EVE Search - New Dev Blog: Speed Rebalanced by Nozh

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)
Tyby The Scope	Posted - 2008.10.09 14:38:00 - [4231] Quote: What's the deal with this ******ed thinking of making a kinder and gentler EVE anyways? Did a GM get beat up and can't handle it or something? Have you been going to too many peace rallys and it made you all wussies? this.
Tyby The Scope	Posted - 2008.10.09 14:38:00 - [4232] Quote: What's the deal with this ******ed thinking of making a kinder and gentler EVE anyways? Did a GM get beat up and can't handle it or something? Have you been going to too many peace rallys and it made you all wussies? this.
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.09 15:48:00 - [4233] CCP failed hard at this one..This whole nerf just skrews up every wrong ship for every wrong reason Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.09 15:48:00 - [4234] CCP failed hard at this one..This whole nerf just skrews up every wrong ship for every wrong reason Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
Kalii Parcon Fire Mandrill	Posted - 2008.10.10 16:17:00 - [4235] Edited by: Kalii Parcon on 10/10/2008 16:29:01 Not that this is a GOOD solution, but if you wanted fast ships to be fast, while keeping slower heavier DPS/Tank ships slower, why don't they just make the MWD a role-specific module? Interceptors, Interdictors etc. Tacklers remain fast (like they are supposed to be) but hardly invincible, while the proposed leveling out of speed based on hull class makes for a much more realistic gradient in speed when MWD's are not even an option. Hit and run guerrilla warfare is still possible, but may require new tactics: webbing, neuting, jamming recons, stealth bombers for DPS etc. It's just an idea, but if you want to nerf an overpowered tactic it's important to be careful that you nerf the tactic without alienating your player base by nullifying months of training as may be the case with gallente and minmatar pilots. A large portion of gallente ships rely on close quarters, minmatar rely on their speed at a racial level. EDIT: You could even work in an AB bonus to ships that rely on speed or close quarter. Boosting an afterburners performance isn't the game breaking mechanic, its offering that same percentage based bonus to a module that already gives a gigantic boost that makes larger hulls going 4+ km/s overpowered. For the people arguing that the removal of MWD's will make it impossible to move around solo in 0.0 space, interceptors will still be able to MWD, and covops will still be able to cloak. If you're taking anything larger than that through 0.0 space solo, you're already taking a big risk. -Kalii
Kalii Parcon Fire Mandrill	Posted - 2008.10.10 16:17:00 - [4236] Edited by: Kalii Parcon on 10/10/2008 16:29:01 Not that this is a GOOD solution, but if you wanted fast ships to be fast, while keeping slower heavier DPS/Tank ships slower, why don't they just make the MWD a role-specific module? Interceptors, Interdictors etc. Tacklers remain fast (like they are supposed to be) but hardly invincible, while the proposed leveling out of speed based on hull class makes for a much more realistic gradient in speed when MWD's are not even an option. Hit and run guerrilla warfare is still possible, but may require new tactics: webbing, neuting, jamming recons, stealth bombers for DPS etc. It's just an idea, but if you want to nerf an overpowered tactic it's important to be careful that you nerf the tactic without alienating your player base by nullifying months of training as may be the case with gallente and minmatar pilots. A large portion of gallente ships rely on close quarters, minmatar rely on their speed at a racial level. EDIT: You could even work in an AB bonus to ships that rely on speed or close quarter. Boosting an afterburners performance isn't the game breaking mechanic, its offering that same percentage based bonus to a module that already gives a gigantic boost that makes larger hulls going 4+ km/s overpowered. For the people arguing that the removal of MWD's will make it impossible to move around solo in 0.0 space, interceptors will still be able to MWD, and covops will still be able to cloak. If you're taking anything larger than that through 0.0 space solo, you're already taking a big risk. -Kalii
Arn Novelus Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.13 20:38:00 - [4237] CCP, i love you and I love your game, but for the love of Derek, what is this rubbish, take it away now, before you lose a bucket load of players, its the same thing you tried less than 6 months ago and it was awful then and its awful now, take it away, rethink and this time change the sodding thing before you try saying youve reworked it!!!!! Also, your new mass's for BS's suck, suck really hard _____________________________________________________________________
Arn Novelus Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.13 20:38:00 - [4238] CCP, i love you and I love your game, but for the love of Derek, what is this rubbish, take it away now, before you lose a bucket load of players, its the same thing you tried less than 6 months ago and it was awful then and its awful now, take it away, rethink and this time change the sodding thing before you try saying youve reworked it!!!!! Also, your new mass's for BS's suck, suck really hard _____________________________________________________________________
Stubek	Posted - 2008.10.14 04:32:00 - [4239] I really like the role-specific idea, but how about a step further. Give interceptors (and possibly interdictors) a role bonus that reduces MWD capacitor usage by 50-99%. (balance as required) At the same time, increase the capacitor usage of all MWDs. This way, cruiser-class ships could still use MWDs for escapes, basically MWDing out of range and warping off, but they would lose the ability to perma-run a MWD. One or two cycles is all that would be possible for non-interceptors. At the same time, buff afterburners to restore the perma-run mobility to the larger ships, while still giving them the tactical choice to fit a MWD to break gatecamps and get away from blobs.
Stubek	Posted - 2008.10.14 04:32:00 - [4240] I really like the role-specific idea, but how about a step further. Give interceptors (and possibly interdictors) a role bonus that reduces MWD capacitor usage by 50-99%. (balance as required) At the same time, increase the capacitor usage of all MWDs. This way, cruiser-class ships could still use MWDs for escapes, basically MWDing out of range and warping off, but they would lose the ability to perma-run a MWD. One or two cycles is all that would be possible for non-interceptors. At the same time, buff afterburners to restore the perma-run mobility to the larger ships, while still giving them the tactical choice to fit a MWD to break gatecamps and get away from blobs.
Debu San Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.14 23:17:00 - [4241] Weee I am so happy that I play Minmatar and now the last thing good about this race is being taken away its so awesome. Webs to even better I am so glad that you are going to destroy the value of my faction webs that are hard enough to get as it is and now are going to be more worthless. Life isn't fair. Therefore it makes sense that some setups and some ships should be vastly better at certain tasks than others. Thats how life is. To balance things out and make them more fair seems only to sate some tears of the few but meh. This plus the ghost training debacle make turning off the PC and reading a book a much more appealing option.
Debu San Merch Industrial GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.14 23:17:00 - [4242] Weee I am so happy that I play Minmatar and now the last thing good about this race is being taken away its so awesome. Webs to even better I am so glad that you are going to destroy the value of my faction webs that are hard enough to get as it is and now are going to be more worthless. Life isn't fair. Therefore it makes sense that some setups and some ships should be vastly better at certain tasks than others. Thats how life is. To balance things out and make them more fair seems only to sate some tears of the few but meh. This plus the ghost training debacle make turning off the PC and reading a book a much more appealing option.
Tatianna	Posted - 2008.10.15 01:09:00 - [4243] Originally by: Debu San Weee I am so happy that I play Minmatar and now the last thing good about this race is being taken away its so awesome. Webs to even better I am so glad that you are going to destroy the value of my faction webs that are hard enough to get as it is and now are going to be more worthless. Life isn't fair. Therefore it makes sense that some setups and some ships should be vastly better at certain tasks than others. Thats how life is. To balance things out and make them more fair seems only to sate some tears of the few but meh. This plus the ghost training debacle make turning off the PC and reading a book a much more appealing option. Agree!
Tatianna	Posted - 2008.10.15 01:09:00 - [4244] Originally by: Debu San Weee I am so happy that I play Minmatar and now the last thing good about this race is being taken away its so awesome. Webs to even better I am so glad that you are going to destroy the value of my faction webs that are hard enough to get as it is and now are going to be more worthless. Life isn't fair. Therefore it makes sense that some setups and some ships should be vastly better at certain tasks than others. Thats how life is. To balance things out and make them more fair seems only to sate some tears of the few but meh. This plus the ghost training debacle make turning off the PC and reading a book a much more appealing option. Agree!
Tyremis Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.10.15 01:41:00 - [4245] why doesnt ccp just call it what it is, destroying minmitar. id love to hear what ship would be remotely usefull after this nano nerf thats minmitar. i now have to take 2 months to cross train amarr because you destroyed minmitar. Dont you see people will just find a new niche and use it. Youll nerf it, theyll find a new one and so on. You wanna nerf something nerf lag.
Tyremis Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.10.15 01:41:00 - [4246] why doesnt ccp just call it what it is, destroying minmitar. id love to hear what ship would be remotely usefull after this nano nerf thats minmitar. i now have to take 2 months to cross train amarr because you destroyed minmitar. Dont you see people will just find a new niche and use it. Youll nerf it, theyll find a new one and so on. You wanna nerf something nerf lag.
Indiference Republic University	Posted - 2008.10.15 08:40:00 - [4247] I have not had a chance to read through all 142 pages of comments, but I was wondering if the following idea would be viable as an option instead of actually swinging the nerf bat. What if each class of ship has a structural speed threshold (this can be discussed in more detail) the smaller the class the higher the threshold, which means traveling at a certain maximum speed without taking stuctural damage (some ships wil gain a bonus to structural integrity e.g. vagabond), however with mods/implants/overheating the ship is able to travel faster than the structural threshold, but with the ship taking structural damage. We all know that once you start taking structural damage your modules start to break which in turn means that the modules being used to atain the higher spead could be destroyed. If your lucky enough to keep your speed mods running until you run out of structure then your ship should be destroyed. It is a simple fact that no ship can maintain armor or shield if there is no stucture left. An extra skill or even a booster (drug) can be introduced to allow you to better maintain structural integrigty. Idoes seem to me to be a much simpler way to atain the calming effect on speed rather than nerfing the modules/implants/ships
Booomer Disco Biscuits	Posted - 2008.10.15 08:47:00 - [4248] Nozh, do you even play eve? or you're just making things out of your deranged mind?
K'Talas Marta	Posted - 2008.10.16 00:19:00 - [4249] Originally by: Indiference I have not had a chance to read through all 142 pages of comments, but I was wondering if the following idea would be viable as an option instead of actually swinging the nerf bat. What if each class of ship has a structural speed threshold (this can be discussed in more detail) the smaller the class the higher the threshold, which means traveling at a certain maximum speed without taking stuctural damage (some ships wil gain a bonus to structural integrity e.g. vagabond), however with mods/implants/overheating the ship is able to travel faster than the structural threshold, but with the ship taking structural damage. We all know that once you start taking structural damage your modules start to break which in turn means that the modules being used to atain the higher spead could be destroyed. If your lucky enough to keep your speed mods running until you run out of structure then your ship should be destroyed. It is a simple fact that no ship can maintain armor or shield if there is no stucture left. An extra skill or even a booster (drug) can be introduced to allow you to better maintain structural integrigty. Idoes seem to me to be a much simpler way to atain the calming effect on speed rather than nerfing the modules/implants/ships This has been posted alot, seems alot of people think its a good idea.
ATARI BABY Lords Of Guile	Posted - 2008.10.16 01:13:00 - [4250] umm. whats happend? nerfing nanos or not? (bit lazy to read tons of shit.) LIE
Tyremis Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.10.16 02:17:00 - [4251] basically for nano recons and hacs your ship now goes half the speed it did before or will when this stupid patch hits. I just tried it out on sisi and almost got ass ****d by a ferox in a 250M isk rapier. Rebalanced my ass
Kusotarre Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.16 04:34:00 - [4252] I'm sure it's already been pointed out, but here is the basic timeline of this capitulation to forum whiners (Introduced by Nozh, someone who clearly doesn't engage in a lot of PVP himself): 1) Listen to noisy minority of goofballs who complain about fast speeds, because they don't want to have to fit neutralizers or webs or bring a huginn or something. 2) Announce poorly thought out nerf. 3) Get huge, massively opposed feedback from the playerbase that spends time killing each other instead of crystallizing their tears into barely legible forum posts. 4) Wait. 5) Re-announce poorly thought out nerf in a format that doesn't easily lend itself to new response or wide dissemination of information, and still manage to make a complete ass of yourself (Black ops fuel bay durrrrrrr). 6) Hope people don't point out that the second iteration is exactly the same as the first iteration. 7) Wait to see if nerf can go ahead. Basic PR tactic for gutter politicians, nice to see CCP has entered the world of grown ups. I always figured that schtick about having ideals for the game was a load of shit.
Tyremis Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.10.16 05:23:00 - [4253] good post ^^ jumpgate evolution will crush this game anyways. I know where im goin if the nerf goes through.
Hetjan Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.10.16 12:19:00 - [4254] Edited by: Hetjan on 16/10/2008 12:23:32 Thanks for making my 5 years of training mean nothing at all and dropping me to the same lvl as someone that has played the game for 1 year. I wasted 5 years of Training for nothing. Due to this i am not renewing my subscription this year
Booomer Disco Biscuits	Posted - 2008.10.16 12:49:00 - [4255] Originally by: Kusotarre 3) Get huge, massively opposed feedback from the playerbase that spends time killing each other instead of crystallizing their tears into barely legible forum posts. 4) Wait. 5) Re-announce poorly thought out nerf in a format that doesn't easily lend itself to new response or wide dissemination of information, and still manage to make a complete ass of yourself (Black ops fuel bay durrrrrrr). 6) Hope people don't point out that the second iteration is exactly the same as the first iteration. 7) Wait to see if nerf can go ahead. Basic PR tactic for gutter politicians, nice to see CCP has entered the world of grown ups. I always figured that schtick about having ideals for the game was a load of shit. you forgot one more important step, between the second announcement - x). Announce a ghost training nerf, hoping it will block out the nano nerf noise somehow, and fail while doing it.
FATZERS WIFE	Posted - 2008.10.16 13:32:00 - [4256] Is ******* allowed in iceland? They gotta be heavily stoned, if they nerf faction webs, snake set, MWD's etc. I just cant understand the whine bout nano ships. If u have a cloak, stab and other crap fitted to your raven ofcourse you have to die to vagabond. Properly fitted raven would pwn t2 vagabond without any prob, only thing u gotta do is to fit a heavy neut on it.
Hetjan Amarr D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.10.16 16:20:00 - [4257] well the new players got to be able to kill it in a noobship
DogTyred Tyrell Corp INTERDICTION	Posted - 2008.10.16 18:52:00 - [4258] about time this thread was accidently hidden ?
OmgzHappy	Posted - 2008.10.17 00:42:00 - [4259] Edited by: OmgzHappy on 17/10/2008 00:49:00 about time ccp canceled these changes? I would give you valid points, and believe me, play testing for a few computer games its somewhat something I do. But your are going in such a wrong direction I wouldnt even consider a compromise with your current direction. eve is going to be a s**T fest if sis goes to TQ. nanos need a little less speed on TQ thats it. period. Its better to just, if sis = tq than account = canceled.
Zheng Guo	Posted - 2008.10.17 01:07:00 - [4260] I am minmatar and if you take the speed down please CCP give us a new Heavy assault than Vagabound is than useless

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.