Originally by: Haniblecter Teg

---

Still thinking like a nano-pilot. Maybe people start tanking--gasp--or brining BCs/BS's to small gangs--gasp--or use frigates for speed--gasp!

---

Originally by: gavhriel

---

I'm thrilled to see the CCP actualy tries to improve the gameplay. (of course those ideas need to be tested and twiched)

You like pvp ? nano actually killed solo pvp in the way that you couldn;t do solo pvp without being a nano yourself during this time shitting your pants in fear of losing your pimped ship.

you like to roam ? roam in cheaper ships...yes you will die more often but you wont lose 1 bil ships+fittings+implants (and ofc snakes and polycarbon rigs will be cheaper....3km/sec hac will be afordable by more people...the ones that dont own moons)

EVE was dominated by small gangs of nano hacs and recons and every new player that joined the game found out that he needs 1 year+ of trainning to be actualy any good at pvp. After the changes you might actually have a chance in an assault frig to kill a hac :)

Small ships are hugely buffed vs larger ships and this is a good thing.


Addapt people, or ofc quit :) (dont forget to send some stuff this way ... i'll actually start flying nanos more often that's for sure)

---

Originally by: Entelechia

---

Originally by: Cailais

---

Personally Im going to do the sensible thing and test my ships on SISI, and then pass judgement. There seem to be a lot of knee jerk reactions that seem rather premature.

A few things to consider are that whilst Warp Scrams will disable a MWD in order to catch a ship with a MWD you're almost certainly going to have to fit one yourself.

Also, judging from the proposals outlined so far I dont think the speed change sub 5km/s is that extensive. Vagabonds will still be comparitely faster than other ships of the same class for example.

Blasterboats dont seem to have too many worries either - if fewer players fit MWDs then blaster boats will have an easier time getting in range - after all they couldnt hit fast targets anyway beyond web range. Now if say a deimos mwds and scrams another ship (and is scrammed back) they'll both effectively stop: good news for close range damage dealers.

It certainly opens up a whole range of possibilities - but at first glance it seems ok to me. And yes, I fly a nano curse.

C.

---

There really isn't much to test. CCP clearly showed us the numbers earlier in the thread. A standard T2 Vagabond with T1 polycarbs will take a 2k/s nerf. To make it go even close to as fast as it does today, you need to drop the 4bn ISK on Snakes and T2 rigs (which, is, funny enough, CCP's theoretical test super HAC they are using to base these changes on).

---

Originally by: Theo Samaritan

---

> Small gang PvP wont die people, you just need old tactics rather than the crap you have come up with recently

---

Originally by: lebrata

---

But because newer players tend to get disillusioned because of the abilities of those who have spent years and lots of money to improve their game play we are nerfing anything that makes being a long term eve player worthwhile and by doing this making low sp and basic ship fits and types 100% effective.

To be succinct "screw you and the rest of the long term eve players" we make more money pandering to noobs cos most of you long termers aint gonna quit no matter what we do.

---

Originally by: Tobias Sjodin

---

Jeez, do we really need 34 pages to state the obvious?

CCP, work on boosts instead of nerfs. Stop being so damned negative. :P

---

Originally by: Haniblecter Teg

---

Originally by: Apertotes

---

Originally by: Siona Windweaver

---

Originally by: Apertotes

---

i am not against nerfing speed at all, but i want to ask a question.

to achieve that ludicruous speed, a pilot needs to dedicate almost all of its low and rig slots to that goal, thus leaving almost no room for damage mods or tanking.

my question is, why didnt CCP provide a way for missile spammers or drone users to devote 5,6 or 9 slots to missile speed so that missiles also achieve that ludicruous speed? of course, this should also be possible with guns' tracking.

that way, a devoted pilot would be able to counter nanoships, but at the expense of having almost no tank or damage mods.

---

Their crappy physics engine wasnt able to take that much info it seems. Which makes me laugh hard.

---

i refuse to believe that.

the problem is that with these nerfs CCP is taking specialiced setups out of the game. if i want to devote 9 slots on my abbadon to speed, it should make a difference, and of course, it should have some consecuences (lack of armor, etc)

the same, if i want to devote 9 slots to armor tanking i should be able. what? oh, yes, I AM ABLE!!! so, why can those that decide to tank their ships have very specialised setups, yet those that decide to speed up can not do it?

the same happens with damage mods. fitting more than 3 heatsinks is worthless, yet BS have many more low slots. i know that the way damage bonuses apply would make them overpowered, but they could get rid of the damage bonus and only apply ROF bonus, so that having multiple mods would not be overpowered.

CCP, by nerfing extreme fittings this much you are cutting down on the game's deph and variety. what you should do instead is to give us tools to create extreme counter settings, so that variety is still present, and there is always a rock for every scissor.

---

Cause when you tank, you stay there for the duration of the fight. When you nano, you leave when stuff turns south.

Its no fun when someone disengages.

---

Originally by: Molly Missile

---

Originally by: Apertotes

---

the same, if i want to devote 9 slots to armor tanking i should be able. what? oh, yes, I AM ABLE!!! so, why can those that decide to tank their ships have very specialised setups, yet those that decide to speed up can not do it?

---

Because armor tanking doesn't break the physics engine.

---

Originally by: Cat Gilligan

---

Why not improve webs?

---

Originally by: Alkie

---

Ranting is not permitted on the forums. ~Saint

---

Originally by: PeacefullNub

---

AFs boost is good.
But please give retribution -1 high +1 med, so it can actualy use AB and new scrambler.

---

Originally by: Dungar Loghoth

---

Originally by: Ephemeron

---

I speak from a point of view of experienced fighter, specializing in battleships, small scale pvp fights. There are a few points I want to say

1. Nerfing in general is a bad thing. If you feel that there is no other way to fix an important game problem, try to find a solution that involves as little nerfing as possible. I think the currently proposed changes are excessive.

2. EVE works as it is now. You can't deny that EVE is a successful game and that it is not failing because of nanoships. Therefore, it should be in our interest to try be careful with the game design changes and avoid redesigning big parts of the game. The game design currently proposed by Nozh involves too many changes. Why not just make another space game - different game mechanics and all? There are still lots of people who want to play EVE as it is now.

Ok, now to the real issues.

Nozh sets up his arguement based on all the possible speed increasing methods availale in game. All those best modules and implants happen to be rare items. They are officer loot, top complex loot, multibillion isk implants.

Now that we have that fact in mind, lets consider game balance as a whole. From point of view of perfectly balanced PvP system, rare loot has no place in it. Good balance relies on standardized modules, easily accessible modules. That way, the power and performance of ones ships becomes a matter of choosing the right module combination and using the right tactic. It shouldn't be influenced by ability to afford some modules that are clearly better than all other variants.

Simply put, we can't have good balanced system if we allow rare modules to exist. We need to choose, either we have these rare modules, and allow small percentage of people to have unbalanced performance in combat. Or we make all the best modules easily affordable, so everyone has a choice in their setups, and everyone is equal in their ability to fit ships.

What we absolutely should not do, is to take rare and expensive modules as proof of broken balance, and then nerf all the related modules across the board. Alternatively, you can choose to nerf a combination of rare modules, but not a combination of common modules, based on the initial example that consists of purely rare modules.

Lastly, for game balance changes related to speed, we need more solid evidence to base our solutions on. It is not sufficient to give an example of a ship that combines all the rare modules and implants. We need actual statistics, we want analysis of ship kills and losses with respect to the type of modules they are using. We need to make analysis of isk gained and destroyed. It is the minimum that should be done to seriously consider such massive sweeping game changes.

---

---

Originally by: Haniblecter Teg

---

Originally by: Elmicker

---

Originally by: Cur

---

A greater variety of ships ...

---

This is incorrect. The mid-range hacs that lack tank and now lack speed, such as the deimos, ishtar and zealot will be left without roles in small gang warfare. You'll be seeing a much narrower variation in shiptypes now, potentially reduced to just the vagabond.

---

?

Still thinking like a nano-pilot. Maybe people start tanking--gasp--or brining BCs/BS's to small gangs--gasp--or use frigates for speed--gasp!

---

Originally by: Astria Tiphareth

---

Originally by: Wesley Baird

---

Perfect example...carebear alliance + carebear opinion

Anyone surprised?!

---

Because you of course are entirely unbiased, sensible, and have the entire game's balance at the back of your mind, not just your personal way to win?

Please, quit with the name-calling, you're not in CAOD.

---

Originally by: Apertotes

---

*words*

welcome to the world of non-consentual PVP

*words*

---

Originally by: Elmicker

---

Originally by: Cat Gilligan

---

Why not improve webs?

---

This. Adding signature radius and falloff mechanics to webs would go a long way to solving a lot of what CCP see as a problem, without leaving swathes of ships useless and without breaking blaster boats.

---

Originally by: Astria Tiphareth

---

Originally by: lebrata

---

THIS PRETTY MUCH COVERS IT TBH.

We are totally interested in increasing our player base and so increasing our profit, we know well that most older player will proly stay no matter what we nerf because of the time and money they have invested in the game.

But because newer players tend to get disillusioned because of the abilities of those who have spent years and lots of money to improve their game play we are nerfing anything that makes being a long term eve player worthwhile and by doing this making low sp and basic ship fits and types 100% effective.

To be succinct "screw you and the rest of the long term eve players" we make more money pandering to noobs cos most of you long termers aint gonna quit no matter what we do.

---

Hardly fair. This is an MMO. If you arrange matters so that older players tend to win all the time, which CCP have made a blanket statement saying they don't want that, then of course new players are put off. Simple business sense.

Of course, you're implying that all old players nano, and all new players suck at PvP and are carebears, which pretty much places you in a given camp immediately, and therefore there's not much point furthering the debate.

To quote CCP in a recent press statement 'a bunch of T1 frigs will always be able to kill that expensive T2 ship'. I don't see a problem with that, even when I am the one owning that T2 ship. This is a social game, not a personalised version of Unreal Tournament.

---

Originally by: Apertotes

---

Originally by: Haniblecter Teg

---

Cause when you tank, you stay there for the duration of the fight. When you nano, you leave when stuff turns south.

Its no fun when someone disengages.

---

well, welcome to the world of non-consentual PVP. it goes both ways, you know?

---

Originally by: Astria Tiphareth

---

Originally by: Wesley Baird

---

Perfect example...carebear alliance + carebear opinion

Anyone surprised?!

---

Because you of course are entirely unbiased, sensible, and have the entire game's balance at the back of your mind, not just your personal way to win?

Please, quit with the name-calling, you're not in CAOD.

---

Originally by: Smokie McLottapot

---

Thanks for ending solo pvp guys.

CCP <3's the blob

---

Originally by: Tomic

---

Originally by: PeacefullNub

---

AFs boost is good.
But please give retribution -1 high +1 med, so it can actualy use AB and new scrambler.

---

This is not a buff for AFs.

---

Originally by: Astria Tiphareth

---

Originally by: Apertotes

---

Originally by: Haniblecter Teg

---

Cause when you tank, you stay there for the duration of the fight. When you nano, you leave when stuff turns south.

Its no fun when someone disengages.

---

well, welcome to the world of non-consentual PVP. it goes both ways, you know?

---

Sure, then lets have WCS back the way it was, and let us all do it. No double standards, no 'you can run away from a fight but only if you're rich and can nano'. Problem solved, no nerf required.

Somehow people seem against that notion.

---