| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Caldari 5
Amarr
The Element Syndicate
Soldiers of the Forgotten Abyss
    |
Posted - 2008.09.03 21:51:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Caldari 5 on 03/09/2008 21:52:58
 Originally by: Fraps
Originally by: Caldari 5
Natural Order of things:
Frigs < Assault Frigs < Destroyers < Cruisers < Battle Cruisers < Heavy Assault Cruisers < Battleships < Marauder < Capitals etc
that chart makes no sense. i have seen plenty of assualt frigs beat destroyers 1v1, battle cruisers that can kill Bs's 1v1 and how you expect a carrier to kill a maurader that can tank well over twice the amount of dps that a carrier is even capable of putting out is beyond me. did you just arrange those by size?
i'd love to see the Hac pilot that can kill a well skilled Bs's pilot 1v1. the speed issue is a stacking issue, just like others have said. i know an easy way to fix it, make explosion velocity stack on top of missile velocity. being caldari thats what i would like to see anyway.
Please note Natural Order vs The Order we are currently seeing in Eve.
Given the results of the fishing for comments seems to me that the Order in Eve has strayed too far from the Natural Order already.
Too many Nerfs and Boosts in the game has upset the Natural Order.
The Destroyer Class was designed to be an Anti-Frigate class of ship, they should be able to take down frigates in 1 vs 1.
Battlecruisers are described as a class of powerful combat vessels midway between cruisers and battleships, and this is what it should be.
Ok maybe not the Marauder one, I've not sure what the Role of that ship should be honestly.
Maybe some of you should go back and read some of the desciptions for the ship classes, I think maybe CCP should too when deciding on what to Nerf and what to Boost, as the Eve Implementation IS straying from the Natural Order.
http://www.eve-online.com/itemdatabase/EN/ships/
Maybe the order should be that the T2 of the lower Class equal with the next class up? Thus:
Frigs < (Assault Frigs or Destroyers) < Cruisers < Battle Cruisers < (Heavy Assault Cruisers or Battleships) < (Marauder or Capitals etc)
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 23:04:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 03/09/2008 23:04:50
Originally by: Caldari 5
Maybe the order should be that the T2 of the lower Class equal with the next class up? Thus:
Frigs < (Assault Frigs or Destroyers) < Cruisers < Battle Cruisers < (Heavy Assault Cruisers or Battleships) < (Marauder or Capitals etc)
You clearly cannot place AFs in the same bracket as destroyers and then place HACs in the same bracket as BS, it just doesn't make sense.
It is just laughable to place Marauders anywhere close to capital ships.
Really, it's preety much like this for pure combat (in eve, and it's quite fine) and disregarding mobility:
Frigs < (Destroyers* or Assault Frigs, but mostly Destroyers < Assault Frigs) < Interdictors*** < Cruisers < Tier 1 Battlecruisers < Heavy Assault Cruisers** < Tier 2 Battlecruisers < Command Ships < Battleships < Maraduer < Capitals.
*Note the lack of Tier 2 destroyers. Tier 2 destroyers with a extra slot/etc would preety much win over AFs. I say Destroyers or Assault Frigs because some AFs frankly suck in a monstrous way, like the Hawk, so Destroyers kill them easy.
**Mind you, BS do better vs BCs then vs HACs, but BCs generally make HACs go away or die in solo situations. HACs are more mobile, and get special perks so we could say HACs or Tier 2 BCs.
***Interdictors are special purpose ships, but since they're the only form of T2 destroyer I felt compelled to include them.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint |
Masu'di
Es and Whizz
Hedonistic Imperative
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 18:31:00 -
[33]
not sure why the X-instinct
|
Meina Lamia
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 20:10:00 -
[34]
That was a pretty decent order write up Cpt.
|
Isaac benyamin
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 20:40:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Isaac benyamin on 04/09/2008 20:41:29
Cpt Branko,
As must as I'd like to say that order approaches the better part of the truth.... it really doesn't reflect the fact that any ship only fits into a convenient pecking order if you fly them around as empty shells.
The modifiers placed on the ships by the modules and rigs are what really change the reality of combat. Which is what brings us to the reality of the problem with this proposed nerf... that the stacking of speed bonuses from modules,rigs,and implants allow a situation where speed bonuses can vastly overshadow the sum bonuses to things like shield and armor tanking, or missile and drone speeds (to catch these fast bastards.) CCP's proposed solution is to just make ALL speed bonuses less effective, which is not a rational fix to the problem of how speed bonuses stack.
to put it in real life terms... it would be like watering down vodka because eight shots makes people falling down drunk, instead of just cutting people off at six (or something like it).
|
Meina Lamia
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 22:46:00 -
[36]
I believe when used as a guide line, it shows when things start to break down when they go far beyond what they are ment for.
But the issue being, we know how RL which is what alot of these terms are based off of is a good background for balance. But what is CCPs idea of a reasonable balance and where things should compair.
I think its a double edge sword, they are afraid to tell us what they want for fear we will try to lock them into it but the same time, its hard for people to give good experienced advice because they dont tell us what they really want.
There is nothing wrong with diversity, its just when certain diversitys push things to far, those issues tend to cause a major gap where the those who just want a kill will use the exploites and those who want just a good old fight and tatics but head to head rather passionately.
|
Isaac benyamin
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 23:03:00 -
[37]
Originally by: Meina Lamia
I believe when used as a guide line, it shows when things start to break down when they go far beyond what they are ment for.
But the issue being, we know how RL which is what alot of these terms are based off of is a good background for balance. But what is CCPs idea of a reasonable balance and where things should compair.
I think its a double edge sword, they are afraid to tell us what they want for fear we will try to lock them into it but the same time, its hard for people to give good experienced advice because they dont tell us what they really want.
There is nothing wrong with diversity, its just when certain diversitys push things to far, those issues tend to cause a major gap where the those who just want a kill will use the exploites and those who want just a good old fight and tatics but head to head rather passionately.
A reasonable assessment, in the case of the nano nerf though... the ends CCP has presented just don't justify the means.
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar
Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 03:33:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Lilith Velkor on 05/09/2008 03:38:28
Originally by: Isaac benyamin
to put it in real life terms... it would be like watering down vodka because eight shots makes people falling down drunk, instead of just cutting people off at six (or something like it).
Interesting analogy.
Looking at typical nano fittings, putting a 1-module limit on polycarbon rigs and nanofiber structure modules would go a long way towards more reasonable values. Would make sense looking at the items description, you wont replace your internal structure or engine housing twice...
Best thing is it leaves frigates alone bar the really pimped ones, while having a great impact on cruiser size vessels where lowslots are plenty.
Btw, if you also limit overdrive injectors to 1 module, we end up with a vagabond going 4571m/s topspeed (max skilled), 6200m/s with a max skilled claymore boosting, 7023m/s with a HG snake set, and 9525m/s with claymore and HG snake set.
This is with TQ module stats.
Edit: fitting is 1x 10mn MWD II, 1x overdrive II, 1x nanofiber II, 1x polycarbon I. Adding a Aux thruster I brings up the speed for the standalone setup to 4.9k, 6.7k with claymore, and 10.4k with HG snakes + claymore.
|
MR Aqua
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 13:11:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Isaac benyamin
bud, when it takes more time to train a battleship than it does a Heavy Assault Ship, then you can feel free to call that the natural order of things... until then, your "natural order" shows a profound lack of incite into the reality of combat.
(the following is using fudged numbers for approximates, but still reflect an overall reality)
An Assault frigate takes at least 15 days to train, a destroyer takes about 9 hours
A Battleship, (with prerequisites) takes about 8 days to train, a HAC takes at least 40
do you really, honestly, under the current training requirement think that a guy who spends 8 days working on their character be unable to be bested by a person who has spent (at an absolute bare bones balls to the floor minimum of) 40 days just being able to fly their ship, let alone fly it well. You need your head checked.
Lol seriously, get a clue man trainign for a bs takes more like 20 mil dedicated sp's + but maby u are new to the game and think u can fly one with your noob toon
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 10:27:00 -
[40]
Edited by: lecrotta on 12/09/2008 10:33:57
Without the ability to push things to the limit or even beyond what is the point of fitting and flying anything past cheap t1.....none unless you have isk to burn.
This is the real issue with nano and other fits that take skill and team work to use and defeat, the problem is that some individuals do not have the personal ability or the will to do so. And of course there are those who think their eve life will be easier if certain fits and styles are removed...IE: letting ccp do their fighting for them .
Additions to the game would be welcomed like the mwd killing scram and reasonably priced BS sized webs plus all the other suggested additions that would require skill and team work to use and be successful in combat.
But to mindlessly and arbitrarily remove the most skilled form of pvp in the game and reduce gang fighting to static, low brow, lock target f1-f8 exchanges of fire until one side runs out of ships is a disgrace for a game that claims to be about team work and skilled pvp.
Ppl are only noobs (skill point wise) for a short time in a eve career and they are only unskilled at pvp for as long as they bury their head in the sand and blame the game, so messing the long term and skilled game up so these new or lazy/ignorant ppl can gain in the short term is absurd.
|
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 10:44:00 -
[41]
Edited by: lecrotta on 12/09/2008 10:45:27
Originally by: Caldari 5
Maybe the order should be that the T2 of the lower Class equal with the next class up? Thus:
Frigs < (Assault Frigs or Destroyers) < Cruisers < Battle Cruisers < (Heavy Assault Cruisers or Battleships) < (Marauder or Capitals etc)
If the ships came pre-fitted and without the ability to have a varied fit and if eve was all about 1 v 1 statistics and 1 v 1 fighting maybe this would work.
But what most of the ppl using 1 v 1 stats or even ship class limitations and examples are ignoring is the simple fact that 1 v 1 is a total rarity in eve so reducing the abilities of smaller ships like cruisers and smaller they are making them worthless and useless in combat due to the amount of fire they will be taking from not only multiple ships but also multiple classes of ships.
From a pure gang/team perspective (the most common form of pvp in eve) nano is the one that requires not only the most skill to fly successfully but also the most skill to defeat, so those that wish it removed must have ulterior motives than improving the skill level needed in gang combat in eve.
|
Coldures
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 10:38:00 -
[42]
Ok I as a norm I don't get involved in the whole nano mess, But I will say this about a week ago I was involved in a fight at a gate with a 12 man nano gang vs a 19 man standard fleet. We had the normal setup hic, cepters bc and bs's, the gang jumped in and before the first shot was ever fired they had moved out of the range of almost every body. we did manage to take a few out but we lost our cepters and 1 BC and a BS.
If what you are saying is true than tell me how does a 6 month old toon have the fastest hac in there fleet. simple skills have very little to do with it, I have very few skills in nano and yet with the right implants and a faction MWD I still managed to get 7.6 k out of a ishtar. And I am sure alot of you will agree and disagree this is to fast the sheer mass of the hac will carry it through most web ranges Except a raiper.
I don't think there needs to be a massive nerf in speed but something has to be done to balance it out perhaps maybe a script for the hic that would put up a web bubble with 70% kill on speed not killing the speed completely and not giving a 100% catch rate but it would make tatics a little more even an both sides. Its just a few thoughts from the peanut gallery.
Coldures
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 12:46:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Coldures
If what you are saying is true than tell me how does a 6 month old toon have the fastest hac in there fleet. simple skills have very little to do with it, I have very few skills in nano and yet with the right implants and a faction MWD I still managed to get 7.6 k out of a ishtar. And I am sure alot of you will agree and disagree this is to fast the sheer mass of the hac will carry it through most web ranges Except a raiper.
You kinda answered your own question:
As you point out a pimped Ishtar with implants can be easily caught and killed by a non pimped t2 or even best named rapier. So a bil or two of pimped hac with implants falls to a 100-150 mil recon and you think that nano are still overpowered?.
Not only that but a ishtar has very little dps without its drones and getting ceptors up to 7 or 8kms is easy at the moment so they could easily tackle the ishy and avoid the drones dmg at the same time.
Originally by: Coldures
We had the normal setup hic, cepters bc and bs's, the gang jumped in and before the first shot was ever fired they had moved out of the range of almost every body
Ok think about this then as you seem a honest person:
12 man nano vs 19 man dps/tank fit
Q. If they had not been nano fitted would they have jumped into your 19 man camp with only 12 ppl?.
A. I doubt it unless it was a leeroy gang and not many ppl fly hacs and expensive ships in leeroy ops.
Q.If they had been in tank setups and decided to burn back to the gate how many do you think you would have caught or killed?.
A. I doubt any tbh but maybe 1 if you had fast lockers and get a good alpha strike on a small ship.
Q. Don't you think that a good mixed gang should include logistics, ewar and webbers??..after all strength through a good mix and variation is the key to success not just dps and a bit of weak tackle?.
A. A good camp should have dps, tackle/web, ewar and logistics if you lacked some of these as you clearly said that is hardly nano's fault is it?. Cos i can tell you that a good nano gang includes all these assets if they are smart and want to fight gangs instead of just gank solo ratters.
Q. if a small sniper+support gang had come at you from another gate how many ship do you think you would have lost and how many do you think you would have killed with your setup?.
A. I flew with BE for a time and we owned setups like your with hardly a loss.
I mean no offense but relying on unsupported (as in logistic and ecm/damps) and weak tackle (only inties) and pure dps instead of a varied and versatile gang well trained and organized is yours and others issue not nano and lowering speed so those kind of setups are effective will just make ppl not engage in the first place (as i said in question 1) instead of tring and giving you a chance to kill them.
|
Meina Lamia
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 04:33:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Murina
Edited by: Murina on 13/09/2008 14:10:23
Originally by: Coldures
If what you are saying is true than tell me how does a 6 month old toon have the fastest hac in there fleet. simple skills have very little to do with it, I have very few skills in nano and yet with the right implants and a faction MWD I still managed to get 7.6 k out of a ishtar. And I am sure alot of you will agree and disagree this is to fast the sheer mass of the hac will carry it through most web ranges Except a raiper.
You kinda answered your own question:
As you point out a pimped Ishtar with implants can be easily caught and killed by a non pimped t2 or even best named rapier. So a bil or two of pimped hac with implants falls to a 100-150 mil recon and you think that nano are still overpowered?.
Not only that but a ishtar has very little dps without its drones and getting ceptors up to 7 or 8kms is easy at the moment so they could easily tackle the ishy and avoid the drones dmg at the same time.
Originally by: Coldures
We had the normal setup hic, cepters bc and bs's, the gang jumped in and before the first shot was ever fired they had moved out of the range of almost every body
Ok think about this then as you seem a honest person:
12 man nano vs 19 man gank/tank fitted gate camp with a couple of inties:-
Q. If they had not been nano fitted would they have jumped into your 19 man camp with only 12 ppl?.
A. I doubt it unless it was a leeroy gang and not many ppl fly hacs and expensive ships in leeroy ops.
Q.If they had been in tank setups and decided to burn back to the gate how many do you think you would have caught or killed?.
A. I doubt any tbh but maybe 1 if you had fast lockers and get a good alpha strike on a small ship.
Q. Don't you think that a good mixed gang should include logistics, ewar and webbers?. You must see that strength through a good mix and variation is the key to success not just dps and a bit of weak (unsupported inties) tackle?.
A. A good camp should have dps, tackle/web, ewar and logistics. Now if you lacked some of these as you clearly said that is hardly nano's fault is it?. Cos i can tell you that a good nano gang includes all these assets if they are smart and want to fight gangs instead of just gank solo ratters.
Q. If a small (6-8 ppl) sniper+support gang had come at you from another gate how many ships do you think you would have lost and how many of them do you think you would have killed with your setup?.
A. I flew with BE for a time and we owned gang setups like yours with hardly if ever a loss.
I mean no offense but relying on unsupported ( support as in logistic and ecm/damps) and weak tacklers (inties) and pure dps instead of a varied and versatile gang well trained and organized is yours and others issue not nano. And removinging speed so those kind of poor setups are effective will just make ppl not engage in the first place (as i said in question 1) instead of trying and giving you a chance to kill them.
Now removing the 30kms fits without destroying others is ok and adding mwd killing scrams and BS sized webs with greater range are also great ideas as they would still require skill and team work to be effective.
But just lowering the bar to a level that requires player to only lock and hit f1-f8 to kill things is just wrong and only appeals to the lazy and skilless.
After reading this post, it preseted a much better case against Nanos then for them.
Inherent to their speed, Nanos don't require a mixed group, they can just do fine without it, its just better with EW.
Which just shows you, you need highly specialized groups to fight Nanos but you don't need highly specialized Nano groups to fight in general.
Which point in fact shows, there is a issue.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 11:08:00 -
[45]
Edited by: Murina on 15/09/2008 11:10:06
Originally by: Meina Lamia
After reading this post, it preseted a much better case against Nanos then for them.
Then i suggest you go to spec savers as you per usual ignored all the comments and used another of your blanket comment you accuse others of using.
Originally by: Meina Lamia
Inherent to their speed, Nanos don't require a mixed group, they can just do fine without it, its just better with EW.
For ganking solo ratters nano is fine without ewar or logistical support (but then and form of gang can do that) but for fighting other gangs it needs as much support as the opposing gang should bring. The fact you do not know or understand that shows how little you know about nano or combating it.
|
45thtiger 0109
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 11:50:00 -
[46]
It seems that CCP dose not like the Minmatar race for some unknown reason. If thats the case CCP should get rid of the Minmatar race and bring in a new race if CCP dose not like the Minmatar people.I have seen that CCP is Nurfing the crap out off the Minmatar race so baddely its not funny.Well if this is the case i would the only thing i would do then is mining. Because the Minmatar ships would not be worth flying doing PVE or PVP.Minmatar ships need some lovin like what the Amar ships did,when CCP did changes to the Shield & Amor last year.well its time CCP looked in improving Minmatar ships across the board.I know Caldari also need some lovin as well but the Minmatar ships need alot of work done to it. And i hope all the people who fly Minmatar ships agree with this statement.
|
Ross Sylibus
Without Reason
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 17:33:00 -
[47]
back to topic:
why is speed nerf NOT on multiplicity?
when will it be?
why is this thread sticky if speed nerf is not on multiplicity?
when will it stop being sticky?
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 18:24:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Ross Sylibus
back to topic:
why is speed nerf NOT on multiplicity?
Cos it screwed up gang pvp totally.
Originally by: Ross Sylibus
when will it be?
As the nerf originally was hopefully never, but id love to see a few additions like regularly dropped BS sized webs along with other additions that would require skill to use effectively.
|
steveid
Killed In Action
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 14:35:00 -
[49]
well as afr as the natural order thing i think inties < dessies < af < dictor personally.
The thing is HAC and t2 cruiser in general damage is just not in line with the skillpoint requirements firstly and more importantly the cost.
If they have to do comparably shitty damage then they should also have greater survivability, not really just with speed but maybe range?
Its fairly true to form that races tier 2 battlecruiser effectively outdamages and in some cases outtanks their close range HAC counterpart, with often the long range one doing the same.
The hitpoint buff mixed with rigs and compensation skills has more than doubled the strength of tanks on battlecruisers and battleships and the 3 - 400 dps you can get from a HAC just doesn't cut it. Yes you can do more but its got to be close range and no tank. In order to kill a target you need to catch it and that means web range which is pretty much instadeath.
 |
Keflin Geard
Black Nova Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 18:29:00 -
[50]
Hacs and recons and maybe intys are the most fun ships in the game - nerfing them to this extent is crazy.
I think many people just dont understand what CCP is really aiming for with these proposed changes. If they go through, i see the major form of warfare being gate camps with lumbering heavily tanked BCs and BS with ecm and logistics support - until a cyno inevitably appears.
As has been stated so many times - the problem is excessive speed ie the effects of polys/implants and gang bonus - just fix this and lets see where we stand.
These changes would have a number of really terrible effects
- really hurt small roaming gangs and solo players in 0.0
- Trash the most popular pvp race (Minny)
- Create ridiculous imbalances between risk/reward and skill intensive vs low skill players -
I dont see how these changes are going to make the game more fun for older and mid level players. And what are the newer players going to do once they get bored of there drakes and ravens. There just wont be any major incentive to get into hacs and recons.
Besides the changes to speed mods - there are many other good suggestions as to how to re-balance things so that what needs to get fixed, gets fixed, without turning the game into a turn based slugfest of armored battle wagons camping gates.
Id love to see AFs turn into small hacs - faster then cruisers more heavily armed then intys sort of thing. They would be cheap fun and effective.
Also a mid slot mod that counteracts webbing to some degree would mean that webbing is not isnta death for many lighter ships with out buggering up WMDS and Minny recons, blaster ships and all the other problems these changes will create.
Instead of taking the next 12 months to sort the crap load of problems and unhappiness these changes are going to cause - CCP could with some simple clear cut fixes solve the speed problem and work on Eve's major challenges - game development ie so that eve can continue to develop as a game (adding new content - more space - better space - better missions - new ships - thus keeping older players and attracting new ones. At the same time keep chipping away at the big fleet fight lag issues which I am sorry to say, with the exception of 10 min in M-0 last week, really have not improved despite CCPs best efforts.
|
|
r2dtwo
|
Posted - 2008.10.30 19:39:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Isaac benyamin
Originally by: Caldari 5
Natural Order of things:
Frigs < Assault Frigs < Destroyers < Cruisers < Battle Cruisers < Heavy Assault Cruisers < Battleships < Marauder < Capitals etc
1 on 1 it should be in the order above, having any form of Cruiser constantly beating Battleships should never of happened in the first place. This is off base specs, but if someone in a lower class happens to fit out really well against a badly fitted class above them that's fine, but it should never of been the norm.
However that progression is for one on one, but we rarely see this in eve, a group of a lower class should be able to take down the next class up, given enough numbers take out 2 classes above.
So quit your complaining about my HAC can't one on one a BS and win every time any more, it never should have in the first place, a HACs role is to eliminate the Cruisers in a fleet battle, not the battleships.
bud, when it takes more time to train a battleship than it does a Heavy Assault Ship, then you can feel free to call that the natural order of things... until then, your "natural order" shows a profound lack of incite into the reality of combat.
(the following is using fudged numbers for approximates, but still reflect an overall reality)
An Assault frigate takes at least 15 days to train, a destroyer takes about 9 hours
A Battleship, (with prerequisites) takes about 8 days to train, a HAC takes at least 40
do you really, honestly, under the current training requirement think that a guy who spends 8 days working on their character be unable to be bested by a person who has spent (at an absolute bare bones balls to the floor minimum of) 40 days just being able to fly their ship, let alone fly it well. You need your head checked.
Also, where do you see it written that the role of a HEAVY ASSAULT cruiser is to kill cruisers? if that were true, the Ishtar would not be able to field 5 Ogre II's in battle.
Finally, if a person fits their ships worth a damn, it isn't as easy as you think to kill a battleship solo with a HAC. A well designed and moderately tanked Battleship can and will soak the damage of an evenly skilled HAC pilot. If you don't llike that your battleship is being killed by a five year player with a T2 cruiser... then train the bloody skills to fly your ship properly and stop whining about it.
I understand that a new bs pilot shouldn't be able to kill a hac OK that's cool.
But bs V and heavy weapons specialization IV = 117 days compared to 40-60..... can the bs still lose?
By that logic a t2 bs should be able to destroy an sub capital ship in the game solo.
When was the last time you lost a hac to a t1 variant of the same ship? ... never
Cost of loss should not have anything to do with who wins. Insurance for t2 is broken but that should never play a role in the final outcome of a battle period.
|
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |