EVE Search - this speed stuff is ridiculous

All Channels

Ships and Modules

this speed stuff is ridiculous

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Syn G Gallente Pegasus Mining and Securities	Posted - 2008.10.09 17:05:00 - [1] all this nerfing really is insane. why not just add fitting requirements to overdrives and nano's... since speed is relied on as a "tank," make nanoers choose between "tank" and damage, just like its always been. the only thing is that the fitting requirements would have to be tailored to frigate sized, cruiser sized, and bs sized modules kind of like the after burners and mwd's already are. sounds to me like a lot less work than "completely revamping formulas" and what not. it would bring balance and keep nanoing as a viable option.
Red Thunder Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.10.09 17:33:00 - [2] they already did....its called adding damage mods or adding speed mods Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines
Rajere Vicious Inc	Posted - 2008.10.09 17:45:00 - [3] Edited by: Rajere on 09/10/2008 17:49:02 What part do you not understand? "keeping nanoing as a viable option" is NOT a requirement for the changes, in fact the intention of the changes is more like the opposite. The problem is how we define "viable." People against the nanonerf want to remain invulnerable, or atleast want that to remain a possibility at a certain skill/isk investment. They define "viable" as nanoing remaining overpowered at whatever speeds they personally can achieve and above, but being balanced ie not viable for anyone with less sp/isk invested than whatever they're currently at. It's very hard to agree on what "Viable" means for what is ultimately a binary metric (am I fast enough to avoid risk/disengage at will, or not). They could have not changed anything to do with speeds, and instead announced changes to webs in order to bring nanoing in line. The change would be cahnge the default range of stasis webifier is 50km. 75km for hyena, 100km for rapiers/huginns, do the same with warp disrutors (50km normal, 75km keres/tackle interceptors, 100km on arazu/lachesis). That would have achieved the same results. You're still able to achieve whatever speeds you want, but now your targets will be counter you. non-nano gang A and nano-gang B face off and end up 90% webbing/scrambling each other at range, and the better piloted/organized team wins. Arguments for "keeping nanoing as a viable option" make about as much since in either scenario, whether CCP is nerfing speed directly or boosting everyones ability to counter speed. After the changes, ppl good at nanoing will start dying, people who are bad at it will start dying alot more often. How to Fail at Eve
Red Thunder Most Wanted INC G00DFELLAS	Posted - 2008.10.09 17:57:00 - [4] lol that change sounds terrible, would just have gangs stuck 90km from each other unable to move haha Eagles may soar, but weasels dont get sucked into jet engines
Rajere Vicious Inc	Posted - 2008.10.09 18:12:00 - [5] Edited by: Rajere on 09/10/2008 18:15:28 assuming neither gang has the foresight to bring effective counters to long range ships, yeah, the nano change will produce hilarious situations like that. ^Note that that the statement is true regardless of whether they nerf speed or boost webs. In general, range will have a greater importance, and you will need to think about counters for it. Again, that statement holds true regardless. Either way, the situation is less silly than what happens when a non-nano gang encounters a nano gang currently. A disorganized gang of non-nano's gets picked apart, an organized team sits there not dying until the nanogang decides to pss off. Ironically both before and after involves two gangs staring each other down at 80-90km unable/unwiling to close range. The only thing that really changes is that if they did implemented either change, the nano-gang will no longer have the option to pss off at their leisure. Either they won't have the speed if they nerf speed, or they'll be webbed and pointed if they boosted webs/points. This allows a non-nano gang to kill off a Nanogang if they're more organized/better prepared than the nanos, an option that is sorely missing currently. How to Fail at Eve
Megan Maynard Minmatar 17th Minmatar Tactical Wing	Posted - 2008.10.09 18:29:00 - [6] Originally by: Rajere Edited by: Rajere on 09/10/2008 18:15:28 assuming neither gang has the foresight to bring effective counters to long range ships, yeah, the nano change will produce hilarious situations like that. ^Note that that the statement is true regardless of whether they nerf speed or boost webs. In general, range will have a greater importance, and you will need to think about counters for it. Again, that statement holds true regardless. Either way, the situation is less silly than what happens when a non-nano gang encounters a nano gang currently. A disorganized gang of non-nano's gets picked apart, an organized team sits there not dying until the nanogang decides to pss off. Ironically both before and after involves two gangs staring each other down at 80-90km unable/unwiling to close range. The only thing that really changes is that if they did implemented either change, the nano-gang will no longer have the option to pss off at their leisure. Either they won't have the speed if they nerf speed, or they'll be webbed and pointed if they boosted webs/points. This allows a non-nano gang to kill off a Nanogang if they're more organized/better prepared than the nanos, an option that is sorely missing currently. You're a freaking idiot. Your assumption that nano ships run around invun all the time proves to me that you are lumping any ship going over 4000 m/s into the same catagory as a 10k/s crow. I'll repeat, you are a freaking idiot. It isn't that hard to kill nano ships, but the whiners whined enough that they are going to over nerf an entire race of ships. I am perfectly content going 4-6 k/s in a stabber, that is nano. The extreme cases are no different then any other extreme, they paid alot of isk for it and are getting what they paid for. With this nerf my hyena barely hits 4 k/s, it's a small expensive death trap now. The stabber goes ~4-5 k/s and is about as agile as a brick. (Which means pilot changes occur slower.) I don't care about webs, scrams, missiles, whatever. What's ****ing me off is because of ONE set of implants they are changing the entire mechanics system of the game. Get rid of the stupid speeds, 10+k/s and leave the rest alone dammit.
slothe Caldari Murky Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.09 20:01:00 - [7] can we just see how it pans out before we complain please.
Rajere Vicious Inc	Posted - 2008.10.09 23:39:00 - [8] Edited by: Rajere on 09/10/2008 23:41:45 toot toot, here comes the clue-train, making a special one time stop just for you, DIAF kthx Tired of schooling you idiots, a 10k crow is only special because it means somebody lolbothered putting rigs on an interceptor worth 2x more than the interceptor, per rig. Or they dropped 25mil on a 1mn mwd and put it on something other than a Sabre. enjoy your 90DPS while you're only able to tackle something while you're orbiting dangerously close to hi2u Heavy Energy Neutralizer, instead of being able to tackle from the other side of the solar system. Take those tech 1 polycarbs and Tech 2 modules and go do 10k in an Ishtar instead. Or go even faster with a zealot, or how about a sacrilege? Pick your favorite Nanoship, they're all broken! idiot.
LadyLubU2 Caldari Science and Trade Institute	Posted - 2008.10.10 00:08:00 - [9] Rajere 4 president! -- Sig: NARF FALCONS!!! Your signature is too large. Please resize it to a maximum of 400 x 120 with the file size not exceeding 24000 bytes. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] - Mitnal
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.10.10 00:19:00 - [10] Originally by: Rajere Edited by: Rajere on 09/10/2008 17:49:02 What part do you not understand? "keeping nanoing as a viable option" is NOT a requirement for the changes, in fact the intention of the changes is more like the opposite. The problem is how we define "viable." People against the nanonerf want to remain invulnerable, or atleast want that to remain a possibility at a certain skill/isk investment. They define "viable" as nanoing remaining overpowered at whatever speeds they personally can achieve and above, but being balanced ie not viable for anyone with less sp/isk invested than whatever they're currently at. It's very hard to agree on what "Viable" means for what is ultimately a binary metric (am I fast enough to avoid risk/disengage at will, or not). They could have not changed anything to do with speeds, and instead announced changes to webs in order to bring nanoing in line. The change would be cahnge the default range of stasis webifier is 50km. 75km for hyena, 100km for rapiers/huginns, do the same with warp disrutors (50km normal, 75km keres/tackle interceptors, 100km on arazu/lachesis). That would have achieved the same results. You're still able to achieve whatever speeds you want, but now your targets will be counter you. non-nano gang A and nano-gang B face off and end up 90% webbing/scrambling each other at range, and the better piloted/organized team wins. Arguments for "keeping nanoing as a viable option" make about as much since in either scenario, whether CCP is nerfing speed directly or boosting everyones ability to counter speed. After the changes, ppl good at nanoing will start dying, people who are bad at it will start dying alot more often. __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Rawr Cristina Caldari Naqam Exalted.	Posted - 2008.10.10 00:30:00 - [11] Originally by: slothe can we just see how it pans out before we complain please. This I'm definately going to miss my 3.5km/sec Cerbs as they're buckets of fun to fly, but ultimately dealing 300 dps at up to 180km whilst maintaining such speed is a little silly. And then you have your 7km/sec Vagabonds for when you just want to make all the enemy ceptors log off in frustration. ...but ultimately, if it's overpowered it's overpowered. Besides, It'd be kind of nice to fit something other than Overdrives/Polys for once. - Infectious -
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2008.10.10 01:44:00 - [12] Originally by: Rawr Cristina Originally by: slothe can we just see how it pans out before we complain please. ...but ultimately, if it's overpowered it's overpowered. Besides, It'd be kind of nice to fit something other than Overdrives/Polys for once. ...if you want to roam in 0.0 in less than a 20man gang you can forget about it. eve is a blob game and if you cant avoid getting killed by every blobs and camp you cant fight in small scale. fact is. the less mobile you are the less chance in 0.0 you have. ask yourself why every 0.0 alliance with around 500 members can always counter your roaming attempts by a single warp bubble and a couple of snipe bs?
Denuo Secus	Posted - 2008.10.10 02:05:00 - [13] I'm looking forward to this changes. It's so stupid that fitting a MWD (with all it's drawbacks) is mandatory and if I undock in my assault ship today I could also self destruct immediately because as soon a webber hits me I'm dead - immediately. The announced changes don't only nerf nanos...they add so much diversity! Today's PvP seems colorless to me since I read about this planned speed changes! Today it's just: MWD+Web+Point+NanoMagic....Homer Simpson would say "boooring..." ^^ Just my 0.02 ISK
Lubomir Penev Section XIII Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2008.10.10 15:08:00 - [14] Originally by: Rawr Cristina Besides, It'd be kind of nice to fit something other than Overdrives/Polys for once. Already happening, locus rigs are the new polys. Can't wait for the whines about uncounterable 150km Zealots and Muninns gangs... -- I'm done whining about AFs, it looks like they are making them right \o/
Crackzilla The Shadow Order	Posted - 2008.10.10 16:11:00 - [15] Originally by: Reto ...if you want to roam in 0.0 in less than a 20man gang you can forget about it. Maybe you meant "if you want to roam in 0.0 mostly risk free or without scouts". There is no right to cross space without risk of being trapped or threatened. Originally by: Reto eve is a blob game and if you cant avoid getting killed by every blobs Thats how it should be. Numbers should provide advantages over quality besides lagging the node out as a pseudo grid wide web. Small groups have the advantage in that they can strike quickly, get in, get out before reinforcements arrive. Classic guerrilla warfare. Originally by: Reto and camp you cant fight in small scale. Can't fight in small scale when throwing a small light mobile force against a larger prepared force that lies in wait. Doesn't mean that small scale cannot be used, only that it must be used smarter. If I recall things didn't turn out so well in the charge of the light brigade. Originally by: Reto ask yourself why every 0.0 alliance with around 500 members can always counter your roaming attempts by a single warp bubble and a couple of snipe bs? Because thats how it should be. A 0.0 alliance with a bit of intel and organization should be able to control a choke point while folks are willing to gate camp. A light mobile force should be seriously threatened at these choke points. The mobile force should be forced to either find a better way in or be prepared to take serious losses. Otherwise what is the point of the choke point? If a bubble and snipers cannot control choke points (which they cannot effectively do today against most roaming gangs) then the bubble + snipers will be replaced with an even larger blob of nanos to counter the roaming nanos. Lots of huginns/rapiers/falcons in the mix. Blacks op were designed to bypass these choke points. They're rarely used because frankly speed is currently better. A nano nerf won't kill small scale pvp. It will only force folks to fight smarter.
Kalii Parcon Fire Mandrill	Posted - 2008.10.10 16:38:00 - [16] This is something that I talked about in a different forum, but it's at least an alternative to whacking some innocent ships while trying to kill off an overpowered tactic: Not that this is a GOOD solution, but if you wanted fast ships to be fast, while keeping slower heavier DPS/Tank ships slower, why don't they just make the MWD a role-specific module? Interceptors, Interdictors etc. Tacklers remain fast (like they are supposed to be) but hardly invincible, while the proposed leveling out of speed based on hull class makes for a much more realistic gradient in speed when MWD's are not even an option. Hit and run guerrilla warfare is still possible, but may require new tactics: webbing, neuting, jamming recons, stealth bombers for DPS etc. after tacklers lock down the target. It's just an idea, but if you want to nerf an overpowered tactic it's important to be careful that you nerf the tactic without alienating your player base by nullifying months of training as may be the case with some gallente and minmatar pilots. A large portion of gallente ships rely on close quarters, minmatar rely on their speed at a racial level. You could even work in an AB bonus to ships that rely on speed or close quarter. Boosting an afterburners performance isn't the game breaking mechanic, its offering that same percentage based bonus to a module that already gives a gigantic boost that makes larger hulls going 4+ km/s overpowered. For the people arguing that the removal of MWD's will make it impossible to move around solo in 0.0 space, interceptors will still be able to MWD, and covops will still be able to cloak. If you're taking anything larger than that through 0.0 space solo, you're already taking a big risk. Just an alternative to the broad strokes that MAY whack some innocent ships and pilots.
Eternum Praetorian Tupperware Party	Posted - 2008.10.10 16:45:00 - [17] Wont Af's and recons be the new roaming speed gangs of the future? And with AB's to boot do to the changes.
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2008.10.10 17:32:00 - [18] Edited by: Reto on 10/10/2008 17:33:53 Originally by: Crackzilla <<crackzilla quoting reto>> dude the game is not only about blobs and alliances controlling 0.0 i and a huge portion of eves pvpers want and need the fun of everyday raids. if you allow everyone to controll chokepoints to easily this leads to eve become a stagnant and pretty small universe wheree you cant travel 5 jumps undisturbed. read my last posts i tested 0.0 travel and tbfh its simply a gankers advatage atm ppl who sit around a blob up a gate can kill anyone while you cant even avoid camps as chokepoints bridge the main routes in 0.0. atm blob > all. and ccps stated game policy is to kill blobs. also the last devblog revealed that skirmishes are a viable tactic and the devs want to preserve em. but if you enforce the chokepoint control of alliances and campers you force skirmishes to extinct. skirmishes are about mobility and eves infrastructure is not capable of allowing you free spaceflight as you have to use bottlenecks like gates. Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Crackzilla The Shadow Order	Posted - 2008.10.10 18:35:00 - [19] Originally by: Kalii Parcon why don't they just make the MWD a role-specific module? Interceptors, Interdictors etc. The issue is that the best way to doing this is to increase mass and possible reduce the effectiveness of mwd for everything else. This creates problems with blaster boats etc as previously stated. My guess is when we're done falcon alts will be used to create slings for blaster boats that can't slow boat 50km. Originally by: Eternum Praetorian Wont Af's and recons be the new roaming speed gangs of the future? Thats the entire point of these changes. Light mobile forces with minimal tanking and not much dps. Effective as a small group. Maybe even stealth bombers might make a return as the dps of choice. One could hope black ops ships are useful. Originally by: Reto i and a huge portion of eves pvpers want and need the fun of everyday raids and smallscale gangwarfare. if you allow everyone to controll chokepoints too easily this leads to eve becoming a stagnant and pretty small universe where you cant travel 5 jumps undisturbed without a huge force. If someone wants to dedicate the resources they should be able to force a fight on a gate. Rather then nano gang jump in, mwd outside of bubble and warp off (or back to the gate if they had no scout). If you allow nanos then eve is stagnant and a very small universe where you don't dare fight if the other side might have reinforcements 5 jumps away. Originally by: Reto read my last posts i tested 0.0 travel and tbfh its simply a gankers advantage atm ppl. who sit around and blob up a gate can kill anyone while you cant even avoid camps as chokepoints bridge the main routes in 0.0. atm blob > all. Scout entrances into 0.0. Usually there are alternative ways in that aren't as camped. Look at using black ops to get into 0.0. All issues you've listed can be solved with better planning. Originally by: Reto skirmishes are about mobility and eves infrastructure is not capable of allowing you free spaceflight as you have to use bottlenecks like gates. skirmishes are about brains, intel, and patience. You're going behind enemy lines. There is something wrong with this trend of freely traveling 40-50 jumps as you go down main street. Originally by: Reto i for one would hate to get my scout killed every time we run to a chokepoint just to see if theres a blob on the other side of the gate. But this is what scouts are for. This is what the map is for to tell you how many are in each system. Either way jumping blind into a gate should involve considerable risk.
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2008.10.10 22:31:00 - [20] Originally by: Crackzilla >>anti-pyramid quatage<< mate did you listen to the dev blog and reconed that currently you cannot forsee a gate camp other than using a scout and due to the intended changes scouts cant survive a camp? also its not a huge dedication to place a bubble on a gate. and lest. i wasnt just scouting entries into 0.0 was traveling in deep 0.0 aswell. i also think you dont want to understand that roaming is about flying around in 0.0 and not utilising expensive and costly equipment like black ops. also did you consider that a black ops bs can only enter a system for a silly price in fuel and also it is only capable of bridging in covert ops ships which is making smallscale player resort to cloaking ganks. eve is for everyone and not just for ppl who want to secure space easily. sorry but your view seems narrow minded and you would accept the negleting of one playergroup for the gain of the other and this is not balance. Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.10.10 22:48:00 - [21] Originally by: Megan Maynard You're a freaking idiot. Your assumption that nano ships run around invun all the time proves to me that you are lumping any ship going over 4000 m/s into the same catagory as a 10k/s crow. I'll repeat, you are a freaking idiot. It isn't that hard to kill nano ships, but the whiners whined enough that they are going to over nerf an entire race of ships. I am perfectly content going 4-6 k/s in a stabber, that is nano. The extreme cases are no different then any other extreme, they paid alot of isk for it and are getting what they paid for. With this nerf my hyena barely hits 4 k/s, it's a small expensive death trap now. The stabber goes ~4-5 k/s and is about as agile as a brick. (Which means pilot changes occur slower.) I don't care about webs, scrams, missiles, whatever. What's ****ing me off is because of ONE set of implants they are changing the entire mechanics system of the game. Get rid of the stupid speeds, 10+k/s and leave the rest alone dammit. How does it feel to lie page after page to prove a point that doesnt exist or are you so stupid that you cant see why nanos have to be nerfed?
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.10.10 22:49:00 - [22] Originally by: Lubomir Penev Originally by: Rawr Cristina Besides, It'd be kind of nice to fit something other than Overdrives/Polys for once. Already happening, locus rigs are the new polys. Can't wait for the whines about uncounterable 150km Zealots and Muninns gangs... And cov ops cloaking 240km falcons are more counterable? I think zealots and muninns are the least of your range problems.
Grimpak Gallente Trinity Nova Trinity Nova Alliance	Posted - 2008.10.10 22:57:00 - [23] troll baiting, but hey... gonna quote myself here now: Originally by: Grimpak a simple nerf to polys and snakes would be enough to counter the "ludicrious speed" nanos, and still be able to make ships that go fast, go fast. but we all know how CCP deals with nerfs (ie, using a sledgehammer approach to nail down a single nail). --- Quote: The more I know about humans, the more I love animals. ain't that right.
carleyjones Caldari Blood and Silver	Posted - 2008.10.10 23:05:00 - [24] yet another nano thread that Rajere is fail posting in...
carleyjones Caldari Blood and Silver	Posted - 2008.10.10 23:17:00 - [25] Originally by: Rajere Edited by: Rajere on 09/10/2008 17:49:02 What part do you not understand? "keeping nanoing as a viable option" is NOT a requirement for the changes, in fact the intention of the changes is more like the opposite. The problem is how we define "viable." People against the nanonerf want to remain invulnerable, or atleast want that to remain a possibility at a certain skill/isk investment. They define "viable" as nanoing remaining overpowered at whatever speeds they personally can achieve and above, but being balanced ie not viable for anyone with less sp/isk invested than whatever they're currently at. It's very hard to agree on what "Viable" means for what is ultimately a binary metric (am I fast enough to avoid risk/disengage at will, or not). They could have not changed anything to do with speeds, and instead announced changes to webs in order to bring nanoing in line. The change would be cahnge the default range of stasis webifier is 50km. 75km for hyena, 100km for rapiers/huginns, do the same with warp disrutors (50km normal, 75km keres/tackle interceptors, 100km on arazu/lachesis). That would have achieved the same results. You're still able to achieve whatever speeds you want, but now your targets will be counter you. non-nano gang A and nano-gang B face off and end up 90% webbing/scrambling each other at range, and the better piloted/organized team wins. Arguments for "keeping nanoing as a viable option" make about as much since in either scenario, whether CCP is nerfing speed directly or boosting everyones ability to counter speed. After the changes, ppl good at nanoing will start dying, people who are bad at it will start dying alot more often. Nanos SHOULD remain viable and yet again nothing in your post proves otherwise. Nanos have always been viable, even back in 04/05 but people chose to fly other style fittings & ships instead. People relied less on nano fits because there were no dictors, large anchored bubbles, cyno jammers, jump bridges and the like. The eve pvp landscape over the years has changed by ccp and people adapted by using nanos. Aside from the fact that the nerf is just poorly thought out; you can't just drop speeds by half and then sort missiles a bit - if they were to do this nerf properly, they'd have to look at turret tracking, optimal ranges of EVERY SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME, decloak ranges on gates, bubble diameter and all the rest which links in to ship speed in some way.
Megan Maynard Minmatar 17th Minmatar Tactical Wing	Posted - 2008.10.10 23:43:00 - [26] Originally by: sdthujfg Originally by: Megan Maynard You're a freaking idiot. Your assumption that nano ships run around invun all the time proves to me that you are lumping any ship going over 4000 m/s into the same catagory as a 10k/s crow. I'll repeat, you are a freaking idiot. It isn't that hard to kill nano ships, but the whiners whined enough that they are going to over nerf an entire race of ships. I am perfectly content going 4-6 k/s in a stabber, that is nano. The extreme cases are no different then any other extreme, they paid alot of isk for it and are getting what they paid for. With this nerf my hyena barely hits 4 k/s, it's a small expensive death trap now. The stabber goes ~4-5 k/s and is about as agile as a brick. (Which means pilot changes occur slower.) I don't care about webs, scrams, missiles, whatever. What's ****ing me off is because of ONE set of implants they are changing the entire mechanics system of the game. Get rid of the stupid speeds, 10+k/s and leave the rest alone dammit. How does it feel to lie page after page to prove a point that doesnt exist or are you so stupid that you cant see why nanos have to be nerfed? Lie after lie??? The ONLY thing that needs nerfing are the items that are breaking intended game mechanics. Nerfing an entire class of ships into worthlessness is not a good game change. I went on the test server, I played with normal set ups, not snake fit shit that the devs seem to think everyone has. Fit out a stabber with 3 overdrives and a mwd and that is what it's like to fly the stabber with the current patch they are referring too. The simple fact is those whining want their HEAVY ships to hit something that is intended not to be hit by heavier ships. That is the SOLE source of this whine patch. It's not hard killing nano hacs, it's not hard to kill ceptors, it's pretty easy actually.
sdthujfg	Posted - 2008.10.10 23:46:00 - [27] Originally by: Megan Maynard Lie after lie??? The ONLY thing that needs nerfing are the items that are breaking intended game mechanics. Nerfing an entire class of ships into worthlessness is not a good game change. I went on the test server, I played with normal set ups, not snake fit shit that the devs seem to think everyone has. Fit out a stabber with 3 overdrives and a mwd and that is what it's like to fly the stabber with the current patch they are referring too. The simple fact is those whining want their HEAVY ships to hit something that is intended not to be hit by heavier ships. That is the SOLE source of this whine patch. It's not hard killing nano hacs, it's not hard to kill ceptors, it's pretty easy actually. It is so satisfying to see all the people, like whole tri alliance and alike, are crying their hearts out on the forums because their only way of warfare (a very cheap and easy one) is getting nerfed, and for a good reason. Your tears are music to my ears. Look a rhyme.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order	Posted - 2008.10.11 00:29:00 - [28] Originally by: Reto currently you cannot forsee a gate camp other than using a scout and due to the intended changes scouts cant survive a camp? Gate camps have been dealt with for years before nanos. After the changes it is likely that nanos won't be able to solo without some risk. However a small gang with cov ops or ceptors stand a decent chance (<<<< scouts!). I think folks have forgotten how to deal with the basics. Originally by: Reto also its not a huge dedication to place a bubble on a gate. and lest. i wasnt just scouting entries into 0.0 was traveling in deep 0.0 aswell. It does take effort to get a large enough force to effective camp the gate. Scouts on the other gates. Webbers. Dps. Tacklers. Then there has to be enough traffic to keep the gang occupied. Otherwise folks get bored and wander off. If you're encountering gate camps likely because you were scouted or it marks a regional jump that someone wants to protect. As it stands gate camping to stop nanos isn't terribly effective. After the patch nanos will have to take the same risks as everyone else, gather intel, and use their brains. Originally by: Reto i also think you dont want to understand that roaming is about flying around in 0.0 and not utilising expensive and costly equipment like black ops. also did you consider that a black ops bs can only enter a system for a silly price in fuel and also it is only capable of bridging in covert ops ships which is making smallscale player resort to cloaking ganks. A black ops is about 3-4x the cost of a nano (ship + fittings + poly's). It shouldn't be directly risked when possible unlike the stealth bombers and recons. Black ops doesn't exist to jump bridge folks into a fight as much as jump a small force past some defenses. The fuel cost is fairly reasonable compared to carriers/rorquals/jump freighters. The point is that the ships dedicated to hit and run are ignored and have no real role. Securing space is more than just putting up a bubble. Its having a task force on hand that can move around and attempt to trap and fight intruders. Currently this isn't very effective unless the task force relies on nanos and jump bridges. Bubbles aren't very effective to secure gates without a number of huggins/rapiers/falcons + dps. Roamers have no guaranteed right to travel through 0.0 risk free.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.11 00:31:00 - [29] Originally by: Crackzilla Roamers have no guaranteed right to travel through 0.0 risk free. This. People should get used to that. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
BiggestT Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana	Posted - 2008.10.11 05:28:00 - [30] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Crackzilla Roamers have no guaranteed right to travel through 0.0 risk free. This. People should get used to that. They already are Awesome EVE history Missiles ba-oom!
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.10.11 07:39:00 - [31] Originally by: Denuo Secus I'm looking forward to this changes. It's so stupid that fitting a MWD (with all it's drawbacks) is mandatory and if I undock in my assault ship today I could also self destruct immediately because as soon a webber hits me I'm dead - immediately. The announced changes don't only nerf nanos...they add so much diversity! Today's PvP seems colorless to me since I read about this planned speed changes! Today it's just: MWD+Web+Point+NanoMagic....Homer Simpson would say "boooring..." ^^ Just my 0.02 ISK MWD will be just as mandatory as it ever was. And you will see much fewer ships in action. This change brings less variety.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Developmental Neogenics Amalgamated	Posted - 2008.10.11 12:44:00 - [32] Originally by: BiggestT Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Crackzilla Roamers have no guaranteed right to travel through 0.0 risk free. This. People should get used to that. They already are Then you won't have a problem with the nerf then if nothing is changing. ----------------------------------------- [Video] Support Barrage
Coros Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2008.10.11 13:13:00 - [33] Ohh the bitter sweet nanotears ahahahahaha
s33ker Cry Havoc.	Posted - 2008.10.11 15:03:00 - [34] I just want to point out that Crackzilla and Rajere are completely correct in this thread. If you're about to post against the nerf, make sure you go to page 1 and read their posts.
Lokius Ahgamemnon	Posted - 2008.10.11 15:59:00 - [35] Originally by: Lubomir Penev Already happening, locus rigs are the new polys. Can't wait for the whines about uncounterable 150km Zealots and Muninns gangs... I just felt like pointing out your an idiot. Counter to snipers? Damps? Talk about a facepalm....
Denuo Secus	Posted - 2008.10.11 16:07:00 - [36] Originally by: Esmenet MWD will be just as mandatory as it ever was. Just...no. Some tactics will benefit by using AB instead of MWD (see my third point). Only reason I see for Mandatory Warp Drives is escaping bubbles and burning back to gates (a scout as dedicated fast ship can help here too in some cases). Granted - a MWD offers more tactical options. But having advantages by using no MWD is a very good step imo. This will lead to more variety. Originally by: Esmenet And you will see much fewer ships in action. ?? Originally by: Esmenet This change brings less variety. Can you explain this? I see more tactical options. Disabling MWD by scram. Using AB means to be invulnerable against that tactic and faster at the end. "Flying under enemy guns" will become possible with AB and weaker web. Real intercepting of MWDing ships will become possible. On the other side: using a MWD will become "less expensive" due to lesser MWD penalties. Today? Enemys web + smallish ship (< BC?) + non nano fitting -> dead -> everyone wants (needs) to nano... My point is, some dedicated ships (of every size) will still be very fast compared to other ships. But not every ship. Speed should be an option - not a necessity.
Roxana Coman	Posted - 2008.10.11 16:10:00 - [37] Edited by: Roxana Coman on 11/10/2008 16:10:22 I heard an idea I kinda like for fixing speed issues. Someone I was talking to said why not make speed have the affects on the structure of your ship kinda the way overheating has on your modules. That is, there is a "safe" speed that all ships could go. Once a ship goes past that speed, they start incurring damage to their structure. The farther you go over that "safe" speed, the more damage you take per a tick. Then make interceptors have a bonus to their ships per a skill level that negates that damage to their structures.
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.10.11 16:12:00 - [38] Edited by: Terianna Eri on 11/10/2008 16:13:42 Originally by: Denuo Secus Can you explain this? I see more tactical options. Disabling MWD by scram. Using AB means to be invulnerable against that tactic and faster at the end. "Flying under enemy guns" will become possible with AB and weaker web. Real intercepting of MWDing ships will become possible. On the other side: using a MWD will become "less expensive" due to lesser MWD penalties. Today? Enemys web + smallish ship (< BC?) + non nano fitting -> dead -> everyone wants (needs) to nano... My point is, some dedicated ships (of every size) will still be very fast compared to other ships. But not every ship. Speed should be an option - not a necessity. Speed will be a necessity. you will still need MWD to burn into range, you will still need MWD to burn back to gate otherwise any gatecamp spells death for you, you will still need it to burn out of bubbles. You will still need MWD ships to bump people off of gates/stations. You will still have MWD on battleships because it lets you align in 10sec instead of 20 MWD isn't mandatory because it lets you avoid damage. It's mandatory because it is incredibly useful for a number of non-combat situations, and because it says "this module lets you not get instagibbed by any random shitty gatecamp." P.S. If you want to make ABs useful, give them a script, charge, overload bonus or something that makes it still useful for going at high speed for a short period of time, otherwise they will continue to be basically useless. __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Helen coracao ardente Triumvirate.	Posted - 2008.10.11 16:17:00 - [39] Originally by: sdthujfg It is so satisfying to see all the people, like whole tri alliance and alike, are crying their hearts out on the forums because their only way of warfare (a very cheap and easy one) is getting nerfed, and for a good reason. Your tears are music to my ears. Look a rhyme. Hehe keep telling yourself that at night if/when this nerf comes in prepare to whine even more when we use different tactics to kick ass still.
DubanFP Caldari Kylia Inc.	Posted - 2008.10.11 16:25:00 - [40] Edited by: DubanFP on 11/10/2008 16:25:13 Originally by: Helen Hehe keep telling yourself that at night if/when this nerf comes in prepare to whine even more when we use different tactics to kick ass still. This. See my thread titled "nerfed". Just because we don't want to see these changes go through does not mean we are unwilling or unable to adapt and find the next "overpowered" item and still whoop you with it. It simply means we are comfortable where we are. Honestly a major arguement I have is that the changes will open the door to things more overpowered then anything that's been availible in the last 2 years. _______________ "Cheap" and "Lame" are words created by people who refuse to admit they have been completely and utterly outclassed.
Lokius Ahgamemnon	Posted - 2008.10.11 16:47:00 - [41] Originally by: Terianna Eri P.S. If you want to make ABs useful, give them a script, charge, overload bonus or something that makes it still useful for going at high speed for a short period of time, otherwise they will continue to be basically useless. Also just wanting to point out another idiot because today I find it very fun in this thread I'm reading. I find plenty of useful ways to use an ab instead of a mwd. I know there are tons of other people that know of useful ways in "PVP" to use a ab instead of a mwd :)
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.10.11 17:07:00 - [42] Edited by: Terianna Eri on 11/10/2008 17:06:56 Originally by: Lokius Ahgamemnon Originally by: Terianna Eri P.S. If you want to make ABs useful, give them a script, charge, overload bonus or something that makes it still useful for going at high speed for a short period of time, otherwise they will continue to be basically useless. Also just wanting to point out another idiot because today I find it very fun in this thread I'm reading. I find plenty of useful ways to use an ab instead of a mwd. I know there are tons of other people that know of useful ways in "PVP" to use a ab instead of a mwd :) There are many ways to make an AB useful in combat. However, good luck burning back to a gate with an AB. And I don't appreciate the name-calling. __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Lokius Ahgamemnon	Posted - 2008.10.11 17:09:00 - [43] I can burn back just fine :)
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.10.11 17:12:00 - [44] Originally by: Lokius Ahgamemnon I can burn back just fine :) 500-600 m/s is sufficient? I wouldn't have thought so. __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Lokius Ahgamemnon	Posted - 2008.10.11 17:14:00 - [45] my speeds are faster than that sorry you must be doing it wrong....
Terianna Eri Amarr Scrutari	Posted - 2008.10.11 17:16:00 - [46] Edited by: Terianna Eri on 11/10/2008 17:17:22 Originally by: Lokius Ahgamemnon my speeds are faster than that sorry you must be doing it wrong.... Clearly we are not talking about the same ship. Stop being so arrogant, get off your damn high horse, and start being productive. "i like pointing out idiots" and "you must be doing it wrong" don't make you cool. These are the forums to share useful information about ship fits, not /b/. An armor-tanked, plated and/or rigged HAC will go about that fast. BCs will be slower, unplated/armor rigged will be faster. BS will be much slower. Frigs will be somewhat faster. __________________________________ Originally by: Arthur Frayn How much to ruin all your holes, luv?
Reto The Last Resort	Posted - 2008.10.11 20:27:00 - [47] Originally by: Crackzilla Gate camps have been dealt with for years before nanos. After the changes it is likely that nanos won't be able to solo without some risk. However a small gang with cov ops or ceptors stand a decent chance (<<<< scouts!). as i understood ccps dev blog they want to change the mechanic in a way that your scout does not stand any chance to survive. imo kmikaze scout = fail. Originally by: s4mp3r0r "Hey man, you're mom has a cruise missile".
Rajere Vicious Inc	Posted - 2008.10.11 22:22:00 - [48] Quote: ...if you want to roam in 0.0 in less than a 20man gang you can forget about it. eve is a blob game and if you cant avoid getting killed by every blobs and camp you cant fight in small scale. fact is. the less mobile you are the less chance in 0.0 you have. ask yourself why every 0.0 alliance with around 500 members can always counter your roaming attempts by a single warp bubble and a couple of snipe bs? One way to avoid being killed by blobs is not sucking. I was going to ask myself why every 0.0 alliance with around 500 members can always counter my roaming attempts, until I realized that they can't and don't, and in fact, the vast majority of them fail at even coming close. From reading your other replies, it's apparent that you do not use scouts whatsoever, you must have started playing since the introduction of rigs which is what lead to this latest nano-age, and you're accustomed to playing the game on ez mode where you never have to scout because there's nothing anyone can do to prevent you from running away regardless of what they have prepared for you on the other side of the gate. I apologize that you lack this particular knowledge and experience, but to put it bluntly, you fail at roaming with non-nano ships because you lack in both the knowledge and experience to do so, not because of any game mechanic that is lacking. Quote: Nanos SHOULD remain viable and yet again nothing in your post proves otherwise. Nanos have always been viable, even back in 04/05 but people chose to fly other style fittings & ships instead. People relied less on nano fits because there were no dictors, large anchored bubbles, cyno jammers, jump bridges and the like. The eve pvp landscape over the years has changed by ccp and people adapted by using nanos. Aside from the fact that the nerf is just poorly thought out; you can't just drop speeds by half and then sort missiles a bit - if they were to do this nerf properly, they'd have to look at turret tracking, optimal ranges of EVERY SINGLE WEAPON IN THE GAME, decloak ranges on gates, bubble diameter and all the rest which links in to ship speed in some way. No, they don't have to look at anything. Missiles have been allowed to baloon up to their current speeds due to missiles being the most obvious weak point when it came to the coding of game mechanics and the brokeness of nanoing. They will tweak missiles to bring them back in line to where they would have been had they not reintroduced broken speeds when they added polycarb rigs, hardwirings, and boosters. Turret Tracking, Optimal ranges, gate cloaks, bubble diameter (with the sole exception being the T1/T2 Large Bubble which they've stated they might consider reducing its range a bit), and other systems you did not mention such as Drones, webs, points, neutralizers, and ewar are already balanced for what should have been the upper limits of speed the entire time. How to Fail at Eve
Rajere Vicious Inc	Posted - 2008.10.11 22:23:00 - [49] Edited by: Rajere on 11/10/2008 22:24:36 The only weapon system which has somewhat kept up with the speed increases are energy turrets, and that's is due to buffing their tracking so that they could hit while modifying base EM resists to trigger the playerbase into trying out Amarr again, which have for a long time been powerful but only recently this has become apparent to the player base. Combined with the NOS nerf which ended Active Tanking in favor of buffer tanks, all the pieces needed for lasers to become prevalent were put into place. Without cap concerns for active tanking, and with Neuts becoming the defacto cap warfare module and NOS no longer being a reliable method of sustaining cap, cap injectors became the default counter to capacitor warfare. Thus the cap usage of lasers (as well as the caplessness of projectiles) became irrelevant, and with lasers being good already, receiving a boost to effective tracking, non-stacking penalty on Locus rigs, and patch that reduced EM resists, lasers became the OWN weapons we know today. All of these minor changes were added or allowed to exist even though they made lasers far more powerful than any other turret system, precisely the same as nanoing was allowed to grow more and more overpowered over time since the last time they nerfed Nanos into the stone age. It wasn't until the general playerbase caught on to how good they really were and nanoing reduced the variety of viable setups to only those which are nano that they decided to step in. When they do decide to bring lasers in line they will go back and nerf a whole bunch of smaller components until the end result is a balanced turret system. We can only hope that they do so before every single player is flying Amarr Laser ships to the exclusion of all others, such as what we have now with Nanoships. When they do get around to nerfing lasers, you will have players much like yourself QQing about it being absolutely necessary to be able to snipe from 150km with a cruiser, and 200 with a bc, and 250 with a bs, being completely incapable of imagining eve combat being any different from how it is in that moment in time, rather than adapting to change. You will cry saying only ships which can fill these cookie cutter snipe roles have a chance in Eve. And players like myself will point out how ineffective150km sniper zealots are against damps, TDs, and "gasp" nano ships, that is those which are able to attain high speeds such as the vagabond yet are completely balanced doing so. And you will laugh at us for "nanoing" a hac instead of fitting beams and locus rigs on it. How to Fail at Eve
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.10.12 18:44:00 - [50] Originally by: Denuo Secus Originally by: Esmenet This change brings less variety. Can you explain this? I see more tactical options. Disabling MWD by scram. Using AB means to be invulnerable against that tactic and faster at the end. "Flying under enemy guns" will become possible with AB and weaker web. Real intercepting of MWDing ships will become possible. On the other side: using a MWD will become "less expensive" due to lesser MWD penalties. Today? Enemys web + smallish ship (< BC?) + non nano fitting -> dead -> everyone wants (needs) to nano... My point is, some dedicated ships (of every size) will still be very fast compared to other ships. But not every ship. Speed should be an option - not a necessity. Most hacs are dead. Most minmatar ships are dead. Blaster ships are dead. Speedtanking is dead. "Flying under enemy guns" with an AB will at most be a niche option. You will intercept less as mwding towards the enemy snipers = you die.
carleyjones Caldari Blood and Silver	Posted - 2008.10.13 18:28:00 - [51] Originally by: Rajere One way to avoid being killed by blobs is not sucking. I was going to ask myself why every 0.0 alliance with around 500 members can always counter my roaming attempts, until I realized that they can't and don't, and in fact, the vast majority of them fail at even coming close. Going by the killboards the reason your roaming gangs dont get countered is because you dont actually do anywhere near any alliance holding soverign space! lol. You seem to like low sec molden heath alot and the same few 0.0 systems near low sec entry points. So its probaley not best to insult someone that has more experience of 0.0 roaming then you do, just because they have a different opinion to you (read as MORE INFORMED OPINION). Originally by: Rajere From reading your other replies, it's apparent that you do not use scouts whatsoever, you must have started playing since the introduction of rigs which is what lead to this latest nano-age, and you're accustomed to playing the game on ez mode where you never have to scout because there's nothing anyone can do to prevent you from running away regardless of what they have prepared for you on the other side of the gate. If you seriously think that nano gangs dont use scouts on tranq atm then your dumb-arse. No half decent pvp group is going to go anywhere without using scouts. And to claim otherwise reflects badly on your pvp ability. Originally by: Rajere I apologize that you lack this particular knowledge and experience, but to put it bluntly, you fail at roaming with non-nano ships because you lack in both the knowledge and experience to do so, not because of any game mechanic that is lacking. Your posts clearly show that you have alot knowledge about roaming pvp. Or rather lack off. I tell you what, when you start flying something other than a dictor or falcon (the 2 ships you fly most) and gate camping the entry points to 0.0 or killing noobs in low sec belts and actually try roaming around soverign space then people might start taking you seriously. After seeing your killboards its really easy to understand why YOU want nanos nerfed so badly Originally by: Rajere No, they don't have to look at anything. Text wall of fail. If you generally believe that rubbish you've been posting then you really dont know the first thing about pvp or how its evolved.
P'uck	Posted - 2008.10.13 19:58:00 - [52] Yup, if I could be arsed to argue with idiots, that probably would have been my reply
Space Fascist	Posted - 2008.10.13 20:30:00 - [53] Don't worry about this! You'll be able to walk in stations!
Solomon XI Hoist The Colors. Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.10.13 21:54:00 - [54] Edited by: Solomon XI on 13/10/2008 21:57:37 Just my 0.02 ISK ... Anybody who supports these changes in their current form should do the human race a favor and kill themselves. If you need assistance, give me your address, and I'll send you a pen, a piece of paper, and a box of razor blades. I might even include a bottle of Advil so you can do the job correctly. That being said... This change is going to completely kill null-sec roaming ... it's going to come down to who has the biggest blob and only the major power-houses (Goonswarm, Band of Brothers, Morsus Mihi, Etc) will be able to compete in this new age. These changes have been poorly planned and it bothers me to no end that CCP ignored certain threads point out very serious flaws in their scheme. Did you know that this nano-nerf was voted against by a 3/1 margin? For every three people, two said NO. CCP has ignored their player base ... and the consequences if this nano-nerf goes through will be catastrophic. ~Solo Hoist The Colors. (CEO) Pirate Coalition (Yar?)
Crackzilla The Shadow Order	Posted - 2008.10.13 22:13:00 - [55] Originally by: carleyjones If you generally believe that rubbish you've been posting then you really dont know the first thing about pvp or how its evolved. Can't argue the points so you attack the man? Nice.... Originally by: Solomon XI This change is going to completely kill null-sec roaming ... Because null-sec roaming didn't exist before nanos? Originally by: Solomon XI Did you know that this nano-nerf was voted against by a 3/1 margin? That 1/3 of players was fairly foolish for not jumping on the flavor of the year. At least the rest were smart enough to train for and fly the same cookie cutter nanos.
Solomon XI Hoist The Colors. Pirate Coalition	Posted - 2008.10.13 22:16:00 - [56] Cracksilla, we all admit that nanos may be a tad ... over-powered. The argument is not that they need to be nerfed, but rather how. This nerf is over-kill. While idiots like you support it in it's current forum, non-nano-pilots are feeling this as well. What do you think this is going to do to blaster boats and auto-cannons? On that note, yeah roaming existed BEFORE nano ... kind of. Double MWD's, etc. Also important to note that alliances are MUCH more powerful today than they were back then ... blobbing wasn't as intense per-se. Please, will you kill yourself? ~Solo Hoist The Colors. (CEO) Pirate Coalition (Yar?)
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.10.13 22:28:00 - [57] Originally by: Red Thunder they already did....its called adding damage mods or adding speed mods No because other mods require cpu/pg for example shield mods eats so much cpu ,after puting up some you will be force to put up a cpu upgrade to be able to put up weapons and such.
Esmenet	Posted - 2008.10.13 22:40:00 - [58] Originally by: Crackzilla Because null-sec roaming didn't exist before nanos? Yea way back when there was no jump bridges, 0.0 was much less populated and alliances was a lot weaker. Your magical dream land of way back when dont exist anymore. Nanos are needed.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.10.13 22:53:00 - [59] Originally by: Esmenet Originally by: Crackzilla Because null-sec roaming didn't exist before nanos? Yea way back when there was no jump bridges, 0.0 was much less populated and alliances was a lot weaker. Your magical dream land of way back when dont exist anymore. Nanos are needed. Why nanos are needed?? Do you think nanos are opposite of blob? Can you blob with nanos? yes , Can you travel 5-10jumps with nanos within minutes to blob up with your scout nanos if they encounter an enemy non nano gang and gank it? Yes I've seen 100+ ppl nano fleets and seen 2-3 bs-bc gangs before nanos. So nanos are absolutly NOT against the blob. Do you know why ppl blob because if they dont then a stupid nano gang will come from many jumps ahead and gank them. Nerf nanos eve will be much better without them.
Naomi Knight Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.10.13 22:58:00 - [60] Originally by: Crackzilla Originally by: carleyjones If you generally believe that rubbish you've been posting then you really dont know the first thing about pvp or how its evolved. Can't argue the points so you attack the man? Nice.... Originally by: Solomon XI This change is going to completely kill null-sec roaming ... Because null-sec roaming didn't exist before nanos? Originally by: Solomon XI Did you know that this nano-nerf was voted against by a 3/1 margin? That 1/3 of players was fairly foolish for not jumping on the flavor of the year. At least the rest were smart enough to train for and fly the same cookie cutter nanos. Actually Crackzilla is right,there are nano gangs from when rigs came in as i remember and before that solo/small gangs were much more common in 0.0 , ppl started to roam to get a good fight not to gank lone ratters and such, so when enemy came what didnt overpowered them too much,they fought and not run like nowadays as they run when there is a small possibility of loosing ship.
Tighty Whities	Posted - 2008.10.13 23:55:00 - [61] Posting in a nerf whine thread.
Gorefacer Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works	Posted - 2008.10.14 00:19:00 - [62] I support any change that reduces instances of people running away from fights always. Is this the best way to do it? Probably not. Is there a huge problem with TQ currently as it stands now in my opinion? No. If this change forces more people to fight and not run - they can't implement it fast enough for me. "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus
SickSeven	Posted - 2008.10.14 00:23:00 - [63] Ok, I see all these people saying that "such and such will die" or "x ships will be dead" So dont fly those ships? That's how the game is now. There are ships you fly and those you dont. So new ships will be flown, and new ones not. Instead of 'nano***' gangs, we'll have something else('broadside' gangs?). Fights will still have to be fought and won. Just with new ships and tactics. I personally am not happy with the webifier changes specifically because I was really looking forward to flying a huggin, and becoming proficient with it. With the new changes the Huggin could very well be useless. So I guess i'll fly something that relys more on damage or tanking, like a Muninn or a Phoon. Adapt or Die.(or quit) That's how it will go, that's how it always goes. And changes can always be changed back, or changed again. Lets just see what happens.
Salt Dober	Posted - 2008.10.14 00:33:00 - [64] No one argues Nano's shouldnt be addressed...but those who look back to 2004 and the good old days forget: 2004: 10,000 Players - 2008: 35,000 Players, not to mention Large T2 Bubbles, Dictors, Jump Bridges and Titans. Every single shitty alliance has a titan now...so all the anti-nano carebears have an epic plan, plant a T2 bubble on their choke points, with a cloaked titan...nothing gets by... Of course jump bridges allow all the bears to bring their ravens to snipe the gate from 200km out...while the roaming gang slowly gets out of the bubble. And to all those who think Tri will suddenly stop killing you...you forget most members in Tri have Hac 5, and all snipe skills maxed...so welcome to a world of Snipers Hacs...you will all die to that instead of nano's...and still cry...oh and of course Tri has an excellent RR fleet...so how exactly do you carebears think you will suddenly kill Tri post nerf?!? All those ****ers and their 'adapt or die' posts...well so far you havent adapted to nanos but you think you will suddenly own because your epic npc skills will carry the day?! Think again, you will die to the same people in a slightly different way, and whine and cry about it... The Nano nerf is completely gay, all it does it make it super easy for the defenders see Carebears to huddle around a bubble with carriers and titans protected by jumpbridges and cynojammers...cut those two fail mods from the game and I doubt anyone would complain about the nano nerf... Oh and for all those "use a scout" posts...wtf do you think people use now!?! Seriously thanks for the lessons in pvp...
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.10.14 00:37:00 - [65] Originally by: SickSeven Adapt or Die.(or quit) The problem with this logic is found in the very last portion I quoted. The danger with severe nerf's that change most of the fundamental assumptions of PVP (necessary or not) is the fact that a huge number of people are going to be up a creek. Many people (not me personally, I fly caldari and don't believe in nano's - thems the devil's doing) have invested hundreds of real life dollars (you know, those subscription fees) and hundreds of hours of their lives (for cash and personal experience), and now they're being told - "Hard luck kid - all that crap you worked so hard to get is now useless. Try again though". A lot of people are not going to give up the game right then and there, and can you blame them? Necessary or not the current changes basically amount to the video game version of "you got served <nasty word of your own choosing>". When a game expects you to pay for it again and again you the players wield considerable power. Making poorly concieved changes that do little but annihilate many play styles while making others so incredibly powerful that they're surely going to flavor the month is not the way to maintain a player base. Adapt or die is a silly catch phrase spouted off by silly people. No life is at stake here - only your cash. And if someone feels the changes are unfair and gamebreaking and all that jazz, send the message in the only way that matters - don't pay to play. This goes for everyone who's ever asked for a nerf/boost. Your opinion is meaningless - you cash is not.
Gorefacer Caldari Resurrection Skunk-Works	Posted - 2008.10.14 00:58:00 - [66] Originally by: Derek Sigres Originally by: SickSeven Adapt or Die.(or quit) The problem with this logic is found in the very last portion I quoted. The danger with severe nerf's that change most of the fundamental assumptions of PVP (necessary or not) is the fact that a huge number of people are going to be up a creek. Many people (not me personally, I fly caldari and don't believe in nano's - thems the devil's doing) have invested hundreds of real life dollars (you know, those subscription fees) and hundreds of hours of their lives (for cash and personal experience), and now they're being told - "Hard luck kid - all that crap you worked so hard to get is now useless. Try again though". A lot of people are not going to give up the game right then and there, and can you blame them? Necessary or not the current changes basically amount to the video game version of "you got served <nasty word of your own choosing>". When a game expects you to pay for it again and again you the players wield considerable power. Making poorly concieved changes that do little but annihilate many play styles while making others so incredibly powerful that they're surely going to flavor the month is not the way to maintain a player base. Adapt or die is a silly catch phrase spouted off by silly people. No life is at stake here - only your cash. And if someone feels the changes are unfair and gamebreaking and all that jazz, send the message in the only way that matters - don't pay to play. This goes for everyone who's ever asked for a nerf/boost. Your opinion is meaningless - you cash is not. Good point and I agree with all that. However it's very hard to say whether more or less people will be happy with the game after the changes go through. I realize it may destroy much hard work and cause some (many?) to quit. There might be others who don't quit who might have if the speed changes didn't go through. I wouldn't try and hazard a guess as to how exactly the changes will affect subscription numbers and perception short term and long term though. I just don't think many here have enough data/perspective to accurately answer this. Most of these nerf/overpowered/game changes threads usually boil down to differing playstyles with each side confusing their opinion with "fact". Change or not, hopefully it's in EVE's best interest. Only time will tell. "You can't reason someone out of a belief they haven't reasoned themselves into" - Prometheus
SickSeven	Posted - 2008.10.14 00:59:00 - [67] Originally by: Derek Sigres stuff... Ok, you bring up a good point and since I made the above post, I read another thread... I didn't say 'adapt or die(or quit) because I am or think I am some uber pvper in anyway shape or form. I have plenty left to learn and do and have learned a lot so far.(pretty sure i'm deep in the isk damage dealt/isk damage suffered department right now) I said it because that's the reality. Trust me, I know ALL about broad sweeping changes to a game. I spent plenty of money on Star Wars: Galaxies. I went through two(2) complete changes of that games mechanics. Both times masses of players quit. This speed change could be EVE's 'NGE' if it truly is a broad sweeping and deep of change as some are saying. And lord nows I hope the sky isn't falling as some here want us to believe. But it could be. And that would be terrible. I hope CCP is familiar with SOE, Galaxies, and the "NGE". If they are not they are idiots. And I'd say that to their face. If i could log onto Sisi right now I would. But I just have to wait and see and read through all this BS and try to figure out what is worth remembering and what not. I'm just saying lets not scream "the sky is falling" while only looking at the changes on paper. let's see these changes in action and then scream "Hooray" or "The sky REALLY is falling!!"
P'uck	Posted - 2008.10.14 01:09:00 - [68] All I know about game balancing I learned from CCP dev blogs. Not some weird form of deriving it or assuming things, no actually the stuff they wrote about balancing and how it works. The proposed changes in their form now go against everything they told me. It would be hard to keep my trust if I had any.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.10.14 01:13:00 - [69] I wasn't stating that "adapt or die" was the crux of your argument. I was simply pointing out that the changes are indeed drastic and widespread. Eve PVP isn't going to go away - it's just going to be fundamentally different. Some people (like myself) will only benefit from the changes, while others will almost certainly suffer. The issue here is the simple fact that so much will change in an instant that some quantity of people will in fact say - to hell with this. More importantly, many people seem to regard the forums as a platform for ideas for game changes. The stand high atop their soapbox and proclaim that their opinion is indeed fact, and assert that things must change. Others might defend the status quo or changes with trite and overused phrases like the one above. At the end of the day, what is said here matters little. How often do Dev's actually comment on and interact with the players who assert opinions (even when well phrased and exhaustively researched)? How often has the Dev team actually taken a suggestion by players and made it into game reality (all I can think of is the Khanid mk II changes). Does the speed nerf give you any indication that CCP even understands the sticking points of the issue with nano's (i.e. some cruiser weapons cannot be used to hit cruisers, the very fastest nano ships are all but invulnerable and so forth)? The nerf suggests to me that CCP understands an issue exists but have absolutely no idea how to solve it (in spite of the fact that there are literally dozens of perfectly good suggestions from the people who actually play the game for fun rather than work). At the end of the day our opinions are meaningless. I don't sit on my soapbox and imagine any grand changes coming down the pike because of what I say - I do it for entertainment. The only thing that you do that matters is continue to pay. Or don't. Thus, if the phrase was more accurate it would read "Adapt or quit". I have no loyalties to this game - it's simply an avenue of entertainment. The moment I find the game less fun than an alternative I'll leave. Sure, i'll be abandoning a character with 25 million SP and a few years of subscription fees behind it - that doesn't mean I need to continue investing in a product that no longer meets my needs as a consumer. If you want to send a message to CCP, quit and send them a letter telling them why. Your words will carry far more weight then. The Dev's at CCP are not gods - they are simply people trying to build a product that sells. If enough people refuse to pony up the month after a change they'll rethink their strategy in a hurry. Afterall, they have to pay the bills like any other company.
Crackzilla The Shadow Order	Posted - 2008.10.14 01:21:00 - [70] Originally by: Solomon XI Cracksilla, we all admit that nanos may be a tad ... over-powered. The argument is not that they need to be nerfed, but rather how. This nerf is over-kill. I kept these forums filled for months with "nerf nanos" threads. I trained for about 6 months for some nanos and this nerf makes much of the training useless. No question this nerf is over-kill. However the simple fixes (scripts for webs) appear to be technically not possible. Plus we have assault frigs etc that need some serious love. So the nerf bat is going to swing a bit too hard like it always does. No regrets. The tears of those whining now is too sweet. Originally by: Naomi Knight I've seen 100+ ppl nano fleets and seen 2-3 bs-bc gangs before nanos. Nanos positively shine in blobs. I remember being in a pos fight. The bs would be kept at a safe pos. The nanos would rampage in the system and have all of the fun. We used like 50+ nanos to gank a mothership outside a hostile pos before it could move a few km back to the pos or get help. Unless I'm hitting f1-f3 to hit a pos or camping low sec, 99% of the time I wish I was in a nano. Originally by: SickSeven I was really looking forward to flying a huggin Rapiers & huginns will still be important. 2 or 3 webs will be useful if most ships aren't flying as fast as before. It will mean that ceptors & af's have a shot and hugin/rapier isn't insta death to frigs/dictors. Originally by: Salt Dober And to all those who think Tri will suddenly stop killing you...you forget most members in Tri have Hac 5, and all snipe skills maxed...so welcome to a world of Snipers Hacs...you will all die to that instead of nano's...and still cry. Sniper hacs that can be countered by battleships, blackbirds, etc. If tri uses sniper hac fleets then many people eagerly await that day. You think that others play for the same reason you do. Tri members play to win. They don't take losses well. Most others just want to see some tactics and have a nice long fight with stuff warping, things exploding. Winning or lossing is entirely secondary. Originally by: Salt Dober oh and of course Tri has an excellent RR fleet Which they're loathe to take out beyond the protection of titans and cyno jammers. Tri is fairly famous for taking losses bad. And when they lose battleship fleets the whineage is fairly amusing. Win or lose I loved fighting tri bs fleets. An absolute blast. Just nearly impossible to get a good fight out of them if they think they've any shot of losing. Originally by: Salt Dober well so far you havent adapted to nanos Nearly all have adapted. We fly nanos. I look forward to something else besides a cap ship on one screen ready for the hotdrop and a nano on the other screen.
P'uck	Posted - 2008.10.14 01:23:00 - [71] Originally by: Crackzilla However the simple fixes (scripts for webs) appear to be technically not possible. Plus we have assault frigs etc that need some serious love. Those are not the simple fixes you are looking for I think what CCP should aim for is the reduction of the obtainable maximum speedboost modifier. Basically they said so, themselves. WHY they then proceeded to screw up everything in sight is beyond me.
SickSeven	Posted - 2008.10.14 01:35:00 - [72] Originally by: Derek Sigres stuff equating to "money talks" Well if all your really saying is that subscription numbers are the only things that really make Dev teams listen, then you are absolutely right. We are not disagreeing. If these speed changes are really so drastic,then yes, I imagine a noticable number of players will stop their subscriptions. And CCP will have to take note of that because most players have at least two accts right? So you have to multiply the number of actual players quitting x2. CCP will definitely feel that. I understand completely about the "all those years are now thrown in the trash for my character" thing. That's what happend in Galaxies. Jedi took ages to 'unlock' and level up and then suddenly it was a beginner profession! ROFL I laughed my arse off cause I didn't play jedi, and I hated them in that game. I'm not a nano-***** whatever player. I'm just now getting into PvP so I guess i'm lucky. No big investment lost for me and easier for me to adapt. But, I do agree that the changes do 'seem' to be over the top for what CCP actually wanted to accomplish. (i say 'seem' because I haven't tested them myself and there is not a lot of hard reporting yet as to the changes on Sisi)
Crackzilla The Shadow Order	Posted - 2008.10.14 01:35:00 - [73] Originally by: P'uck I think what CCP should aim for is the reduction of the obtainable maximum speedboost modifier. Basically they said so, themselves. WHY they then proceeded to screw up everything in sight is beyond me. This assumes that the problem is only at the high end of speed. CCP is saying that speed was a larger problem then just with high end implants etc. I agree that is an issue, but I also agree that they may have gone a bit too far. I haven't really tested the changes so I'm not going to spend much time worrying about the details.
P'uck	Posted - 2008.10.14 01:45:00 - [74] I don't think cruiser sized vessels going 3-4k are a problem at all. If one can't catch/counter/track those... I don't know, the tools are there. But the REAL top end speeds, those were (supposedly, I don't believe a word they say anymore ) physics engine breaking.... anyways... all those things could have been changed in a more appropriate way. Mixing it with scrambler changes, that's just asking for a snafu.
Derek Sigres	Posted - 2008.10.14 01:49:00 - [75] Originally by: SickSeven I understand completely about the "all those years are now thrown in the trash for my character" thing. That's what happend in Galaxies. Jedi took ages to 'unlock' and level up and then suddenly it was a beginner profession! SWG presents an excellent example of what can go wrong. Admittedly, the list of errors in SWG is far worse than the jedi changes alone. To use an example that irks people on this board to no end, imagine counter-strike as it stands today. There have been hundreds of minor tweaks to the game, changing everything from basic game physics to weapon acuracy degredation to hit model to weapons available. But through all of these changes the fundamental landscape never once shifted. The speed changes, if framed in the perspective of CS would essentially be something like saying sniper rifles are now the short ranged weapon of choice, sub machine guns are the long ranged weapon of choice, and the best possible play style is midless zerging. Changing the fundamental assumptions of PvP isn't necessarily a bad thing - it just needs to be done gradually over time. Nano's didn't just pop up overnight, and to think you can remove them with a snap of the fingers without unforseen (or forseen) problems or angry customers is silly. Originally by: SickSeven I'm not a nano-*** whatever player. I'm just now getting into PvP so I guess i'm lucky. No big investment lost for me and easier for me to adapt. You won't be unhappy because the fundamental assumptions and mechanics of PvP are a relative unknown. Being new means adaptation is relatively easy - afterall, in the early stages most players don't even know what they want to accomplish in the game, much less how they should go about it. The oldest players will likewise go unscathed. Once you have enough SP you're essentially immune to changes - afterall if you can most ships the fact that one (or one theory) won't work is hardly an issue as you already have what you need elsewhere. The casualties here are the mid term players - those that have stuck around for 6 months or so. These are the people that are most likely to invest heavily in a singular talent because that is the best way to become competative in a hurry. You find a niche and you fill it. Take their niche and all you have is a vetern with noob skills. Originally by:** SickSeven But, I do agree that the changes do 'seem' to be over the top for what CCP actually wanted to accomplish. (i say 'seem' because I haven't tested them myself and there is not a lot of hard reporting yet as to the changes on Sisi) The changes might be necessary, and while this nerf certainly removes the nano from the PvP equation for the most part it directly affects a large number of other problems. The problem with this nerf is the fact that it's quite simply over-reching. It doens't just nerf nano's, it nerfs every ship that ever relied on a web or MWD to function properly (blaster boats are the most common example). The entire minmatar lineup relies on mobility to overcome the disadvantages inherit in their weapon systems (low effective range, immense damage reductions when fighting in falloff (if you use AC's your almost always going to fight in falloff). These changes substantially weaknen the ability of a minmatar ship to maintain enough of a speed edge for it to truly count for anything but an on paper number (being a few hundred m/s faster than someone is hardly an advantage in most situations). There are more issues that many people will be happy to harp on about but the bottom line is this: for every problem the speed changes seek to rectify they create another.
Salt Dober	Posted - 2008.10.14 02:27:00 - [76] Originally by: Crackzilla Sniper hacs that can be countered by battleships, blackbirds, etc. If tri uses sniper hac fleets then many people eagerly await that day. Why dont you see what both PL and Tri have already been doing with them...in Tri's case against the NC when they first came to save Hydras space...sniper hacs with falcons was extremely effective, and come nano nerf they will be doubly so... Keep telling yourself people are eagerly awaiting the day...the only ones who like these fights are already engaged and not calling for the nano nerf...how many PL/BoB/Goon/TCF/MM/Razor/Solar/Tri groups do you see calling for this nerf?!!? Look at who is complaining, its all come from the Factional Warefare crowd...the people fighting hard in 0.0 arent calling for changes...wonder why that is?! Everyone who is so pro the changes seem to be people who hardly pvp to begin with...with the odd pirate thrown in who have a great RR setup...and hate that nano's run from them in low sec...if you are going to pirate, ok, I understand why you think its a great change...same as my friends in Burn Eden think its a great change...don't move, camp a few systems...yada yada yada
Crackzilla The Shadow Order	Posted - 2008.10.14 02:37:00 - [77] Originally by: Salt Dober Why dont you see what both PL and Tri have already been doing with them...in Tri's case against the NC when they first came to save Hydras space...sniper hacs with falcons was extremely effective, and come nano nerf they will be doubly so... Do you seriously think that folks quiver in fear of tri? Leave the propaganda and chest beating in COAD. Originally by: Salt Dober ...how many PL/BoB/Goon/TCF/MM/Razor/Solar/Tri groups do you see calling for this nerf?!!? When the forums were spammed with requests to look at issues with speed? Many from the very alliances you mentioned.
Rajere Vicious Inc	Posted - 2008.10.14 23:42:00 - [78] What an idiot, I don't have time to educate you on all of your failures in that post, but just know, they are your failures. Try roaming in space that isn't completely empty 99% of the time (sovereign space), places where you don't need to reinforce a POS to get a fight, and get a clue before you post that drivel. Your "kb research" fails horribly btw, as does your attempt to insult me. Your ignorance of everything related to small roaming gang 0.0 pvp emanates from your posts, i'm sorry you fail at it so horribly but it's not because non-nano gangs are bad, it's just you suck so badly at them. I'll continue to insult you because you're an idiot and don't know the first thing about small gang roaming pvp that you proclaim will die as soon as nano's are nerfed down to reality. HINT HINT you stupid fck, my now defunct corp had been living and roaming doing small gang (<20 man) pvp gangs exclusively* non-nano'd for the last year and a half, all the while you nano***s have been zooming around running away as fast as you can when you run into a real gang of competent pvpers, instead of random isk farming ravens in some backwater sov 0.0 who couldn't cloak in time to evade your nano gang. 0One helpful piece of advice for you, you wouldn't need nano-hac's if you tried living or atleast roaming in space that wasn't completely empty of players. You'd wind up getting fights without having to go 90 jumps across the universe to find something to kill, and therefore it wouldn't as difficult to roam with say, I dunno, battleships? I cba to bother schooling you any more atm, but I may come back and destroy whatever is left of your delusional reply later, but tbh i'll probably forget both you and your attempts at smacking as you're pretty much irrelevant. How to Fail at Eve

Pages: 1 2 3 :: [one page]

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.