EVE Search - Of the current Nerfs

Check My IP Information

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Of the current Nerfs

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Sidewayzracer Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:26:00 - [1] Which ones do you want CCP to move to TQ? and which ones do you THINK will be implemented?
Shintai Gallente Balad Naran Orbital Shipyards	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:27:00 - [2] All -------------------------------------- Abstraction and Transcendence: Nature, Shintai, and Geometry
Sidewayzracer Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:27:00 - [3] Originally by: Shintai All all what?
Zephyr Rengate dearg doom	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:27:00 - [4] Originally by: Shintai All
Cpt Cosmic	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:33:00 - [5] Originally by: Shintai All this :) and missiles too like they stated in the forum wuahahah will bring fresh air into the game, and more variety.
Tarminic 24th Imperial Crusade	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:37:00 - [6] Originally by: Cpt Cosmic Originally by: Shintai All this :) and missiles too like they stated in the forum wuahahah will bring fresh air into the game, and more variety. Don't expect missiles to survive this without a minor nerf to speed and/or explosion velocity. CCP said that speed tanking ships should be capable of being harmed by weapons specifically designed to be used against them. So basically, precision heavy missiles should be capable of making a vaga pilot worry, but regular heavies shouldn't. ---------------- Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.83 (Updated 7/3)
Sidewayzracer Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:40:00 - [7] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Cpt Cosmic Originally by: Shintai All this :) and missiles too like they stated in the forum wuahahah will bring fresh air into the game, and more variety. Don't expect missiles to survive this without a minor nerf to speed and/or explosion velocity. CCP said that speed tanking ships should be capable of being harmed by weapons specifically designed to be used against them. So basically, precision heavy missiles should be capable of making a vaga pilot worry, but regular heavies shouldn't. tbh if they left nanos as they were with some minor tweaking but added in modules that boost explosion velocity and speed of missles i would have been all for it. also the scram change i kinda like but the MWD insta deactivating is lame TBH.
Aenis Veros Caldari Alphaflight	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:43:00 - [8] Edited by: Aenis Veros on 30/07/2008 13:43:18 The changes as mentioned in the devblog will all reach Tranquility. The results from the Sisi-tests are merely to gather data on perhaps doing a rebalance further down the road. Don't get your hopes up, start preparing by selling your nano-HAC:s now and buying up battlecruisers. Trust me, the age of the HAC is over (aside from the Cerb).
Banana Torres Federal Defence Union	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:45:00 - [9] I want them to move the changes to TQ that un-nerf non speed fitted ships. Also the changes to the AFs should be moved to TQ, cause they are sweet.
Matrixcvd Caldari Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:45:00 - [10] none, the level of rightful complaining and outrage will reach epic proportions, moar epicz than we already have and i dont see these changes being implemented, 5 fighters anyone?

Sidewayzracer Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:46:00 - [11] Originally by: Aenis Veros Edited by: Aenis Veros on 30/07/2008 13:43:18 The changes as mentioned in the devblog will all reach Tranquility. The results from the Sisi-tests are merely to gather data on perhaps doing a rebalance further down the road. Don't get your hopes up, start preparing by selling your nano-HAC:s now and buying up battlecruisers. Trust me, the age of the HAC is over (aside from the Cerb). highly doubtable they will all go in as they are now "We're allocating a long time (a month or more) to oversee the changes because we are open to further tweaks, based on your suggestions."
Sidewayzracer Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.07.30 13:51:00 - [12] Originally by: Matrixcvd none, the level of rightful complaining and outrage will reach epic proportions, moar epicz than we already have and i dont see these changes being implemented, 5 fighters anyone? i dont see as much rabbelage as with Zuluparks blog so something will be done no matter what. but i dont agree on the extent that its been done on the fact that speed tanking isnt a viable option for any ship under the changes.
Call'Da Poleece Minmatar	Posted - 2008.07.30 14:00:00 - [13] Originally by: Sidewayzracer Originally by: Aenis Veros Edited by: Aenis Veros on 30/07/2008 13:43:18 The changes as mentioned in the devblog will all reach Tranquility. The results from the Sisi-tests are merely to gather data on perhaps doing a rebalance further down the road. Don't get your hopes up, start preparing by selling your nano-HAC:s now and buying up battlecruisers. Trust me, the age of the HAC is over (aside from the Cerb). highly doubtable they will all go in as they are now "We're allocating a long time (a month or more) to oversee the changes because we are open to further tweaks, based on your suggestions." I also dont think it will go in without some tweaking, but thats it, tweaking. I would hope that the scram will just turn off the mwd but allow the ship to warp. It will be universally used instead of two mods (disruptor and web) on a lot (all?) of ships
Herschel Yamamoto Bloodmoney Incorporated	Posted - 2008.07.30 14:39:00 - [14] Should be? Ship speed changes by class, web/marauder web bonus changes, polycarbon and nano changes, and that's about it. Will be? Either all or none, and I'd wager none judging by the polling data. ------------------ Fix the forums!
Corrock Minmatar SUBLIME L.L.C. SUBLIME CREATIONS ALLIANCE	Posted - 2008.07.30 14:47:00 - [15] Originally by: Sidewayzracer tbh if they left nanos as they were with some minor tweaking but added in modules that boost explosion velocity and speed of missles i would have been all for it. As mentioned, they tried this, because they're eminently sensible, but the physics engine gave some weird responses. So they had to do a bunch of other stuff instead.
SurrenderMonkey	Posted - 2008.07.30 14:57:00 - [16] Originally by: Tarminic CCP said that speed tanking ships should be capable of being harmed by weapons specifically designed to be used against them. So basically, precision heavy missiles should be capable of making a vaga pilot worry, but regular heavies shouldn't. How did you reach that conclusion from this statement: "Speed must never reach ludicrous speed, which is defined as speeds where missiles and drones don't intercept the class of ship they were intended for." Last I checked, heavy missiles are intended to be used against cruiser-class ships, and vagabonds are a cruiser class ship. Hmm.
Sidewayzracer Caldari Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.07.30 15:01:00 - [17] Originally by: Tarminic Originally by: Cpt Cosmic Originally by: Shintai All this :) and missiles too like they stated in the forum wuahahah will bring fresh air into the game, and more variety. Don't expect missiles to survive this without a minor nerf to speed and/or explosion velocity. CCP said that speed tanking ships should be capable of being harmed by weapons specifically designed to be used against them. So basically, precision heavy missiles should be capable of making a vaga pilot worry, but regular heavies shouldn't. precision missles have issues with explosion velocity not radius... normal heavy missles have a higher explosion velocity then precisions
TheG2 Gallente Dirty Rotten Scoundrels	Posted - 2008.07.30 15:03:00 - [18] Originally by: Matrixcvd none, the level of rightful complaining and outrage will reach epic proportions, moar epicz than we already have and i dont see these changes being implemented, 5 fighters anyone? Crying some more I see.
Chronos VIII Amarr FinFleet Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.07.30 15:06:00 - [19] all - I totally support these changes, except the activation delay on mwd's which is way over the top.
Roc Wieler Tribal Liberation Force	Posted - 2008.07.30 15:10:00 - [20] Originally by: Chronos VIII all - I totally support these changes, except the activation delay on mwd's which is way over the top. Just my opinion, so take is at that please... Every "warp" type science fiction device I have seen suffers from what CCP is about to introduce. When something affects the wrap drive, it goes offline almost immediately. Due to the fragile complexities of generating warp fields, it ALWAYS takes a while to get things reset and working. So to me, the MWD changes that are proposed are perfectly inline with most science fiction. "Never start a fight you can win." - Roc Wieler

luminous russula	Posted - 2008.07.30 16:26:00 - [21] ships desinded to go fast should do so, an inty should be able to brake 6k, but that is it, other ships shouldnt be able to do so as they do now. intys should be able to brake 6k, not 11k as they do now... atm they only brake 4k, which isnt enough, so they will prolly be boosted. also, nothing went through testing unchanged...stuff will defently change drake changed like so many times when it was in testing...
Fiyah Sun Federation of Freedom Fighters Executive Outcomes	Posted - 2008.07.30 17:39:00 - [22] All, the sooner the nano-nerfs whines ends the cloaking nerf ones will begin, and that will press the issue of an actually real broken mechanic in eve.
Slanty McGarglefist	Posted - 2008.07.30 17:42:00 - [23] Originally by: Fiyah Sun All, the sooner the nano-nerfs whines ends the cloaking nerf ones will begin, and that will press the issue of an actually real broken mechanic in eve. How is it broken might I ask? I honestly don't know. __________________________________________________ Originally by: CCP Wrangler No Doh!
Trojanman190 D00M. Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.07.30 17:46:00 - [24] I just wish ccp would come round and realize that they can achieve everything the nerfs achieve with boosts. Nerf = negative, somebody always hates them. Results in people being depressed, eve quitage, forum whining, etc. Boost = postive, more people like than dislike. Results in more people being happy, less/no eve quitage, far less forumw whining etc. Both result in the game being less stagnant. Look at the amar boost patch. That added LOTS of stuff and changed a BUNCH of ships for the better. Some people complained, people always will, but the VAST majority of eve was happy, positive, and content with the changes. You even put in a vertable super sniper (apoc) and people still didn't completely flip out. Nerfs = unhappy community. Boosts = happy cummunity. I'm not sure what the logic behind CCPs faith in nerfs is. There are better ways to go about things.
spiderppig	Posted - 2008.07.30 18:05:00 - [25] Originally by: Trojanman190 I just wish ccp would come round and realize that they can achieve everything the nerfs achieve with boosts. Nerf = negative, somebody always hates them. Results in people being depressed, eve quitage, forum whining, etc. Boost = postive, more people like than dislike. Results in more people being happy, less/no eve quitage, far less forumw whining etc. Both result in the game being less stagnant. Look at the amar boost patch. That added LOTS of stuff and changed a BUNCH of ships for the better. Some people complained, people always will, but the VAST majority of eve was happy, positive, and content with the changes. You even put in a vertable super sniper (apoc) and people still didn't completely flip out. Nerfs = unhappy community. Boosts = happy cummunity. I'm not sure what the logic behind CCPs faith in nerfs is. There are better ways to go about things. hows it go trojan o/
Artemis Rose Eleckrostatik	Posted - 2008.07.30 18:17:00 - [26] Originally by: Trojanman190 I just wish ccp would come round and realize that they can achieve everything the nerfs achieve with boosts. Nerf = negative, somebody always hates them. Results in people being depressed, eve quitage, forum whining, etc. Boost = postive, more people like than dislike. Results in more people being happy, less/no eve quitage, far less forumw whining etc. Both result in the game being less stagnant. Look at the amar boost patch. That added LOTS of stuff and changed a BUNCH of ships for the better. Some people complained, people always will, but the VAST majority of eve was happy, positive, and content with the changes. You even put in a vertable super sniper (apoc) and people still didn't completely flip out. Nerfs = unhappy community. Boosts = happy cummunity. I'm not sure what the logic behind CCPs faith in nerfs is. There are better ways to go about things. The Boost patch had a 10% EM/Exp base resistance nerf as the only negative thing, and people whined about that, despite it being a damage boost for PvP. Minmatar pilots whined they would be useless due to changes, and the super Apoc sniper was hotly debated as well. You poke the game, people cry. You leave the game like it is, people cry. You'll never avoid it. __________________________________________________ Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine. WTB Purple Nerf Bat.


Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.