Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Antithysis
Gallente The Dark Horses
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 00:10:00 -
[31]
I need info about the Harpy STAT!
-Anti
|
Meridius Dex
Amarr 24th Imperial Crusade
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 01:48:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Meridius Dex on 29/07/2008 01:48:20
Originally by: Nova Fox I wonder if people know that the implementation of these speed nerfs/patch isnt going to be for a long while, like possibly this winter expansion or something.
It would suck mightily if that were the case.
I expect as with most of these things that implementation would follow after a few weeks (a month?) of testing. I mean, I've been on Sisi a few times this past week for the first time in like, ever, to practice setting up my first POS. Most of the time there's hardly anyone on the test server. Oftentimes when I log in, it looks like less than a hundred. Certainly most of those people, like me, are doing their own projects.
How much possible player testing could CCP get? I have a feeling they are most of the way there on this thing, after their own deliberations and in-house testing. Much of the player 'testing' that goes on I suspect will be window-dressing. Barring a vast and overwhelming opposition to this (which by all accounts is not the case), I'd expect these changes sooner rather than later.
After all, CCP has Ambulation on the way and that's what they are banking on to expand their subscriber base. Don't expect speed balancing to drag on long enough to muck up the launch of Ambulation. -- Meridius Dex --
Amarr = EVE on Hard setting |
Tek'a Rain
Gallente Collegium Mechanicae Holding
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 02:27:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Meridius Dex Most of the time there's hardly anyone on the test server. Oftentimes when I log in, it looks like less than a hundred.
The numbers are often fluctuation, because without new content to draw the interested masses, the bulk of the people on Sisi are just playing about with ship fittings for free or, as you were, practicing POS setup and/or trying to reproduce bugs and the like.
When new stuff arrives, like a new mirror complete with fresh tasty changes to integral mechanics of the game, Then people often swell Sisi to the point of breaking it.
Dont worry, these new bits and bobs will be well poked over, though just how much change and response to feedback is to be expected is debatable.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 02:56:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Meridius Dex I've been reading a lot on the upcoming changes and trying to imagine the various ways in which they'll affect PvP, from frigates to battleships. I can already see several fits of mine which will change post-patch.
What I'm curious to hear is which particular ships do you think will most likely fit ABs now over MWDs? And what classes of ships (if any) would altogether benefit from dropping MWDs?
None. Any ship that *needs* to be flown with an mwd before the patch *needs* that speed after the patch. Both to catch targets and to dictate range. If you fit an afterburner you won't be able to get into range to use your 9km scram generally, so you're still stuck.
Flying small ships against larger ships with ABs has always been popular ( I do it all the time killing mission runners) and that won't change.
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Steel Tigeress
Gallente Steel-Wolfs
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 04:19:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Meridius Dex I've been reading a lot on the upcoming changes and trying to imagine the various ways in which they'll affect PvP, from frigates to battleships. I can already see several fits of mine which will change post-patch.
What I'm curious to hear is which particular ships do you think will most likely fit ABs now over MWDs? And what classes of ships (if any) would altogether benefit from dropping MWDs?
None. Any ship that *needs* to be flown with an mwd before the patch *needs* that speed after the patch. Both to catch targets and to dictate range. If you fit an afterburner you won't be able to get into range to use your 9km scram generally, so you're still stuck.
Flying small ships against larger ships with ABs has always been popular ( I do it all the time killing mission runners) and that won't change.
Except for now with the web being reduced, AB's become alot better. Small ships with an AB just got alot more viable.
|
Kuolematon
Space Perverts and Forum Warriors United
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 05:03:00 -
[36]
I fit AB to all of my ships, have done that since 2004 - except interceptors and coverts and nanozealot.
"The Amarr are the tanking and ganking floating rods of goldcrap"
|
Alshulol
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 06:41:00 -
[37]
I don't see how these changes wont take effect... the only way CCP will see opposition to this is by reading the forums, and the forums do not represent the majority of eve players. Most of the veterans i know rarely use the forums at all, and all it takes is 5 whiners with 30,000 forum alts to set up the appearance that the eve playerbase is against the revisions.
Thank god for the devs \o/
|
Meiyang Lee
Gallente Azteca Transportation Unlimited Gunboat Diplomacy
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 07:12:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Antithysis I need info about the Harpy STAT!
-Anti
Harpy: Mass: 2,125,000 to 1,155,000 Speed: 225 to 264
Similar effect to the Hawk, just under 1,000,000 kg weight reduction and a 39 m/s speed increase.
|
Bellum Eternus
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 07:29:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Steel Tigeress
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Meridius Dex I've been reading a lot on the upcoming changes and trying to imagine the various ways in which they'll affect PvP, from frigates to battleships. I can already see several fits of mine which will change post-patch.
What I'm curious to hear is which particular ships do you think will most likely fit ABs now over MWDs? And what classes of ships (if any) would altogether benefit from dropping MWDs?
None. Any ship that *needs* to be flown with an mwd before the patch *needs* that speed after the patch. Both to catch targets and to dictate range. If you fit an afterburner you won't be able to get into range to use your 9km scram generally, so you're still stuck.
Flying small ships against larger ships with ABs has always been popular ( I do it all the time killing mission runners) and that won't change.
Except for now with the web being reduced, AB's become alot better. Small ships with an AB just got alot more viable.
To rephrase wht I just said: small ships (frigs) vs. very large ships (BS) will be much more effective with respect to tanking their damage, but they won't put out enough DPS to kill them very well.
Small ships vs. smaller ships (Cruisers, BCs) will still die, as they can't avoid enough DPS while webbed, even with the reduced webs and ABs.
Bellum Eternus
[Vid] L E G E N D A R Y COLLECTION
Inveniam viam aut faciam. |
Theron Gyrow
Gradient Electus Matari
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 08:35:00 -
[40]
Do I read this correctly? In Sisi, Harpy is now the lightest AF, Wolf the heaviest?
... I wish I was surprised. -- Gradient forum |
|
Mymh Heretache
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 08:51:00 -
[41]
Originally by: ApaKaka
Originally by: Lieutenant Isis
Originally by: ApaKaka Pretty sure Devblog stated that scramblers will be boosted from between 7.5 to 15km ,, so 15km + 25 % = almost 19km with 25% bonus, overheating will give you sexy time.
t2 still has the 9km range, so unless you want to spend the ISK on an faction/deadspace/officer mod you'll have to stay below 10.8KM range (overheat) with them.
Seems you are right. I'm certain I read that they were going to do 7.5 -> 15km for scrams, maybe they backed down on that claim though because I can't find any reference to it now
You're right that those ranges was mentioned, but it was 25km not 15km. Currently the text say "Warp scramblers (the close range ones), are due for a complete makeover.", the original text just said Warp Scramblers. Someone misunderstood it and thought it meant Warp Disruptors as well, plus the range comment probably added to the confusion.
What he meant (at least how I read it) was simple that he took faction and officer modules into consideration. Add those into the calculation and you have 15, 18, hell even a 25km Warp Scrambler (not disruptor).
It goes in line with the rest of the stuff he mentioned, like how faction MWD's would possibly get less cap reduction rather than a speed boost. He simply wanted to point out the ranges of effect on the given module.
Admit the phrasing was poor, especially in conjunction with the people who misread-/call Disruptors 'scramblers', I'm quite sure that's why the text was edited. Anyway, you were right, the ranges was mentioned, but you misread it.
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |