Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
|
CCP Fendahl
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 21:03:00 -
[1]
Just a small update on the speed changes. As Nozh recently mentioned, testing of the speed changes have been moved to Multiplicity for the time being.
We're currently looking at how speed reduces the damage taken by missiles. When using a MWD, the sig radius becomes so large that the only way effective way to reduce damage is to to fast. If you plot the damage taken as a function of speed, it's clear that you need to hit over 5km/s for all missile types to get a meaningful reduction and that bigger is (generally) better. This is a major problem for cruisers and standard T2 fitted frigates. This has been a problem for a long time, but with the speed changes it has become more pronounced.
Ideally, we would like to have missiles of the same class as the target be the most effective, and have the damage reduction scale reasonably as speed increases. Unfortunately if we tweak the current system to prevent bigger from being better, the difference in damage reduction between ships in the same class become unreasonable; the falloff essentially becomes so short that it's trivial to increase the speed to a point where you're invulnerable to missiles. Because of this, we're looking into alternative systems for reducing the damage as speed increases. |
|
Liang Nuren
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 21:19:00 -
[2]
VERY cool, thanks for the update, Fendahl!
Can you provide us with some kind of graph for damage reduction that you're looking for? There's lots of bright minds here that are very eager to help. :)
Also, have you looked into the BS blaster tracking/range problems with relation to the speed nerf?
-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 |
murder one
Gallente Invincible Reason
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 21:22:00 -
[3]
Awesome.
How about the blaster situation, vis a vis large/medium blasters vs. cruiser sized targets?
My prediction: they don't get touched and blasters are horribly nerfed for at least a year, probably two, at which point it won't matter anymore, as no one uses them and they become a relic of the past.
[07:13:55] doctorstupid2 > what do i train now? [07:14:05] Trista Rotnor > little boys to 2 Fleet Combat Ships |
Spurty
Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 21:31:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Spurty on 02/09/2008 21:36:30 Edited by: Spurty on 02/09/2008 21:34:51 cruiser with MWD on has a sig of 105 (stabber) to 150 (blackbird) x 5.[0|5] or effectively:
- 525-750 T1 - <somewhere inbetween> named - 577.5-825 T2
Large guns have a sig res of 400, you should be absolutely whaling on the target for all of the 0.001 second opportunity you have of him being in range of you if they are nano'ed ;0
really, the MWD sig increase is breaking the fix. To fix speed this way, sigs need to be revisited I guess? |
D4RT N3RDiUS
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 21:45:00 -
[5]
Edited by: D4RT N3RDiUS on 02/09/2008 21:47:45 Edited by: D4RT N3RDiUS on 02/09/2008 21:46:19 so you still lost and dont now what to do? uh? maybe ccp can share their ideas and we can maybe and i say maybe can say something and meybe can help to resolve the problem :) in any way we can .
maybe speed tanking need a new whole idea like new modules for tanking like active armor in tanks in rl who are more ligths but they function for a limited time or somthing like defender missiles or one new defender gunn who can kill missiles so we minimize the dmg of missiles and we cant tank but if we got skills to do it ..
speed tank is intented for TURRETS BOATS not FOR MISSILE BOATS or DRONE BOATS that is the friking problem if i speed tank you i cant hit you if im in a turret boat.. is that simple make nosfes and frikin neutralicers afected by traking .. so curses cant do orbit to 5000 and neut you .. the ishtar need to be nerfed so they cant go 6.5 k of velocity and only keep point an ogres t2 hiting.. the sacrilege never go nano etcetcetc..
is simple like taking the problem ships and nerfed thath ships in some way like penaltis to mwd or more mass and geting new bonuses like one new tank module with this idea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Active_protection_system in this ships.. dont now make new thinks dont nerf all create dont destroy..
well i go change mi skills.. |
Barsexual
Castle Greyskull
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 21:46:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Barsexual on 02/09/2008 21:46:41 I can't believe this has been going on for so long, I always had a sneaking suspicion that the mwd sig radius penalty was completely screwed up proportionally to explosion velocity of missiles and gun sig radius. |
Soporo
Caldari
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 23:44:00 -
[7]
Just lower mwd sig radius some and boost afterburners to an actually usefull extent...? |
Synapse Archae
Amarr Demonic Retribution Un-Natural Selection
|
Posted - 2008.09.02 23:51:00 -
[8]
Thanks Fendahl,
I'm really glad to hear that at least one aspect of guerilla warfare is getting a serious look, and that the brokennes of the speed vs missiles mechanic is starting to come to light.
I think you're largely correct that it's broken on both ends.
Perhaps updating the in development page with your thoughts under the speed heading would be the best way to get this across?
Again, HUGE thanks for the update.
Originally by: CCP Garthagk While these forums may not give you everything that you want, they will usually let you post.
|
Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 08:03:00 -
[9]
Here's a giant cup of I told you so, CCP. I mean the main reason nano first became popular was that it is the only way to reduce damage from missiles. Large turrets are beyond easy to mitigate, but missiles, you have to go really fast or else you get blobbed by caldari ships. We told you the nano-whiners were by caldari missile pilots with no clue to how eve mechanics worked and we told you that your anti-missile ewar is laughably broken.
It sounds like you just need to tweak the sig radius penalty on MWD and explosion velocity on missiles until you get a good balance but baring that you can always add in a new variable to ships for missile calculations to balance it as you please.
--
http://desusig.crumplecorn.com/sigs.html
|
Zana Kito
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 08:23:00 -
[10]
CCP, you obviously understand one of the major reasons why people wanted to fly stupidly fast in the first place.. avoiding missile and drone weapon systems.
You know why they don't need to go absurdly fast to counter turrets? Because there's turret disruption ewar, and tight fast orbit to avoid being tracked by "bigger" turrets.
You first need an effect EWAR against missile/drones before you can start to balance speed vs dmg taken. Because if there's no effective ewar, people only have 1 option still, and that is speed. This defeats the purpose of AB and promotes continued preference for MWDs. Isn't this what you are trying to design against?
Think about it, there's been many suggestions on effective missile/drone EWAR. Fix defenders, or turn it into something else if need be. But it simply needs to work good as a defense against the "other" weapons in eve. |
|
Kazuo Ishiguro
House of Marbles Zzz
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 09:06:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Kazuo Ishiguro on 03/09/2008 09:14:33 This is the current missile damage formula:
Base Damage * min(1,Target Sig. Radius / Missile Exp. Rad.) * e^( -1 * max(0,Target Speed - Missile Explosion Speed)^2 / (AoEFalloff^2) ) = Final Missile Damage
Currently, the parameter AoEFalloff is a constant set to 1500 for nearly every type of missile. Changing it affects the rate at which missile damage tapers off when a ship starts moving faster than the the missile explosion speed. I assume this is what has been tweaked.
What happens if you increase the falloff for smaller missiles as well as reducing it for larger ones?
Also, what happens if you change this term from a constant to a variable that depends on factors such as sig radius or possibly mass? That way, damage would taper off faster for small ships moving at high speeds than for large ships at the same speeds.
I'll put some nice graphs together and see if I can come up with a system that meets the requirements that you're looking for.
Of course, this does beg a few other questions. Small tackling ships can generally beat the tracking on large guns, so missiles (and drones) are their main concern. If larger ships are reliably able to do even a tiny amount of damage to them (and the missile formula is not currently chance-based), they won't be able to stay around for long enough to do their jobs.
Zzz research towers Direrie NEW: Liekuri
20:1 low-end compression |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 09:16:00 -
[12]
Thanks for the update.
I hope you revise tracking problems at short ranges as well while you're at it, they're quite evident with the new webs when firing on the same ship classes - and horribly painful when using T2 high damage ammo.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Morel Nova
z3r0 Gravity Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 09:17:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Zana Kito
Think about it, there's been many suggestions on effective missile/drone EWAR. Fix defenders, or turn it into something else if need be. But it simply needs to work good as a defense against the "other" weapons in eve.
Drones don't really need a counter ewar since you can just blow them up, and jamming/damping etc will stop the user from directing them.
|
Aakito
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 09:28:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Morel Nova
Originally by: Zana Kito
Think about it, there's been many suggestions on effective missile/drone EWAR. Fix defenders, or turn it into something else if need be. But it simply needs to work good as a defense against the "other" weapons in eve.
Drones don't really need a counter ewar since you can just blow them up, and jamming/damping etc will stop the user from directing them.
So why do we need ewar for anything at all, we can just mass dps and blow it up!! Stop being pedantic, turrets have a very effective ewar. It's time the other weapons to receive their fair share.
ps. ecm is anti-lock and not weapon restricted. also, if you didn't know, drones released b4 aggressed will auto fight if you ecm its owner. damps?.. lol. |
Slobodanka
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 10:02:00 -
[15]
Don't bigger missiles also fly slower? Much slower? If heavys fly at 5k/s, then if you go 5.001 k/s that missile is never going to catch you and detonate near you, you take 0 dmg.
Only when missile is fast enough to catch it's target before it's flight time is over then it can detonate and has a chance of dealing damage (according to ships signature and missile resolution I guess).
This way you can very clearly make light misisles hit everything, heavys hit a bit slower boats, cruises hit even slower boats, and torps... well if you're not the size od cap ship and you are moving they don't hit for full dmg anyway :p
|
Kagura Nikon
Minmatar Infinity Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 10:20:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Slobodanka Don't bigger missiles also fly slower? Much slower? If heavys fly at 5k/s, then if you go 5.001 k/s that missile is never going to catch you and detonate near you, you take 0 dmg.
Only when missile is fast enough to catch it's target before it's flight time is over then it can detonate and has a chance of dealing damage (according to ships signature and missile resolution I guess).
This way you can very clearly make light misisles hit everything, heavys hit a bit slower boats, cruises hit even slower boats, and torps... well if you're not the size od cap ship and you are moving they don't hit for full dmg anyway :p
that is exactly what he said, and that creates a full damage at speed X zero damage at speed X+ 10% situation. And that is bad they want to get a more moderated and continuous damage reduction, not a binary on /off switch.
------------------------------------------------- If brute force doesn't solve your problem... you are not using enough
|
Lake
Caldari Infinite Improbability Inc Mostly Harmless
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 11:02:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Lake on 03/09/2008 11:04:17
This is copied from a post in my thread from a few weeks ago. There is more background on this topic in other posts in that thread, as well as more general speed comments.
Missiles Signature Radius does not work the same with missile damage as it does with turret tracking. If two ships are completely at rest the sigRadius doesn't affect tracking at all because the sigRadius ratio acts as a multiplier of speed. With missiles sigRadius and Speed are handled separately. A ship with 200m sigRadius hit by a missile with a 400 exRadius (Explosion Radius) will receive half damage even at complete rest. A ship with a sigRadius greater than the missile's exRadius will receive full damage, but no more. The exVelocity (Explosion Velocity) reduction is then applied to this damage amount.
The exVelocity damage mitigation is calculated much the same as turret tracking, turret falloff, EWar falloff, and so on. Each missile has an Explosion Velocity (aoeVelocity, 250 for torps, 500 for cruise, 750 for heavy) and a hidden attribute called aoeFalloff (1,500 for torps, cruise, heavy, and light). The old rule of thumb applies that at Optimal+Falloff you will do half damage. Near optimal there's very little damage reduction and at optimal+falloff*2 there's extreme damage reduction.
Here is a graph of the exVelocity damage mitigation with current missiles ( http://eve-mail.net/stuff/currentmissiles2.png ). Y-axis is simply the damage multiplier, while X-axis is ship velocity. The magical 3.5-4k speed threshold is clearly evident. I have left out sigRadius effects in part because 3D-graphs are hard to read when you can't spin them, and in part because they don't really matter that much in EVE at the moment.
1) A ship without a MWD can not achieve a high enough speed to mitigate significant damage, even against a missile that is a class larger, with the current exVelocity formula. For Example: My Cerberus with 3x Nanofiber II, 1x Overdrive II and 2x Polycarb I has a 2% damage reduction from Cruise Missiles from explosionVelocity at top speed.
2) A ship with a MWD active has a sigRadius large enough to exceed the exRadius of even missiles a class larger. For Example: A typical cruiser sigRadius of 125m goes to 625m with the MWD active in comparison to a Cruise Missile's exRadius of 300m. Only ships with a sigRadius less than 60m (not even destroyers) receive any sigRadius benefit when being hit by a cruise missile while their MWD is active.
In conclusion: The damage calculation for missiles isn't meeting the design target. I say damage calculation rather than simply missile stats after playing around with the numbers in my graphing tool without any luck. So my standard contribution comes as a new formula this time: dmgMod=0.9^((speed*(exRadius/sigRadius))/exVelocity).
Here is another graph with that formula overlayed in two pink lines ( http://eve-mail.net/stuff/futuremissiles.png ). Both lines represent a typical cruiser (125m sigRadius) vs a rebalanced heavy missile (125m exRadius, 200m/s exVelocity). The higher line is with a MWD active (as denoted by the x5 multiplier next to the sigRadius) and the lower line is without a MWD active. -- eve-mail.net (thread) Instant Messaging and E-mail for EVE players |
Shmekla
Gallente Ministry Of Amarrian Secret Service
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 11:17:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Aakito
So why do we need ewar for anything at all, we can just mass dps and blow it up!! Stop being pedantic, turrets have a very effective ewar. It's time the other weapons to receive their fair share.
ps. ecm is anti-lock and not weapon restricted. also, if you didn't know, drones released b4 aggressed will auto fight if you ecm its owner. damps?.. lol.
Oh come on. What else weapons system you can completely destroy except drones? And you say you do not have effective system against drones.
|
Cerui Tarshiel
Minmatar Clown Punchers. Clown Punchers Syndicate
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 13:21:00 -
[19]
I'm very glad that this problem has been correctly identified and is being worked on. As others said, other weapon systems can be disrupted (turrets) or destroyed (drones). I do belive that some form of disruption for missiles is neccessary (with perhaps f.o.f's being invulnerable to them due to no relying on the ships onboard targeting systems for guidance).
|
Morel Nova
z3r0 Gravity Sylph Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 13:31:00 -
[20]
Edited by: Morel Nova on 03/09/2008 13:31:45 Maybe something like a chaff launcher that makes the missiles explode prematurely. That way they will do full damage pretty much if target is sitting still (since it will be within explosion radius) and lower its damage when the target is moving fast (since it will have moved out of explosion radius).
This would let ships speed tank missile boats efficiently.
|
|
Gabriel Karade
Nulli-Secundus
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 14:39:00 -
[21]
Just to add to Liang and Branko's comments, if you could look at the tracking formula up close (take into account target size vs. distance) that would be splendid.
There's a summary post with links to all the relevant discussion on page 19 of the blaster thread.
--------------
Video - 'War-Machine' |
El Yatta
Mercenary Forces
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 15:06:00 -
[22]
This is excellent news, thankyou Fendahl.
However, could you please announce some work being done on BLASTERS (and to a less extent, ACs) being wrecked by this patch? Its all very well balancing missiles and sigs (imo a very good idea) but they are in danger of being overpowered, which at least some people would enjoy if you forgot it. Leaving blasters as they are with the web changes would be like deleting them from the game... _______________________________________________ Mercenary Forces |
Liang Nuren
Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 18:18:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Lake
Here is another graph with that formula overlayed in two pink lines ( http://eve-mail.net/stuff/futuremissiles.png ). Both lines represent a typical cruiser (125m sigRadius) vs a rebalanced heavy missile (125m exRadius, 200m/s exVelocity). The higher line is with a MWD active (as denoted by the x5 multiplier next to the sigRadius) and the lower line is without a MWD active.
Lake, this is excellent work. Your formula admirably stops the magic damage cliff that comes from going "too fast", however, with the nano nerf, it does not drop off fast enough as ships increase in both speed and decrease in sig radius.
Additionally, it doesn't take into account that turrets have both range and transversal "holes" that can be exploited. Missiles do not have this kind of hole, and additionally have remarkably excellent range. There is nowhere to hide.
In the end, the biggest problems come from the high alpha volley combined with the low overall hitpoints of smaller ships. With missile ships on the field, there will simply be no option other than to fly a fully tanked ship (preferably of the same size or larger).
-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 |
Jas Dor
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.09.03 18:39:00 -
[24]
If sig radius is currently a nullity, maybe it would be best to ignore the actual sig radius and concentrate on the base sig radius of a ship. After all why should the radar cross section matter when dealing with an omnidirectional explosion on a LOCKED target. (This makes more sense with guns as we assume the target is taking some form of evasive action). How big the target actually is, and thus how much of the expanding energy of the missile it's subject to, makes more sense damage wise. (At least when dealing with a system where the larger area exposed is modeled by the greater HP's of the ship). RL explosive velocities often exceed 7,000 m/s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_velocity). Some type of chaffe modules that reduces the base sig might be the way to go on increased effectiveness.
Makes swatting a fly with a sledgehammer hard and means ceptors are going to be hard to kill with anything besides light guns. Names, Dates, Times, Engagements, Losses, Op-Tempo or STFU! |
Eraggan Sadarr
Phoenix Tribe
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 07:28:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Jas Dor If sig radius is currently a nullity, maybe it would be best to ignore the actual sig radius and concentrate on the base sig radius of a ship. After all why should the radar cross section matter when dealing with an omnidirectional explosion on a LOCKED target. (This makes more sense with guns as we assume the target is taking some form of evasive action). How big the target actually is, and thus how much of the expanding energy of the missile it's subject to, makes more sense damage wise. (At least when dealing with a system where the larger area exposed is modeled by the greater HP's of the ship). RL explosive velocities often exceed 7,000 m/s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_velocity). Some type of chaffe modules that reduces the base sig might be the way to go on increased effectiveness.
Makes swatting a fly with a sledgehammer hard and means ceptors are going to be hard to kill with anything besides light guns.
Wouldn't that remove the effectiveness of target painters? That would be a sad development for minmatar and missile users in general. I like the fact that my T2 torps usually only give full damage, if i use a target painter to increase the other ships sig to above 530. I think we just need to take the full array of weapons into account when trying to redo the formula.
Eve Market Scanner |
Zeknichov
Realm Industries
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 10:18:00 -
[26]
Recalculate the formula so that sig and speed are dependent upon one another and not separate formulas then just tweak calculations and numbers so you have the missiles you want damaging the ship sizes you want at the dps you want.
|
Jas Dor
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 18:12:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Eraggan Sadarr
Originally by: Jas Dor If sig radius is currently a nullity, maybe it would be best to ignore the actual sig radius and concentrate on the base sig radius of a ship. After all why should the radar cross section matter when dealing with an omnidirectional explosion on a LOCKED target. (This makes more sense with guns as we assume the target is taking some form of evasive action). How big the target actually is, and thus how much of the expanding energy of the missile it's subject to, makes more sense damage wise. (At least when dealing with a system where the larger area exposed is modeled by the greater HP's of the ship). RL explosive velocities often exceed 7,000 m/s (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explosive_velocity). Some type of chaffe modules that reduces the base sig might be the way to go on increased effectiveness.
Makes swatting a fly with a sledgehammer hard and means ceptors are going to be hard to kill with anything besides light guns.
Wouldn't that remove the effectiveness of target painters? That would be a sad development for minmatar and missile users in general. I like the fact that my T2 torps usually only give full damage, if i use a target painter to increase the other ships sig to above 530. I think we just need to take the full array of weapons into account when trying to redo the formula.
A target paint is providing a spot for the missile to home in on (what a real target painter does) so, let the target painter increase the base sig. Missiles use base sig + target painters, guns use modified sig + tracking computers and target painters. Names, Dates, Times, Engagements, Losses, Op-Tempo or STFU! |
PirceHat
|
Posted - 2008.09.04 23:47:00 -
[28]
Edited by: PirceHat on 04/09/2008 23:54:10 Edited by: PirceHat on 04/09/2008 23:51:07 Edited by: PirceHat on 04/09/2008 23:50:01 The main problem with the current technique is you are applying a linear falloff to an exponential system.
Based on my imperfect guesstimates from your new mwd speeds chart I entered a high, low, and mode case for each main speed class. Then obtaining an exponentially smoothed best fit for each speed class moving downwards numbered 1,2,3 etc. (Eg ceptors are 1, EAS 2, frigates 3, etc.) you get: Veolocity = 4047*e^(0.11ClassNumber) R¦ = 0.955 So yes, the speeds are definitely moving exponentially. First off the missiles don't fit any curve smoothly with the base. All R¦ are below .85 . Secondly the missiles explosion velocity is added linearly to what should be something based on an exponential process. Changing it to something like this should at least make the missiles hit the proper class. Normals doing full damage to the mode of the speed class, and precisions doing full damage to the the highs of there intended speed class. Note, you would still be able to tank precisions with the "highs" of the ship class because you can add speed mods.
MissileExplosion Vel Precision Light2750 Light2000 Precision Heavy1400 Heavy1000 Precision Cruise750 Cruise500
AFter Skills: MissileExplosion Vel Precision Light4125 Light3000 Precision Heavy2100 Heavy1500 Precision Cruise1125 Cruise750
More later, specifically the falloffs.
|
Freakdevil
Explora Empire Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 01:53:00 -
[29]
An interesting idea proposed by another pilot (so I take no credit) was to introduce hard coded speed limits for each ship class. Make the speed limits proportionate to the missile class.
Speed should still be a viable way to mitigate damage and Vagabonds and Interceptors should retain this viability. Perhaps with a bonus exclusive to these ships only.
Otherwise, thanks for bringing this out into the open and acknowledging the issue. Very nice
|
BiggestT
Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 04:32:00 -
[30]
Thanks for the update! Take your time, just plz dont overnerf anything
Proudly annoying FC's since 2007 Remove m for manditory in mwd! |
|
PirceHat
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 05:34:00 -
[31]
Edited by: PirceHat on 05/09/2008 07:21:05 The Chart. Click for Larger: The source http://oss.hwcommunity.com/other/missiles/missiledamage.htm
Qualitative analysis of the data: Basically, I calculated a exponential best fit for the speeds, and set it so that the explosion velocity was inline with the best fit for the Upper limits speed with just an mwd. Than I brought explosion velocities into a similar best fit so that they where close with the targeted class after skills. They are displayed in red with the top of the error representing explosion falloff. This could be constant or you can do what I did and multiple .3*(ExplosionVelocity*Skill) to get the range of the falloff. This produces an nice even drop in damage levels to different ships under MWD and small overlap in classes. Exact tweaking is needed no doubt but it should work :p.
The way its setup: Cruises will hit almost all battleships with MWD's on and nothing weighing them down for full damage, if someone nanod the fastest battleship they would go into falloff. They would be in falloff against most non-plated battle-cruisers, but only slightly. Plated BC's would of course fall into normal range. Nano'd bc's would need precision cruise, but they would get for hit full damage or slight falloff. Precision cruise would also hit in falloff on most of the cruisers, the fastest ones could be nanod out of that. Heavies would hit almost all cruisers, the t2 cruisers base mwd would be in a little bit of falloff (they would be in deep falloff against dictors). Full nanoz would require precision heavies, which will also hit dictors hard. Finally lights would hit most frigates and go into deep falloff against the fastest frigates, possibly not even hitting ceptors. Precision lights would **** up anything but a ceptor, which they would hit into falloff for.
|
Jim Raynor
Caldari Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 07:58:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Zana Kito CCP, you obviously understand one of the major reasons why people wanted to fly stupidly fast in the first place.. avoiding missile and drone weapon systems.
People also fly stupidly fast to avoid bubble camps and get out of bubbles in general. ------ I'll make a sig later. |
Grim Vandal
Tribal Liberation Force
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 09:23:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Jim Raynor
Originally by: Zana Kito CCP, you obviously understand one of the major reasons why people wanted to fly stupidly fast in the first place.. avoiding missile and drone weapon systems.
People also fly stupidly fast to avoid bubble camps and get out of bubbles in general.
for me it is because of missiles why I always fit a mwd ...
getting out of bubbles is nice but honestly it is way easier to avoid them and I dont need a mwd to do that.
I said it way back when TomB created the missile formula that the problem of missiles and speed is linked. You cant balance or change one without the other.
btw I am 75 mill sp caldari and minmatar specced and have my missiles skill maxed since a minimum of 2 years ago and god I love to admit that something is wrong but why you dont admit that as well jimmy, I dont know. Because honestly if you dont see a problem here who else should???
Greetings Grim |
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 11:33:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Kalintos Tyl on 05/09/2008 11:33:02 torps are unguieded but they chase target? Fix plz. Same goes for HAM. Change misile turnign rate. To reflect turret tracking. Fixed. Ow i rforgot misiels are supoused to always hit. My bad.
|
BiggestT
Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 17:08:00 -
[35]
Edited by: BiggestT on 05/09/2008 17:10:48
Originally by: Grim Vandal
Originally by: Jim Raynor
Originally by: Zana Kito CCP, you obviously understand one of the major reasons why people wanted to fly stupidly fast in the first place.. avoiding missile and drone weapon systems.
People also fly stupidly fast to avoid bubble camps and get out of bubbles in general.
for me it is because of missiles why I always fit a mwd ...
getting out of bubbles is nice but honestly it is way easier to avoid them and I dont need a mwd to do that.
I said it way back when TomB created the missile formula that the problem of missiles and speed is linked. You cant balance or change one without the other.
btw I am 75 mill sp caldari and minmatar specced and have my missiles skill maxed since a minimum of 2 years ago and god I love to admit that something is wrong but why you dont admit that as well jimmy, I dont know. Because honestly if you dont see a problem here who else should???
Are you saying something is wrong now or something is wrong post-patch? Post-patch sure, but if your saying missiles are omg the reason to nano now ummm...ok..
edit: WIth that logic you were saying missiles were stupidly over-powered befre nano was around? hmm dun think so..
Proudly annoying FC's since 2007 Remove m for manditory in mwd! |
Jim Raynor
Caldari Shinra
|
Posted - 2008.09.05 17:51:00 -
[36]
Originally by: Grim Vandal
Originally by: Jim Raynor
Originally by: Zana Kito CCP, you obviously understand one of the major reasons why people wanted to fly stupidly fast in the first place.. avoiding missile and drone weapon systems.
People also fly stupidly fast to avoid bubble camps and get out of bubbles in general.
for me it is because of missiles why I always fit a mwd ...
getting out of bubbles is nice but honestly it is way easier to avoid them and I dont need a mwd to do that.
I said it way back when TomB created the missile formula that the problem of missiles and speed is linked. You cant balance or change one without the other.
btw I am 75 mill sp caldari and minmatar specced and have my missiles skill maxed since a minimum of 2 years ago and god I love to admit that something is wrong but why you dont admit that as well jimmy, I dont know. Because honestly if you dont see a problem here who else should???
Are you talking before speed is nerfed or after? Right now missiles aren't all that effective. Last time I played on SiSi when the speed changes were on there, I was killing speed fit HAC in roughly 10 seconds flat if not faster with a Raven using javelin torpedoes and 3 web drones. It was a while back but I might not have needed the drones though they sped the process up quite a bit.
Right now though, like on Tranquility? Missiles aren't that great. I find t2 heavy precision missiles most especially depressing as my affinity for the Cerberus is pretty well known..
And for the guy who said 'torpedoes are unguided' all that means is that the explosive radius is not effected by skills/implants. The EVE engine can't support missiles that miss, that was tried years ago and it doesn't work, the engine does not support the physics for it unfortunately. ------ I'll make a sig later. |
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 07:42:00 -
[37]
double dmg bonused 800mm t2 < unbonused siege luncher yep misiles arent imba
|
Dendo Ordoss
Pernicious Creed Vendetta Alliance.
|
Posted - 2008.09.06 22:10:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Kalintos Tyl double dmg bonused 800mm t2 < unbonused siege luncher yep misiles arent imba
stop making me sad when i think about the tempest
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.09.07 10:19:00 -
[39]
dont forget they have more dps and optimal all way + dont need to track^^. While 800mm will miss bc orbiting at 100m/s at 500m orbit.
|
BiggestT
Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.09.07 10:45:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Kalintos Tyl double dmg bonused 800mm t2 < unbonused siege luncher yep misiles arent imba
then the problem is siege launchers, not "all missiles" if anything t2 heavy missiles need a buff..They suck (but i spose most ammo besides like spike sucks..)
All the other missiles are definatley not over-powered atm Proudly annoying FC's since 2007 Please resize signature to the allowed size of 400 x 120 pixels. Navigator
|
|
Benedic
The Aftermath
|
Posted - 2008.09.07 14:32:00 -
[41]
Devs who play the game are back from vacation!
*and there was much rejoicing*
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.09.07 20:11:00 -
[42]
Originally by: BiggestT
Originally by: Kalintos Tyl double dmg bonused 800mm t2 < unbonused siege luncher yep misiles arent imba
then the problem is siege launchers, not "all missiles" if anything t2 heavy missiles need a buff..They suck (but i spose most ammo besides like spike sucks..)
All the other missiles are definatley not over-powered atm
yes their range need to be 4x reduced to match other cruiser weapons.
|
Tyby
Viper Squad
|
Posted - 2008.09.08 07:08:00 -
[43]
Edited by: Tyby on 08/09/2008 07:10:20
Quote: Also, what happens if you change this term from a constant to a variable that depends on factors such as sig radius or possibly mass?
Bigger lag???
|
Amy Wang
|
Posted - 2008.09.08 11:59:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Amy Wang on 08/09/2008 12:01:05 I dont really understand the premise (or design goal) that missiles and drones of a certain size class need to be able to hit ships of the same size class using an mwd and going quite fast. Turrets of the same size class can't hit such a ship why should drones or missiles?
The only thing that needs to be adressed really is ships using an mwd, becoming unhittable for the most part and delivering considerable damage over drones and missiles themselves while doing so (before you ask, turret ships are a non-issue in this regard as they can't hit anything even remotely their size - if anything at all - while using an mwd as they outrun their own tracking).
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.09.08 13:04:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Amy Wang Turrets of the same size class can't hit such a ship why should drones or missiles?
This is nonsense. Cruiser-sized weapons hit nanoships fine, unless they're going like over 10km/s or so.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Sensoura Opemtora
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 06:09:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Amy Wang Turrets of the same size class can't hit such a ship why should drones or missiles?
This is nonsense. Cruiser-sized weapons hit nanoships fine, unless they're going like over 10km/s or so.
Isn't that what the dev's are asking for assistance with? With the Anti-speed patch, missiles will be over powered, and tweaking the current formula being used results in missiles either hitting hard or not at all?
|
RedClaws
Amarr Dragon's Rage Intrepid Crossing
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 08:00:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Amy Wang Turrets of the same size class can't hit such a ship why should drones or missiles?
This is nonsense. Cruiser-sized weapons hit nanoships fine, unless they're going like over 10km/s or so.
Thats bull. Unless the ship has a crapload of tracking bonusses a cruiser with a mwd can orbit a cruiser without a mwd without being shot. Either because of the range (blasters) or tracking (pulses) If it does get hit once in a while the dps would be laughable.
|
MotherMoon
Huang Yinglong
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 09:41:00 -
[48]
Originally by: RedClaws
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Amy Wang Turrets of the same size class can't hit such a ship why should drones or missiles?
This is nonsense. Cruiser-sized weapons hit nanoships fine, unless they're going like over 10km/s or so.
Thats bull. Unless the ship has a crapload of tracking bonusses a cruiser with a mwd can orbit a cruiser without a mwd without being shot. Either because of the range (blasters) or tracking (pulses) If it does get hit once in a while the dps would be laughable.
the dps would be laughable until 20 people with the same fit are doing the dps.
|
Imiarr Timshae
Caldari Funny Men In Funny Hats
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 12:32:00 -
[49]
Fendahl, I need to know, is this a :
"Don't get a golem like you've been planning to do for the past month because the changes we are putting in will make it useless."
or a
"Get a golem, because what we're doing is so trivial that you'll probably not notice the difference."
situation?
|
Reluah Retsam
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 12:40:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Reluah Retsam on 09/09/2008 12:42:46
Originally by: MotherMoon the dps would be laughable until 20 people with the same fit are doing the dps.
At which point it becomes an issue of blob warfare and not speed.
Edit, assuming it is 20v1, if it is 20v20 or close to in fairly even fleets, not having any form of counter to nano ships in your fleet (of which there are several) is your own fault not your targets.
|
|
Captain Narmio
Baptism oF Fire Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 13:18:00 -
[51]
Originally by: RedClaws
Originally by: Cpt Branko
Originally by: Amy Wang Turrets of the same size class can't hit such a ship why should drones or missiles?
This is nonsense. Cruiser-sized weapons hit nanoships fine, unless they're going like over 10km/s or so.
Thats bull. Unless the ship has a crapload of tracking bonusses a cruiser with a mwd can orbit a cruiser without a mwd without being shot. Either because of the range (blasters) or tracking (pulses) If it does get hit once in a while the dps would be laughable.
I'm afraid Branko is right and you are not.
I can tell you from extensive personal experience that if you can keep a speeding nano-cruiser within range of short-ranged medium guns, you will fry it even without a web.
Cruisers can track cruisers fine, and MWDs do basically nothing to mitigate turret damage! As always, very few things can actually speed *tank* against equal-sized opponents. They use range control to minimise firing windows.
If you disagree, then you have clearly not got experience with this.
|
Shandas
Gallente Garoun Investment Bank
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 14:19:00 -
[52]
Originally by: Kalintos Tyl Edited by: Kalintos Tyl on 05/09/2008 11:33:02 torps are unguieded but they chase target? Fix plz. Same goes for HAM. Change misile turnign rate. To reflect turret tracking. Fixed. Ow i rforgot misiels are supoused to always hit. My bad.
Actually, as is being discussed in this thread they don't always hit. ;)
The term 'unguided' means they don't get bonuses from guided missile precision... I think 'unguided' is a bad term and should changed to something like 'Fire and Forget' (FaF). I fire the missile and the ship doen't control the missile anymore computers on the missile makes minor adjustments to the missile. A cruise missile or 'Guided' missile would get constant updates from the ship that fired them.
Anyway, add a special bay on all ships (two or three on large ships) and change the name of defenders to CHAFF or something and there ya go a viable missile defense. Before anyone says anything, yes I know adding soemthing like that to all ships would be a pain. Of course you can then change the defender skill to CHAFF and make it increase the percentage that it will be effective against missiles.
As far as Nano's, I think there needs to be a balance. Missiles shouldn't be the complete answer though.
|
Sheamis Kast
Farlight Council
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 16:59:00 -
[53]
Originally by: Captain Narmio
Cruisers can track cruisers fine, and MWDs do basically nothing to mitigate turret damage! As always, very few things can actually speed *tank* against equal-sized opponents. They use range control to minimise firing windows.
That is the problem though, isn't it? You can't pull range on a missile ship, like you can with a gunship, so you need to be able to use speed to lower the incoming damage from missiles. Cruiser sized Pulse Lasers and Autocannons need to use tech II ammo to reach out to 20km and then they are still getting reduced damage, meanwhile blasters have no chance. Heavy Assault Missiles, on the other hand, can hit out to 20KM with just skills and can hit to 80+ KM with tech II missiles.
With the speed getting lowered the way it is, it looks like the only counter you will need for nano gangs is a single Drake.
It seems to be that the only thing that needs to be done here is to have a decrease in the explosion velocity for all missiles with a significant increase in the fall off. That way they will experience a more gradual reduction in damage as speed goes up. Speed tanked ships should be able to avoid missiles damage though, just not all of it.
|
Captain Narmio
Baptism oF Fire Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 20:45:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Captain Narmio on 09/09/2008 20:48:54
Originally by: Sheamis Kast
Originally by: Captain Narmio
Cruisers can track cruisers fine, and MWDs do basically nothing to mitigate turret damage! As always, very few things can actually speed *tank* against equal-sized opponents. They use range control to minimise firing windows.
That is the problem though, isn't it? You can't pull range on a missile ship, like you can with a gunship, so you need to be able to use speed to lower the incoming damage from missiles. Cruiser sized Pulse Lasers and Autocannons need to use tech II ammo to reach out to 20km and then they are still getting reduced damage, meanwhile blasters have no chance. Heavy Assault Missiles, on the other hand, can hit out to 20KM with just skills and can hit to 80+ KM with tech II missiles.
Actually, cruiser sized pulse lasers can quite comfortably hit a 30km optimal. And cruiser sized autocannons need rigs to hit for half damage at 20km, unless you're flying something with a falloff bonus. So don't lump us Minmatar in with the problem.
Anything that makes it harder to cover ground will penalise the "really short" short-range weapons (blasters and ACs) against the "middle ground" short range weapons (missiles and pulse). The issue is really pronounced at the Battleship scale, and less obvious but still present for cruisers/BCs.
Luckily, however, this is a lot easier to solve than how to make sure large missiles can't hit smaller ships, and it's a lot easier to solve than what to do about extreme MWD speeds.
See, this is a problem to do with equally sized ships of different races. The answer is to adjust the speed and agility of the ships to counteract differences in the weapon systems. That means broadening the gap. It also synergises quite nicely with the web changes, because speed and manoeuvrability will mean more than they currently do on TQ!
Autocannon ships need to be very fast and very agile, because ACs are only a viable weapon system if you can control range against different targets - go close against lasers and kite against blasters. If you can't do that, your lower DPS, DPS loss at range and typically weaker tanks will leave you comically underperforming.
Blaster ships need to be very fast, because if they can't close quickly they might as well fit mining lasers. We're talking about nearly-as-fast-as-Minmatar fast. However, they don't need to be at all agile - you typically want to just overload your MWD and spam approach. It's all about the straight line speed. That means that a Gallente pilot can close with just about anything, and a Minmatar pilot would need to be smart and rely on a sudden change of direction to dodge a charging Megathron. Pretty cool.
Missile ships have great range and fairly decent DPS, they don't need to do much moving around - the Caldari should be well below average in the top speed department so that other ships have a chance to get close. They should be as bad as the Gallente at turning, too, because missile ships have no need to do any positioning to help them track.
Pulse lasers have great range (the best of the short-ranged weapons by far), and they have almost blaster levels of DPS! Additionally, Amarr ships have some of the heaviest tanks around. As a result, Amarr are looking at being last in the speed and agility columns by a fair margin.
Both MWD speeds and base speeds should be proportional to these goals. It should be most pronounced at the battleship level, but repeated for battlecruisers and the tier III cruisers. Other ships have more specialised roles (the Zealot, say) and should be balanced on a case-by case basis.
In addition to the broadening of speed differences between ship classes, maintaining speed parity between the races as determined by the needs of the different weapon systems will go a long, long way towards balancing the weapons in the post-speed-patch game world. |
Captain Narmio
Baptism oF Fire Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.09.09 20:54:00 -
[55]
I hit the character limit with that monsterpoast there, so I didn't get to say this in conclusion:
The current mass and agility figures as they exist on Multi/Sisi do not at all reflect the parity between races I'm talking about. In fact, in places, they actively seem to work against it. I would very much like to hear from the developers about the mass changes and what their thinking is regarding balance between races.
There's a great opportunity with this patch (specifically the web changes and broadening the gap between classes) to make short ranged combat very interesting. However there's also a possibility to leave some races behind with weapons and hulls designed for a game world that no longer exists. |
Sheamis Kast
Farlight Council
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 04:52:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Sheamis Kast on 10/09/2008 04:52:34
Originally by: Captain Narmio
Actually, cruiser sized pulse lasers can quite comfortably hit a 30km optimal. And cruiser sized autocannons need rigs to hit for half damage at 20km, unless you're flying something with a falloff bonus. So don't lump us Minmatar in with the problem.
<Other Weapons>
Pulse lasers have great range (the best of the short-ranged weapons by far), and they have almost blaster levels of DPS! Additionally, Amarr ships have some of the heaviest tanks around. As a result, Amarr are looking at being last in the speed and agility columns by a fair margin.
I freely admit that lasers are the best anti-nano weapon system at the moment, and that the Amarr battleship lineup can actually use their Pulse Laser range effectively. However, for the ships smaller than battleships...
Only the Zealot can get the 30km optimal you are talking about and that is due to an optimal range ship bonus, and it is the only cruiser/battlecruiser sized ship in the Amarr lineup that gets this bonus. I really don't think we need to balance an entire races speed and agility based on what one ship can do.
Without bonuses Focused Medium Pulse II with Scorch gets: 20km optimal with 3.8km falloff Heavy Pulse II with Scorch gets: 23km optimal with 5km falloff
Neither of these weapon systems are hitting at 30 KM for respectable damage. Furthermore they both drop their damage output to use Scorch. A Drake with HAMs out damages (assumes the same number of damage mods on each ship, and counting drones for both) a Harbinger with Focused Medium Pulse IIs and Scorch ammo. The same Drake can also fit more of a tank than the Harbinger and a MWD making it faster as well. Why do the Amarr need to be the slowest and the least agile again?
Amarr ships only have this tank you are talking about on the ships with no damage bonuses (still talking about sub-battleship class ships), making their DPS lacking. Even then, the Maller and the Prophecy do have goos tanks, but they are vastly out DPSed by their piers, whose tanks are not significantly worse. In the case of the Prophecy, the Brutix only has a slightly worse tank but vastly out damages the Prophecy.
Lasers only get the kind of damage you are talking about when they can use MF ammo, and then their optimal is less than web range (assuming we are still talking about cruisers/battlecruisers). If they wanted this extreme damage you believe they get they need to forgo basically any tank to fit the largest in-class lasers which have ridiculous fitting requirements.
You are basically suggesting that laser ships be the slowest out there allowing Autocannons to get under their guns, blasters boats to get close and out DPS them, and missile ships to pull range and out DPS them. If these ships want tanks they need to ditch DPS because, contrary to popular belief, Amarr ships are either tank or gank. What good will these ships really be if they are always fighting at a disadvantage?
Laser ships do need to be fast, maybe not as fast as the Gallente or Minmatar, but definitely faster than the Caldari. Laser ships actually need to be able to maintain their range advantage for some time during a fight to make up for the fact that once the opponent gets into his preferred range he will out class the laser ship.
|
Sheamis Kast
Farlight Council
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 05:15:00 -
[57]
Character limit
Besides your stance on Amarr laser ships, I actually agree with you a whole lot. I think it would make for better gameplay if the Gallente had the highest top speed, but poor agility; much like a charging Rhino. The Minmatar should be the second fastest with the greatest agility, allowing them out maneuver the Gallente blaster boats for some time, and perform tighter orbits against the Amarr laser ships. The Caldari should be the bricks of space with their strong tanks and best range.
The Amarr Laser ships should be somewhere in the middle of everything, being not much slower or agile than the Minmatar. Once they are plated up (like Amarr ships have to be due to the laser cap use) they should still be somewhat more agile then the Gallente ships allowing them to dodge the initial charge and make use of their range benefits.
|
Captain Narmio
Baptism oF Fire Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 13:57:00 -
[58]
Damn those character limits, eh? :D
On the medium laser range issue, I guess the harbingers I've fought were using locus rigs when I remember them hitting me comfortably at 35. So max HAM range (without range bonuses or rigs) is more than max Heavy Pulse range, yeah. But max Megapulse range is significantly better than max Torp range. It does really look like in the short range stakes, Caldari don't have a *clear* range advantage, both lasers and missiles compete fairly well.
You also mentioned the "gank or tank" nature of Amarr. That's a good point, as the shield-tanking Caldari often don't have to make that choice. On the other hand, you have 8-lows ships like the 'geddon where a solid tank fits alongside three HS easily.
You mentioned that lasers don't really have a damage advantage. Well, maybe I'm just used to flying Minmatar battleships so my perception is skewed, but the Amarr battleships can put out phenomenal amounts of damage before anyone can get close on TQ, and it's only going to get nastier post-patch. It's why the RR-geddon is so ubiquitous in 5-30 man BS gangs. But then the torp raven is in a much-similar situation gank-and-tank wise.
You've made some good points. Compared to the Caldari perhaps the Amarr shouldn't be so much "the slowest" as I originally suggested. It would make sense that the Caldari were the slowest with average agility, and that the Amarr were the least agile with average speed. Everyone, then, has some area that they can use to their advantage.
I don't agree that the Amarr should be close to the Minmatar or even that they should be in the middle. There's a *big* gap between the weapons systems, we can't rectify that with a *small* gap between the ships.
|
Sheamis Kast
Farlight Council
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 18:42:00 -
[59]
It is hard to talk about the Amarr on a whole. Their battleships are very powerful while their cruisers, like the Omen, strugle to even fit guns and a any sort of tank, let alone a speed mod. Work needs to be done on them to bring all of their ships into some sort of role. Then again, I hear that Minmatar battleships could use some buffs too, and this is sort of off topic at this point.
Back to the topic of missiles. With the web nerf, an frigate has no problem getting under the guns of a cruiser, but against a missile ship this option doesn't exist. Furthermore there is no option for E-war, even if defenders worked you would need to give up the same number of launcher hard points as your opponent has to counter him.
Linking speed with signature radius for damage reduction, as was suggested before, seems like a good idea. What if we also reduced the explosion velocity and falloff of missiles? A ship with an afterburner and a tight orbit can reduce damage from guns even when fighting the same ship class and while webbed. The explosion velocity would be somewhere around the average base speed for the ship size of the launcher. This would allow a ship with an afterburner to get reduced damage from missiles from a peer classed ship. The explosion velocity + falloff should be somewhere around 150-175% of the base AB speed of the intended target ship class. Since signature radius and speed are linked running a MWD would offer very little in the way of damage reduction.
I think that some actual anti-missile e-war is in order. A mid-slot module, like the tracking disruptor, that reduces the range and "tracking" of missiles. The "tracking" could be accomplished my reducing the explosion velocity and falloff for the target ships missiles, we could call that script Detonator Scrambling. The Range could could be handled by reducing the missile velocity, we could call that script Thruster Destabilization. The Minmatar e-war could even be given a bonus in this, given that target painters are kind of lame, since they are the race that most relies on speed and hence needs an answer to missiles.
|
Amaeros
|
Posted - 2008.09.10 23:23:00 -
[60]
Although I certainly agree with the need to modify missile damage calculations based on speed, especially when the need is reinforced by the aforementioned data, I would like to add that I personally, at least, am STRONGLY in favor of fixing defenders. Either replace them with some form of physical counter-measure (same result, except they don't have to destroy the missile but divert it harmlessly) or give them their own launchers that automatically deploy defenders against incoming missiles while the module is active (perhaps using some small amount of cap?).
That said, let us not forget the other side of this - missiles do less damage than other weapon systems because they reliably hit their targets. If any form of defense against them becomes as powerful as the methods used to prevent damage from turrets, missiles will become entirely useless. So long as missiles remain a reliable form of damage against ships of the same class as the weapon was designed for (and larger, of course), count this Drake and Raven pilot strongly in favor of these changes.
|
|
Kenji Kikuta
|
Posted - 2008.09.11 12:05:00 -
[61]
HARD EVIDENCE!
With relevant skills at level 5 in combination with ships yielding a 10% flight velocity bonus per level, missile flight velocities for the fastest missiles per class are:
_______________T1/T2precision____________T2Fury______ Light missiles____8473_m/s________________4500_m/s____ Heavy missiles___8473_m/s________________6750_m/s____ Cruise missiles___8473_m/s________________3937_m/s____
Regardless of any other missile parameters, enemy ships belonging to the same class as the targeting ship cannot go faster. If they do, missile damage is equal to zero.
This is why either missiles, ship speeds, or both, have to be reviewed completely.
Not to mention other weapon systems not being able to track/hit fast ships of the same class.
WTF ppl, how hard is it to understand that the current situation is totally ****ed up.
|
roq deelim
|
Posted - 2008.09.11 15:24:00 -
[62]
Quote: Not to mention other weapon systems not being able to track/hit fast ships of the same class.
with turrets its even harder to hit fast ships - in most cases the naonships are zapping trough your falloff range withing few seconds..EVEN IF you manage to place few hits, your enemy will leave your optimals in a blink of an eye..
|
Gmoorick
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.09.11 19:44:00 -
[63]
Don't forget to nerf turrets tracking, to burst frig and inties surviveability. Its impossible to tacke pulse zealot in intie flying 9km/s
|
Captain Narmio
Baptism oF Fire Interstellar Alcohol Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 15:25:00 -
[64]
Originally by: Kenji Kikuta
_______________T1/T2precision____________T2Fury______ Light missiles____8473_m/s________________4500_m/s____ Heavy missiles___8473_m/s________________6750_m/s____ Cruise missiles___8473_m/s________________3937_m/s____
Regardless of any other missile parameters, enemy ships belonging to the same class as the targeting ship cannot go faster. If they do, missile damage is equal to zero.
As much as I agree with you that something needs to be done, this statement is utterly false. It only applies in cases where the target ship never stops MWDing at full speed. And if you believe that happens all the time in every fight, I would call into question your level of skirmish combat expertise.
The truth of the matter is that, for any ship that needs to slow down to do damage or cannot sustain its MWD due to capacitor issues, that huge stream of missiles behind you supposedly doing "no damage" are a suspended death sentence. The second you slow down or cap out, you take ALL those volleys at once. That's enough to alpha a lot of small ships.
It may look to the drake/raven pilot like they're being ineffective, but having missiles in the air chasing someone is an immense battlefield control tool. The target's options are incredibly limited.
|
Satch Boogie
STK Scientific N.A.S.A
|
Posted - 2008.09.12 17:57:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Gmoorick Don't forget to nerf turrets tracking, to burst frig and inties surviveability. Its impossible to tacke pulse zealot in intie flying 9km/s
Ignore this person. He seems to think that an interceptor should be able to tackle a bigger ship with zero danger of taking any damage himself. Turret tracking is slow enough as it is. Also his intie shouldn't be capable of 9km/s. That needs nerfing. |
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.09.13 12:08:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Kenji Kikuta fastest missiles per class are:
_______________T1/T2precision____________T2Fury______ Light missiles____8473_m/s________________4500_m/s____ Heavy missiles___8473_m/s________________6750_m/s____ Cruise missiles___8473_m/s________________3937_m/s____
Who cares about missile speed or tracking when you should be tackling a ship to kill it anyway, and if its tackled/webbed its slowed and it dies. Screwed up would be being able to hit and speed fitted ships without them being tackled not the other way around.
PVP is not ratting and should require tackle to kill not just alpha dmg or dps.
|
Gmoorick
Rage and Terror Against ALL Authorities
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 08:38:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Satch Boogie
Ignore this person. He seems to think that an interceptor should be able to tackle a bigger ship with zero danger of taking any damage himself. Turret tracking is slow enough as it is. Also his intie shouldn't be capable of 9km/s. That needs nerfing.
If i'm not mistaken, this nanonerf was intended to boost frig-class ships useability, by nerfing speed of bigger ships. But as they nerfed speed of inties, they are now thinking about nerfing missiles. And no, turret tracking on some hacs is not slow enough. Inties flying 5km/s go boom almost right after locking.
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 09:10:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Gmoorick
If i'm not mistaken, this nanonerf was intended to boost frig-class ships useability, by nerfing speed of bigger ships. But as they nerfed speed of inties, they are now thinking about nerfing missiles. And no, turret tracking on some hacs is not slow enough. Inties flying 5km/s go boom almost right after locking.
It was all about ccp being lazy gits, instead of just adding counters like BS sized webs and other things they just swung the nerf bat at speed without understanding how much it would **** over every smaller ship in the game and in some cases larger ones.
|
Shanna Hephestus
|
Posted - 2008.09.14 17:31:00 -
[69]
thing is missiles CAN be shot down, you use defender missiles.... they need a buff honestly but it is possible to take them out
|
Meina Lamia
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 04:44:00 -
[70]
I think a big issue is that ships really don't have the HPs they really need at all.
Small ships have such low hit points, it leaves very little room for CCP to play with Tracking, Damage, etc.
So you have ended in a situation where you NEED speed just to AVOID alpha strikes, etc. You could have much lower speeds if ships had a much higher survivablility do to a much larger base HPs.
Even scale wise, I think Cruiser down to Intys are scaled way off in compaired to BCs, and BS. Instead of each ship being 1 size smaller, its like they are actually 2 sizes smaller compaired to each other so it just compounds the speed/tracking issues.
At least imo that is.
|
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 11:23:00 -
[71]
Edited by: lecrotta on 15/09/2008 11:33:15
Originally by: Meina Lamia I think a big issue is that ships really don't have the HPs they really need at all.
Small ships have such low hit points, it leaves very little room for CCP to play with Tracking, Damage, etc.
So you have ended in a situation where you NEED speed just to AVOID alpha strikes, etc. You could have much lower speeds if ships had a much higher survivability do to a much larger base HPs.
So you want to now give small ships enough hp to be survivable when they tackle in gang fights because speed cannot help them if the stupid nerf goes through?.
How many hp cos in a say 20 man gang (quite small by today's standards) the alpha strike is gonna be in the thousands.....
So this silly nerf so far has made every ship upto cruiser sized a waste of time to fly in combat, its made a lot of BS useless in close range combat, its forced ccp to rethink tracking and missiles, it is making ppl think tacklers need more hp just to survive....ect ect ect.
Perhaps soon you will finally come to terms with how necessary nano is in today's eve and use youR SELF PROCLAIMED TACTICAL GENIUS to combat it like the real pvpers in eve do in stead of crying for a nerf and then needing to change every thing else breaks cos of it.....
PS: POST WITH YOUR MAIN I WANNA SEE YOUR UBER PVP STATS.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 12:45:00 -
[72]
Edited by: Murina on 15/09/2008 12:53:19
Originally by: Meina Lamia I think a big issue is that ships really don't have the HPs they really need at all.
Small ships have such low hit points, it leaves very little room for CCP to play with Tracking, Damage, etc.
So you have ended in a situation where you NEED speed just to AVOID alpha strikes, etc. You could have much lower speeds if ships had a much higher survivability do to a much larger base HPs.
You go on about skill and tactics and yet your answer to the fact that nerfing nano will make small ships pointless death traps is to increase its hit points (to what bc or bs ammount?) so it can sit still and get shot at for longer???.
Ok mr war gamer, super tactician i think you have taken up and wasted enough space and time on this forum with your silly ideas and your idiotic solutions to the problems that they would cause.
Im sure in your mind Sun Tzu himself would kiss your feet but that Is the only place your moronic ideas are of any use..in your own head.
|
Beltantis Torrence
|
Posted - 2008.09.15 20:16:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Vaal Erit We told you the nano-whiners were by caldari missile pilots with no clue to how eve mechanics worked and we told you that your anti-missile ewar is laughably broken.
Speed was broken before. I think even Caldari pilots will be happier with a sig radius MWD change and still landing some damage rather than targets being entirely immune. Long story short, something has to change with speed and simultaneously something has to change with missiles such that missiles do some damage against targets of the size they're meant for and yet they aren't useless in small gang fights where everyone is immune to them and yet aren't the 'I Win' button against turret ships.
|
Meina Lamia
|
Posted - 2008.09.16 07:48:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 15/09/2008 14:05:49
Originally by: Meina Lamia I think a big issue is that ships really don't have the HPs they really need at all.
Small ships have such low hit points, it leaves very little room for CCP to play with Tracking, Damage, etc.
So you have ended in a situation where you NEED speed just to AVOID alpha strikes, etc. You could have much lower speeds if ships had a much higher survivability do to a much larger base HPs.
You go on about skill and tactics and yet your answer to the fact that nerfing nano will make small ships pointless death traps is to increase their hit points (to what bc or bs amount?).... so it can sit still and get shot at for longer???.
Ok mr war gamer, super tactician i think you have taken up and wasted enough space and time on this forum with your silly ideas and your idiotic solutions to the problems ppl point out to you that your idiotic ideas would cause.
Im sure in your mind Sun Tzu himself would kiss your feet and bow to your genius but that is the only place your moronic ideas are of any use.....in your own mind.
Were you just born a waste or was this just a goal?
It all goes hand in hand, if you change one thing, more then likely you have to change others to compensate for the new effects. This should not be rocket science. EVE is NOT the first game that has had to do that or hell real life for that matter.
I am not sure how you fail so much, maybe playing to much X-Box or something. Get beyond Joy Stick Syndrom, go play some other tactical games out there and see where they are balanced and what starts to break them. And when you come back you will see things in a new light.
Till then, all I see in you is a another snotty nosed kid who wants easy kills.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.09.16 08:06:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Meina Lamia
Till then, all I see in you is a another snotty nosed kid who wants easy kills.
Right right your crying about nano and trying to get it nerfed to make the game harder......yea right of course you are:lol:]
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.09.16 10:09:00 -
[76]
Edited by: lebrata on 16/09/2008 10:13:50 Do you actually have the slightest idea what you actually are saying with this???????:-
Originally by: Meina Lamia I think a big issue is that ships really don't have the HPs they really need at all. Small ships have such low hit points, it leaves very little room for CCP to play with Tracking, Damage, etc. So you have ended in a situation where you NEED speed just to AVOID alpha strikes, etc.
So your saying that Hacs need to be speed nerfed because they are overpowered and can fly as fast to avoid most dmg but have lots more hp as a buffer.
And your solution is to nerf them to uselessness and then to increase the hp on inties (to what hac level????) along with the fact that small guns have better tracking.
So with your moronic idea we are losing fast nano hacs cos they can go fast and have big hp buffers, but you want to replace them with fast nano inties that your gonna boost to hac level hp to help them survive.
Congratulations you have just brought pointless and thoughtless stupidity to a all new level.
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.09.16 16:00:00 -
[77]
Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 16/09/2008 16:04:02
Originally by: Beltantis Torrence
Speed was broken before. I think even Caldari pilots will be happier with a sig radius MWD change and still landing some damage rather than targets being entirely immune. Long story short, something has to change with speed and simultaneously something has to change with missiles such that missiles do some damage against targets of the size they're meant for and yet they aren't useless in small gang fights where everyone is immune to them and yet aren't the 'I Win' button against turret ships.
You see and you still dont get differences between weapon types.
NOW: 1. i can get immunity to missiles by getting hi speed 2. i can get immunity to guns by outtracking them, staying out of range, TDing them
after nano nerf: 1. - 2. i can get immunity to guns by staying out of range, TDing them
Thus missiles become superior weapon without any form of counter.
EDIT: o yea that was for weapons of same size so med guns - heavy missiles, large guns large missiles etc. And yes i know torps have reduced range so they can be outranged, BUT hams cannot (80+km with javelins), same for rockets (javelin rockets almost outrange small beams with aurora - and they are close range weapons).
|
Red Thunder
Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS
|
Posted - 2008.09.16 16:19:00 -
[78]
why try to fix something that isnt broken....
Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines |
Mangetout Rodney
|
Posted - 2008.09.16 18:58:00 -
[79]
Why not fust limit the amount of "speed" mods per class.... ie..1 for frig size...2 for cruiser size and 3 for bs.... But let them rig as per current situation....
Flame away...rarely post but just fed up of peeps moanin nerf this n nerf that!
|
Dungheap
Caldari Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.09.16 21:12:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Red Thunder why try to fix something that isnt broken....
because players that weren't around for first missile nerf (remember the one that doubled launcher grid, made speed tanking possible, and gave us some nifty skills to learn to get damage back where it was..) are faced with missiles again being an effective weapon. and they cry about it. loudly.
gm's stood idle while ever increasing speeds of even large ships made missiles ineffective. the speed changes are aimed at the few ships that can go 5k+ and have near immunity from missiles.
if you're going to make changes to missiles, fine. put them all on the table, and fix the many things that are unbalanced or don't make sense. we've been waiting. about three years now.
|
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.09.16 22:04:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Dungheap
Originally by: Red Thunder why try to fix something that isnt broken....
because players that weren't around for first missile nerf (remember the one that doubled launcher grid, made speed tanking possible, and gave us some nifty skills to learn to get damage back where it was..) are faced with missiles again being an effective weapon. and they cry about it. loudly.
gm's stood idle while ever increasing speeds of even large ships made missiles ineffective. the speed changes are aimed at the few ships that can go 5k+ and have near immunity from missiles.
if you're going to make changes to missiles, fine. put them all on the table, and fix the many things that are unbalanced or don't make sense. we've been waiting. about three years now.
Why is it always ppl claiming missiles this and missiles that when gunships have just as much difficulty tracking speeding ships as missiles do.
But the fact is that if a missile ship has missiles in the air and the target gets webbed then all those pre fired missiles hit while the gunships fired shots are utterly wasted and gone.
This nerf is not about bringing balance its about removing the need to tackle and making pvp more like pve so the skilless and lazy do not need to learn and improve.
|
Qin Tzu
|
Posted - 2008.09.18 03:56:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Sheamis Kast Character limit
Besides your stance on Amarr laser ships, I actually agree with you a whole lot. I think it would make for better gameplay if the Gallente had the highest top speed, but poor agility; much like a charging Rhino. The Minmatar should be the second fastest with the greatest agility, allowing them out maneuver the Gallente blaster boats for some time, and perform tighter orbits against the Amarr laser ships. The Caldari should be the bricks of space with their strong tanks and best range.
The Amarr Laser ships should be somewhere in the middle of everything, being not much slower or agile than the Minmatar. Once they are plated up (like Amarr ships have to be due to the laser cap use) they should still be somewhat more agile then the Gallente ships allowing them to dodge the initial charge and make use of their range benefits.
I just wanted to point out that I believe the Minmatar should have top speed and agility for the reason already stated. In order to be competitive they have to control range, they do not have the tank or the dmg for us to let another race control range.
gallente on the other hand should probably be third slowest just because of the massive dmg and good tanks they have. Also on many of their ships drones are their main weapon type. It would not be right to allow that drone ship to close before the minmatar can get away and determine the range the fight will take place at. They would be able to tear them up with neutrons as well as drones.
hope I make a valid point, but I'm tired and probably not thinking at my highest level lol
|
Laerise
Amarr PIE Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.09.18 14:46:00 -
[83]
Quin, topspeed does not matter if you can simply change direction and have the mega rush right past your tempest, which leaves him so nicely open for some more volleys of AC/arty fire with low trans (aproach + overshooting ends mostly in low trans, thus better and more hits).
I must say I like that split a lot.
Caldari are slowest and maybe a tad more agile than amarr (shield weighs nothing compared to armour), they don't need to control range (much), they just have range.
Amarr are slower and most likely least agile, lots of plates and huge capacitor banks, they do not need to control range that much, they still have good range (and better damage than caldari, torps being an exception).
Galente are the Rhinos, rush in, web/scram/blaster away, might even make web drones more apealing as they would also slow the enemies turning speed -> evasion speed.
Minmatar are the fastest and most agile, they have less damage and tank though, having to make use of their agility and speed to evade damage or boost their own. ( kiting/keeping range/coasting or coasting with the goal to zero trans at your own optimum range while staying out of enemy optimal)
|
Spurty
Caldari D00M. Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.09.19 21:59:00 -
[84]
weee emo rage discovered in thread!!
Many ships have missile slots.
They can just nano about dishing out DPS avoiding the ANTI-NANO-MISSILES by using their own missile systems on the slow tracking ships they are circling.
If this isn't true, explain the fact the CROW is so popular? Unhittable and max dps from 30km, win win.
Clearly nothing wrong with this picture;)
Then there are the Ishtars that can throw out 5 large weapons while they run to a safe distance. Again, max dps and full speed!
CCP should care when something they designed (ANTI-NANO-MISSILES for example) *does not* work as 'intended'.
Sooner see missiles doing 10x the speed than speed being nerfed mind you. Taking forever exiting a bubble is more painful than a missile or two up the tail pipe before I warp away and rethink. Man goes to the doc, with a strawberry growing out of his head. Doc says "I'll give you some cream to put on it." |
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.09.20 09:44:00 -
[85]
Edited by: Kalintos Tyl on 20/09/2008 09:44:46 when first time on sisi come speed narf caldari was mosta agile and wtf powned smaller ships in 3 volleys ;] Forgot about draeks 1 volley poping afs too. Missiles seems to be balnaced this way?^^
|
Flawliss
Gallente Pilots of True Potential
|
Posted - 2008.09.22 05:46:00 -
[86]
With all the time we were promised to be able to test these changes i notice SIS is still on the TQ build, and i havent been able to connect to Multi a while.
So whats the diagnosis doc? Should we just wait till TQ patch day at this rate?
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.09.22 09:28:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Flawliss With all the time we were promised to be able to test these changes i notice SIS is still on the TQ build, and i havent been able to connect to Multi a while.
So whats the diagnosis doc? Should we just wait till TQ patch day at this rate?
Virtually every report from both servers after the nerf were full of problems that it created in other slower combat scenarios, along with the fact that in gang fights the smaller ships in eve like cruisers and down melted instantly when primaried.
|
DeadDuck
Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.22 19:01:00 -
[88]
Originally by: lecrotta along with the fact that in gang fights the smaller ships in eve like cruisers and down melted instantly when primaried.
Well then we shouldn't have been in the same server
________________ God is my Wingman |
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.09.22 19:14:00 -
[89]
Edited by: lecrotta on 22/09/2008 19:16:12
Originally by: DeadDuck
Originally by: lecrotta Virtually every report from both servers after the nerf were full of problems that it created in other slower combat scenarios let alone fast ones, along with the fact that in gang fights the smaller ships in eve like cruisers and down melted instantly when primaried.
Well then we shouldn't have been in the same server
I think the whole of eve is waiting to hear your fit on a cruiser or smaller that can (without speed) tank 20 ships and not melt from the alpha let alone survive any sort of time enough to be useful.
|
DeadDuck
Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.09.22 20:35:00 -
[90]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 22/09/2008 19:56:49
Originally by: DeadDuck
Originally by: lecrotta Virtually every report from both servers after the nerf were full of problems that it created in other slower combat scenarios let alone fast ones, along with the fact that in gang fights the smaller ships in eve like cruisers and down melted instantly when primaried.
Well then we shouldn't have been in the same server
Do you mean couldn't???, and if so i think the whole of eve is waiting to hear your fit on a cruiser or smaller that can (without speed) tank 20 ships and not melt from the alpha let alone survive any sort of time enough to be useful. Cos in every test we did even with ewar and logistic support small ships like cruisers and down were virtually worthless. Unless you count the time it took the hostile gang to lock target, fire, rinse and repeat.
When a ship is primaried by 20 other ships is dead. Nanoed or not Nanoed. Or do you think that every people not flying nanos can only use missile boats? Missile boats are not indicated for PVP in these nanoed times, actually people using missile boats/blaster ships/short range stuff, to fight nanos are asking for a big beating . But insta damage ships will do their job pretty fast specially against ships that only trust their speed to fight(run).
Speed is not the only counter to blobs. There are plenty of other anti blob tactics. But people tend to say that only speed can save them from the blob...
________________ God is my Wingman |
|
Forge Lag
|
Posted - 2008.09.22 23:23:00 -
[91]
Edited by: Forge Lag on 22/09/2008 23:41:50 Maybe if you cannot fix missiles based on speed than do NOT base their efficiency on speed?
Solution could be increase the effect of sig radius and basically ignore explosion velocity and make missiles fast enough to catch any relevant target. Missiles then do what people say they do - hit for full damage vs same size target, greatly reduced damage vs smaller targets. This is easy solution but it needs removing faulty design work which seems unthinkable for CCP.
The small issue with this is missiles actually do pretty damn good *sustained* DPS compared to long ranged turrets, even before tracking. Anything past frigate sized missiles does way too good DPS (specialized frigates have 50% damage bonus to compensate) and cruise missiles have way too low explosion radius post skills on top of that.
If you inisist on basing missile damage on speed you should look for ways to include *relative* not absolute speed. Would it be possible to compute transversal velocity (not angular, which is what turrets use in fact) of target vs missile (mimicking evasive maneuvring)? If not, how weird would it look to have missile DPS depend on trasversal vs attacker ship?
Still I do not think the way to fix missiles is making them just like turrets only painted blue and any more velocity consideration past travel time is going that way.
Edit: On a topic of Gallente and speed. The original design if I understand correctly was medieval knights in plate armor, heavy, slow, impervious, hard hitting. They were ment to have hard time clashing with opponent, active tanking puny hits and having longest MWD uptimes thanks to powerfull capacitors. Due to current state of tanking and capacitor being defined by cargo space most of all that kinda fell apart. I guess fast and clumsy is the solution then (or cap consumption bonus on both MWD and reppers so they can permarun in PvP fit or decisively outlast opponent cap charges) but it means abandoning obsolete design which is yet again something CCP is very unwilling to do.
|
Menerai Entaro
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 08:25:00 -
[92]
What would be wrong with increasing missile speed by a large amount, but reduce the agility of the missile?
Small missiles would tend to hit everything because they align to the target easily and large missiles could be avoided. By lowering the acceleration the speed of the missile would be slow to build up giving players reaction time to change heading to out maneuver the missile over its life time - rewarding a skilled pilot.
Balance the agility of the missile classes to the ship sizes and leave the signature radius modifier. That gives you missiles that scale damage and can be countered by agility rather than speed, but are unlikely to be outrun.
What do you think?
|
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 08:46:00 -
[93]
Originally by: Menerai Entaro What do you think?
I think missiles are fine as they are. If anything, precision cruises and javelin torps needs slight expl. velocity/radius nerf. Especialy javelin torps are out of line... |
Menerai Entaro
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 08:59:00 -
[94]
Doesn't really answer the op though does it...
|
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 09:17:00 -
[95]
Originally by: Menerai Entaro Doesn't really answer the op though does it...
Here is what Fendhal wrote in short:
We find speed broken due missiles unable to hit fast ships, therefore we removed fast ships -> Now we think how to fix missiles that they can hit fast ships.
Ridiculous? Yes, it is...
After speed changes as they were presented, turrets and missiles, BOTH will hit 'fast' moving targets with full dmg.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 09:33:00 -
[96]
Edited by: lecrotta on 23/09/2008 09:35:35
Originally by: DeadDuck
When a ship is primaried by 20 other ships is dead. Nanoed or not Nanoed.
Wrong, snipers, nano and RR BS can all use their respective tanks to fully ignore or mitigate the damage.
Originally by: DeadDuck Or do you think that every people not flying nanos can only use missile boats? Missile boats are not indicated for PVP in these nanoed times, actually people using missile boats/blaster ships/short range stuff, to fight nanos are asking for a big beating.
If you bring a stupid and limited fleet against a well balanced fleet you of course will lose. But no matter if you use missiles, guns or drones it does not matter if you have tacklers and defenders and you know how to work as a team the enemy ships will die.
Originally by: DeadDuck But people tend to say that only speed can save them from the blob...
1. Long range snipers (normally BS)
Ineffective in a roaming gang cos the ships that use sniper tactics (200+km) are too slow to roam they are better for gate or system camping.
2. RR (normally BS)
Also too slow for roaming and total hot drop fodder in hostile space, they are much better used for defense.
3. Speed (multiple ship types)
Ok at roaming but vulnerable to a skilled mixed gang although they wipe the floor with those individuals that want pvp to be like ratting and fly in ratting setups expecting ppl to sit still and behave like NPC's.
|
Fenix Zealot
Caldari Aeon Of Strife
|
Posted - 2008.09.23 20:48:00 -
[97]
It figures that a nano nerf would go hand in hand with the idea of a missile nerf or some kind of change in the mechanics that would probably cause more problems than already exist. As if smartbombs nano and the idea of uber defender missiles wasn't bad enough now people want the damage calculation to change to make missiles do even less damage than they already do? With the exception of torps missile dps is the lowest of any of comperable classes of weapons. So finally missiles shine through as being usefull for once and uh oh wait we can't have caldari being popular in pvp! Oh no god forbid a raven weilding carebear evolve into a pvper that can have marginal success! We can't let those carebears think they can find success in pvp! What has new eden come to! En Taro Adun! |
Tac Ginaz
The Righteous Few
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 02:55:00 -
[98]
The issue of speed vs missiles has been on the table for an insane amount of time and only now you guys look into it and get goggle-eyed? Guess CCP doesn't read the forums as much as they should. (or play the game for that matter).
The whole problem IS the MWD itself. Anything flying faster than 2k speed makes the game truly unbalanced. The max speed the specialized interdictors should be able to fly IS 2k.
In fact, what you guys should do is change the roles and effects of the AB and MWD.
One should increase TOP SPEED the other should increase ACCELERATION.
Afterburner should increase the top speed. A frigate with max speed 300ms turning on the Afterburner should see its max speed raised to ..I dunno, lets say 1000ms. However, it does not ACCELERATE to 1000ms at the fast rate it does now. It should use the ship's normal acceleration rate to reach up to the 1000ms. Drawback of course, is that to turn the ship you have to slow down or end up with a flippin' gargantuan turn circle.
MWD should increase acceleration rate and a minimal raise in top speed. The same frigate as above, with 300ms normal top speed , upon flipping on the MWD would fly to 500ms max and reach that speed VERY quickly. Thanks to the fast acceleration, the MWD also allows the ships to maintain a constant high speed when turning (rather than doing a hard turn, losing lots of speed then slowly gaining it..with the MWD they could turn hard and find themselves flying at top speed again in a second or two).
Make those changes and everything falls into place.
|
RC Denton
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 05:44:00 -
[99]
It seems the devs have cracked under the nano whiners pressure. Although there is no doubt that t2 missile specs are whacked it's whacked pretty much in the defenders favor. Lots of graphs etc being thrown around but I'll take these #s from the missile guide in the player guide, which incidentally tops out at a ship going 3km/s which is pretty modest for a nano.
Heavy missiles have an explosion velocity of 750m/s so at 3km/sec that's an 89% reduction in damage Precison heavies do 1000m/s so at 3km/s thats and 83% reduction in damage. However precision missiles are already pre-nerfed as they do significantly less damage than the t1 missiles. A t1 heavy will do 150pts base. A t2 precision will do 135pts base. That's a 10% reduction in base damage off the top. So the only real advantage is that precisions will do a little more damage at the higher speeds until finally the reduction goes to effectively zero at current nano speeds.
Cruise missiles have the same specs. This is where the class differences come in. Cruise and heavy precision should not have the same specs since then the heavier missile will do more damage vs smaller targets when MWD is taken into account and this is a "Bad Thing" according to CCP. But the overall damage mitigation from speed is extreme. Even if you capped speed at 3km/s you'd still be getting an 83% mitigation from precision missiles which do 10% less base damage. That's pretty effective I'd say. Also in addition to being pre-nerfed for damage precision missiles have half the range of their t1 counter parts. So their engagement envelope is much smaller. Any fast ship can get out of the envelope that much faster.
Light precisions are another story. They will do 100% damage to a ship going 3km/s and do the same damage as their t1 counter part. In todays world however, heavy missiles and cruise missiles are completely useless vs ships going 5k-6km/s. Light precision missiles will do some damage. So in some specialty ships, i.e. cerbs, light missiles have the range and velocity to actually damage ships going 3km/s. So there's one caldari ship in existence that has the possibility to actually engage a nano with missiles effectively when it's moving at speed. Well good...light precision missiles should do full damage to fast ships, that's their role.
The biggest problem as I see it is that CCP has created a step function between light and heavy/cruise t2 missiles where they are very effective at one level, and completely ineffective at another.
I do not agree in any way shape or form that there should be damage mitigation vs all classes of missiles via speed. Light precision missiles are short range, low damage, and actually somewhat effective at hitting nano ships. This should stand. Heavy and cruise missiles should be adjusted so that they are not completely ineffective as they are now.
This post by CCP only takes into account one factor, sig radius, but there is already substantial damage mitigation occuring due to explosion velocity. Adding the sig radius in only increases the mitigation or in cases of an MWD, doesn't add to the mitigation. This is how it should be. Missiles should be effective in pvp vs small ships. Currently only one missile class can do it, and that class is very vulnerable to defender missiles. Rock paper scisors. To use a favorite quote from the nano crowd "Adapt or die".
|
RC Denton
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 06:01:00 -
[100]
Edited by: RC Denton on 24/09/2008 06:03:21
Originally by: Deva Blackfire Edited by: Deva Blackfire on 16/09/2008 16:04:02
Originally by: Beltantis Torrence
Speed was broken before. I think even Caldari pilots will be happier with a sig radius MWD change and still landing some damage rather than targets being entirely immune. Long story short, something has to change with speed and simultaneously something has to change with missiles such that missiles do some damage against targets of the size they're meant for and yet they aren't useless in small gang fights where everyone is immune to them and yet aren't the 'I Win' button against turret ships.
You see and you still dont get differences between weapon types.
NOW: 1. i can get immunity to missiles by getting hi speed 2. i can get immunity to guns by outtracking them, staying out of range, TDing them
after nano nerf: 1. - 2. i can get immunity to guns by staying out of range, TDing them
Thus missiles become superior weapon without any form of counter.
EDIT: o yea that was for weapons of same size so med guns - heavy missiles, large guns large missiles etc. And yes i know torps have reduced range so they can be outranged, BUT hams cannot (80+km with javelins), same for rockets (javelin rockets almost outrange small beams with aurora - and they are close range weapons).
Missiles are vulnerable to defender missiles In all cases but light precision if you're going a modest 3km/s you'll get very high mitigation from explosion velocity ECM will cause the ship to break lock and then missiles do 0 dmg Damps will prevent lock in the first place
adapt or die
|
|
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 07:05:00 -
[101]
Originally by: RC Denton
adapt or die
Should be fixed to: Adapt or whine
Just cry enough and CCP bends the game for you. |
Tac Ginaz
The Righteous Few
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 16:22:00 -
[102]
Quote:
Missiles are vulnerable to defender missiles
Perhaps you have failed to notice that if you get 5 missiles fired at you from one source and you fire 5 defenders, all 5 defenders will go after the first missile in the incoming 5-missile volley. If defender #1 destroys incoming missile #1 , then defender #2-5 simply lose lock and are lost, they do not re-lock onto other incoming missiles.
Then the other 4 happily hit your ship.
That, coupled with the slow refire rate of the defender missiles (even if you have rocket launcher firing the defenders) makes the defender missiles pointless to equip.
Plus, not all ships can equip launchers.
Back on topic, the issue with the speed needs a complete re-vamp not a bunch of band-aid patches to stop the bleeding from a gaping chest wound. CCP would be wise to learn from the errors of other games that did the band-aid fixes (like SWG).
|
Opertone
Caldari SIEGE. The Border Patrol
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 18:47:00 -
[103]
like in many other games with complex physics in space
MWD is a module that drives a pilot out of combat, or allows him to charge in a fast mode
MWD maximum turning is 2%, you are very fast 11 km/s, but can not turn swiftly
Afterburner is for the skirmishes, as it is supposed to be quick maneuvering in the battle, hitting the thrusters and breaking through the dog fight
Microwarp drive should be able to take you out of battle, but it doesn't give you complete immunity, you have a limited amount of nuclear fuel in your ship.
in terms of EVE mwd means fast charge, with no ability to orbit afterburner should mean ability to move faster that the opponent at the expense of ship energy
interceptors can be given a role bonus, negate microwarpdrive agility penalty
this pretty much fixes the nano prob.
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 21:43:00 -
[104]
Originally by: RC Denton
NOW: 1. i can get immunity to missiles by getting hi speed 2. i can get immunity to guns by outtracking them, staying out of range, TDing them
after nano nerf: 1. - 2. i can get immunity to guns by staying out of range, TDing them
Missiles are vulnerable to defender missiles
lol. Defenders can barely defend from 1 missile per salvo IF you are lucky and missile user starts at over 50-60km. Otherwise (under 50km range) missiles usually hit you before defenders catch up.
Quote:
In all cases but light precision if you're going a modest 3km/s you'll get very high mitigation from explosion velocity
Isnt it EXACTLY what i wrote under hi speed ?
Quote:
ECM will cause the ship to break lock and then missiles do 0 dmg Damps will prevent lock in the first place
I hope you know that after you ECM ship his missiles WILL hit you? And IIRC they do full damage then (if s1 can check it, dont have working sisi copy atm).
Quote:
adapt or die
O yea i did adapt perfectly. My both chars can fly cloaked raven by now and main is amarr pilot :) Ofc all HACs got cloak free of charge :)
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 21:47:00 -
[105]
Whats funny i still see the major point of nano whine "my missiles can hit it". Bring a friend, equip web (EXACTLY how turret users hit nano ships - by webbing them).
And CCP still doesnt understand that reducing speeds across the board (not only insane speeds) will cause way more problems than "missiles are too good now". There was topic before stating what needs to be changed after nerfing speed. From memory it started with bubble sizes, gate jump in points closer to gates, smaller undocks on stations, doomsday activation delays, drone/fighter speeds... and that was just top of an iceberg.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.09.24 22:18:00 -
[106]
Edited by: lecrotta on 24/09/2008 22:18:15
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Whats funny i still see the major point of nano whine "my missiles can hit it". Bring a friend, equip web (EXACTLY how turret users hit nano ships - by webbing them).
/signed
Missiles are great against tackled nano as all those previously fired missiles all catch up and melt the tackled ship as soon as it gets webbed.
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
EDIT: as for effectiveness of missile ships? http://triumvirate-alliance.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=155354
Here ya go. Few tacklers sitting close to enemy group with cerbs spamming missiles from 160km. When missiles arrive target instapops.
http://triumvirate-alliance.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=148720 this cerb was nanoed and he WAS burning away. Note top damage dealer... ohgosh - missile user O_o
http://triumvirate-alliance.com/?a=kill_detail&kll_id=148722 example of killing "fast tackler" with cerb. Top killer cerb was using web + overheat. Sabre got 2 salvoed.
I could find prolly 100s more of similiar kills or ones where missiles were only damage dealt but whatever. Point is missiles have their use in PvP - you just need to know how to use em. Players are not NPCs and wont be - you actually need to flex your brain to kill em.
Nice to see you still have a good grasp of pvp and the fact that you cannot expect ppl to sit still like npc rats and let you pop them.
|
Kalintos Tyl
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2008.09.25 15:24:00 -
[107]
cruie missiles ( bs weapon) have signature radious of medium turets(cruisers) broken isnt it?
|
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2008.09.26 07:04:00 -
[108]
Seriously, how much thought was put in this patch?
Any boost to missiles under current(TQ) mechanics is causing heavy imbalance.
Reasoning: PvP boats currently have to fit MWD, web, speed and put well organized gang together in order to be efficient in PvP. Boosting missiles means that all effort made by turret boat pilots can be replaced by F1, F2, F3... sequence on launcher fitted ships.
Reducing speed will change PvP into slug fest.
Reasoning: When speed is reduced, neither turret nor missile boats will have issue to hit a target. Only fast ships were capable to avoid DPS(turret and missiles). Making DPS(missiles or turrets) easier to land means that skills and well organized gang can be replaced by raw DPS. That does not mean player skills are completely removed, skilled pilots will be still superior to unorganized gangs, it means that unorganized gangs will be boosted due increase in their effortless efficiency.
Is that a balance you talk about - effortless kills?
|
Forge Lag
|
Posted - 2008.09.27 11:26:00 -
[109]
Originally by: Kepakh When speed is reduced, neither turret nor missile boats will have issue to hit a target.
Afterburning Drake (arguably biggest slowest target you can get with self painted bullseye on it) vs Deimos (you do not have web, if you do, you do not have tank). Try it right now.
Tracking works as intended and AB does provide sizeable damage reduction. It is webs that nullify "high orbit speeds" (Drake-high, lol) today.
|
Menerai Entaro
|
Posted - 2008.09.28 05:29:00 -
[110]
Edited by: Menerai Entaro on 28/09/2008 05:33:48
Originally by: RC Denton It seems the devs have cracked under the nano whiners pressure.
Possibly... but they are not implementing the speed reduction on a whim. They have done tests and found that speed, rather ironically slows the physics engine down. So as part of the optimization initiative they are reducing speeds across the board. Oh and increasing missile speeds is not an option for the same reason(Answered my own post :P).
|
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.09.28 09:46:00 -
[111]
Originally by: Menerai Entaro
Possibly... but they are not implementing the speed reduction on a whim. They have done tests and found that speed, rather ironically slows the physics engine down. So as part of the optimization initiative they are reducing speeds across the board.
Nano is used for small/med sized gang fighting and as such does not suffer from the lag monster, so slowing ships will do absolutely nothing to help ppl in 300 vs 300 or more territorial battles as nano is not used.
|
Menerai Entaro
|
Posted - 2008.09.28 21:54:00 -
[112]
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Menerai Entaro
Possibly... but they are not implementing the speed reduction on a whim. They have done tests and found that speed, rather ironically slows the physics engine down. So as part of the optimization initiative they are reducing speeds across the board.
Nano is used for small/med sized gang fighting and as such does not suffer from the lag monster, so slowing ships will do absolutely nothing to help ppl in 300 vs 300 or more territorial battles as nano is not used.
True, but what about when there are 30 small gangs in one system rather than one big fleet? Which is what the devs are also trying achieve. Granted, at the moment that really doesn't happen, but it is something that they want to happen so they are changing the game to support their design goal.
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 09:33:00 -
[113]
Edited by: lebrata on 29/09/2008 09:35:28
Originally by: Menerai Entaro
True, but what about when there are 30 small gangs in one system rather than one big fleet? Which is what the devs are also trying achieve. Granted, at the moment that really doesn't happen, but it is something that they want to happen so they are changing the game to support their design goal.
2 huge fleets in a system or 30 smaller gangs (15 on each side) in a system it does not matter as its the amount of ppl in a system and on grid that causes lag not if they are in the same gang or not.
Originally by: Menerai Entaro
What they are asking for in this thread, are ideas from a fresh perspective to help them come up with a balancing mechanic for missiles because as far as they are concerned, this modification must be made.
Missiles do not need balancing they are fine in fact in most cases they are a lot better than guns, you just need to know how to use them correctly instead of wanting pvp to be like pve where your targets sit still so you can shoot them.
|
Menerai Entaro
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 11:27:00 -
[114]
Originally by: lebrata Edited by: lebrata on 29/09/2008 09:35:28
2 huge fleets in a system or 30 smaller gangs (15 on each side) in a system it does not matter as its the amount of ppl in a system and on grid that causes lag not if they are in the same gang or not.
Agreed, lots people on grid causes lag, but the amount of interactivity between players within the physics engine (of which speed plays a big part) also causes lag - hence devs reducing speed.
Originally by: lebrata Edited by: lebrata on 29/09/2008 09:35:28
Missiles do not need balancing they are fine in fact in most cases they are a lot better than guns, you just need to know how to use them correctly instead of wanting pvp to be like pve where your targets sit still so you can shoot them.
Again agreed - missiles as they are on/in TQ work fine. That still does not change the fact that with the implementation of this patch they will need to be rebalanced as the current formula will not work, as has been pointed out by the devs themselves.
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 11:44:00 -
[115]
Originally by: Menerai Entaro
Agreed, lots people on grid causes lag, but the amount of interactivity between players within the physics engine (of which speed plays a big part) also causes lag - hence devs reducing speed.
It is the interactivity that causes lag, speed is a minor aspect of it and considering speed is not used in large scale warfare its gonna make little or no difference to lag in blob wars.
Originally by: Menerai Entaro Again agreed - missiles as they are on/in TQ work fine.
So speed hardly effects lag cos they are a small gang affection while blobs do cause it, and missiles are fine as they are on tq then this stupid speed nerf and all the things it breaks need not be done.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 12:03:00 -
[116]
Edited by: Murina on 29/09/2008 12:04:00 Speed is used in small gang fighting and while it may produce slightly higher lag it is irrelevant considering the size of the gangs it is used in. The main cause of lag is sheer numbers and the extra bit caused by having a few speed ships in a 300 man blob is so insignificant its a joke.
I find nothing wrong with missiles or gunnery on TQ at the moment and aside from the ultra rare 30kms fits i think speed is a benefit to eve and to skilled pvp and removing it will spell the beginning of the end for eve.
I have no interest and nor do many other players in being the equivalent of a drone for some FC/target caller in pvp fights, lock target f1-f8 is not skilled pvp nor is getting primaried and getting insta popped without being tackled.
|
Akiman
Gallente The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 15:41:00 -
[117]
tsk.
|
Ross Sylibus
Without Reason
|
Posted - 2008.09.29 17:29:00 -
[118]
Edited by: Ross Sylibus on 29/09/2008 17:32:38 edit: wrong thread |
Menerai Entaro
|
Posted - 2008.09.30 03:00:00 -
[119]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 29/09/2008 12:04:00 I have no interest and nor do many other players in being the equivalent of a drone for some FC/target caller in pvp fights, lock target f1-f8 is not skilled pvp nor is getting primaried and getting insta popped without being tackled.
Nor do I, which is why I'm following this thread to help out if i can, to keep the balance and gameplay the same in the face of the speed nerf.
Idealy i'd like to see everything remain the same, or even have some of the simple yet effective changes others have listed. The devs have shown with the test server build, that they are not going to do that. Soo...
If any good ideas are put forward i'm sure the devs will take notice, it is afterall the idea of this thread. |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 00:32:00 -
[120]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 04/10/2008 00:31:51 Good to see progress. The speed changes are great if the missile problem gets balanced. Lets hope it gets resolved soon so we can get rid of the nano-win-button. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.10.04 10:16:00 -
[121]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Good to see progress. The speed changes are great if the missile problem gets balanced. Lets hope it gets resolved soon so we can get rid of the nano-win-button.
The problem is not speed or nano it is that a lot of missile users and gunnery users want i-win missile/gunnery spams to become the norm in pvp. Screw needing to tackle or do anything other than hit f1-f8 and watch ships go pop from alpha or dps.
Removing nano is removing the need to use team work and skill in roaming gang pvp and to combat it, it only servers skilless blobbers and carebears who want to fight in pve setups.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 03:09:00 -
[122]
Originally by: lebrata
The problem is not speed or nano it is that a lot of missile users and gunnery users want i-win missile/gunnery spams to become the norm in pvp. Screw needing to tackle or do anything other than hit f1-f8 and watch ships go pop from alpha or dps.
Removing nano is removing the need to use team work and skill in roaming gang pvp and to combat it, it only servers skilless blobbers and carebears who want to fight in pve setups.
Nope, that's not how it works at all. Nano ... skill in same sentense. Don't make me laugh. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 09:15:00 -
[123]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: lebrata
The problem is not speed or nano it is that a lot of missile users and gunnery users want i-win missile/gunnery spams to become the norm in pvp. Screw needing to tackle or do anything other than hit f1-f8 and watch ships go pop from alpha or dps.
Removing nano is removing the need to use team work and skill in roaming gang pvp and to combat it, it only servers skilless blobbers and carebears who want to fight in pve setups.
Nope, that's not how it works at all. Nano ... skill in same sentence. Don't make me laugh.
You know nothing about roaming gangs or pvp if you do not understand how much skill gang vs gang fights need with nano ships involved.
The need to actually tackle a ship to kill it produces the most skill and teamwork intensive pvp in the game, as both sides bring tacklers and then logistics and ewar to defend the tacklers.
Im sure you feel its unfair that your ratting ship cannot beat a bunch of fully spec'd combat fitted ships but you know nothing about pvp if you think that removing nano so f1-f8 is all you need to pop a ship is a good idea.
|
DeadDuck
Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 10:41:00 -
[124]
Any updates on these changes ? I have a Pilgrim ready to undock
________________ God is my Wingman |
darkmancer
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 13:06:00 -
[125]
Just a thought: why not base missile damage on agility?
In that way missile damages applies to ships size, extreme speed will have nothing to do with it, nano's can fit Istabs to reduce damage (sig rad penalty might need changing).
Then maybe add an agility penalty to target painters & webbers.
--------------------------------- There's a simple solution to every problem. It is always invariably wrong |
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 16:37:00 -
[126]
Originally by: darkmancer Just a thought: why not base missile damage on agility?
Or ppl could just start bringing tacklers and a versatile gang to fight instead of ratting setups.
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 17:28:00 -
[127]
Originally by: DeadDuck Any updates on these changes ? I have a Pilgrim ready to undock
Maybe start flying it? My pilgrim works pretty good and tbh i prefer it over nanocurse atm.
|
DeadDuck
Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 17:39:00 -
[128]
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Originally by: DeadDuck Any updates on these changes ? I have a Pilgrim ready to undock
Maybe start flying it? My pilgrim works pretty good and tbh i prefer it over nanocurse atm.
Good at what ? dying ? or Hiding ? Maybe hauling
________________ God is my Wingman |
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 19:52:00 -
[129]
Originally by: DeadDuck
Originally by: Deva Blackfire
Originally by: DeadDuck Any updates on these changes ? I have a Pilgrim ready to undock
Maybe start flying it? My pilgrim works pretty good and tbh i prefer it over nanocurse atm.
Good at what ? dying ? or Hiding ? Maybe hauling
Killing stuff. Classic "think outside of a box" and its quite solid ship.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.05 22:23:00 -
[130]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 05/10/2008 22:26:37 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 05/10/2008 22:23:52
Originally by: lebrata
You know nothing about roaming gangs or pvp if you do not understand how much skill gang vs gang fights need with nano ships involved.
The need to actually tackle a ship to kill it produces the most skill and teamwork intensive pvp in the game, as both sides bring tacklers and then logistics and ewar to defend the tacklers.
Im sure you feel its unfair that your ratting ship cannot beat a bunch of fully spec'd combat fitted ships but you know nothing about pvp if you think that removing nano so f1-f8 is all you need to pop a ship is a good idea.
Wth are you on about? Ive been living in 0.0 for years, since day one. I've abused nano ships for longer then I can remember. I know what a nano ship does and I know how a nano fleet is flown. The truth is that nano ships are NOT hard to fly at all. Nano fleets are easy to command because you can make mistakes and not wipe your whole fleet. Sure you might lose a couple ships but its never a wipe if you make a mistake. Truth is nano fleets are in the long run easier to run, cheaper to run and very kill/death ratio efficient even with half the fleet being noobs or retrds. The only thing you need is to be able to fit t2 basically and a t2 nano fleet is all you need. There are too many noobs and that is why people fly nano fleets, not because it is harder but because it is EASIER. You suck if you think nano fleets/ships are "hard" to fly. They are not. Its just as easy as any other ship.
In fact why dont you bring your nano ship to the forge and Ill 1vs1 you in my nano ship and we'll see who the person is that doesnt understand nano's. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 00:19:00 -
[131]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 05/10/2008 22:26:37 Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 05/10/2008 22:23:52
Originally by: lebrata
You know nothing about roaming gangs or pvp if you do not understand how much skill gang vs gang fights need with nano ships involved.
The need to actually tackle a ship to kill it produces the most skill and teamwork intensive pvp in the game, as both sides bring tacklers and then logistics and ewar to defend the tacklers.
Im sure you feel its unfair that your ratting ship cannot beat a bunch of fully spec'd combat fitted ships but you know nothing about pvp if you think that removing nano so f1-f8 is all you need to pop a ship is a good idea.
Wth are you on about? Ive been living in 0.0 for years, since day one. I've abused nano ships for longer then I can remember. I know what a nano ship does and I know how a nano fleet is flown. The truth is that nano ships are NOT hard to fly at all. Nano fleets are easy to command because you can make mistakes and not wipe your whole fleet. Sure you might lose a couple ships but its never a wipe if you make a mistake. Truth is nano fleets are in the long run easier to run, cheaper to run and very kill/death ratio efficient even with half the fleet being noobs or retrds. The only thing you need is to be able to fit t2 basically and a t2 nano fleet is all you need. There are too many noobs and that is why people fly nano fleets, not because it is harder but because it is EASIER. You suck if you think nano fleets/ships are "hard" to fly. They are not. Its just as easy as any other ship.
In fact why dont you bring your nano ship to the forge and Ill 1vs1 you in my nano ship and we'll see who the person is that doesnt understand nano's.
How the shit did you manage to make it into DNA?
|
Menerai Entaro
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 02:06:00 -
[132]
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 05/10/2008 17:59:33
Originally by: darkmancer Just a thought: why not base missile damage on agility?
Or you could just start bringing tacklers and a versatile gang to fight with instead of ratting setups.
Murina, we get it. You don't want anything to change. Try reading the Op. Read it a couple of times even. Now think what are the devs asking for. What has gang setup got to do with the Op?
Please, wow us with a formula for missiles that meets the requirements in the Op... come up with something that allows gameplay to remain as it is - just with lower speeds.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 09:20:00 -
[133]
Edited by: Murina on 06/10/2008 09:23:26
Originally by: Menerai Entaro
Try reading the Op.
Done
Originally by: Menerai Entaro Read it a couple of times even.
Done done.
Originally by: Menerai Entaro Now think what are the devs asking for.
A way to FIX solo missile ship ratting setups cos the proposed speed nerf makes them more effective at pvp than a fully spec'd pvp fitted ship.
Also a way to make cruiser sized ships worth flying if the moronic nerf goes through as they will be worthless death traps.
Originally by: Menerai Entaro What has gang setup got to do with the Op?
Cause and effect pal if you change something as fundamental as say small ships (like cruisers and below) ability to tank you remove their ability to survive and be useful in gang pvp.
The speed nerf will do this and now ccp are asking for a fix.....ok heres one..LEAVE SPEED ALONE ITS FINE PPL JUST NEED TO LEARN HOW TO WORK AS A TEAM AND TACKLE..
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 09:42:00 -
[134]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Wth are you on about? Ive been living in 0.0 for years, since day one. I've abused nano ships for longer then I can remember. I know what a nano ship does and I know how a nano fleet is flown.
Only 771 kills on BC for all those years work and all that nano abuse lol your a joke.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer The truth is that nano ships are NOT hard to fly at all.
NANO ships are not hard to fly against idiots would be more accurate but if you and you guys wanna try flying onto PL held space im sure you will get a education in how to kill nano gangs with well balanced versatile squads,
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Nano fleets are easy to command because you can make mistakes and not wipe your whole fleet. Sure you might lose a couple ships but its never a wipe if you make a mistake.
Any gang can burn back to a gate and jump or station/pos hug so that if things go bad they can bail with few losses. Stop blaming nano for you incompetence and get better at gang combat.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Truth is nano fleets are in the long run easier to run, cheaper to run and very kill/death ratio efficient even with half the fleet being noobs or retrds.
Easier against solo ships or idiots. Cheaper than insured BC or BS?????, are you kidding???? 200 mil per loss versus what 10mil for a BC and 20-30mil for a BS?.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer The only thing you need is to be able to fit t2 basically and a t2 nano fleet is all you need.
For what??? ganking solo ratter cos if you wanna take on reasonably skilled gangs you need ewar and logistic support pal.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer In fact why dont you bring your nano ship to the forge and Ill 1vs1 you in my nano ship and we'll see who the person is that doesnt understand nano's.
1 I am not flying all the way to forge just to kick your ass. 2. 1 v 1 is pointless as eve is not a 1 v 1 game so basing stats and nerfs on it is stupid.
But if you wanna name a time and date il speak to some of the dudes in PL and we can get a couple of teams together as it seems you need a few lessons in how to kill and combat nano ships.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 16:23:00 -
[135]
Originally by: lebrata ....
Well that's the thing isn't it? Generally you don't fight fleets with a majority of skilled players. That is not your standard fleet. We all know what happens to fleets facing REAL resistance. A skilled fleet can kick ass with conventional fleets. Nano'ing your fleet is a shortcut to effectiveness when your fleet members skill just doesn't cut it. You're trying to make it look like that it is the people that can't fight the nano's that are unskilled when infact it is the nano pilots that are the skilless ones.
You should also try to READ. I said that nano's are cheaper to RUN. I didn't say the nano ships are cheaper then t1 BCs. Right? Oh and nano's rarely fight equally sized fleets generally. The general kills of nano fleets are getting blobbed. So yeah, generally that is all you need to be "skilled" to do with your nano ship. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 17:13:00 -
[136]
Edited by: lebrata on 06/10/2008 17:25:40
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Well that's the thing isn't it? Generally you don't fight fleets with a majority of skilled players. That is not your standard fleet. We all know what happens to fleets facing REAL resistance. A skilled fleet can kick ass with conventional fleets.
Who said anything about fleets?...i am talking about 15-30 man roaming gangs and i dunno what muppets you fly with by my guys are all skilled pvp pilots.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Nano'ing your fleet is a shortcut to effectiveness when your fleet members skill just doesn't cut it.
Rubbish its a way to roam in hostile space where you can be blobbed and jumped over with bridges, and also a way not to lose untackled ships to alpha strikes from said blobs.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer You're trying to make it look like that it is the people that can't fight the nano's that are unskilled when in fact it is the nano pilots that are the skilless ones.
Skill is relative, lazy players who refuse to fit for pvp and use versatile gangs are the ones who want this nerf cos all you will need is alpha strike to pop anything small like cruisers and below...yea real skill needed for f1-f8 pal.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer You should also try to READ. I said that nano's are cheaper to RUN. I didn't say the nano ships are cheaper then t1 BCs. Right?
Cheaper to run???....so wtf does that mean or are you comparing them to capital ships that need fuel to fly?.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Oh and nano's rarely fight equally sized fleets generally.
Mine do regularly and we also take on much larger gangs but we run ewar and logistics in our gangs and work as a team, i am sure your idea of nano is to gank a ratter and run from his buddies as soon as they respond but some of us are past that level bud. You should try it instead of burying your head in the sand and blaming nano for others incompetance.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer The general kills of nano fleets are getting blobbed. So yeah, generally that is all you need to be "skilled" to do with your nano ship.
See i was right you do have no idea about and no experience in flying with a good versatile and varied roaming gang and have no idea how a good unit operates.
A BC or RR BS gang can blob and kill a solo ship nano has no advantage over them in that regard its the stupid ratters fault for not watching local.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.06 20:05:00 -
[137]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer ignorant drivel
Do you honestly think that the individuals that run at the first sign of resistance are going to stick around now that they are even more vulnerable if this stupid nerf goes through?. The kind of ppl that kill a solo ship and run from anything of close to equal size will still do that in other ships removing nano will not change them in the least. While those that normally stuck around for a fight (and were killable by a good balanced gang) will now not bother because f1-f8 insta pop without even being tackled is not a skill.
This nerf does not increase skilled pvp in eve it reduces it because it removes the need to tackle and as such the need to defend tacklers, not only that but it will reduce gang pvp as a whole because ppl will not want to engage other gangs in the first place when they can be insta popped without even being tackled.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 12:01:00 -
[138]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 07/10/2008 12:01:16
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 06/10/2008 20:21:16
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer ignorant drivel
....
Wow, this wins the whole argument. Nice edit.
Sorry but you're wrong. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.07 13:02:00 -
[139]
Edited by: Murina on 07/10/2008 13:04:19 Edited by: Murina on 07/10/2008 13:03:42
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer ignorant drivel
Originally by: Murina Do you honestly think that the individuals that gank a solo player run at the first sign of resistance are going to stick around now that they are even more vulnerable if this stupid nerf goes through?.
The kind of ppl that kill a solo ship and run from any gang of close to equal size will still do that in other ships so removing nano will not change them in the least. While those that normally stick around for a fight (and were killable by a good balanced gang) will now not bother because f1-f8 insta pop without even being tackled is not a skill.
This nerf does not increase skilled pvp in eve it reduces it because it removes a lot of the need to tackle and as such the need to defend tacklers, not only that but it will reduce gang pvp as a whole because ppl will not want to engage other gangs in the first place when they can be insta popped without even being tackled.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Sorry but you're wrong.
WOW you really did not need to go into so much detail with your rebuttal pal....
|
Aksimel
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 00:44:00 -
[140]
Why do ships have 1 stat "Signature Radius" that seems to function as two stats: "Size" and "Signature Radius"? It seems to me that for locking/ewar/scanning etc the electronic version of "Signature Radius" is one size (certainly affected by MWD on/off etc) and that for Turret resolution, explosion damage, etc. physical "Size" would be much more appropriate (which wouldn't be affected by MWD). Target painters would need to be switched to affect this new stat instead of sig radius, but I think most other modules/skills would use the electronic Signature Radius still.
Hopefully that makes sense.
Aks
|
|
Miriyaka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 01:48:00 -
[141]
Clearly CCP's balance team has not used the last two and a half months to actually play their game.
Let's change that. I'd like to see Nozh fly his HG-snaked, quintuple-stacking-penalized Vagabond against a normal LSB/Cruise PVE Raven with a heavy neut; no webs, no scrambler, no speed nerf. Have him put his money where his mouth is. If speed and nanoships are so much more powerful than battleships right now, surely the Vagabond cannot lose! Especially when it's going that fast. More speed equals more power, after all.
What do you say, Nozh? This sounds like an easy way to prove that your nerfs are so needed. I'd jump at the chance, if I were you.
|
Nayomi
Minmatar Mean Anglo-Danes
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 02:50:00 -
[142]
Make the maximum speed a factor based on a ships mass and hull integrity, ships that break this 'balance' would incur hull damage at some rate akin to heat damage. This would keep small ships faster than bigger ships and would still allow bigger ships to be fast at a cost.
This would also make hull modules sell more and be an actual viable component as increasing you hull hp would allow you to achieve higher speeds, at the cost of having a tighter fitting of course.
Or you could just make it so that MWDs only allow you to go in a straight line. Make them destroy your ships agility, something similar to the tunnel thing in standard warp. Make it a 'navigational computer' limitation. Make the MWD a 'travel to' module rather than a fighting module, it would still be useful in getting ships in close fast, but then to maneuver when they arrive they have to shut it off or perhaps fit both MWD and AB, you would even reduce the fitting requirements for MWDs a little to allow for both to be fitted. One to get in close, one to maneuver when you get there.
I also agree that there should be some form of missile and drone ewar. Right now they are kind of 'free' dmg. Maybe changes to defender missiles or some module that makes drones return to their home ship and orbit, or something that scrambles the instructions they are getting from their host, maybe a very small webbing bubble with a radius of like 2km or something. But there does need to be some form of ewar that effects missiles and drones, if not in the same way then at least to the same effect as turrets.
|
Christari Zuborov
Amarr Ore Mongers Black Hand.
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 11:33:00 -
[143]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 07/10/2008 12:01:16
Originally by: Murina Edited by: Murina on 06/10/2008 20:21:16
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer ignorant drivel
....
Wow, this wins the whole argument. Nice edit.
Sorry but you're wrong.
Sorry but YOU'RE wrong. I guess I win now?
|
Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 21:33:00 -
[144]
Originally by: Nayomi Make the maximum speed a factor based on a ships mass and hull integrity, ships that break this 'balance' would incur hull damage at some rate akin to heat damage. This would keep small ships faster than bigger ships and would still allow bigger ships to be fast at a cost.
Arrrrr! Vagabonds switched from dual LSE to dual hull reppers!! Tbh this would be an awesome sight. ---
|
Fullmetal Jackass
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 03:03:00 -
[145]
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.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 10:23:00 -
[146]
This is all that is needed:-
1. MWD killing scram. (great idea btw)
2. Several scripts for webs that give extra web range for less web str (to boost webbing in general and keep the programmers happy)
3. Nuets that take effect at the start of a cycle so the ships using them kill the mwd before the fast ships gets way out of range.
These additions would be a benefit to combat in eve and leave killing fast ships up to player skill and teamwork instead of just screwing over the entire game so f1-f8 ratting ships in static slug fests are the rule. |
Miriyaka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 11:49:00 -
[147]
Originally by: Murina 1. MWD killing scram. (great idea btw)
Affecting, yes. Killing, no. Even without reduced strength webs, it means that a scrambler becomes too many slots worth of effectiveness in one slot with almost no fitting or cap issues and a mere 10% range sacrifice vs webs.
Originally by: Murina 2. Several scripts/ammo for webs that give extra web range for less web str (to boost webbing in general and keep the programmers happy as ammo has range to dmg ratio, web scripts can have str to range ratios so should be easy to program).
I am all for this idea. I'd love to be able to hit to 15km @ 50% (or something similar) with a T2 web, but still retain 10km @ 90% functionality if I'm in a blaster ship. The ability to switch to closer-range, higher-strength web capability with the risk of your target getting away while you're switching scripts is really cool too.
Originally by: Murina 3. Nuets that take effect at the start of a cycle so the ships using them kill the mwd before the fast ships gets way out of range.
Neuts already take effect immediately. The reason fast ships can sometimes get away is that microwarpdrives run in 10-second cycles, and if they're in the middle of a cycle when the target's cap is zeroed out, the MWD still operates until it needs to take cap again. This isn't a problem, and making scramblers reduce MWD boost (and possibly reduce mass addition as well, to reduce inertia/coasting) by 30-60% would fill the niche of slowing a ship more quickly with the tradeoff of shorter range.
Originally by: Murina These additions would be a benefit to combat in eve and leave killing fast ships up to player skill and teamwork instead of just screwing over the entire game so f1-f8 ratting ships in static slug fests are the rule.
Pretty much.
|
destroyer555
Trioptimum Violent-Tendencies
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 15:45:00 -
[148]
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
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 15:52:00 -
[149]
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
Yea lets ignore how much this nerf screws gang pvp and focus on a irrelevant word that could apply to dmg or be relative to its smaller and faster (when fitted the same) cousins.
Players define the purpose of the ships in eve or we may as well throw away all the fitting options and buy pre fitted ships with no options for variation.
SAVE NANO!!!!!!....only needing f1-f8 to kill is not a skilled style of combat.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 19:31:00 -
[150]
Originally by: lecrotta
Yea lets ignore how much this nerf screws gang pvp and focus on a irrelevant word that could apply to dmg or be relative to its smaller and faster (when fitted the same) cousins.
Players define the purpose of the ships in eve or we may as well throw away all the fitting options and buy pre fitted ships.
Play with words all you like, 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. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 19:51:00 -
[151]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: lecrotta
Yea lets ignore how much this nerf screws gang pvp and focus on a irrelevant word that could apply to dmg or be relative to its smaller and faster (when fitted the same) cousins.
Players define the purpose of the ships in eve or we may as well throw away all the fitting options and buy pre fitted ships.
Play with words all you like, 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.
If somebody plays with the word HEAVY as a excuse to make gang combat in eve pointless in summat smaller than a BC then expect a response.
Small ships go fast and cruisers are one of the smallest classes in eve.
Combat hulls in eve:-
TITAN MS DREAD CARRIER BS BC CRUISER DESTROYER FRIG.
SAVE NANO!!!!!!....only needing f1-f8 to kill is not a skilled style of combat.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 19:53:00 -
[152]
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". ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 20:00:00 -
[153]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
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".
I wish I had your zealot coz mine is faaaaaar from interceptor speed....
And no, HACs don't go interceptor's speeds.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 20:02:00 -
[154]
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".
Frig hull faster than destroyer hull, destroyer hull faster than cruiser hull, cruiser hull faster than BC hull....ect ect.
Of course im using similar fittings on ALL hulls i am sori im not faction fitting and HG snaking with t2 rigs the cruiser hull and measuring it against a ceptor fitted with T1 and no rigs like you nerf hounds seem to think is worth a damn....
SAVE NANO!!!!!!....only needing f1-f8 to kill is not a skilled style of combat.
|
Raquel Trotter
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 21:29:00 -
[155]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
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".
Please explain how any T2 fitted Cruiser class ship goes faster than an interceptor?
Its just not possible unless you don't fit one of them correctly. Take the vaga, the fasted cruiser class ship. Paper thin and meant to go fast.
With a standard T2 fit, polycarbs, max skills, rouge hardwires and gang bonus, you will get it togo 6.7km/s, but then most interceptors with the same fit will be going at ~9-12 km/s.
Comparing apples to apples the ceptor will always be faster, unless you compare a faction fitted cruiser to a T2 fitted ceptor, or a non-rigged ceptor to a rigged cruiser. But then that's not a fair comparison is it?
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 21:57:00 -
[156]
Originally by: Raquel Trotter
Please explain how any T2 fitted Cruiser class ship goes faster than an interceptor?
Its just not possible unless you don't fit one of them correctly. Take the vaga, the fasted cruiser class ship. Paper thin and meant to go fast.
With a standard T2 fit, polycarbs, max skills, rouge hardwires and gang bonus, you will get it togo 6.7km/s, but then most interceptors with the same fit will be going at ~9-12 km/s.
Comparing apples to apples the ceptor will always be faster, unless you compare a faction fitted cruiser to a T2 fitted ceptor, or a non-rigged ceptor to a rigged cruiser. But then that's not a fair comparison is it?
T2 fits, good skills and simple cheap implants will get you to 4km/s or so wich is inty speed. 4km/s is not a cruiser speed. |
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 22:40:00 -
[157]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
T2 fits, good skills and simple cheap implants will get you to 4km/s or so wich is inty speed. 4km/s is not a cruiser speed.
Oh really? 4-5km/s orbit speed is the border for medium turret tracking capabilities and considering it is a top speed for vast majority of T2 fitted HACs and Recons, you mind sharing with us your arguments why it is not a cruiser speed?
It is only another example how current speeds are well balanced not needing any changes...
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 22:45:00 -
[158]
Originally by: Kepakh
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
T2 fits, good skills and simple cheap implants will get you to 4km/s or so wich is inty speed. 4km/s is not a cruiser speed.
Oh really? 4-5km/s orbit speed is the border for medium turret tracking capabilities and considering it is a top speed for vast majority of T2 fitted HACs and Recons, you mind sharing with us your arguments why it is not a cruiser speed?
It is only another example how current speeds are well balanced not needing any changes...
As said, the nano problem has nothing to do with the ability to hit nanos. The general problem is that nano gangs with those speeds can disengage at will and there are no good counters except for blobbing back at them with nanos. Speed has too many advantages. There is no way you can justify 400-600dps cruisers going 4-5km/s and have a reasonable tank ontop of it. compare that to an inty that is just a few m/s faster, has 1/5th of the dps and 1/10th the tank. You dont see a problem? I think its pretty darn obvious tbfh. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Raquel Trotter
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 22:57:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Raquel Trotter
Please explain how any T2 fitted Cruiser class ship goes faster than an interceptor?
Its just not possible unless you don't fit one of them correctly. Take the vaga, the fasted cruiser class ship. Paper thin and meant to go fast.
With a standard T2 fit, polycarbs, max skills, rouge hardwires and gang bonus, you will get it togo 6.7km/s, but then most interceptors with the same fit will be going at ~9-12 km/s.
Comparing apples to apples the ceptor will always be faster, unless you compare a faction fitted cruiser to a T2 fitted ceptor, or a non-rigged ceptor to a rigged cruiser. But then that's not a fair comparison is it?
T2 fits, good skills and simple cheap implants will get you to 4km/s or so wich is inty speed. 4km/s is not a cruiser speed.
4km/s is NOT interceptor speed. here are some figures to show how wrong you are, all are T2 speed fit ceptors (T2 mwd, T2 ODs and / or T2 nanos) with 2x polycarb rigs, rogue set and basic gang bonus.
Claw - 11.6 km/s Stiletto - 10.1 km/s Crow - 9.5 km/s Raptor - 8.8 km/s Taranis - 8.9 km/s Ares - 10.1 km/s Malediction - 9.3 km/s Crusader - 10.5 km/s
If you are going 4k in your speed fit ceptor you are obviously doing something wrong. That's not to say that combat ceptors aren't viable setups, but again if you are comparing to speed setup cruiser class ships, then you compare this to speed setup interceptors.
|
Menerai Entaro
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 23:11:00 -
[160]
And still, I see no missile formula ideas that might make the game more playable when the patch is implemented. And it will be. If you haven't figured that out yet, then there is no amount of arguing that will change your mind.
If you come up with a formula for missiles that scales damage by size/class while allowing speed to reduce damage without making it so that missiles of the correct type do no damage (you have to remember to factor in the mwd/sig radius effect), that the devs accept, then I will give you a time card.
Hell, if you can figure this one out - they will probably give you one too.
|
|
Raquel Trotter
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 23:31:00 -
[161]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
As said, the nano problem has nothing to do with the ability to hit nanos. The general problem is that nano gangs with those speeds can disengage at will and there are no good counters except for blobbing back at them with nanos. Speed has too many advantages. There is no way you can justify 400-600dps cruisers going 4-5km/s and have a reasonable tank ontop of it. compare that to an inty that is just a few m/s faster, has 1/5th of the dps and 1/10th the tank. You dont see a problem? I think its pretty darn obvious tbfh.
Ok, Do you fly Hacs and recons? From your incorrect infomation above it seems that you never have.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer can disengage at will and there are no good counters except for blobbing back at them with nanos
So wrong, Battleships with heavy Neuts will eat a nano ship alive. Pretty much any nano ships will be dead in the water after just 1 hit of a Heavy Neut. Also if BS is too big, try a curse/sentinel.
In addition to cap warfare, you can easily take out 1 nano-cruiser with an ECM ship and 1 tackling ceptor, this is going be big trouble for most nano ships with very little way to counter it. If the ceptor has you webbed and you are jammed there is little you can do.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer There is no way you can justify 400-600dps cruisers going 4-5km/s and have a reasonable tank ontop of it
First off where the hell are you getting your figures? Are you just making them up, or just hitting All level 5 on EFT and rounding up to the nearest 100?
According to EFT I get 396 DPS with my vaga. But as I actually fly the ship I know that I will rarely be able to put this much damage on a target. This amount of DPS is a point blank range, which no vaga pilot flys unless it wants to be webbed. Outside webrange 13-15 km, you will be getting around 250 dps, and this is ONLY if you have your MWD off so that you can track your target.
Sure Ishtar get high levels of DPS, but I think that I am right in saying most ishtar pilots dont have HAC5 and completely maxed drones skills.... Even if they did, (530 dps EFT) They certainly do not have a tank. No Cruiser can nano and fit a tank, its one or the other. If you go for a speed setup then you sacrifice any form HP tanking. If you get caught (ceptor and a blackbird) you are usually toast.
See previous post for your incorrect statements about interceptors.. They are a LOT faster than any nanod cruiser of equivalent fit, and when combined with ECM ships are a great counter to most nano gangs.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 23:43:00 -
[162]
Ok let me put it this way for all you people that are being anal about what I said above: 4km/s is a frig speed and NOT a speed cruisers should achieve. 500dps is easily achievable by some hacs. You just dont want to understand the core message I am trying to explain to you. I dont care if you understand or not. If you dont, good luck after nerf. I sure wont have any problem with it. (and yeah I do fly nanos)
----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Raquel Trotter
Trotters Independent Trading
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 23:50:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Ok let me put it this way for all you people that are being anal about what I said above: 4km/s is a frig speed and NOT a speed cruisers should achieve. 500dps is easily achievable by some hacs. You just dont want to understand the core message I am trying to explain to you. I dont care if you understand or not. If you dont, good luck after nerf. I sure wont have any problem with it. (and yeah I do fly nanos)
So if you are looking at T1 frigate compare to T1 cruisers, not HACs and recons. And again if you polycarb the T1 cruiser compare this to a polycarbed frigate and you will again be incorrect. Its you who don't undertand, and like most of the players advocating this nerf, can't put up any real argument and just say "lol, nanos are nerfed, cry more, now my drake pwns"
|
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 00:04:00 -
[164]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer As said, the nano problem has nothing to do with the ability to hit nanos. The general problem is that nano gangs with those speeds can disengage at will and there are no good counters except for blobbing back at them with nanos. Speed has too many advantages. There is no way you can justify 400-600dps cruisers going 4-5km/s and have a reasonable tank ontop of it. compare that to an inty that is just a few m/s faster, has 1/5th of the dps and 1/10th the tank. You dont see a problem? I think its pretty darn obvious tbfh.
Do you mind posting a fit for +400DPS HAC running +4km/s?
A few km/s faster? +100% faster with 1/8th of sig radius and uncomparable agility/maneuvering is very significant difference.
Again, you didn't answer the question. What is your assumption of cruiser speed based on? Even if you can deliver that DPS(tracking issues wise), the ship has no tank at all and it is just a pure glass cannon, also as said, medium turrets and even missiles can hit you so you won't be dealing that DPS for very long.
Blobing nanos? You can't blob with nano boats since you are dependant on your piloting. Lag warfare is forbidden to fast ships.
|
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 00:26:00 -
[165]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Ok let me put it this way for all you people that are being anal about what I said above: 4km/s is a frig speed and NOT a speed cruisers should achieve. 500dps is easily achievable by some hacs. You just dont want to understand the core message I am trying to explain to you. I dont care if you understand or not. If you dont, good luck after nerf. I sure wont have any problem with it. (and yeah I do fly nanos)
4km/s is half the speed of interceptor 4km/s is easy to hit by medium guns 500DPS is paper thin ship moving around 2,5 - 3,0 km/s
What's your message then? That HACs are glass cannons much slower than inties?
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 00:28:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Raquel Trotter
So if you are looking at T1 frigate compare to T1 cruisers, not HACs and recons. And again if you polycarb the T1 cruiser compare this to a polycarbed frigate and you will again be incorrect. Its you who don't undertand, and like most of the players advocating this nerf, can't put up any real argument and just say "lol, nanos are nerfed, cry more, now my drake pwns"
You might want to take a look at my stats. I have used nanos frequently. In fact one of the most powerful nanos are in my hands, sac and curse. Unlike others though I still think nanos are not balanced eventhough I fly them. Yes I can admit that something I fly is op, many others cant. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 00:29:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Kepakh
Do you mind posting a fit for +400DPS HAC running +4km/s?
Easy. Nano zealot for example. Reaches easily past 4km/s and past 500dps, even pushes past 400dps with long range ammo loaded. You even have room for a light tank! ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 00:45:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Easy. Nano zealot for example. Reaches easily past 4km/s and past 500dps, even pushes past 400dps with long range ammo loaded. You even have room for a light tank!
Yes, Zealot is the only boat that can deal high DPS and go somewhat fast - 400 DPS at 4km/s speed. 400DPS is also very TOP DPS for all nanos, zealot is the most DPS nano HAC while being one of the slowest at the same time. Again, it is balanced, you can't have high speed and high DPS.
As already said 4km/s is easy to hit for medium turrets what we got then? A glass cannon. High DPS, high mobility, no defense. Quite reasonable drawbacks. Anything wrong with that? Hardly, if so, elaborate.
Room for little tank? Can you post the fittings, please?
|
Delichon
The First Foundation SOLAR FLEET
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 16:58:00 -
[169]
Originally by: Kepakh
Yes, Zealot is the only boat that can deal high DPS and go somewhat fast...
Nano-Ishtar? ------------------------------------------ All nerfs are meant to hurt you personally. They will be nerfing you directly next.
EVE A new game every 6 months. (c) Atomos Darksun |
ChalSto
LOCKDOWN.
|
Posted - 2008.10.11 17:08:00 -
[170]
Still no dev-reply at the issues with blasters.
Originally by: Agmar ----------------------------------------------- "The North is so ghey that even the NPCs fly ravens." |
|
sdthujfg
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 02:45:00 -
[171]
Originally by: ChalSto Still no dev-reply at the issues with blasters.
Maybe because there is no issue? *shocker*
|
steveid
Killed In Action
|
Posted - 2008.10.12 14:39:00 -
[172]
With regards to the changes about drones btw i dont mind warrior drones catching ceptors provided they get a significant sig boost allowing ceptors to shoot them with relative ease. Fought a dominix with two crows in tranquility and neither of us could hit his drones for crap, this didn't matter as we could outrun them .. now we cant. I dont mind taking damage, however I want to be able to have a recourse for that by being able to fight back :D
|
Miriyaka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 02:27:00 -
[173]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Kepakh
Do you mind posting a fit for +400DPS HAC running +4km/s?
Easy. Nano zealot for example. Reaches easily past 4km/s and past 500dps, even pushes past 400dps with long range ammo loaded. You even have room for a light tank!
Nanozealots are worthless. They're not fast or agile enough, have huge cap problems, can't fit a web and an LSE, and still have tracking problems at full speed. That you think nanozealots are a problem of any kind shows how completely out of touch you are with this issue. Zealots are 10x as powerful when fit with horribly-broken Locus rigs, pulse-sniping with utterly flawless tracking vs even a 20km/s interceptor at 65km+.
This '4km/s interceptor speed' is also very confusing to me. The last time I saw an interceptor go less than 5.5 was when it was a 12km/s interceptor trying to bait me into engaging him (it worked, except I killed him). The last time I saw an interceptor go less than 6.5, his fitting ended up being half speedmods at best, or a T1 MWD, or some other completely out-of-place module setup.
Cruisers have been going 4km/s for quite a while. The only HAC that couldn't go 4km/s before rigs that can now is the pre-Khanid II Sacrilege, and that was due to the ship's stats changing, not rigs. Nevermind that BATTLESHIPS were routinely breaking 4km/s back then, hitting even 6-7km/s before snakes with the advent of non-penalized -mass istabs and propellant injection vents (that stuff was horribly broken and I'm glad that got fixed).
This is of course ignoring the fact that even if this speed nerf goes through, your main complaint (disengagement) will not be totally alleviated, because even the slowest HAC without speedmods will still outrun the fastest battleship/BC/T1 cruiser WITH speedmods. HACs don't outrun interceptors now, and they won't after the nerf; that isn't going to change, so what exactly will change? Oh, right, interceptors will be utterly destroyed by ANY ship with light drones or missiles. Yes, this is a completely positive change that definitely helps small gang warfare, right, ok.
Despite your protestations, you're definitely more concerned about 'slow', high-dps nanoships like the Ishtar/Zealot/Sacrilege avoiding most missile and medium gun damage than you are about disengagement, or you'd be able to admit that disengagement isn't being significantly affected by this nerf, while T2 cruiser viability vs PVE ships and/or poorly-fit missile ships is certainly being affected, even outside of solo PVP (which the game should never really be balanced around).
You're completely out of touch. Reasonable speed (4-5km/s for cruisers and 6-10km/s for interceptors) is quite well balanced with the current state of light and medium guns, with the exception that hybrids currently lack a tracking-bonused platform like the Muninn (lasers don't need one, even without locus rigs) AND that tracking computers are worthless (please make them worthwhile again). Smaller missiles are NOT balanced right now, and light missile velocities and explosion velocities need to be increased, along with precision missile velocities and explosion falloff, allowing their damage to scale up to very fast interceptors to some degree.
Anyone whining about nanoship gangs being hard to catch is probably a member of some 0.0 pet alliance with no other PVP experience or a factional warfare grunt with no other PVP experience. Guess what? This nerf isn't going to help you. You'll still be outclassed by people with tons of experience and perfectly-optimal fits. Let me turn your own misguided mantra back on you: ADAPT OR DIE.
|
Jade190
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 03:47:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Miriyaka
Stuff...
Truth. Although I never thought I'd agree with a Goon. But the people who whine about nanos don't play Eve. They don't deserve to live really because of there epic failing of using what little brain matter that lies within their moronic skulls. ------ Fighting stupidity since before you were stupid. |
Satch Boogie
STK Scientific N.A.S.A
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 14:10:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Jade190
Originally by: Miriyaka
Stuff...
Truth. Although I never thought I'd agree with a Goon. But the people who whine about nanos don't play Eve. They don't deserve to live really because of there epic failing of using what little brain matter that lies within their moronic skulls.
It's statements like this that contribute to proving the arguments about nano ships being too powerful are correct.
It's always the victims fault, it's his fault he's in the wrong ship, it's his fault his guns can't track you, it's his fault his missiles won't hit you or if they do it's for insignificant damage, it's his fault his drones can't catch and do enough damage to make catching you worthwhile, it's his fault he isn't in a gang, it's his fault he hasn't fitted neutralizers to his RATTING ship
People used to fit warp core stabilisers to ships to avoid being tackled. PVP'ers whined about that saying it was lame that they couldn't be caught. So the stabilisers got a nerf. Now nano pilots fit out ships for the exact same reason. So they can microwarp drive out of scramble range in 4 seconds flat. Yet somehow this is okay, not lame at all?
Give me a break.........
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 14:38:00 -
[176]
Edited by: Murina on 13/10/2008 14:43:30
Originally by: Satch Boogie
It's always the victims fault, it's his fault he's in the wrong ship, it's his fault his guns can't track you, it's his fault his missiles won't hit you or if they do it's for insignificant damage, it's his fault his drones can't catch and do enough damage to make catching you worthwhile, it's his fault he isn't in a gang.
I am a pvper i have a large and varied selection of ships i can fly in my hangar all fitted for specific combat roles so if a hostile gang comes into our space or if we are going on a roaming op i can ask what ship will best benefit the gang or what ship are we lacking so we can be as effective as possible.
I would never consider pvping in a pure ratting setup in 0.0 and even with my part pvp part ratting setup if i got caught in a belt by a gang while NPCing id consider myself very lucky if i got away no matter the gang type.
If i lose a ship in eve no matter what, who or how it is always 100% my fault, because as a experienced pvper i take responsibility for my ship and my actions and if i choose to do something or follow a order that gets me killed or i just screw up or are up against a better, luckier, or better equiped player that's just the way it is, but its syill my fault for not being prepared.
Originally by: Satch Boogie it's his fault he hasn't fitted neutralizers to his RATTING ship
YOUR DAMN FRIGGIN RIGHT ITS HIS FAULT FOR NOT FITTIN A NUET IN A RATTING SHIP, where do you clowns think you are???, back in bloody empire running lvl 1 noob missions?.
Your in 0.0 and and that is hostile space so acting like the rest of eve should just avoid you or that its ok to nerf pvp fits cos you wanna fit pure carebear setups in the most hostile areas of eve is as stupid as it gets.
|
Miriyaka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 15:13:00 -
[177]
booya
I don't have a whole lot to add, Murina just hit that shit out of the park. You're in 0.0. You're gonna get ganked if your PVE spec ship gets tackled by a PVP spec ship, unless your fitting has some kind of defense and you're pretty good at what you do.
Every loss is your fault, yes. All of my losses are my fault. They're not due to some 'questionable' tactic or 'unrealistic' game mechanic. I screwed up. I made a mistake. And I lost my ship.
However, I'm not going to dodge responsibility nor am I going to beat myself up about it. I'll change what I'm doing, and won't make the same stupid mistake over and over. I'll rat somewhere else. I'll get a scout. I'll fit a nasty bait setup and turn the tables. I'll have a gang cloaked around me.
Yes, it's your fault you died. When nanoships are nerfed and you get annihilated by a gang of sniping hacs, it'll still be your fault. Get used to it.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 15:24:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Ok let me put it this way for all you people that are being anal about what I said above: 4km/s is a frig speed and NOT a speed cruisers should achieve.
Why? Because you said so?
|
Iog Krugar
The Rising Stars Cosmic Anomalies
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 16:11:00 -
[179]
since its all about being in the wrong ship at the wrong time, how about we talk about the right ships for a moment? this is where those of you that fly nano and want to keep it can explain to the rest of us what you definitely do not want to see when you go through a gate ;) or it is where we agree upon nanos being the one-size-fits-all and are best being fought by nanos.
lets assume you are in 0.0 and have intel of an ishtar, vagabond and a zealot coming your way. they are properly skilled, and all sport t2 nano fits w/ t1 polycarbs and no implants (so, no I R HOT CUS I COST 3 BIL ISK setups). lets assume they are coming through a gate and for some reason cannot go back. your goal is to set up a gang of three ships to kill them (ship type entirely your choice, t2 fit, t1 rigs, no implants... mh, lets not use capitals. caps at gates make embarrassing killmails). if you cannot do without, you may assume a bubble (size of your choice) anchored at the gate. you can choose the range of engagement yourself, but the nanos will, naturally, nano around (and if it turns sour, escape) if they remain untackled.
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)
tackle all, neut zealot, kill ishtar first... might just work, but will go horribly wrong if they decloak at the same time and run off into different directions before the tackle kicks in.
above gang relies on non-standard fit ships, so you need to talk to your gangmates, get them to agree on a pretty specific tactic, grab the correct modules and fight in a way you propably would not prefer to when in a recon cruiser.
any other ideas that feel a bit less forced? --- i suposse everyone rolls around stations in pods |
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 16:56:00 -
[180]
Edited by: lecrotta on 13/10/2008 16:57:01
Originally by: Iog Krugar since its all about being in the wrong ship at the wrong time, how about we talk about the right ships for a moment? this is where those of you that fly nano and want to keep it can explain to the rest of us what you definitely do not want to see when you go through a gate ;) or it is where we agree upon nanos being the one-size-fits-all and are best being fought by nanos.
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)
- Scimitar fitted with tackle and RR.
- Raven (cruise and nuet in the highs, mwd, damps and sensor booster in the mids, 1600 plate, dmg mods and LAR in the lows).
- Good tackler (rapier/huggin preferred obviously) but anything quick with a web+point will do as long as it has a reasonable buffer for the scimi to keep it alive.
Thought id just throw a non traditional but highly effective fit out there, the raven can hit at long rage for well over 400dps and a choice of dmg type plus damp all 3 ships or one specific one and the scimi can easily keep the tackler alive.
Virtually guaranteed to kill at least one without loss but applying tackle on 3 separate ships long enough to destroy all 3 without losing a single ship and also killing all 3 hostile ships before they get away if they choose to run is quite a task against any kind of fit tbh.
SAVE NANO!!!!!!....only needing f1-f8 to kill is not a skilled style of combat.
|
|
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.
|
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 02:32:00 -
[211]
Originally by: Soporo
Wrong, it will be Assault Frig Online.
Only for 1v1 situations.
For gang on gang situations, BS (with maybe a few BCs mixed in) is the way to fly.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Nofake
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 12:03:00 -
[212]
I have a cerbures and i cant hit anything with this ships flying 8km m/s nerve the speed of all cruiser.My ship cost 200 mil and its for the moment sitting in my hanger because its wothless for the moment
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.31 12:10:00 -
[213]
Edited by: lecrotta on 31/10/2008 12:11:23
Originally by: Nofake I have a cerbures and i cant hit anything with this ships flying 8km m/s nerve the speed of all cruiser.My ship cost 200 mil and its for the moment sitting in my hanger because its wothless for the moment
So because you do not want to work in a team and use tackle and prefer to hit f1 to kill stuff the bar and skill level in eve should be lowered?. Its your understanding of team work and pvp that is worthless not your ships bud.
Cerbs make great dmg dealers, get a minmatar ship for a tackler, a logistic and ewar ship as well and your on your way to having a good team and understanding a little about making the most out of the bonuses each race has along with learning good quality pvp.
Or you could join the "cry to ccp for a nerf nerf" squad.......
|
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 08:32:00 -
[214]
Originally by: lecrotta So because you do not want to work in a team and use tackle and prefer to hit f1 to kill stuff the bar and skill level in eve should be lowered?. Its your understanding of team work and pvp that is worthless not your ships bud.
So what, you're saying we should all have buddies when we leave the safety of the station? lol. you have failsauce all over you.
Originally by: lecrotta get a minmatar ship for a tackler, a logistic and ewar ship as well and your on your way to having a good team and understanding a little about making the most out of the bonuses each race has along with learning good quality pvp.
Sure, that's great for people who live in America or Europe - there's just shy of 40,000 people online when you are. For people living in Austrian and the western pacific rim like myself, there are about 10k people online when I play. It's impractical, unless I join a 0.0 alliance with 500+ members, to suggest most players can just whip out two specialized wing man to follow them around to do tackling for them.
Originally by: lecrotta Or you could join the "cry to ccp for a nerf nerf" squad.......
You fail on every account. Just because you're too incompetent to be left on your own doesn't mean there aren't pilots who are skilled enough to do so.
And there's no good reason why anyone should have to play the game the way you do just because you suck at it and want them all dumbed down to your pathetic level.
For the record, I never flew nano, an I understand why they want to fix it. But if the treatment is worse than the disease, wtf is the point?
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 10:13:00 -
[215]
Originally by: Terra Mikael
So what, you're saying we should all have buddies when we leave the safety of the station? lol. you have failsauce all over you.
So you wanna F1 to kill without tackle and want the ppl you shoot at to sit still like rats until they pop.....go away loser.
Originally by: Terra Mikael Sure, that's great for people who live in America or Europe - there's just shy of 40,000 people online when you are. For people living in Austrian and the western pacific rim like myself, there are about 10k people online when I play. It's impractical, unless I join a 0.0 alliance with 500+ members, to suggest most players can just whip out two specialized wing man to follow them around to do tackling for them.
STFU and stop crying there is plenty of pilots about at all time zones in eve, just because you recruit like you pvp (relying on sheer numbers) is not the games fault. Try recruiting a bit more selectively and pointing out why you want certain races and ship pilots you will get plenty of ppl to fill in the gaps in your wings while learning a little about team work as well.
Originally by: lecrotta Or you could join the "cry to ccp for a nerf nerf" squad.......
Originally by: Terra Mikael For the record, I never flew nano, an I understand why they want to fix it. But if the treatment is worse than the disease, wtf is the point?
Terra Mikael
Losses: 14 Kills: 98
Oh yea your real uber leet.
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.11.01 10:42:00 -
[216]
Originally by: Nofake I have a cerbures and i cant hit anything with this ships flying 8km m/s nerve the speed of all cruiser.My ship cost 200 mil and its for the moment sitting in my hanger because its wothless for the moment
So you are worthless pilot and you should change game to WoW or Hello Kitty online.
http://triumvirate-alliance.com/?a=pilot_detail&plt_id=7571&view=ships_weapons Thats how you use/fly cerb.
|
VC General
|
Posted - 2008.11.02 19:16:00 -
[217]
Quote: So because you do not want to work in a team and use tackle and prefer to hit f1 to kill stuff the bar and skill level in eve should be lowered?. Its your understanding of team work and pvp that is worthless not your ships bud.
Has nothing to do with working in a team. ATM, speed is king. When a single tactic can only be countered by the same tactic, or by fitting ships against their design, such as BS with all highs filled with large neuts, it's obviously imbalanced.
I say that your skills are worthless, thus you fear loosing a cookie cutter invulnerability tactic that even your grandma could use to be l33t in Eve pvp. Poor baby, having to use a ship that can't always do whatever it wants to whoever you want. You could always go play WoW, and sit in a pally bubble while using a speed hack. Should feel just like home.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.11.02 20:11:00 -
[218]
Edited by: lecrotta on 02/11/2008 20:15:31
OMG...
Wtf are you drooling on about you mad man you list:
1. That nano can be killed by nano
All fits can be killed by similarly fitted ships pal (not titans of course)are you gonna nerf everything...
2. That they can be killed by nuet BS
Capitals down to frigs can be killed by this setup...nerf them as well?.
3. That they can be killed by ships SPECIFICALLY fitted for tackling and killing them (my personal favorite of your deluded ranting)
So your saying that because they can be killed by ships designed and specifically fitted to kill them, by their own type and by BS fitted with a nuet they need nerfing....that applies to everything in eve also pal.
YOU FORGOT TO INCLUDE THAT THEY ARE ALSO USELESS AGAINST A CAPITAL GANG, A RR BS GANG, A LOGISTIC GANG....ECT ECT.
I fly in every form of gang and style of pvp in eve bud, nano is just one of many i trained myself to use and i have no idea what a pally bubble or speed hack is but you seem to know exactly so i suggest you go back to WOW as you seem to know it well...
PS: Be honest your just upset and you hate them cos they cannot be killed by your ratting ship that soooooooooo uber against those NPC ships.....
|
Terra Mikael
Private Nuisance
|
Posted - 2008.11.03 07:54:00 -
[219]
Originally by: lecrotta So you wanna F1 to kill without tackle and want the ppl you shoot at to sit still like rats until they pop.....go away loser.
Maybe you should read what I said, or perhaps stop shooting rats long enough to understand that while soloing that you have to choose your targets wisely.
Originally by: lecrotta STFU and stop crying there is plenty of pilots about at all time zones in eve, just because you recruit like you pvp (relying on sheer numbers) is not the games fault. Try recruiting a bit more selectively and pointing out why you want certain races and ship pilots you will get plenty of ppl to fill in the gaps in your wings while learning a little about team work as well.
Not sure where you're getting these "sheer numbers" part. My argument is that this patch would CAUSE blobs because people can no longer fight even ships of the same class anymore without target painters and tacklers. Not sure where you're taking this recruiting thing...I'm not the egoist who names a corp after myself.
And I really wish you'd try to play in my timezone a while. Anyone here will tell you that the the afternoons in the tokyo timezone are dead. All the decent corps are almost totally empty during these timeframes. Whole alliance log off except for a skeleton crew. It is ****ing difficult to recruit people just in this timezone simply because the only chinese that play are isk farmers, there's a total of about 200 Japanese players, and the New Zealanders and Australians that play are seriously underpresented. And thats before you knock off half those numbers with language barriers (I don't speak aussie )
Originally by: lecrotta
Terra Mikael
Losses: 14 Kills: 98
http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/pk/view.php?type=player&name=Terra+Mikael&filter=kills&page=1#recent
The first five pages of BC are almost all noobship and pod kills......Oh yea your real uber leet.
Yes...Quite interesting that you would search battleclinic and prove my point...you're not even in the database. So either this means that people have the freedom to use other killboards, or it means you're a ****ing moron who thinks BC is some all-inclusive killmail posting system - which you're not even in.
Oh, and for the record, check the system, it was a gate camp. One of the few places where a gate connects zero-sec and high-sec - great place to camp for lots of lulz. I kind don't control what comes in, so everything dies. It just happens I had the highest scan res, so I got the little guys and their pods for good measure. I don't see anything wrong with that
|
Stalina
Gallente Deep Space Exploration Squad
|
Posted - 2008.11.04 22:44:00 -
[220]
Thanks CCP for showing that you dont care about customers at all
|
|
Lord EmBra
Cutting Edge Incorporated RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 16:23:00 -
[221]
Don't do so hugh changes!
Forget your current changes and instead do something like the following:
1. Don't have the same attributes on 100MN, 10MN and 1MN mwds. Tweak the attributes, perhaps make the best 100MN mwd capped to 550% speed, best 10MN mwd to 600% and keep the best 1MN mwd as it is today. Other, lower tier, MWDs needs to change accordingly ofc.
2. Make webbifiers use scripts. with script 20km range but only 60% speed reduction, without script keep them as they are today. this means ofc, you need to reduce the web bonus of rapiers and huginns.
3. Remove or tweak polycarbons rigs.
Keep base speeds as they are on tq today.
|
ElCoCo
KIA Corp KIA Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.05 19:09:00 -
[222]
Are the mwd changes final? Meaning they all give 500% speed increase and they only differ in the sig radius increase, cap use and cap penalty? Boink! |
Allen Ramses
Caldari Typo Corp
|
Posted - 2008.11.06 04:06:00 -
[223]
Originally by: ElCoCo Are the mwd changes final?
It looks like ALL changes are final.
In their infinite wisdom, CCP have decided against a scalar speed mod reduction (including MWD/AB and mass mods) of 25% and fixing the rig values, but instead decided to bring the sledgehammer to most speed mods and leaving others alone.
The first option would have killed ludicrous speed, but they chose to use a flamethrower instead of a fly swatter to kill off a single fly.
And because of it, missiles and drones are more broken now than they were to begin with. ____________________ Pimped out Raven to run level 4 missions quickly: 210 Mil ISK. Realizing your 120 Mil ISK Drake gets the job done faster: Priceless. |
Khamal Jolstien
Caldari Product Number 3
|
Posted - 2008.11.07 21:55:00 -
[224]
Originally by: Allen Ramses
Originally by: ElCoCo Are the mwd changes final?
It looks like ALL changes are final.
In their infinite wisdom, CCP have decided against a scalar speed mod reduction (including MWD/AB and mass mods) of 25% and fixing the rig values, but instead decided to bring the sledgehammer to most speed mods and leaving others alone.
The first option would have killed ludicrous speed, but they chose to use a flamethrower instead of a fly swatter to kill off a single fly.
And because of it, missiles and drones are more broken now than they were to begin with.
This is the part I don't get. It used to be where things were carefully approached and considered. This is not the CCP I started paying money every month to. Is there a new marketing push/approach making them want to enforce these changes?
Or have they lost touch with how to make a video game
|
Sigras
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 11:37:00 -
[225]
While my feelings on the nano nerf *cough* necessary *cough* stand aside, i propose two changes that are both realistic as to real world physics and workable as to minuscule balance tweaking.
1. Give Missiles a turning radius as opposed to explosion velocity which makes no real world sense as per the thread i posted (not to link myself). Linkage
This would also prevent people from mindlessly running away in a straight line from missiles as tracking prevents them from doing to guns. Also adding more and more of the pilots skill into the battle as he must manually avoid the missiles.
2. Add Mass to a ship as it increases in speed. This due to the great physicist Albert Einstein's theory would effectively reduce and counteract the additional thrust given by a particular vehicle's engines and could be tweaked to prevent ships from increasing to ludicrous speed
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 15:29:00 -
[226]
Originally by: Sigras
2. Add Mass to a ship as it increases in speed. This due to the great physicist Albert Einstein's theory would effectively reduce and counteract the additional thrust given by a particular vehicle's engines and could be tweaked to prevent ships from increasing to ludicrous speed
Yeah, but small problem is no fit in eve comes even near relativistic speeds where this is a tangible factor.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Sigras
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 15:33:00 -
[227]
ok, point well taken, but at least this would make more sense than nerfing mods etc out of the blue.
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.11.08 15:39:00 -
[228]
Originally by: Sigras ok, point well taken, but at least this would make more sense than nerfing mods etc out of the blue.
Well, everything would.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Shaka Quatuic
|
Posted - 2008.11.12 00:22:00 -
[229]
I know this is way too late to comment as the MWD changes are implemented now, but here is my idea:
make MWD a non-combat propulsion system, that allows a ship to navigate at much higher speeds - enough for interplanetary flight - yet also allows full control over direction without regard for nav fixes. it of course would not be anywhere near as fast as the primary warp drive, for instance a standard T1 MWD would allow controlled navigation at a speed of 0.3au/sec on a ship whose main warp drive can get to 3au/sec (basically a T1 MWD would have a max speed of 10% of the main warp drive the ship uses... higher meta versions of course wold be better). scramblers, disrupters and bubbles would prevent or terminate their use, and a ship in MWD mode would be unable to attack or be attacked.
this basically puts afterburners at the forefront of combat speed enhancement, and at the same time brings back the feeling of vastness EvE has been missing for a long time with the possibility of making deep safe spots again. I know many of you hate deep safes, but this is SPACE...
|
ZUDD
Rubra Libertas Militia
|
Posted - 2008.11.13 23:17:00 -
[230]
Edited by: ZUDD on 13/11/2008 23:17:34
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
As said, the nano problem has nothing to do with the ability to hit nanos. The general problem is that nano gangs with those speeds can disengage at will and there are no good counters except for blobbing back at them with nanos. Speed has too many advantages. There is no way you can justify 400-600dps cruisers going 4-5km/s and have a reasonable tank ontop of it. compare that to an inty that is just a few m/s faster, has 1/5th of the dps and 1/10th the tank. You dont see a problem? I think its pretty darn obvious tbfh.
I would sure like to know where you found an 8/8/8 slot HAC that can do all of that. I don't believe anyone here has a grasp of why nano ships are actually flown - for a degree of safety when jumping into that next 0.0 system. Nerfing speed setups again will only alienate the casual pvp crowd; nano ships have negligible tanking and there are many counters that will destroy them virtually instantly.
If you are in a well fitted BS, there is no excuse to losing against a nano ship - if he webs you you can web back and kill it instantly; if he hangs out at range, tank and move back to the gate.
The cases in which nanos are powerful are when there are a few moving around 0.0 killing hapless targets. Let me ask you this: if you are moving around 0.0 alone and you are attacked by 5 players, even if they didn't have nanos, what would your chances of surviving be?
Also, before someone from a 0.0 alliance starts complaining "people shouldnt move with impunity around our space" stop being lazy, scout and maybe actually defend the space you supposedly own.
|
|
Muad' Dib
Gallente Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 01:28:00 -
[231]
Originally by: lecrotta Edited by: lecrotta on 01/11/2008 10:23:06
Originally by: Terra Mikael
So what, you're saying we should all have buddies when we leave the safety of the station? lol. you have failsauce all over you.
So you wanna F1 to kill without tackle and want the ppl you shoot at to sit still like rats until they pop.....go away loser.
Originally by: Terra Mikael Sure, that's great for people who live in America or Europe - there's just shy of 40,000 people online when you are. For people living in Austrian and the western pacific rim like myself, there are about 10k people online when I play. It's impractical, unless I join a 0.0 alliance with 500+ members, to suggest most players can just whip out two specialized wing man to follow them around to do tackling for them.
STFU and stop crying there is plenty of pilots about at all time zones in eve, just because you recruit like you pvp (relying on sheer numbers) is not the games fault. Try recruiting a bit more selectively and pointing out why you want certain races and ship pilots you will get plenty of ppl to fill in the gaps in your wings while learning a little about team work as well.
Originally by: lecrotta Or you could join the "cry to ccp for a nerf nerf" squad.......
Originally by: Terra Mikael For the record, I never flew nano, an I understand why they want to fix it. But if the treatment is worse than the disease, wtf is the point?
Terra Mikael
Losses: 14 Kills: 98
http://www.battleclinic.com/eve_online/pk/view.php?type=player&name=Terra+Mikael&filter=kills&page=1#recent
The first five pages of BC are almost all noobship and pod kills......Oh yea your real uber leet.
lecrotta
Kills : 0 Losses : 0
Isn't that nice ? |
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.11.16 10:56:00 -
[232]
Edited by: lecrotta on 16/11/2008 11:02:26
Originally by: Muad' Dib
lecrotta
Kills : 0 Losses : 0
Isn't that nice ?
My main was framed i tell ya unfortunately the ccp forum police did not see it that way.........
Kills: 2,114 Losses: 130
|
Bargnar
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 09:22:00 -
[233]
I have 22736 kills to 27 losses with my main, does this qualify me for posting?
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 09:29:00 -
[234]
Originally by: Bargnar I have 22736 kills to 27 losses with my main, does this qualify me for posting?
No it makes you a liar cos the top killer in eve has only 12k or so. |
Bargnar
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.11.19 22:10:00 -
[235]
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Bargnar I have 22736 kills to 27 losses with my main, does this qualify me for posting?
No it makes you a liar cos the top killer in eve has only 12k or so.
And its tells people that I am an alt, pretending I have an uber-pvp char. Like you. |
Arcazz
Shadow Company Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 15:40:00 -
[236]
Originally by: Valuv 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.
Photoshop means anything to you?
/The Mighty
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.11.26 15:59:00 -
[237]
Originally by: Bargnar
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Bargnar I have 22736 kills to 27 losses with my main, does this qualify me for posting?
No it makes you a liar cos the top killer in eve has only 12k or so.
And its tells people that I am an alt, pretending I have an uber-pvp char. Like you.
So you think i "pretending" to have a uber-pvp char?....so that means if i actually do have all the kills i claim on my main your saying im uber?.
Thanx.
|
Bargnar
Amarr
|
Posted - 2008.12.03 21:25:00 -
[238]
Edited by: Bargnar on 03/12/2008 21:25:30
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Bargnar
Originally by: lecrotta
Originally by: Bargnar I have 22736 kills to 27 losses with my main, does this qualify me for posting?
No it makes you a liar cos the top killer in eve has only 12k or so.
And its tells people that I am an alt, pretending I have an uber-pvp char. Like you.
So you think i "pretending" to have a uber-pvp char?....so that means if i actually do have all the kills i claim on my main your saying im uber?.
Thanx.
Yes uber-alt. Indeed you are. uber-noob, uber-liar, shall I go on?
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 :: [one page] |