EVE Search - Nano-nerf: Too much at once?

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Nano-nerf: Too much at once?

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Dran Black	Posted - 2008.07.26 18:04:00 - [31] Originally by: Dzajic ISK cost and skills involved should mean something. But not be a fully deciding factor. A lone carrier without support might very well be easier to pin and kill than a skilled (as in player skill) nanogang. Do you mean a solo nano pilot? or a gang?
Zuteh Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless	Posted - 2008.07.26 19:25:00 - [32] About time! The speed on some ships has been silly for too long, everyone and their mother is flying nanoships, they should be fast, and they will be fast after the balance too, just not as ridiculously fast as before and more in line with the ships class.
doctorstupid2 The Accursed	Posted - 2008.07.26 19:44:00 - [33] Edited by: doctorstupid2 on 26/07/2008 19:44:17 Originally by: Zuteh About time! The speed on some ships has been silly for too long, everyone and their mother is flying nanoships, they should be fast, and they will be fast after the balance too, just not as ridiculously fast as before and more in line with the ships class. Right, but the devblog addresses a lot more than just ship speeds. I'm fine with a nano nerf (hell I support it fully and am glad to see its arrival), I'm not OK with a web nerf and superhuginn-lachesis. Abusive \| Deadspace2 \| Deadspace
Shai Haluu'd	Posted - 2008.07.26 21:13:00 - [34] Edited by: Shai Haluu''d on 26/07/2008 21:13:45 I agree, the proposed changes are too drastic to be released as they are! Overdrives currently - 20% speed bonus, proposed is 12.5% - arround 40% reduction, with stack penalties to Nanofibers the nerf goes much further! Webifiers currently - 75-90%, proposed is 50-60% - 50% reduction Polycarbon Engine Housing is one of the most expensive t1 rigs! Nerfing its bonus the way it's described in the dev blog (0.7 * 10 = 7% of awesome mass reduction) will make it "the single most expensive useless rig there is". I'll be better off fitting an Ishtar/Vagabond/Rapier with cargo extender rigs. I'm not against change, but why not do it in smaller steps? Drastic changes should be implemented if and only if there's something seriously wrong with game balance. I'm aware of the fact that designers can always find a thing or two that needs tweaking. But think of the consequences. For example: - some missile boats will benefit greatly - battles will now be decided a lot more often by the number of ships in each side, not the skill of the pilots - some HACs will become pretty lame - Vagabond/Ishtar come to mind, unless you can fit them with other modules that require no PG/CPU on low slots - Some recons will get a big boost - like the Arazu/Lachesis (I can't believe they'll be usable in PvP again) - Some recons will get a big nerf - Huginn/Rapier So in order to implement such drastic changes you need to think of the impact on other aspects of the game and tweak them accordingly (like removing the Ishtar's pathetic 5% Medium Hybrid Turret Damage bonus for it's awesome 3 gun slots which it can never use in a sane setup anyway and replacing it with a proper bonus)!
Sinikettu	Posted - 2008.07.26 22:52:00 - [35] As a nano pilot I think the majority of what was said by Doctorstupid2 is accurate. I do not think the changes will in essence break nanos; however, as a nano pilot I already have to watch for rapiers, curse's and chances of surviving an encounter are slim if cought by suprise. I think the majority of my concern lies in the uses of the Gall recon ships. They will have the ability to keep short range ships, such as vagabonds and mega's at range, and effectively negating the majority of their damage simply because they are to far away and unable to close range to score hits. One possibility to fix this is allow warp core stabs to over ride the scram effect so there is a counter to the new scramble effect.
MECHcore Celestial Apocalypse The Requiem	Posted - 2008.07.26 23:18:00 - [36] Nanoships are for chickens. Stay on teh field and fight like a man Im up for the nanonerf ! Your signature exceeds the maximum allowed filesize of 24000 bytes -Hango ([email protected])
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.07.27 00:00:00 - [37] Edited by: Captator on 27/07/2008 00:02:21 High end nanoship speeds needed to come down, but low end nanoships (still talking about 200m investment at current prices) are no longer going to be viable. Most of this speed is overpowered stuff is nonsense - of all the nanocruisers, the sacrilege, ishtar, and curse, and sort of the huginn, are the only ones that don't have to slow down to actually effect some damage on you. The curse is moot because it is easily trackable and hurtable by missiles, as it is pretty slow for a nanocruiser (3.4km/s with 3 OD 2 poly and 3% rogue/hyperlink). Huginn has no hope of sustaining its MWD for more than a few minutes, without sacrificing a lot of its speed, making it pointless to be able to maintain. Sacrilege can perma run its MWD without any speed fit sacrifices, so this should be changed (give it a damnation like armor HP bonus instead of the cap recharge bonus perhaps?). Ishtar too can run for significant duration on cap booster charges, but you can kill its drones, and if polys were brought into line with aux thrusters without reverting to their useless combo module state, these would again enter the slightly lower speeds where missiles can at last hit them for more than 0.1 damage. Of the others, zealot/vagabond/deimos (lol?)/cerberus, the first 2 have to turn MWD off to track you (or zealot goes out to 35km, but then he isn't holding you in the fight is he?), the deimos doesn't work as a nanoship, and the cerb is too slow to nano properly anyway (looking at 2.7km/s on a very speed orientated low damage fit). Referring to those who are talking about medium gun tracking etc - I have killed an orbitting curse using a DHP on a geddon, let alone FMP/HP, which I have used to force off the faster ishtar on several occasions. Blasters do hit the nanoship if it is orbitting closer with null (as vagabonds tend to, and their weakest shield resist is kinetic suprise surpise). I haven't had much experience with autocannons yet, but my corpmates have made a point of pride what their 220mm AC canes can do to nanoships. Missiles, if they boosted precision heavies, could be effective up to the 4-5km/s mark, which would be fine (kinetic heavies currently hit a curse at 3km/s for 40 damage, on a 62.5% kinetic resist, so if the missiles were the correct damage type they would be hitting for 100 damage a missile, which is easily sufficient to apply serious pain). edit: I didn't mention the muninn/eagle/rook/falcon/pilgrim, because I have never seen or heard of a nanoversion, and the arazu/lach are in a similar boat to the huginn/rapier, though are closer to the curse in speed, so share its problems.
Ashmira	Posted - 2008.07.27 00:36:00 - [38] Edited by: Ashmira on 27/07/2008 00:37:31 I think you guys are missing the whole point. The main problem with nano-gangs is simple: They are an excellent griefing tool in the hands of experienced pilots, so much that they diminish EVERYTHING else. Furthermore, countering effectively a hostile nano-gang with the same numbers in any other mixed fleet is COMPLETELY impossible. This game should be more about skill than nano's make it. While flying nano ships in small numbers or solo requires some skill, simply FIELDING 10-20 of them at once requires none. Your standard snake-happy gang of 10 vagas, 4 rapiers, couple of sleips, perhaps a dictor or two is sure to evade any and all opposing fleets without the slightest risk, even engage and obliterate small support in the face of what should be FAR superrior firepower. While CCP's approach is definately too complex and heavy-handed to work too well in my opinion (something like web bubbles off dictors or giving range bonuses to webs on hic's alone could solve this problem), it will make the game more interesting again. And perhaps the time has come for all those snakeosaurs that've only flown their vagas ganking everything on their path from the safety of their uber speeds for the last couple of years move on to another game, and let the drake pilots slug it out on the gates once again.
Captator Universal Securities	Posted - 2008.07.27 02:38:00 - [39] Originally by: Ashmira Edited by: Ashmira on 27/07/2008 00:37:31 I think you guys are missing the whole point. The main problem with nano-gangs is simple: They are an excellent griefing tool in the hands of experienced pilots, so much that they diminish EVERYTHING else. Furthermore, countering effectively a hostile nano-gang with the same numbers in any other mixed fleet is COMPLETELY impossible. This game should be more about skill than nano's make it. While flying nano ships in small numbers or solo requires some skill, simply FIELDING 10-20 of them at once requires none. Your standard snake-happy gang of 10 vagas, 4 rapiers, couple of sleips, perhaps a dictor or two is sure to evade any and all opposing fleets without the slightest risk, even engage and obliterate small support in the face of what should be FAR superrior firepower. While CCP's approach is definately too complex and heavy-handed to work too well in my opinion (something like web bubbles off dictors or giving range bonuses to webs on hic's alone could solve this problem), it will make the game more interesting again. And perhaps the time has come for all those snakeosaurs that've only flown their vagas ganking everything on their path from the safety of their uber speeds for the last couple of years move on to another game, and let the drake pilots slug it out on the gates once again. after the change snaked nanocruisers still just about go fast enough to speed tank, but all the t2 average joe nano fits no longer work, for the nonsense you posted about no mixed fleet non nanocounters, look up my thread in ships and modules about Current nano counters, I think that debunks your nonsense nicely. 'Snakehappy' wtf, that is a tiny fraction of nanopilots.
Bellum Eternus Gallente Death of Virtue	Posted - 2008.07.27 06:22:00 - [40] Doc hits it on the head. What CCP is proposing is rediculous. There is absolutely nothing wrong with MWD mechnaics on non speed-fit ships. All the new changes are doing is reducing the speed of all ships across the board which isn't what is needed. CCP needs to make changes that specifically target speed fit ships, and that's it. Basically this means nano-HACs. The Vaga is pretty much excluded from this group, as it's the only HAC in the game that is supposed to be fast. If the proposed changes go through, the speed gap between speed fit and 'regular' ships will be even larger as naturally fast ships like the Vaga enjoy unpenalized high base speeds, while the slower ships are that much slower due to less performance increase through MWDs etc. Nerfing Snake implants is stupid. A microscopic portion of the Eve population owns a set of HG Snake implants, and an even smaller group actually uses them to PVP. Crippling the HG Snakes because CCP is using them as a ceiling for balancing speed fit ships is just ridiculous. HG Snakes should be considered a special case scenario and not the 'norm' for balancing purposes. The Web nerf is just *****ed. It won't hurt/nerf the Minni recons. What it WILL hurt are battleships, and in particular blaster BS due to the absolutely HORRIBLE tracking of BS sized guns, and blasters in particular. If a target isn't sitting absolutely still, you can't hit it with BS sized blasters. Anything less than 90% webbed is just unacceptable. Additionally people are going to escape all the time when under attack at gates with only a 50-60% speed reduction. It's just not enough. And double webbing is almost impossible to do for solo ships. Now only ships with 5+ mids that can be dedicated to tackling are going to be worthwhile to solo in. It's stupid. Speed fit ships won't suffer at all. If a Vaga pilot can maintain a 15-20km distance from a target to avoid faction/overheated webs, they can certianly keep away from a 7.5km scram, even if it has an effective range of 18+km. Arazus/Lachesis won't be worth that much either, as a speed fit Arazu/Lach can't catch a Vaga or Ishtar now, much less after the patch. Speaking of killer ships: Ishtar with a speed fit, with the extra 5th mid dedicated to a Domi 15km 2pt. scram? Sounds much more dangerous to me than a Lachesis or Arazu. Speed fit Myrmidon with 2pt. scram in 5th mid? Heaven forbid, a Tempest with a 2pt. scram in it's 5th mid, breaking all the MWD BS out there. Total crap. Fitting an AB is not an option. If you have an AB and 2pt. scram to try and kill MWD ships, how do you propose getting into range in the first place? Of course you can't. You'd think CCP would understand that. The only thing this patch will accomplish is to make slower ships slower, slow tracking guns useless and short range guns irrelavent. All that was needed was for CCP to knock 2km/sec off the top speeds of the speed fit HACs. problem solved. Bellum Eternus [Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION Inveniam viam aut faciam.*

gone fishing x13 X13 Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.27 08:10:00 - [41] why not introduce a new high speed medium drone build to intercept nano ship, like a high speed web drone that goes 13k boost precision missiles boost tracking for specifik guns leave everything else as they are this mean give the people the tools to intercept nanos instead of beaking 0.0 raid tactics
Ironnight Caldari x13 X13 Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.27 08:51:00 - [42] Originally by: gone fishing why not introduce a new high speed medium drone build to intercept nano ship, like a high speed web drone that goes 13k boost precision missiles boost tracking for specifik guns leave everything else as they are this mean give the people the tools to intercept nanos instead of beaking 0.0 raid tactics /signed Where are the changes to the Vaga? The only defense it has is speed and I dont see that working after these 'changes'. And will you please stop saying that it will open up for more ships in pvp, it won't, there will allways be some ships that do better and they will be used. They're like 'oh shit son, its a trap ' Doomsday
Rakshasa Taisab Caldari Sane Industries Inc. Ursa Stellar Initiative	Posted - 2008.07.27 10:15:00 - [43] Originally by: Shai Haluu'd Polycarbon Engine Housing is one of the most expensive t1 rigs! Nerfing its bonus the way it's described in the dev blog (0.7 * 10 = 7% of awesome mass reduction) will make it "the single most expensive useless rig there is". I'll be better off fitting an Ishtar/Vagabond/Rapier with cargo extender rigs. I've heard rumors the market might adjust. C/D?
Sentinel Roqeze Minmatar Certa Cito - Swift and Sure Ascendo-Tuum	Posted - 2008.07.27 10:48:00 - [44] I have to admit, my initial reaction to these changes was a negative one. However, I've taken a little time to chill and become less emotive before posting up any thoughts. I have two "main" characters I use to PvP in - this one, Minmatar specced, with the other being Gallente. Both characters are capable of flying, and do fly Nano-ships; however, these aren't the only ships I fly. Verstility is important in this game, given that you never know what the next changes will be. My Gallente character was hurt a little by the old damp nerf, and her Lachesis has been gathering dust for a while. These changes would appear to breath fresh life into the Gallente recons, given the range bonus on scrams. Indirectly a buff. So on to my Nano ships. I tend to fly a Vaga on Sentinel, and an Ishtar on my Gallente toon. There has been much crying about these ships since the Dev Blog was published, but logically I fail to see where this has come from. I don't know any Vagabond or Ishtar pilot who would willingly get within overloaded web range as it stands, so the idea that the 2pt scrams will suddenly kill these ships off is simply ludicrous in my opinion. After all, if these ships can happily sit outside overloaded web range, they can also sit outside overloaded scram range, no? It does mean that Nano-pilots will have to be more aware of the Lachesis and Arazu... but by the same token, the Huginn and Rapier are slightly less of a threat than before. Not entirely useless mind... 2 x 50% webs are still going to take a 10km/s ship down to a much more manageable 2.5 km/s. Interceptors; does each race not have an interceptor which provides a bonus to scrambler range? These changes, in my opinion, make that role bonus much more pertinent ~ we now have interceptors which can disable an opponent's MWD whilst keeping their own active. The MWD activation delay will be interesting to see in practice. Exactly how much of a delay will there be? If the delay is long enough, especially given that a lot of ships don't reach 100% speed in the first cycle, we might see practical top-speeds reduced by quite a way... especially when people start having to remove overdrives in favour of nanofibers to improve acceleration instead. There's no doubt that the proposed changes will alter PvP dynamics... but I can't see it all being doom and gloom at all. As a nano-pilot, I quite frankly look forward to the challenges presented.
Kalica Kahn GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.07.27 11:13:00 - [45] Crosspostin' from our forums coz that's how I roll. Maybe it's coz most of my SP is Minmatar spec'd, but I'm not nerdraging about my vaga not being able to do 5-6k/s, instead I'm looking at the Minmatar ships overall and all I can say is They have the worst Dread/Battleships overall, the Muninn is pretty much a waste as you can do the same job in a cheaper/insurable Hurricane, I can't see a role for the Vaga if it's not a fast "hit and run" ship, the Rapier/Huginn with 50-60% webs will still be useful I guess (trying to be optimistic) but even that's degraded severely. The Sabre it looks like (according to the graphs in the devblog) may be getting a slight speed increase, but it's going to be harder with 50% webs to keep a ship in your bubble. Up till now Minmatar had good small ships and shitty large ships, but that was generally due to their ability to "hit and run". With these changes that ability apparently disappears. I'm not so much annoyed that MY VAGABOND, won't do 5-6km/s... more so that these changes seem to be taking away the one viable role for Minmatar ships.
Broegitte Bardot BINFORD Solidus Alliance	Posted - 2008.07.27 12:34:00 - [46] Edited by: Broegitte Bardot on 27/07/2008 12:53:02 well... what really happens is: scram becomes the new web: it slows the opponent down dramatically at ~10km however, now one can still orbit while being scrambled without the 1000% (that's right, 90% reduction means tenfold) indirect tracking bonus in combination with the christmas tree effect of the MWD. close range + tracking disrupt becomes an option even for non-bonus'ed ships. but then again, webs are simply overpowered - yes, i said it: -90% might be ok if only they would work one at a time (like... with gang mods, the "highest" one is applied), but it was the dual-web that made the rapier/huginn so extremely scary. so... on monday, you can still throw 2x 60% webs at somebody (admit it, we'll all fit t2 anyway) and we're down to -81% speed reduction (i assume stacking penalties apply (never really mattered)): dual-web minma-recons will still have a job. single webs can be regarded as counter to afterburners. so far, i can get along with the changes BUT i don't see why sub-mwd speed has to be lowered aswell - mainly overdrives. it may be the basis for all other speeds, but the problem solely came with the MWD's speed boost. therefore i support the abolition of the attribute "mass reduction". if you still want to keep it, change the nomad set and reduce it to halo levels (due to multiple effects for both - yerp... lg only) i can get along with +2% boost via gang modules instead of +3%. i also support the reduction of snakes. actually, i would like to see crystals and slaves nerfed aswell. although i said i don't want base speed nerfed, i never got along with a >50% bonuses, no matter how much those cost; sometimes we pay tenfold prices for only 5% more bonus. in that respect, snakes are underpriced -.- anyways, plz keep overdrives/auxiliary thrusters untouched - chop off more speed boost of MWDs instead: +400% should then end up at desired levels oh and the dev blog didn't mention heat... how about +30% extra for MWD and +60% for afterburners? edit: ps: yes, i'm a nano pilot and i'm not sure how i'm going to tank the scimitar in the future - speed tank is its only chance, really (guide missile precision and current tracking levels ridicule minma characteristics so we even go for extenders and not just one either). so i'm worried that this patch will overdo it again, like the gallente+drone nerf, like the laser boosts. alt of Roemy Schneider (probably lacking game time again)
Larkara	Posted - 2008.07.27 14:58:00 - [47] Start big and work your way backwards. Its easier and smarter to level off everything within a general scope, and then address individual shortcomings on a case by case basses. in the Dev blog they stated that they want to "Normalize" everything and prevent the proliferation of "Ludacris speed" witch was defined as a state at witch weapons such as drones and missiles where unable to intercept the class's of ship's they where intended for. Thats actually a sound and small goal, saying to much to soon is a slightly ignorant statement when you realized that EVERY ship is effected by this. before you scratch your head at the contradictions in that last statement realize that speed is relative, The fast shipps will still be fast and the slow ships will still be slow, its just now they are required to account for that speed as both an advantage and a realistic liability rather then an immunity. If one ship suffers to much from this, or another one gets to buff, I'm more then positive CCP will address it. 90% of all the concerns raised where about mimnmitar ships, as a result we can definitively state that there preofrmace will make a good point of data to justify future adjustments. What annoys me about the blanket statements being made, and yes I admit what I am talking about is a blanket statement, is that most people didn't look at the "GOALS" or rather the graphs showing CCP's intention to level the speed curve among ship classes. The fast ships will still be fast and the advantage of speed will still remain.
VheroKai Vhero' Multipurpose Corp	Posted - 2008.07.28 10:45:00 - [48] Originally by: Ashmira This game should be more about skill than nano's make it. Give me ability to use my skills - remove stupid lags from game. All these changes provoking more and more blobbing. It's just unmanageable by average pilot. Originally by: Larkara If one ship suffers to much from this, or another one gets to buff, I'm more then positive CCP will address it. Do you have any information on when it will be addressed? In two years? five years? Heavy dictors still the same solopwnmobiles, no changes were made to address them. --sig-- Originally by: Bunyip The LOLqual is a capital-sized joke
MaDOnos	Posted - 2008.07.28 15:29:00 - [49] After faction warfare if this will come I will quit game when I found a good online game. I don't understand what ccp is trying to do ? if anyone know pls tell me.
Spurty Caldari Trader's Academy Blue Sky Consortium	Posted - 2008.07.28 15:50:00 - [50] Originally by: Dran Black So after you hit vagas with the nerf bat how are they going to be useful? are you going to buff them with some type of tank or what? I just want to see how your going to make them useful after this? As you can see im not going crazy wanting to quit im just asking a simple question and want some type of response please. they are going to be armor tankers like ammar, just with the resists and armor ability of caldari ships. -- Two prostitutes standing on a street corner. One says to the other, "Have you ever been picked up by the fuzz?" The other replies, "No, but I've been swung around by the ****!"

Spurty Caldari Trader's Academy Blue Sky Consortium	Posted - 2008.07.28 16:25:00 - [51] Originally by: MaDOnos I don't understand what ccp is trying to do ? if anyone know pls tell me. trying to put a halt on small scale PVP I guess. It is an MMO after all. People that do not have a well rounded 'gang' with them are no longer catered for. The solo-pwn-mobile is no more. -- Two prostitutes standing on a street corner. One says to the other, "Have you ever been picked up by the fuzz?" The other replies, "No, but I've been swung around by the ****!"
Titan Pilot Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.07.28 16:54:00 - [52] Whats the ETA on this proposed patch? Alot of pilots are going to lose alot of isk from investments in implants, ships... This could be the deal breaker of the year for EVE and could make alot of ppl quit simply because of financial reasons PROOF: 1. Hardwiring implants are now all slot 6 = Worthless 2. HACs and Recons = Worthless 3. Roaming as a viable tactic is dead. SPeed tanking is impossible = Worthless Hint CCP: If you cannot quickly kill a ratter, you will get blobbed and die. Give invaders a chance to gank or they will stop coming) = Less PVP = Less GTC sales = Less EVE. Careful or this game will end up like POTBS...don't believe me? check out MMORPG forums some time to compare forum notes and see why POTBS died. You are doing the same things.
Dzajic Gallente Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.07.28 17:04:00 - [53] Well,actualy those 5% people playing in 0.0, and 10-15% of people outside highsec are more or less irrelevant. While you keep saying that CCP should balance the game for you and whatever, its the empire carebear noobs that are the total CCPs customer majority .
K3nsh1ro Caldari Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.07.28 17:13:00 - [54] I'll just say that this nano problem can be solved with one new module that boost your damage for 550% llike microwarp drive boosts your speed, not like this cos i see now CCP will change whole game. I think CCp will lose many players like this because many of pvpers in 0.0 are nano but wew ill see.
doctorstupid2 The Accursed	Posted - 2008.07.29 00:32:00 - [55] Originally by: Spurty Originally by: MaDOnos I don't understand what ccp is trying to do ? if anyone know pls tell me. trying to put a halt on small scale PVP I guess. It is an MMO after all. People that do not have a well rounded 'gang' with them are no longer catered for. The solo-pwn-mobile is no more. An intersting paradox considering CCP's numerous past devblogs on "breaking the blob." Yet they keep forcing mass blobbage. Funny how that works, isn't it? Shooting other people with fewer than a dozen people in gang still isn't multiplayer enough I guess Abusive \| Deadspace \| Deadspace2
doctorstupid2 The Accursed	Posted - 2008.10.15 01:42:00 - [56] Don't ignore us CCP. Abusive \| Deadspace \| Deadspace2
Daelin Blackleaf	Posted - 2008.10.15 01:48:00 - [57] If your planning multiple changes that will impact each other and are all closely tied together then it is far better to test and release them at once rather than over time. Hold back one change and then when it is implemented you have to go back and review all the other changes. The idea of going through multiple game-changing patches over a few months doesn't appeal to me and would probably serve only to confuse and lose a lot of subscribers. The real concern is whether these changes will be tested sufficiently and whether CCP will look at the experiences and numbers generated by the community before it all goes live.
doctorstupid2 The Accursed	Posted - 2008.10.15 01:51:00 - [58] Originally by: Daelin Blackleaf If your planning multiple changes that will impact each other and are all closely tied together then it is far better to test and release them at once rather than over time. Hold back one change and then when it is implemented you have to go back and review all the other changes. The idea of going through multiple game-changing patches over a few months doesn't appeal to me and would probably serve only to confuse and lose a lot of subscribers. The real concern is whether these changes will be tested sufficiently and whether CCP will look at the experiences and numbers generated by the community before it all goes live. Doubt it. Remember what happened when they introduced Propellant Injection Vents? Abusive \| Deadspace \| Deadspace2
doctorstupid2 The Accursed	Posted - 2008.10.15 01:58:00 - [59] Oh, by the way, I love how my domination webs are now the worst faction webs on Sisi. Months and months of nano***s whining to buy and use them, I actually do. And now... GG Abusive \| Deadspace \| Deadspace2
Amy Wang	Posted - 2008.10.15 12:20:00 - [60] The Op is right, the nerf is totally jumping the gun. Imho the only nerfs needed are preventing ships from going fast (read: mwd around) AND do considerable damage at the same time. Since turret ships already screw up their own tracking when flying fast they balance themselves out already which is a much overlooked fact unfortunately. Turret ships dont typically use speed to "tank" and if they do they wont do damage back to their target so they also "tank" their target at the same time so to speak. The only problematic ships are those with drones and missiles as their primary weapon, those weapons hit even when the ship launching them is going too fast to be hit back, there lies the unbalance really. So just make an active MWD affect drone tracking and missile explosion radius in a way that they do massively reduced damage, there imbalance fixed.



Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: 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.