing and way overdue.
 |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Eve Defence Force
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 11:55:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Atsuko Ratu
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Remember that people even were whining about the WCS-nerf? In 2 years we'll look back at this nerf and also laugh at people who are QQing today.
Have you ever stopped and thought that maybe nano-pilots are complaining because their form of fum in eve has been removed?
I would quit if I was minmatar. They have the worst weapon types and now the worst ships and the worst recons
Huh? Alot of people thought it was fun to stab their 150km gate camping sniper BS too. Does it mean WCS shouldnt have been nerfed? What is your point?
And no, hit and run tactics are not dead at all with this nerf. A gang of AFs can take down basically any isolated target and then run for it.
-----------------------------------------
[Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name |
Aleus Stygian
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 12:00:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Huh? Alot of people thought it was fun to stab their 150km gate camping sniper BS too. Does it mean WCS shouldnt have been nerfed? What is your point?
And no, hit and run tactics are not dead at all with this nerf. A gang of AFs can take down basically any isolated target and then run for it.
Well said. I still think that there should be upgrades to Minmatar ships though, most significantly in the form of a different sort of artillery weapon that does residual D.O.T. and which will make the spouted hit-and-run tactics viable.
|
Gimpb
|
Posted - 2008.08.03 12:03:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Gimpb on 03/08/2008 12:04:40
I don't know about the whole blob vs nano thing. People say "nanos keep blobs in check" but one of the best ways for a group of newer players to make themselves a hard target for nanos is to fly in large groups of BSs. So at least to some extent, the people in the blob have more or less the same mindset as the nano gang--they fit so their opponent can't really do anything to them and thus you end up with one big standoff, no one gets blown up, and it's a borring day.
So to me it's kinda silly for both sides to sit there and point at the other as the problem, it's the same line of thinking just with a different amount of skillpoints.
Now it has lightened up some of the fleets seen in 0.0 a bit, and that's a good thing, even though it's more or less just nanos, inties, and recons (and nano recons) that have been added.
The real reason I don't get the whole nanos vs blob thing is that killing nanos in 0.0 isn't really hard at all, I think most alliances have figured out how to swat them down without too much trouble if they do anything but run. They can run around and try to pick off miners or whatever but if someone gets killed by a nano the intel channel warned about 10 jumps before-hand, I don't think the ship being "nano" is the reason they died.
On the other side of the coin though, I can imagine dealing with nanos in low sec where bubbles are off limits and gate guns can take down a rapier in short order would be a pain. Low sec is also where many of the newer PvPers are so I can imagine it being a frustrating situation.
Why is everyone saying the roaming light gang is dead because of this though? Ok, so you're not going to be doing it in HACs... but that doesn't keep you from doing it. Bring out your bombers, EASs, inties, fleet recons, AFs, etc and go have a good time doing it with the ships that were designed for this sort of thing from the beggining--frigates and cloakers. All of these ships except AFs are already good for guerilla stuff and AFs are getting the speed to make them good... and best of all that speed will mean much more now that they won't get steamrolled by HACs going the same speed.
|
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |