Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Skylar Keenan
Amarr Viziam
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 15:18:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Taipan Gedscho
i have a very nice BP of those and id like those nerf threads to stop
seriously.
I think this is what is commonly known as being biased, and having a conflict of interests
Just cause you're making money off it (or flying fast in some other peoples cases) most DEFINATELY doesn't justify NOT nerfing an overpowered thing into the stoneage.
And I'm not even gonna voice an opinion on whether the PCEH is overpowered or not... ----------------------------------------------- New sig coming SoonÖ |
Shiken Kan
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 15:48:00 -
[32]
if you want to nerf it you should at least change the components needed as the price will be stable when you could use said components for cargo rigs as well. oh and then there would need to be a buff to the +speed rigs as their bonus, at least when coupled with an mwd, is pathetic. or just reintroduce the +ab/mwd rigs, many ppl will prefer them over polycarbs just because they're way cheaper and have a similar effect.
|
Elles D
Caldari angels of darkness LTD Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 16:48:00 -
[33]
For the love of god please stop whining, i am now expecting the day when people like you call for the nerfing of an Ibis; seriously.
Poly's are fine, and in-terms of all you lot going on about 10k/s crows most of you don't seem to understand that past 8k in pvp is fast enough to avoid anything; any extra speed on top of that is just 'shiny', and does not factor into the issue you discuss. Moreover, this speed can be achieved with only 1 polycarbon - even if you did nerf it (which is just plain stupidity), stuff would just stay 'as' fast as before. Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Kreul Intentions ([email protected]) |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 17:30:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Elles D For the love of god please stop whining, i am now expecting the day when people like you call for the nerfing of an Ibis; seriously.
Poly's are fine, and in-terms of all you lot going on about 10k/s crows most of you don't seem to understand that past 8k in pvp is fast enough to avoid anything; any extra speed on top of that is just 'shiny', and does not factor into the issue you discuss. Moreover, this speed can be achieved with only 1 polycarbon - even if you did nerf it (which is just plain stupidity), stuff would just stay 'as' fast as before.
So, clearly, if it's irrelevant, that's no reason _not_ to nerf either. Or perhaps it's not as irrelevant as you're suggesting?
|
Dray
Caldari Spartan Industries Cruel Intentions
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 17:48:00 -
[35]
Enough with the nerfs already, i think some people wont be happy until u undock lock the target, then the screen is replaced with a noughts and crosses html game in the browser.
Fast ships cost a lot of isk, implants, rigs, fitting, and the ship.
One mistake and there gone, if your lucky your pod makes it.
One more thing nanoships, which i suspect most of the negative posts are hinting at, do most damage against optimal targets. Namely targets you are looking for.
|
Cadiz
Caldari No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 17:49:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Cadiz on 15/08/2007 17:49:47 First they murdered our MWD speed rigs, and now people are trying to shove something like this through?
Just boost up the velocity/agility/etc. rigs so that they're more comparable to the polycarbons. There, done. Nobody loses! ------ Director, No Quarter "There is no problem that cannot be solved by the judicious application of violence." |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 18:03:00 -
[37]
Edited by: James Lyrus on 15/08/2007 18:04:14
Originally by: Cadiz Edited by: Cadiz on 15/08/2007 17:49:47 First they murdered our MWD speed rigs, and now people are trying to shove something like this through?
Just boost up the velocity/agility/etc. rigs so that they're more comparable to the polycarbons. There, done. Nobody loses!
Apart from the people who can't get away with ludicrous speed fits at all.
But broadly, either will work. As it stands, it is foolish to fit Aux thrusters, or nozzle joints.
*shrug* I use polycarbons too, because they're really really good. But... y'know, I don't think that's actually a positive assertion that they're actually balanced.
But then, I'm of the opinion that the absolute upper limit of ships speeds should be about the 10km/sec mark. I mean, EVE latency being what it is and all.
|
Goshinko
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 18:16:00 -
[38]
Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: Elles D For the love of god please stop whining, i am now expecting the day when people like you call for the nerfing of an Ibis; seriously.
Poly's are fine, and in-terms of all you lot going on about 10k/s crows most of you don't seem to understand that past 8k in pvp is fast enough to avoid anything; any extra speed on top of that is just 'shiny', and does not factor into the issue you discuss. Moreover, this speed can be achieved with only 1 polycarbon - even if you did nerf it (which is just plain stupidity), stuff would just stay 'as' fast as before.
So, clearly, if it's irrelevant, that's no reason _not_ to nerf either. Or perhaps it's not as irrelevant as you're suggesting?
There is a reason to not nerf. It's FUN.
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 18:31:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Goshinko
Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: Elles D For the love of god please stop whining, i am now expecting the day when people like you call for the nerfing of an Ibis; seriously.
Poly's are fine, and in-terms of all you lot going on about 10k/s crows most of you don't seem to understand that past 8k in pvp is fast enough to avoid anything; any extra speed on top of that is just 'shiny', and does not factor into the issue you discuss. Moreover, this speed can be achieved with only 1 polycarbon - even if you did nerf it (which is just plain stupidity), stuff would just stay 'as' fast as before.
So, clearly, if it's irrelevant, that's no reason _not_ to nerf either. Or perhaps it's not as irrelevant as you're suggesting?
There is a reason to not nerf. It's FUN.
So were dual MWD ravens, and 8 Heatsink gankageddons, and 97% omni resists scorpions.
That doesn't mean they weren't overpowered. If anything, the opposite...
|
MotoTsume
Gallente Clan Black Scorpion
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 18:40:00 -
[40]
I love the Fact that most of the people in this thread that shout stop whining and dont nerf are all in corps and alliance that gate camp in cloaked nano gangs
It's just a game........Or is it?????
|
|
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 18:44:00 -
[41]
Originally by: MotoTsume I love the Fact that most of the people in this thread that shout stop whining and dont nerf are all in corps and alliance that gate camp in cloaked nano gangs
Actually, I do that too.
I'm just fed up of putting 100mil isks on my flycatcher :)
|
Goshinko
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 18:47:00 -
[42]
Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: Goshinko
Originally by: James Lyrus
Originally by: Elles D For the love of god please stop whining, i am now expecting the day when people like you call for the nerfing of an Ibis; seriously.
Poly's are fine, and in-terms of all you lot going on about 10k/s crows most of you don't seem to understand that past 8k in pvp is fast enough to avoid anything; any extra speed on top of that is just 'shiny', and does not factor into the issue you discuss. Moreover, this speed can be achieved with only 1 polycarbon - even if you did nerf it (which is just plain stupidity), stuff would just stay 'as' fast as before.
So, clearly, if it's irrelevant, that's no reason _not_ to nerf either. Or perhaps it's not as irrelevant as you're suggesting?
There is a reason to not nerf. It's FUN.
So were dual MWD ravens, and 8 Heatsink gankageddons, and 97% omni resists scorpions.
That doesn't mean they weren't overpowered. If anything, the opposite...
Except the fact that there's a counter. It's called a Huginn. Even if you nerf polycarbs, breaking 10km/s is still achieveable. You need to throw a lot of isk at something that fast.
This has nothing to do with being overpowered, things going that fast generally can't do anything to hurt you.
A huginn with just as much money poured into it can shred polycarb setups.
|
Audri Fisher
Caldari VentureCorp Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 19:04:00 -
[43]
Originally by: FawKa For the cost of around 50m pr rig I think they need to be good tbh.
They cost 50 mil a rig because they are so good....
|
Goshinko
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 19:07:00 -
[44]
Anyway, on-topic.
Their speed bonus is porportionate to their price. Velocity rigs are cheaper and, are thus, less effective for speed enhancing.
Even if you lowered their bonus, there still would be little reason for using agility rigs. and as you said, velocity rigs have their purpose, on cloaked ships.
There will still be ways to get a speed fix, such as the claymore bonus, gang bonii, et cetera. Polycarbons allow for high speeds without the luxury of these, or a snake set, at a lower standard, yet are still pricey for the heavy-pvper.
|
Emperor D'Hoffryn
No Quarter. Vae Victis.
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 19:28:00 -
[45]
if you are making a nano(insert random ship here) your rig slots are going to be filled with polycarbs....all polycarbs....and nothing but polycarbs.
I think thats all the evidence we need that something might be amiss. I even fly a nanocurse...and have always wondered by the polycarb is the only rig better then the coresponding mod.
Originally by: Snuggly It's just so great to have an actual reason to not die, incentive is fantastic!
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 19:36:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Taipan Gedscho
Originally by: James Lyrus Or... is there something I'm missing?
yes. i have a very nice BP of those and id like those nerf threads to stop
seriously.
Yeah, it would be a real shame if that 100k investment you made became worth a little less. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 19:47:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Goshinko
This has nothing to do with being overpowered, things going that fast generally can't do anything to hurt you.
Yes, I wouldn't necessarily argue that polycarbs are overpowered exactly either. That's essentially arguing that speed itself is overpowered right now. Maybe that's the case in some ways, but it's a huge can of worms.
What I'd call polycarbs isn't overpowered but rather "disproportionate" to modules and other rigs. And that's not really contradictable. Honestly I think the former need to have a little less effect, but the latter need to have more. See my first post for a suggestion on how to do it.
Quote: A huginn with just as much money poured into it can shred polycarb setups.
The sad and ironic thing is that that UberHuginn is very likely to be rigged with polycarbs. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Julius Romanus
Free Space Development Cartel
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 20:09:00 -
[48]
I would love to be able to fit aux thrusters and actually get some kind of reasonable performance boost out of them. The boost they give to non MWD speed is actually nice for the way I fight.
Unfortunately, it's polycarbons or CCC rigs.
|
Elles D
Caldari angels of darkness LTD Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 21:12:00 -
[49]
Originally by: James Lyrus Edited by: James Lyrus on 15/08/2007 18:04:14 But then, I'm of the opinion that the absolute upper limit of ships speeds should be about the 10km/sec mark. I mean, EVE latency being what it is and all.
2 polys even on a Crow will not get you to 10k/s and likewise for the rest of the 'nano-ships'. What makes EvE so interesting imo is the fact that it is unbalenced, its not kind and certainly not fair; if you keep on crying out to change that then ultimatly you are essentialy changing what the game is and at some point (god forbid, cos this is a bit out-there) EvE will be unrecognisable from how it originally started.
Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Kreul Intentions ([email protected]) |
Dass Note
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 21:32:00 -
[50]
Originally by: murder one What does any of the above have to do with the Polycarb rigs? They provide way too much of a bonus compared to nano modules. They need to be reduced to be put in line with the rest of the speed rigs/modules.
The rigs are expensive because they're too good and everyone will pay a premium for them. Reduce their effectiveness and they're going to drop in price overnight.
? A polycarb engine housing has nothing to do with nano modules. It's simply a rare and expensive speed rig.
Have you experienced the joy of salvaging for Alloyed Tritanium Bar? Polycarb rigs are expensive because of the difficulty of finding the rare materials required.
Price is no factor? Hmm... Let's make all ships, modules, skills, and implants free.
Rare and high performance items are expensive. You pay the high price and you get high performance.
I just paid over a 100 mil for a Core X- type 100nm MWD. The base increase is 660%. So let's see, my adversary pays Isk 79,000 for a T1 MWD, gets a 500% speed increase, then complains that my 660% is unfair and needs to be nerfed, and the difference in price and rarity is no factor?
The whole argument for nerfing the Polycarb housing rig is flawed.
And BTW, let's remind everyone AGAIN, about the 10% loss in armor hp.
A polycarb rig is a polycarb rig and doesn't have to fall in line with anything. this is me if CCP does another speed rig nerf.
|
|
Calarn
Infinitus Odium The Church.
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 21:52:00 -
[51]
So in summation
lol guyz my nighthawk can tank everything forever but damn my missiles wont do **** to this 8km vagabond, guess i better post a nerf thread on the forums about something which has virtually nothing to do with this problem!
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 22:01:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Dass Note
Originally by: murder one What does any of the above have to do with the Polycarb rigs? They provide way too much of a bonus compared to nano modules. They need to be reduced to be put in line with the rest of the speed rigs/modules.
The rigs are expensive because they're too good and everyone will pay a premium for them. Reduce their effectiveness and they're going to drop in price overnight.
? A polycarb engine housing has nothing to do with nano modules. It's simply a rare and expensive speed rig.
Have you experienced the joy of salvaging for Alloyed Tritanium Bar? Polycarb rigs are expensive because of the difficulty of finding the rare materials required.
Price is no factor? Hmm... Let's make all ships, modules, skills, and implants free.
Well, this goes into a whole different argument, really. But I will say that a lot of the reason they're expensive is because they compete with cargo rigs for components. The fact that they're out and out superior to the other astronautic rigs and speed modules in most ways doesn't help.
Quote: Rare and high performance items are expensive. You pay the high price and you get high performance.
Sure. And you could still do that, even if polycarbs gave less of a bonus.
Quote: And BTW, let's remind everyone AGAIN, about the 10% loss in armor hp.
Same as the other astronautic rigs. And usually 6-7% after skills. Still sucks for most armor tankers, but if you're a shield tanker, well, I think we can safely say it's not even coming close to dissuading us from using them. By the way, a nanoII is 20% structure for less of a bonus, no nifty skills to reduce the penalty.
Quote: A polycarb rig is a polycarb rig and doesn't have to fall in line with anything.
Like it or not, a common reason for rebalancing both in EVE and other games is so that items "fall in line" with similar items. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
James Lyrus
Lyrus Associates Betrayal Under Mayhem
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 22:27:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Dass Note
Originally by: murder one What does any of the above have to do with the Polycarb rigs? They provide way too much of a bonus compared to nano modules. They need to be reduced to be put in line with the rest of the speed rigs/modules.
The rigs are expensive because they're too good and everyone will pay a premium for them. Reduce their effectiveness and they're going to drop in price overnight.
? A polycarb engine housing has nothing to do with nano modules. It's simply a rare and expensive speed rig.
Have you experienced the joy of salvaging for Alloyed Tritanium Bar? Polycarb rigs are expensive because of the difficulty of finding the rare materials required.
Price is no factor? Hmm... Let's make all ships, modules, skills, and implants free.
Rare and high performance items are expensive. You pay the high price and you get high performance.
I just paid over a 100 mil for a Core X- type 100nm MWD. The base increase is 660%. So let's see, my adversary pays Isk 79,000 for a T1 MWD, gets a 500% speed increase, then complains that my 660% is unfair and needs to be nerfed, and the difference in price and rarity is no factor?
The whole argument for nerfing the Polycarb housing rig is flawed.
And BTW, let's remind everyone AGAIN, about the 10% loss in armor hp.
A polycarb rig is a polycarb rig and doesn't have to fall in line with anything. this is me if CCP does another speed rig nerf.
Actually, I have done a fair amount of salvaging. Alloyed trit bars are only particularly rare if you're not salvaging angels wrecks.
From experience, I seem to get a roughly similar amount of salvage, in terms of circuits and non-circuits regardless of what kinds of npcs I'm shooting. The differentiator is just that some races drop certain things, and others don't.
But still arguing that more expensive means it's ok is also a fallacy - it's more expensive _BECAUSE_ it's better. More demand, same supply, prices rise.
Originally by: Calarn So in summation
lol guyz my nighthawk can tank everything forever but damn my missiles wont do **** to this 8km vagabond, guess i better post a nerf thread on the forums about something which has virtually nothing to do with this problem!
So, polycarbons have nothing to do with this problem. I posted about polycarbons. Therefore I have had this problem, and am whining about something unrelated?
Are you sure you meant to type that? I mean, it doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 22:45:00 -
[54]
Considering this is Eve-O, my sense is that post would almost make less sense if it did make sense, if that makes any sense. * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Vanye Inovske
Two Brothers Mining Corp. The Sundering
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 23:02:00 -
[55]
Originally by: Audri Fisher
Originally by: FawKa For the cost of around 50m pr rig I think they need to be good tbh.
They cost 50 mil a rig because they are so good....
No they don't. They cost 50M because cargo rigs are so good.
If people want to whine about unbalanced rigs, CCC are the FIRST place to look. There's a reason why 75% of all rigs sold (percentage pulled out of my nether regions, but it's probably not far off) are CCC. To be honest, rigs need a complete workover from top to bottom, because 80% of rig types are completely and utterly useless. A tiny handful of rig types (5 or so - CCC, cargo, a couple of the armor pumps, and shield recharge, plus a few specialty items on specialty ships like scan time rigs and such) comprise virtually all of the rigs installed. Instead of nerfing one of the few useful ones, how about making all the crappy ones worth using?
|
Tsanse Kinske
WeMeanYouKnowHarm
|
Posted - 2007.08.15 23:15:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Vanye Inovske
Originally by: Audri Fisher
Originally by: FawKa For the cost of around 50m pr rig I think they need to be good tbh.
They cost 50 mil a rig because they are so good....
No they don't. They cost 50M because cargo rigs are so good.
If people want to whine about unbalanced rigs, CCC are the FIRST place to look. There's a reason why 75% of all rigs sold (percentage pulled out of my nether regions, but it's probably not far off) are CCC. To be honest, rigs need a complete workover from top to bottom, because 80% of rig types are completely and utterly useless.
Totally agree. Their numbers just seem arbitrary and overly "symmetrical" much of the time, without enough thought for the actual quality of the bonus.
Quote: Instead of nerfing one of the few useful ones, how about making all the crappy ones worth using?
In the case of these astronautic rigs, there's not really any room to do so, without also boosting their corresponding modules. That doesn't seem likely, and I'm not sure that it's even desirable. For instance, do istabs need to be even better? They're already awfully good, especially in combination with WtZ. What effect would that have on LoSec piracy and hauling? * * * In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-Douglas Adams, writing about EVE |
Awox
Advanced Logistics
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 01:39:00 -
[57]
I'm just ****ed off that when these rigs (or similiar rigs) got nerfed the first time around they were changed into Auxiliary Thrusters I. Now they are back in the game and the people who lost their 40m ISK rigs for 10m ISK rigs don't get any credits for the 40m ISK rigs..
I refuse to buy these rigs for that purpose, and hope that CCP nerf it so I can hear the nano fad *****s cry. - ccp <3 ISK sellers boost dictors (a bit!) remotely destroy JCs |
Sokratesz
Paradox v2.0 Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 06:18:00 -
[58]
Originally by: FawKa For the cost of around 50m pr rig I think they need to be good tbh.
Talk about flawed logic.
|
Lain Khazar
Caldari
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 07:26:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Lain Khazar on 16/08/2007 07:30:22 The rigs are expensive because not only they are good, but also because they need very expensive build materials.
Alloyed Tritanium Bars anyone? Do some research on the BPO and you still need 80 of them. An average buyorder results in ~290000 isk/piece, depending on your region. Even down south the average price is ~280000/pc. So you end at ~23mio isk just for the bars.
If I remember correctly, the polycarbs were also hit by the speed-nerf, when one rig (mwd speed?) was completly removed. I'm not sure about this, but I think they replaced also one build material of the Polycarbs with the Alloyed Bars.
I know, the Polycarbs are not sold at build price (like some other rigs) but it's pretty expensive to build them. -- A alternative way of living... |
Cpt Branko
Guardian Heroes
|
Posted - 2007.08.16 07:39:00 -
[60]
Well, if you want to have a viable alternative to the polycarbon rigs, make the aux thrusters have a 15% bonus (still under the performance of the module), and people might fit these more. Most of the other astronautics rigs need a rework, too, though.
The problem price-wise is really alloyed tritanium bars, because they are relatively rare finds and a lot of them is needed. Their price is fixed, in a way, by cargo rigs.
At any rate, rigs are messed up right now, anyway - for tanking only a couple kinds of rigs are worth it (armour rep amount, anyone?). It's nearly impossible to boost the damage output of a gank ship (stacking nerfed with modules), while it's possible to vastly boost the tanking output of tank ships (no modules affecting armour rep amount or rep cycle time).
Many rigs are entirely worthless, anyway, while a couple of them provide sick boosts. Oh, yes, they also come in one-size fits all, making it a bit too expensive to rig anything smaller then a battlecruiser.
Originally by: Tsanse Kinske The second you start equating time spent playing a game with lost time and money is the second you need to ask yourself "Why am I playing?". Seriously |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |