Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 88 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Markas Crais
House of Dying Laggers
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 05:58:00 -
[481]
Originally by: Miriyaka
Originally by: PeHD0M Please reconsider this feature of Warp Scrambler disabling MWD.
This is very bad for a blaster ships. They will be forced to change ammunition for long range shooting (and so will result a huge drop in dps). This is realy realy bad: only 2 damage types, low dps (because of long range ammo), tracking, cap usage.. Please stop nerfing gallante ships
By this change you are forcing players to train for caldary ships! And so we will have a new gold era of drakes and ravens. This will be a very borring eve.
I agree. If scramblers reduced MWD effectiveness like the Warp Disruption Field Generator does to the hactor that activates it, say at -40-60%, maybe depending on scrambler quality (instead of -90% like the WDFG), then it's a realistic feature to add.
/signed
I noticed after testing you can get by with a lot of situations by fitting a Scram and Disruptor rather than say a Web and Disruptor. The reason being that if you have a MWD (and what Gallente blasterboat won't have one?) you're going to need to point the target before you get in range (disruptor) and then if they're still running you use your scram and it effectively acts like a web by cutting down their running speed (-60% web is weeeeaaaak).
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 06:01:00 -
[482]
< Feedback inside this post >
Having played around with afterburners a bit I think they are too weak to yield any significant effect on bigger ships.
On the stabber for example, 10mn AB II puts me at roughly 1km/s, which looks good at first glance. While guns may have some tracking issues if I'm unwebbed, missiles and drones are completely obliterating it.
Against missiles it seems I'm even better off with a mwd than the AB, although the difference is insignificant. If there are missiles on the field the stabber is pretty much obsolete sadly since both options do not yield any significant effect, and it cant mount a decent tank.
Wolf/Jaguar on the other hand are almost impossible to track with cruiser sized guns if you fit web/scram and have a decent speed without mwd running. Didnt try ABs there, but I'd think its even worse then.
|
Miriyaka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 06:03:00 -
[483]
Afterburners need to be boosted rather than MWDs nerfed. Big surprise there, heh.
|
Markas Crais
House of Dying Laggers
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 06:05:00 -
[484]
Originally by: Lilith Velkor < Feedback inside this post >
Having played around with afterburners a bit I think they are too weak to yield any significant effect on bigger ships.
On the stabber for example, 10mn AB II puts me at roughly 1km/s, which looks good at first glance. While guns may have some tracking issues if I'm unwebbed, missiles and drones are completely obliterating it.
Against missiles it seems I'm even better off with a mwd than the AB, although the difference is insignificant. If there are missiles on the field the stabber is pretty much obsolete sadly since both options do not yield any significant effect, and it cant mount a decent tank.
Wolf/Jaguar on the other hand are almost impossible to track with cruiser sized guns if you fit web/scram and have a decent speed without mwd running. Didnt try ABs there, but I'd think its even worse then.
I also agree with this. On my Mega I'm getting 123 m/s without an AB and with one I go 327 m/s, which is hardly worth wasting that slot in my opinion.
|
D4RT N3RDiUS
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 06:08:00 -
[485]
anione see the sentrys drones t2 and the ogres t2 heavily overpower? anione saw that? and the aling times of bss now the tempest are slow than a raven???? wtf??? ...
i think sentrys t2 can make a lot of dmg to any cruise right now with this velocitys.. and ogres t2 lol is pawns ppl .. 3000 with a vaga .. now ccp says i can fit a dual rep setup with ab ..jjjajaja PLSSSS!! are yoy joking ccp? so i can tank the ogres ya of course or wen i saw a curse i can.. ploop? or a frikin rook who this ship was design to kill?? lol...
rooks with scramblers are a nasty bieach ....
another issue how the web and the future reduction on the velocity explocion on missiles afects mission runners? anione now? CCP are changing the npc velocitis to?
and again pls tell me whath you smoke before you make this patch...
|
Lilith Velkor
Minmatar Oyster Colors
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 06:13:00 -
[486]
Originally by: Markas Crais
I also agree with this. On my Mega I'm getting 123 m/s without an AB and with one I go 327 m/s, which is hardly worth wasting that slot in my opinion.
Tried Tempest and Typhoon with AB too, but I can only barely fly BSs anyway so I cant really comment, the speeds you get are absolutely useless for PvP imho tho.
A good thing is you can keep burning the AB while being cap-friendly, which means more cap for heavy neuts which isnt a bad on minnie BSs with capless guns.
Apart from that tho, ABs are pretty useless except against megas when you also fit a 9km scram, web and (double)-TDs.
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 06:45:00 -
[487]
All friggin day and not ONE response from a dev.
|
Taya Tal
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 06:47:00 -
[488]
Edited by: Taya Tal on 29/07/2008 06:47:12
Originally by: Daan Sai Edited by: Daan Sai on 29/07/2008 03:36:51 I don't mind slowing down the speeds, but my biggest problem has been the impact on align times and accelleration. Are locking times going to be looked at? Right now on SiSi camp runners are having a hard time.
My suggestions: 1) delete MWDs altogether, and boost ABs a bit - having two speed modules has always been problematic. 2) reasses masses with base agility in mind, not just speed 3) look at how targeting times compare to align and acceleration times
Yes, please, let's delete the MWD. Oh, and while we're at it, let's delete the Minmatar race too! Wow you're full of brilliant ideas, aren't you?
|
Vengal Seyhan
Sten Industries
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 06:51:00 -
[489]
Originally by: Grath Telkin All friggin day and not ONE response from a dev.
... Guess they're all on Sisi listening to the complaining there?
And also - this thread has shrunken in length (17 to 16 pages), so I'm guessing someone has been at work pruning out the less constructive flames.
Maybe they're just listening and not talking. Two ears, one mouth, used in proportion and all that?
|
Opertone
Caldari SIEGE. The Border Patrol
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 07:05:00 -
[490]
how about turn on afterburner and you get +50% bonus to inertia...
turn on MWD you get -50% penalty to inertia...
you will not be able to nano here and there with MWD like this
|
|
Drakine
MASS Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 07:14:00 -
[491]
Why is this nerf coming in, All you had to do to kill a nano ship before was a Recon.
thou you aint every going to stop a good officer fitted crow but then again fitting the 500 Million worth of modules on a paper thin ship is welp & if you die its a full 500 Million isk lost.
|
Derek0math
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 07:27:00 -
[492]
haha this is seriously the worst change i've ever seen to eve
literally not kidding about 3 accounts getting cancelled
gg
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 07:31:00 -
[493]
So here's a non angry thought:
Before you fix Nano gangs, perhaps you could fix ROAMING GANGS.
Hard to fathom I know, making roaming worth a damn.
Here's my night. I start in Fountain, and I travel south, through delve, pb, all the way around to the drone regions. Round trip was something stupid like 140 or so jumps with all my side trips.
Do you know what I saw? 41 ratters, total. I caught NONE of them, simply because as soon as I'd jump in local, they'd warp off and cloak. Amazing I know. Not a single defense fleet (though I know the Goons were in fact busy somewhere in Stain space).
Honestly, when we have to go to THESE kinds of lengths to find targets to shoot at in 0.0, do we really need to do it slower?
This took me several long hours, I started at like 9 or 10p.m. my time, and I'm making this post at 3:27 A.M.
You have so many other things that are breaking combat in EVE, like Blobs, Cloaking Ratters, LOCAL, Drone Lag, and all your other problems, but your current focus is directed at the only really viable alternative to making such a trip AND having a hope of survival when you finally get the dummy who wasn't paying attention to local.
Maybe, JUST maybe, if you make it a bit different to go hunting, like ACTUALLY POSSIBLE, you would get a different group of ships going out. But instead you get the group that is able to respond to the ONE SLOW GUY WE FIND, and SOMETIMES, we catch him before he cloaks his friggin Raven.
|
Otellus
Imperial Shipment
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 07:37:00 -
[494]
Devs, you really need to think about 1 thing. You say nanos are overpowered because too many people are using them.
Have you ever considered the possibility that nanos are an answer to other flawed/broken game mechanics?
That maybe, just maybe people started to fly nanos because they were sick of getting blobbed? That maybe, just maybe people started to fly nanos because alliances were dropping Motherships and Titans on roaming gangs, and only nanos have the speed to get out of bubbles fast enough? That maybe, just maybe nanos are used because its the only way to get past the problem that you have a serious disadvantage if you have to jump in to a system where your enemy has setup on a gate and is waiting for you?
Your other changes to the game made all other 0.0 tactics outside of big blobs obsolete. Then you see people flocking to the last tactic that actually works, and you draw the conclusion that it must be overpowered then? WAKE THE **** UP!
|
AshtarDJ
Filthy Scum
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 07:43:00 -
[495]
Originally by: Markas Crais
Originally by: Lilith Velkor < Feedback inside this post >
Having played around with afterburners a bit I think they are too weak to yield any significant effect on bigger ships.
On the stabber for example, 10mn AB II puts me at roughly 1km/s, which looks good at first glance. While guns may have some tracking issues if I'm unwebbed, missiles and drones are completely obliterating it.
Against missiles it seems I'm even better off with a mwd than the AB, although the difference is insignificant. If there are missiles on the field the stabber is pretty much obsolete sadly since both options do not yield any significant effect, and it cant mount a decent tank.
Wolf/Jaguar on the other hand are almost impossible to track with cruiser sized guns if you fit web/scram and have a decent speed without mwd running. Didnt try ABs there, but I'd think its even worse then.
I also agree with this. On my Mega I'm getting 123 m/s without an AB and with one I go 327 m/s, which is hardly worth wasting that slot in my opinion.
You guys are not taking into consideration the 25% extra cap that you have when you're using an AB instead of an MWD. 25% extra cap with the same cap recharge as you have with the MWD. THAT to me makes the difference in a fight, specially if you're in a close range ship.
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 07:56:00 -
[496]
What is it with the mass increase of the Vagabond? That makes no sense at all. You first give it a bonus of 25% more speed, then take most of that away again when MWDing with this mass increase?
I'm sorry, but that is just bullshit and in no way fair or balanced.
|
Grath Telkin
Amarr The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 07:59:00 -
[497]
Originally by: AshtarDJ
You guys are not taking into consideration the 25% extra cap that you have when you're using an AB instead of an MWD. 25% extra cap with the same cap recharge as you have with the MWD. THAT to me makes the difference in a fight, specially if you're in a close range ship.
yea, assuming your afterburning close range ship ever gets in range to fire.
think of a blaster boat under concentrated fire, from something like a pair of geddon's. Are you even going to make it in range?
|
Dendo Ordoss
Personal Vendetta Vendetta Alliance.
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 08:03:00 -
[498]
total lack of dev response makes me
But anyhow, I would like to point out to you ccp that in your hunt for a massive speed nerf you have actually shifted the entire ballance aspect in this game for all other ships as well.
Im not sure even half the devs remember back when missiles got "nerfed" but congratz on giving them one hell of a boost now. Battleships vs anything smaller inside web range now = dead or perma tackled bs Battlecruisers vs Hac = dead hac. You have just nerfed hac's back to a state were they are pretty damn useless, hac's have been pretty much useless as anything other then nano ships since tier 2 battlecruisers came out, u just made the finnishing blow to them now.
Intys seems to die a LOT to any kind of missile ship and drones will eat most of them alive.
Oh, and for the love of god try and remember that snake sets isnt normal on tq even though most players plug them in on sisi
If you want to nerf speed(and ive said it needs a bit of a nerf for a long time)then why not just set a hardcap on speeds? by doing this you wouldnt even have to nerf the mods or implants in the game. It would just be that those with snake sets would have to use less slots to get max speed then those without those implants.
|
Liang Nuren
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 08:07:00 -
[499]
To all the people who say that there's no way that these "crazy" changes will go forward, I bring forward that CCP has only cancelled two nerfs that I remember (Carrier and Deimos).
I further put forward that this nerf is not like the carrier nerf (and is not nearly as tiny as the Deimos nerf). These changes are far, far more dangerous... CCP is confident enough about these changes that they have already been implemented.
Now, I know, people are going to talk about how CCP would never take something live that wasn't ready.
Then I'm going to point to the entire rest of the gaming industry. I'm going to point to SWG, EQ, and UO specifically. The entire MMO market is filled with situations like this. These changes are very likely to stay in some form or other.
-Liang -- I object to violence because when it appears to do good, the good is only temporary; the evil it does is permanent. -- Mahatma Gandhi |
AshtarDJ
Filthy Scum
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 08:08:00 -
[500]
Originally by: Grath Telkin
Originally by: AshtarDJ
You guys are not taking into consideration the 25% extra cap that you have when you're using an AB instead of an MWD. 25% extra cap with the same cap recharge as you have with the MWD. THAT to me makes the difference in a fight, specially if you're in a close range ship.
yea, assuming your afterburning close range ship ever gets in range to fire.
think of a blaster boat under concentrated fire, from something like a pair of geddon's. Are you even going to make it in range?
Bad example... at the moment, not much in this game can survive the fire of a pair of geddons, but that's another thread...
If you would have said fire from ONE geddon (or another BS for that matter), probably yes. It would take you longer to get there, but on the other hand you will have more cap to tank with.
Bringing up specific examples isn't very constructive, because more then 50% of a fight is about skills, tactics and HOW you use the mods you have fitted.
I don't like using MWDs because it gimps my tank too much, so I don't think there's anything wrong with boosting AB's a bit so they can somehow/sometimes/eventually compete with some MWD setups.
|
|
Malachon Draco
eXceed Inc. eXceed.
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 08:14:00 -
[501]
Originally by: AshtarDJ
I don't like using MWDs because it gimps my tank too much, so I don't think there's anything wrong with boosting AB's a bit so they can somehow/sometimes/eventually compete with some MWD setups.
I don't think anyone would mind an AB boost. Make it 200/250/300%. Perfectly fine. But nerfing MWDs is not the same as making ABs useful.
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 08:18:00 -
[502]
Originally by: Malachon Draco
Originally by: AshtarDJ
I don't like using MWDs because it gimps my tank too much, so I don't think there's anything wrong with boosting AB's a bit so they can somehow/sometimes/eventually compete with some MWD setups.
I don't think anyone would mind an AB boost. Make it 200/250/300%. Perfectly fine. But nerfing MWDs is not the same as making ABs useful.
ITs more narf mwd until you force to use ab
|
Uzuki Shootmenow
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 08:18:00 -
[503]
this, by far, is the most CCP has reached out to all the FW crowd,since it mostly flies missile boats.
Thank you CCP, I totally understand that older players, that often do not pay for the game with RL money, are not much of a concern to you after all.
Its the newbies in drakes/caracals that pay for the game you need to worry about.
Good job.
What's next, separate servers because FW is complaining that its laggy?
|
Cynthia Ysolde
Tritanium Workers Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 08:20:00 -
[504]
can you give me an epic raven please
|
Cynthia Ysolde
Tritanium Workers Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 08:26:00 -
[505]
but it needs set bonuses with my caldari navy ***got booster
|
Iam Sohot
Blue.
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 08:27:00 -
[506]
i would also like the death losses to be nerfed to be more in line with wow, because obviously losing my ship to nanoships is like fighting ***gy blobbers in an arena
|
Cynthia Ysolde
Tritanium Workers Union
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 08:28:00 -
[507]
shit wrong alt, iam sohot is me, sexy mcqueen
|
Bobbechk
Vigilante inc.
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 08:30:00 -
[508]
now how exactly is a non-tracking-bonus BS be able to hit anything with a 50% web?
nerf polys and snakes and were done here, no need to break the game
|
Elsinaril
CHON
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 08:31:00 -
[509]
* Orbit action implementation needs to change. *
As we know, the current actual orbit range is not the same as the one commanded. For example an MWDed interceptor commanded to orbit at 10km will orbit at 13-14km instead. Any change in maximal velocity while orbiting causes the orbit range to change as well. Only when the velocity is close to the ships default the orbit range corresponds to the commanded one. All seasoned intie pilots are well aware of this and do some calculations to orbit at the desired range. Still I almost got killed several times because of sudden changes of my velocity when a gang bonus kicked in/out and my ship immediately started to change orbit range wilfully using some funny maneuvres.
When an MWDing ship gets scrambled orbiting it not only loses velocity but immediately descends to a closer orbit to its target, making her even more vulnerable. All of this because the ship systems cant keep the desired orbit range for some reason.
** Solution: Let the ships orbit exactly at the commaded range, regardless of their speed. **
* Reactivation delay problem *
The redesigned MWDs have a reactivation delay implemented. This is extremely prone to an accidental doubleclick upon the MWD, especially in a laggy enviroment when escaping the new scrambler, resulting in even more prolonged MWD unavailability.
** Solution: Dont apply the reactivation delay when the MWD is turned off manually. **
|
Feyona
aurorae pacificas
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 08:35:00 -
[510]
Originally by: Elsinaril * Orbit action implementation needs to change. *
As we know, the current actual orbit range is not the same as the one commanded. For example an MWDed interceptor commanded to orbit at 10km will orbit at 13-14km instead. Any change in maximal velocity while orbiting causes the orbit range to change as well. Only when the velocity is close to the ships default the orbit range corresponds to the commanded one. All seasoned intie pilots are well aware of this and do some calculations to orbit at the desired range. Still I almost got killed several times because of sudden changes of my velocity when a gang bonus kicked in/out and my ship immediately started to change orbit range wilfully using some funny maneuvres.
When an MWDing ship gets scrambled orbiting it not only loses velocity but immediately descends to a closer orbit to its target, making her even more vulnerable. All of this because the ship systems cant keep the desired orbit range for some reason.
** Solution: Let the ships orbit exactly at the commaded range, regardless of their speed. **
* Reactivation delay problem *
The redesigned MWDs have a reactivation delay implemented. This is extremely prone to an accidental doubleclick upon the MWD, especially in a laggy enviroment when escaping the new scrambler, resulting in even more prolonged MWD unavailability.
** Solution: Dont apply the reactivation delay when the MWD is turned off manually. **
I like it... I still think they're slowed down a bit too much in the patch though, but this would help immensely if we're going to be hovering on the edge of 'barely speed tanking.'
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 .. 88 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |