Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 02:04:00 -
[61]
I just forces every nanoship to fight like the vaga does, by pulsing the MWD to do damage. For vaga pilots it'll be a return to the status quo, except maybe they can't surpass 6K m/s anymore if CCP tweaks implants and polycarbon rigs. But it turns the sacrilege into a slower version of the vaga with less EHP and less DPS. It removes the ability of the sniper-HACS to MWD-kite while firing to try and keep their range to avoid incomming tacklers. Goodbye to interceptor dogfights.
This idea is basically, "I fly the vaga so make it immune to the nano-nerf please, and to hell with every other ship."
|
RuriHoshino
Minmatar Stimulus
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 03:08:00 -
[62]
Originally by: Toman Jerich I just forces every nanoship to fight like the vaga does, by pulsing the MWD to do damage. For vaga pilots it'll be a return to the status quo, except maybe they can't surpass 6K m/s anymore if CCP tweaks implants and polycarbon rigs. But it turns the sacrilege into a slower version of the vaga with less EHP and less DPS.
I'm sorry, what is the Sacrilege now? It's not as fast as the Vagabond no matter what you do to it, so it's... a slower HAC. Without the tracking or falloff issues turret ships contend with. I fail to see why this is a bad thing, as they are two different ships.
Quote: It removes the ability of the sniper-HACS to MWD-kite while firing to try and keep their range to avoid incomming tacklers. Goodbye to interceptor dogfights.
Yes it does. In this scenario, you're relying either on superior piloting skills, or better support on your side to keep the enemy support fleet at bay. And if the only defense you have against tackle frigates are sniper HACs, congratulations, you just failed EVE.
Now, it has been suggested elsewhere that Interceptors gain a role bonus that would allow them to use their guns while their MWD is active. This bonus could go to the "dogfighters," aka Crow, Claw, Sader, Ranis. And while Teamwork Crow might have been obnoxious, that's a very special case that doesn't break the game, just the economy
Quote: This idea is basically, "I fly the vaga so make it immune to the nano-nerf please, and to hell with every other ship."
No, this idea is a compromise between leaving things as they are, which obviously isn't an option anymore, and making poorly thought-out and grandiose sweeping changes to almost every aspect of the game while alienating a large part of your player base.
Support a Real, Reasonable Change to Speed |
Marya Sklodowska
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 03:09:00 -
[63]
Yes, it's true that after this change there will be some things that the vaga does better than the Sac, notably speed. However the Sac is still the best tanking HAC, as well as being workable as a fast attack ship using nanos.
Each ships should have varied strengths and weaknesses, and the fact that after this change not every HAC will work equally well as a nanoship isn't much of a criticism.
----------------------------------- Raivi's Research Alt -Explosion Matrix- Support Sarmaul's MWD MKII |
Toman Jerich
Ars ex Discordia GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:39:00 -
[64]
Edited by: Toman Jerich on 06/08/2008 04:43:16 Comparing the tranq nanosac to the tranq vaga, it goes much slower (topping out at less than 6km/s), has less EHP, and has lower peak DPS. But in exchange for those trade-offs, it has the ability to perma-mwd while firing missiles. The point of the change outlined in the OP is to break the sac's ability to perma mwd while firing missiles, in addition to breaking the other things that I meantioned for eagles, cerbs, zealots, munnins, and all interceptors.
The core of the idea is to try and appease CCP/the masses by breaking every nano-HAC except the vaga, even though the vaga is actually the nanoship that exhibits to the greatest degree the thing that CCP is trying to end -- "ludicrous speed". The vaga will be as effective as ever after this change; no one who pilots it will even have to change anything about their fighting methodology. But every other HAC will lose a considerable amount of combat effectiveness. It's pretty transparent.
I'm all for alternative solutions to the over-the-top nano-nerf that's on sisi, but this isn't the answer.
"1) MWDs are used for Rapid Positioning: getting into a fight, getting out of a fight or charging down enemies. ... 3) ABs are used for fighting."
If you want this to be the case, then add in a big multiplier for ship inertia when the MWD is activated to make it impossible to hold orbit. Otherwise, MWDs are for all those things and also for speed tanking (fighting). Of course since the idea is really just about preserving the effectiveness of the vaga in the face of this nerf, I doubt that will get any consideration.
|
Raather
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:46:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Toman Jerich
The core of the idea is to try and appease CCP/the masses by breaking every nano-HAC except the vaga, even though the vaga is actually the nanoship that exhibits to the greatest degree the thing that CCP is trying to end -- "ludicrous speed".
The Vaga fights at the edge of web range to do decent DPS, it has to slow down to do this DPS.
The Sac can orbit as far out as its Warp Disruptor allows, going full speed spewing missiles that do their damage regardless of tracking.
Yeah, it's the vaga that needs nerfed.
|
Dungar Loghoth
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:57:00 -
[66]
This makes a hell of a lot more sense than what CCP has proposed. ---
|
Serj Darek
Mentally Unstable Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 06:15:00 -
[67]
Interesting, I give it 2 thumbs up.
First!
|
The Monkeysphere
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:27:00 -
[68]
Supporting this simple and effective idea, seeing as the impending changes are ridiculous to say the least.
|
Dark Flare
0utbreak
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:27:00 -
[69]
I like this.
|
Natalia Kovac
Minmatar Phoenix Tribe
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:35:00 -
[70]
Originally by: Dinique aka Sarmaul is better than CCP
As an alternate solution to the "Speed Problem", I ask that CCP considers the following solution proposed by Sarmaul:
1) When an MWD is activated, all weapon systems are deactivated and can only be reactivated once the MWD is turned off. Turrets, Drones, Launchers and Smartbombs stop dealing damage completely while the MWD is active. 2) Afterburner speeds are increased
This achieves the following:
1) MWDs are used for Rapid Positioning: getting into a fight, getting out of a fight or charging down enemies. 2) Disengaging becomes more difficult for MWD users: When you attempt to disengage by MWDing away, you can't kill the ceptor that is chasing you down anymore with low transversal. If the tackling ship catches up to you, you are in real trouble. 3) ABs are used for fighting. 4) Pure tackling ships can still use their MWD and tackle.
This change along with some other tweaks (such as nerfing polycarbons and nerfing snake implants) can balance the speed problem entirely.
Failure idea. Just delete the Ishtar instead, it would be easier. Or delete the Curse's drone bay?
Fact is, the only things that actually NEED to be changed are these.
Make polycarbs inline with the T2 modules or even down to the same as Aux Thruster rigs. Lower the cumulative speed boost given by Snake implants by a quarter to a third. Lower the speed boost given by overheating MWDs.
If all that is not enough, then look at lowering the boost given by skirmish warfare links slightly.
|
|
Dark Flare
Caldari 0utbreak
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:38:00 -
[71]
Originally by: Natalia Kovac
Originally by: Dinique aka Sarmaul is better than CCP
As an alternate solution to the "Speed Problem", I ask that CCP considers the following solution proposed by Sarmaul:
1) When an MWD is activated, all weapon systems are deactivated and can only be reactivated once the MWD is turned off. Turrets, Drones, Launchers and Smartbombs stop dealing damage completely while the MWD is active. 2) Afterburner speeds are increased
This achieves the following:
1) MWDs are used for Rapid Positioning: getting into a fight, getting out of a fight or charging down enemies. 2) Disengaging becomes more difficult for MWD users: When you attempt to disengage by MWDing away, you can't kill the ceptor that is chasing you down anymore with low transversal. If the tackling ship catches up to you, you are in real trouble. 3) ABs are used for fighting. 4) Pure tackling ships can still use their MWD and tackle.
This change along with some other tweaks (such as nerfing polycarbons and nerfing snake implants) can balance the speed problem entirely.
Failure idea. Just delete the Ishtar instead, it would be easier. Or delete the Curse's drone bay?
Fact is, the only things that actually NEED to be changed are these.
Make polycarbs inline with the T2 modules or even down to the same as Aux Thruster rigs. Lower the cumulative speed boost given by Snake implants by a quarter to a third. Lower the speed boost given by overheating MWDs.
If all that is not enough, then look at lowering the boost given by skirmish warfare links slightly.
Uhm, the point is that the Ishtar and Curse were never designed to zip about at stupid speed dealing full dps....
|
Natalia Kovac
Minmatar Phoenix Tribe
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:40:00 -
[72]
The point is that you get a ***ging Rapier on the field and you shut the hell up.
|
midge Mo'yb
Antares Shipyards Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 11:44:00 -
[73]
me likes -----------------------------------------------
|
Isyel
Minmatar Sebiestor tribe
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:19:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Natalia Kovac The point is that you get a ***ging Rapier on the field and you shut the hell up.
Why even nerf speed in that case? If you need to get Rapiers on the field all the time anyway there's no need.
Fail ITT. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
|
Natalia Kovac
Minmatar Phoenix Tribe
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:24:00 -
[75]
Minnie recons are how you catch a nano-boat reliably. There are tons of other ways to catch them a little less reliably, or drive them off.
I don't really see the 3km/s Ishtar as a problem tbh. Not hard to grab.
|
RuriHoshino
Minmatar Stimulus
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 12:54:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Toman Jerich The point of the change outlined in the OP is to break the sac's ability to perma mwd while firing missiles, in addition to breaking the other things that I meantioned for eagles, cerbs, zealots, munnins, and all interceptors... But every other HAC will lose a considerable amount of combat effectiveness. It's pretty transparent.
It also breaks the Ishtar's ability to run full speed while losing none of it's DPS, which honestly is pretty unreasonable. Here's the issue I think we're having - you measure a nano'd HACs combat effectiveness in how much DPS it can do at speed. Those of us who support this change measure it in terms of being able to engage and disengage on favourable terms, a tactic that nanos are quite good at, but that is by no means exclusive to their class.
You're right that the Vagabond already fights this way. We're not of the opinion that the Vagabond is broken, because unlike the majority of carebear mouth-breathers who post-Sisi are gleefully posting "adapt or die lolololz" since their ratting Raven got ganked in a belt by a nano gang, we understand what speed in this game really means. However, we also feel it is unreasonable to expect to be able to do full damage to a target while you are warping space around your ship to achieve critically high speeds that allow you to avoid the fire of most weapons systems.
Quote: If you want this to be the case, then add in a big multiplier for ship inertia when the MWD is activated to make it impossible to hold orbit. Otherwise, MWDs are for all those things and also for speed tanking (fighting). Of course since the idea is really just about preserving the effectiveness of the vaga in the face of this nerf, I doubt that will get any consideration.
A) speed tanking is not the same as fighting, and B) you almost had an idea, but wrapped it up with an insult. So close. Try again.
Support a Real, Reasonable Change to Speed |
RuriHoshino
Minmatar Stimulus
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:05:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Natalia Kovac Minnie recons are how you catch a nano-boat reliably. There are tons of other ways to catch them a little less reliably, or drive them off.
I don't really see the 3km/s Ishtar as a problem tbh. Not hard to grab.
Neither do we. But it's become apparent that enough people at CCP do see it as a problem that we're going to get speed nerfed, somehow, in the near future.
I've never seen excessive speed as a problem as I've killed, and been killed in, a number of these mythically "invincible" nano ships. If I see a 12 kps Machariel burn off a gate away from me, I give that pilot a f*king salute, because he's got the balls to put stupid expensive modules on his ship and in his head that he will lose eventually for the sake of raw speed, and in a sandbox universe there's no reason people shouldn't have the option to do that.
This change preserves such options, while eliminating what makes it actually broken - the ability to do full damage to a single target while your speed makes you nearly invulnerable. Gang situations are obviously an entirely different affair, but again, the people gnashing their teeth and calling for nerfs display an obvious lack of experience with non-fail gangs. If all you're going to do is object to this idea's necessity, then go hit up one of the dozen other nano nerf threads. Preserve this one for discussing this particular idea's actual merits / demerits, please.
Support a Real, Reasonable Change to Speed |
Quen Azle
ANZAC ALLIANCE Southern Cross Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:13:00 -
[78]
Sounds better to me than what we'll likely end up with.
Sarmaul <3
|
Spang
Tomas Corp
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:20:00 -
[79]
supporting this
|
Benedic
The Aftermath
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:22:00 -
[80]
Even with its faults this is 1000% better than what CCP has proposed.
|
|
rapidity
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:22:00 -
[81]
I don't like this for two reasons:
1) MWDs are required for battleships to get out of dictor bubbles, losing weapon systems while at it would be terrible in laggy conditions.
2) More importantly, it does nothing to address the problem of there being no possibility of catching superfast ships, even with dedicated counters such as Huginns and Muninns, and the physics engine in Eve not coping with such speeds.
|
Kullenbrak
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:42:00 -
[82]
Will the proposal include a 8 sec MWD reactivation time?
If not, ships that can use instant damage weapons with ROF close the MWD cycle time will have a huge advantage. For example a Muninn could cycle its MWD, fire a rack of 720 after 10 sec, restart MWD and repeat. It will lose some dps but hardly no speed. Use a scripted Logitech G15 keyboard for this and the task will be trivial.
|
AdmiralFreeman
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 13:47:00 -
[83]
This is a complete joke !!! Can't find any logical reason
Defenitely againts !!!!
|
Hehulk
Black Sea Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:04:00 -
[84]
Originally by: rapidity 1) MWDs are required for battleships to get out of dictor bubbles, losing weapon systems while at it would be terrible in laggy conditions.
In all fairness, what battleship class long range weapon can actually track while it's moving at 1000-1400m/s ----------
It's great being minmatar, ain't it |
Hehulk
Black Sea Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:04:00 -
[85]
Originally by: AdmiralFreeman Defenitely againts !!!!
Against
Anyway, why exactly? ----------
It's great being minmatar, ain't it |
Raather
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:08:00 -
[86]
Originally by: rapidity I don't like this for two reasons:
1) MWDs are required for battleships to get out of dictor bubbles, losing weapon systems while at it would be terrible in laggy conditions.
2) More importantly, it does nothing to address the problem of there being no possibility of catching superfast ships, even with dedicated counters such as Huginns and Muninns, and the physics engine in Eve not coping with such speeds.
1) If you can activate your MWD you can reactivate your guns after using it tbh.
2) Have you seen how many nano ships die every day? There are plenty of counters and if used well they are effective. And the whole physics engine can't handle it is a heap of crap, people have gotten ships up to 70km/s + and nothing broke.
|
Gluecksbaerchi
Natural Selectors
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:13:00 -
[87]
I approve. And what wierda says, let's still keep the mass reduction on AFs and Webscram-turns-mwd-off for giving them roles too.
Recruiting peeps \o/ |
Gluecksbaerchi
Natural Selectors
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:19:00 -
[88]
Originally by: rapidity I don't like this for two reasons:
1) MWDs are required for battleships to get out of dictor bubbles, losing weapon systems while at it would be terrible in laggy conditions.
2) More importantly, it does nothing to address the problem of there being no possibility of catching superfast ships, even with dedicated counters such as Huginns and Muninns, and the physics engine in Eve not coping with such speeds.
regarding #2, if you mean >7km/s by superfast, then I agree. Well see the thing on sisi is that t2-vanilla setups are nerfed too much while still not adressing certain problems (e.g. an ishtar can (try) speedtanking while doing damage, missiles hit a lot of ships need speed because they have nothing else, range on falcons is even harder to counter because it takes longer to reach them, etc.pp).
I don't want to invest billions to get an ishtar doing 6k and I don't mind if that vanishes, but I don't want to invest billions to get an ishtar which might in the end reach 3k, with luck. in a straight line. (and therefore rendering a lot of hacs useless or at least questionable)
Recruiting peeps \o/ |
Natalia Kovac
Minmatar Phoenix Tribe
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 14:59:00 -
[89]
Originally by: RuriHoshino
Originally by: Natalia Kovac Minnie recons are how you catch a nano-boat reliably. There are tons of other ways to catch them a little less reliably, or drive them off.
I don't really see the 3km/s Ishtar as a problem tbh. Not hard to grab.
Neither do we. But it's become apparent that enough people at CCP do see it as a problem that we're going to get speed nerfed, somehow, in the near future.
I've never seen excessive speed as a problem as I've killed, and been killed in, a number of these mythically "invincible" nano ships. If I see a 12 kps Machariel burn off a gate away from me, I give that pilot a f*king salute, because he's got the balls to put stupid expensive modules on his ship and in his head that he will lose eventually for the sake of raw speed, and in a sandbox universe there's no reason people shouldn't have the option to do that.
This change preserves such options, while eliminating what makes it actually broken - the ability to do full damage to a single target while your speed makes you nearly invulnerable. Gang situations are obviously an entirely different affair, but again, the people gnashing their teeth and calling for nerfs display an obvious lack of experience with non-fail gangs. If all you're going to do is object to this idea's necessity, then go hit up one of the dozen other nano nerf threads. Preserve this one for discussing this particular idea's actual merits / demerits, please.
Well ok, but I don't really know how you can leave it's (non) necessity out of it. Ok, so the main thing is, where does this leave the Ishtar and the Sacrelidge etc? Their strength is that they can maybe fit a cap battery and use mwd for a long time, while doing damage independent of tracking. However they do not go particularly fast. They cannot automatically burn out of any danger.
Also ****s over the Vaga that tries to kill a ceptor that is buzzing it. And hell, even battleships with long range weapons. They need to use mwd to get in or out of a position, and they can't use their guns at the same time? It's stupid.
|
matty01
Dark Knights of Deneb Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.08.06 15:18:00 -
[90]
\
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 7 8 9 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |