Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
D4RT N3RDiUS
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:35:00 -
[31]
question: we can still get 5000 speed boats with a normal t2 fit? or we need to xpend one zillon isk in one snake set and obious and ridiculous faccion items to obtain that velocities? and wen we obtain thath velocities we are inmune ??
question: why you dont simple nerf the problem ships like the sacri ( a turret change for example remove the missiles and put some turrets ) ?
question : recons minmatar are useless now becouse of the web change? we got forced to train to gallente to fill the same role ? with the new scrambler modification? recons minmatar gona get some special boost like the falcon?
question: you gona nerf drones upgrades so small drones cant go to 8k of velocity? and you gona change the game mechanic so drones can do dmg witout orbiting you at 4000 mtrs sec?
question: so how is your new ideas of gerrilla warfare now and wath ships you think gona be the next nerfed becouse they broke the new gamemechanics? falcon ? is the next? or can you give us one idea of wath are you thinking with this patch? how is the new gerrilla warfare for ccp? RR batleships and ? seriusly pls.
question: how the large fleet batles are gona change becouse of the new mass of the batleships aling times and so you change time of titans alignment and DD activation time or you are gona make them more uber/good mode on?
question: is the small gang lost? now the only way to kill ppl in 00 is geting in the biggest blob?
question: you gona nerf missiles to and get some new ways to calculate dmg on missileboats?
question: were do you want to go with this patch? nerf small gangs?? and solo pvp?? and boost big camps in low sec as the new way to live in eve?
question: wy one new player gona train for comand ships minmatar now? or recon? or hacs?
question: can you tell us wy dont just nerf the problem boats
question:it is posible in the new patch pass one camp? with the new hic and the new scrambler bonus and webs changes? with ANI ship?
question: is stasis webifier useless with the new change? and now we use scrambler only?
question: assault frigs are the new takles?
question: we can obtain normal speeds like 5000 with a vaga? with normal t2 fit or 4000 at least? not 3000? at full speed? or we are gona use the double rep fit of the FUNNY GM who i dont remember his name? and says we maybe se some new fits with AB and MWD on ships ( seriusly nooz you are a joke and a lousy developer and i think you are one frustrated nano pilot who only fly ravens and get ****ed ) ...
question: Are you seriusly reading me??? lol im bored and i think this patch are still in development but i like to hear what ccp whant with this "nerf" i hope you get some good ideas and get some problems solved i hope but not destroing almost half of the decent and fun ships to fly in eve in the prosess of nerfing 4 or 5 especific ships and especific problems in eve maybe the solution is nerf the problematic ships and items so we cant go ridiculous speed not change the whole game mechanics..
PS: be carefull CCP with this pach remember lots of ppl are reading this and DONT like YOUR changes or you want all that ppl go to wWARHAMMER ONLINE or WOW ... i hope you got some good ideas :) not the crapyones who nooz have
PS2: HOPE YO UNDERSTAND IM FRIKING SPANISH AND CANT SPEACK well ENGLISH SRY ABOUT MI LOUSY ENGRISH SRY
|
Slave Runner
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:42:00 -
[32]
1. The devblog detailed how you plan to apply a broad nerf that will keep the relative effectiveness of the speed modules intact. Why isn't the same logic applied to stasis webifiers? How keeps the reduction of faction overdrives to tech 2 stats the relative value between these two?
2. X-Instinct boosters will swap from speed increase to signature radius decrease and have their effect reduced to 7.5%. This results in a 8.6m reduction for a 115m signature cruiser hull. What do you hope to accomplish with these pitifull numbers? Seeing that HG Halo Omega implants are sold in Jita for less than even the ISK fee one has to pay in Angel Cartel LP stores, it should be obvious how generally unuseful even a 20% reduction is compared to other options. (Give it its 10% and move it to booster slot 3).
3. Will ships with the racial attributes "skewed slot layout" and "weak capacitor" that so far relied on damage evasion to survive will get some kind of adjustment to compensate their reduced survivability?
4. Since missiles are a weapon system that is designed to always hit, is resilient to many classic forms of electronic warfare via FOF and has no practically working counter (lol defenders), will we see the introduction of a "missile tracking disruptor", considering that the current outrunning of missiles as damage evasion is one of the primary reasons for this rebalance?
5. Ships with MWD cap penalty bonus were changed not too long ago to not generate cap out of thin air anymore. With the new MWD stats, will we return to those times or will we see a redesign of these ships?
6. What is your current take on the effects these changes will have on ships that are designed around a stasis webifier bonus, and the new web+scram combination warp scramblers on ships with a scrambler range bonus?
7. Why were scripts introduced with the reasoning that medslot modules with 3 distinctive benefits were too powerful, when now the warp scrambler gets a second effect without scripts?
8. The most prominent speed enhancing implants (Snake Omega, Rogue CY and MY series) are relocated to the same slot. What will happen to clones that have all 3 of them plugged in?
|
D4RT N3RDiUS
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:43:00 -
[33]
and one thing i forgot to mention
question: why you only say this 2 days before the live dev blog? so ppl can get informed? and why is this issue lees importan than the walkin on station and fanfest?
|
I SoStoned
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:46:00 -
[34]
Speed, while annoying when taken to the excesses currently used, does not really need to be hit at all.
What needs to be adjusted is the ability to A) Engage & pin these ships down, but not remove their ability to disengage & escape entirely. Specifically by enhancing the range of speed reduction modules (or introducing a larger class of module with greater range but higher fitting requirements).
B) Engage these ships and actually do some damage to them. Currently drones and missiles are largely ineffective against speedfits. -- Drone velocities should be increased considerably, and return range (currently leading drones beyond the commanding ship's range and then warping leaves the drones sitting dead in space). Drones without targets should return to their launching ship immediately or switch to another target. -- Missile explosion velocities and explosion radii need to be expanded considerably. Currently many missiles have the ability to overtake speedfits, but the pitiful explosion rad/velocity renders them wholly ineffective. This flaw completely removes entire classes of ships from the combat arena.
Tech 2 ammo, specificall, needs to be looked at very closely, especially those that have effects on the ship as a whole (speed, cap regen) as these stack where effects that are weapon-based (tracking, cap use) only affect the single weapon loaded. Bringing a ship's speed or cap regen to a standstill to use an ammo type renders that ammo type useless, if not more dangerous to the user than target. Again, these 'nerfs' eliminate entire ship classes from the combat arena (specifically: missile boats!).
T2 'high accuracy' missiles (javelin/precion) specifically need to have their 'nerfs' shifted to a per-launcher affect. They should also have their explosion velocity increased considerably as their primary role is to hit speedfits (not distant targets, as the range on jav/precision is only 3/4 that of standard T1).
Better yet, remove the heavy nerfs from all T2 ammo entirely as the detriments have made the only viable ammo used in PvP (for the most part) Faction. |
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:51:00 -
[35]
Originally by: The Froon Edited by: The Froon on 06/10/2008 15:38:30 Edited by: The Froon on 06/10/2008 15:37:15 As gamebreaking speeds are a problem, would a speed cap be a better way of balancing rather than web/scram changes? Depending on type of ship any speeds over a certain limit would generate hull damage for example. This way very short bursts of speed to escape are still do-able but combat at those speeds would be impossible. Failing that just setting a max speed without the hull-damage effects would be better. Normal 4-5k/s nanoships are easily countered as it is(BS heavy neuts,rapiers etc) so the only problem are the 15k/s crows zooming about
A speed cap is somewhat logical, but not one that causes damage to the fast ship.
A speed cieling, that gets harder to reach the closer you get (just like resistances) would make a lot of sense.
But then you'll know exactly how fast that enemy vaga can get, and if they exceed an expected norm you'll know you want the ship dead because it's fitting insane loot & snake sets. Fast ship pilots would suddenly find themselves chased like mice in a room of starving cats.
|
Mister Xerox
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:54:00 -
[36]
Originally by: D4RT N3RDiUS and one thing i forgot to mention
question: why you only say this 2 days before the live dev blog? so ppl can get informed? and why is this issue lees importan than the walkin on station and fanfest?
Walking on stations is the least important topic germain to Eve. It should never be brought to any table, period. Throw it out. Let people who want to play Vampire in space wait until WoD comes out.
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:54:00 -
[37]
Considering that NANO is only used in small gang fighting and that to be useful against a well balanced gang (logistics, ewar + dps) it needs logistics, ewar + dps why do you consider it needs nerfing in the first place.
|
El Yatta
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:58:00 -
[38]
Questions:
- What alternatives do you propose to maintain small gang/guerrilla/raiding warfare without a drastic mobility advantage?
- What justifies the massive blasterboat nerf on multiple fronts (approach speed, acceleration, effective 75% tracking nerf, MWDs can be disabled), and what do you propose to do about it if the speed change goes through as planned?
- Do you think cruiser sized ships are now survivable enough compared to their battlecruiser equivalents (eg. why use a HAC over a BC/CBC/BS now?), now that their huge mobility advantage is gone?
- As per last question, does this hold true at different ranges? (Eg. cruisers might be now MORE survivable within web range but far far less at 15-30, for example)
- Do you think this will encourage frigate warfare again, or increase heavy-only gangs e.g. BS remote repping + falcons?
- Have you considered other forms of changing speed and combat (e.g. Sarmaul's proposed "no damage dealth while MWD is active" solution) or is it only a matter of refining your current plan?
- How effective do you feel small, highly skilled outnumbered gangs are post-nano nerf? How much scope for fighting outnumbered do you feel there will be?
Thanks for your time. _______________________________________________ Mercenary Forces |
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:02:00 -
[39]
Why are you reducing cruisers and smaller to virtual uselessness with this nerf while also making tackling something that is not or rarely required to kill a ship in gang combat?.
Shouldn't you keep speed as it forces those that want to pvp to fit pvp modules like webs, nuets and points and work together as a team to get kills instead of just fitting for raw dps and hitting f1-f8.
|
Furb Killer
Gallente Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:03:00 -
[40]
When can we expect AFs to be usefull? (In other words: When is the patch coming that will make the FOTM chasers cry?)
|
|
Chavu
Minmatar Killer Koalas Kingdom of Butan
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:08:00 -
[41]
Question: I have Minmatar cruiser V, should I train HAC V (aka Vagabond V) or not? -------- Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. It's just that yours is stupid. |
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:10:00 -
[42]
Will, should heavy missles be able to hit a frigate for the same damage as a light missle?
what are you doing about this?
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:11:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Mister Xerox
Originally by: D4RT N3RDiUS and one thing i forgot to mention
question: why you only say this 2 days before the live dev blog? so ppl can get informed? and why is this issue lees importan than the walkin on station and fanfest?
Walking on stations is the least important topic germain to Eve. It should never be brought to any table, period. Throw it out. Let people who want to play Vampire in space wait until WoD comes out.
oh god I would never weant to play vamp in space, I want eve in stations.
|
D4RT N3RDiUS
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:13:00 -
[44]
Quote: When can we expect AFs to be usefull? (In other words: When is the patch coming that will make the FOTM chasers cry?)
lol after the patch you gona cry more thah the FOTM ppl believe me :) lots of ships are screw after the current idea dont worry m8 :) ...
question: missiles gona get change in this patch? if so how this afect the mission runers with the velocitis of the fastest npcs ships now sometime barely hiting them with cruise missiles with the new missiles cant hit the small frigs how this gona work? you thnk this? caldari now are usseles for mission runer? dont forgot ppl who rat to live in 00 .. and rats gona scramble to? in 00
|
Dizeezer Velar
Caldari League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:46:00 -
[45]
This...
What justifies the massive blasterboat nerf on multiple fronts (approach speed, acceleration, effective 75% tracking nerf, MWDs can be disabled), and what do you propose to do about it if the speed change goes through as planned?
|
Dizeezer Velar
Caldari League of Disgruntled Fast Food Employees
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 21:57:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Dizeezer Velar This...
What justifies the massive blasterboat nerf on multiple fronts (approach speed, acceleration, effective 75% tracking nerf, MWDs can be disabled), and what do you propose to do about it if the speed change goes through as planned?
i guess its time for us to use null ammo and replace a web with a tracking computer.
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 22:10:00 -
[47]
The fundamental question that must be asked:
WHY are you making such broad changes to a relatively balanced game, when the only problem ships are the high-end nano HACs/recons? Why not use a more precisely focused nerf, bringing nano ships back within the range of "damage reduction, but not invulnerability"? Such as:
1) Nerfing polycarbons back in line with all other rigs relative to their T2 module equivalents.
2) Nerfing speed implants to fix the problem of the huge gap between the top-end speed setups and the plain T2 speed setups, a gap that is FAR larger than the gap between T2/top-end for any other class.
3) Fixing precision heavy missile explosion velocity to allow them to be a useful counter to modern speed setups.
Since a more precise nerf like that would deal with the problem ships without all of the collateral damage, why not try something like this and then wait and see how it goes before adding other nerfs?
|
Xenomorphea
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 22:27:00 -
[48]
Originally by: Merin Ryskin The fundamental question that must be asked:
WHY are you making such broad changes to a relatively balanced game, when the only problem ships are the high-end nano HACs/recons? Why not use a more precisely focused nerf, bringing nano ships back within the range of "damage reduction, but not invulnerability"? Such as:
1) Nerfing polycarbons back in line with all other rigs relative to their T2 module equivalents.
2) Nerfing speed implants to fix the problem of the huge gap between the top-end speed setups and the plain T2 speed setups, a gap that is FAR larger than the gap between T2/top-end for any other class.
3) Fixing precision heavy missile explosion velocity to allow them to be a useful counter to modern speed setups.
Since a more precise nerf like that would deal with the problem ships without all of the collateral damage, why not try something like this and then wait and see how it goes before adding other nerfs?
I completely agree with Merin. Implementing the changes as were seen on Sisi is going to open a huge can of worms and imbalance almost every ship class way beyond the current "imbalance" of the high-end nanofits.
The "nerf" should only affect ludicrous speeds such as the "faster than interceptor" 8+ km/sec Vagabond, or interceptors so fast that no type of weapon (also those built specifically for that ship class) can hit it.
Cheers,
-Xeno
|
Shera Gron
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 22:32:00 -
[49]
Edited by: Shera Gron on 06/10/2008 22:32:47
Originally by: Merin Ryskin The fundamental question that must be asked:
WHY are you making such broad changes to a relatively balanced game, when the only problem ships are the high-end nano HACs/recons? Why not use a more precisely focused nerf, bringing nano ships back within the range of "damage reduction, but not invulnerability"? Such as:
1) Nerfing polycarbons back in line with all other rigs relative to their T2 module equivalents.
2) Nerfing speed implants to fix the problem of the huge gap between the top-end speed setups and the plain T2 speed setups, a gap that is FAR larger than the gap between T2/top-end for any other class.
3) Fixing precision heavy missile explosion velocity to allow them to be a useful counter to modern speed setups.
Since a more precise nerf like that would deal with the problem ships without all of the collateral damage, why not try something like this and then wait and see how it goes before adding other nerfs?
qft.
i would also agree to the scrambler changes for an additional counter.
|
Tak Sder
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 22:36:00 -
[50]
One big reasons Nanos are so invulnerable is a previous patch. When you web someone their agility decreases, their inertia increases, and they don't slow down very fast. This allows a nano you web to fly right out of web range. How about undoing that, and maybe even giving webs a mild buff to increase range or rate of speed slowdown. Then they can slow down ships that are going too fast to fight. Voila, problem solved, and much less baroque than some of the solutions being proposed.
And of course, there was a very heavy handed missile nerf which brought in explosion speed, and oh by the way (for that and other reasons) rendered missile boats almost useless in PvP.
So now because of two previous nerfs, you have to pile on yet another ill considered, far reaching nerf? One that is very complicated, and has a lots of side effects. Like most nerfs, it will have lots of lots of side effects, will render billions of invested ISK worthless, render months of training time wasted, and be a medicine worse than the disease it is meant to cure.
How about making VERY SMALL, incremental changes here, and focusing on undoing parts of previous changes instead of adding on new ones?
-----
I know a old lady who swallowed a dog What a hog to swallow a dog! She swallowed the dog to catch the cat She swallowed the cat to catch the bird She swallowed the bird to catch the spider That wriggled and jiggled and tickled inside her She swallowed the spider to catch the fly But I don't know why she swallowed that fly Perhaps she'll die
Switch "old lady" to CCP, every animal to "nerf", and for die put in "have all her customers go play something else".
|
|
Vitrael
Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 22:43:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Vitrael on 06/10/2008 22:43:20 With future HACs being much slower than the ones we have now, what will be done to preserve their usefulness and utility over T1 battlecruisers, which typically offer greater firepower and tank at less price and skill requirement?
In a phrase, how will you keep HACs from being the new AFs?
|
ikoban
Amarr Scarlet Scourge Society
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 23:09:00 -
[52]
Edited by: ikoban on 06/10/2008 23:09:30
Originally by: D4RT N3RDiUS question: we can still get 5000 speed boats with a normal t2 fit? or we need to xpend one zillon isk in one snake set and obious and ridiculous faccion items to obtain that velocities? and wen we obtain thath velocities we are inmune ??
question: why you dont simple nerf the problem ships like the sacri ( a turret change for example remove the missiles and put some turrets ) ?
do some research you fool!!
sacri used to be a turret ship. adapt or gimmie thine stuff!
|
Irish Whiskey
Caldari The Black Fleet The Black Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 23:15:00 -
[53]
It would be very nice to hear the reasoning of not reducing a ship's agility while under the effect of MWD, since warping dependent on being aligned (a straight line).
|
Adam C
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 23:17:00 -
[54]
just nerf poly's and im happy
|
Cailais
Amarr VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 23:37:00 -
[55]
Should be an interesting Dev Blog, although Im not sure how youre going to stretch a live dev blog to an hour just by talking about speed rebalancing..
So, in case youre looking to widen the topic a bit;
What's the teams thoughts on rebalancing the Black Ops BS and some of the faction ships (ashimmu, bhaalgorn etc) that have ended up a bit behind after a long series of changes (nos, EW, etc)?
Also, whats the teams views on dispersing the 'blob', - any news on 'fleet formations'?
ta.
C.
Originally by: Tarminic Your continued whining is somewhat diminished by your continued willingness to give your money to CCP.
|
Demus DaVet
Minmatar Mythos Corp RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 23:39:00 -
[56]
Minmatar frigs and cruisers are nanoed because that is the only way they can be of some use in the field. Minmatar recons are useful only because of their ability to counter speed. The only advantage Minmatar battleships have is the slight advantage of dictating range because of their slightly better agility and smaller mass. Even the faction BS, Machariel is flyable only if nanoed.
With this patch you effectively take any advantage off of Minmatar ships.
Question: Which of the proposed changes keeps any Minmatar ship from being outclassed and outperformed by the respective ships of the other factions and why should anyone keep flying them ? Other than having spent millions of SP and time on them ? ---------------------------- Implement Racial Fleet Setups
|
Tobias Sjodin
Ore Mongers Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 23:47:00 -
[57]
So the new cookie-cutter setups will be remote-rep gangs with falcon support?
|
Billy Merc
Amarr ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 00:09:00 -
[58]
As an amarr pilot it dont really effect me...but i would like to know how you intend on balancing out the vagabond..
All it has is speed...its dps is laughable..its sensor strength is a joke (ie a single multi can shut it down)..and the fact that in order for it to fight it takes a lot of risks getting in close.. neuts / webs / nos / ecm / hell even damps are all effective coutermeasures against a vagabond...
All they have going for them is speed...ie there forte is escaping...this is such for a lot of minmitar hulls...but this proposed nerf really only hurts one minmitar ship to the point of useless'ness...and thats the vagabond...now im liking the idea that yeah maybe it needs a lil toneing down...but not to the point of uselessness.
i mean you only need to look the the rook as a measure of how brutily sideways this game is becoming (as a player of 5 odd years)..and really what was the motive behind boosting force recons in such a way that combat recons are just a bunch of lemons ?? basicly why fly a rook when u can fly a falcon....then on the other side of the fence..u chave the badger mk III IE the pilgrim..it does not share none of the "enhanced" attributes u have bestowed upon is combat recon brother..where as the falcon..it shares same ew bonus as rook (getting a little side tracked..but there is relevence).
I find strengths and weakness's in all of the races...but really part of why this game has been so good is that in the past u needed a little cognitive ability to play it..by that i mean u needed to put a little thought into what u did...now days its becomming a matter of warp in, press go...fights over...i understand there needs to be a little balance in relation to speed..i'll be the first to say that..my gripe is more with the way in which you tend to "nerf in one hand" and wave a so called "boost" in the other..
as i pointed out, im not a go fast kinda guy..i like it nice and close...but im not everyone and IMO (yes im alowed to have one of those)this speed nerf needs A LOT more thought as it will be one of the biggest changes to this game in a very long time (gameplay wise)
|
Techila Kalitas
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 00:46:00 -
[59]
With regard to the possible nerf of polycarbon rigs, market forces have made these exceptional rigs more expensive than their counterparts (a point that could be argued in their defense) and the way I see it, it would be considerate to those who have invested in polcarbons (for their ships or as manufacturers) if the intention to nerf or not nerf polycarbons and the date of the speed nerf patch were made clear well in advance of their execution to ease the inevitable market crash. I'm sure that those who own Vagabonds or have invested in Vagabond invention or god forbid a Vagabond blueprint will agree with me here. |
Redklaw
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 01:46:00 -
[60]
Edited by: Redklaw on 07/10/2008 01:48:52 I've never understood nerfing the entire community because of discrepancies that can occur at the bleeding edge of what is possible. So it's possible to get a Vagabond over 10Km/s if I spend billions on deadspace / faction equipment, T2 Rigs, and Full HG Snakes... At the cost of billions (notice its plural) of ISK worth of investment.
I'm not sure if CCP needs to be told this, but the average vagabond pilot doesn't have this type of money to spend on one setup with that kind of investment; after all, one disconnect / lag spike / whatever can put you out of the value of a couple of carriers.
The average Vag pilot is stuck at about 5-6km/s, which may be a bit excessive if you don't factor in the fact that Vagabond puts out less than half the dps as its Gallentie cousins, and has about the entire conventional tank as T1 Cruiser.
Well your nerf, from testing reported from the test servers puts that billions of isk Vag, at about 3.4km/s... Those of us that could never afford such setups are double screwed at this point.
Also there is going to be a huge impact on the rest of the Minmatar ships, such as our Recon Ships, Stabber, and Slepnir to consider in this matter. You're stripping almost every really good Matari ship away except possibly Typhoon on this nerf (BS Weight numbers are highest on Minmatar BS's for what reason btw?).
I'm pretty glad I spent a lot of time cross-training Gallente so I could make use of some of their blaster boats... oh wait...
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |