EVE Search - A Small Update on the Speed Changes

All Channels

Test Server Feedback

A Small Update on the Speed Changes

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 1 post(s)
Murina The Scope	Posted - 2008.10.13 17:44:00 - [181] Edited by: Murina on 13/10/2008 19:54:18 Originally by: Iog Krugar my choice would be - curse (3x neut/3x scram/platebuffer) - huginn (guns/6x web/platebuffer) - BS, maybe domi (2x rr, 1x cap transfer, 2x remote sensor boost, 2x cap booster, 1x ECCM, not sure if active tank or buffer) Any other ideas that feel a bit less forced? Idea 1 with bubble. Try 2 amaar BS with a onerous dishing out RR and tracking bonuses fitted for fast lock and uber dmg and good range bud i bet you melt at least one of the nano before they get away. No need for a tackler. Idea 2 with bubble. BC or BS Missile spammer + logistic ship + tackler. Self explanatory really. Idea 3 with bubble. 3 BS in a RR/nuet fit, fast lock, medium/long range(100+km), good tracking. If the nano closes it gets nuet'd if it runs without warping it gets melted in a couple of volleys before it gets out of range. All of these fits are unkillable by the 3 (i-win button) nano if used correctly due to the ability to heavy tank, while they can easily kill attacking nano ships and pop at least one if the nano runs for it.
GreGh Rakrot Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.10.13 20:49:00 - [182] Originally by: destroyer555 Heavy assault ship.... ie not meant to go at ridiculous speeds, doesnt matter if this hampers the nano***s experience, alot of work goes into making it relatively realistic with various ships for various roles.... I just plain dont see how a HEAVY assault ship was meant to do what it does right now, speednerf ftw, learn to use ships for at least close to their intended purpose oh great, another one that thinks "heavy" has something to do with mass and/or weight and therefor speed "heavy" and similar terms in military always describe firepower, in this case its cruiser with more firepower then normal (T1) variant
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.14 15:40:00 - [183] Originally by: GreGh Rakrot oh great, another one that thinks "heavy" has something to do with mass and/or weight and therefor speed "heavy" and similar terms in military always describe firepower, in this case its cruiser with more firepower then normal (T1) variant Yeah and smaller things usually have more firepower right and size has nothing to do with it. Maybe you should show me heavy artillery that is smaller then light artillery. Maybe show me heavy tanks that are smaller then light tanks. Show it, mr military man. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Murina The Scope	Posted - 2008.10.14 15:50:00 - [184] Edited by: Murina on 14/10/2008 15:56:31 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Blah blah Heavy denotes dmg and relative size/weight compared to frigates and destroyers and when fitted similarly the frigates and destroyers are considerably faster. Quote about RL navy heavy cruisers for you: "The heavy cruiser was a type of cruiser, a naval warship designed for long range and high speed".
GreGh Rakrot Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.10.14 17:01:00 - [185] sigh lyria, i was trying to point out that just because there is word "heavy" used in description of ship class it doesnt mean it cant go fast i acctualy dont mind speed being rebalanced in some way, but im against the way CCP is doing it now and im against some of the reasonings why speed should be changed (on the other hand i read many well argumented reasons for speed balance in the past) using semantic arguments for speed changes is definitly one of those i cant agree with as it doesnt make any sense, and its not the first time i see people use this non-argument for speed re-balance
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.14 17:02:00 - [186] Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 14/10/2008 15:59:42 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Blah blah Heavy denotes dmg and relative size/weight compared to frigates and destroyers and when fitted similarly the frigates and destroyers are considerably faster. Quote about RL navy heavy cruisers for you: "The heavy cruiser was a type of cruiser, a naval warship designed for long range and high speed". Sounds like a fast roaming gang ship to me. Source? ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.14 17:04:00 - [187] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 14/10/2008 17:04:51 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 14/10/2008 17:04:29 Originally by: GreGh Rakrot sigh lyria, i was trying to point out that just because there is word "heavy" used in description of ship class it doesnt mean it cant go fast i acctualy dont mind speed being rebalanced in some way, but im against the way CCP is doing it now and im against some of the reasonings why speed should be changed (on the other hand i read many well argumented reasons for speed balance in the past) using semantic arguments for speed changes is definitly one of those i cant agree with as it doesnt make any sense, and its not the first time i see people use this non-argument for speed re-balance Yes and I want you to show me military examples where a "heavy" version of something is LIGHTER/SMALLER or FASTER. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Murina The Scope	Posted - 2008.10.14 17:38:00 - [188] Edited by: Murina on 14/10/2008 17:45:14 Edited by: Murina on 14/10/2008 17:41:22 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Murina Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Blah blah Heavy denotes dmg and relative size/weight compared to frigates and destroyers and when fitted similarly the frigates and destroyers are considerably faster. Quote about RL navy heavy cruisers for you: "The heavy cruiser was a type of cruiser, a naval warship designed for long range and high speed". Sounds like a fast roaming gang ship to me. Source? It is the first line about heavy cruisers in one of the wiki threads about cruisers it goes on to say summat about 8ins guns but considering neither are really relevant i did not bother to add that bit although i knew the "high speed" part would get your juices flowing so i posted it. I am sure you will enjoy picking out your own little (irrelevant) snippets. Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Yes and I want you to show me military examples where a "heavy" version of something is LIGHTER/SMALLER or FASTER. Hacs in eve are not lighter, smaller or faster than frigates but they do have heavier guns.
GreGh Rakrot Rionnag Alba	Posted - 2008.10.14 17:39:00 - [189] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 14/10/2008 17:04:51 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 14/10/2008 17:04:29 Originally by: GreGh Rakrot sigh lyria, i was trying to point out that just because there is word "heavy" used in description of ship class it doesnt mean it cant go fast i acctualy dont mind speed being rebalanced in some way, but im against the way CCP is doing it now and im against some of the reasonings why speed should be changed (on the other hand i read many well argumented reasons for speed balance in the past) using semantic arguments for speed changes is definitly one of those i cant agree with as it doesnt make any sense, and its not the first time i see people use this non-argument for speed re-balance Yes and I want you to show me military examples where a "heavy" version of something is LIGHTER/SMALLER or FASTER. heh, having any kind of normal discussion is pointless on this forums apparently so i give you: NANO TANK! but as i said, having semantic arguments for something in sci-fi game enviroment is silly make valid in-game mechanic based argument and you will have my support (already seen few of them from other ppl) but dont go make "straw-grasping" reasons cos if we go that way then raven fitted with heavy launchers should most definitly outdamage one fitted with siege launchers, correct ?
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.10.19 22:51:00 - [190] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 14/10/2008 15:59:42 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Blah blah Heavy denotes dmg and relative size/weight compared to frigates and destroyers and when fitted similarly the frigates and destroyers are considerably faster. Quote about RL navy heavy cruisers for you: "The heavy cruiser was a type of cruiser, a naval warship designed for long range and high speed". Sounds like a fast roaming gang ship to me. Source? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_cruiser
Gamesguy Amarr Black Nova Corp Band of Brothers	Posted - 2008.10.19 22:58:00 - [191] Edited by: Gamesguy on 19/10/2008 23:04:35 Edited by: Gamesguy on 19/10/2008 23:04:25 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 14/10/2008 17:04:51 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 14/10/2008 17:04:29 Originally by: GreGh Rakrot sigh lyria, i was trying to point out that just because there is word "heavy" used in description of ship class it doesnt mean it cant go fast i acctualy dont mind speed being rebalanced in some way, but im against the way CCP is doing it now and im against some of the reasonings why speed should be changed (on the other hand i read many well argumented reasons for speed balance in the past) using semantic arguments for speed changes is definitly one of those i cant agree with as it doesnt make any sense, and its not the first time i see people use this non-argument for speed re-balance Yes and I want you to show me military examples where a "heavy" version of something is LIGHTER/SMALLER or FASTER. A WWII heavy cruiser is typically just as fast as a light cruiser. For example, compare say the Alaska class battlecruiser with an Atlanta light cruiser. As for a modern day example. The US carriers can all outrun its escorts, including destroyers. Bigger is not always slower when it comes to seagoing ships. In fact often times bigger means faster.
Neo Rainhart Caldari Leela's Lamas	Posted - 2008.10.21 06:42:00 - [192] I demand an update! I'm not okay with a update on what direction the nerf is goin every 2 months! WAAAH
Artamis Kane Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.22 19:35:00 - [193] Originally by: Neo Rainhart I demand an update! I'm not okay with a update on what direction the nerf is goin every 2 months! WAAAH Agreed. I would like some idea as to how long it will be before my interceptor and fleet issue stabber will be worthless. Would be nice to have a ballpark on when this will be deployed. ----- Don't move ... or I'll fill you full of ... little yellow bolts of light!- JC
Murina The Scope	Posted - 2008.10.22 19:43:00 - [194] Originally by: Artamis Kane Originally by: Neo Rainhart I demand an update! I'm not okay with a update on what direction the nerf is goin every 2 months! WAAAH Agreed. I would like some idea as to how long it will be before my interceptor and fleet issue stabber will be worthless. Would be nice to have a ballpark on when this will be deployed. I think ccp underestimated just how much removing the need to tackle small fast ships to kill them was gonna screw up so many ships and weapon systems. Its gonna be a while buddy.
Dangerously Cheesey GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.23 00:37:00 - [195] Who cares? No one is going to be flying anything but battleships when this patch comes out.
Zinnn	Posted - 2008.10.25 03:06:00 - [196] Edited by: Zinnn on 25/10/2008 03:11:18 Here's one thing that I don't understand about the speed adjustment/nerf. It's in effect or will be in effect because it breaks the system. OK. Here's a suggestion. If the NUMBERS/calculations is a problem for the system, why not just reduce the speed of all ships and missiles proportionately, so the numbers are smaller to calculate but it has the same dynamics? I mean the dynamics are not the problem, right? And then change the distances of ships in missions, so that the speed change doesn't affect the overall time it takes to complete a mission. Sounds a lot easier than trying to redesign the entire dynamic of the game. EDIT: Then this will not be seen as a nerf, just an adjustment that ultimately doesn't change gameplay but solves the computing problem that ultimately breaks the game/bandwidth issue. .... Unless you want to change nanoing because you think it's an unfair advantage... in which case, all I have to say is, you're the one that created the need for nanoing. Perhaps a better alternative is to be able to continue to stay cloaked after being at a warp gate - have it be a skill, or make it available only to the covert ops. Then it's more a cat and mouse idea and adds a bit more unpredictability to the game, which might be fun in high security and in low security.
Miriyaka GoonFleet GoonSwarm	Posted - 2008.10.25 03:59:00 - [197] Originally by: Murina I think ccp underestimated just how much removing the need to tackle small fast ships to kill them was gonna screw up so many ships and weapon systems. Personally i think things were better without the nerf as all ships could hit any ship as long as it was tackled and that fact encouraged team work and versatile and varied gangs. Its gonna be a while buddy. In a nutshell, this is what's wrong with this whole thing. Not just the reduction in speeds (which affects tackler survivability/viability), but a total de-emphasis on tackling altogether. Hey, just targetpaint that mother*****! Frigates? Medium lasers, problem solved! No, don't put a point on that HAC - it's got 50% more mass, just throw 10 battleships worth of DPS on it, it'll die before it can align! It's all based on some kind of imaginary Eve where every fight is a mini-1v1 and the entire game has to be balanced as such, and it's stupid as hell. I like tackling. I'm gonna miss tackling.
Deva Blackfire D00M.	Posted - 2008.10.25 11:11:00 - [198] Were fighters looked at or do they still fly 2km/s+ and instapop everything except ceptors when getting into range? Sorry cant check on sisi atm.
Terra Mikael Private Nuisance	Posted - 2008.10.26 14:42:00 - [199] Call me a skeptic, but this Nano-fix just stinks of NGE...
Max Hardcase Art of War Exalted.	Posted - 2008.10.26 15:00:00 - [200] How about some warp speed differentation between shipclasses, and a different warpspeed acceleration according to shipclass. 3 AU/s for most stuff is boring.
Chucky Deep Core Mining Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.27 09:05:00 - [201] WTF? honestly WTF? 2 Heavy Assault cruisers need they're mass adjusted and CCP wants to change the whole game!!! bodes like SWG ... you will see more and more marketing which in turn will bring you more players to torture.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises	Posted - 2008.10.27 16:08:00 - [202] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 14/10/2008 17:04:51 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 14/10/2008 17:04:29 Originally by: GreGh Rakrot sigh lyria, i was trying to point out that just because there is word "heavy" used in description of ship class it doesnt mean it cant go fast i acctualy dont mind speed being rebalanced in some way, but im against the way CCP is doing it now and im against some of the reasonings why speed should be changed (on the other hand i read many well argumented reasons for speed balance in the past) using semantic arguments for speed changes is definitly one of those i cant agree with as it doesnt make any sense, and its not the first time i see people use this non-argument for speed re-balance Yes and I want you to show me military examples where a "heavy" version of something is LIGHTER/SMALLER or FASTER. Fitst you need to learn to annalyse words. HEavy asssult shio. MEans a HEavy modifier semantic applied over assautl ships. Well what is an assautl ship in eve? oo yes its a t2 frigate! So your argumnts are completely void and null. HEavy Assult Ships are HEAVY , in military way of the word"version of the Assautl ships athat are small and fast ships. BTW as some other posted speed and agility are almsot never direclty related to size. Examples: WW2 planes US main airplanes like p38, P51 and P47 all MUCH heavier and larger than german BF-109. All quite faster then the gwerman plane as well. FW190 another german fighter was called a EHAVY fighter, with armor and very heavy weaponry ( on the order of 4 times more firepower than any US fighter or the BF 109).. and was FASTER than the bf-109 and faster than most US fighters. English fighters Spitfire was the light interceptor qhile the tempest was the SUPER heavy interceptor. TEmpest was WAY WAY faster then the spitfire!! So HEAVY and slow in military terms means nothing.
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises	Posted - 2008.10.27 16:12:00 - [203] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: lecrotta Combat hulls in eve:- TITAN MS DREAD CARRIER BS BC CRUISER DESTROYER FRIG. Then let me quote myself once again while considering your little list there: "you still cant convince us that hacs going at interceptor speeds with relative cheap fittings are fine or normal or expected behaviour of that shipclass". now you reach the point of importance. To chosoe what is a OVER speed and waht is not. I really doubt ANYONE non biased woudl say that HACs goign 11km/s are OK. But I also don't see how someoen can tell me a vagabond with half it smoduels focused for speed shoudl not reach 4 K. The problem are the EXTREME modifiers like snake sets that make reasonable setups in to stupid setups. I think the overdrive wa snerfed too hard. All other low slot moduels give WAY larger boost then the overdrive. Damage mods give about 22% more damage REsist moduels give 25% etc... Overdrives shoudl stil give near 20% speed boost. OR reduce their penalties as well (because YES cripplign your cargo hold IS a severe problem for non ammar ships)
Kagura Nikon Minmatar Infinity Enterprises	Posted - 2008.10.27 16:19:00 - [204] Originally by: Fullmetal Jackass Edited by: Fullmetal Jackass on 10/10/2008 03:04:53 The best way to avoid an incoming missile is fly at an oblique angle to it's incoming flight path and hope you're moving fast enough that it's not agile enough to correct and hit you. Flares or chaff to distract it's guidance system helps too. Is there a way to give missiles an agility rating so that they miss or hit less directly vs a fast moving object? Agility could decrease as the missile size increases. I know it's kinda like tracking with guns, but realisticly at the speed missiles fly at, and with the lack of atmosphere for control surfaces to interact with, missiles in space should have a hard time hitting fast moving objects. It's that or add flares and chaff or point defence mode for turrets. That's all I got at the moment. youa re skyppign the last part of the trick.. at very last moment when the missile is cuttign the way to go ahead of you and intercept you you wol and pull towards the missile smaking it overshoot you :) ACM... that is real skilll. So anyoen thinkgign there is ANYU skil lin eve combat.. LOL The only skil involved is on setup of the ship and gang and on selectign the best targets. After that no skill involved.
Valuv Placeholder Corporation	Posted - 2008.10.28 03:06:00 - [205] Edited by: Valuv on 28/10/2008 03:06:52 Originally by: GreGh Rakrot so i give you: NANO TANK! If real life comparisons has anything to do with the game balance, this link alone should ensure that BS should be travelling at 1.5km/s speed . This, therefore, invalidates any stupid real life analogies. It won't stop the people that has narrow understanding of the universe from posting though. Tags: Largest Tank ever built, thousand tons, 200mph speed on desert sand.
Malfoy Horizon	Posted - 2008.10.28 14:48:00 - [206] My little update on the speed changes: Subscription Status: Cancelled Will be suspended 12/12/2008 Months of training for Minmatar HAC's and Ceptors. Enjoy blobbing!
Janthor Elim	Posted - 2008.10.28 19:57:00 - [207] Been back on the test server a few times since the speed adjustments have been readjusted. TBH it seems pretty much the same as the first go. And my thoughts are the same.. I think that overall, speed does need looking at, and clearly that's what is being attempted. However, I think the changes that are currently on sisi are simply too excessive, and so highly controversial. They have a very large impact on a lot of playing styles, ships, set-ups and over all gameplay. I don't object to changes.. in fact they are necessary. These sweeping speed adjustments seriously upset a lot of players (clearly) and I know that there is no way to make everyone happy when change happens, but to me the changes currently on sisi are over the top. I'd suggest that you look to make a few of the changes to start with, and see how they impact on play, before considering making more changes. For example, reducing the effect of polycarbs, and lowering the effect of gang mods/implants in the first case. Clearly these 2 effects would have a fairly large impact on some more crazy speeds some people attain, whilst not heavily impacting everyone in game. In addition, reducing the effect of webifiers, to a smaller extent than is current on sisi seems sensible. If a few slight changes like these don't make sufficient difference to balance game play, then after a month or two look at further changes, and readjustments. It seems to me that making a few small changes can have an impact on the change that is required, without seriously affecting almost every single player in a large way. Please consider this approach rather than a wholesale, blanket, multi-faceted strategy. Cheers, Jan
Terra Mikael Private Nuisance	Posted - 2008.10.29 09:10:00 - [208] Originally by: Janthor Elim Been back on the test server a few times since the speed adjustments have been readjusted. TBH it seems pretty much the same as the first go. And my thoughts are the same.. I think that overall, speed does need looking at, and clearly that's what is being attempted. However, I think the changes that are currently on sisi are simply too excessive, and so highly controversial. They have a very large impact on a lot of playing styles, ships, set-ups and over all gameplay. I don't object to changes.. in fact they are necessary. These sweeping speed adjustments seriously upset a lot of players (clearly) and I know that there is no way to make everyone happy when change happens, but to me the changes currently on sisi are over the top. I'd suggest that you look to make a few of the changes to start with, and see how they impact on play, before considering making more changes. For example, reducing the effect of polycarbs, and lowering the effect of gang mods/implants in the first case. Clearly these 2 effects would have a fairly large impact on some more crazy speeds some people attain, whilst not heavily impacting everyone in game. In addition, reducing the effect of webifiers, to a smaller extent than is current on sisi seems sensible. If a few slight changes like these don't make sufficient difference to balance game play, then after a month or two look at further changes, and readjustments. It seems to me that making a few small changes can have an impact on the change that is required, without seriously affecting almost every single player in a large way. Please consider this approach rather than a wholesale, blanket, multi-faceted strategy. Cheers, Jan THIS THIS THIS THIS THIS.
Terra Mikael Private Nuisance	Posted - 2008.10.29 13:56:00 - [209] Originally by: Valuv If real life comparisons has anything to do with the game balance, this link alone should ensure that BS should be travelling at 1.5km/s speed Yeah, because everyone knows that in space, objects can't go too fast because of air resistance and such. Nevermind that the space shuttle (which is primitive compared to what were flying) orbits at around 8000m/s.
Soporo Caldari	Posted - 2008.10.29 21:29:00 - [210] Quote: Who cares? No one is going to be flying anything but battleships when this patch comes out. Wrong, it will be Assault Frig Online.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 [7] 8 :: 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.