Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 23 post(s) |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
236
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:11:00 -
[241] - Quote
whinematards :D so much butthurting qq goes on
btw now te will be balanced vs tc , and thats a good thing |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:12:00 -
[242] - Quote
AlexKent wrote:For once there was a tiny bit of balance between races, now with this stupid TE you will be making Gallente and Minnie crap again...
IMO this nerf is completely unjustified and will just cause more damage than good. Please don't fix what does not need fixing CCP. agreed |
Lev Arturis
Dark-Rising
18
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:13:00 -
[243] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Except several of us are also discussing ships e.g. the SFI that lose about 30-40 DPS in their standard operating regime, where they don't have all that much DPS to begin with. The ship goes from being just barely viable as a kiter to being completely useless because its DPS and tank are too weak to brawl with and it can't kite because its DPS is easy to shrug off.
SFI isn't a kiter. Tells me how much you know about small gang warfare.
|
Kaal Redrum
The Tuskers
16
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:14:00 -
[244] - Quote
I guess the AC shield Cane, Rupture, Stabber, Vagabond, Armor Wolf, Scram kiting Slasher, Rifter, Firetail all died with a collective smash across the face (add gallente to the list)
They really hate ACs or really want Matari pilots to use Arties when shield tanking
Please fix unbonused EWAR usage rather than try and ruin the frigate, cruiser, destroyer, BCruiser balance youve spent months achieving with this stupidly unneeded change. The Applied damage nerf to every blaster and AC ship is so far reaching, i dont think youve thought this through. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
236
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:22:00 -
[245] - Quote
AlexKent wrote:For once there was a tiny bit of balance between races, now with this stupid TE you will be making Gallente and Minnie crap again...
IMO this nerf is completely unjustified and will just cause more damage than good. Please don't fix what does not need fixing CCP. so what dmg does it cause? huh? that shield tanked nano gall ships cant kite as good ? quess what they never intended for that role and for winmatar when was the last time minmatar was crap??? it has been years since matard is the dominant race in small pvp, cause they are so op , they loose like 0 dps due to insane falloff at kite range , machariel 80km+ falloff with a short range gun ,yeah that is so balanced |
unimatrix0030
Viperfleet Inc. Transmission Lost
18
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:23:00 -
[246] - Quote
So will a blaster-talos be able to hit a large tower after this nerf? |
Tub Chil
Last Men Standing
41
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:28:00 -
[247] - Quote
Any chance of TE-s affecting missiles? In combination with TD-s affecting missiles.
CCP was talking about it, why wasn't it done? inability to disrupt missiles is a big problem in any small scale engagement. |
Naomi Knight
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
236
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:28:00 -
[248] - Quote
Kaal Redrum wrote:I guess the AC shield - Cane, Tornado, Rupture, Stabber, Vagabond, Lokis, Sleipnirs and Scram kiting - Slasher, Rifter, Firetail, Wolf, Jaguar all died with a collective smash across the face (add gallente to the list)
They really hate ACs or really want Matari pilots to use Arties when shield tanking
Please fix unbonused EWAR usage rather than try and ruin the frigate, cruiser, destroyer, BCruiser balance youve spent months achieving with this stupidly unneeded change. The Applied damage nerf to every blaster and AC ship is so far reaching, i dont think youve thought this through. so how they die with that small nerf ?tell us oh and add gallente to the list... :D that makes me laugh butthurt arent you?
|
AlexKent
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:38:00 -
[249] - Quote
Naomi Knight wrote:AlexKent wrote:For once there was a tiny bit of balance between races, now with this stupid TE you will be making Gallente and Minnie crap again...
IMO this nerf is completely unjustified and will just cause more damage than good. Please don't fix what does not need fixing CCP. so what dmg does it cause? huh? that shield tanked nano gall ships cant kite as good ? quess what they never intended for that role and for winmatar when was the last time minmatar was crap??? it has been years since matard is the dominant race in small pvp, cause they are so op , they loose like 0 dps due to insane falloff at kite range , machariel 80km+ falloff with a short range gun ,yeah that is so balanced
Blasters will be **** again. Huge damage means nothing if you can't project it.
Just because matar is the dominant race in pvp does not mean it needs a kick in the nuts, other races should be brought up to par. The reason minnie ships work is the AC falloff that compensates for arty being **** (besides alpha).
Mach is 1.5b ship, it's supposed to be good as not everyone affords to buy and loose them.
Look at the killboards, after last round of rebalancing you can see all kinds of ships being used, from small to big. Before that everyone was just flying drakes... Do you miss that?
On topic: If this is supposed to be an AC nerf, just nerf the AC by reducing their falloff, don't nerf all the ships that use this module.
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1354
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:39:00 -
[250] - Quote
James Amril-Kesh wrote:
Except several of us are also discussing ships e.g. the SFI that lose about 30-40 DPS in their standard operating regime, where they don't have all that much DPS to begin with. The ship goes from being just barely viable as a kiter to being completely useless because its DPS and tank are too weak to brawl with and it can't kite because its DPS is easy to shrug off.
And you're all wrong, the amount of range you'll lose is vastly exaggerated in this thread. The actual loss is very small.
Heres an example, the standard PL Blaster Rokh fit that uses 2 TE's:
24.6+28.7 before the nerf, to 22.6+24.6 after the nerf.
LOOK AT THAT MASSIVE RANGE CHANGE THERE OH MAN. Thas on a battleship, where the TE range boost is much more obvious. On smaller ships the change will be significantly lower.
You are all making a mountain out of a mole hill, nothing will REALLY change, other than maybe a 1-2 kilometer engagement change.
|
|
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1354
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:42:00 -
[251] - Quote
Seriously anybody saying this is a blaster nerf should probably drink bleach, the change is negligible in range, and I'm seriously curious if any of you have a single clue about ship stats or if you just see the word nerf and lose the farm. |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:43:00 -
[252] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: You are all making a mountain out of a mole hill, nothing will REALLY change, other than maybe a 1-2 kilometer engagement change.
Then why the change if change is so "small" Also try to apply those nerfs to machariel. |
AlexKent
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:45:00 -
[253] - Quote
Grath,
Blaster-related do you consider this change to be necessary? |
Nomad I
University of Caille Gallente Federation
130
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:47:00 -
[254] - Quote
What is going to be happen is, that everyone is going to be more close range. This will be in favor for blaster ships. On the other side , shooting large POS with blaster ships will be more tedious.
Concepts for blob wars like the supporting alpha tornado getting more problems. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1355
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:51:00 -
[255] - Quote
AlexKent wrote:Grath,
Blaster-related do you consider this change to be necessary?
I think that the change isn't strong enough. The Tracking Computer is an active module, it should be both stronger and more attractive then its passive low slot counter part. Thats not the case currently, the Tracking Enhancer is currently more attractive in every single way.
Also looking at the fleet stabber that everybody is crying about, it looses 1/2 a km in optimal and 3km and fall off. |
AlexKent
Silver Guardians Fidelas Constans
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 08:57:00 -
[256] - Quote
In that case, maybe the TC needs a slight buff to compensate for the loss.
I feel like blasters were finally decent, i really don't want to see blaster ships suffer from this change, IMO it's totally uncalled for. Maybe a small faloff buff is in order for blasters if this change makes it to TQ. Not enough to make them the new OP, FOTM guns, but just so they maintain current range. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
489
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:00:00 -
[257] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: You are all making a mountain out of a mole hill, nothing will REALLY change, other than maybe a 1-2 kilometer engagement change.
Then why the change if change is so "small" Also try to apply those nerfs to machariel. You lose 8km falloff. From 59km to 51km
So I guess the Machariel is dead and useless now. /sarcasm |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:01:00 -
[258] - Quote
Hannott Thanos wrote:PAPULA wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: You are all making a mountain out of a mole hill, nothing will REALLY change, other than maybe a 1-2 kilometer engagement change.
Then why the change if change is so "small" Also try to apply those nerfs to machariel. You lose 8km falloff. From 59km to 51km So I guess the Machariel is dead and useless now. /sarcasm 8km is alot.
|
Sinigr Shadowsong
War Tactical Groups SOLAR FLEET
69
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:03:00 -
[259] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote: Key stat for this change is a reduction in the Optimal/Falloff bonus on a T2 Tracking Enhancer from 15%/30% to 10%/20%.
A nerf to TE had been needed for a long time. However I think that it will make already inferior Railguns even more weaker compared to anything that don't use TE a lot. Have you considered instead 15%/30% -> 10%/20% more specified nerf of 15%/30% -> 15%/15%? With such change TC will have an unique utility of great falloff benefit and will be often seen as good option for Minmatar ships. |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1355
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:03:00 -
[260] - Quote
PAPULA wrote: Also try to apply those nerfs to machariel.
Currently my mach (shield fit) is 4.2+69, after the change it will be 3.8+56.
So you lose 13km fall off, and less than half a km of optimal.
You can't possibly be that upset over those number changes, you're still relatively firing about the same range.
PAPULA wrote:Says pandemic legion who controls fozzie and whole game.
Yea, I gave you my friend that I play games with to help undo some of the years long neglect and you defame, insult, and slander him because you're mad about less than half a km of optimal range and a little bit of fall off.
How about you nut up and stop crying over literally nothing.
|
|
spellbound spirit
Pink Bunnies C0VEN
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:03:00 -
[261] - Quote
This is same kind of balance as nano nerf was = let's lower skill impact on pilots effectiveness and game will be more balanced...
CCP encourages blobbing more and more with their balance changes and they want to hurt small gang/solo gang that are skill dependant to make some "F1 players" happy.
I feel that CCP's balance changes drive towards making EVE even less skill dependant, so that every 3month character not only has technical capabilities to engage 6 years old veteran, but also CCP wants to make sure that there won't be major skill gap.
All that while moon goo is still inact, practically the same it was 6years ago.
So much for keeping veterans in this game... |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1355
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:05:00 -
[262] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:PAPULA wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: You are all making a mountain out of a mole hill, nothing will REALLY change, other than maybe a 1-2 kilometer engagement change.
Then why the change if change is so "small" Also try to apply those nerfs to machariel. You lose 8km falloff. From 59km to 51km So I guess the Machariel is dead and useless now. /sarcasm 8km is alot.
No, its not, at that range your DPS is cut so incredibly far just due to being the outside edge of your fall off that you're drastically exaggerating the loss.
Again, you really won't notice this change much at all in any real way, you're actually spazing out over nothing. |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
489
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:07:00 -
[263] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Hannott Thanos wrote:PAPULA wrote:Grath Telkin wrote:James Amril-Kesh wrote: You are all making a mountain out of a mole hill, nothing will REALLY change, other than maybe a 1-2 kilometer engagement change.
Then why the change if change is so "small" Also try to apply those nerfs to machariel. You lose 8km falloff. From 59km to 51km So I guess the Machariel is dead and useless now. /sarcasm 8km is a lot. At that range, are you serious? If you can't get around this issue then you do not have the intelligence I would assume is required to play Eve. If a blaster cruiser like the Thorax lost 8km range, THAT, would be a lot. A ship that has over 50km range with "short" range guns losing some of that range is no big deal. |
To mare
Advanced Technology
179
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:08:00 -
[264] - Quote
i can understand the need of a nerf to TE but since some minmatar ship got rebalanced being weaker than their cunterparts in recent balancing can we take a look at that as well? |
PAPULA
The Dark Tribe
11
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:09:00 -
[265] - Quote
Grath Telkin wrote:PAPULA wrote: Also try to apply those nerfs to machariel.
Currently my mach (shield fit) is 4.2+69, after the change it will be 3.8+56. So you lose 13km fall off, and less than half a km of optimal. You can't possibly be that upset over those number changes, you're still relatively firing about the same range. PAPULA wrote:Says pandemic legion who controls fozzie and whole game. Yea, I gave you my friend that I play games with to help undo some of the years long neglect and you defame, insult, and slander him because you're mad about less than half a km of optimal range and a little bit of fall off. How about you nut up and stop crying over literally nothing. Says man who controls eve.
|
Xyris Rixx
Haruspex Industries Wrong Alliance
0
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:11:00 -
[266] - Quote
Is there a current trend to nerf shield tanking into the ground when compared to armor tanking? For years shield tanking was almost obsolete and irrelevent with megas and apocs being the ships of choice for fleet combat. Right now there is a solid choice to be made between the advantages and disadvantages of both, but it appears through direct buffs and indirect nerfs that shield tanking is going to be rendered obsolete again - is this a deliberate plan on behalf of ccp or just accidental? |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
489
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:11:00 -
[267] - Quote
PAPULA wrote:Says man who controls eve.
Argument of the year award goes to this guy |
Hannott Thanos
Notorious Legion
489
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:12:00 -
[268] - Quote
Xyris Rixx wrote:Is there a current trend to nerf shield tanking into the ground when compared to armor tanking? For years shield tanking was almost obsolete and irrelevent with megas and apocs being the ships of choice for fleet combat. Right now there is a solid choice to be made between the advantages and disadvantages of both, but it appears through direct buffs and indirect nerfs that shield tanking is going to be rendered obsolete again - is this a deliberate plan on behalf of ccp or just accidental? Let me get this right.. Hmm, how do you say it... WHAT??? |
Grath Telkin
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
1356
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:17:00 -
[269] - Quote
Xyris Rixx wrote:Is there a current trend to nerf shield tanking into the ground when compared to armor tanking? For years shield tanking was almost obsolete and irrelevent with megas and apocs being the ships of choice for fleet combat.
I dont know who told you this but its an outright lie. Dominion launched 4 years ago, the Maelstrom was one of the most common main line battleship across that 4 years. The welp cane, the tengu, the munin fleet.
I'm not sure who told you that shield tanking was obsolete but you should be mad at them.
|
Caelum Dominus
Invicta. Lost Obsession
2
|
Posted - 2013.03.27 09:18:00 -
[270] - Quote
I agree with your sentiments on Remote Sensor Boosters, but I don't think you need to nerf Tracking Enhancers. They may break some ships, yet on most they are fine. I think you should look at those ships instead. |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 30 .. 37 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |