EVE Search - Speed Rebalanced: Feedback thread

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

Speed Rebalanced: Feedback thread

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 4 post(s)
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 16:27:00 - [1] Originally by: Kay Han But hey lets all skill for drakes right now. Seems to be the superiour ship after the patch Please, god, someone who can log into the test server and has BS 5/T2 Blasters try out a Mega and see if it's been destroyed too. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 16:38:00 - [2] Originally by: Kay Han Well my opinion as blasterthron pilot ist the following: either you fit a scram and a web.. so you once get your target tackled it will be toast. Nothing changed at all. Or you fit a disruptor then you could have teh problem that the target will outspeed you so you dont get in range and your cap runs dry over time through the perma MWDing. I think vindicators will raise in price even more through thier 5th med slot. thouigh about to sell mine. But i think i¦ll keep it (overloaded faction disruptor + disruptor + web = win ^^) also vigilants. ;) It could be worse. I guess. I suppose I should feel happy about Getting a Vindi for 899M yesterday then My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 16:54:00 - [3] Unless the modifications in this nerf are changed significantly, missiles will need to be looked at seriously. Going by the words of the Devblog itself, missiles will not be able to be outrun (ie: out tracked). With the broad spectrum speed nerf, they will be doing nearly full damage against almost every ship except interceptors. There are FOFs. Damage type can be selected. Average damage per hit will still be high. There's no gradient in regards to long range vs. short range missiles in the spectrum of Cruisers/BCs/HACs/CSes. Defenders are 100% useless, but they are not a realistic counter anyway, as they are launched from missile hardpoints, and Gallente/Amarr generally lack those. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 17:18:00 - [4] Originally by: Trent Nichols Originally by: Haakelen Originally by: Kay Han But hey lets all skill for drakes right now. Seems to be the superiour ship after the patch Please, god, someone who can log into the test server and has BS 5/T2 Blasters try out a Mega and see if it's been destroyed too. Oh yea, forget the standard blaster mega. Your cap will be gone before (if) you get there and you cant stop your prey with a web. Yes I tested this on Sisi. Ill echo most of the sensible replies Ive heard so far. This nerf was needed but its impact is far too broad. I hate 8000kms vagabonds but 3200 is just silly. This is very not good, and I seriously hope the Devs look into it immensely. Blasters have serious tracking and range issues that gallente pilots have dealt with JUST FINE for years and DO NOT need to be buffed/changed but the inability to get into range, keeping a target there, or getting them trackable would completely destroy the PvP ability of the Megathron, Astarte, Eos, Brutix, Thorax, Deimos, and Hyperion. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 17:51:00 - [5] Originally by: Exlegion This change is allowing Caldari-specialized characters to actually have better PVP options. I think it's a good change. Caldari ships will actually fair better in PVP. I'm looking forward to the changes. Because the Phoenix isn't good. The Onyx is an awful HIC. The Crow? Sweet JESUS, please give me a Taranis! The Rokh? God I'm starting to see your point here. Torp Ravens? Low DPS tbh. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 18:15:00 - [6] At the absolute very least, the MWD reactivation penalty and Scrams shutting off MWDs needs to go. It messes up far too much. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 18:22:00 - [7] Originally by: Fish Brain clearly not because: CCP Nozh > we're taking a look at missile speed and explosion velocity to balance it out. If you believe that'll happen, you're high. The entire genesis behind all this is Caldari crying because they're too stupid to realize that just because heavy missiles on a Drake or Caracal can't instaown a HAC like they can NPCs, something has to be changed. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 18:30:00 - [8] Originally by: Exlegion It isn't about missiles "instaowning". That's the other extreme from where they are now. It's about missiles hitting nanos for decent damage. Missiles compared to guns are subpar and this change addresses the issue. Precision heavies may be worth something on PVP now. Missiles are only 'subpar' for PvP in the broadest sense, if you expect to use them as a 100% analog of guns. THEY ARE NOT. THAT IS THE ENTIRE POINT OF EVE: WEAPON SYSTEMS HAVE SIGNIFICANT DIFFERENCE. Things do not act the same with different names. Using current mechanics, a cerberus can be fit for very specific anti-nano duty and do an excellent job. Torpravens are good ships for solo/small gang DPS. HAM Nighthawk has great DPS and ROF. HAM Drake when not fit for pure tank (think outside the PvE box, you noobs) works great. Crow. What else do you want? For non-missile ships you have the Rokh, which is the best Hybrid fleet sniper. There's the Eagle, which just recently got a fifth turret. Caldari as a whole with this is completely overpowered. ECM is the only effective Ewar. Passive shield tanking is ridiculous. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 18:45:00 - [9] Originally by: Ikoras Originally by: Exlegion Edited by: Exlegion on 28/07/2008 18:27:07 It isn't about missiles "instaowning". That's the other extreme from where they are now. It's about missiles hitting nanos for decent damage. Missiles compared to guns are subpar and this change addresses the issue. Precision heavies may be worth something on PVP now. Nano should be a different flavor tank, not invulnerable to missiles. I'm sure this has been said before and I'm sure after I say it it will be said again. W/o support ya, caldari isn't the greatest. Caldari is one of the strongest if not the strongest fleet race. So when your rapiers and other battleships tackle these "un hittable " nano ships that I hear all you carebears crying about. You sit there and deal insanely amounts of dmg. not to mention caldari's ecm abilities make or break a fight. Take a Vagabond. Put 15 Drakes on a gate, + a Rapier cloaked. Let him think he's fine to screw around. Begin firing missiles at the Vagabond. Decloak the Rapier, web the Vagabond. Marvel as 250 Heavy missiles come slamming into him in 2 seconds, where all hybird/projectile charges and laser bursts fired at him before would've not done a thing. Yeah, missiles are totally useless, how dare we suggest they might have a reason to exist. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 18:51:00 - [10] Caldari have more effective ships for PvP than some other races. The problem is people don't want to take the time to skill up in specific areas or learn how to fit things unconventionally. Think before you die. You have a brain and the ability to think laterally for a reason. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 18:57:00 - [11] Jesus tapdancing christ. You seriously can't read, that's what I'm getting out of this. You do not need FIFTEEEN DRAKES TO KILL A VAGABOND WITH A RAPIER. I was making a point that missiles slam into webbed targets, until they time out. Turret-based weapons don't. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 19:07:00 - [12] Hell, you want to counter a Vaga with only Caldari ships, Warhead Flare Catalyst rig a Cerberus with precision lights. You will barbecue nanos, current mechanics. Are you smart, and don't buy into the 'one ship = one ship to counter' argument? Awesome. Falcon + Crow + DPS boat, doesn't matter which one. Drake, Cerb, Raven, etc. Amarr have neuts and Pulse (Seriously look at the tracking sometime). Gallente have drones and neuts. Caldari have ECM and missiles (when used intelligently). Minmatar have speed. There's only 'No racial counter' if you're intentionally ignoring the facts. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 19:52:00 - [13] Originally by: Ferocious FeAr sadly most of EVE are nano pilots so you will indeed only get negative feedback from them. According to ineve, 16% of characters out of their 62,000 player sampleset are HAC pilots. You cannot assume every one of them uses a HAC for PvP, and even then nanos it, either. Your assumption is false. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 20:17:00 - [14] Originally by: Grath Telkin EDIT: so no alliance tourney this summer AND your raping a whole style of play. Brilliant CCP They must be reeeeeally sure of themselves that Vampire MMO is going to pay off. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 20:44:00 - [15] Originally by: Ferocious FeAr Originally by: Haakelen Originally by: Ferocious FeAr sadly most of EVE are nano pilots so you will indeed only get negative feedback from them. According to ineve, 16% of characters out of their 62,000 player sampleset are HAC pilots. You cannot assume every one of them uses a HAC for PvP, and even then nanos it, either. Your assumption is false. Okay name the last time you saw a Sacrilege tank? Name the last time you saw and Ishtar tank? Name the last time you saw a Zealot tank? Name the last time you saw Mach tank? ......I rest my case. You can reply and say you have but everyone that knows that its all speed tank in the game right now. OH MAN WHAT TO DO!?!?! YOU MEAN I HAVE TO TANK A HAC????? People don't tank HACs because, as it has been said thirty thousand times in the past, Tier 2 BCs do it better in every situation. Machariels are by nature the fastest Battleships, of course people are going to use that to their advantage. HEY LOOK I CAN POST DUMB SHIT IN CAPITAL TEXT TOO My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 21:15:00 - [16] Originally by: Vision Threads Seriously, the changes are cutting more than one way here. Don't forget blasters. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 21:25:00 - [17] Originally by: Thorradin Originally by: Chr0nosX Vaga when flying 3000m/s can't do any damage because its guns won't track with barrage. Fit something other than barrage? Try flying a Vaga sometime. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 21:32:00 - [18] Originally by: Vision Threads Actually I'm looking forward to getting back to the days when flying a T2 cruiser is distinctive and elite. Not every tom ** and harry flying one because "sure it's expensive but you can usually disengage". Flying an elite cruiser should be the mark of an elite player who has ISK to burn. Just like flying a faction ship, you should fly a T2 cruiser just for the pimp factor. I would fly mine even if they were worse than T1 just to show off. Originally by:** Vision Threads If all you want to do is fight, you can do that in any old ship. If all you like doing is gathering into a blob and using zero real tactics. Originally by: Vision Threads But EVE is sorely lacking in bling to spend my billions of ISK on to show it off. Could you please take your internet spaceship dressup shit somewhere else, ***ing hell. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.*
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 21:37:00 - [19] Originally by: Thorradin He probably thinks 5-10million SP in one area = 5-10million in another, which is a common mistake. Yeah, for instance, Signal Dispersion 5 and Signal Suppression 5. Signal Dispersion 5 is actually useful. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 21:40:00 - [20] No, eve is about blobbing, you see. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 22:18:00 - [21] Thorradin, as usual, you're missing the point. Because you're a narrowminded, myopic little *** who can't think outside the box. If you weren't, you might realize that I'm pointing out that missiles already fired will catch up to a webbed ship. Charges and laser firings don't.** PS: if you caldari militia people weren't such total idiots you might try using warhead flare catalysts and precision T2 light missiles and see what they do against nanoships, hint: they make them explode very easily. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 22:28:00 - [22] My alt can fly one. What's your point? I wasn't talking about the Nighthawk. I was talking about the Cerberus and to a lesser extent Caracal and drake. If you're arguing the Nighthawk was pointless before this nerf, you obviously have no business using one, as you don't know how to fit it. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 22:34:00 - [23] Edited by: Haakelen on 28/07/2008 22:35:13 Originally by: Thorradin You're wrong if you think people don't want to see overkill FOTM/Y crap nerfed. Then let's nerf passive tanks, ECM, missile explosion velocity, and torpedo DPS next. Afterall, if it's not 'fair' that 'every PvP ship has an MWD permanently taped onto it', then it's not 'fair' that 'every PvP ship bigger than a BC has an ECCM permanently taped onto it', now is it? My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 22:44:00 - [24] Edited by: Haakelen on 28/07/2008 22:44:47 Originally by: Thorradin Nanos right now are no different than ECM and damps were before they got nerfed into line. If you think ECM got 'nerfed' at all, you're a **ing idiot. PS: 'Not being useful on every ship' vs. 'Being *ing overpowered on a Falcon' are two different kinds of broken, the latter is true, the former WAS true. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.*
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 22:52:00 - [25] Originally by: Thorradin shit not worth reposting Every single post you make, Thorradin, is essentially, 'more ships. Bring more ships. More ships should be better.' My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:22:00 - [26] Edited by: Haakelen on 28/07/2008 23:23:48 Way to not read. I said every ship bigger than a BC. If you're flying a RR BS, and you don't fit ECCM, you're a moron. I've been tempted to put an ECCM on my Ishtar once or twice because it seems like everyone and his **ing dog has a ing Falcon alt they can use to up any situation they desire. If HACs weren't designed for Guerilla warfare, what the ** point do they have? Tier 2 BCs outclass them in every way. They have literally no purpose if you get your way. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:42:00 - [27] Edited by: Haakelen on 28/07/2008 23:42:12 ^^^ you're good at this trolling shit, /\ Originally by: Thorradin Wait, what HAC does worse than its T1 counterpart? Every single one tanks worse. Most have to scale down to lower-tier weapons to tank significantly at all. There is no reason to fly a HAC without nano. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.28 23:48:00 - [28] also state protectorate My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 00:38:00 - [29] Locus-rigged Zealots and Apocs are, just like nanos, a symptom of a larger problem, not the problem itself. Why do people do locus scorch zealots and apocs? They're fun. Mid-range stuff, supposedly what Amarr was meant for, is interesting and provides flavor. Long-range sniping in fleets is goddamn boring. The problem is not the Locus rigs and their use, though it is unbalanced and should be looked at. The problem is that the current 'way things are supposed to be' is ***ing boring, so people are working around it. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.*
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 00:48:00 - [30] Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 00:53:40 Originally by: Merin Ryskin 4) MAYBE make the 7.5km scram changes. Web range is already death to speed tanks anyway, so shutting off the MWD at even closer ranges won't make that much of a difference. I could argue on the rest, I won't. This, however, is beyond the pale. It **s up battleships too. It *s up blasters, regardless of size. There is no reason to do it, considering the broad spectrum changes that they're proposing. It's insult to injury. It's also completely obvious what CCP is doing- including a few clearly unreasonable changes to an omnibus game mechanic overhaul (in one patch no less), and 'graciously' remove those to 'show they care', while continuing to implement other changes too harshly/too soon/too ham-fisted. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.*
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 00:59:00 - [31] Missiles needed some looking at. The problem is, with the kind of changes they're doing, you're seeing shit like this: Originally by: erimon Turret BS are the big losers. Originally by: erimon A maller will be pretty much helpless Originally by: erimon While i can dodge turret fire reliably a torp raven means my death in a cruiser. Stuff like that makes reasonable people believe that CCP is turning missiles into the perfect weapon system in every situation. Adding passive shield tanks and ECM into the mix, it gives the whole 'Caldari Online' thing perspective. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 01:12:00 - [32] Originally by: Merin Ryskin I don't really see how it hurts blaster ships all that much. On paper, it wouldn't. In practice, with the addition of the weakened webs (Why?), it really becomes painful. Blaster tracking was already meh. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 01:22:00 - [33] Originally by: Merin Ryskin Originally by: Haakelen Originally by: Merin Ryskin I don't really see how it hurts blaster ships all that much. On paper, it wouldn't. In practice, with the addition of the weakened webs (Why?), it really becomes painful. Blaster tracking was already meh. Note that I specifically did NOT include the web changes. Those are a fundamental change in game mechanics, and would require a complete re-balancing of tracking in addition to their effects on speed. While it could be argued that a black and white choice of full speed or webbed to .0001m/s is not a very good idea, this is not the time to be adding in such a complicated and delicate balance problem. The problem is, as I've been noticing, is that apparently CCP's new mechanics don't scale up at all. Because what they're looking to do is completely killing speed tanking in any capacity. The mechanic changes trickle down onto the battleships, and mess them up. They mess with the blasterboats, and Hurricanes/Tempests/Maels. Look at the Energy Locus rigs for an example of what I'm talking about. In general, rigs need to be carefully, carefully considered, because it sure seems like in many situations they're messing things up, requiring ridiculous overhauls to bring things 'in line' (whether they're 'out of line' and where or what that line is, is up for discussion). That creates problems. Namely, close range weapon systems that aren't pulse lasers or torps. CCP could add a '-60% penalty to MWD speed boost' to every ship that gets nanoed currently, but that'd be hilariously ridiculous. So to get a similar result, they're making sweeping mechanical changes, which mess up other things. Nano problem or not, that CREATES a problem. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 01:30:00 - [34] Originally by: Miriyaka How is this so hard to comprehend? Augh. I really think it's just the usual :ccp: way, unfortunately. You want an orange. You have apples. You drive past the grocery store to the genetic engineering company next door and spend 25 years modifying the DNA of an apple into an orange. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 01:48:00 - [35] Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 01:50:52 Originally by: Merin Ryskin But you know what's really funny? Guess what all the nano pilots are using as a fundamental argument: "nanos are the only working strategy for solo/small-gang pvp, remove them and all you have are blobs". How good can these alternate strategies be when even the nano pilots admit they have a clearly dominant strategy? It's dominant because it's more fun. Remote rep battleships and completely force recon fleets can work in similar situations, but they have downsides. RR setups are slow and vulnerable if cutoff from the friendlies (and ECM, of course, hence why my Dominixes have two ECCM at all times). Recons are thinner even than nanos, have very low DPS, and don't fare well in 'better fights' (more suited to quick ganks followed by GTFOing) When your nearest enemy is 45 jumps, do you want to go romping around in a plated trimarked abaddon? RR works best around entry points and chokes. Nanos allow pushing deeper into enemy territory and disrupting operations harder than you can with recons. There's other ways of course, but it provides the most excitement. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 01:53:00 - [36] Originally by: Atrei Capital Riskiest? That's a good one. I can tell you've never flown a nano, and watched a rapier or curse decloak nearby. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 02:02:00 - [37] If you're contenting that only the Curse and Rapier are scary to nanos, again, it's obvious you don't fly them, and probably don't deal with them with conviction. A Falcon can easily jam a few HACs. Falcon + Inty(ies) = lol. Esp. short-range gank inties like taranises, which usually fit webs. This is not a thread about counters to nanos, there's a million of those already, and the ideas behind them are obvious enough if you think outside the box. That's not the problem. The problem is that CCP can't seem to answer a question. Is the problem speed, and the symptom is nano hacs, or is the problem blobbing, and the symptom is nano hacs? That is a gigantic difference. The first one is an endorsement of blobbing and an utter refusal of the concept of Guerilla/Asymmetric warfare. The second one is an endorsement of the idea but not the execution of nanos. The result could be the same, speeds being reduced. The first one results in a simple nerf, with few other changes. The second creates new mechanics. If they'd answer that, maybe we could go somewhere productive with this discussion. Until then, back to the flaming! My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 02:17:00 - [38] You're not worth my time. 'Falcons jam HACs, not kill them'. No shit sherlock, notice, 'Falcon + Inty or inties'. You and people like you will get ganked by people who know what they're doing. This is the way it is. There will be one less tool for it, unless common sense wins the day. Keep at it. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 02:29:00 - [39] Maybe it's because you've only been in Science and Trade Institute for 1 day? vOv but seriously, your metric of success is hard to gauge. Because on a cursory inspection it kinda sounds like 'all ships on grid must either die or be an involved party on a killmail'. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 02:38:00 - [40] Originally by: Atrei Capital stuff Metric of success mother***a, do you have one My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.*
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 02:44:00 - [41] this dude has obviously never lived in fountain (or any other NPC 0.0) if he had he would realize the entire concept of 'dictating a fight' is skewed. a highly tanked battleship will 'dictate its fight' by deagressing and docking. ECM-heavy gangs will 'dictate their fights' by jamming stuff it dislikes. This is called tactics. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 02:48:00 - [42] I was ready to give him the benefit of the doubt at first but it got ridiculous. He still hasn't answered my question about success and determining it. And they never do. Why? Because deep down they want to say what they can't usually publicly admit (see Haniblecter Leb in the other thread): What amounts to instanced, static fleet fights with the occasional chance of reinforcements, where there's a completely clear winner and loser, demarcated with easy-to-understand, non-nebulous numbers to fap over. Which isn't eve. Yet My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 03:06:00 - [43] Which is the problem. CCP is being quiet. There's two ways to interpret the current state of Sisi. 1.)They believed (or at least, acquiesced to) the forum whines, and the current implementation is the way they want to go. This is bad. 2.)They're throwing the worst possible option at us, to get us willing to negotiate. Neither one is particularly fun to be in. A rebalance is something. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 11:08:00 - [44] Originally by: Kagura Nikon Originally by: Azilia Nefetti Only thing i dont really like is the -% to web speed, its a bit low now. 70-80% would of been reasonable. naa in fact its pretty good. Go test on the server. Works very well with the idea tha AB shoudl be usefull an AB ship whiel webbed still reach its nominal base speed. While MWD ships if webbed and scrammed are in way worse situation. The 50-60% is key to make AB usefull again (sicne speed tanking agaisnt turrets can only be achiebved in VERY close ranges now). It does more damage to Blasterboats than you think. The MWD reactivation, Deathscram, and Weak webs need to go. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 12:55:00 - [45] Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 12:58:10 Originally by: Seldarine thinking back, this so called nano problem only came about when ccp had the FANTASTIC idea of introducing rigs into the game to vary the setups possible on the ships. I was pondering this yesterday. Rigs broke a lot of things. EHP (with the HP boost), Energy Locus rigs, speed, etc. CCP is trying to smack things down to fit around rigs instead of vice versa. Ain't good. Here's something to consider, CCP: Viable PvP above a Tech 1 Cruiser means rigs. Did you intend this? My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:18:00 - [46] Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 13:18:52 Originally by: Dominious After reading many posts on this thread suggesting there will be more blobs after the nano nerf I'd like to put forth my own experience on the matter. Everybody blobs. It doesn't matter if it's nano or not. Everybody, including the most vocal alliances defending nanos in this thread. I've been blobbed by roaming nano gangs in 0.0 while ratting. And I don't just mean with nano ships. They go as far as releasing 30+ drones on a single ratting ship as if 10+ nanos won't do a fast enough and good enough job. And before the pro-nano brigade comes along countering my opinions and experience with "lolhydra", as it is usually customary with Triumvirate, Pandemic Legion, and corresponding alts (their burning hate and rage for Hydra is more than just obvious), I'd like for you, once your disdain for my alliance ticker is proclaimed, to answer me how exactly nanos curb blobs. As I see it they don't. What this change now allows is for nanos to ALSO be susceptible to blobs, just as armor/shield tankers are. Just as lone ratting ships or mining ships are susceptible to your superior nano numbers. If the issue is indeed with blobs I suggest you start looking at your own blobs and start offering solutions to curb all blobs, not just those negatively impacting nanos. hydra lol but seriously: nanos do not stop you and people like you from making disorganized blobs to try to drive out invaders, it allows a numerically inferior but tactically and skillwise superior force to evade badly-placed traps and defenses. So that maybe you'd... learn, and try something new? vOv, not our fault you don't get it the part about 'ganking ratters' is good though My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:26:00 - [47] Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 13:27:11 Originally by: Dominious But how can you seriously be so against blobs while blobbing yourself? I've seen it time and time again where nano gangs blob, even against a mining ship. It doesn't matter nanos blob. How come a blob of nanos is considered intelligent and tactical fleet warfare and everything else disorganized blobs? A fleet that is properly organized requires more effort and knowledge to lead and operate inside. It is compounded by the fact that very small mistakes in flying nanos can result in quick death. If you move 2km too far in a Raven or Drake, you probably won't be dead in 3 seconds. Define blob too, because when in 0.0 alliances I've seen 40-50 person gangs created to dispatch relatively small roaming gangs, on the assumption that more was better, especially in one place. You cannot expect that having the most people available to press F1-F8 will always create success. I've been in shitty 0.0 alliances too (KOS), so I commiserate, /\ My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:38:00 - [48] Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 13:39:57 Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 13:38:47 Originally by: Dominious This is circular logic. A fleet that is properly organized is a nano fleet. Never said that son. Ever done a remote rep fleet? How about Recons? ps: CCP has boosted Armor/Shield tankers against blobs, using teamwork. remote repping. Originally by: Dominious It's the excessive numbers used that I find quite hypocritical 10 ships raining glorious hellfire upon your raven is not a blob. The blob is the thing you call for in the intel channel during and afterwards Originally by: Dominious the truth is that unless a nano gang is dispatched along with Rapier or Huginn, there will be little chance in catching such a gang. Notice how I emphasized "catching". must not make catching joke ok, you're not thinking again. lateral. Falcon + Inty or inties. Arazu + Curse. Traps. Bait. Killing it before it has a chance to warp out (Not hard with most Nanos, protip: the shield extenders don't do shit against 100 heavy missiles) also why is it any different when a nanoship tries to get out when it sees a huginn or a rapier, than when a 'conventionally' fitted ship stays aligned in case a blob shows up on grid please explain it to me tia My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 13:49:00 - [49] Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 13:52:47 Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 13:50:09 Dear Hydra guy. Do you have a metric for success? What is a win and a loss in a fight? Is it an easily quantifiable 'these many ships were had by this side, these many by the other, and so and so many died'? Is it ISK? Is it organizational and tactical/strategic skill? This is very important, because it kind of sounds like you want fights to be dictated by size, and that any ships on grid during a fight must either die or be involved in a kill, otherwise something's wrong. e: vvvv MY RAVEN WHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA he's lost 3 ratting ravens, one to zealot/vaga/curse/arazu/scimi, one to two vagas, and one to ishtar deimos deimos cerb ishtar vaga cerb ishtar sabre sabre eagle raptor My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 14:16:00 - [50] Originally by: Archimedes XVII Just like the ecm-on-every-ship fad etc that has "broken" gameplay in the past. Because Falcons aren't broken at all. Certainly not in relation to damps on Arazus! My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 14:30:00 - [51] Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 14:31:23 Originally by: CCP Nozh Agility (especially on cruisers, blaster boats and minmatar ships) Blaster boats suffer not from lack of agility (as they usually only go in a straight line towards their target, attempting to get as close as possible), they suffer from the complete inability to get into range in the first place, let alone keep a target there. It's nice to see tracking is going to be considered. Drones getting shafted again? The web/scram changes break more than just nanos and speed tanks. That's why they're so incredibly unpopular, even among people who hate the concept of speedtanking. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 15:53:00 - [52] Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 15:55:29 Originally by: Calculon Implement 7.5km warp scrambler change. Implement re-activation delay on MWD's Maybe you don't care that this kills blaster boats, but I sure do. This breaks more things than it fixes. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 16:02:00 - [53] Why do I need to train a new skill to make my Battleship, which has worked fine for years, work correctly again (maybe)? Additionally, in this patch missiles are entirely overpowered, and defenders aren't an answer. Why? Because the majority of Gallente and Amarr ships don't have missile hardpoints to throw around. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 16:48:00 - [54] Originally by: SuiJuris Whats wrong with you crow doing ONLY 6kms, The WHOLE point of the nerf is NO ship is supposed to be able to avoid all damage and at 6kms+ you can evade everything but precision lights from a Cerb or fire from another ceptor. The point is Ceptors can now be hit by Precision lights and or Warrior II's things that are supposed to kill fast targets. So, basically, it wasn't bad enough that Interdictors are a suicidal ship, you want to make Interceptors equally so? Right. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 16:57:00 - [55] Originally by: Korinn Originally by: SATAN There is no problem with missile effectiveness, we have tested it extensively. Test subjects: Medium skill crow pilot doing roughly 4+k sec. vs. Max skilled raven pilot. 4.2 damage for tech 1 ammo. 28 damage for precision ammo. If anything missiles need to still get boosted a bit. Hay CCP there seems to be a problem my 425mm Railgun II's wont hit a frigate orbiting me at 25km FIX THIS PLEASE i would also like ammo that does em and explosive damage tia My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 17:31:00 - [56] Originally by: gavhriel you do realise that with the web changes after those 30 secons or getting a warpin on those apocs you're in web range and they cant hurt your hacs no more ? It isn't just HACs that this patch is ruining, if you read the rest you'd see that it is horribly tooling short range battleships. Scram changes, weak webs, and MWD reactivation penalty cannot stay. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 18:05:00 - [57] Originally by: D4RT N3RDiUS NOZH how this PATCH afect capital shipS?? ca you explain to us??? Uh... you can still use more than 5 fighters on a carrier? Stealth boost, please god be happy! My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 18:26:00 - [58] Originally by: Aya You are doing far too much, and the entire game will need recalibration which would entail a patch the size of Trinity to enable balance in the Eve world. The scope of these changes, if implemented even slightly too quickly or too harshly, gives me the impression that TQ will feel like a second Beta. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 18:50:00 - [59] Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 18:50:38 Originally by: supr3m3justic3 Not missiles vs. Frigs w\sig. radius of a BC from the TP doing speeds slower than my BS..... Is this English? What I... think... you're saying is that target paint... No, I don't get it. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 19:50:00 - [60] Originally by: Exlegion Quote: How often do fights in eve happen in the middle of nowhere btw????????. Away from stations and POS? VERY often. Don't twist my words. I mean in belts and gates. deagress and jump through bro hydra My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 21:15:00 - [61] With the MWD/agility/inertia changes, the Mega is a whale. Getting into range is, indeed, a bastard. 15 seconds to get into falloff from 20km (named MWD). Tracking is awful. A plated cruiser could pick off my Ogre IIs and kill me eventually, once my cap boosters ran out. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.29 22:29:00 - [62] Edited by: Haakelen on 29/07/2008 22:32:23 From my cursory inspection on Sisi, Torpravens completely outclass Megas/Pests/Maels. Because Target Painters weren't nerfed along with webs. CCP, if you intend to keep these ridiculous mechanics in place with no modification, the absolute minimum you must to do carry on your supposed ideal of 'balance' would be to reduce the effectiveness of Target Painters and TP drones, significantly. Your beloved Raven will be the only effective short range battleship if the web/scram/MWD reactivation penalty mechanics stay in place, and if you nerf drone speed and leave TPs as they are. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.30 00:06:00 - [63] Originally by: TZeer And BTW, cruise is not a "Anti BS" weapon, torps are, cruise are for support. A cruise raven cant break a proper tanked BS tank, so not a Anti BS weapon. Meanwhile, Ravens with both weapon types are roasting Cruisers and Frigates and I can hit **** all in my Megathron with Faction AM, Ion II, and BS 5. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.30 00:16:00 - [64] Yeah I certainly didn't say 'cruiser' in there or anything. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.30 10:41:00 - [65] Edited by: Haakelen on 30/07/2008 10:43:09 Disproportionaly affected are ships that require MWD to fufill their role in short-range combat (Ie: Blasters and Autocannons). Forget that permarunning MWD ships ever existed. Overheating a T2 Scram + Fleeting/T2 Web and burning away with an AB means that the attacker (Call it a Blasterthron or an Autopest), if fitting an MWD, is completely incapable of doing anything. Considering you've already said that you're contemplating nerfing drones even further into oblivion, it hurts the secondary weapon system. So close range ships are left with two options: Don't get into range, and don't get into range with 25% more cap. Which are you going to pick? Pretty much the only ships that will still keep using MWDs are Interceptors and Sniper BSes. So, to recap. If you keep the MWD reactivation penalty, Deathscram, and to a lesser extent weak webs, blaster/autocannon boats are completely poled. It doesn't matter if you 'look into' the explosion radius/velocity of missiles. Cruises and Torps are still also much more useful against cruisers (before TZeer says 'but your gimped, pointless vaga can still!...' I don't mean just t2 cruisers trying their sad little excuse for 'speed tanking', I mean cruisers period, and cruise missiles are not an anti-support weapon ok). And, once again, target painters/TP drones were not nerfed along with webs, giving torps an advantage over Blasters. If you're willing to go lower on tank you can fit both a scram and a disruptor on a Torpraven, and use TP drones. At this point you might as well make blasters impossible to fit on the megathron FFS. Seriously, when you have to break EVERY OTHER PART OF THE GAME to fix one thing, perhaps it's a sign you're going about it the wrong way. Nerf polys, gang links, snakes, rogues, faction/deadspace MWDs, and be done with it for god's sake. e: Originally by: TZeer No you are not. I tackled a sniping apoc today just fine with a claw, started 240km out and closed distance, he didnt even hit me once. Talked tom him after, and he had BS 5, large spec 4, max cap skills etc, so no nub in a bs. A Trimarked/CCCd Tachyon Apoc is different from a Locused Pulse Apoc with Scorch. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:02:00 - [66] Originally by: Cpt Branko Imo, MWD-ing inties at 20-ish km get tracked my medium turrets a bit too well now. Everything else is preety much fine though. Blasters aren't As for inties, yes. 20km they get hit a lot. Bring it closer to overloaded web range and it is mostly fine, but that's well within heavy neut, so. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:11:00 - [67] No, Large Blasters on a Megathron don't hit for shit on a Crow no matter what now unless it's got 5 webs on it. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.30 16:28:00 - [68] Originally by: Jas Dor You know cruisers are not met to cost more / be worth (in real combat terms) more then a capship. If you can sink that much isk into a middle weight PvP ship and have it pay off, then something is wrong. Yeah, because laggy 50 caps vs 50 caps 700 people in system fights where you lose 2B ISK without being able to activate a module is real fun, and if you don't support that, you're obviously not a real Eve online player. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.30 17:36:00 - [69] Originally by: Lilith Velkor Vagabonds and stabbers do not speed tank anymore in their approach, you take quite some serious damage now, especially the stabber with its very weak buffer has severe problems. But speed tanking works fine! You just need a shield booster or armor repper to survive the approach! And once you're in Barrage range, you'll notice you take too much damage. Speed tanking still works though, you just need to use the booster or repper, unless... Unless you use an afterburner and work in web range. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.30 20:21:00 - [70] If things stay like they are on Sisi, I look forward to using my Arazu with the hilariously broken and overpowered Domination Deathscram and my Alt in either a Locus'd Pilgrim or a Locus'd Zealot, confident in the knowledge that no tacklers will ever survive my righteous fire. Everything else is sucking pretty hard, though. It kind of seems like CCP is trying to punish us for making 0.0 fun. (buy deadspace ABs while some people still don't know about this :V) My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.30 21:10:00 - [71] Edited by: Haakelen on 30/07/2008 21:19:38 My favorite ship on TQ right now is my Ishtar. It goes 3,6ks, straightline. It is terrible at turning. Missiles barbecue it. Pulse lasers scare the living christ out of me, a friend of mine in an absolution got me into structure before I had time to yell at him to stop on Vent. Despite the rumors, Ogre IIs are not impossible to shoot. They, in fact, are quite fragile. I have seen, in my time in Eve (and 0.0 in particular), One Nano-Mach. It was hitting up towards 8.5k/s. It died. e: here it is http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/pk/view.php?type=player&name=Predator%27s&id=3265895&page=1&filter=losses#mail My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.30 21:44:00 - [72] As far as viable PvP paths for new (1-2 month) players, in my corp we've had luck with: Caldari chars using Blackbirds Gallente chars using Vexor drone snipers, assigning their drones to the interceptor pilots, or Celestii (not so much) Amarr chars using Mallers (Mallers are tough little bastards) Minmatar chars using Ruptures (A better tech 1 cruiser, there isn't in the game). And seriously, the Rifter. A Rifter+Blackbird team can have some incredible fun screwing with people considerably older, quite easily. There's useful gang ships for everyone, it varies on the race, but hey. That whole diversity thing is what made Eve fun: different races specialized in different things, giving depth and scope to the game, making it feel wide and open. No more. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.30 23:37:00 - [73] Originally by: Cpt Branko Specifically, the web and scram changes are the best change I've seen in EvE since I started playing. It only fixes a ton of things which are broken and we just got used to it. It was only a few months back that CCP changed the way dual-use modules work with scripts. In fact, they even talked of making more modules need scripts, and how they didn't want dual use modules. I know you have a hardon for assault frigates and lowsec (which is really hilarious considering you were talking about interdictors), and are using that as the reason why we should be happy about everything in the game being broken, but it's getting ridiculous. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.30 23:45:00 - [74] Blasters Missiles Drone Speeds Interceptors Interdictors See, that list up there? That's a list of shit that's demonstrably broken beyond viewpoint on Sisi, by these changes, right now. You know what's in need of adjustment on TQ, right now? Polycarbons, Snakes, Ganglinks, Rogues, and Faction/Deadspace Microwarpdrives. You also selectively ignored another part of what I said: CCP has actually said in the past they didn't want more dual-use modules, and they just made another one. The thing is, you don't give a shit what's broken. You're just creaming your pants furiously over your **ing assault frigates, merrily ignoring the fact that the rest of the game is *ing broken. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.*
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.31 00:04:00 - [75] god you're dense Originally by: Cpt Branko larges aren't any more broken then ACs When you have to start your rebuttal in defense of a change with 'This didn't break it any more terribly than another already broken thing', it is a sign something is not right. Originally by: Cpt Branko Drones? Yes Originally by: Cpt Branko Interceptors? I already said, they need more speed Originally by: Cpt Branko If you cannot disable the larger ship's MWD, you're toast vs a turret ships regardless of size, in webrange (as using your own is suicidal). It's a big enough issue to ignore the general policy. To YOU it is a big enough issue. You are talking about creating an OBVIOUSLY overpowered module in response to a problem that only you seem to notice. Originally by: Cpt Branko And HACs wouldn't be broken after a nano-nerf? This helps **ing HACs too if they decide to engage a ing battleship. here let me bold this so you might read it actually This 'fix' breaks more than it fixes. It is not a 'fix'. It is a poorly-thought out, badly executed kludge that breaks any kind of dynamics that Eve had. There is a problem with the way things currently work. Everyone** agrees with that. However, the implementation on Sisi does not fix anything, it breaks things that weren't broken before, and creates all new holes in things. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.31 00:42:00 - [76] What would this patch have to break for you to realize it's badly implemented? Serious question. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.31 03:21:00 - [77] Originally by: Cpt Branko words I like how you edited out the part that said 'Game balance isn't a test of who can whine the loudest' or something like that. That was a good one. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.31 03:43:00 - [78] Originally by: Cpt Branko Edited by: Cpt Branko on 31/07/2008 03:38:51 Edited by: Cpt Branko on 31/07/2008 03:38:31 Originally by: Lilith Velkor My point still stands tho, furthermore it is my impression that the anti-nano whines are a lot more abusive generally, you really have to search for postings that havent at least 3 words censored. I especially despise the constant use of the word 'fg', I think it's really low and speaks volumes about a persons state of mind. Just saying... I don't like the anti-nano whiners personally (and, yeah, nano-fg is really low and stupid), but you've got to admit there's a fair bunch of them. Edit: Saying the majority of players are against the change or that it will kill EvE is silly in light of the massive 'nerf nanos' brigade, so the 'me and my 50 alts, and my friends and their 50 alts will quit' is stupid. 'It doesn't matter if there's <so many> people who don't support this stuff, it's the right thing and must be done for the glorious balance' 'There's lots of people who don't like nanos, so they must be nerfed' Which is it? You don't like the anti-nano whiners personally, you just happen to agree 100% with this. People who threaten to quit if viable small gang warfare is destroyed have no valid point and should be ignored, but people who threaten to quit because the game is 'unbalanced' and 'unfair' are right? Is there an SP barrier above which whines should be ignored, or what? My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.31 04:05:00 - [79] Originally by: Cpt Branko (and cannot be compared to the silly idea for a carrier nerf) They're remarkably similar, assuming you're not coming from the viewpoint that CCP are infallible deity. Group vocally dislikes <Function/Mechanics/Potential Exploit/Features of Ship or Module>. CCP remains mostly quiet and nebulous, giving very little if any meaningful feedback or insight into their mindset until... CCP announces a future patch to the test server that brings about sweeping, massive, over-reactive changes and nerfs to <Stuff>. Potentially an only somewhat related change to the object of complaint. People are upset. Whiners make a bunch of 'Ha ha! That's what you get! FOTM! FOTM! Adapt!' posts. And you get the stalemate of people from both 'sides' unwilling to concede the concept that some things will stay and some things will go, assuming the changes occur. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.31 07:18:00 - [80] Originally by: Kano Sekor If there is any doubt for any dev reading this page, i want to state "GO ON THRU WITH THE NERF" i want to use my AF Yes, please break a good portion of the game so we can use Assault Frigates. This is entirely reasonable. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.07.31 23:33:00 - [81] Originally by: Aenis Veros None of you anti-nano jockeys have yet to come up with a response to the small gang warfare vs. blob scenario. Sure they did, in their mind. Blobs must always win. Numbers are the only valid factor. That is what has been repeated over and over in this thread by the people in favor of the nerf. Pilot/Organizational/Tactical skill has no place in Eve according to them. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.08.01 15:44:00 - [82] Originally by: Cpt Branko Reasonable Post Thumbs up. Reasonable compromise. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.08.01 17:51:00 - [83] Originally by: Bobbechk Originally by: carleyjones Originally by: Grakkus Originally by: HankMurphy Originally by: Lilith Velkor The logical step would be to nerf polycarbs, implants and boosters, and if that isnt enough even gangboosters. But the SiSi implementation is just a senseless nuking of everything related to speed. ding ding ding, we have a winner I have to say the shear size and scope of the changes is evidence to how clueless the author of the changes is. Quoted for truth, this is precisely the issue Requoted coz its the best suggestion so far requated 3rd time cuz this is what they should do. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.08.02 07:11:00 - [84] Originally by: Spurty Lag wise, they are the culprits, we all know it. Its just the solution would be to remove em from the game. Bit harsh on Gallente. Missiles are entities, just like drones. Using your dipshit logic, they should be removed too. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.08.05 14:55:00 - [85] Originally by: Deva Blackfire So what is the "new" use of a HACs to you? Ganking idiot ratters in Lowsec, obviously. But hey guys, Assault Frigates! (are ***ing worthless too) So now, instead of seeing people fly the 'same four HACs', you'll see people flying no HACs, and the same four battleships. Hooray diversity. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.*
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.08.05 15:21:00 - [86] Flying in (successful) nano gangs requires individual pilot, tactical, and organizational sophistication. It is not 'click MWD and orbit, fire guns'. Nor is it 'Hey guys, we can do anything we want with absolutely no worries, let's go **** around'. Conversely, countering a nano gang doesn't require a terribly great amount of pilot or tactical sophistication. It requires recon on the nano gang, and the organizational ability to prevent people from bringing shitty ships that are terribly fitted. You will catch some and lose others. This is the same as any other engagement. Covops gets a sling on a group of enemy battleships, and you warp a dictor onto it, bubble and GTFO. Half of them will burn out of the bubble if you don't bring support. If their support arrives and decimates yours, the battleships will still get out. How can you not see that this is the exact same situation with nanos, only (yet again) weighed in favor of the defenders? Two BS blobs slugging it out presents the chance for the more vulnerable/tackled gang to get more than support kills. A nano gang that doesn't have a death wish is going to run from a blob, and try to fight later when things might be more promising. Giving you time to prepare even more! It all comes back to the same shit with you people. Your simplistic view of combat boils down to 'if enemies are on grid with each other, all ships must either die or be on a killmail'. You have no concept of metrics of success (A retreat is a win for you, etc). More numbers should always mean more success. Pilot and organizational skill is irrelevant. Resource gathering and PvE should be immune from harassment. PvP should be more like PvE, not the other way around. Just because you like to fly garbage and leeroy your fleets doesn't mean everyone else does. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.08.05 19:41:00 - [87] Edited by: Haakelen on 05/08/2008 19:41:40 Originally by: Kerfira The defender pays to play this game too you know, and deserves approximately (adjusted by skill and skills of.c.) as many kills on average as attackers. Originally by: Kerfira Whoever you're fighting has a right to expect on average just as many kills as you per player (adjusted for skill and skills of.c.). Anything else would not be fair. Contrast that with your bio. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.08.05 21:36:00 - [88] Originally by: Kerfira This ALSO means, that even if you fit for speed, you should STILL be viped out when you make mistakes! Today, you very rarely are! You're a complete waste of time if you believe this. As it is, making very small mistakes that wouldn't hurt an armor or shield tanking ship will result in the near instant death of a nanoship. You'd know this if you had any experience with it. Of course you're going to say you do, only with the main you won't post with. Either way, you're completely incorrect. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.08.05 21:50:00 - [89] Edited by: Haakelen on 05/08/2008 21:52:08 Using your 'logic', every type of warfare should be nerfed then, because people who aren't ***ing morons will suit their fleet to counter what the enemy has to best assure success. Smart people do not throw together an unorganized gang and expect it to work all the time. PS: There's ways to organize fleets to counter nano gangs using ships that will work against everything else. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.*
Haakelen Gallente Genesis Rising	Posted - 2008.08.05 22:13:00 - [90] Originally by: Kerfira Stupid shit It's funny how in one post you outright admit that you love blobbing (and think it should always win), and in the next post you're misrepresenting what someone said, crying that 'I shouldn't need a 50 man gang to kill 10 ships'. Which is it? Organized, skilled people are always going to kill F1-F8 headrollers like you. That is the way it is. You're going to be back in a few weeks or months, crying about Recons/Black Ops and or Remote rep gangs. I wouldn't be surprised if you're already writing up your reasons as to why they're so awful for the game. My views and opinions represent my corporation just fine, thanks.

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.