EVE Search - Balanced combat and EvE.

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Balanced combat and EvE.

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
General Coochie New Justice Minuit.	Posted - 2007.11.28 13:17:00 - [1] So ECM gets nerfed because it was widely used on most ships. Damps get nerfed because ppl started using it instead of ECM on some ships. Tracking disruptors gets nerfed because..? Amarr didn't suck enough already? So if the common idea is; if a module is used on many ships it should be nerfed. Then how come we haven't seen a web or MWD nerf yet (yeah I know you could stack MWDs and ABs before)? If someone puts a 90% web on you you wont get out of it until the fight is over unless you are nanoed. Web and MWD puts you in the position to dictate range. How is that different from dictating say, cap, locking range, guns optimal, tracking? I don't understand why the common and accepted idea seems to be that dictating range is some kind of basic principle in eve that is considered fine, when dictating other important parameters in combat are not. Given that vexor, torax, megathron and short range setups in general are the ships and setups mostly used in small scale PvP I would also say that dictating range in eve is in big favor of short range ships. Not only is web extremely useful for battle between ships of equal size it also an I-Win button vs any frig. The nerf vagabond threads gets 100s of posts, a lot of them defending the vaga. But when it comes to make the arazu and lachesis useless its simply fine?, we are a few posters here on this forum that seem to care, that is all. Yeah yeah the vaga is cool and so is flying fast but it isn't an argument to why control of range is accepted and the controlling of locking range is not. I'm not arguing for a vaga nerf here, I'm pointing out the inconsistency of whats accepted in eve combat. Personally I think eve would be more fun if it was promoting more and different setups. Sadly its going the other way. Web + MWD + scram + full rack of weapons + omni tank is now the overall best setup. I think that you are supposed to fit a ship with a different setup and be able to counter a web + mwd setup making that player go; Oh ** **** and I think that that setup should be countered by something else aswell. I'm not arguing for more I-WIN buttons, but to force every ship in the game to have basicly the same setup to achieve balance isn't the right way. Wouldn't it be more fun if frigates could actually tackle something more then 15 seconds if the other ship happens not to have web (now they are pretty much guaranteed to have one). Then you could bring a noob in a destroyer along and let him pop the frigs. Wouldn't that be more fun instead of the omni setups that exists now that the majority of players keeps defending whenever something comes along that counters it? Or maybe its just me that feels this way? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Sig originally by Kel Solaar Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Kel Solaar Soulbound. Tenth Legion	Posted - 2007.11.28 13:32:00 - [2] Quote: The nerf vagabond threads gets 100s of posts, a lot of them defending the vaga. But when it comes to make the arazu and lachesis useless its simply fine?, we are a few posters here on this forum that seem to care, that is all. Personally I think eve would be more fun if it was promoting more and different setups. Sadly its going the other way. Web + MWD + scram + full rack of weapons + omni tank is now the overall best setup. I'm not arguing for more I-WIN buttons, but to force every ship in the game to have basicly the same setup to achieve balance isn't the right way. Totally agree with what you are saying : Eve is interesting because of the number of ships and variety of setup you can fit them with. Now what's happening is that ccp just kill the variety and bend all the game toward the "Reference Setup" you are speaking about. And this is will just get the game to be boring. People will just stop using whole class of ships (Amarr or Gallente Recons for examples) and the game will just be a matter of "who has the bigger blob". --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tech3	Posted - 2007.11.28 13:37:00 - [3] It's really hard 2 make proper ballance. 20.000+ players will always find optimal config. Uber nano BS, uber Inters, uber Vamp Domix... they all're part of eve history -----------------------------------
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.11.28 13:46:00 - [4] Agreed. TD nerf was definitely stupid, and damps were hit too bloody hard as well. I think scripts are a nifty idea, but I'd think they'd make, say, damps slightly more effective then they are now at reducing lock-range then they were previously, but at the cost of not reducing lock speed, and the same for locking speed. Possibly a slight hit when reducing both, but definitely none for TDs as they are underpowered right now, not to mention after the changes. Personally, I'd give a slight MWD nerf together with a slight Web nerf and a small AB boost to slightly rebalance things and make it less of a no-brainer to go for the MWD (and help smaller ship combat in general at the same time), but, well, it's just personal preference. Fitting and piloting style diversity is what we need more then perfect balance, as well as effective electronic warfare, or we risk turning things into a gank/tank spreadsheet. We've got people whining about ECM drones now, because the counter isn't in line with their normal gank+tank setup and when a ship fits ECM drones instead of normal ones, it is capable of more then they think it did, which cleary can't be allowed. I think it'd be quite a waste if, when I saw a ship on scanner, I was sure what it was fitting. However, reducing the diversity of effective modules is pushing in that direction.
NoNah Tenth Legion Holdings	Posted - 2007.11.28 13:47:00 - [5] MWD's has been nerfed quite a few times, and they're still on the table for another... balancing measure. Several methods has been discussed, such as the module requiring charges or overheating or... well... tons of ways. None of them has been very good. MWD and web both have serious drawbacks the way it is today. However, there are very strong differences. When it comes to targetting EW, the one that hits the enemy first, eliminates the opponent entire ew. If both ships got 4 damps, it's all about the locking time. Same thing with ECM(Except for the fact that they are chancebased and can fail). As for Web/MWD, this doesn't matter. If both ships are packing MWD's, it's as if neither did(short of weight factors, but that just puts the ships you mention on an average place). Tracking disruptors are nerfed for standardising reasons. And thats the very same reason the gallente recons are getting a very unneeded nerf. As for your scenario, you're not actually proposing any solution to how to make the game that way? You're just posting what your utopia looks like, not how to get there. And with Nos,ECM and damps being the way they were, wouldn't that lil newbie pilot in his destroyer be killed by that(second most common bs in game) Domi rather.. instantly? The nosnerf actually really promoted smaller ships. Postcount: 332093
Kel Solaar Soulbound. Tenth Legion	Posted - 2007.11.28 13:53:00 - [6] Quote: I'm not arguing for more I-WIN buttons, but to force every ship in the game to have basicly the same setup to achieve balance isn't the right way. Yeah sure, in practice you jus't can't have perfect balancing, especially in Eve, with the amount of ships, modules, skills etc. The problem is that ccp is not balancing but orienting the game where "they" want it to be. Killing the nos like it was done is non sense, the module is now useless, and doing this they just rip the amarr recons. Why not doing an anti nos module? to counter is effect? Why nerfing sensor boosters etc? Do CCP want all the fight to take part in a 15 km radius sphere? Last year there was a full variety of ships, this variety is disappearing slowly. Soon we will only have uber blaster/autocannon/torpedoes close range ships, fighting each other in a small sphere, around gates, flying in uber blobs with nano vaga/ishtar taclker, where the number will dictate who win. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yoko Lee	Posted - 2007.11.28 13:58:00 - [7] Everybody want the new I win button = no diversity. Everybody used ecm every dronebaot used nos etc etc CCP nerfed cause players hate diversity
General Coochie New Justice Minuit.	Posted - 2007.11.28 14:20:00 - [8] Edited by: General Coochie on 28/11/2007 14:25:58 I'm not saying that I think the old nos was better or that damps didn't need a change. I know there are a lot of ppl on these forums that have great ideas and whenever I see one I contribute to it and let the poster know I think it was a good one. I don't think I'm the best person to give these suggestions because I'm not that creative and to shortsighted to come up with well balance ideas. I understand its incredible hard to balance eve but in my opinion what is the most unbalanced thing, dictating range, MWD and WEB + short range ships superiority doesn't get enough attention from the forums while ewar and even ECM drones gets a lot more. The result is that everything else gets nerfed and the domination of this tank + gank fit with web and mwd gets more and more used. It seems ppl have this fit as the standard setup wich eve should be balanced around. But I don't think it has to be that way. Why is the common thought that this standard fit should be so successful? The unbalance of web + mwd and scram is obvious when you think about that shield tanking ships are ranked so low in PvP because they cannot do both. Now for these specific changes they could have introduced a countering module instead of nerfing to uselessness. Say make a sensor booster totally negate 1 or 2 dampeners, I don't mean it should boost the attributes so much that it negates it cause that would be OP, simply let it just negate the effect of a dampener in addition to the bonus it already gives. Script was a good idea. I don't know if I think reducing dampeners effectiveness was. And I certainly think it was a bad idea not compensating the dedicated ships so they would be almost as effective as they are now. Introduce a module that negates X% of all web effects on you, 2 of these should make a rapier pilot crap his pants. Introduce a longer ranged but weaker web. So that long range ships will have an easier time. Balancing the web amount here is crucial aswel as range of the module. If a ship fitted the X% negate web module he can still close in on such a ship but at the same time sacrificing say a low slot that could have been used for tank. I also think that most PvP happening within 25km is to short a distance. One MWD burst in one direction without a web and you can warp off. Another reason why short ranged ships with web are favored. Going from 25km to 10km is easy in most situations (some exception like the vaga) Give web drones of all sizes less effective off course. Enables for more interesting fights aswell. edit: Originally by: Yoko Lee Everybody want the new I win button = no diversity. Everybody used ecm every dronebaot used nos etc etc CCP nerfed cause players hate diversity Funny thing is; Practically the only ships that benefit from nos+neut now are drone boats. Did the nerf solve the drone boat superiority? No it didn't. Another nerf is coming. If they reduced nos slightly instead while nerfing the drone boats at the same time maybe we would have a more balanced and diverse eve. Now we loose nos and the drone boats are getting nerfed anyway. I agree with the above poster why not introduce a counter instead of nerfing to uselessness? Then if the amount drained was to be nerfed a bit is a different story. Going about nerfing modules to uselessness because to many ppl used it certainly is making eve less diverse. Give the players the tools to handle different situations don't take the tools away from them. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Sig originally by Kel Solaar Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Seriya Caldari Eve Defence Force Insurgency	Posted - 2007.11.28 14:32:00 - [9] Interesting. I do think that certain things do need to be nerfed from time to time, I thought the nos change was especially good. I do agree that the dampener nerf is too hard but what really interests me is the issue of dictating distance. I had an idea a while back for a change to (or a new kind of) stasis webifier module. Longer range (possibly like a warp disruptor, T1 20km, T2 24km) but effectiveness based on the signiture radius of the target. This would make it fairly ineffective vs frigates (-20%?), okay vs cruisers (-60%?) and stop battleships hard (-80%?). More importantly however, it would really nail anything that turns on a MWD, especially cruisers and above. MWDing intys wouldn't be hit quite as badly because of their sig radius reduction. Thoughts?
General Coochie New Justice Minuit.	Posted - 2007.11.28 14:37:00 - [10] Originally by: Seriya Interesting. I do think that certain things do need to be nerfed from time to time, I thought the nos change was especially good. I do agree that the dampener nerf is too hard but what really interests me is the issue of dictating distance. I had an idea a while back for a change to (or a new kind of) stasis webifier module. Longer range (possibly like a warp disruptor, T1 20km, T2 24km) but effectiveness based on the signiture radius of the target. This would make it fairly ineffective vs frigates (-20%?), okay vs cruisers (-60%?) and stop battleships hard (-80%?). More importantly however, it would really nail anything that turns on a MWD, especially cruisers and above. MWDing intys wouldn't be hit quite as badly because of their sig radius reduction. Thoughts? I don't like to crunch numbers myself to find out if its actually balanced or not in its current state. But I like the idea. Balancing so that AB get an advantage over mwd when facing such a module would be very intresting. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Sig originally by Kel Solaar Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes

Horus Dark	Posted - 2007.11.28 14:47:00 - [11] op is right. I have been biting my tonque to not say this...cause you see so many peeps whining about stop the nerfs atc but i cant anymore, Lets nerf torps then buff em..lets nerf this and that etc. I dont care...change setups..adept. But as op said you "adapt" towards the common guns+mwd/capbooster/web/scram/omni. I dont see why this game gets still gets MASSIVLY changes ...this is normal for a game thats 2 weeks old. It should be DONE with eve...a few minor tweaks ok. but everything gets changed and changed back and changed again for years now. I know they trying to balance stuff but the fact remains they are failing horribly. Things the balance now will be re-unbalanced later etc. But yeah..add more ships..more stuff to worry about with balancing. Cause that part obv gos easy on the guys at ccp.... If there would be a alternative EVE would die i think... just my 2cp
General Coochie New Justice Minuit.	Posted - 2007.11.28 14:55:00 - [12] Originally by: Horus Dark op is right. I have been biting my tonque to not say this...cause you see so many peeps whining about stop the nerfs atc but i cant anymore, Lets nerf torps then buff em..lets nerf this and that etc. I dont care...change setups..adept. But as op said you "adapt" towards the common guns+mwd/capbooster/web/scram/omni. I dont see why this game gets still gets MASSIVLY changes ...this is normal for a game thats 2 weeks old. It should be DONE with eve...a few minor tweaks ok. but everything gets changed and changed back and changed again for years now. I know they trying to balance stuff but the fact remains they are failing horribly. Things the balance now will be re-unbalanced later etc. But yeah..add more ships..more stuff to worry about with balancing. Cause that part obv gos easy on the guys at ccp.... If there would be a alternative EVE would die i think... just my 2cp Atleast we dont have to worry about the new EWAR frig that will be useless on launch -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Sig originally by Kel Solaar Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Kel Solaar Soulbound. Tenth Legion	Posted - 2007.11.28 15:01:00 - [13] Quote: I dont see why this game gets still gets MASSIVLY changes ...this is normal for a game thats 2 weeks old. Yeah they should better spend some time to optimise/improve the game, add more content (more mission, more exploration, new possibilities), improve the overall environment graphics (btw the new ships are awesome). There are so many things to do others than spending time nerfing/unerfing modules and ships... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kel Solaar Soulbound. Tenth Legion	Posted - 2007.11.28 15:05:00 - [14] Quote: Atleast we dont have to worry about the new EWAR frig that will be useless on launch :) The game will end with everybody flying "MonoGunedGameMasterPolaris frigates". CCP devs should stops using them and jumps time to time in the ships they nerf/unerf to see at least what the ship is looking when u fly it... --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Oam Mkoll Caldari HUSARIA Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.28 17:46:00 - [15] Originally by: Yoko Lee Everybody want the new I win button = no diversity. Everybody used ecm every dronebaot used nos etc etc CCP nerfed cause players hate diversity QFT Stop the stupid forum wars of EFT vs. Quickfit and go play some or we'll end up in a game where there's a "Ship" for everyone with a "Weapon" attached. --- I am violence boat
Madla Mafia The Dead Man's Hand	Posted - 2007.11.28 18:23:00 - [16] One thing that has been very constant for years now is the Amarr suckage. It seems like the Oomph that they talked about is actually going to be CCP just nerfing EVERYTHING. (Including Amarr, so I don't know how they see this one working...) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Amarr - getting screwed since 2005.
Cpt Branko The Bloody Red	Posted - 2007.11.28 18:43:00 - [17] Hmmm, I think you're all being overly pessimistic. I support balancing - the NOS changes, for example, were necessary - even though it reduced the usefulness of NOS to a few niche roles, NOS was a no-brainer to fit on any ship and made anything small preety useless, since it't get NOSsed to death. However, having a module which kills the other guy and benefits your ship at the same time was never a good idea, and anti-NOS modules would've been a terrible idea. I'm in fact, in favour of reducing MWD boost to somewhere in the 400% league while boosting ABs to be around 150% in combination to reducing maximum web effectiveness from 90% to 80% - which would give a boost to both small ships and would make ABs desirable in more situations then now. Which is one of my suggestions towards changing the MWD's basically mandatory status. However, at this point, I see the damp nerf as debatable, but the TD nerf as completly stupid. People don't even use it on ships which have bonuses for TDs. Which means it's an essentially broken module. Considering it only works vs turrets, it should at least be relatively effective vs said turrets. Which it fails to be now, not to mention it will completely fail to do so once the patch hits. I don't care if it's for harmonisation - it needs a boost. And scripts. But a boost.
Gaius Sejanus Gallente Federal Navy Academy	Posted - 2007.11.28 18:47:00 - [18] The constant large changes are because EVE is so heavily PvP centered, and people (CCP devs well included) have this bizarre and completely inaccurate notion that balance in a PvP game is even sort of possible without making everyone identical. It isn't. Never has been, never will be. So, you have to ride the ups and the downs.
Naviset	Posted - 2007.11.28 18:52:00 - [19] Edited by: Naviset on 28/11/2007 18:54:24 Uhh, I've seen TDs and used TDs very effectively in many of my setups, oftentimes preferring them over sensor damps. 1-2 TDs leaves a turret BS dead in the water. A dominix can tank 4-5 BSes if it fills its mids with TDs and uses a designated tackler. TDs would just become the next FOTM after damps got nerfed, and they'd need nerfed. I'm glad we don't have to wait 6 months of getting owned by TDs for them to finally get nerfed. If you really think TDs are massively underpowered you've obviously never used them, OR you know they're not underpowered and you're trying to start a propaganda war to get your precious ewar returned to its state. TDs are amazing ewar... at least on par or better than damps vs. turret ships... CCP is just making a brilliant move by keeping it from being the next obnoxious fotm module.
AnKahn Caldari Dark Star LTD Atrocitas	Posted - 2007.11.28 19:11:00 - [20] Happens to every game. You roll a Flying Monkey Warlock and at lvl 50 they take away your wings. You can train other races and keep much of your experience (support skills) so you are not starting from scratch. And the other game you can do that in is???? Adapt to EvE.

J Valkor Blackguard Brigade Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.28 19:24:00 - [21] A question to any older player that bothers reading the forum: 1. Did people whine when Ravens could no longer double-MWD. Did they say that sort of thing is killing diversity? 2. Did people whine when Armageddons could no longer fit 8x heat sinks? Did they say that kind of stacking penalty was killing diversity?
General Coochie New Justice Minuit.	Posted - 2007.11.28 19:43:00 - [22] Originally by: J Valkor A question to any older player that bothers reading the forum: 1. Did people whine when Ravens could no longer double-MWD. Did they say that sort of thing is killing diversity? 2. Did people whine when Armageddons could no longer fit 8x heat sinks? Did they say that kind of stacking penalty was killing diversity? you don't agree that MWD and web is the most used module in PvP? -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Sig originally by Kel Solaar Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Angel DeMorphis Gallente	Posted - 2007.11.28 19:48:00 - [23] Originally by: General Coochie Originally by: J Valkor A question to any older player that bothers reading the forum: 1. Did people whine when Ravens could no longer double-MWD. Did they say that sort of thing is killing diversity? 2. Did people whine when Armageddons could no longer fit 8x heat sinks? Did they say that kind of stacking penalty was killing diversity? you don't agree that MWD and web is the most used module in PvP? I'd be willing to believe the scrambler is used more, as without the scrambler you usually have no PvP, unless (oddly) consensual PvP.
Ulstan	Posted - 2007.11.28 20:36:00 - [24] I entirely agree that everyone 'needing' to fit MWD's and webs is bad for the game and indicative of a major flaw in how combat is played out, but that's a much harder fix than the RSD issue.
Kirmok	Posted - 2007.11.28 20:55:00 - [25] I've been wondering where the anti nos/neut modules have been since they were introduced... Balance isn't that hard when each module has an anti-module This is easy to do because not every ship can possibly fit for each encounter. Or else it will be ineffective at everything. They only have so many slots. Yet to fit an anti-NOS/neut mod, a sensor booster, etc all at once leaves you with no tank etc... So there is balance because you have to equip for what you expect you will encounter! Right? Thoughts?
General Coochie New Justice Minuit.	Posted - 2007.11.28 21:09:00 - [26] Originally by: Ulstan I entirely agree that everyone 'needing' to fit MWD's and webs is bad for the game and indicative of a major flaw in how combat is played out, but that's a much harder fix than the RSD issue. I don't know if this thread came out as yet another save RSDs thread. It wasn't meant to. I know that RSDs will get nerfed and the ship has sailed already, I'm already planning on how to adapt the best to the changes. I used RSDs as an example as its the closest one in time. I still think its weird that the generalist setup is so commonly accepted and not in discussion for a nerf nearly as often as I think it should be. It has become the standard of eve and ppl nerf modules around that standard. I mean if we told a pilot "ok laddy you have to choose 2 of these modules on your ship pick wisely now, you may pick two of each". 1. web 2. MWD 3. Dampener 4. TD 5. ECM 6. cap booster What two modules would be picked almost any time? Web and MWD. Dampener even though useful in some cases wouldn't be picked above these modules in almost any circumstances, most dampener setups even require web and mwd to be useful. I also think that dampener wouldn't even be picked as number 3, cap booster is probably more used. (I kinda not count warp jammers in this discussion as their meaning to PvP is pretty self explanatory). What / Who says that web and mwd should be standard in eve? Would it be something wrong if the answer to the question above would be dampener + mwd? Or dampener + web? Or even god forbid ECM + dampener? In my opinion no. And that seems to be where my opinion and the eve communities general opinion aren't the same, because everyone seems to think that web and mwd being the primary modules picked for any ship is something natural while dampeners are not. Thats why I don't understand why RSDs and other ewar gets the focus of attention. Ok so nerf them but whats next? We still have these 2 modules that almost any pilot would pick for almost any ship. Every time we have a module that effectively puts this generalist choice out of play we get nerf threads and not long after a real nerf. Whats next? ECM drones? Then the rapier and huginn bonuses as they do counter the standard mwd + web setups (even if they use webs as well). -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Sig originally by Kel Solaar Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
J Valkor Blackguard Brigade Aftermath Alliance	Posted - 2007.11.28 21:15:00 - [27] Originally by: General Coochie Originally by: J Valkor A question to any older player that bothers reading the forum: 1. Did people whine when Ravens could no longer double-MWD. Did they say that sort of thing is killing diversity? 2. Did people whine when Armageddons could no longer fit 8x heat sinks? Did they say that kind of stacking penalty was killing diversity? you don't agree that MWD and web is the most used module in PvP? No, they are. I don't mind. I picked Caldari, I knew I was never going to solo a ***** thing a month into the game. I am just saying the diversity argument is ******.
General Coochie New Justice Minuit.	Posted - 2007.11.28 21:26:00 - [28] Originally by: J Valkor Originally by: General Coochie Originally by: J Valkor A question to any older player that bothers reading the forum: 1. Did people whine when Ravens could no longer double-MWD. Did they say that sort of thing is killing diversity? 2. Did people whine when Armageddons could no longer fit 8x heat sinks? Did they say that kind of stacking penalty was killing diversity? you don't agree that MWD and web is the most used module in PvP? No, they are. I don't mind. I picked Caldari, I knew I was never going to solo a ***** thing a month into the game. I am just saying the diversity argument is ******. Actually nerfing the heatsinks like they did improved diversity because what I heard everyone went full dps in those days. Now we got a better balance of tanking ships and ganking ships. Ppl still argue whether to fit active tanks, passive tanks or full out gank on some ships. -> Diversity. Its not like everyone fits 8 dampeners in the mids at the moment... Also this nerf means that dampeners will never again be put on a non dedicated ship. that IS reducing diversity. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Sig originally by Kel Solaar Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes
Gripen Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities	Posted - 2007.11.28 21:38:00 - [29] To the OP: I remember myself posting in couple of MWD and web related threads recently. You have probably missed them as well as "Balance is killing Eve" thread about current way of balancing which leads to homogenisation of Eve. There was a "Nerf cap boosters" thread and maybe not completely thought-out but interesting ideas about warp scrambling here. So there are a lot of people who agree with your points and the questions about those modules are being asked. P.S.: and dampeners nerf is a shame.
General Coochie New Justice Minuit.	Posted - 2007.11.28 21:58:00 - [30] Thats very interesting the OP in balancing is killing eve is on the exact same path as I am. The same core concern and idea. However his arguments are much better put forth as I realize my own got interpreted as yet another don't nerf the RSD's thread which wasn't my intention at all. The other thread was interesting though I didn't quite like it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- - Sig originally by Kel Solaar Please resize image to a maximum of 400 x 120, not exceeding 24000 bytes, ty. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Cortes



Pages: [1] 2 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.