EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Speed Rebalanced by Nozh

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

New Dev Blog: Speed Rebalanced by Nozh

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 144 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 15 post(s)
Mag's MASS	Posted - 2008.08.01 17:05:00 - [3631] Originally by: Exoterix I thought the same thing about blaster boats, but after talking with a corp-mate of mine I don't really think this is going to be the death of the blaster boat at all. You need to test more, rather than listening to your mate. Indeed, getting within range can be achieved, all be it with the use of more cap and less speed, whilst taking more damage. But when at range, just try keeping there and getting any good hits from those blasters of yours. There is a Great Thread in the Game Development Forum, that details the issues with blaster boats. It's well worth a read. Mag's Originally by: Avernus One of these days, the realization that MASS is no longer significant will catch up with you.
Deviana Sevidon Gallente Panta-Rhei United Front Alliance	Posted - 2008.08.01 17:05:00 - [3632] Ships that are designed to go fast should go fast. A Vagabond is designed to be a hit and run cruiser, it is right now doing the job as it should be. I still think some combinations of Modules, Rigs, Gang Bonuses, Boosters and other things, go over the top. The problem is that people looked at the vagabond, a ship that is designed to do just that and thought about ways to get their Ishtar, Sacriledge etc. to achieve the same speeds. Suddenly everyone discovered that speed is the best tank, since you are excellent at catching your target, avoiding damage and often get away when things become messy. That is a bit too good if you ask me. Therefore a Nerf is needed. Even after the Nerf ships designed for speed will go faster then ships that do not. The Vagabond will still be able to hit and run, but the Sacriledge that is supposed to be a heavy tanked HAC have a harder time. It will also not be the end of all HACs. Tier 2 BC have in many cases a better tank and comparable firepower, but HACs are still faster and more maneuverable and many have extra range. What will happen with Blasterships I do not know, they were my favorite shiptype aside from Snipertempest. But since roaming gangs will have an incentive to bring other ships than nanoed Cruisers, they might have a chance again. Most likely Blasterships will need an extra tackler but once they catch up their targets they will be deadly. MWD deactivating Scramblers will be less of an issue since the Blasterships needs the MWD primarily to get into range, not out of it.
Vitrael Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.01 17:14:00 - [3633] Hi: 130 pages of anger and a week of testing on Sisi later no new dev comments other than that a Vagabond with 4 speed mods and rigs and implants and perfect skills can "easily break 4km/s" (lol, it can't unless those implants are snakes). Can we please get some more dev responses? I am pretty tired of being in the dark about the patch that will completely negate my 30m SP in Minmatar T2 Cruisin'. Thanks, -paying customer.
Vitrael Reaper Industries Eternal Rapture	Posted - 2008.08.01 17:14:00 - [3634] Hi: 130 pages of anger and a week of testing on Sisi later no new dev comments other than that a Vagabond with 4 speed mods and rigs and implants and perfect skills can "easily break 4km/s" (lol, it can't unless those implants are snakes). Can we please get some more dev responses? I am pretty tired of being in the dark about the patch that will completely negate my 30m SP in Minmatar T2 Cruisin'. Thanks, -paying customer.
Hyron Corp 1 Allstars The Requiem	Posted - 2008.08.01 17:42:00 - [3635] yesh! yesh! GET BACK IN YOUR BATTLESHIPS ND COME FIGHT *****ES =D /braces for eft warriors and those who use logic to solve problems..
Hyron Corp 1 Allstars The Requiem	Posted - 2008.08.01 17:42:00 - [3636] yesh! yesh! GET BACK IN YOUR BATTLESHIPS ND COME FIGHT *****ES =D /braces for eft warriors and those who use logic to solve problems..
Myra2007 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.08.01 18:06:00 - [3637] Originally by: Vitrael Can we please get some more dev responses? I am pretty tired of being in the dark about the patch that will completely negate my 30m SP in Minmatar T2 Cruisin'. There is a new discussion thread open. There is also one or two posts by nozh asking for specific feedback etc. Linkage
Myra2007 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.08.01 18:06:00 - [3638] Originally by: Vitrael Can we please get some more dev responses? I am pretty tired of being in the dark about the patch that will completely negate my 30m SP in Minmatar T2 Cruisin'. There is a new discussion thread open. There is also one or two posts by nozh asking for specific feedback etc. Linkage -- Originally by: Merin Ryskin Allow me to summarize the dev blog in a much simpler way: Dear players: F*** YOU. Love, CCP.
Tetsuo Hourai	Posted - 2008.08.01 18:48:00 - [3639] Edited by: Tetsuo Hourai on 01/08/2008 18:51:23 Originally by: Esmenet Edited by: Esmenet on 01/08/2008 17:02:58 Originally by: Deviana Sevidon But too, you if you are adapting, then everything is fine. Just quit whining. You can adapt by parking your HAC's and blasterboats and training Amarr or Caldari BS, but you cant adapt a BS to work in a small roaming gang in 0.0. Die in a fire. I want my race to be good at combat with all other races, I WANT to fly blaster boats, not get them nerfed and f*ed so they are worthless, I want to be an asset in pvp without crosstraining. That is not an option for adaptation, train another f*ing race, you're ignorant if you think thats adaptation.
Tetsuo Hourai	Posted - 2008.08.01 18:48:00 - [3640] Edited by: Tetsuo Hourai on 01/08/2008 18:51:23 Originally by: Esmenet Edited by: Esmenet on 01/08/2008 17:02:58 Originally by: Deviana Sevidon But too, you if you are adapting, then everything is fine. Just quit whining. You can adapt by parking your HAC's and blasterboats and training Amarr or Caldari BS, but you cant adapt a BS to work in a small roaming gang in 0.0. Die in a fire. I want my race to be good at combat with all other races, I WANT to fly blaster boats, not get them nerfed and f*ed so they are worthless, I want to be an asset in pvp without crosstraining. That is not an option for adaptation, train another f*ing race, you're ignorant if you think thats adaptation.

Melegaunt Tanthul Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.01 18:54:00 - [3641] Originally by: Nyphur Originally by: Tetsuo Hourai Originally by: Nyphur After the changes, they would have a good reason to use the 7.5km scram. With the reduction in web strength, targets could just mwd out of 7.5km scram range if you catch them with less than two webs. Disabling the target's MWD corrects this issue and assures that close range ships like blaster boats can successfully tackle. It means that if you can get within blaster range of the enemy, they aren't going anywhere. The point has been made that a blaster boat will have to be within range of the enemy's 7.5km scram to attack and that's a valid concern. However, a blaster ship doesn't NEED its microwarpdrive once it's reached its target. READ: if you can get within blaster range of the enemy, they aren't going anywhere. READ: if you can get within blaster range of the enemy, they aren't going anywhere. If I am to believe that my target is going to sit around while I get within scram range, either one of us or both of us need to quit this game. If I cannot make use of my 24km disrupter because the enemy can just fly away from me because the speed reduction makes my ship (the Astarte)slow as shit, then blaster combat is indeed dead. No one, read: NO ONE is going to see my ship warp in at 22ks and sit. .. . sit and wait for me to get within 7.5ks. . . they. . . will. . . just. . . fly. . .away. . . Exactly, you'll have a choice between using a long range scram to get the initial tackle or using the short range scram if you have a tackler buddy along with you. The short range scram means you can be sure the enemy won't mwd away but the long range one means you can get the initial tackle. For fleet action, that short range scram is going to be extremely useful. You can argue that using the long range scram isn't viable as when you get close enough to use your blasters, the enemy can shut off your mwd with a short range scram an escape. However, that won't let them escape because they have to stay within 7.5km range (and thus within your blaster range) to keep your mwd shut off. If they try to escape using their MWD, yours will reactivate once the enemy gets over 7.5km from you and you'll still have your 20km scram on them. You can resume chasing them immediately. If you don't want to use the short range scram, just don't. Using a 20km scram will mean you'll have to chase your enemy with his MWD still active, but that still puts you on equal footing as it does right now. Very little will actually be changed. You are making seriously mistaken assumptions. Your target will not use mwd as i't useless now. He will use AB because he will most certainly expect to be scrambled otherwise they're dumb and it's not a proper example. So he can run away while he or a tackles is scrambling your bs. Also you assume that you're using a scrambler and a disruptor, coupled with mwd. Wrong again because of the limit of medium slots on armor tanked BS (eg a cap injector is a must with mwd in pvp otherwise you're out of cap immediately). Last by not least you're assuming 1on1 and no one but no one fights 1on1 in battleships. You don't undock BS without a gang. So you BS will be tackled with a scrambled the momment it warps in. You will never ever move 1km from your original warp in point. Your obviously not a pvper or a very newbie one as seen by your assumptions.
Melegaunt Tanthul Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction	Posted - 2008.08.01 18:54:00 - [3642] Originally by: Nyphur Originally by: Tetsuo Hourai Originally by: Nyphur After the changes, they would have a good reason to use the 7.5km scram. With the reduction in web strength, targets could just mwd out of 7.5km scram range if you catch them with less than two webs. Disabling the target's MWD corrects this issue and assures that close range ships like blaster boats can successfully tackle. It means that if you can get within blaster range of the enemy, they aren't going anywhere. The point has been made that a blaster boat will have to be within range of the enemy's 7.5km scram to attack and that's a valid concern. However, a blaster ship doesn't NEED its microwarpdrive once it's reached its target. READ: if you can get within blaster range of the enemy, they aren't going anywhere. READ: if you can get within blaster range of the enemy, they aren't going anywhere. If I am to believe that my target is going to sit around while I get within scram range, either one of us or both of us need to quit this game. If I cannot make use of my 24km disrupter because the enemy can just fly away from me because the speed reduction makes my ship (the Astarte)slow as shit, then blaster combat is indeed dead. No one, read: NO ONE is going to see my ship warp in at 22ks and sit. .. . sit and wait for me to get within 7.5ks. . . they. . . will. . . just. . . fly. . .away. . . Exactly, you'll have a choice between using a long range scram to get the initial tackle or using the short range scram if you have a tackler buddy along with you. The short range scram means you can be sure the enemy won't mwd away but the long range one means you can get the initial tackle. For fleet action, that short range scram is going to be extremely useful. You can argue that using the long range scram isn't viable as when you get close enough to use your blasters, the enemy can shut off your mwd with a short range scram an escape. However, that won't let them escape because they have to stay within 7.5km range (and thus within your blaster range) to keep your mwd shut off. If they try to escape using their MWD, yours will reactivate once the enemy gets over 7.5km from you and you'll still have your 20km scram on them. You can resume chasing them immediately. If you don't want to use the short range scram, just don't. Using a 20km scram will mean you'll have to chase your enemy with his MWD still active, but that still puts you on equal footing as it does right now. Very little will actually be changed. You are making seriously mistaken assumptions. Your target will not use mwd as i't useless now. He will use AB because he will most certainly expect to be scrambled otherwise they're dumb and it's not a proper example. So he can run away while he or a tackles is scrambling your bs. Also you assume that you're using a scrambler and a disruptor, coupled with mwd. Wrong again because of the limit of medium slots on armor tanked BS (eg a cap injector is a must with mwd in pvp otherwise you're out of cap immediately). Last by not least you're assuming 1on1 and no one but no one fights 1on1 in battleships. You don't undock BS without a gang. So you BS will be tackled with a scrambled the momment it warps in. You will never ever move 1km from your original warp in point. Your obviously not a pvper or a very newbie one as seen by your assumptions.
Abrynn Minmatar CCCP INC	Posted - 2008.08.01 19:16:00 - [3643] All i gotta say is after you nerf my best PvPer i sure hope you make some of my ships better .... did anyone everthink that maybe the reason Mini's always undock in a HAC/Recon is because they are the best ships mini's have ... and while we are at it have any of you ever noticed that mini ships have less armor and shields of any race because its suppost to be the fastest race? Hensforth the ducktape comments there is a reason ppl say that. Besides time, isk and rl there are other reasons this is a ******ed move it affects all of eve. Its all nano mods so that affects t2 invention, ships (look more t2 invention/ building) cause ppl arent gonna buy them, MWD's cause well tbh these will drop too, lets not forget the webs that just dont seem to work in sisi they wont sell either.So whats this,lets point out that the market is gonna crash not only for the ppl doing invention/building but for the ppl who make the t2 components / and riggs!!! It effects PvP as well as 4 races mini/gall/amarr/caldari because of the ability to web/scram is gonna be crap o yeah it will affect you missile spammers too because if your tanked proper you cant scramble/webb so think about that, this nerf is going to make PvP even more laggy and bloby cause to make up for the things they are nerfing there will be more ppl needed in gang so if you ppl think this is gonna make things better lol think again. This effects us all from industry to PvP from amarr to caldari if you dont believe me do some looking at things and ask indy ppl. Plus ppl always complain about Nano but the thing to think about is when u think of nano /ludacris speed did you ever think of if that ship was able to hit you going full speed? of course they cant exept the ishtar because of the drones and for the ones complaining about ppl running and being a nano pilot ive complained too and still do sometimes im not saying that there shouldnt be a speed nerf because i honestly think there should be but not like this ... this affects WAY WAY WAY too much at once there has to be a better way, You CCP guys better ask your economist about this and really think hard. For all you ppl that just wanna fight with each other back and forth this is stupid do me a favor all of you do you homework and actually think about it and you know CCP isnt paying attention to us anyways so whats the point, Can we adapt and adjust yes we can everyone can!! do we want to lose isk skill training time and just the plain all out time ive put into this game? time we have all put into this game? No we dont. Do i want to have to train another race do i think CCP should make me have to no! In the same manner no one wants to have to train sumthing they dont want to...so do me a favar and just think about things
Abrynn Minmatar CCCP INC	Posted - 2008.08.01 19:16:00 - [3644] Edited by: Abrynn on 01/08/2008 19:38:56 All i gotta say is after you nerf my best PvPer i sure hope you make some of my ships better .... did anyone everthink that maybe the reason Mini's always undock in a HAC/Recon is because they are the best ships mini's have ... and while we are at it have any of you ever noticed that mini ships have less armor and shields of any race because its suppost to be the fastest race? Hensforth the ducktape comments there is a reason ppl say that. Besides time, isk and rl there are other reasons this is a ******ed move it affects all of eve. Its all nano mods so that affects t2 invention, ships (look more t2 invention/ building) cause ppl arent gonna buy them, MWD's cause well tbh these will drop too, lets not forget the webs that just dont seem to work in sisi they wont sell either.So whats this,lets point out that the market is gonna crash not only for the ppl doing invention/building but for the ppl who make the t2 components / and riggs!!! It effects PvP as well as 4 races mini/gall/amarr/caldari because of the ability to web/scram is gonna be crap o yeah it will affect you missile spammers too because if your tanked proper you cant scramble/webb so think about that, this nerf is going to make PvP even more laggy and bloby cause to make up for the things they are nerfing there will be more ppl needed in gang so if you ppl think this is gonna make things better lol think again. This effects us all from industry to PvP from amarr to caldari if you dont believe me do some looking at things and ask indy ppl. Plus ppl always complain about Nano but the thing to think about is when u think of nano /ludacris speed did you ever think of if that ship was able to hit you going full speed? of course they cant exept the ishtar because of the drones and for the ones complaining about ppl running and being a nano pilot ive complained too and still do sometimes im not saying that there shouldnt be a speed nerf because i honestly think there should be but not like this ... this affects WAY WAY WAY too much at once there has to be a better way, You CCP guys better ask your economist about this and really think hard. For all you ppl that just wanna fight with each other back and forth this is stupid do me a favor all of you do you homework and actually think about it and you know CCP isnt paying attention to us anyways so whats the point, Can we adapt and adjust yes we can everyone can!! do we want to lose isk skill training time and just the plain all out time ive put into this game? time we have all put into this game? No we dont. Do i want to have to train another race do i think CCP should make me have to no! In the same manner no one wants to have to train sumthing they dont want to...so do me a favar and just think about things EDIT : you guys should post here too btw http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=833782&page=1
Pr1ncess Alia Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.01 19:57:00 - [3645] Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia on 01/08/2008 20:01:40 jesus christ. wall of text much? edit: i do actually agree with you. that just hurt my eyeballs
Pr1ncess Alia Caldari Perkone	Posted - 2008.08.01 19:57:00 - [3646] Edited by: Pr1ncess Alia on 01/08/2008 20:01:40 jesus christ. wall of text much? edit: i do actually agree with you. that just hurt my eyeballs
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2008.08.01 21:41:00 - [3647] Originally by: Melegaunt Tanthul You are making seriously mistaken assumptions. Your target will not use mwd as i't useless now. He will use AB because he will most certainly expect to be scrambled otherwise they're dumb and it's not a proper example. So he can run away while he or a tackles is scrambling your bs. Also you assume that you're using a scrambler and a disruptor, coupled with mwd. Wrong again because of the limit of medium slots on armor tanked BS (eg a cap injector is a must with mwd in pvp otherwise you're out of cap immediately). Last by not least you're assuming 1on1 and no one but no one fights 1on1 in battleships. You don't undock BS without a gang. So you BS will be tackled with a scrambled the momment it warps in. You will never ever move 1km from your original warp in point. Your obviously not a pvper or a very newbie one as seen by your assumptions. Melegaunt, I don't know what to tell you except I made absolutely none of those assumptions. If you would be so kind as to point out how you arrived at the conclusion that I did, I'll gladly contradict them. Pillowsoft - Join the Pillowsoft Gallente Militia, get free ships and support.
Nyphur Pillowsoft	Posted - 2008.08.01 21:41:00 - [3648] Originally by: Melegaunt Tanthul You are making seriously mistaken assumptions. Your target will not use mwd as i't useless now. He will use AB because he will most certainly expect to be scrambled otherwise they're dumb and it's not a proper example. So he can run away while he or a tackles is scrambling your bs. Also you assume that you're using a scrambler and a disruptor, coupled with mwd. Wrong again because of the limit of medium slots on armor tanked BS (eg a cap injector is a must with mwd in pvp otherwise you're out of cap immediately). Last by not least you're assuming 1on1 and no one but no one fights 1on1 in battleships. You don't undock BS without a gang. So you BS will be tackled with a scrambled the momment it warps in. You will never ever move 1km from your original warp in point. Your obviously not a pvper or a very newbie one as seen by your assumptions. Melegaunt, I don't know what to tell you except I made absolutely none of those assumptions. If you would be so kind as to point out how you arrived at the conclusion that I did, I'll gladly contradict them. EVE-Tanking.com - Helping you keep your hull in-tact.
TaterTard	Posted - 2008.08.01 22:07:00 - [3649] Echoing the comments of others, my main concern is the effectiveness of Minny Recons. Now if at the same time that you nerf webs to 60% max, you would give target painters the ability to shut off MWDs like the proposed scram change, the Recons could tackle again.
TaterTard	Posted - 2008.08.01 22:07:00 - [3650] Echoing the comments of others, my main concern is the effectiveness of Minny Recons. Now if at the same time that you nerf webs to 60% max, you would give target painters the ability to shut off MWDs like the proposed scram change, the Recons could tackle again.

Thorradin State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.08.01 22:27:00 - [3651] Originally by: Esmenet To use CCP terms this change is Ludicrous. Its a massive nerf to small gang pvp, especially in 0.0. And it will completely destroy whats left of the blasterships. You do recall posts like yours, that just complain but give no worthwhile substance, are likely being page down'd over right? A bunch of people saying over and over 'omg this is bad ur killin eve' without solid reasons why are just wasting time, just like those supporting it saying 'omg yay eve pvp r fixd' aren't helping. The AF thread I read alittle early actually showed a nice effect that seems to be happening with this (AFs no longer nearly worthless despite only having 3 bonuses).
Thorradin State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.08.01 22:27:00 - [3652] Originally by: Esmenet To use CCP terms this change is Ludicrous. Its a massive nerf to small gang pvp, especially in 0.0. And it will completely destroy whats left of the blasterships. You do recall posts like yours, that just complain but give no worthwhile substance, are likely being page down'd over right? A bunch of people saying over and over 'omg this is bad ur killin eve' without solid reasons why are just wasting time, just like those supporting it saying 'omg yay eve pvp r fixd' aren't helping. The AF thread I read alittle early actually showed a nice effect that seems to be happening with this (AFs no longer nearly worthless despite only having 3 bonuses).
R3DSKULL Amarr CCCP INC	Posted - 2008.08.01 23:08:00 - [3653] There is a dynamic being taken away here. From A pvp standpoint its always been pre speed, you fit either gank or tank. This is pre plate. Then came the speed initiative. So we added a paper, scissors, rock element. We have gank, tank and speed. if a tank ship gets engaged by a speed ship it can usually tank it but cannot take it down. A gank ship can take a tank ship but a speed ship cant gank, it cannot tank, either. So it can only run or kill gank ships. Tank ships are best for dealing with gank ships pure gank, and speed is best for dealing with most gank. So it creates a triplistic dynamic. i know this is generalising as some ships dont work against eachother in such fashion but for most part this third speed dynamic creates a sort of balance of the two gank, tank mentalities. often u find if a vaga tackles a well skilled raven pilot in a belt he cant take him down. he has to have some dps backup. Where as an ishtar tends to be find in dps dept,but has to run if nano ships chase it as its weak as **** unless id abandons its drones. Hacs like recons have become very specialised. IMho no way should a BC thats 30mil be able to hands down spank a hac thats 80 to a 100mil. Thats silly. With this new nerf it puts hacs down even more. If CCP is gonna nerf this they should consider nerfing the amount it takes to build hacs so they can drop below the cost of BC. I seriously hope speed is adressed but this method of all at once is shite. Lets do a little at a time. My suggestion which i feel is the simplest one in game. like thermodynamics. how when u overuse a module it gets damaged. Simple if a ship goes to fast it takes damage from that speed. Or u govern them. A vaga can still be the same so can all the rest but when they hit speeds of 10k or more then get damage, they so to say would rattle apart. Take star trek for example those ships can only go so fast in warp or they risk coming apart. CCP needs to stop this nerf take away thinking they always go for. Move more along the lines of limiting. Its faster and easier to govern ships, or make a cost for taking such actions. Then people can not lose what time and money they spent. but they pay a price when they use it. THe nano mach 10bil pilots would pay the most when they hit speeds of 10kms so they might be more inclined to only use it when dire situations occur. Webs nerf is crap. THis i hope doesnt happen webs are fine. They have been fine since 2k5 when i started. SCramblers well thas another story im not sure i stand in the middle with them. THey have a price. the MWD delay is crap. And the module changes and speed nerfs are the wrong approach. I doubt this will even get read but i can be hopeful a dev sees this and considers this very simple solution. Lets not regress to 2k5 tank, or gank style eve play. ITs laggy enough thank u.
R3DSKULL Amarr CCCP INC	Posted - 2008.08.01 23:08:00 - [3654] There is a dynamic being taken away here. From A pvp standpoint its always been pre speed, you fit either gank or tank. This is pre plate. Then came the speed initiative. So we added a paper, scissors, rock element. We have gank, tank and speed. if a tank ship gets engaged by a speed ship it can usually tank it but cannot take it down. A gank ship can take a tank ship but a speed ship cant gank, it cannot tank, either. So it can only run or kill gank ships. Tank ships are best for dealing with gank ships pure gank, and speed is best for dealing with most gank. So it creates a triplistic dynamic. i know this is generalising as some ships dont work against eachother in such fashion but for most part this third speed dynamic creates a sort of balance of the two gank, tank mentalities. often u find if a vaga tackles a well skilled raven pilot in a belt he cant take him down. he has to have some dps backup. Where as an ishtar tends to be find in dps dept,but has to run if nano ships chase it as its weak as **** unless id abandons its drones. Hacs like recons have become very specialised. IMho no way should a BC thats 30mil be able to hands down spank a hac thats 80 to a 100mil. Thats silly. With this new nerf it puts hacs down even more. If CCP is gonna nerf this they should consider nerfing the amount it takes to build hacs so they can drop below the cost of BC. I seriously hope speed is adressed but this method of all at once is shite. Lets do a little at a time. My suggestion which i feel is the simplest one in game. like thermodynamics. how when u overuse a module it gets damaged. Simple if a ship goes to fast it takes damage from that speed. Or u govern them. A vaga can still be the same so can all the rest but when they hit speeds of 10k or more then get damage, they so to say would rattle apart. Take star trek for example those ships can only go so fast in warp or they risk coming apart. CCP needs to stop this nerf take away thinking they always go for. Move more along the lines of limiting. Its faster and easier to govern ships, or make a cost for taking such actions. Then people can not lose what time and money they spent. but they pay a price when they use it. THe nano mach 10bil pilots would pay the most when they hit speeds of 10kms so they might be more inclined to only use it when dire situations occur. Webs nerf is crap. THis i hope doesnt happen webs are fine. They have been fine since 2k5 when i started. SCramblers well thas another story im not sure i stand in the middle with them. THey have a price. the MWD delay is crap. And the module changes and speed nerfs are the wrong approach. I doubt this will even get read but i can be hopeful a dev sees this and considers this very simple solution. Lets not regress to 2k5 tank, or gank style eve play. ITs laggy enough thank u. Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.08.01 23:09:00 - [3655] Small gang pvp will still be alive. What the heck are all you nanoweenies whining about? Small gang pvp will always be here. Just cuz you can't take a small gang and pick off an uber fleet one by one anymore is the only issue you are concerned about. Small gang pvp will remain, you just need to look for similar numbers for targets. Gone will be the days of little weenie alliances and corps declaring war on large entities to knock them off one-by-one with little recourse and risk. If you ask me, that is what was flawed and is now going to be fixed. It's been rebalanced... and will one day need to be rebalanced again. That is what keeps this game going... thank goodness for people who realize that. shame to those with selfish ego trips. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Pithecanthropus	Posted - 2008.08.01 23:09:00 - [3656] Small gang pvp will still be alive. What the heck are all you nanoweenies whining about? Small gang pvp will always be here. Just cuz you can't take a small gang and pick off an uber fleet one by one anymore is the only issue you are concerned about. Small gang pvp will remain, you just need to look for similar numbers for targets. Gone will be the days of little weenie alliances and corps declaring war on large entities to knock them off one-by-one with little recourse and risk. If you ask me, that is what was flawed and is now going to be fixed. It's been rebalanced... and will one day need to be rebalanced again. That is what keeps this game going... thank goodness for people who realize that. shame to those with selfish ego trips. --------------------------------- Pithecanthropus erectus, a name derived from Greek and Latin roots meaning upright ape-man.
Red Thunder Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.08.02 00:17:00 - [3657] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Small gang pvp will still be alive. What the heck are all you nanoweenies whining about? Small gang pvp will always be here. Just cuz you can't take a small gang and pick off an uber fleet one by one anymore is the only issue you are concerned about. Small gang pvp will remain, you just need to look for similar numbers for targets. Gone will be the days of little weenie alliances and corps declaring war on large entities to knock them off one-by-one with little recourse and risk. If you ask me, that is what was flawed and is now going to be fixed. It's been rebalanced... and will one day need to be rebalanced again. That is what keeps this game going... thank goodness for people who realize that. shame to those with selfish ego trips. so what your saying is that you want everyone to have to blob to be able to fight? Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines
Red Thunder Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.08.02 00:17:00 - [3658] Originally by: Pithecanthropus Small gang pvp will still be alive. What the heck are all you nanoweenies whining about? Small gang pvp will always be here. Just cuz you can't take a small gang and pick off an uber fleet one by one anymore is the only issue you are concerned about. Small gang pvp will remain, you just need to look for similar numbers for targets. Gone will be the days of little weenie alliances and corps declaring war on large entities to knock them off one-by-one with little recourse and risk. If you ask me, that is what was flawed and is now going to be fixed. It's been rebalanced... and will one day need to be rebalanced again. That is what keeps this game going... thank goodness for people who realize that. shame to those with selfish ego trips. so what your saying is that you want everyone to have to blob to be able to fight? Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines
Elridon Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration Nex Eternus	Posted - 2008.08.02 00:59:00 - [3659] Edited by: Elridon on 02/08/2008 01:01:59 While the nerf itself is sad to see contemplated, from what I've seen in the thread (only read 50 pages in, 132 is just too damn much), all of the responses by the devs have been snippy defensive remarks. There was one, ONE, post that was semi-decent, back on page 30 or 31. I'm all for vagabonds not going 13km/s anymore, but seriously, 4 after a snake set? Minmatar ships having the largest mass? It's just too much of a change to every aspect of every ship at once. It's worse than being a nub and just learning the game like the way CCP apparently wants it to be. Around the time of the first nano-nerf (the one where they changed the nanofibers, i-stabs, overdrives, some other stuff I really don't remember) I was training for a phoon, looked like a fun ship. Nerf hit, I trained for other races in case a nerf of what I like/wanted to fly was pulled again. Really didn't expect every damn ship ingame to get hit with a nerf Looks like it's time to train cruise missiles 2, eh? ------------------ Edit: Doh, just saw that there is a new thread about it. Time to read another 50 pages.
Elridon Caldari Interstellar Corporation of Exploration	Posted - 2008.08.02 00:59:00 - [3660] Edited by: Elridon on 02/08/2008 01:01:59 While the nerf itself is sad to see contemplated, from what I've seen in the thread (only read 50 pages in, 132 is just too damn much), all of the responses by the devs have been snippy defensive remarks. There was one, ONE, post that was semi-decent, back on page 30 or 31. I'm all for vagabonds not going 13km/s anymore, but seriously, 4 after a snake set? Minmatar ships having the largest mass? It's just too much of a change to every aspect of every ship at once. It's worse than being a nub and just learning the game like the way CCP apparently wants it to be. Around the time of the first nano-nerf (the one where they changed the nanofibers, i-stabs, overdrives, some other stuff I really don't remember) I was training for a phoon, looked like a fun ship. Nerf hit, I trained for other races in case a nerf of what I like/wanted to fly was pulled again. Really didn't expect every damn ship ingame to get hit with a nerf Looks like it's time to train cruise missiles 2, eh? ------------------ Edit: Doh, just saw that there is a new thread about it. Time to read another 50 pages.



Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 .. 144 :: 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.