|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
NIght's Dawn
   |
Posted - 2008.07.25 12:05:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: CCP Nozh
Originally by: Lt Angus
Sounds good overall, but feel it might nerf blaster ships more then speed ships
On the other hand, if you fit a warp scrambler and stasis webifier, the overall speed reduction is much greater than 90%. That is, if your target is using a MWD not an afterburner.
But this is something we'll be keeping a close eye on.
It's completely fine: blaster-ships shouldn't melt faces completely from undersized targets. Webs won't affect their ability to hit targets of their own size properly, and double-webbing is always a good option.
As a small ship pilot, the changes (as they are) are a huge massive breath of fresh air into EvE combat, particularly regarding small ships. Previously, frigates trying to speed-tank medium turrets from a say, BC, would in mutual-webbed situations (where they can still evade some damage in a 500m orbit), run into the 'lol, I'm faster then you with MWD on' problem, and die a horrible (and generally near-instantenous) death as they'd start following instead of orbiting. This has been fixed with scrambler deactivating MWD 
One question, however - why are AFs (rightfully buffed) still somewhat slower then frigates (unlike the cruiser->HAC progression)?
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 17:53:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 25/07/2008 17:55:17
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 25/07/2008 17:53:17
Originally by: ZW Dewitt
Edited by: ZW Dewitt on 25/07/2008 17:47:35
You can still do hit and run warfare, you just have to use smaller ships now. THE HORROR!
This.
The changes benefit small ships a whole lot, btw.
I like them in their entirety, although I never had a issue with nanoships. Stupid people did, but stupid people will have issues with any good tactic.
People claiming you couldn't hit Vagabonds and stuff will have even more fun hitting AB setups.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 18:01:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Oku Kee'lus
Maybe only warp scramblers should be able to disable MWDs?
That's what they said.
This is boost to small ships which want to fight close-range, as they can prevent the MWD away->'lol, die frig/AF/cruiser/HAC' behaviour when in a BS (which was incredibly effective and rendered any speed-tanking impossible in webrange).
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 18:04:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Cutesmile
Now the ships cant catch a Falcon who sit 200+ off range.
Everyone has falcons of their own, only nubbins fly single-race fleets.
Originally by: Cutesmile
Now the missile can beat anything
Ahahahah....ahahah....LOL, right.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 18:16:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Bish Ounen
Now, can we talk about increasing the e-war bonuses on the Celestis, Lachesis, Arazu and Keres? Because nerfing Damps without giving an increased bonus to the role-specific ship meant to fit them is another Bad Thing (tm).
Turning off MWD at range IS a increased bonus.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 02:16:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Andnowthenews
If only 15% of the player population lives in 0.0 and nano is virtually a 0.0 entity then the pvpers that work in low sec or empire should not give a toss as it does not effect them. But most 0.0 pvpers do not want the nerf as it is removing a very enjoyable form of pvp.
The increased viability of small ships makes me happy in the pants as a low-sec pirate tbh.
Dealing with nanoships was never a problem, but I like all the other impacts the changes have on gameplay.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 02:35:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 30/07/2008 02:42:28
Edited by: Cpt Branko on 30/07/2008 02:40:11
Originally by: Malachon Draco
A non-nano gang who makes mistakes loses a pittance in isk. A nanogang who makes mistakes loses hundreds of millions per ship. Maybe it tolerates a few more mistakes, but any mistakes that cost a nanogang a ship, is vastly more expensive. Is that not a form of balance?
This is nonsense; many non-nano gangs are fairly expensive. Yes, polycarbons are expensive, but hey, so are trimarks. And you're way more likely to lose the trimarked ship anyway, making your assertion about cost being the balancing factor rather silly.
Also: Guerilla warfare != engaging superior forces. Guerilla warfare is about hitting inferior forces and running away before the superior force arrives. There's a difference.
Seriously, I don't care about nanos specifically (although I love the new scramblers etc - all the new tools for small ships basically), but the 'don't nerf nano' brigade arguments are, well... you'd be better off if you just shut up, you know? Claiming you need a tool to engage superior forces doesn't say much in your favour.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 03:06:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Pheleus
If you have time Fraps it stick it on the forums adn see if CCP can explain it.
P
I'll explain it:
(a) You need to fly smart, throwing large amounts of ISK doesn't do anything unless you do. Getting within overloaded webrange of a Rifter is flying stupid. I've killed/ransomed numerous nano-Stabbers (even rigged) in a freaking AB Rifter (on TQ) because they don't know shit about tracking and think that 14km is a good place to be. It isn't. The further you are, the better you track, I thought everyone understands this.
(2) Drones, use them. Use them when the target is close, don't send em off chasing a frigate way off.
(3) Fitting the Vagabond on SISI the same way you do on TQ is not good anymore. First off, you desperately need anti-frig/inty protection now. Fit it. The point of the changes is that now you need protection vs smaller ships. Regardless of how much ISK you've decided to spent, you won't be immune to everything unless you fit/fly smart.
(4) Broken argument is broken, because Maelstorm with estamel invulns and crystals dies to a Rupture after cap charges run out if it doesn't have web/mwd/point (or now: it dies anyway unless counter-fit for killing cruisers), and it should clearly win, because estamel invulns costs billions.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 08:14:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Cutesmile
Bullsh*t.
Use 3 web use more scrambler and disruptor too. LOL
How many med slot need for them ? Oh u are a shield tanker u cant use lot of med slots modul or your tank will to ruin.
Newsflash: Rapiers have always used at least two webs and often a point, or three webs for gang setups. Learn your ship fittings.
Originally by: Cutesmile
Alright we need more man for catch the enemy need more a rapier and arazu too. WE need more blobers and the PvP will be working fine. LOL
If u are alone in system with a rapier and u lost your drones elsewhere a simple ceptor will kill you, because 3 webs not enough for slowing and your artys cant hit him ???
What a horrible idea. Just say it more, nice balance there.
You won't die to a lone interceptor as long as you're faster then him (and you will with him being triple webbed), even without drones; but don't you think you should die to a interceptor if you forgot anti-frig weapons and are only totting arties? It means you're brining totally wrong weapons for the job. That's called balance.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
|
|
| |
|