| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
gtcsellalt
   |
Posted - 2008.07.28 03:46:00 -
[1]
Where is the time and effort behind this change of epic and mammoth proportions. It is not well thought out and sloppy. Does anyone else agree with me. While speed nerf is in good intentions, it is not well thought out. I rarely see ships going over 5k except for inties, which are for tackle anyways/ cant kill really.
Is anyone confused at ccp's approach, I could think of better ways to do this nerf on a whim, why such carelessness in their changes, and why so drastic. Anyone else confused at ccp's rashness in decisions and clearly not thinking through gameplay. I think this why we see ccp constantly changing rules of the game, the constant change of rules is getting rediculous. Eve is a diff game after this nerf, mostly all for the nerf, should just start a diff game, and everyone who likes it joins that server instead.
|
Chainsaw Plankton
IDLE GUNS
IDLE EMPIRE
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 03:50:00 -
[2]
basically what everyone has said already 
|
Farrqua
Minmatar
Turbo Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 03:55:00 -
[3]
To me it seems like a rush to appease/PR move more than a well thought out balancing. However with that said, I really do not think a lot of that stuff will make it to TQ. So it would be easy to throw out a sledge hammer of a change blog and then actually patch a more sensible solution. To give everyone something.
But we can only wait and see what happens. After the SISI change we will see a flood of posts and I think that is what Nozh is wanting to see.
|
Kaito Kurusaki
Federal Defence Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 04:06:00 -
[4]
I see alot of whines, but no alternative solutions.
|
Dirk Magnum
Spearhead Endeavors
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 04:09:00 -
[5]
Okay so in other words, nerfing speed is fine, but the way it got nerfed is wrong even though the end result is fine? I'll be the first to say that in the real world the concept of the ends justifying the means does not by itself provide justification for doing something, but in the context of Eve I mean come on. Anyway, OP, you need to provide a counter-example of how speed should have been nerfed if you are dead-set on making the argument that it was only the method, and not the result, that needs rethinking.
|
Mac Maniac
Caldari
Shiva
Morsus Mihi
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 04:10:00 -
[6]
5k inties?? That's nothing.. Try 23K inties ... I've seen a Claymore doing 12k.. That IS a problem.
Like the devs point out.. That high a speed breaks the physics engine of the game.
Try doing some math, you will still see 4k Vaga's and the like running around.
The dev post also brings up another excellent point and that is that cruisers should NOT be able to outrun missiles and drones.
This is not nerfing.. It is a long overdue balancing. Like getting rid of the dual MWD's.
|
Dirk Magnum
Spearhead Endeavors
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 04:12:00 -
[7]
 Originally by: Mac Maniac
This is not nerfing.. It is a long overdue balancing. Like getting rid of the dual MWD's.
This is the best way of describing the upcoming speed changes in a nutshell tbh.
|
Rawr Cristina
Caldari
Omerta Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 04:15:00 -
[8]
There are some really good changes there though IMO which have really been needed for a long time.
Scram stopping MWD and the Web nerf are both extremely important as they'll help cure much of the plague of useless shipclasses/modules (AFs / Afterburners) and also compensates for the drop in speed IMO.
Not to sure about MWD reactivation delay and the nerf to X-Instinct seems unneccessary, though, but most of the changes are good for the game IMO.
Contrary to many claims this change is a boost to Skirmish warfare as fitting a Polycarb'd HAC, believe it or not, isn't the only fitting option. Ceptors, AFs and a lot of the currently underused roaming ships should start re-appearing. I mean, when was the last time you saw anyone with a clue flying a Deimos?
Never, because with current game mechanics it's suicide.
...
|
Deverian Tarik
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 04:15:00 -
[9]
Originally by: gtcsellalt
Stuff
If you really believe that, post with your main.
|
Schalacs Whore
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 06:06:00 -
[10]
Edited by: Schalacs ***** on 28/07/2008 06:06:25
I like the newest dev blog and I will definitely be on the test server playing around with things before this patch goes live. I love AFs and afterburners and if this would make them more viable in battle I will be all over it. And if you haven't seen ships doing more than 5k you must stay docked a lot. Hell just the other day I had a demios catch my SB from 110k away even though I started warp as soon as he appeared on grid. That is, like the devs said, ludicrous speed.
Edit: Boo my alt.
|
|
|
Upright
Amarr
Dirt Nap Squad
Dirt Nap Associates
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 06:20:00 -
[11]
Quote:
I started warp as soon as he appeared on grid. That is, like the devs said, ludicrous speed.
If u weren't already aligned it is you who fails.
Not EvE.
|
Hurtado Soneka
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 06:22:00 -
[12]
I actually like everything except the webifier change currently proposed for testing.
I disagree that combat becomes "static", it becomes controled and there is a difference.
Shame the graph was complete crap though  whats that all about? All in all I rate that new dev blog 9/10 for trying to kill nanofogs.
|
SchirmerN
Amarr
x13
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 06:45:00 -
[13]
Originally by: gtcsellalt
I rarely see ships going over 5k except for inties
Maybe you should open your eyes some more...I see bs doing far more then 5k. |
Arlenna Molatov
Caldari
The 59th Parallel
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 06:49:00 -
[14]
Its just fricking sad as hell to see how all these whiners say its going to kill PVP when PVP mods have been changed how many times in the last 6 years? God, who keeps track.
And you know what? I don't see PVP ending anytime soon. Its a fricking JOKE how they try to make it out as its the death of the game.
I dont know bout anyone else, but if people DO cancel accounts, I look forward to the extra server resources for me to use!
And who is to say how the changes work out. It hasn't even been tested yet. On paper it sounds worth-while but as someone else said, the webbers should not have been nerfed so much. Some, perhaps but not that much.
The test server will be a good guide. We shall see.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 06:54:00 -
[15]
Actually, interviews with CCP devs have stated that they were looking at speed balancing 6-9 months ago (check last tounrys dev interviews) that and the fact that CCP are testing the new game mechanics for a full month before setting any changes in stone shows that CCP is thinking about this very, very carefully.
I can think of many changes that were in CCP dev blogs that never made it passed SiSi, including the great carrier nerf and deimos changes.
How about you show how their solution is sloppy, CCP gave us nice charts and stuff....no I think your WHINE is sloppy and a fail of epic proportions. Lastly, go away.
--
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html |
Stab Wounds
Caldari
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 07:00:00 -
[16]
Originally by: SchirmerN
Originally by: gtcsellalt
I rarely see ships going over 5k except for inties
Maybe you should open your eyes some more...I see bs doing far more then 5k.
this
|
Viqtoria
Caldari
Groping Hand Social Club
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 07:03:00 -
[17]
It'll be on the test server first.
|
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 07:08:00 -
[18]
Originally by: gtcsellalt
Where is the time and effort behind this change of epic and mammoth proportions. It is not well thought out and sloppy. Does anyone else agree with me. While speed nerf is in good intentions, it is not well thought out. I rarely see ships going over 5k except for inties, which are for tackle anyways/ cant kill really.
Is anyone confused at ccp's approach, I could think of better ways to do this nerf on a whim, why such carelessness in their changes, and why so drastic. Anyone else confused at ccp's rashness in decisions and clearly not thinking through gameplay. I think this why we see ccp constantly changing rules of the game, the constant change of rules is getting rediculous. Eve is a diff game after this nerf, mostly all for the nerf, should just start a diff game, and everyone who likes it joins that server instead.
So how many more threads are you going to make about this?
Myself, I like the 7.5Km scram idea quite a lot, and while I think that as far as overspeed goes a reduction of the polycarb mass reduction to 12.5% or so would fix most of the issues that people complain about, well CCP have obviously decided that it's time for a shakeup.
No it's not perfect IMO. Yes it's necessary to stop the game stagnating. Now someone's moved your cheese - live with it. Sack up, adapt, or quit. Your choice.
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Malcanis
We are Legend
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 07:09:00 -
[19]
Originally by: SchirmerN
Originally by: gtcsellalt
I rarely see ships going over 5k except for inties
Maybe you should open your eyes some more...I see bs doing far more then 5k.
Barring machariels (a special case), which BS, fitted how?
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Buff Plankchest
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 07:12:00 -
[20]
Your tears sustain me!!!!
|
|
|
Corewin
Achmed Fleet
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 07:22:00 -
[21]
How many topics about this crap have you made now? Seriously CCP nerf alt Power Poasters.
|
Epidemis
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 08:06:00 -
[22]
Christ, stop whining. This is worse than a wow-board.
|
Schalac
Caldari
Brotherhood of Wolves
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 08:07:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Upright
Quote:
I started warp as soon as he appeared on grid. That is, like the devs said, ludicrous speed.
If u weren't already aligned it is you who fails.
Not EvE.
And I take it you never got caught by a ship that could traverse 90km in a matter of seconds.
|
Call'Da Poleece
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 08:21:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Deverian Tarik
Edited by: Deverian Tarik on 28/07/2008 04:31:53
Originally by: gtcsellalt
Stuff
If you really believed that, you'd have posted it with your main.
Yeah, but his main is probably Pathetic Legion or something and they have spammed the hell out of just about every forum on their mains and need to use alts so it doesnt look like the same group of whiny *****es all the time (which it is) |
Ekrid
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 08:40:00 -
[25]
Well, the graph shows a nice easy downward slope in speed from frigs to battleships, so you're wrong, you're also a tard.
|
Euriti
Gallente
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 08:43:00 -
[26]
4k hacs were ok.
in excess of 6k is not.
Polys need a nerf.
|
Ninsoku
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 09:01:00 -
[27]
I do not support proposed changes solely because of the nerf to skirmish warfare specialist. I feel the insane amount of training time to specialise in this gang skill completely warrants it's bonus.
Poly's, nanofibres and mwd's require hardly any investment of skill training to fit so everyone uses them. On the other hand if you have Skirmish Warfare specialist V you've put in around 2 months of dedicated training for it excluding any battlecruiser or command ship training investment.
Just blanket nerfing everything speed related is not targeting the real problem which is the abuse, overuse and now sustainable usuage of the MWD module. The problem can be simply fixed with a re-activation delay to prevent continuous usage.
|
sxndy
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 09:25:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Ninsoku
I do not support proposed changes solely because of the nerf to skirmish warfare specialist. I feel the insane amount of training time to specialise in this gang skill completely warrants it's bonus.
Agreed, leadership skills take around a year + command ship to train, but are well worth it when used as part of strategy.
Nerfing the bonus given sucks big time, especially while the nerf includes afterburners.
[/whine]
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
NIght's Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 09:45:00 -
[29]
Originally by: gtcsellalt
Where is the time and effort behind this change of epic and mammoth proportions. It is not well thought out and sloppy.
On the contoary, it's beautifully thought out and it encourages people to use frigates/etc if they want mobility, while giving smaller hulls a significant boost.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Gypsio III
Dirty Filthy Perverts
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 10:14:00 -
[30]
HACs having the ability to disengage at will is fine. That's the entire point of a mobility advantage.
However, HACs being largely immune to incoming fire, while fitting solid buffer tanks with lots of EHP, in addition to the ability to disengage at will, is clearly silly. So some sort of speed nerf is sensible enough. But the Dev blog does seem to go just a teeny weeny bit far... 
On the other hand, the web/scram changes aren't really anything to do with nano - they're more to do with close-range fight mechanics. They look really interesting, adding massive diversity to ships and their fits. The blasterboat issue might take a bit of balancing, though...
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |