Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Justin Alexander
State Protectorate
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 01:32:00 -
[1]
Edited by: Justin Alexander on 09/10/2008 01:32:03 Although the spirit and vision of the end-result from the speed changes are fair and sensible, the approach is too aggressive.
The nano-issue is an old one, but as the original dev blog stated, the classes of ships or arsenals meant to deal with speed is what needs attention. Less nerf to speed in general and more buff to small missile explosion velocity, small turret tracking, and Destoyer enhancements across the board, allowing it's class and purpose to really shine. Modify the 'sig radius versus damage' math so the cruiser class MWDs, even at max speed, are only dodging the slower and less precise crusier calibur weapons.
The current dev approach affects everyone equally whether you want it to or not, which is fair albeit defeatist. My suggested approach gives people the means to compete with uber-speed, and still the freedom to choose to in their ship choices and setups. Over-compensation will be more harmful than the problem. Less is more.
|
Miriyaka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 02:09:00 -
[2]
I agree.
Boost light missile velocity and explosion velocity, boost precision missile explosion falloff (3000m/s instead of 1500m/s so they can damage any ships they can hit to some extent). Lasers already track any fast ship well enough; un-nerf tracking computers so that projectile and hybrid platforms can also track well enough once more. Missiles should be effective against middle-of-the-road nanoships, but T1 heavy and cruise missiles should not be downing them easily without tackles, which is what this nerf amounts to. Make precision missiles worthwhile to use.
The implant slot change is ridiculous. Every other implant set can work in concert with each other with no stacking penalties or other interferences. Making a 25km/s ship go 15km/s or a 10km/s go 6km/s isn't going to change anything if you're also slowing down the ships that should be used to catch them (Huginns, Rapiers, Curses, fast heavy-neut battleships like Typhoons and Tempests) and nerfing the EW system that is most often used to kill them (webs).
Introduce more counters if you seriously think speed is a problem right now. You can't nerf speed across the board without breaking game balance for months or years and making cruisers and below non-viable choices for PVP. As a crucible, please explain what the Ishtar can do better than a Dominix if it cannot speedtank?
|
Cmndr Griff
Opinicus Operations
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 02:10:00 -
[3]
I think it's fair to say the speed change fixes are akin to repairing a PC with a sledge hammer.
Bring on the trumpets. |
Miriyaka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 02:27:00 -
[4]
I forgot to mention the MWD/scram issue, which even people against most of the nerf seem to fellating without regard to the fact that it makes 9km scramblers equal to 2.5+ webs.
If you're going to make scramblers affect MWDs, it needs to be a % reduction to effectiveness dependent upon scrambler quality/meta level, not a total shut-off. This would make scramblers viable without making them equal to nearly four other module slots at a tiny fraction of the cap use, and wouldn't completely kill blaster ships.
|
Brigsby5987
Caldari 32nd Amarrian Imperial Navy Regiment.
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 04:06:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Cmndr Griff I think it's fair to say the speed change fixes are akin to repairing a PC with a sledge hammer.
It works..... _______________________________________ Sig? where. There's no sig here. |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 10:29:00 -
[6]
The approach is too much of a sledgehammer one, it slows ships all around, even in non-nano fits, and it makes certain ship classes suicide-mobiles (interceptors, for starters). Hurts blasters (and tackling when solo, generally) far too much.
|
Nuts Nougat
SniggWaffe
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 11:09:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Cpt Branko The approach is too much of a sledgehammer one, it slows ships all around, even in non-nano fits, and it makes certain ship classes suicide-mobiles (interceptors, for starters). Hurts blasters (and tackling when solo, generally) far too much.
Pretty much this. Tbh nano mods need rebalancing not ships... And defenetly not every single ship in the game. ---
|
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.10.09 11:27:00 -
[8]
In the blog the dev said that AF's with afterburners could tank while "in close" and "below the tracking" of the larger target ship and so could replace hacs and recons as the roaming tackle ship of choice.
So answer me this how do you suggest the AF tanks if its not a solo ship and its a small gang?, as they cannot be in several places (inside the tracking range) at once???.
Small ships are now worthless in gang fighting with this patch as if your close and cannot be hit by one ship you will be in the sweet spot of another.
Do the guys doing this nerf even play the game and pvp????????.
|
Dirtee Girl
Omega Enterprises 0mega Factor
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 03:36:00 -
[9]
i have been looking on and off a what will happend post nerf with the changes listed and really i think in the end no matter what you nerf you just enable something else . probably something just as skill intensive and slanted towards older players but way more brutal.... |
Miriyaka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 11:38:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Dirtee Girl i have been looking on and off a what will happend post nerf with the changes listed and really i think in the end no matter what you nerf you just enable something else . probably something just as skill intensive and slanted towards older players but way more brutal....
Yeah. If you take away all speed, it will just be replaced by T2 HAC and missile sniping. Then all of the people whining about speed now will be whining about small 150km+ HAC gangs instapopping all of their small ships and making their big ships useless after this nerf goes through.
Sorry folks, Caracals only hit to about 120 with great skills. This change still won't prevent your shitty factional warfare gang from being picked apart by a handful of experienced players. |
|
Javir Noroven
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 13:02:00 -
[11]
Quote: The nano-issue is an old one, but as the original dev blog stated, the classes of ships or arsenals meant to deal with speed is what needs attention. Less nerf to speed in general and more buff to small missile explosion velocity, small turret tracking, and Destoyer enhancements across the board, allowing it's class and purpose to really shine. Modify the 'sig radius versus damage' math so the cruiser class MWDs, even at max speed, are only dodging the slower and less precise crusier calibur weapons.
What this fails to address is nano-fitted cruisers and battleships. It's all very well enhancing smaller weapons for the task of defeating smaller ships, but all this will accomplish is to slant the already grossly overpowered nano-tanks in favour of even larger ships capable of ignoring small-calibre weapons.
Quote: The current dev approach affects everyone equally whether you want it to or not, which is fair albeit defeatist. My suggested approach gives people the means to compete with uber-speed, and still the freedom to choose to in their ship choices and setups. Over-compensation will be more harmful than the problem.
As was pointed out in a recent dev blog, the mathematics of how different ship classes react to nano-fitting right now is schizophrenic. It isn't a smooth, logical curve given the steadily increasing mass of ships when one scales up from frigate to battleship. It's a hole in the engine's physics, and it's one they wish to plug. It goes beyond simply modifying the attributes of a few modules.
Quote: Introduce more counters if you seriously think speed is a problem right now. You can't nerf speed across the board without breaking game balance for months or years and making cruisers and below non-viable choices for PVP. As a crucible, please explain what the Ishtar can do better than a Dominix if it cannot speedtank?
As stated above, it goes beyond catering for players' desire for speed tanks in their present form. Game balance has been neatly shattered by the present omnipresence of speed fits for PvP, which as a form of tank render both shield and armour tanking almost completely obsolete.
As for the Ishtar, properly fitted, it can armour tank better than the Dominix through a combination of better resistance, better speed, and smaller sig radius. As it stands, that tank option is fairly pointless when the physics engine permits the cruiser to avoid every shot levelled at it and still use its droneswarm to devour its foes.
Quote: I think it's fair to say the speed change fixes are akin to repairing a PC with a sledge hammer.
It was asking for it...
Quote: The approach is too much of a sledgehammer one, it slows ships all around, even in non-nano fits, and it makes certain ship classes suicide-mobiles (interceptors, for starters). Hurts blasters (and tackling when solo, generally) far too much.
Quote: Pretty much this. Tbh nano mods need rebalancing not ships... And defenetly not every single ship in the game.
See above. It's a physics issue as well as a rebalancing issue.
Bear in mind that, of all the ship classes, the planned rebalancing will still leave interceptors king of the hill for speed, with all the attendant benefits.
Quote: In the blog the dev said that AF's with afterburners could tank while "in close" and "below the tracking" of the larger target ship and so could replace hacs and recons as the roaming tackle ship of choice.
So answer me this how do you suggest the AF tanks if its tackling not a solo ship but one in a small small gang?, as they cannot be in several places (inside the tracking range) at once???.
Small ships are now worthless in gang fighting with this patch as if your close and cannot be hit by one ship you will be in the sweet spot of another.
...as it normally is in any form of mixed warfare, if you evade one attack, it may put you in the way of another. |
Javir Noroven
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 13:08:00 -
[12]
In general, AF's need a reimagining of their purpose, not their modules. The class needs some extra dev lovin' in general.
Quote: i have been looking on and off a what will happend post nerf with the changes listed and really i think in the end no matter what you nerf you just enable something else . probably something just as skill intensive and slanted towards older players but way more brutal....
The developers do it for a job. It probably will slant something else, but then that will be addressed. Smoothing bubbles in wallpaper. Rebalancing isn't going to end any time soon.
Quote: Yeah. If you take away all speed, it will just be replaced by T2 HAC and missile sniping. Then all of the people whining about speed now will be whining about small 150km+ HAC gangs instapopping all of their small ships and making their big ships useless after this nerf goes through.
Sorry folks, Caracals only hit to about 120 with great skills. This change still won't prevent your shitty factional warfare gang from being picked apart by a handful of experienced players.
They are not taking away "all speed." Whatever will replace speed obsession right now may change the game balance, but at least it's a better option than the presently broken "I Win" button of ever-increasing speed, given that it has no adequate counter beyond having to sing along to the same tune.
Also, insults do not help. It may be difficult for a member of GoonSwarm to keep their baser impulses in check, but try to acknowledge that there are people behind those "shitty factional warfare gangs." :P
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 13:40:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Murina on 10/10/2008 13:44:22
Originally by: Javir Noroven
Quote: In the blog the dev said that AF's with afterburners could tank while "in close" and "below the tracking" of the larger target ship and so could replace hacs and recons as the roaming tackle ship of choice.
So answer me this how do you suggest the AF tanks if its tackling not a solo ship but one in a small small gang?, as they cannot be in several places (inside the tracking range) at once???.
Small ships are now worthless in gang fighting with this patch as if your close and cannot be hit by one ship you will be in the sweet spot of another.
...as it normally is in any form of mixed warfare, if you evade one attack, it may put you in the way of another.
So your answer to "small ships are a waste of a pilot cos they will get melted if this absurd nerf goes through" is:-
"YUP BUT THEY DESERVE IT"?.
Speed has been here for over 4 years and every change to the game has taken it into account, that is why screwing with it is messing up so much else in the game, Physics my butt its about turning pvp into pve cos ppl are coming from pve and expecting pvp to be the same and when its not they are to lazy to learn the piloting skills.
When F1-F8 is all you need to kill a ship is not pvp its pve.
|
Javir Noroven
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 16:39:00 -
[14]
Quote: So your answer to "small ships are a waste of a pilot cos they will get melted if this absurd nerf goes through" is:-
"YUP BUT THEY DESERVE IT"?.
Read a bit further on. AF's are stuck in battlefield role limbo right now, too slow to make them worthwhile next to their cruiser-sized counterparts and unable to compete with 'ceptors on the speed front. They need dev loving to help them find a role they can shine in. Making it so they cannot be hit is not finding them a purpose.
Quote: Speed has been here for over 4 years and every change to the game has taken it into account, that is why screwing with it is messing up so much else in the game, Physics my butt its about turning pvp into pve cos ppl are coming from pve and expecting pvp to be the same and when its not they are to lazy to learn the piloting skills.
When F1-F8 is all you need to kill a ship is not pvp its pve.
...okay.
1. Speed has been here for over 4 years, and has become increasingly annoying to players who, to quote a GoonSwarm pilot on another thread, don't play the game with the following mindset:
Quote: Haha MOAR MOAR MOAR MOAR
Also, if every change has to take a single element into account that was never designed to be an overwhelming factor, the factor in question becomes a blockage to future development the devs might want to put in place.
2. Screwing with it is not messing up so much else in the game, it's messing with an unbalanced, broken, and over-exposed break in the physics of the game engine that the game let people exploit. The devs are unhappy with this, so they're fixing it.
3. Physics > Your butt. The devs monitor and balance the game for a living, recieve little to no praise for helping making a game we all enjoy, but by GOD if they touch someone's pet game mechanic they catch an appalling amount of crap. People do not enter PvP expecting it to be the same as PvE, what they do expect is to be able to test and try out their own builds and tactics in a completely new, adrenaline-filled and excitingly consequential form of PvP. They don't expect to have their ideas ****ed on and a hymn sheet slapped into their face that every griefer, pirate, and corp killer on-the-prowl is singing from.
Also, is it a case of people being too lazy to learn the skills, or the nano-fanatics being too lazy to learn other skills and approaches to combat that aren't so easy?
People are getting upset about the nano-nerf. We all saw it coming, both the nerf and the emotional upset. When a tactic is so effective that it outshines everything else on the field, its upholders are really not going to want to lose it. Stop panicking, people. it's a game. Your pride and skill are not at stake, and the game has somehow survived every single balance tweak and update so far, despite all the threats, weeping, and gnashing of teeth that took place before it amongst players who thought their favorite mechanics were at stake. They weren't.
Just relax. Trust the devs; they're well-practised at this by now. If it helps cater to all flavours of ship builds by extension makes PvP combat more interesting, it's not a bad thing.
|
Murina
The Scope
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 17:11:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Murina on 10/10/2008 17:12:52
Originally by: Javir Noroven
Read a bit further on. AF's are stuck in battlefield role limbo right now, too slow to make them worthwhile next to their cruiser-sized counterparts and unable to compete with 'ceptors on the speed front. They need dev loving to help them find a role they can shine in. Making it so they cannot be hit is not finding them a purpose.
Im more than willing to get on the test server and help you find a niche for AF's. Screwing over virtually every ship smaller than a BC (including AF's btw) is not the answer though.
Originally by: Javir Noroven Just relax. Trust the devs; they're well-practiced at this by now. If it helps cater to all flavours of ship builds by extension makes PvP combat more interesting, it's not a bad thing.
Did you see the first patch????????.
Oh and.....
Maybe while they are at it your super duper, well-practiced, game balancing, oracles of eve knowledge DEV's can make another mission that recommends the use of a MWD.......in a dead space area.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 19:29:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Miriyaka I agree.
Boost light missile velocity and explosion velocity, boost precision missile explosion falloff (3000m/s instead of 1500m/s so they can damage any ships they can hit to some extent). Lasers already track any fast ship well enough; un-nerf tracking computers so that projectile and hybrid platforms can also track well enough once more. Missiles should be effective against middle-of-the-road nanoships, but T1 heavy and cruise missiles should not be downing them easily without tackles, which is what this nerf amounts to. Make precision missiles worthwhile to use.
The implant slot change is ridiculous. Every other implant set can work in concert with each other with no stacking penalties or other interferences. Making a 25km/s ship go 15km/s or a 10km/s go 6km/s isn't going to change anything if you're also slowing down the ships that should be used to catch them (Huginns, Rapiers, Curses, fast heavy-neut battleships like Typhoons and Tempests) and nerfing the EW system that is most often used to kill them (webs).
Introduce more counters if you seriously think speed is a problem right now. You can't nerf speed across the board without breaking game balance for months or years and making cruisers and below non-viable choices for PVP. As a crucible, please explain what the Ishtar can do better than a Dominix if it cannot speedtank?
This whole debate is based on the assumption that it is the ability to hurt nanos that is the core problem. It is not. The main problem are huge nano fleets that cannot be forced to commit to a fight and can bugger out at will. Your missiles changes wont change that a bit. The nerf is exactly what eve needs. A total revamp of the whole speed system to get it right, once and for all. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage |
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 19:38:00 -
[17]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
The main problem are huge nano fleets that cannot be forced to commit to a fight and can bugger out at will.
Id be interested to know how you think you can force ANY player/gang/ship/fit in EVE to engage if they choose not to.
And how you can make ANY kind of fleet (assuming it is piloted by even adequate pvpers who know how to align) stick around in a fight a for blob you may try to drop on them if they also choose not to. You may tackle 1 or 2 (but then you can do that with nano unless your in a ratting fitted gang) but most if not all are gonna get away.
Your blaming nano for player attitude and choice when the option to run or not engage in the first place is available to every gang type in eve.
|
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 19:56:00 -
[18]
Originally by: lebrata
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
The main problem are huge nano fleets that cannot be forced to commit to a fight and can bugger out at will.
Id be interested to know how you think you can force ANY player/gang/ship/fit in EVE to engage if they choose not to.
And how you can make ANY kind of fleet (assuming it is piloted by even adequate pvpers who know how to align) stick around in a fight a for blob you may try to drop on them if they also choose not to. You may tackle 1 or 2 (but then you can do that with nano unless your in a ratting fitted gang) but most if not all are gonna get away.
Your blaming nano for player attitude and choice when the option to run or not engage in the first place is available to every gang type in eve.
After the speed changes you can lock fleets in with gate camps. You can force fleets to avoid a choke. Today you cant do that effectively. Wich means that if you are going to infiltrate a hostile area you are going to have to commit your fleet to doing that and cant run at first sight of heavy resistance. |
lebrata
Hedion University
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 20:12:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
After the speed changes you can lock fleets in with gate camps.
You can do that now if you are smart and fit correctly.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer You can force fleets to avoid a choke.
You can also do that now with correct ship choices and preparation.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Today you cant do that effectively.
No YOU obviously cannot do that effectively at the moment.
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Which means that if you are going to infiltrate a hostile area you are going to have to commit your fleet to doing that and cant run at first sight of heavy resistance.
You can camp a gang in your space now and put a camp on the other side of a gate they will not be willing to engage but even if you trap a fleet they are not gonna leeroy into your blobbed gate camp unless they are a deliberate leeroy fleet.
Nothing you have said here will effect the kind of pilots your talking about as far as letting you pop them in a blobbed gate camp is concerned, they will wait you out or log. |
Lyria Skydancer
Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated
|
Posted - 2008.10.10 21:58:00 -
[20]
Originally by: lebrata
You can camp a gang in your space now and put a camp on the other side of a gate they will not be willing to engage but even if you trap a fleet they are not gonna leeroy into your blobbed gate camp unless they are a deliberate leeroy fleet.
Nothing you have said here is a nano issue nor will the nerf effect the kind of pilots your talking about as far as letting you pop them in a blobbed gate camp is concerned, they will wait you out or log until your gone or just head to your ratting and home areas a screw with your carebearing endeavors.
If all this can be done TODAY then YOU wont have a problem it being done AFTER nano nerf. |
|
Miriyaka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 02:46:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
This whole debate is based on the assumption that it is the ability to hurt nanos that is the core problem. It is not. The main problem are huge nano fleets that cannot be forced to commit to a fight and can bugger out at will. Your missiles changes wont change that a bit. The nerf is exactly what eve needs. A total revamp of the whole speed system to get it right, once and for all.
Hey, guess what: HACs will still be faster than everything but interceptors, just like right now. You won't be catching HACs in your battleship/BC/T1 cruiser, so they'll still be able to determine engagement range and get away from you at will. From your stated perspective, nothing will change. Haha.
As to the guy who said the Ishtar can out-tank a Dominix - are you kidding me? Sig doesn't come into play when you're tackled, and even when you're not tackled the Dominix can tank well over THREE TIMES the after-resist DPS the Ishtar can. With T2 setups and rigs we're talking 1200+ omni in a Dominix vs barely 400 omni in an Ishtar, and the Domi's resists are far more balanced and the Ishtar has a huge exp or em hole. There's no comparison, even with 1/3rd the sig --which you only keep if you're using an afterburner, which still won't be viable after this patch and will still be totally nullified with one 50% web.
I'd like you to show me a situation where an Ishtar would tank more than a Dominix pre-nerf --nevermind post-nerf where the Ishtar's speed advantage is irrelevant for any purpose other than range determination --even assuming an afterburner on, in a close orbit, unwebbed. Use any graphing system you want: EFT's, CCP's own graphing tools on the eve website, whatever. Show me this one instance where a 130m+ isk ship with less potential damage output out-tanks the 90m isk battleship.
"But but graphs aren't accurate" - of course they are, because they use precisely the same equations and variables that Eve uses to determine damage. Except that Eve always errs on the side of reliable pure tankable DPS rather than sig/speed/etc which only happen under perfectly controlled circumstances found in static graphs, and are constantly negated in real-world situations by things like webs, electronic warfare, piloting mistakes, etc. Nevermind that your entire armor tank can be overheated for minutes at a time for 60%+ more tank, where a 10mn propulsion mod will burn out after 30 seconds.
Basically, consider yourself 0wned.
|
Lysander Kaldenn
Viper Intel Squad Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 05:04:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Lysander Kaldenn on 13/10/2008 05:04:34 The Devs have stated they don't want absolute fitting rules for pvp, in other words pvp axioms. This will only change the axiom from mwd to remote reps, from HACs to BS/BC. Give us variety, give us balance, put this nerf in the garbage where it belongs. You are changing too many systems, you cannot possibly anticipate the results.
*edit for spelling
|
Sekket
Caldari White-Noise
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 05:31:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Lysander Kaldenn Edited by: Lysander Kaldenn on 13/10/2008 05:04:34 The Devs have stated they don't want absolute fitting rules for pvp, in other words pvp axioms. This will only change the axiom from mwd to remote reps, from HACs to BS/BC. Give us variety, give us balance, put this nerf in the garbage where it belongs. You are changing too many systems, you cannot possibly anticipate the results.
*edit for spelling
This cracks me up.
The choice to nano-fit your HAC has more to do with the size of your wallet than any strategic consideration.
|
Miriyaka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 06:16:00 -
[24]
Originally by: Sekket This cracks me up.
The choice to nano-fit your HAC has more to do with the size of your wallet than any strategic consideration.
How, praytell, is a speed-fit HAC more expensive than a sniping HAC, or a tanking HAC? A tanking-fit T2 Ishtar with armor rigs will set you back 150m or more, while a 4km/s nano-Ishtar only costs 135-140m with Low Frictions. Sniping HACs cost about the same as nanohacs, except that certain ones like Muninns and Cerbs don't even need to be rigged to be effective. Last I checked, Rogue and Zor's implants were some of the cheapest 3% and 5% implants on the market; a 3% Noble set will cost you over twice as much.
I guess my question is, what are you smoking?
(Just so we're clear, tanking hacs that aren't HAM-Sacrileges are and will continue to be totally worthless compared to tier-2 BCs, so the real comparison is between sniping and speed which is a 100% tactical consideration mostly dependent upon hull role, yes. You don't snipe in a Vagabond, and you don't nano a Muninn. In the same way, nano-Zealots are ******ed, and sniping Sacrileges are too.)
|
SniperWo1f
Omega Enterprises 0mega Factor
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 09:27:00 -
[25]
nano ishtar ( lol ) will cost you :
80 mio for ship 100 +/- for 10mn domination/fleet mwd
and then plants , and then polys....
|
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 10:08:00 -
[26]
Originally by: SniperWo1f nano ishtar ( lol ) will cost you :
80 mio for ship 100 +/- for 10mn domination/fleet mwd
and then plants , and then polys....
Works with plain old T2 fit + polys. Gang bonus is 10%, if you have someone with rapid deployment, add that on... etc.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
DeadDuck
Amarr Amarr Border Defense Consortium Curatores Veritatis Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 11:07:00 -
[27]
Edited by: DeadDuck on 13/10/2008 11:12:34
Originally by: SniperWo1f nano ishtar ( lol ) will cost you :
80 mio for ship 100 +/- for 10mn domination/fleet mwd
and then plants , and then polys....
Well maybe better:
80 mio for ship 3 +/- for 10mn II mwd
and then a alt/gang m8 with a tec1 BC with rapid deployment skirmish warfare fitted and a mind link. If you want to spend a bit more a CS will work even better
________________ God is my Wingman |
Leviathan9
Gallente Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 12:41:00 -
[28]
I didn't see the point increasing the mass and decreasing the speed of every single ship. It was only cruisers and some bc's that were going stupidly fast. But now things like the blaster mega have been effective because now CCP decided to slow all the bs's down and make them heavier. Now a blaster a mega that needs to get close range fast no goes from about 850 with mwd to around 550-650 and also accelerate much much slower. ----------------------------
|
Miriyaka
GoonFleet GoonSwarm
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 15:07:00 -
[29]
A nano-Ishtar does not need any rigs to reach 4km/s. If you want good agility in an orbit, a pair of 11m isk low friction nozzle joints is plenty. Apparently nobody else in this thread has ever flown one before. Yes, that's right, no rigs. That's why all of this whining and mincing about over polycarbons and faction microwarpdrives is so ridiculous, none of it has ever been necessary to make any HAC other than a Cerb or Eagle break the speedtanking barrier.
|
Dianeces
The Illuminati. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2008.10.13 15:19:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer The nerf is exactly what eve needs. A total revamp of the whole speed system to get it right, once and for all.
Except it's not getting it right. But that's no biggie.
0MG GUYZ T3H NAN0Z GOT NURFED!!! NOW ≡√≡ W1LL BE B4LANC3D!!1one F0R GR3AT JUST1CE!!!
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |