| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
IamBen
   |
Posted - 2005.06.13 05:28:00 -
[31]
change as long as it done objectively is a good thing. As long as we dont get Blizzard style massive 180 degree style nerfs we should be allright.
|
Khargos
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 05:46:00 -
[32]
 Originally by: IamBen
change as long as it done objectively is a good thing. As long as we dont get Blizzard style massive 180 degree style nerfs we should be allright.
can YOU float a drone?
|
Maxine Stirner
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 06:17:00 -
[33]
Quit?! And miss all those opportunities to be a complete sycophant?
I can recall no instances in which I have been unable to see at least part of the reasoning behind all changes and incomplete proposals. And I only say that because it would be irrational to presume that I could see it all.
The only thing that frustrates me are half-implemented changes. It takes me some time to get around to connecting indirect compensations, especially those which have been around since the dawn of time but the significance of which never fully manifested.
f.ex. - sig radii and the weapons loadout option for frigs. Higher hull classes can adjust themselves to operate better against smaller hull classes rather than equal ones. One might assume there was no predatory circle due to this. Very wrong assumption. Only recently, however, has sig radii become a bigger and more significant issue.
Locking Times & Evil Asteroids |
SPIONKOP
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 06:41:00 -
[34]
I am not going to quit eve until I see how the patches affect my game play.
However should they affect my ability to play the game the way I want to play it and I can find no suitable workaround
then I guess I would quit.
Changes affect everyone and I am just one of many, but I have the same rights as any paying customer, and that is to stop being a paying customer.
I guess if CCP found that 4000 people left the game due to the nerfs then maybe they would reconsider however if a further 6000 people reactivated/joined eve because of the nerfs then maybe they wouldn't.
We drive this this game, we decide if it is too succeed.
|
AlexK100
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 09:10:00 -
[35]
Good one, I`ll stay even if Eve become more balanced 
|
MacMillan
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 17:52:00 -
[36]
Well some of the changes concern me but I will enjoy adapting to them. The mission changes should be fun and even the missile changes sound adaptable too (eventually )
Im allways excited on a new patch but worried about the few days of lag and inevitable starter bugs.
Hats off to CCP for new content though :)
WTB : DN Vessel for 1 isk 
|
MOS DEF
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 19:17:00 -
[37]
WOuldn't leave either way but this upcomming patch makes me even more happy about the decicion to come back to the game 4 months ago.
CCP owns!
|
High Sierra
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 21:15:00 -
[38]
it makes bugger all difference to me.
games changes - people whinge - patch hits the server - most of the people who complained instantly begin to look for ways to exploit the new rules - 5 minutes later, they whinge because someone else worked out how to use the changes to best advantage before they did and so its not fair - get enough people complaining and CCP have to change the game AGAIN.
And for a less cynical point of view - change is not in and of itself negative. I hope that the proposed changes (please note I havent said 'nerfs') improve the game. I will not comment on whether they will or wont until I have had a chance to see how they effect my gameplay (HOWEVER I will say that I hope the changes to insta's are a happy compromise - otherwise low sec/0.0 space travel will DIE).
On the whole, it would have to be a pretty drastic change to the game to make me even consider leaving. Perfect example - Dark Age of Camelot - I had an armsman character as my main and was quite enjoying the game AS an armsman and then they went and nerfed it. And When I say Nerfed it I mean overnight the Armsman class died on its arse. NOBODY played armsman unless they already had a top of the line char with a ton of Skill points and equipment. In PvP, the armsman was utterly useless - The battle would go like this - Mezz, kill your gang mates, stand around pointing and laughing because you have no natural magic resistances AT ALL and so cant break the mezz then hit you with one fireball and dance on your smouldering corpse. (OR they would get their weakest gang member to stab you to death with a small dagger)
I left DAOC shortly after and got dragged into the dark side that is EvE.
|
babo
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 21:29:00 -
[39]
love the changes..
however, with the "insta-whiners shut up" fix, I have a concern over spending hours "approaching gates" in long trips..
If it turns out that I have to spend a ton of time doing that, then I would most likely play other games instead of playing "approaching gate" as that is not much fun and "fun" is why I play..
But, I don't think they are going to remove insta's all together though because there would be an absolute outrage over all the wasted time.
I for one would like paid "transports".. pay a toll and ... but I digress, that is for another "fix" thread in features discussion forum...
Otherwise, the level 4 mission runners are going to have a big shakeup with this patch, and maybe they will finally get out out to 0.0...
Patch "week" is always fun.. I love it...
does your ship have a dronebay? If so, sign the petition.. |
OffBeaT
|
Posted - 2005.06.13 22:15:00 -
[40]
i have read what you said Maxine, about locking times, i dont see a problem with it. i do disagree with the BM around gates. yesss.. insta's should go, but as a jammer i need too jam now within certen ranges from my targets. the worse my skills at jamming the more important this is too me.
under the new skills and rules of it all, i have too be very accrete in my ranges now when i engage as a jammer.
without the ability too worp to ranges other then just 60km down too 5km to a gate. i will be a sitting duck in a scorp with no sheilds & ew on board.
now, i know they are gona dump insta's too gates but they have said nothing about dumping all ability of making BM's,if they have i have not read it yet.
with the new way they have forced on us too jam now, they better give me gate ranges of upto 200km or more for chooses, i am gona need them. even then i would won't my worping in at these spots too be random and not too the exact same spot everytime.
that would just be bs! nothing worse then worping into the exact same spot evrytime too see ships there waiting for you. then not being able too use your ew ranges effectivly in combat.
it just would be too stuipid in combat. not too say unfar too out numberd players.
if we have too play this game with no BM at all. i would rather the old way of jamming for it anyday.
all will do is tank! tank! tank!  
|
Qayos
|
Posted - 2005.06.14 00:40:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Goberth Ludwig
I am going to quit eve because u made this post
Ebil Shikari !!
Can I have your stuff?
(sorry, someone had to say it)
|
Earthan
|
Posted - 2005.06.14 01:03:00 -
[42]
I think these changes are needed big time i welcome them
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Earthan
|
Posted - 2005.06.14 01:13:00 -
[43]
However i didnt know the bm nerf was already to hit, i hope they tought about a way of fast travelling without them.like somebody before wrote i wont play at "approaching the gate".We already have enough of boring pass time in Eve.
Stars, stars like dust, all around me.... |
Rawne Karrde
|
Posted - 2005.06.14 02:42:00 -
[44]
Seriously Have I missed something? the NWO patch looks great, its sooo needed. As for all this talk of a bm nerf, have we all been reading the same dev blog? From that dev blog oveur was saying that they at ccp recognize the problems with bms' but also the problem of not having them and that at this point they just haven't come up with an alternative.
So why is every talking bm nerf? Have they finally chosen an alternative cuz i've not been able to read anything? It amazes me the lemming band wagon on these forums.. oh no the sky is falling..
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |