Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1119
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 09:49:00 -
[91] - Quote
seth Hendar wrote:Swiftstrike1 wrote:Here's a hypothetical question for you CCP. In your opinion, what sort of scan resolution should be required to catch an interceptor after it has just jumped through a stargate? that's exactly what the OP is explaining, because of the server tick and how the game works, anythiyng warpin under 2 sec is uncatchable,wich is most often seen with ceptors, pods, shuttles and for some inty like frigs. note that i realy appreciate that a CCP dev explain the root of the issue, and take real mesures in the intend to fix it
They cannto fix it without doubling the load of the servers....
Live with it. Tiny things will not be caughts when they want to avoid being caught. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Mark Cato
State Protectorate Auxiliary Militia
6
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 09:59:00 -
[92] - Quote
This balance will hurt the Fleet Interceptor's main function, which is tackle, and strikes me as a bad idea. Agility is useful for maintaining orbits and manual piloting, since Inties move at incredible speeds they are already difficult to pilot. Any nerf to their agility makes tackling and holding tackle even harder.
Why choose this balance? Surely there's a lot of other options for you to consider? You admit the issue with missile interceptors being OP in your post, but why not do the obvious and nerf their damage projection? For example, I love the Crow, but I'll be the first to admit it's OP: it's fantastic at both tackle and damage projection. A fleet Inty is a tackle ship, not a DPS ship, yet here you are nerfing tackle, not damage projection, when damage projection is the problem in the first place!
Regarding gatecamps. First, most standard Inty fits will not be able to jump through every gatecamp. If you want a travel Inty you fit it specifically for agility to get through gatecamps and such a fit will not be useful in another role, like tackle. I doubt your nerf will really change the ability of a travel fit Inty to jump through most camps, while it will make tackle harder. So you're hurting tackle ability without really changing the ability to go through gatecamps.
And so what if an Inty can jump through gatecamps? Eve follows a kind of rock-paper-scissors mechanic where every tactic should have a counter. Inties have various counters. A RLM Caracal or Bellicose can tear through them for example, or any fast ship with short point and web. What about the counter for gatecamps? Surely some ships should have the ability to jump through gatecamps, thereby acting as a counter to that tactic? Why is the gatecamping tactic being privileged over other tactics? It's not like Inties have giant cargo holds, so they can hardly be used to move any goods aside from blueprints and implants. And if you don't like the idea of an uncatchable Inty being used to light cynos, then why not simply remove the ability to fit a cynosural field generator, or nerf their cargo hold even further?
I can't claim to have a global view of Eve, but it hardly seems that Inties are being used exclusively over other frigates. T1 frigates are still prized for their low cost and the fact that almost anybody will engage them. Faction frigates are still heavily used in faction war for their ability to kill T1 frigs in novice plexes. A T2 ship like an Inty can't go into novice plexes and so aren't used all that often in faction war.
In conclusion. This change might work for combat Inties, but don't touch a Fleet Inty's ability to tackle! Nerf its damage projection, it's not supposed to doing damage anyway! |
Xirin
Sigillum Militum Xpisti Fatal Ascension
9
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 11:38:00 -
[93] - Quote
How about instead of breaking what isnt broken we remove bubble immunity and call it a day. |
Tsobai Hashimoto
Evil Monkey Asylum Evil Monkeys Asylum
186
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 12:25:00 -
[94] - Quote
Altrue wrote:4gn1 wrote:Agility is extremly curcial for holding an orbit without loosing the point and still not come close into scram web range. This is already hard enough as the point bonis are not at that much difference especially at the short points.
Interceptors were not uncatchable and if - they were they were not fit too well for combat. This change is nonsense and will lead to problems in the Tackle role. I say again Tackle role - not Travel role.
This nerf comes to soon - people cry because they dont want to make any effort to counter it!!! Again that's perfectly true. Is it me or are people actually surprised to see an interceptor able to slip past blockades and catch stuff ? Then what ? Logi will get a rep nerf because people are complaining they are repping more than logi drones ? :/ CCP Fozzie wrote: Every interceptor should have their own strengths and weaknesses that make the decision of which to fly interesting. The Crow has excellent damage application at long ranges (even when it is flying at high speeds), four very valuable midslots and the longest lock range of any interceptor. It's weaknesses are a bit less speed than most others, lower theoretical top end damage, as well as slightly weaker agility.
If you are unsatisfied about the state of missile interceptors, maybe now should be the time to take a look at the missile system in its globality, instead of nerfing missile ships with random stats that will not affect his damage application, but will affect his ability to tackle, which is much more impairing. This does not mean that I share your analysis of the crow's damage ability. In fact I find it very wrong :( : 1- The Crow has excellent damage application at long ranges even when flying at high speeds. Indeed it does, but its dps with light missiles is quite low. In addition to that, fitting requirements for light missiles makes it impossible to use its other strenghts (i.e med slots) at the same time. You can use ridiculously overpriced meta4 launchers to ease that eventually. And of course, needless to say, dps is not very important for interceptors... 2- The Crow has four very valuable mid slots. Indeed it does, and indeed they are very valuable ! Because if you substract the MWD and Point that an interceptor MUST have, you're left with two med slots for the tank. That's one less compared to three low armor ceptors. Just look at your metrics for the Raptor (which is shield and has three med slots) and try to prove that I'm wrong :D. Also again, that's two med slots that cannot be put to good use at the same time than its damage application. Due to fitting requirements. 3- The Crow has the longest lock range of any interceptor. That is true (by only 7% more than a turret ship like the Ares, but why not...). However every interceptor has enough targeting range to keep target during the full long point range. And at these speeds, the extra range is ridiculous since it reprensent one second of piloting. 4- Nerfing its agility wont prevent tracel ceptors from prevaling, which is normal by the way. But it will cause issues during combat, a moment where current agility stats could even have used a buff. So, overall, due to secondary and debatable advantages, you're nerfing one of the primary stats of this ship. That is not cool ! Also, calling it a "Tweak" when you're taking away almost a FULL SECOND of align time (unskilled I know but I wanted to sound dramatic :D) on a ship relying only on agility and speed... That's a bold move ! Like making a post about, say, "Carrier Brandwidth Tweak" to remove 20% of their brandwidth ^^ Edit :The solution!Let me suggest you a compromise. If you want to nerf their agility for travel, why not giving them a role bonus that reduces their mass when using MWDs. (Effectively removing the mass penalty, or even going further and decreasing their mass). This way, interception in combat remains the same (or can even be improved), but interceptors for travel are nerfed. Even if you reduce their mass during MWD, you cannot use that to travel because of the one second tick that will negate this benefit (the interceptor will loose the second of acceleration before activation of the module) and because of the sig radius penalty that decrease lock time on an MWDIng interceptor.
Fozzie! Read this!
This will fix travel time but not crush ceptors ability to tackle, it might take a bit more work and coding but, it would be worth it for the balance of the game..... look into this! Please
|
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1124
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 13:47:00 -
[95] - Quote
Xirin wrote:How about instead of breaking what isnt broken we remove bubble immunity and call it a day.
because each time some 0.0 dwellers complains of bubble immunity, they are proovign to CCP that they achieved their desired result and that Bubble immunity should stay.
THey wanted to ahve the EXACT result that you guys keep complaining .THey want less safety for 0.0 ratters. They want that vast empty space becorme more dangerous and that controlling a territory menas being covered by eyes of a complex intel netwrok. "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
bubble trout
Sky Fighters
176
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:11:00 -
[96] - Quote
BUFF MINMATAR |
Voyager Arran
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 15:49:00 -
[97] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Xirin wrote:How about instead of breaking what isnt broken we remove bubble immunity and call it a day. because each time some 0.0 dwellers complains of bubble immunity, they are proovign to CCP that they achieved their desired result and that Bubble immunity should stay. THey wanted to ahve the EXACT result that you guys keep complaining .THey want less safety for 0.0 ratters. They want that vast empty space becorme more dangerous and that controlling a territory menas being covered by eyes of a complex intel netwrok.
The problem right now is that with the combination of bubble immunity, align times under two seconds being mechanically impossible to catch on gates, and the ability of some Interceptors to engage safely outside scram/web/neut range, there isn't actually anything a nullsec alliance with an extensive intelligence network and an active defense fleet can do to police their space from Interceptor gangs other than hoping they fall for the one obvious gimmick that can kill them or just hoping their ratters are smart enough dock up and wait to leave.
And frankly, if you want to kill more ratters (and who doesn't?), you don't just want to make ratting more dangerous, because all that does is make people look at the risk:reward involved in nullsec ratting and decide to go do something else for their money. I used to rat in a Naga before Oddysey added tackling frigates to anomalies that I couldn't deal with safely, and I was a big fat killmail waiting for the first frigate that caught me. The tackle frigs largely brought an end to blaster ratting and made people were far less willing to park their Vindicators in hubs, and it also meant pretty much every ratting ship had a realistic option to deal with lone frigates and brought an end to Evan Skyblater's reign of terror in a solo Purifier. I kept that up until the Interceptor changes in Rubicon made even that too dangerous for my tastes, and now I just support myself through other means. The net result for you is one less target out in space.
If you want to kill ratters, you want changes that make people want to rat more and engage in riskier ratting behavior, not stuff that makes them fly super-paranoid or make Faction Warfare alts.
Unless you're suggesting that you should be able to catch even prepared, aware ratters watching intel channels, in which case my question for you is why you think there would be any ratters out there at all exposing themselves to that kind of danger for 20mil ticks? |
Lidia Caderu
Harbingers of Chaos Inc Catastrophic Uprising
23
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:18:00 -
[98] - Quote
Now if can warp through bubble you will be caught on other side. What is the point?? Can you create ONE ship for safe travel, even with small cargo, immune to bubbles, low inertia and agility and with low slots for stabs |
ZheoTheThird
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
216
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:18:00 -
[99] - Quote
Voyager Arran wrote:ZheoTheThird wrote:[ You can't run from smartbombs.Besides, inties picking their fights and getting in and out of a fight when they chose to is what they're supposed to do.
Hint: the fit we were running had nothing to do with luck. We were gimping our tanking and damage dealing capabilities to the maximum in return for 100% safety of gatecamps. Our fits weren't able to engage anything else than a lone ratter, but somehow that must've been classified as OP...
You can't run from smartbombs, but you could also try doing literally anything other than fleet-warping yourselves unscouted from gate to gate all the way across a region if you want to avoid them. It's not like you don't know the possibility of it exists or something and if you take basic proactive measures you can completely avoid it. The only way for you to end up in a pile on top of the Disco Tempest is to put yourselves there. Anyways, your problem isn't that Ishtars are too hard to catch, because your frigates are still perfectly capable of that and half of them are probably literally AFK anyways. Your problem is that defense fleets are too effective and now it's not mechanically impossible for them to catch you. Why do you think a group of PvP pilots actively seeking to defend their own space shouldn't be able to do so?
But you are able to defend yourself. You are able to get rid of us. You are able to catch the uncatchable maledictions. Smartbombs and elaborate baits. You can't bait, because your baits are terribly obvious and you can't smartbomb either, because for some reason, coordinating more than two people seems to be an impossible feat for your FCs.
Again, why should the ship get nerfed? There's a simple, easy to use counter, not our fault if you lack the skill to pull it off. |
Morwennon
Aliastra Gallente Federation
67
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:24:00 -
[100] - Quote
Man, that's mean making those evil malediction-flying ratter gankers fit a third istab and one cheap implant to retain their <2s warp times. Ceterum censeo, the RLML and HML nerfs must be undone. |
|
Lin Fatale
24th Imperial Crusade Amarr Empire
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 16:43:00 -
[101] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Overall the Rubicon Interceptor rebalance was a smashing success. We're very happy with the player reaction, with the gameplay involved in flying Interceptors, and with the effect on other areas of EVE.
May I ask, how do you measure that. And why do you think the nulified ceptors are a success?
What I see from my day to day pvp activity. Yes there are a lot of ceptor gangs in various sizes from 5-50+
But in 99% of the time cepter fleets never take any fights they gank one here one there. But as soon as you go after them with 3 ppl they completly ignore you. And you cant do anything to catch them without high effort.
What you see is prolly the increase usage of ceptors. Because they are now the riskless "roaming" ship for everyone.
But the fun factor is going down for sure. The big ceptor gangs do nothing than gank and avoid any fight ...hours of boredom for them The people who would like to fight vs ceptors, dont even bother to undock anymore, because they know they will just run.
|
Derka McDerk
Republic University Minmatar Republic
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:12:00 -
[102] - Quote
I'm confused. So you made them more agile 3 month ago, and now you are reverting the changes to:
Claw, align time 4.8 from 4.57 from 4.82. What?
Stiletto, align time 4.95 from 4.38 from 4.73. Really?
What I see proposed here is making Inties worse shuttes AND worse Interceptors, which is bad. Please reconsider the latter, thank you.[/quote]
Haha, so funny. Switching back and forth... Really doesnt express confidence.
Interceptors should be interceptors, with speed and agility. Shuttles should be shuttles.
Why not actually make shuttles do their actual job, instead of having interceptors doing it better. Leopards are a good example of a nice shuttle, too bad they are limited in quantity. |
Re'doubt
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
4
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 17:59:00 -
[103] - Quote
My head is still spinning around why we are catering to gate campers in the first place with this change. Cloaky nullified T3's slip through gate camps every day. Hell, almost any cloaky ship slips though gate camps every day, are we going to nerf cloaking next??
My next thought is that we have a lot of people complaining about damage projection with light missiles. I know the fits that TEST uses do a whopping 50-60 DPS depending on skills, and the only way they are able to get into warp under 2 seconds is if we gimp their tank and/or damage and put 2 inertia stabilizers on.
The fit is already making sacrifices both in tank and damage output in order to move fast. This is for our malediction fit, I assume the crow is in the same boat.
Again, I repeat my last post, don't down on missile interceptors and kill their ability to tackle and hold a point by reducing their agility. They are already paper thin and don't do much DPS. Why are we even revisiting this original change when CCP has bigger things to figure out like sov mechanics, and POS quality of living. Why are we as players/customers getting features we DO NOT want and DO NOT need? |
Malphas Vynneve
The New Gallentean Combine Brave Collective
1
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:00:00 -
[104] - Quote
I don't think there's much i can say here that hasn't already been said, but i'll cast my vote for NOT removing bubble immunity and NOT nerfing agility. Removing bubble immunity being the most annoying proposition i've heard.
Also, i wish Goons didn't have so much control over CCP. CCP's submission to them is making it a worse place for everyone else. |
Voyager Arran
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:11:00 -
[105] - Quote
ZheoTheThird wrote:Voyager Arran wrote:ZheoTheThird wrote:[ You can't run from smartbombs.Besides, inties picking their fights and getting in and out of a fight when they chose to is what they're supposed to do.
Hint: the fit we were running had nothing to do with luck. We were gimping our tanking and damage dealing capabilities to the maximum in return for 100% safety of gatecamps. Our fits weren't able to engage anything else than a lone ratter, but somehow that must've been classified as OP...
You can't run from smartbombs, but you could also try doing literally anything other than fleet-warping yourselves unscouted from gate to gate all the way across a region if you want to avoid them. It's not like you don't know the possibility of it exists or something and if you take basic proactive measures you can completely avoid it. The only way for you to end up in a pile on top of the Disco Tempest is to put yourselves there. Anyways, your problem isn't that Ishtars are too hard to catch, because your frigates are still perfectly capable of that and half of them are probably literally AFK anyways. Your problem is that defense fleets are too effective and now it's not mechanically impossible for them to catch you. Why do you think a group of PvP pilots actively seeking to defend their own space shouldn't be able to do so? But you are able to defend yourself. You are able to get rid of us. You are able to catch the uncatchable maledictions. Smartbombs and elaborate baits. You can't bait, because your baits are terribly obvious and you can't smartbomb either, because for some reason, coordinating more than two people seems to be an impossible feat for your FCs. Again, why should the ship get nerfed? There's a simple, easy to use counter, not our fault if you lack the skill to pull it off.
Please explain to me how you would bait a ship that goes 4km/sec, aligns out in three seconds with the MWD running, and has no reason to be closer than the edge of its 30km point range. Inline Smartbombs are trivially easy to avoid with even the most basic preventive steps, so if you're trying to pass them off as some sort of inescapable hard counter then I'm not the one who looks bad. Hell, if we could spend the entire Fountain War bouncing Caracals around to avoid RnK Pipebombs you can do the same thing in your bubble-immune 8AU/sec frigates.
Again, you aren't complaining about catching ratters. You're complaining that you might now have to interact with a defense gang other than trolling them in local as you breeze past them. Why do you feel entitled to hunt in hostile space without the possibility of reprisal from the locals? Beyond that, explain to me why a ratter who is at the keyboard, reads intel channels, and reacts quickly to threats deserves to die, or why you think people would rat at all if they couldn't protect themselves? |
Re'doubt
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:22:00 -
[106] - Quote
Voyager Arran wrote:ZheoTheThird wrote:Voyager Arran wrote:ZheoTheThird wrote:[ You can't run from smartbombs.Besides, inties picking their fights and getting in and out of a fight when they chose to is what they're supposed to do.
Hint: the fit we were running had nothing to do with luck. We were gimping our tanking and damage dealing capabilities to the maximum in return for 100% safety of gatecamps. Our fits weren't able to engage anything else than a lone ratter, but somehow that must've been classified as OP...
You can't run from smartbombs, but you could also try doing literally anything other than fleet-warping yourselves unscouted from gate to gate all the way across a region if you want to avoid them. It's not like you don't know the possibility of it exists or something and if you take basic proactive measures you can completely avoid it. The only way for you to end up in a pile on top of the Disco Tempest is to put yourselves there. Anyways, your problem isn't that Ishtars are too hard to catch, because your frigates are still perfectly capable of that and half of them are probably literally AFK anyways. Your problem is that defense fleets are too effective and now it's not mechanically impossible for them to catch you. Why do you think a group of PvP pilots actively seeking to defend their own space shouldn't be able to do so? But you are able to defend yourself. You are able to get rid of us. You are able to catch the uncatchable maledictions. Smartbombs and elaborate baits. You can't bait, because your baits are terribly obvious and you can't smartbomb either, because for some reason, coordinating more than two people seems to be an impossible feat for your FCs. Again, why should the ship get nerfed? There's a simple, easy to use counter, not our fault if you lack the skill to pull it off. Please explain to me how you would bait a ship that goes 4km/sec, aligns out in three seconds with the MWD running, and has no reason to be closer than the edge of its 30km point range. That's enough to keep them safe from everything but range-bonused neuts and recon hard tackle, all of which come on hulls that will be immediately obvious on dscan (or have a 5 second targeting delay upon decloaking). Inline Smartbombs are trivially easy to avoid with even the most basic preventive steps, so if you're trying to pass them off as some sort of inescapable hard counter then I'm not the one who looks bad. Hell, if we could spend the entire Fountain War bouncing Caracals around to avoid RnK Pipebombs you can do the same thing in your bubble-immune 8AU/sec frigates. Again, you aren't complaining about catching ratters. You're complaining that you might now have to interact with a defense gang other than trolling them in local as you breeze past them. Why do you feel entitled to hunt in hostile space without the possibility of reprisal from the locals? Beyond that, explain to me why a ratter who is at the keyboard, reads intel channels, and reacts quickly to threats deserves to die, or why you think people would rat at all if they couldn't protect themselves?
Hey dude. I'm pretty sure this smart bombing defense fleet didn't have any issues catching this particular goon interceptor fleet:
http://eve-kill.net/?a=kill_related&kll_id=21420775 |
Voyager Arran
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 20:40:00 -
[107] - Quote
Linking a lossmail doesn't disprove my point. It's easy to mistake "unchatchable" for "invulnerable" given how hard it is to kill the new Interceptors, but if you're actually aware of smartbombs as a possibility it's really ******* easy to avoid them with basic preventive measures.
Bounce off celestials or have perches on gates and send one scout through first to make sure they didn't do something extreme like blanket the in-gate with disco ships at 12km. Now your worst-case scenario is losing the one Interceptor you sent ahead, so I guess don't pick the guy with a Snake clone.
Do you honestly need me to explain this to you or are you just being deliberately obtuse because you want to keep your new toy? |
Aglais
Deep Core Mining Inc. Caldari State
457
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 22:07:00 -
[108] - Quote
This looks to me like an instance of guerilla warfare.
You know, smaller groups being able to actually do something against a larger force without simply being swatted down into the dust.
Maybe they do need a bit of a tweaking, but if this is going in the direction of completely breaking their ability to function in actual combat as people say (or at least making it irritatingly more difficult), in addition to these more specialized tactics- I don't quite agree with the change. We need some mechanic for actually being able to do something about large, organized groups without resorting to being in another large, organized group. |
Re'doubt
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
5
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 22:14:00 -
[109] - Quote
Unless I'm mistaken these interceptors died to a battleship fleet.
This it immediately disproves your point that interceptors are invulnerable in general. Yes smart bombing battleships are easy to avoid if you have necessary intel and use things like bounces and warp ins. This goes for all classes of ship, not just interceptors.
Interceptors can be caught when they don't gimp their tank and damage output and fit inertia stabs, like many of the fits that dodge gate camps do.
Your argument that they are unfightable and invulnerable to defense fleets and gate camps is silly and not thought out. Cloaky ships have been pretty damn invulnerable as well to things like defense fleets and gate camps. And they don't really have to sacrifice anything to have that ability unlike any of the interceptor fits used to avoid such gate camps and defense fleets. If we're going to throw around words like that then we need to look at a lot more ships and their intended roles rather than just these two missile interceptors.
Along the same lines, prior in this thread you noted how it's a big advantage to be able to apply damage out of neut/web/scram range. Most sniping battle cruisers have quite good insta locking capabilities and are able to apply their damage from 100+ km away. Whenever a ship gets close to them they simply warp away, much like interceptors. And interceptors don't quite have the power to alpha another ship with their missiles.
This example extends to a variety of kiting fits. Not just sniping battlecruisers.
Interceptors do need to be fixed. But not to the point where the malediction and crow are gimped in combat and fail to fit into their intended role, which is to intercept other ships. |
Mark Cato
State Protectorate Auxiliary Militia
10
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 22:39:00 -
[110] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:darius mclever wrote:Why do the 2 missile ceptors get the biggest hit here? why does the crow deserve a 1s slower base align time compared to the ares?
just curious about the reasons. Every interceptor should have their own strengths and weaknesses that make the decision of which to fly interesting. The Crow has excellent damage application at long ranges (even when it is flying at high speeds), four very valuable midslots and the longest lock range of any interceptor. It's weaknesses are a bit less speed than most others, lower theoretical top end damage, as well as slightly weaker agility.
The Crow is a Fleet Interceptor, a tackle ship. If it's overpowered (it is) the nerf should come to its damage application, not to its main function. Why does it need damage application? It's not an assault frigate or a combat frigate. Nerfing its agility while keeping it with high damage projection just makes it another in a long list of generic dps ships that a player will choose more or less randomly. |
|
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
495
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 23:04:00 -
[111] - Quote
Mark Cato wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:darius mclever wrote:Why do the 2 missile ceptors get the biggest hit here? why does the crow deserve a 1s slower base align time compared to the ares?
just curious about the reasons. Every interceptor should have their own strengths and weaknesses that make the decision of which to fly interesting. The Crow has excellent damage application at long ranges (even when it is flying at high speeds), four very valuable midslots and the longest lock range of any interceptor. It's weaknesses are a bit less speed than most others, lower theoretical top end damage, as well as slightly weaker agility. The Crow is a Fleet Interceptor, a tackle ship. If it's overpowered (it is) the nerf should come to its damage application, not to its main function. Why does it need damage application? It's not an assault frigate or a combat frigate. Nerfing its agility while keeping it with high damage projection just makes it another in a long list of generic dps ships that a player will choose more or less randomly.
This isn't a crow thing, all light missiles ships are similarly overpowered. |
Voyager Arran
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
21
|
Posted - 2014.01.17 23:47:00 -
[112] - Quote
I think you're missing the difference between "can run gatecamps" and "mechanically uncatchable". Covops ships can run gate camps, but doing so involves risk, effort, and interactive gameplay between the campers and the person running it. More importantly it's not guaranteed; a skilled decloaker has a reasonable chance of catching their target, especially with the new ability to drop a second or third bubble on top of them.
That's not at all the same thing as a ship that ignores bubbles and warps faster than the server will allow you to activate a module on them. |
TrouserDeagle
Beyond Divinity Inc Shadow Cartel
495
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 00:04:00 -
[113] - Quote
Voyager Arran wrote:I think you're missing the difference between "can run gatecamps" and "mechanically uncatchable". Covops ships can run gate camps, but doing so involves risk, effort, and interactive gameplay between the campers and the person running it. More importantly it's not guaranteed; a skilled decloaker has a reasonable chance of catching their target, especially with the new ability to drop a second or third bubble on top of them.
That's not at all the same thing as a ship that ignores bubbles and warps faster than the server will allow you to activate a module on them.
Yeah but in empire, covops are totally pvp-immune. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates RAZOR Alliance
306
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 00:13:00 -
[114] - Quote
Voyager Arran wrote:I think you're missing the difference between "can run gatecamps" and "mechanically uncatchable". Covops ships can run gate camps, but doing so involves risk, effort, and interactive gameplay between the campers and the person running it. More importantly it's not guaranteed; a skilled decloaker has a reasonable chance of catching their target, especially with the new ability to drop a second or third bubble on top of them.
That's not at all the same thing as a ship that ignores bubbles and warps faster than the server will allow you to activate a module on them.
This is the heart of the issue. Moving a covops or BR is relatively safe, but not mindlessly safe. I am convinced that CCP is trying to reignite interest in the game by irritating as many people as possible. These collective changes are designed to recreate the stunning success of Incarna and end the stagnation in Eve. Well played, CCP. Well played. |
PotatoOverdose
Handsome Millionaire Playboys
923
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 00:29:00 -
[115] - Quote
Malphas Vynneve wrote:Also, i wish Goons didn't have so much control over CCP. CCP's submission to them is making it a worse place for everyone else. Dude, its not just a goon issue. Interceptors are fcking retardedly overpowered atm. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1133
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 01:11:00 -
[116] - Quote
TrouserDeagle wrote:Voyager Arran wrote:I think you're missing the difference between "can run gatecamps" and "mechanically uncatchable". Covops ships can run gate camps, but doing so involves risk, effort, and interactive gameplay between the campers and the person running it. More importantly it's not guaranteed; a skilled decloaker has a reasonable chance of catching their target, especially with the new ability to drop a second or third bubble on top of them.
That's not at all the same thing as a ship that ignores bubbles and warps faster than the server will allow you to activate a module on them. Yeah but in empire, covops are totally pvp-immune.
not so tru.. soem camps are so overcrowsed that there is no cloakign in ccertain times of day
"If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Jafit McJafitson
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
474
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 06:23:00 -
[117] - Quote
CCP why did you decide to add the ability to overheat sensor boosters, AND nerf interceptor agility at the same time?
I know people like to say that certain ships are 'the flavour of the month', but literally giving a shipclass a month of usefulness like this is ridiculous. |
Dehval
Risk Breakers Fidelas Constans
41
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 06:44:00 -
[118] - Quote
Jafit McJafitson wrote:CCP why did you decide to add the ability to overheat sensor boosters, AND nerf interceptor agility at the same time?
I know people like to say that certain ships are 'the flavour of the month', but literally giving a shipclass a month of usefulness like this is ridiculous. Because overheating sensor boosters wouldn't have done anything if the ships can already align faster than is possible to catch them even with a million or more scan res. Server ticks > Overheating SeBos.
But don't act like they weren't already in high demand for fleets. Every major fleet would gladly have taken multiple interceptors for perches and fast tackle before the change just because they could do it faster and often better than a T1 counterpart. Now the ships get entire fleets devoted to only interceptors because they are so strong at avoiding damage while picking off targets in large fights. Them losing a little agility will not be the end of the world and brings them back down to earth. |
Jafit McJafitson
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
475
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 07:39:00 -
[119] - Quote
Dehval wrote:Jafit McJafitson wrote:CCP why did you decide to add the ability to overheat sensor boosters, AND nerf interceptor agility at the same time?
I know people like to say that certain ships are 'the flavour of the month', but literally giving a shipclass a month of usefulness like this is ridiculous. Because overheating sensor boosters wouldn't have done anything if the ships can already align faster than is possible to catch them even with a million or more scan res. Server ticks > Overheating SeBos. But don't act like they weren't already in high demand for fleets. Every major fleet would gladly have taken multiple interceptors for perches and fast tackle before the change just because they could do it faster and often better than a T1 counterpart. Now the ships get entire fleets devoted to only interceptors because they are so strong at avoiding damage while picking off targets in large fights. Them losing a little agility will not be the end of the world and it brings them back down to earth.
|
Re'doubt
Ascendent. Test Alliance Please Ignore
11
|
Posted - 2014.01.18 08:00:00 -
[120] - Quote
Dehval wrote:Jafit McJafitson wrote:CCP why did you decide to add the ability to overheat sensor boosters, AND nerf interceptor agility at the same time?
I know people like to say that certain ships are 'the flavour of the month', but literally giving a shipclass a month of usefulness like this is ridiculous. Because overheating sensor boosters wouldn't have done anything if the ships can already align faster than is possible to catch them even with a million or more scan res. Server ticks > Overheating SeBos. But don't act like they weren't already in high demand for fleets. Every major fleet would gladly have taken multiple interceptors for perches and fast tackle before the change just because they could do it faster and often better than a T1 counterpart. Now the ships get entire fleets devoted to only interceptors because they are so strong at avoiding damage while picking off targets in large fights. Them losing a little agility will not be the end of the world and it brings them back down to earth.
Remote sebo'ed frigates can already catch our 1.9ish align time maledictions.
A buff to remote sebo's and sebo's in general WILL make it easier to catch interceptors, even in their current form. However the malediction and crow are getting the nerf bat so hard that new fits will have to devote nearly all the lows and rig's in order to keep their current align time.
However once again, I don't see travel as the issue, more so the issue is that these interceptors may have serious issues fitting into their intended roles after their agility is reduced by this scale.
Further, an interceptor's role in fleets should be more than just burning perches for fleets. Which is why they are called INTERCEPTors.
Why is it a bad thing for entire fleets of interceptors to go out??? Generally this means that something is working and people like flying that class of ship. If we start taking fleets of navy hookbills will they get nerfed soon as well?
Again, take the malediction and crow and bring them back into balance with the other interceptors, don't utterly destroy them and their intended niche.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 6 7 8 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |