| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Xavieer Naidoo
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
    |
Posted - 2008.10.07 02:00:00 -
[61]
Edited by: Xavieer Naidoo on 07/10/2008 02:00:43
 Originally by: Merin Ryskin
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.
^^pretty much my ideas too. CCP is touching way too many things at once. Instead of nerfing the nano's they're pretty much messing up many aspects of pretty well balanced game. 
P.S And give me back my portrait you bastards! 
|
Kreeak
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 02:30:00 -
[62]
The only question that needs asking is: why has it taken so long to do this re-balance?
Speed ships get to avoid most damage as a form of near-immune tanking, but speed also allows one to dictate range(how many tactics are affected by range?) and have far superior tackling capability compared to other setups.
...or lets have freighters, capitals, and battleships going 10km/s because it's fun and beats regular tanking anyway.
|
f1ve dollar
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 03:10:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Slave Runner
Edited by: Slave Runner on 06/10/2008 21:02:17
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?
This is my main question. Will there be some explosion velocity mod introduced because currently missiles have nothing against them except for speed where as guns have tracking disruptors that effect tracking speed or optimal or both along with speed.
|
Kazuma Saruwatari
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 03:51:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Kazuma Saruwatari on 07/10/2008 03:52:48
Knowing that this entire "speed" topic is a very controversial topic for many who play EVE as it stands. More often than not, it is a sole reason why people continue to play EVE (because speed is fun), which is why takign any step forward regarding the matter is a delicate and potentially dangerous process to take.
QUESTION:
Considering the huge (and often unseen) implications of even small changes to certain ship stats and mod stats, will you consider a "staggered" deployment of the speed patch so as not to "bite more than you can chew"?
QUESTION:
Will this speed patch eventually give the AF a viable role again besides being a more expensive cruiser in a frigate hull?
QUESTION:
What would happen to speed-based ships like interceptors, Vagabond, all blaster ships, etc once you deploy this speed patch? Will they still retain what basically is a distinct trait and survival tactic that is speed (either as damage avoidance/mitigation or as a method to get within range)?
QUESTION:
What will be the proposed changes to make the MWD not a "mandatory" module alongside the stasis webifier? Most ship setups often suffer from having to fit a MWD, and often make more sense without the MWD.
QUESTION:
Will anti-speed-based weaponry (like javelin missiles) actually be given a reason to be used? Also, will anti-missile deterrents be of use (defenders are basically lolfail)
QUESTION:
Are AB's part of this speed patch and if so, what are the proposed changes?
QUESTION:
Are there any planned changes to the stasis webifier and web disruptor/scramblers? If so, what are the proposed changes?
QUESTION:
Will ships currently ingame affected by the speed patch be given a new role in case their old one becomes invalid after the patch?
-
 |
Cheekything
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 03:52:00 -
[65]
Why not create an item that activates a dead space area effecting a racial group's ships like the doomsday but not such a vast range sorted then :)
|
Azieza
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 03:55:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Azieza on 07/10/2008 03:56:20
Originally by: Kreeak
The only question that needs asking is: why has it taken so long to do this re-balance?
Speed ships get to avoid most damage as a form of near-immune tanking, but speed also allows one to dictate range(how many tactics are affected by range?) and have far superior tackling capability compared to other setups.
...or lets have freighters, capitals, and battleships going 10km/s because it's fun and beats regular tanking anyway.
There are many ways to counter a speed tank, hit the average nano hac with a heavy neut and watch what happens. Most of them are weak vs ECM, or better yet use a Matari Recon ship against one (while they are still useful of course). Speaking of near-immune tanking, a falcon can tank about any ship that isn't specifically built to handle the threat of one. Nano-ing ships is not some I-win-at-eve-super-exploit as there are perfectly viable ways to counter the use of them, much as there are viable ways to counter ECM Jamming and other unique tactics.
You forget to mention in exchange for being able to dictate range and tackle, you run an incredible risk of being turned into wreckage fast if your tactic has been accounted for by your opponent.
That being said, I don't think that the extreme end of nano usage such as deadspace MWD's, Faction Mods, Snakes, and the such pushing BS'es over 10km/s is balanced (you can get a Machriel to about 11.4km/s with top end gear). Nor do I think that the usage of said equipment on a hac is balanced.
But I do believe that their is a niche for nano's in this game, and by destroying accessiblity to ships and setups that are NOT broken CCP will be destroying something that makes the game fun.
|
45thtiger 0109
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 04:53:00 -
[67]
Quote:
But I do believe that their is a niche for nano's in this game, and by destroying accessiblity to ships and setups that are NOT broken CCP will be destroying something that makes the game fun.
Question
Will the speed changes affect all ships from all of the races and what ship types will it affect mostly.
Question
Will CCP fix all of the T2 missiles as i have seen somewhere else in the fourm and what fixes will be dose to missiles.
Question
will CCP nurf the speed like what they did with the shield, Armor, Seige Launchers,NOS,Torp Range, ect. Do you think alot of people would packup and leave the game and CCP would then loose money.
CCP i am asking you guys think before you put this Speed Nurf into action because as a great game as EvE-Online is you do not want to loose your player base or loose the money you are making with silly misstake with putting this nerf in.Because i would like one day to fly a vagabond, Rapier or a Munnin. like the other races. The minmatar race will not be a race of people choices anymore when they create a new character because of the speed nurf.
Thankyou
|
Zarnak Wulf
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 04:55:00 -
[68]
I have some questions. And I want them answered immediately.
1) What are the final mass considerations for ships in the Minmatar line? Specifically the Vagabond and Minmatar BS?
2) Will the warp scrambler still shut down MWD?
3) What will the final strength of the webifier be?
4) Can we get a real fourth bonus on the AF?
|
Shadowsword
COLSUP
Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 05:48:00 -
[69]
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?
Your proposal do little to fix interceptors going at 12km/sec. If they end up going 11km/sec, they're still nearly invulnerables. And just making missiles usefull isn't enough, guns need to hit them more than they actualy do. You need to change more things that you suggest, or, for practical purposes, you won't have fixed the issue.
Speed tanking had been designed with afterburners in mind, not MWDs. I applaud CCP for going back in that direction.
------------------------------------------
|
Sylthi
Minmatar
Coreward Pan-Galactic
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 06:10:00 -
[70]
Why does your approach to slowing down the ships that you (CCP) seem to think go too fast include making ships that are ALREADY slow, slower? Namely: Battleships.
Is this poorly thought out speed nerf, that is seemingly mandating and even more poorly thought out missile nerf, going to include the catastrophically not thought out agility nerf too?
Is there anything you are planning to not nerf so that you can try to justify nerfing speed across the board rather than simply lowering the percentage boost you get from MWDs, which are the real problem to begin with?
Why are you guys NOT putting all of this in writing so we have something to hold you to when it goes live?
Why am I bothering typing in these questions when you guys aren't going to answer a single one in the live blog?
*
* |
|
Merin Ryskin
Peregrine Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 06:23:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Shadowsword
Your proposal do little to fix interceptors going at 12km/sec. If they end up going 11km/sec, they're still nearly invulnerables. And just making missiles usefull isn't enough, guns need to hit them more than they actualy do. You need to change more things that you suggest, or, for practical purposes, you won't have fixed the issue.
Interceptors are not a problem. Notice that nobody ever complained about invulnerable interceptors, speed setups only became an issue once it was HACs and recons becoming invulnerable. Interceptors pay a heavy price for their speed, they have pathetic dps and tissue-paper "tanks" if they ever slow down. They can keep a point on you, but that's about all. And outside of people flying interceptor gangs just for the fun factor, interceptors have always been support ships, not a one-strategy-for-everything ship like a modern nano gang.
And guns can hit interceptors just fine. Properly fitted AFs, interceptors and destroyers have no problem killing even the fastest snake/poly interceptors.
 |
Vanthropy
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 07:12:00 -
[72]
please keep proposed web changes!
that and what merin says..
|
Antdung
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 09:18:00 -
[73]
Hmmmm... with the proposed changes to Webs i can see a lot of people getting back to gates/stations before u can kill em. More targets escaping ftl.
Yet again i feel the long way around option has been taken here. Wouldn't a simpler solution have been better like giving a webber & webber drones an accuracy falloff??
A T2 Webber with a falloff off 5km :
10km100%
11km90%
12km 80%
13km70%
14km60%
15km 50%
16km40%
17km30%
18km20%
19km10%
Overheat
13km100%
14km90%
15km80%
16km70%
17km60%
18km50%
19km40%
20km30%
21km20%
22km10%
Now i aint saying 5k falloff should be the set limit i just use 5k as an example more math would have to be done to find a ballance i'd say
|
Steyny
Caldari
Fun Inc
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 09:43:00 -
[74]
Edited by: Steyny on 07/10/2008 09:43:27
Originally by: Antdung
Hmmmm... with the proposed changes to Webs i can see a lot of people getting back to gates/stations before u can kill em. More targets escaping ftl.
Yet again i feel the long way around option has been taken here. Wouldn't a simpler solution have been better like giving a webber & webber drones an accuracy falloff??
A T2 Webber with a falloff off 5km :
10km100%
11km90%
12km 80%
13km70%
14km60%
15km 50%
16km40%
17km30%
18km20%
19km10%
Overheat
13km100%
14km90%
15km80%
16km70%
17km60%
18km50%
19km40%
20km30%
21km20%
22km10%
Now i aint saying 5k falloff should be the set limit i just use 5k as an example more math would have to be done to find a ballance i'd say
This!! , but have CCP considered this at all ?
|
BiggestT
Caldari
Space Oddysey
Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 11:09:00 -
[75]
Edited by: BiggestT on 07/10/2008 11:18:24
Edited by: BiggestT on 07/10/2008 11:10:18
Edited by: BiggestT on 07/10/2008 11:09:37
PLEASE
remember Command ships in this nerf.
Their already marginally useful compared to cheap insured BS's and losing one of their tiny advantages of higher speed is going to hurt.
Oh and dont over-nerf missiles either 
Awesome EVE history
Missiles ba-oom! |
Ahimsaka
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 11:10:00 -
[76]
I have HAC V (for vaga) and Recon V (rapier and huginn), and have specialized in these ships. I have maxed most the skills, and put in a few cheap hardwire implants. I fly t2 only (except perhaps a faction warp disruptor from time to time), and have never owned a single snake implant. It is barely viable, but I enjoy speed since it requires more than f1 through f8.
Q: on a scale of 1-10 (1 being a significant amount , 10 being like a fire from deep within ), how much should I loathe the devs for potentially screwing up a year and a half of skilling?
Q: do you care at all that if you whipe out *arguably* the best ships Minmatars have, many people will quit on principle?
Yes, I have cross trained into the sub BS, non nano options that Minmatar have to offer. They aren't that impressive. Leaving us with the Sleipnir as one of the only shining ships in the Minmatar fleet is a joke. Especially when it's questionable if it will survive the nerf.
I have no problem with high end faction ships slowing down a bit, especially the ones that do not need to slow down to deal damage. Vagabond dps is a joke, and everyone knows it. Fighting at falloff is a joke. Even my damage fit is low at best, and the shields melt excessively quick.
Q: Have you considered changing the snake set effectiveness? Tweaking that would do wonders. OR making a slight polycarbon rig change?
Q: Will you boost the Rapier/Huginn web bonuses to increase to at least close to 90% (perhaps trade that for the TP bonus. A double web bonus makes sense to me, and is far more usefull most the time)?
Q: Why not just address the problem ships specifically, so that each is reduced to a rational speed, instead of making blanket changes that effect over all gameplay unpredictably?
Q: Are there intentions to allow Minmatar sub BS ships to use speed as a tanking / over-all strategy (ie dictate range, slow down to hit, speed up to tank)? Or will speed be used for dictating range only, effectively ending the days of nano ships?
My suggestion is to slowly leak changes, instead of slaping on another unpredictable, broad scale patch/nerf that will inevitably screw up the ballance (which at this point isn't THAT bad imo...). Truth is individual ships need help more than the game mechanics.
My character is starting to look depressing.  Give us pure Minmatar skilled characters some good news...
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 11:33:00 -
[77]
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 have to say Merin does have a point in the end.
Originally by: Merin Ryskin
Originally by: Shadowsword
Your proposal do little to fix interceptors going at 12km/sec. If they end up going 11km/sec, they're still nearly invulnerables. And just making missiles usefull isn't enough, guns need to hit them more than they actualy do. You need to change more things that you suggest, or, for practical purposes, you won't have fixed the issue.
Interceptors are not a problem. Notice that nobody ever complained about invulnerable interceptors, speed setups only became an issue once it was HACs and recons becoming invulnerable. Interceptors pay a heavy price for their speed, they have pathetic dps and tissue-paper "tanks" if they ever slow down. They can keep a point on you, but that's about all. And outside of people flying interceptor gangs just for the fun factor, interceptors have always been support ships, not a one-strategy-for-everything ship like a modern nano gang.
And guns can hit interceptors just fine. Properly fitted AFs, interceptors and destroyers have no problem killing even the fastest snake/poly interceptors.
Interceptors must be able to go over at the very least 7-8km/s to avoid them from being suicide mobiles.
6km/s interceptors die to a freaking battlecruiser using guns with enough range (say, FMPs / 220s) to hit, and unlike nano HACs/recons, they don't have the EHP to disengage well if something actually can hit them.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail mods@ccpgames.com ~Saint |
Gartel Reiman
Civis Romanus Sum
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 12:16:00 -
[78]
Originally by: Antdung
Yet again i feel the long way around option has been taken here. Wouldn't a simpler solution have been better like giving a webber & webber drones an accuracy falloff??
A T2 Webber with a falloff off 5km :
10km100%
11km90%
12km 80%
13km70%
14km60%
15km 50%
16km40%
17km30%
18km20%
19km10%
Wrong (assuming I'm interpreting your meaning correctly), that's not how falloff works. Asides from the fact that chance to hit as you go further into falloff isn't linear, my understanding is that you expect a 90% web to act as a 45% web at 15km.
It doesn't. What it does act as is a 90% web with 50% chance to take effect. (Chances are this will never change as otherwise any time a ship moved the server would have to recalculate the effects - range changed from 13,354m to 13,353m? OK, web strength changes from 75.114% to 75.131% - and work this out dozens of times per second)
This would be much much worse than what we currently have, since it introduces more chance-based mechanics that will quite possibly determine whether you live or die. A 10km web with 5km falloff would have something like a 2% chance of working at 22km, so if a fast ship was orbiting you with a point on, it would be completely down to luck (1 in 50 chance every 10 seconds) whether your web managed to "hit", at which point you could approach and probably get within 13km before the cycle ended, or not. There wouldn't be any real skill involved from either party, just one side hoping that the random die rolls kept missing and one side hoping they don't. The sad thing about this is that there is no absolute cap on range either, so you could potentially web someone at 35km if they got really unlucky.
Falloff works for turrets because each individual shot has a relatively low effect overall (removing what is generally a small amount of HP) and each shot's chance to hit generally has no relation to whether a previous shot hit. Webs don't fall into this category, as getting a web cycle on someone (especially someone who relies on speed) is a really big deal, it lasts for 10 seconds, and furthermore it is likely that you'll be able to close range meaning that your future web 'shots' will be much more likely, if not guaranteed to hit. Imagine if the chance to miss for turret falloff was rolled every 10 seconds and applied to every shot in that period, and furthermore once you started hitting well you got a bonus to future attempts...
Falloff for webs doesn't work. Mutable strength for webs in some sort of falloff range isn't technically feasible. What could work is multiple models of web with varying ranges and strengths (as per Goumindong's suggesting a while back), so you could fit a long-range low-strength web or a short-range high-strength one.
I am of the opinion that the strength of webs needs to be reduced in general, regardless of any considerations of nanoships or otherwise. 90% webs create a 13km sphere in which the only valid tactic is tank & gank. Signature radius, speed and so forth are almost completely irrelevant when both parties are webbed - hence why even an interceptor can't go within web range of a battleship. This is why AFs are currently useless (since their small signature and relatively high speed compared to large ships don't count for much) and also partly explains the push toward nanoships - if you eschew simplistic tank & gank setups then you need to stay out of web range in order to avoid the enemy forcing this on you.
To my mind a single-webbed cruiser should be very difficult to hit for a turret battleship, and a single-webbed battlecruiser should still be getting noticable damage mitigation (somewhere in the 20-50% area perhaps) from its lower signature radius and higher speed (as compared to a battleship). Obviously multiple webs increase the smaller ships' vulnerability and this is fine and good. I suppose my question (at the end of all this) is how CCP devs view this relationship of sizes.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 12:24:00 -
[79]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 07/10/2008 12:24:06
I would like to know when we can expect to see these changes put into tranquility.
There are alot of us looking forward to these changes. As long as missiles are balanced to the new speeds (Are they yet?) I belive that the changes will make eve a better game. Thank you.
-----------------------------------------
[Video] Support Barrage |
Antdung
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 12:30:00 -
[80]
Edited by: Antdung on 07/10/2008 12:30:37
It doesn't. What it does act as is a 90% web with 50% chance to take effect. (Chances are this will never change as otherwise any time a ship moved the server would have to recalculate the effects - range changed from 13,354m to 13,353m? OK, web strength changes from 75.114% to 75.131% - and work this out dozens of times per second)
Yea this is the effect i was referring to not the turret style falloff of a yes or no hit with a reduced chance but i do indeed see the problem of recalculation you've pointed out with my suggestion now.
I do however stick to my point that with reduced web efficiency people will however simply opt out of fighting and be able to simply carry on flying back to a gate and jump.. yet again favoring gank squads that can bring a lot of webs to bear and making smaller or 1v1 engagements very hard indeed.
|
|
Halycon Gamma
Caldari
The Flying Tigers
United Front Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 13:29:00 -
[81]
My only real question is.. and its kinda complicated....
Do you see this fix as a stop gap... or do you see it as a once and for all fix.
A lot of the "fixes" I've read over the months and weeks on this issue are simply crap. Ad-hoc stopgap affairs that really only put a bandage on the problem, but leaves the issue to fester around the edges. Others I think are true solutions.. assuming CCP makes this a fundamental principal of game design going forward.
So, what I want to know is; Is CCP actually going to see this one through to a true conclusion?
Many types of focused setups are going to be hurt here. A few types of gameplay are going to go right out the window. Some of the design ideas for a couple races are going to be badly mauled(Min, Gal). And all because a few ships, with the right amount of money invested in them.. can become untouchable.
So is there some grand Unified Field Theory type force at work in the dev lab? I can live through a massive shakeup in combat mechanics if I think that there's some light at the end of the tunnel, some golden ideal about how combat should work. But if this is just a bandage on a problem because CCP isn't exactly sure how combat should play out, but knows it shouldn't happen like its currently working.... Well, I'm less inclined to be excited.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 13:37:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Gartel Reiman
It doesn't. What it does act as is a 90% web with 50% chance to take effect. (Chances are this will never change as otherwise any time a ship moved the server would have to recalculate the effects - range changed from 13,354m to 13,353m? OK, web strength changes from 75.114% to 75.131% - and work this out dozens of times per second)
I like the idea of variable ranged webs and solving the calculation per second issue could be solved with range vs str scripts.
10km 100% script
11km 90% script
12km 80% script
13km 70% script
14km 60% script
15km 50% script
16km 40% script
17km 30% script
18km 20% script
19km 10% script
Or less variations, but you get the idea.
Additions to combat a style are preferable to nerfs or the removal of a style.
|
Antdung
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 13:40:00 -
[83]
Yea that'd eb a good idea! never thought of scripts
|
Pattern Clarc
Naglihiem
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 14:09:00 -
[84]
have you considered more fundimental changes to the hit/game mechanics in order to solve balance problems?
|
Mitsuni Abashadoni
Minmatar
The Establishment
Establishment
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 14:41:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Mitsuni Abashadoni on 07/10/2008 14:41:31
Since most of the questions I want answered are allready asked, I've got only one question, though from the last debate, it's a rather important one (I'd rather not see that a t2 rigged, faction Vaga with high grade snakes can reach a straight line speed of 5000 km/s used as an argument that Vagas still work again please)
1) Do the people who are going to be responsible for this understand the difference between straight line speed (i.e max speed, also known as bloody useless) and orbit speed, aka. usefull speed?) and that raw speed isn't the be all, end all to this equation?
 |
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 15:08:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Antdung
Yea that'd be a good idea! never thought of scripts
Id go for:-
10km 100% script
12km 90% script
14km 80% script
16km 70% script
18km 60% script
20km 50% script
22km 40% script
24km 30% script
26km 20% script
28km 10% script
That way they are just over the range of a t2 scram, giving players the chance to get into or out of scram range. Although it may make rapiers a little too powerful.
|
Svjeza Roba
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 15:10:00 -
[87]
Well,let me say this way.....NO NEAD FOR NANO NERF
Como on,waisting time here,this all nano nerf thing is just geting crybabis calme down,so thay can again fly thay huge BS sit there and just push F1-F8,and watch the fight.Nano ships are easy to kill,easy to avoid and thay cost a lot of money,even a notmal t2 fit is still expencive.Hacs are usefull only if nanod,and still thay allso sufer consequencins of relaing on just one form of fight,Spead.On other side if someone did spend billions of isk to get his faction gear and expenciv implants,he deservs to be untuchibel for 50M BS.Dont u think so.A ferari Car will allways go faster than your sporty fancy Opel car,for a reason,it cost way more money.Intys r ment to be fast,faster than anything,cose only thing thay r ment to do is to tackel,and that is what thay do,relaing on their spead,as thair only wepon.So leave tham that way,please.CCP is trying to do uninteligent move and change whole game to suposly balance something that is not broken.Thay r going to afect to many aspects of game whit curent proposal of spead nerf.All nerf that did do in past to certain ships did make this ships uslesss.Thay did nerf all gallent ships and now going to do so to minimatar.So we can all just train for Caldari ships,and do the great scenario of pvp,means,warp in activate wepons and sit there,not moving,and watching the misilis fly all over.The only fun that pvp actualy have is the only one that make actuali do fighting tactics and improvise on batell field,is based around mwd,web and point,move fast,think fast,react fast,and actuali do activ pvp-ing and now CCP propse that we all shud fly BS ships size and fire misiles.
CCP i know i did spen last few month working on your nano nerf idea,and it is hard after so long to see that u did go wrong direction,and just quit,but be reasnebel,just quit it befor u fu.. up this game.I can keep along whith few ships beeing nerf down,like gallent recons and mymr but if u going to nerf all pvp based moduls and all game mechanich i will quit this game.Cose im tired ,like many others,of your mesing up stuff.
Im flying my vexor in pvp,and im hapy whith it,i dont mind geting engaged by vagas,or ishtars,or intys.I can stil survive and have fun,and i dont expect that im going to kill vaga in t1 cruiser,but from time to time it hapends.So basicli to every one out there,learn how to fly your pvp ship,form mixed gangs of diferent ship typs,and u will kill all nano guys.Stop crying on forums if your raven canot kill a nano ishtar,just kill his dronse you nobs and chil out.U can allways desingage and jump thru gate or dock,and if u r cought in belt,than that is your own stupid mistake for not using scan and watching local.So please give us all a break and learn how to pvp.
CCP once more quit speed nerf,u are still in time.
THX
|
BiggestT
Caldari
Space Oddysey
Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 15:23:00 -
[88]
Originally by: BiggestT
Edited by: BiggestT on 07/10/2008 11:18:24
Edited by: BiggestT on 07/10/2008 11:10:18
Edited by: BiggestT on 07/10/2008 11:09:37
PLEASE
remember Command ships in this nerf.
Their already marginally useful compared to cheap insured BS's and losing one of their tiny advantages of higher speed is going to hurt.
Oh and dont over-nerf missiles either
Oh and also..
You generally nerf mods that every ship setup tends to require, to stop homogeneity, fair enough.
Remember that this isnt like the nos nerf CCP. You generally nerf mods that every ship setup tends to require, to stop homogeneity. But you cant simply nerf mwd's and expect everything to be ok.
Nos can be changed for guns and neuts, U really think an ab is gonna cut it? Remeber that speed is a MUST in fleet ops, ships without mwds atm often get booted, (all bs's need a mwd aswell ofc). Speed is a must, just as dps is a must, tank is a must and ewar is a must for any gang. You cannot change that.
By doing this your trying to change a current playstyle, as you did with nos. Nos worked, this wont. Why?
AN MWD IS STILL THE BEST MOD TO GET THE HIGHEST SPEED POSSIBLE
This will never change unless you omg boost ab's. While mwds are the fastest, every ship will require one.
You dont like it? Well change the need to reproach gates, escape bubbles etc. (Yeah right like thatll happen). Doing this crazy stunt with warp scramblers shutting off mwd's wont work, ull just force ppl to fit smartbombs (GUESSE WHAT!?!?! SMARTBOMBS ARE THE NEW MANDATORY FIT! WELL DONE CCP U FAIL AGAIN!)
Some ppl will say..so what? just fit a mwd, even with the changes they wont be that bad. Then gueese what? CCP has compltely failed in thier objective to remove them from cookie cutter setups. Therefore the whole nerf was pointless. But as a side effect youve gimped blaster boats, sub-bs t2 ships, most minmatar ships, missile boats and to boot, youve skrewed up gate camping balance...
OR
you could just nerf poly's+snakes.
MWD will always be mandatory no matter what u do CCP, AB's will never be superior. Case closed.
Nerfing poly's wont change this, but nano fits will be less common and we can all go home happy that the game is balanced.
/rant
Thankyou and Goodnight!
Awesome EVE history
Missiles ba-oom! |
Angelic Eviaran
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 15:33:00 -
[89]
Originally by: Svjeza Roba
Well,let me say this way.....NO NEAD FOR NANO NERF
Como on,waisting time here,this all nano nerf thing is just geting crybabis calme down,so thay can again fly thay huge BS sit there and just push F1-F8,and watch the fight.Nano ships are easy to kill,easy to avoid and thay cost a lot of money,even a notmal t2 fit is still expencive.Hacs are usefull only if nanod,and still thay allso sufer consequencins of relaing on just one form of fight,Spead.On other side if someone did spend billions of isk to get his faction gear and expenciv implants,he deservs to be untuchibel for 50M BS.Dont u think so.A ferari Car will allways go faster than your sporty fancy Opel car,for a reason,it cost way more money.Intys r ment to be fast,faster than anything,cose only thing thay r ment to do is to tackel,and that is what thay do,relaing on their spead,as thair only wepon.So leave tham that way,please.CCP is trying to do uninteligent move and change whole game to suposly balance something that is not broken.Thay r going to afect to many aspects of game whit curent proposal of spead nerf.All nerf that did do in past to certain ships did make this ships uslesss.Thay did nerf all gallent ships and now going to do so to minimatar.So we can all just train for Caldari ships,and do the great scenario of pvp,means,warp in activate wepons and sit there,not moving,and watching the misilis fly all over.The only fun that pvp actualy have is the only one that make actuali do fighting tactics and improvise on batell field,is based around mwd,web and point,move fast,think fast,react fast,and actuali do activ pvp-ing and now CCP propse that we all shud fly BS ships size and fire misiles.
CCP i know i did spen last few month working on your nano nerf idea,and it is hard after so long to see that u did go wrong direction,and just quit,but be reasnebel,just quit it befor u fu.. up this game.I can keep along whith few ships beeing nerf down,like gallent recons and mymr but if u going to nerf all pvp based moduls and all game mechanich i will quit this game.Cose im tired ,like many others,of your mesing up stuff.
Im flying my vexor in pvp,and im hapy whith it,i dont mind geting engaged by vagas,or ishtars,or intys.I can stil survive and have fun,and i dont expect that im going to kill vaga in t1 cruiser,but from time to time it hapends.So basicli to every one out there,learn how to fly your pvp ship,form mixed gangs of diferent ship typs,and u will kill all nano guys.Stop crying on forums if your raven canot kill a nano ishtar,just kill his dronse you nobs and chil out.U can allways desingage and jump thru gate or dock,and if u r cought in belt,than that is your own stupid mistake for not using scan and watching local.So please give us all a break and learn how to pvp.
CCP once more quit speed nerf,u are still in time.
THX
Wall of text strikes you perfectly for a wrecking 932453457234 damage.
|
Elhina Novae
Sky's Edge
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 15:35:00 -
[90]
From all I heard this kind of started about the day I started to play this game, with Revelation:
What happened was, Rigs was introduced (?), New nber implants was introduced as the Snake implants (?).
Am I correct on this? Was nano considered a problem before Revelation?
What about simply trying to fix those, and make "ludicrous" speeds stacking "nerfed" instead of doing a complete makeover on all ships mass/agility/speed?
------------
Originally by: Boz Well
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
...
There's an Amarr problem?
Nothing that can't be solved by more Minmatar nerfs.
|
|
| Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |