Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 17:14:00 -
[151]
Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 08/10/2008 17:14:14
Originally by: lecrotta
So first you claim that "A mix of EAS, AFs and inties" can replace roaming gang nano ships (post 105). Then you clearly point out that even now you can "obliterate" any frig in seconds even now on tq before the speed nerf?.
Wanna make up your mind if they suck or not or does YOUR truth depend on what you want nerfed???.?.
Yeah, all anti support hacs that are bane of frigs use turrets. There is a ship called sentinel and it can fit TDs fyi. Besides, the whole point of making frigs the guerilla warfare ships is that they HAVE an EFFECTIVE counter. Nano's have an effective counter and it is to use the same type of ship but more of them; yes rapiers are nano ships aswell. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
Eran Laude
Gallente The Aduro Protocol
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 17:22:00 -
[152]
Are there any plans to rebalance speed with the release of Empyrean Age 1.2? If so, when will we see that patch being rolled out?
|
Stormee1
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 17:28:00 -
[153]
Ok I just have to put my two cents in on this one... I personally am GLAD they are nerfing the nano's its stupid that a ship that can do 400+ dps can move 8km/s+. HAC's with maybe the exception on the Vaga dont come with there rediculus dps and formittable resists for nothing. Also, I keep hearing people saying to nerf missiles... why whould they nerf missiles? missiles already have enough drawback as is. They dont do instant damage like turrets do. Torps aside they dont do very much dps. Also they dont get the "wreaking" facor that turrets also get. So it seems time that missiles have a good role in fleets imo, and that role is to counter fast ships.
|
lecrotta
lecrotta Corp
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 17:29:00 -
[154]
Edited by: lecrotta on 08/10/2008 17:45:15
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Yeah, all anti support hacs that are bane of frigs use turrets. There is a ship called sentinel and it can fit TDs fyi.
Like you say you can "obliterate" any frig in seconds solo so a TD is worthless unless you TD every "obliterator" ship in the gang your fighting.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Besides, the whole point of making frigs the guerilla warfare ships is that they HAVE an EFFECTIVE counter.
Effective counter??? f1-f8????
WOW your like bringing the skill needed to kill in small to med sized gang combat to all new levels with your amazing tactical and team work intensive counter to the friggie replacements to nano roaming gangs. Do you run f1-f8 combat classes?.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Nano's have an effective counter and it is to use the same type of ship but more of them; yes rapiers are nano ships as well.
You do not need more nano to beat nano you just need better pilots and organization and you can do it with less easily, especially if you have a well balanced gang. Seems you got the blob mentality bad their pal maybe you should skill up a bit and join a better alliance or corp its the only cure for blobitus.
Anyway you seem to think i do not want changes, im all for additions that involve skilled use and make gang fighting more interesting you Muppet. The scripted web idea that had less str but increased range the longer range the less web str and visa versa is a great idea, that would be perfect tbh along with the mwd killing scram and nuets that take effect at the start of their cycle not at the end.
Positive additions that need skill to be successful instead of blindly swinging the nerf bat is what is needed, only needing f1-f8 to kill is not a skilled style of combat.
SAVE NANO!!!!!!....only needing f1-f8 to kill is not a skilled style of combat.
|
Solostrom
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 17:31:00 -
[155]
Is it totally understood by CCP that ALL of the proposed changes ALL happening at once has been analysed to death and found to be a completely insane idea?
|
jacobean
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 17:34:00 -
[156]
Edited by: jacobean on 08/10/2008 17:40:43 To CCP
When is the cap empire carebear ship going to be introduced to the game is it going to be at xmass when the new patch is deployed .
|
El Roi
Rainer Luxus
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 17:38:00 -
[157]
My suggestion:
Every ship gets a maximum speedlimit, but this limit can be exeeded. However, this won't be without consequences.
If a interceptor, which has a speedlimit of 5000m/s, flies 9000m/s it gets a permanent, percentaged damage on it's structure. That can't be countered with any resistance. With a total loss of the scructure , the ship explodes, regardless of any armor or resistance.
reg
Roi
|
Aoi Hane
Amarr MagnaDyne Navy New MagnaDyne Enterprises
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 17:38:00 -
[158]
Can we get dual monitor support, I would love to be able to move the overhead and alot of the windows over to my second screen so i can actually see what's going on.
Thanks!
|
BFish
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 17:42:00 -
[159]
1. What is your motive for the nano nerf balance?
2. What do you think will happen as a result of this balancing?
3. What do you think would happen if the nano was in fact boosted rather than nerfed?
4. Rumours have been going around that you may change the CPU or Powergrid requirements of speed modules to lessen their usage. Is this true?
5. If the above is true, what will happen to the people who, during the nano nerf downtime, were undocked. Will they be flying ships which defy the laws of physics?
6. Are there plans for an interdictor-bubble-style webber, which webs everything in a 50km range?
7. Do you know that by nerfing nano you are upsetting many caldari militia members who treasure their precious nano drakes?
|
SomeHardLovin
The Nietzian Way Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 17:48:00 -
[160]
Edited by: SomeHardLovin on 08/10/2008 17:53:06
Originally by: Redklaw Edited by: Redklaw on 07/10/2008 01:48:52 So it's possible to get a Vagabond over 10Km/s if I spend billions on deadspace / faction equipment, T2 Rigs, and Full HG Snakes... At the cost of billions (notice its plural) of ISK worth of investment.
So here's the problem with that.. if you pop into 0.0 you will meet literally HUNDREDS of pilots flying that exact setup. What used to be special is now "the norm". That's where problems are now occuring. It wasn't that big a deal before because although a 8000ms Vaga is silly.. it was rare. Now everyone has one, and the problem is very obvious and they have pretty much overrun 0.0, making it less fun to play in. CCP are hoping to fix that somehow and I agree.. it needs fixing. Titans need fixing too now that everyone has 5 or 6 laying around.. but will it happen? Who knows.
And don't tell me "Just go fit some heavy neuts!". I've spent a LONG time trying to fight nano gangs (fleets really at this point) and there is VERY little you can do other than hold your own and call a stalemate (unless you have a Titan.. which you probably do haha). ---
* The opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent those of my corporation or alliance. |
|
Tibberg
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 17:51:00 -
[161]
Dear CCP
Do you not think that the problem of nano gangs is only present because people are not prepared to take the means with which to fight fast cruisers, such as heavy neuts and ships with a web bonus, and that the only real problem is from the 10-15 km/s interceptors? And providing more means to combat fast ships AND nerfing the speed modules and rigs, while bringing things like interceptors down to an acceptable speed is effectivly putting fast skirmishing ships out of buisness?
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 17:53:00 -
[162]
Originally by: SomeHardLovin
Originally by: Redklaw Edited by: Redklaw on 07/10/2008 01:48:52 So it's possible to get a Vagabond over 10Km/s if I spend billions on deadspace / faction equipment, T2 Rigs, and Full HG Snakes... At the cost of billions (notice its plural) of ISK worth of investment.
So here's the problem with that.. if you pop into 0.0 you will meet literally HUNDREDS of pilots flying that exact setup.
LOL just LOL.
Most nano vagas do around 7kms max most others nano hacs do 5ish kms max, very few fly the 10kms or faster fits and they are only used in specific fights due to the expense and the fact that they are really not that much better in gang fighting as both need to slow to hit anything and the non mwd speed is very simular.
|
Zo5o
Gallente Longcat is Long
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 17:54:00 -
[163]
Blasters are at a disadvantage as a close-range weapon in TODAY'S eve. They do about 10% more dps than pulses or torps, but pulses have about 100% more range, torps about 600% more range.
The last time I saw the speed changes on SiSi, including the mwd-deactivating scrams, general mass increase of ships, and web nerf, the changes seemed to make blasterboats completely non-competitive in pvp, as it took 4 times longer to reach your target post-nerf, and cruisers could orbit fast enough to completely evade a blaster bs's tracking without an AB or MWD.
What changes, if any, to the previous speed changes have you made to ensure that blasterboats retain a viable and competitive niche in PVP?
|
SomeHardLovin
The Nietzian Way Pure.
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 17:56:00 -
[164]
I should point out its not just the Vaga that is screwed up. The Ishtar is another ship that needs this nerf. It drops 5 drones and is instantly orbiting at 50km at 5000ms. Again you pretty much have no chance of killing that thing. Get a group of them and there isn't really anything to counter them with.. it will be a stalemate. ---
* The opinions expressed are mine and do not necessarily represent those of my corporation or alliance. |
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 18:00:00 -
[165]
Edited by: Murina on 08/10/2008 18:01:48
Originally by: SomeHardLovin I should point out its not just the Vaga that is screwed up. The Ishtar is another ship that needs this nerf. It drops 5 drones and is instantly orbiting at 50km at 5000ms. Again you pretty much have no chance of killing that thing. Get a group of them and there isn't really anything to counter them with.. it will be a stalemate.
Tell your amaar pilots to jump in a few of their sniper BS and focus on the ishtars, if you have a few they will melt the orbiting ishy in seconds and if you time the volleys right he will have no chance to align and warp.
Simple answers to simple problems tbh, nano aint the problem lack of pvp knowledge is.
|
Brayiel
The Double Cross
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 18:01:00 -
[166]
Originally by: SomeHardLovin I should point out its not just the Vaga that is screwed up. The Ishtar is another ship that needs this nerf. It drops 5 drones and is instantly orbiting at 50km at 5000ms. Again you pretty much have no chance of killing that thing. Get a group of them and there isn't really anything to counter them with.. it will be a stalemate.
Drones die quickly when you web/shoot them
|
Moya81
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 18:06:00 -
[167]
To make a long story short, when are you going to consider making the Black Ops ships useful for anything apart being an expensive target? Would be nice if with the discussed speed-tweking you would consider giving the blackops some survivability such as speed AND the ability to warp while cloaked.
Off-topic suggestion:
1. Make random spacial phaenomenas that for a certain amount of time can disrupt warping out of a system; targeting; cloaking; capacitor power; communications (shutting down chat) etc etc in a system or region. This would shift tactical tactical situations and result in a more realistic feeling to the game and exploration and opportunities.
2. With the same concept as point 1, you have implemented the last expansion allowing faction warfare but have failed to give a real ambience of war. Factional warfare has become (unfortunately) a big blobbing with no sec penalty. You have correctly implemented NPC fleets in certain systems, but it would make the whole scenario alot more realistic if NPC fleets where to fight among each other, push forward into enemy systems allowing players to participate with clear objectives and possible rewards. This way you could "channel" into a certain path of low populated systems the masses of players participating, without further lagging out the systems already overpopulated.
3. Collisions ship-to-ship and ship-to-collidables with no damage whatsoever is very unrealitstic and also implies various problems with intentional bumping from docking range by neutral flagged alts, to the advantage of the main players character (exclusively a highsec problematic). Furthermore having so called shutlle blobbs dropped in such numbers as to render movement of a freighter completely impossible. Allow damage to occur when two object collide, the amount of damage distrubuted should be shared proportinally to the masses and speed of the colliding objects. This would mean that a nanoship "bumping" a carrier off a station to actually die from the collision, while the carrier taking a scratch at it's shields. It would also mean that pilots docking or undocking would have to fly their ships with more attention and skills. The overall realism would be improved.
4. Self-destruct mechanism are to be tweked, the amount of time necessary to self-destruct a ship should be proportinal to the ship size. The only benefit the current self-destruct option provides, is a way for a doomed ship to avoid giving a killmail and loot to his aggressors and as such it is very frequently abused creating frustration. The self-destruction should have a few advantages aswell as disadvantages. Allow self-destruction to do splash damage in the surrounding area, the amount of damage and range should be proportional to the size of the ship. The self-destruction sequence should be "quiet" and only the pilot who activates it should be given a timer warning. The self-destruction sequence should have a disadvantage of not allowing the pilot to survive if he doesn't eject before the countdown ends. Allow the countdown to continue even after the pilot ejects and only to be disarmable if another pilot boards the ship in time.
5. Allow modules to take damage and fail once the target starts taking structural damage. This would allow various options among them the possible advantage of having a new specialization (wich in my view should be the present one called: surgical strike) allowing a pilot to target certain primary modules categorized in: weapons; propolsion; power (targeting this shouls have a certain percentage of causing either an instand explosion or total ship deactivation). This would open a whole new range of options and strategies forcing pilots to think even more during stress situations. E.G succefully shutting down the power would eject the pilot in his pod...
These are the main ideas and tweaks I consider would greatly improve the quality and overall ambience to this game.
Best regards
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 18:12:00 -
[168]
Edited by: Murina on 08/10/2008 18:14:15
Gotta say i love the idea of variable str/range script webs.
It would solve a lot of the missile/tracking vs speed issue as at distance a weak web will slow a fast ship enough to be hit lightly and if it closes swap script and slow it more so you hit it harder. Along with the mwd killing scram and nuets that effect at the start of the cycle instead of the end i think a great phase in pvp would be here.
This solves a lot of problems, those caused by speed and those caused by nerfing speed.
|
Elise Randolph
Slacker Industries
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 18:27:00 -
[169]
I guess my question is, why use a sledge hammer to do the job of a scalpel? Bring polycarbons inline with nanofibers and reduce the effect of overheating on MWDs and problem solved! Nothing else really needs to be done. If someone spends billions of isk on a ship setup that goes at blistering speeds, it's because they've spent billions of isk. If you throw money into things, you can get ships that severely outperform others.
You have the tools to combat nano ships in webs, e-war, and cap neutralizing. Just because people aren't smart enough to utilize these tools doesn't mean you need to change them.
Making Polycarbs something other than the end-all-be-all rig that is more powerful than any other rig in its class will be sufficient to combating this problem. Even toy with making nanofibers, overdrives, and i-stabs stack on one another (albeit not with a typical stacking penalty, maybe the effect of overdrives stacking is half as much when stacking against nanofibers, or something of the sort).
Readers Digest version: you don't need to completely overhaul the system when slight tweaks will be more than sufficient. The average nano pilot does not have t2 rigs and full snake sets with a max-skilled Claymore pilot in gang. Removing nano as a viable PVP option will severely shift the dynamic of small gang warfare. ----------
|
IR Scoutar
Caldari State War Academy
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 18:30:00 -
[170]
1: How long was the design/fleshing out process with the speed balancing and has anything at all changed with the speeds themselves from the original SiSi release ?
2: will the needed changes of at least missiles and drones be rolled out at the same time ?
3: What thought has been given to the rebalancing other things that seem required to be change with the slowing down of eve ? Such as Afterburners , Tracking of all class of guns , signature radius, inertia , etc.
3: Will this obviously large modification of "accepted" gameplay pave the way for other similarly big gameplay changing modifications ?
|
|
Xybex
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 18:35:00 -
[171]
I believe that the speed issue is more about the interceptor and other frigs not being able to get the speed they are design for.. i think you should approch this as a constructivte fix rather than a destructive..
By adjusting a bonus cpu or power to the ship or ships that need it. To many people have time invested in their ships to have it robbed of the very skills they got the ship for...
|
Aliyah Sheli
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 18:43:00 -
[172]
I have just one question... Why is the problem being addressed by penalizing all speed modules rather than creating a greater stacking penalty?
|
Melegaunt Tanthul
Gallente Jericho Fraction The Star Fraction
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 18:52:00 -
[173]
1. How will you address the Blaster/AC boat issues that the patch will bring.
2. How will you address the null survivability of most HACs after the nerf and why would someone want to use them over an insurable BC that can tank better and in some cases has more DPS as well.
3. How will you address ships like the Deimos/Thorax that feature an MWD bonus when the close rangeness of said ships will always bring them into scrambler range nullifying the bonus and the ship design altogether 99% of the time?
|
muffminer
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 18:56:00 -
[174]
What I would ike to know ccp is with YET ANOTHER PATCH CHANGING THE ORIGINAL DESIGN...is what do you plan to do to reimburse me for the months upon month's i've dedicated to making ships like the sabre, vaga, and other ships go extremely fast. I fly a vagabond about 9km/s...ONLY AFTER 1 billion isk in implants...and even as is if duel webbed by a rapier im knocked down to below 200m/s while running my microwarp. This game doesn't require these changes. Especially seeeing as so many of us have put so much time into training our charactors based on the current game mechanics. The people whining/crying and saying we need these changes are the tards who put skills souly into armor and shield tanking expecting to be able to tank a 20+man fleet in 0.0. I designed my charactor around the ability to go fast, and catch other people who go fast.
Now from the sound of things..my charactors year worth of trianing is about to become redundant..basically going out and spending a billion on a set of snakes is now going to be a total waste of isk as compared to feeling superior because I trained cybernetics 5, i trained accelleration control 5, i trained navigation and spaceship command 5, and decided to back those skills up with about a weeks worth of pure isk making.
Another case of CCP being too worried about pleasing a bunch of whiney noobs who should play a different game rather than dedicating focus to this games real issues, which happen to be the evergrowing population and its effects on the server.
|
Lord Shamino
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 18:58:00 -
[175]
It is well known that Jita is overpopulated due to cheap sell/buy orders. What are you going to do to improve the trading system so buy and sell orders are spread throughout the galaxy equaly ? My topic / solution would be improved contracting of large scale courier missions.
|
Mrappy
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 19:01:00 -
[176]
One thing I'm sure everyone agrees wouldbe cool would be if u could explore the staton your at.Like if u docked somewhere u could leave your ship and walk around the station and acutally go to a repair shop or agents office and if we could walk around station it would be more realistic.Another thing i think repairs should actually take a hour or two.
|
Zenst
Gallente Omniscient Order Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 19:10:00 -
[177]
I have an easy fix for this which solves the problem withought totally killing what it solves.
Introduce WEBBY BUBBLES for dictors and HIC's
Simple, effective, add's to the games dynamics and overall a fairer fix to a problem thats a fix to another problem that isn't being addressed.
|
Antgunner
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 19:10:00 -
[178]
I think the game is balanced fine, it was balanced fine when I first started 1.5 years ago. CCP needs to stop nerfing stuff, in the real world nothing is as balanced as stuff is in this game. Ships all need to have their strengths and weaknesses, advantages and disadvantages. Every patch is leading us to an eve with more and more similar ships. Or to rephrase that every ship is becoming the same. CCP could save them selves a lot of work by eliminating all race ships and giving us 1 ship for each ship class, thatÆs 1 frig 1 cruiser 1 battle cruiser and 1 battleship, everything would be equally balanced then. And does anyone want that? NO! but that is where all the patch nerfs are taking us. And if battleships are having issues hitting a nano frigate then they should have a web fitted. Im sure someone will say what if the frig is over 10kms? That would be an issue, but every ship has to be vulnerable to something, thatÆs what the ships in eve are all about. So people are complaining about the tracking on battle ships, rather then nerf lets give the tracking script a little boost or just give all battle ships a small tracking bonus. Also shouldnÆt the range of a scram and a web be proportionate to the size of the ship? I would think so, larger ship, more power behind a battleship, a 20km web would do wonders in this case. And as for everyone crying about nanoed frigates and hacs, they are balanced too, with great speed comes great tracking problems, range problems and most of the time a nanoed ship has little to no tank making them quite vulnerable. Ive watched nano HACS pop like shuttles many times and IÆve even seen a raven pop a vagabond, how did he do it? He had a web, a lethal weapon against a nanoed ship. As stated before, I think our game is balanced enough, if CCP wants to make the game better: update the servers so it quits lagging every time 60 people want to have a fight, Bring more content to the game, how about more ships? There is a huge gap between battleships and capitals a small drone carrier might be nice, Introduce another playable race, how about a mod that takes a large high slot and turns it into 2 med high slots- Or the other way around. There are lots of interesting things that can be done to make the game more interesting and fun, nerfing is the last thing that should be done.
|
Cabablanka
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 19:15:00 -
[179]
if you change anything, u kill all pvp.
|
Kiithnaras
Minmatar Es and Whizz Hedonistic Imperative
|
Posted - 2008.10.08 19:15:00 -
[180]
On the whole, I have to agree with the general proposal as far as altering ship statistics. Battleships need to slow the F down, bombers and other small and mid-range ships need a hand up, but the ships that hit in excess of Warrior II's speeds should be hard, if not impossible to come by. I even agree with the Speed Goals.
Specifically, however: the proposed changes to Microwarps are sound if and only if the changes to Webs are tied to them, and vice versa. De-microwarping an interceptor and webbing to 90% is just insane, it's basically dead at that point. Having mwd's not affected by warp disruption (Only Scramblers, or Disruptors, Probes, Bubbles, and Fields, too?) and only webbing to 50% is useless.
Changes to Polycarbs make sense, they do have a very large bonus. T1 should be between T1 and T2 nanos, and T2 should be a little more than T2 nano. Nanofibers themselves aren't necessarily a bad thing, but perhaps they should split up their bonuses? A slight speed bonus, a slight agility bonus, and a reduced mass reduction? That way they stack with overdrives and inertial stabs, but not completely.
X-instinct should not change. The bonuses are present, but every booster has an inherent drawback. You take a booster, there's a good chance you're going to suffer, and suffer severely. The better boosters, the better the chance. If you change the bonus to a signature radius bonus, X will not sell as Sooth does not sell. No one wants to risk a loss of combat effectiveness for such a trivial bonus. By the way, the only way to get people to use Sooth is to effectively double the Falloff bonuses. Most falloff ranges are tiny as it is, and no one wants to use Sooth because of it. Why use Sooth when you can use Frentix? Furthermore, falloff is decaying accuracy where optimal is full accuracy. It should stand to reason that a balanced booster for falloff would provide a larger bonus than one for optimal, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 .. 23 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |