| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 3 post(s) |
Kaylana Syi
The Nest
   |
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:42:00 -
[91]
Honestly, each of the changes, nos and mk 2, could have stood on their own. However, together they make the most interesting addition to EVE in quite some time.
I had my amarr t2 alt for sale for a week. He can fly nearly all t2 amarr ships and weapons. I am so glad noone bid on him 
I hope everyone can see that between the NOS changes and mk2 there is a serious push towards tackling to not be a '8km speed + 28km Warp Scram crow/vaga' or 'arazu/lechesis' only job.
This has seriously boosted every tech 1 frigate in the game and lower SP characters to get 'into' the combat to make EVE really fun again.
Team Minmatar
|
|
CCP Fendahl
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:49:00 -
[92]
The dev blog is finally out. The blog also includes the planned changes to the way Nosferatus work, which has implications for close range Khanid ships in particular 
 Originally by: Dei
Why were you on a mountain side, and how did you get stuck? Should've fitted more nanofibers and less plates.
I did (sneakers), so I could out-run the others in case we met any steel-wool sheep on our way (they have been known to terrorize that part of Iceland). To make a long story short, we went on a hiking trip and got to the top after about 2 hours with no problems. Unfortunately we took the wrong way down. The already steep path kept getting worse and worse. It began to rain and we reached a point beyond which it looked as if we might not be able to safely turn back. We could also see a nice silhouette of the cliff we were walking on: a minimal "path" (completely washed out in some places) on a steep slope that continued a few meters down to the edge of the cliff. We decided to turn back and realized that we had gotten stuck in the canyon. While we could probably have continued with no spectacular "incidents", we decided to play it safe and call for help. I, for one, was glad that we had rope for the tricky parts. Mad props to Hinrik (aka. Hinki, senior GM) for getting us all safely down. All in all it was an awesome trip, though a bit too death defying. We were also a bit disappointed that the French bikini team didn't make it to the top, but I guess you can't have everything. 
|
|
Marithin
Caldari Independent Navy Reserve
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:49:00 -
[93]
As as semi-regular damnation pilot the changes look interesting. The only potential problem I can see is the limitation only to HAM's on the damnation - it's not exactly the most sprightly of ships and the range limitation of hams could make it very dificult to really put any effective fire on a target.
Now admittedly most commannd ships are not exactly DPS monsters but it's nice to have some firepower available to chuck in the general direction of targets while your sat there providing tasty gang bonuses.
Possibly might be an idea to change the HAM damage bonus to either a HAM/heavy damage bonus or a rof bonus on the damnation. Ah well, I guess I'll have to set up a SISI client and have a bit of a play with the dammy changes.
|
LeviUK
hirr
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 14:57:00 -
[94]
Edited by: LeviUK on 30/07/2007 14:57:46
nm, posted elsewhere
|
Gypsio III
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 15:15:00 -
[95]
Quote:
range limitation of hams
The range of Javelin HAMs is absolutely fine.
|
Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 15:24:00 -
[96]
Originally by: The Economist
1)Please, no matter what else you do to the damnation, at least let it keep its 4 turret hardpoints...please.
Signed! It's only Khanid ship I will use after this nerf. So please, don't nerf Damnation any more? Please? I promise I won't cancel my 100+ accounts. 
And while your at nerffing Amarr, make sure you DON'T increase cargo bays because as we all know, Amarr don't need ammo 
"to be honest it makes me wonder about the mental state of a person who would join a corp called Space Perverts and Forum warriors"
|
Bomazi
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 15:46:00 -
[97]
The NOS changes while needed, seem rather pointless. The changes do nothing to stop some of the most egregious battleship NOS boats. Setups and effectiveness for the Dominix and other NOS battleships will not change, as using dual LAR will almost always ensure they are getting full bonus from the NOS.
So again, what was the point? You should have made it sig based, or chance based. As it is, you made a big change, that really seems off-target.
|
Santa Anna
Caldari
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 16:00:00 -
[98]
Originally by: Bomazi
The NOS changes while needed, seem rather pointless. The changes do nothing to stop some of the most egregious battleship NOS boats. Setups and effectiveness for the Dominix and other NOS battleships will not change, as using dual LAR will almost always ensure they are getting full bonus from the NOS.
So again, what was the point? You should have made it sig based, or chance based. As it is, you made a big change, that really seems off-target.
Good luck sucking enough cap to harm your opponent and keep your tank running when your opponent never has more than 800 cap himself.
This gives cap-hungry damage dealers (and to a lesser extent speed tankers) a counter to nos. Namely: use all your cap.
_____
CPU Love |
Grimpak
Gallente
Trinity Nova
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 16:07:00 -
[99]
Originally by: Santa Anna
Originally by: Bomazi
The NOS changes while needed, seem rather pointless. The changes do nothing to stop some of the most egregious battleship NOS boats. Setups and effectiveness for the Dominix and other NOS battleships will not change, as using dual LAR will almost always ensure they are getting full bonus from the NOS.
So again, what was the point? You should have made it sig based, or chance based. As it is, you made a big change, that really seems off-target.
Good luck sucking enough cap to harm your opponent and keep your tank running when your opponent never has more than 800 cap himself.
This gives cap-hungry damage dealers (and to a lesser extent speed tankers) a counter to nos. Namely: use all your cap.
meaning: cap hungry weapons (hybrid/lasers) still suffer from the same problems, while missiles and proj guns do not.
active tanks will get nerfed like this tho...
---
truth about EVE: Quote:
"Guns are fine, boost players"
Quote:
"Players are fine, boost guns"
|
Bomazi
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 16:07:00 -
[100]
Edited by: Bomazi on 30/07/2007 16:09:43
Originally by: Santa Anna
Originally by: Bomazi
The NOS changes while needed, seem rather pointless. The changes do nothing to stop some of the most egregious battleship NOS boats. Setups and effectiveness for the Dominix and other NOS battleships will not change, as using dual LAR will almost always ensure they are getting full bonus from the NOS.
So again, what was the point? You should have made it sig based, or chance based. As it is, you made a big change, that really seems off-target.
Good luck sucking enough cap to harm your opponent and keep your tank running when your opponent never has more than 800 cap himself.
This gives cap-hungry damage dealers (and to a lesser extent speed tankers) a counter to nos. Namely: use all your cap.
If its another battleship, then who cares. Their tank is already broken, and by the very nature of this change, it assures that the NOS boats will be able to get the last pulse. I could care less about smaller ships and the effect. Battleships using NOS were the ships that caused the most problems with NOS.
By your argument, the way to fight NOS is running yourself out of cap (or letting them leech it) and having a passive tank. How is that different from before the NOS change. Its still forces you to use a screwed up strategy to fight a no-skill Battleship with guaranteed hit weapons in the top.
|
|
|
Grimpak
Gallente
Trinity Nova
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 16:11:00 -
[101]
Originally by: Bomazi
Edited by: Bomazi on 30/07/2007 16:09:43
Originally by: Santa Anna
Originally by: Bomazi
The NOS changes while needed, seem rather pointless. The changes do nothing to stop some of the most egregious battleship NOS boats. Setups and effectiveness for the Dominix and other NOS battleships will not change, as using dual LAR will almost always ensure they are getting full bonus from the NOS.
So again, what was the point? You should have made it sig based, or chance based. As it is, you made a big change, that really seems off-target.
Good luck sucking enough cap to harm your opponent and keep your tank running when your opponent never has more than 800 cap himself.
This gives cap-hungry damage dealers (and to a lesser extent speed tankers) a counter to nos. Namely: use all your cap.
If its another battleship, then who cares. Their tank is already broken, and by the very nature of this change, it assures that the NOS boats will be able to get the last pulse. I could care less about smaller ships and the effect. Battleships using NOS were the ships that caused the most problems with NOS.
By your argument, the way to fight NOS is running yourself out of cap (or letting them leech it) and having a passive tank. How is that different from before the NOS change. Its still forces you to use a screwed up strategy to fight a no-skill Battleship with guaranteed hit weapons in the top.
the only diference is that they won't have any juice left aswell.
---
truth about EVE: Quote:
"Guns are fine, boost players"
Quote:
"Players are fine, boost guns"
|
Santa Anna
Caldari
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 16:23:00 -
[102]
Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Santa Anna
Good luck sucking enough cap to harm your opponent and keep your tank running when your opponent never has more than 800 cap himself.
This gives cap-hungry damage dealers (and to a lesser extent speed tankers) a counter to nos. Namely: use all your cap.
meaning: cap hungry weapons (hybrid/lasers) still suffer from the same problems, while missiles and proj guns do not.
active tanks will get nerfed like this tho...
No, active tanks, speed tanks, and cap-hungry weapons will have better protection against Nos than capless weapons or passive tanks.
You will no longer be able to use Nos to shut down someone else's guns/tank/mwd until after your own gun/tank is shut down.
So now when facing a nos opponent you'll both be in the same spot when you start living off of cap charges, but you'll have the advantage of having non-useless high slots for the remainder of the fight.
If you meant that nos-fueled active tanks will be nerfed then yes, that's the case. I think that was the point of the nerf, though.
_____
CPU Love |
Grimpak
Gallente
Trinity Nova
KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 16:37:00 -
[103]
Originally by: Santa Anna
Originally by: Grimpak
Originally by: Santa Anna
Good luck sucking enough cap to harm your opponent and keep your tank running when your opponent never has more than 800 cap himself.
This gives cap-hungry damage dealers (and to a lesser extent speed tankers) a counter to nos. Namely: use all your cap.
meaning: cap hungry weapons (hybrid/lasers) still suffer from the same problems, while missiles and proj guns do not.
active tanks will get nerfed like this tho...
No, active tanks, speed tanks, and cap-hungry weapons will have better protection against Nos than capless weapons or passive tanks.
You will no longer be able to use Nos to shut down someone else's guns/tank/mwd until after your own gun/tank is shut down.
So now when facing a nos opponent you'll both be in the same spot when you start living off of cap charges, but you'll have the advantage of having non-useless high slots for the remainder of the fight.
If you meant that nos-fueled active tanks will be nerfed then yes, that's the case. I think that was the point of the nerf, though.
exactly.
---
truth about EVE: Quote:
"Guns are fine, boost players"
Quote:
"Players are fine, boost guns"
|
Santa Anna
Caldari
Blackguard Brigade
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 16:39:00 -
[104]
Edited by: Santa Anna on 30/07/2007 16:40:53
Edited by: Santa Anna on 30/07/2007 16:39:47
Originally by: Bomazi
Edited by: Bomazi on 30/07/2007 16:09:43
Originally by: Santa Anna
Good luck sucking enough cap to harm your opponent and keep your tank running when your opponent never has more than 800 cap himself.
This gives cap-hungry damage dealers (and to a lesser extent speed tankers) a counter to nos. Namely: use all your cap. Their tank is already broken,
If its another battleship, then who cares. Their tank is already broken,
When I cap out, I have only begun to fight. (Cap charges FTW)
Quote:
and by the very nature of this change, it assures that the NOS boats will be able to get the last pulse.
I think you need to reread the devblog. When the nosboat has more cap than you do, the nosboat gets nothing for its nos.
Quote:
Battleships using NOS were the ships that caused the most problems with NOS.
Cruiser nos users had effectively exterminated AF's from the game.
Quote:
By your argument, the way to fight NOS is running yourself out of cap (or letting them leech it) and having a passive tank.
Not letting them leach it -- you use it to harm them. Then you use an injected tank, not a passive tank.
Quote:
How is that different from before the NOS change.
Currently, a nos boat can time his nos to deny you much of your cap injector benefit. He can also siphon energy from you when he has more.
Quote:
Its still forces you to use a screwed up strategy to fight a no-skill Battleship with guaranteed hit weapons in the top.
Well, it forces you to use a cap injector to effectively fight a nos boat and it changes the starting point between you and a nos boat. To kill you after the change, the nos boat has to run its cap into the ground to drain yours. That means when you start fighting, you have cap and he doesn't, and he can never have more cap than you.
This change will kill nosboats. It may give rise to neutboats, but it will kill nosboats.
edit: fixed quotes
_____
CPU Love |
Gaius Caphen
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 16:45:00 -
[105]
Wow
basically more reason not to use caldari for anything other than missions and the old ccp playing amarr ftw
Changes look great, but only by how much it dimishes the other ships other races are stuck with.
|
Parallax Error
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 17:08:00 -
[106]
Fendahl:
I can understand the reasoning for certain bonuses to be for short range rocket etc only. What are your thoughts though on the range of them? Especially the tech 1 HAM's? And before anyone else starts waffling on about Javelin HAM's, they are Tech 2 HAM's and their range is not representative in any manner of T1/faction HAM's. Javelin HAM's have a silly range imho and need nerfing.
Can you look into the possibility of upping the flight time on Tech1 and faction HAM's from 3 seconds to something like 5 or 6? Their current practical range of approx 13-14km isn't sufficient.
|
Deva Blackfire
Citadel of dark arts
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 17:20:00 -
[107]
Originally by: Parallax Error
Can you look into the possibility of upping the flight time on Tech1 and faction HAM's from 3 seconds to something like 5 or 6? Their current practical range of approx 13-14km isn't sufficient.
There is one reason against:
nanoidiots. If you up their range you will see sacris permarunning mwd+scram around you and spamming missiles. Atm you need to get under 15km where you risk overheated web or enemy moving away (thus reducing damage coz missiles dont hit at all).
|
Bomazi
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 17:21:00 -
[108]
Originally by: Santa Anna
Edited by: Santa Anna on 30/07/2007 16:40:53
Edited by: Santa Anna on 30/07/2007 16:39:47
Originally by: Bomazi
Edited by: Bomazi on 30/07/2007 16:09:43
Originally by: Santa Anna
Good luck sucking enough cap to harm your opponent and keep your tank running when your opponent never has more than 800 cap himself.
This gives cap-hungry damage dealers (and to a lesser extent speed tankers) a counter to nos. Namely: use all your cap. Their tank is already broken,
If its another battleship, then who cares. Their tank is already broken,
When I cap out, I have only begun to fight. (Cap charges FTW)
Quote:
and by the very nature of this change, it assures that the NOS boats will be able to get the last pulse.
I think you need to reread the devblog. When the nosboat has more cap than you do, the nosboat gets nothing for its nos.
Quote:
Battleships using NOS were the ships that caused the most problems with NOS.
Cruiser nos users had effectively exterminated AF's from the game.
Quote:
By your argument, the way to fight NOS is running yourself out of cap (or letting them leech it) and having a passive tank.
Not letting them leach it -- you use it to harm them. Then you use an injected tank, not a passive tank.
Quote:
How is that different from before the NOS change.
Currently, a nos boat can time his nos to deny you much of your cap injector benefit. He can also siphon energy from you when he has more.
Quote:
Its still forces you to use a screwed up strategy to fight a no-skill Battleship with guaranteed hit weapons in the top.
Well, it forces you to use a cap injector to effectively fight a nos boat and it changes the starting point between you and a nos boat. To kill you after the change, the nos boat has to run its cap into the ground to drain yours. That means when you start fighting, you have cap and he doesn't, and he can never have more cap than you.
This change will kill nosboats. It may give rise to neutboats, but it will kill nosboats.
edit: fixed quotes
When I refer to a NOS boat battleship, I am assuming they have neuts, mwd, etc. Moreover, injected tanks aren't a new element, and frankly, any active tanked battlehsip without an injector previous to this, would have been severly gimping themselves.
But I'm not going to try to dissect your post. We can just agree to disagree and see how it plays out. As a minnie pilot, this change does F'all to help me. :)
|
Tevgor Remal
Amarr
PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 17:58:00 -
[109]
Concerning the Malediction's target range reduction ...
I really dont see the point of this change. With its new bonuses only applying to rockets, it already wont be usable as a crow-like long range ceptor. So, all this change does is to reduce its effectiveness as a tackler. But the malediction is THE amarr tackling interceptor. All other race's tackling interceptors (those with the 13AU/s warp speed) have a target range of 25(!)km. No need to reduce the malediction's range any further imo.
|
Elve Sorrow
Amarr
Shinra
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 18:04:00 -
[110]
Regarding the Damnation:
It's still (rather easily, actually) outtanked by a passive Vulture, even when only using Tech2 mods. And that Vulture doesnt need any cap to tank, whereas the Damnation either has to use atleast 3 Cap IIs, or a Cap Injector to keep its tank going.
Wether or not thats offset by its damage potential i wont debate, wasnt really the point of my post. Just clearing this up.
EVE-O Forums Rules summary:
If the thought of doing something makes me giggle for more then 15 seconds, I am to assume I'm not allowed to do it. |
|
|
Malena Panic
Veto.
Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 19:16:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Kai Lae
Other than making these ships HAM or rocket only, instead of light/rocket or heavy/HAM like all other ships, this gets a preliminary thumbs up.
*cough* LaCHEsis *cough*
|
DeadProphet
Black Eclipse Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 19:27:00 -
[112]
Edited by: DeadProphet on 30/07/2007 19:31:42
Edited by: DeadProphet on 30/07/2007 19:30:09
i'll make it real simple
don't nerf the sac (yes this is a nerf) and don't make amarr use missiles.
the end.
nobody who flies amarr want to use frigging missiles, they are about guns and armour, but it seems the only way to get that now is train gallente. Just look at all the caldari players singing the praises of the changes to know you've done wrong.
|
Liang Nuren
The Refugees
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 19:58:00 -
[113]
TBH, these changes look *AWESOME*. Amarr is finally going to come out of the closet and be the next FOTM.
However, I'd like to see Caldari lose the Kinetic bonus in favor of a standard 5% ROF bonus. Also, can we unnerf the Caldari mass... seeing as how Multi-MWD Ravens are no longer a threat, and we obviously aren't worried about trackless speed-tanked missile spewers.
And no, I'm not a Caldari whiner. I was just as much in favor of the Drake nerf as any Myrm pilot.
Liang
Originally by: "QproQ"
When people say "Put 'stabs on your 'cane", they mean GYROSTABS"
|
Parallax Error
Amarr
Imperial Dreams
Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 20:00:00 -
[114]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
There is one reason against:
nanoidiots. If you up their range you will see sacris permarunning mwd+scram around you and spamming missiles. Atm you need to get under 15km where you risk overheated web or enemy moving away (thus reducing damage coz missiles dont hit at all).
As opposed to nanovaga's which have enough falloff, nanoishtar's which can just dump drones on you and orbit, the nanocerberus which is very similar to the new Sac or a nanozealot which can get 30km opt+falloff easily with scorch and enough tracking with the new pulses to hit?
|
BCBArclight
Odessa Operations
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 20:00:00 -
[115]
Im sorry to say this but reading through the changes on the Khanid II release I get the impression that the conversation in the CCP meeting went something like:
Dev 1: So how can we fix Amarr?
Dev 2: No Idea.
Dev 3: Me either.
Dev 2: Either way it will take long hard work to tweak them...........
Dev 1: mmmmmmmm
Dev 3: Why not just make them Caldari?
Dev 1-2: SOLD!!
Dev 3: Lets go get some beer.
*Other Devs give out a cheer
Amarr ships have lasers so Khanid ships should have lasers, giving them missiles instead of fixing them in the way the race was designed to have seems a bit of a cop out. As people have said all the gunnery skills are now useless for these ships and if you want to use them you need to train missiles. Tbh if I wanted a missile boat I would have trained Caldari from the start not train amarr then find out I need to spend another 2 months+ getting good missile skills just to use the ships I like to fly, when I could be training skills I rather would like.
As for the NOS changed that they effect Amarr, Im currently training for a curse im 4 days away atm, im training it for the sole purpose of being able to do something against the mass of vagas pirates seem to fly today. Now reading this, my advantage against this ship has gone as I have to have the same cap as my target???! This means I will be face to face with a target ship and I have to get zero cap so he has zero cap and leave myself totally defenceless against autocannons that need no cap mmmmm I think I wont bother anymore.
I hope my inital thoughts on this are totally wrong and that the changes are going to be actually good, but atm I'm totally not sold on this patch, I would rather have seen lasers get changed in some respect to damage than what seems to be a gimp of the Amarr yet again. I hope these will be looked at seriously before put into effect on Tranq.
Odessa Operations are Recruiting |
Kunming
The Coalition Of Buccaneers
Mercenary Services
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 20:13:00 -
[116]
Originally by: DeadProphet
Edited by: DeadProphet on 30/07/2007 19:31:42
Edited by: DeadProphet on 30/07/2007 19:30:09
i'll make it real simple
don't nerf the sac (yes this is a nerf) and don't make amarr use missiles.
the end.
nobody who flies amarr want to use frigging missiles, they are about guns and armour, but it seems the only way to get that now is train gallente. Just look at all the caldari players singing the praises of the changes to know you've done wrong.
I know where your coming from, and yep, that is the truth, totally with you m8. Unfortunately we are but a pair of broken pixels on a HD TV...
BTW with this change minmatar will ironically have more gun boats than amarr. I'm just glad I didnt stick with Amarr for that long and switched to gallente around 3 years ago, working on the last drone skills and I'll head for minmatar and shield skills next.
Quote:
READ THIS NEXT PART CAREFULLY AS IT IS VERY IMPORTANT AND POSTING A REPLY WITHOUT READING IT MAY RESULT IN YOU LOOKING STUPID.
|
Sachika
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 20:21:00 -
[117]
In the dev blog, it stated that a Battleship with a cap of 30% puts a nos on a frig, and its cap can only be drained to 30%. By that logic, nos will be totaly ineffective for the frist few cycles untill the cap of the Battleship, in this case, drops. 100% cap on the ship with nos = no cap drained on the targeted ship untill the agressing ship losses cap?
100% cap with nos, puts nos on target = no cap leeched from target?
Am I missing something or is this really what CCP intend to do with NOS?
|
DeadDuck
Amarr
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 20:23:00 -
[118]
My eve client in on 3.21.35183, the latest full client is also the 3.21.35183 and the singularity client on the same version and cant upload patch on sissi to test the new changes. I would be gratefull for some help in here.
Where can I download the patch to upload my singularity client to the new changes ?
|
Gypsio III
Darkness Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 20:39:00 -
[119]
Very interesting. Nos is now a defensive weapon, one that helps prevent you capping out. The offensive weapon is now neutralisers. 
|
DeadDuck
Amarr
Infinite Improbability Inc
Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2007.07.30 20:44:00 -
[120]
Originally by: Sachika
In the dev blog, it stated that a Battleship with a cap of 30% puts a nos on a frig, and its cap can only be drained to 30%. By that logic, nos will be totaly ineffective for the frist few cycles untill the cap of the Battleship, in this case, drops. 100% cap on the ship with nos = no cap drained on the targeted ship untill the agressing ship losses cap?
100% cap with nos, puts nos on target = no cap leeched from target?
Am I missing something or is this really what CCP intend to do with NOS?
In the very beggining of the fight yes but while fighting the cap will drop due to shield boosting, armour reppping, guns firing, etc... so after a while they make all the sense to use. But the turn the NOS battery on and keep on distance will be a thing from the past. NOS will ensure is user that is opponent will not have more cap then you.
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 [4] 5 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |