| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente
Pandemic Legion
    |
Posted - 2008.08.05 11:29:00 -
[1]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 05/08/2008 11:30:38
Its obvious to all but the most psychotic that everybody agrees the extreme nano fits like the 15-30kms type need nerfing, and i have not seen anybody post or have any real problem with this.
Its is also plainly obvious that the standard fits do not need to be touched much at all much especially considering the knock on effect it will have on many forms of pvp but mostly roaming gangs within 0.0.
I believe that further testing with new less intense but more selective alterations should be implemented perhaps even on several patches on sissi over time before the final decision is made for it to be mirrored on TQ.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
Zantei
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 17:56:00 -
[2]
I think it's all great, just upset that webbing doesn't help with my turret tracking so much now. : [
------------------------------------------
 |
Neutrino Sunset
Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 22:47:00 -
[3]
Despite the fact that I personally find sophisticatedlimabean to be one of the least convincing nanonerf naysayers, actually I couldn't agree more. If the changes hit Tranquility in their current state there is the potential for a cluster**** of epic proportions followed by God knows how many half arsed patches to redress the balance.
I do worry though whether CCP don't already have a project timeline worked out for this that excludes the possibility of additional Sisi patches prior to rollout. Additionally the lack of any feedback whatsoever from the devs is also a concern, given that rarely in the history of a nerf patch have so many players made as much effort to get on the test server and provide some feedback, it's a bit of a slap in the face for the whole Eve community to have heard squat from the devs for over a week now.
|
Crackpipe2000
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 23:33:00 -
[4]
I really have my hopes up they are "just playing around with ideas" rather than consider these as anywhere valid changes, because the blog emphasizes on:
"Attention! The modifications discussed below are all subject to change, based on player input and testing experience."
But seeing that they just suddenly came up with making the "race favoring guerrilla warfare" the least maneuverable, without much explanations, i really lost my faith in the devs professionality, reasoning and sanity. They just might do this, without looking into the feedback or consequences at all? |
korrey
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.08.05 23:58:00 -
[5]
If I have to be worried about a Heavy Assault Cruiser being close to interceptor speed every time I undock and see one, there is most likely a problem.
I say speed ships for speed (interdictors, possibly Deimos, interceptors and some minmatar ships), everything else gets a nerf to speed.
-----------
Amarr- If you like to handicap yourself before the fight begins, then we may accomodate your needs surprisingly well. |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 00:09:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: korrey
If I have to be worried about a Heavy Assault Cruiser being close to interceptor speed every time I undock and see one, there is most likely a problem.
I say speed ships for speed (interdictors, possibly Deimos, interceptors and some minmatar ships), everything else gets a nerf to speed.
I understand your point but tbh not going fast cos of its name or cos its a cruiser is not really a reason i would want to make such radical changes to pvp.
And remember similarly fitted hacs vs cepters = ceptors are always faster, its only when the hac is totally pimped with gang bonuses and faction fits that it reaches t2 ceptor speeds but then if the ceptor has that gear and bonuses it still goes faster than the hac.
Extreme speeds of 15-30kms need dealing with 5-7 for hacs and 7-10 for ceptors are fine tbh.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
korrey
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 00:16:00 -
[7]
Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean
Originally by: korrey
If I have to be worried about a Heavy Assault Cruiser being close to interceptor speed every time I undock and see one, there is most likely a problem.
I say speed ships for speed (interdictors, possibly Deimos, interceptors and some minmatar ships), everything else gets a nerf to speed.
I understand your point but tbh not going fast cos of its name or cos its a cruiser is not really a reason i would want to make such radical changes to pvp.
And remember similarly fitted hacs vs cepters = ceptors are always faster, its only when the hac is totally pimped with gang bonuses and faction fits that it reaches t2 ceptor speeds but then if the ceptor has that gear and bonuses it still goes faster than the hac.
Extreme speeds of 15-30kms need dealing with 5-7 for hacs and 7-10 for ceptors are fine tbh.
I just think such large ships shouldn't go so fast unless designed to. Which they aren't. It's the ability to run in a 1 on 1 fight if need be, and the ability to get away from your targets webber and scram that bothers me.
Tackling a nano ship with a non nano ship is near impossible, which is considered an imbalance to me.
-----------
Amarr- If you like to handicap yourself before the fight begins, then we may accomodate your needs surprisingly well. |
sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente
Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 00:38:00 -
[8]
Edited by: sophisticatedlimabean on 06/08/2008 00:43:49
Originally by: korrey
I just think such large ships shouldn't go so fast unless designed to. Which they aren't. It's the ability to run in a 1 on 1 fight if need be, and the ability to get away from your targets webber and scram that bothers me.
Tackling a nano ship with a non nano ship is near impossible, which is considered an imbalance to me.
While i think that 1v1 is a poor medium to decide how ships should function the reality is that without speed even a reasonable amount of dps and focused fire can virtually insta pop a lot of ships in the game. No need for point or web or even bubbles to kill ships just a good alpha strike from what?...depending on class 10 ships if your in a unplated or extended cruiser, 15 in a BC, 30 or so in a BS.....all killing you while your untackled or webbed.
NANO forces ppl to bring not only speed ships, but web ships to slow them, ewar to jam the nanos own webbers or defenders, nuets to turn off mwd through loss of cap, and dps to pop them, even logistics to keep buddies/tacklers alive it forces ppl to tackle to kill.
Within that diversity gangs on both sides have great and entertaining fights that have become regular events in eve they are of maneuvering and placement of assets and warp to points, of jams and counter jams of, logistics repping rapiers or falcons, a intermix of varied pvp ships with the winner decided by the better team.
A solo ganker will always beat a ratter or the like not because he uses nano, but because he is experienced enough to know what his ship can do and win against. So unless he is a idiot he will not engage a fight he cannot win, but if he does he will 99.9% of the time win and he will just refit and fly another fit that will beat the ratter even if nano is nerfed into the ground.
My views may reflect those of my corp/alliance, but if you wanna know for sure ask em for gods sake. |
ghost st
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 01:00:00 -
[9]
I agree with why they should be nerfed, but the current means in testing go a little too far.
Ive posted several threads in the ideas section before. But apparently they got buried in the garbage.
I think that speed tanks should still be possible, but that extreme speed tanking should have some extreme drawbacks.
Microwarpdrives should perform somewhat like warp drive in areas other than speed.
First of all, I think that mwds, should make it so you cannot enter warp with your mwd on, and that on top of this, the mwd should have a cooldown (instead of the reactivation delay) so you have to turn it off to enter warp, giving your enemy a chance to catch you before you bug out. On top of this the mwd should also not allow you to use stargates while it is active, still making you commit to the engagement.
On top of this the web/scram changes should also apply. But with 1 change, stabs should also apply to the mwd, so having a stab + mwd would mean that it would take more than 1 scrambler to scram the mwd.
What this will mean is that once nanoes engage they have to commit to a fight (just like conventional ships) but doesnt not mean that they cant effectivly speed tank. Or deploy rapidly, for guerilla warfare.
Only modules/items that are for extreme speed should be changed. I think that Polycarbs should reduce the sig radius penalty of the mwd, and that all Mwds (other than faction/officer maybe) should have the same speed and differ only in sig radius penalty.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 01:22:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 06/08/2008 01:24:31
Originally by: korrey
It's the ability to run in a 1 on 1 fight if need be, and the ability to get away from your targets webber and scram that bothers me.
Tackling a nano ship with a non nano ship is near impossible, which is considered an imbalance to me.
Well this will not change, it never will. The faster ship will always be able to disengage at will, this is intentional.
If you look at the changes, you'll see devs seem to agree on this, since it is finally possible to escape webbers once they caught you.
Having tested a lot on sisi, I found it to be quite easy to outmaneuver a slower ship while being webbed by mwding around, even if they already managed to get into point-blank range.
You can actually enter and leave webrange now all you want, the single thing you have to be worried about is scramblers, webs lost their teeth.
|
|
korrey
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:46:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 06/08/2008 01:24:31
Originally by: korrey
It's the ability to run in a 1 on 1 fight if need be, and the ability to get away from your targets webber and scram that bothers me.
Tackling a nano ship with a non nano ship is near impossible, which is considered an imbalance to me.
Well this will not change, it never will. The faster ship will always be able to disengage at will, this is intentional.
If you look at the changes, you'll see devs seem to agree on this, since it is finally possible to escape webbers once they caught you.
Having tested a lot on sisi, I found it to be quite easy to outmaneuver a slower ship while being webbed by mwding around, even if they already managed to get into point-blank range.
You can actually enter and leave webrange now all you want, the single thing you have to be worried about is scramblers, webs lost their teeth.
At the moment I disagree. A non-nanoed ship with an AB has no real chance of getting away from a slower ship with a 90% webber. Your ships 700m/s will be quickly reduced to less than 100m/s, which leaves you no time nor speed to get away.
So no, the faster ship (non-nanoed) doesn't have a chance in the world to get away unless they use ECM of some kind.
As for the new webber changes? We'll see. I'll have to further test the new webbers on SISI.
-----------
Amarr- If you like to handicap yourself before the fight begins, then we may accomodate your needs surprisingly well. |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:19:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 06/08/2008 05:22:05
Originally by: korrey
At the moment I disagree. A non-nanoed ship with an AB has no real chance of getting away from a slower ship with a 90% webber. Your ships 700m/s will be quickly reduced to less than 100m/s, which leaves you no time nor speed to get away.
So no, the faster ship (non-nanoed) doesn't have a chance in the world to get away unless they use ECM of some kind.
As for the new webber changes? We'll see. I'll have to further test the new webbers on SISI.
I was referring to the changes on SiSi. On TQ putting a web on a nanofit ship usually means you won the fight already.
On SiSi however, I found it is perfectly possible to just burn out of web range if you happen to be in a speedfit ship, a webbed vagabond for example still goes around 1.5km/s, that is enough to burn away from a slower cruiser even if you cant web back, more so since you have better agility too.
So the ships might be slower, but their escape options are better than before once they are engaging.
Besides you still have to fit specifically to counter them. People refused to do it in the past, I doubt they'll learn now...
|
Sinnbad Mayhem
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:17:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 06/08/2008 05:22:05
Originally by: korrey
At the moment I disagree. A non-nanoed ship with an AB has no real chance of getting away from a slower ship with a 90% webber. Your ships 700m/s will be quickly reduced to less than 100m/s, which leaves you no time nor speed to get away.
So no, the faster ship (non-nanoed) doesn't have a chance in the world to get away unless they use ECM of some kind.
As for the new webber changes? We'll see. I'll have to further test the new webbers on SISI.
I was referring to the changes on SiSi. On TQ putting a web on a nanofit ship usually means you won the fight already.
On SiSi however, I found it is perfectly possible to just burn out of web range if you happen to be in a speedfit ship, a webbed vagabond for example still goes around 1.5km/s, that is enough to burn away from a slower cruiser even if you cant web back, more so since you have better agility too.
So the ships might be slower, but their escape options are better than before once they are engaging.
Besides you still have to fit specifically to counter them. People refused to do it in the past, I doubt they'll learn now...
No. On Sisi, every tackler with a web has a scram. Scram disables your MWD. Combine this with the inability to pulse your MWD, any ship that tries to stay slightly out of overloaded web range (13-15k) is screwed because you cannot perma run your MWD, scram. Once you turn off your MWD, and pilot with half a brain will come straight at you. GAME OVER.
So lets revisit those escape options again shall we... MWD disabled, your webbed by at least 60% and your in a shield tanking ship with a falloff bonus being orbited @ 500m with some Sacriledge raping your ship with capless missiles... 
S&M |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:34:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Sinnbad Mayhem
No. On Sisi, every tackler with a web has a scram. Scram disables your MWD. Combine this with the inability to pulse your MWD, any ship that tries to stay slightly out of overloaded web range (13-15k) is screwed because you cannot perma run your MWD, scram. Once you turn off your MWD, and pilot with half a brain will come straight at you. GAME OVER.
Yes, on SiSi frigates tend to use the new scrambler, but frigates die to my warrior IIs in seconds if they manage to survive the initial approach at all, inties die in seconds too if they orbit in scrambler range.
Cruisers with AB will maybe fit scramblers too, but good luck getting in web range in the first place.
If the changes go live on TQ, I doubt we'll see lots of scramblers tbh, not much use for bigger ships if you actually want to hold someone down before you can get into webrange.
And I seriously doubt the mwd reactivation delay will go live, but we'll see.
However, the point was someone was complaining nanoships can disengage from 1vs1 fights at will, I say that is perfectly normal and intended.
So if you think your Sacrilege can manage to get into webrange on a vagabond, scramble his mwd and hold it down to kill it, I wish you best luck but I cant see it happen 
|
Sinnbad Mayhem
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:45:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Sinnbad Mayhem on 06/08/2008 06:51:53
Originally by: Lilith Velkor
Originally by: Sinnbad Mayhem
No. On Sisi, every tackler with a web has a scram. Scram disables your MWD. Combine this with the inability to pulse your MWD, any ship that tries to stay slightly out of overloaded web range (13-15k) is screwed because you cannot perma run your MWD, scram. Once you turn off your MWD, and pilot with half a brain will come straight at you. GAME OVER.
Yes, on SiSi frigates tend to use the new scrambler, but frigates die to my warrior IIs in seconds if they manage to survive the initial approach at all, inties die in seconds too if they orbit in scrambler range.
Cruisers with AB will maybe fit scramblers too, but good luck getting in web range in the first place.
If the changes go live on TQ, I doubt we'll see lots of scramblers tbh, not much use for bigger ships if you actually want to hold someone down before you can get into webrange.
And I seriously doubt the mwd reactivation delay will go live, but we'll see.
However, the point was someone was complaining nanoships can disengage from 1vs1 fights at will, I say that is perfectly normal and intended.
So if you think your Sacrilege can manage to get into webrange on a vagabond, scramble his mwd and hold it down to kill it, I wish you best luck but I cant see it happen
Yes, I agree if reactivation penalty does NOT go live with Patch, then no I will not be able to tackle Vagabond with Sac. But I will be hitting hard and he will not be able to do much to me. Hell a drake will be ripping his shields to shreds in little time... So the ship will be a bit pointless as a tackler.
But as far as I know, this patch is going live in September with everything you see including MWD penalty. Thats what everyone on test server has been testing for almost a week without a DEV response to the contrary.
P.S. I forgot to mention. If your fitting a web and not a scram (instead of disruptor), then your really limiting your options. If the other person is faster than you, then fitting a disruptor is pointless. Once webbed, the scram is the finishing touch to any nano ship...
S&M |
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:52:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Sinnbad Mayhem
P.S. I forgot to mention. If your fitting a web and not a scram (instead of disruptor), then your really limiting your options. If the other person is faster than you, then fitting a disruptor is pointless. Once webbed, the scram is the finishing touch to any nano ship...
If he is faster than you, fitting a scram is not really helping either, you're better off with a disruptor there.
You need a 24km point if you're not a frigate or inty, or they can choose to disengage too easily, a scram on a cruiser is catching nothing that doesnt want to fight and stay.
I really like the scram thing, it gives frigates a powerful new weapon, but I cant see it being used on cruisers and up much if at all.
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 10:17:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset
Despite the fact that I personally find sophisticatedlimabean to be one of the least convincing nanonerf naysayers, actually I couldn't agree more.
This - for once, he's making sense.
The current changes on SISI need a lot of tweaking to work properly, really. Plus, some changes need to go altogether. I'm generally in favour of changes, but I'd put my list of complaints as this:
- MWD reactivation delay needs to go. It kills ships which kite rather then perma-MWD.
- bad speeds for a number of HACs- while some nerf will unavoidably happen, I find that having the Vagabond go 4km/s with a T2 fit and the other HACs at 3+km/s would be fine given it's not impossible to boost your speed on SISI by more then 70% anyway; thanks to the reduction of snake set speed boost and removal of mass as a factor
- Webbing upped to 70% or even 75% would probably screw turret ships less then now, while still preventing you from murdering smaller ship classes with ease (which is, I believe, the intention) and prevents just one T2 web from being a "stop moving now, you have hit a brick wall" button.
- Interceptors need to go faster - if they can't reach 6km/s+ on a T2 fit, they can't do their job. Most <6km/s interceptors tackling a Minmatar cruiser/BC on TQ have a prayer tank. It relies on them praying a lot to not die. It's not much different if someone has trained the rank 1 skill drone navigation to V. (basically, you'd achieve this, together with buffing nano-HAC speeds, by nerfing the OD II to 17.5% rather then 12.5% and putting MWD back up to 550%)
- Generally, missiles need to have lower explosion velocities/bigger signature radiuses for some ones to compensate for the speed reductions, to prevent things like cruises from hitting speedfit HACs; and torps from obliterating tanked HACs.
Basically, that's what my major complaints about the actual SISI implementation would be. That said, there's a lot of good ideas changing general combat dynamics there, so overall it could turn out to be very good if tweaked properly.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:09:00 -
[18]
The SISI changes really are too much at once. It's screwing game balance in areas unrelated to speed. The Scrambler changes are a great idea and really help slot-limited frigates, but they really screw up tracking at close range. 
As for speed, well, speed itself is only part of the problem. Another, more insidious part, is not that nanocruisers are going "too fast", but more that they are too flexible, too good at too many things - they seem to obsolete other ships, fits and playstyles, significantly reducing diversity. But a fix to this would probably best involve tweaks to MWDs, polycarbons, gang bonuses and implants, rather than the heavy-handed and sweeping changes on SISI. 
|
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |