Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Johncrab
Minmatar XBeyond
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 18:04:00 -
[61]
Have to agree that agility buff made tackling harder, that's never good. But the worst is the web nerf... fast ships are even faster now, when you factor in the speed they lost with less 30% web power (with max skills and tech II webbers). That's not good either.
Put webs at 75% and agility back to what it was and things should work well. |
Sgt Napalm
Synergy Evolved Strength in Numbers.
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 18:08:00 -
[62]
Vote Bellum Eternus for CSM next sitting!
|
5pinDizzy
Amarr Umpteenth Podding
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 18:25:00 -
[63]
Edited by: 5pinDizzy on 09/12/2008 18:31:12
Originally by: Gnomes Rock
Originally by: 5pinDizzy
Noone was bloody using blockade runners for what they do now before the change, how are you supposed to justify a 50-50 odd chance of making it in a ship designed to ferry precious cargo?
Are you trying to say that blockade runners were easy to catch before the patch, or that they're easier to catch now?
Neither.
You and I both know they were hard to catch before the patch and now damn ultra hard to ever catch one now.
Trying to be fair I am thinking on it from the other side.
...and I think cov ops is a step too far yes.
Does it really even make any sense for such a big hull to carry a cov ops cloak considering the fluff around it where even the cov ops cruisers were a bit of a stretch and just considered very specially designed?
Well you know where I'm going with this, I don't think they should be able to warp cloaked aswell, a bit too easy.
The web nerf + the agility buff + the cov ops cloak for blockade runners, it's just too much isn't it when all added together and you think about the results it produces when trying to catch these ships.
I'd make them use a standard cloak and give them a related velocity bonus like the stealth bomber if it was up to me, make them have to think a bit more and add a little bit more risk, but not as much as before.
I'd take back the agility changes by at least 50%-75% too, but I don't think anyone will convince me any different about changing webs though, I hated the static gameplay they produced.
|
Black Scorpio
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 19:04:00 -
[64]
CCP's idea in this regard as far as i have followed since the last few patches is to make smaller ships actually be useful because they are smaller..... this includes running through gate camps.
The only problem there is that you either need very high sensor boosted ships or RR interceptors so they can both tackle and not die to sentrys, or sensor and remote sensor boosted HICs and tanked cruisers/hacs/recons.
But that again makes smaller ships more useful if you see how this circles back. So in that perspective, the change is good for smaller ship pilots and makes them more useful.
The size of gates is another element that now needs to be taken into account, but as it was mentioned, camps can just move one gate back to where they camp a small gate and have same effectiveness as before.
I myself use dual web setups and short range scrams, so as to cut off people from mwd/ing/ AB-ing back to gates. It works most of the time. Of course if target is faster/and lands at the edge of your scram range and the pilot knows what they're doing they can get out.. but isn't it how it's supposed to be?
So I hope this perspective explains why CCP have made the recent changes. And just to tickle the hard core (whoever considers themselves carebear haters / hard core pirates) The missile users also feel like they've been slapped in the face with the changes. Those changes however can also be explained by the points i made above and believe is the reason behind the changes on both fronts.
Cheers!
|
Arcon Telf
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 19:22:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Black Scorpio
So I hope this perspective explains why CCP have made the recent changes. And just to tickle the hard core (whoever considers themselves carebear haters / hard core pirates) The missile users also feel like they've been slapped in the face with the changes. Those changes however can also be explained by the points i made above and believe is the reason behind the changes on both fronts.
Cheers!
Your perspective misses the point. No one is complaining about trying to catch frigates and interceptors while flying battleships. We're concerned because it's become unreasonably difficult to catch ships of the same class, and a toss up to catch ships one class smaller. A battleship should be able to reliably tackle BCs, period. The problem with nanos was that they gave people a 'get out of jail free card,' and to some extent, that situation has remained - and become more pervasive. Only now, you don't need to go 8km/sec to do it.
|
Black Scorpio
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 19:27:00 -
[66]
Originally by: Arcon Telf
Originally by: Black Scorpio
So I hope this perspective explains why CCP have made the recent changes. And just to tickle the hard core (whoever considers themselves carebear haters / hard core pirates) The missile users also feel like they've been slapped in the face with the changes. Those changes however can also be explained by the points i made above and believe is the reason behind the changes on both fronts.
Cheers!
Your perspective misses the point. No one is complaining about trying to catch frigates and interceptors while flying battleships. We're concerned because it's become unreasonably difficult to catch ships of the same class, and a toss up to catch ships one class smaller. A battleship should be able to reliably tackle BCs, period. The problem with nanos was that they gave people a 'get out of jail free card,' and to some extent, that situation has remained - and become more pervasive. Only now, you don't need to go 8km/sec to do it.
Most of the time i am able to lock a BC with a BS at a gate, using a sensor booster, unless the target is perfectly or near perfectly aligned to it's destination right after it decloaks. My command yesterday was able to lock a thorax just fine, even w/o a Sensor booster.
Also i wasn't defending either point, i was explaining why CCP might have had in mind when they introduced the change.. i.e make smaller ships more viable compared to their larger counterparts.
|
Gnomes Rock
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 19:31:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Black Scorpion
Most of the time i am able to lock a BC with a BS at a gate, using a sensor booster, unless the target is perfectly or near perfectly aligned to it's destination right after it decloaks. My command yesterday was able to lock a thorax just fine, even w/o a Sensor booster.
Also i wasn't defending either point, i was explaining why CCP might have had in mind when they introduced the change.. i.e make smaller ships more viable compared to their larger counterparts.
Was the thorax actually trying to warp though? |
Arcon Telf
Gallente Death of Virtue
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 19:38:00 -
[68]
Originally by: Gnomes Rock
Originally by: Black Scorpion
Most of the time i am able to lock a BC with a BS at a gate, using a sensor booster, unless the target is perfectly or near perfectly aligned to it's destination right after it decloaks. My command yesterday was able to lock a thorax just fine, even w/o a Sensor booster.
Also i wasn't defending either point, i was explaining why CCP might have had in mind when they introduced the change.. i.e make smaller ships more viable compared to their larger counterparts.
Was the thorax actually trying to warp though?
Exactly. Also, I don't think a battleship should have to sacrifice a slot for a sensor booster to catch battlecruisers. It just doesn't make sense to me.
A [skilled] pilot in a BC that is aggressively attempting to escape at a gate often does these days.
The bottom line is that CCP seems to be nerfing nonconsensual PVP. This is supposed to be Eve Online ... so ... what gives?
PS: This isn't about griefing. It's about the PVP profession(s).
|
Furian Giaume
Warhead Delivery Systems
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 21:32:00 -
[69]
I definitely agree with the OP and those that understand that solo PvP took a swift kick in the nuts with QR. Solo PvP is the only remaining aspect of Eve that I really enjoy, so for the first time in three years I'm actually considering off-lining my three accounts. That sucks, as Eve is the only game left that interests me at all
No, you can't haz my stufz. I will need it if T3 is worth re-activating for
|
Napro
Caldari INTERDICTION
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 22:02:00 -
[70]
Originally by: burek The OP is the truth. Pointing out facts is not whining.
Pretty much all the "pvpers" that don't mind these changes or aren't even affected, are the blobbers, the brainless zombies of eve.
LoL
Whine is whine. Doesn't matter if theres a legitimate reason or not. Adapt or die.
|
|
Endless Subversion
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 22:41:00 -
[71]
Edited by: Endless Subversion on 09/12/2008 22:42:23 I hear ya Bellum.
The more I play in this new combat environment, the less I like it and that's a crap feeling to have after a content patch.
Small gang, low sec pvp has taken yet another nerf. Exactly what wasn't needed.
Also, falcons! FFS they were actually BUFFED this patch. Ah... what?
|
Shogun Archer
Gallente Brotherhood of Soban
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 23:09:00 -
[72]
Perhaps the notion of a more safe environment will bring more pilots to low sec? If I'm not mistaken, one of the biggest complaints I've seen from low sec pirates is that most people are too chicken**** to go to low sec. Couldn't this possibly be a boon for the pirates eventually?
I'm trying to see something positive in this. Also someone above me posted that now a good pilot in a BC can effectively escape a BS, and he didn't think that was fair? That seems perfectly fair to me.
|
Black Scorpio
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 23:53:00 -
[73]
Originally by: Gnomes Rock
Originally by: Black Scorpion
Most of the time i am able to lock a BC with a BS at a gate, using a sensor booster, unless the target is perfectly or near perfectly aligned to it's destination right after it decloaks. My command yesterday was able to lock a thorax just fine, even w/o a Sensor booster.
Also i wasn't defending either point, i was explaining why CCP might have had in mind when they introduced the change.. i.e make smaller ships more viable compared to their larger counterparts.
Was the thorax actually trying to warp though?
Yep.
|
Black Scorpio
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 23:54:00 -
[74]
Originally by: Arcon Telf
Originally by: Gnomes Rock
Originally by: Black Scorpion
Most of the time i am able to lock a BC with a BS at a gate, using a sensor booster, unless the target is perfectly or near perfectly aligned to it's destination right after it decloaks. My command yesterday was able to lock a thorax just fine, even w/o a Sensor booster.
Also i wasn't defending either point, i was explaining why CCP might have had in mind when they introduced the change.. i.e make smaller ships more viable compared to their larger counterparts.
Was the thorax actually trying to warp though?
Exactly. Also, I don't think a battleship should have to sacrifice a slot for a sensor booster to catch battlecruisers. It just doesn't make sense to me.
A [skilled] pilot in a BC that is aggressively attempting to escape at a gate often does these days.
The bottom line is that CCP seems to be nerfing nonconsensual PVP. This is supposed to be Eve Online ... so ... what gives?
PS: This isn't about griefing. It's about the PVP profession(s).
Well i told you what i think the reasoning of CCP is. Whether it is accepted by the EvE population is another question :)
|
Black Scorpio
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 23:56:00 -
[75]
Originally by: Endless Subversion Edited by: Endless Subversion on 09/12/2008 22:42:23 I hear ya Bellum.
The more I play in this new combat environment, the less I like it and that's a crap feeling to have after a content patch.
Small gang, low sec pvp has taken yet another nerf. Exactly what wasn't needed.
Also, falcons! FFS they were actually BUFFED this patch. Ah... what?
Falcons were not buffed Endless.. they're the same as always.. just used a lot more, b/c it's in a lot of people's mouths.
You can always come back to Hedal and visit your other friends :)
|
Black Scorpio
|
Posted - 2008.12.09 23:58:00 -
[76]
Edited by: Black Scorpio on 09/12/2008 23:58:54
Originally by: Shogun Archer Perhaps the notion of a more safe environment will bring more pilots to low sec? If I'm not mistaken, one of the biggest complaints I've seen from low sec pirates is that most people are too chicken**** to go to low sec. Couldn't this possibly be a boon for the pirates eventually?
I'm trying to see something positive in this. Also someone above me posted that now a good pilot in a BC can effectively escape a BS, and he didn't think that was fair? That seems perfectly fair to me.
Yep, i don't see why a smaller ship cannot use it's advantage, i.e. of being smaller/nimbler/faster/more agile in order to evade a direct confrontation with an obviously superior class ship. This does not promote blobbing, a gang of 4-5 ppl even 2-3 in the right ships properly equipped should be pretty successful on capturing targets.
|
Poast Warrior
Imperial Academy
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 00:13:00 -
[77]
Originally by: Black Scorpio
Falcons were not buffed Endless.. they're the same as always.. just used a lot more, b/c it's in a lot of people's mouths.
They slowed down intys and hacs (well, pretty much everyone) and over nerfed jav and cruise missiles, all which indirectly boost the falcon.
gg ccp.
|
Blastil
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 00:42:00 -
[78]
Maybe the message you should take away from this is to get off the gate, and roam like a man. If your mobile, and in high speed ships, you don't have to worry about being blobed by the blobs your so terribly afraid of. You can catch the ratters who avoid your gate camps anyway, or scan out mission runners. Or maybe, just maybe, you can find other roaming gangs, and get into a fair, stand up, punching fight.
As much as I enjoyed gate camping, I only did it because there was no other way to get fights. Now with QR, people are more interested in fighting off of gates, especially now that the Iwin buttons are all gone.
|
Cmndr Griff
Opinicus Operations Vanguard.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 01:14:00 -
[79]
Originally by: Hesed Time to nerf local, and let the multitudes wander far and wide.
We can only hope. Sure it might make part of my personal Eve experience harder but it will make Eve feel less forgiving, more space-like like which is how it should be. Where do ideas like these come from? Monkeys in hats? |
5pinDizzy
Amarr Umpteenth Podding
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 02:19:00 -
[80]
Originally by: Cmndr Griff
Originally by: Hesed Time to nerf local, and let the multitudes wander far and wide.
We can only hope. Sure it might make part of my personal Eve experience harder but it will make Eve feel less forgiving, more space-like like which is how it should be.
While we're on the subject, please pleaase do not let anyone opt for the delayed local idea. I'd rather just keep it as it is. It would be a massive pirate buff beyond all proportion and make explorers, complex runners and miners stick out like sore thumbs as most people just pass through.
No timer stuff, remove local altogether in some way or not at all.
|
|
Avaricia
The Accursed
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 04:43:00 -
[81]
Originally by: Black Scorpio You can always come back to Hedal and visit your other friends :)
you must be a glutton for punishment. how often do you and your friends actually survive our presence in hedal?
griefmatic 2 reign of terror griefmatic |
Great Artista
Caldari Veto. Veto Corp
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 05:14:00 -
[82]
I don't usually post in whiney threads (heh, sorry op, its a bit whiney), but when I saw a blackbird aligning as fast as my Sentinel, I have evasive manuevers 5, I thought that was a tad too much. Agility could use some tweaking yeah, but frigs should stay as agile as they are, making them the preferred soloships. _______
◕◡◕
|
Stunna Shade
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 05:34:00 -
[83]
Rushing the gate is now the most viable tactic when stuck in a gatecamp.
|
Nerogk Shorn
Caldari Royal Hiigaran Navy
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 06:22:00 -
[84]
Don't forget: Warp to Zero for stations...
Completely unecessary, and gives anyone in a system with a station an instant safe haven.
-Bulba
The Bulbasaur Wizard D-F-A-A-B-A-A-S
|
Coaster DP
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 06:34:00 -
[85]
I am a PvPer and while I welcomed the 'nano nerf' I have to say that the changes implimentedin QR were stronger then they should have been. If solo PvP was not already dead, it sure is now and Small gang PvP has taken another big hit and is (to my mind), in terminal condition.
The changes over the past few patches are slowly but surely hurting (killing?)PvP (outside of 0.0 blobs). I have been playing Eve for two and half years now and for the first time I am starting to worry about the future.
|
Vikarion
Caldari White Rose Society
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 06:40:00 -
[86]
Originally by: Nerogk Shorn Don't forget: Warp to Zero for stations...
Completely unecessary, and gives anyone in a system with a station an instant safe haven.
-Bulba
I do a lot of trading and missioning, and trust me, I'll just use instas.
|
Cloora
APEX Unlimited APEX Conglomerate
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 07:08:00 -
[87]
Originally by: 5pinDizzy Neither.
You and I both know they were hard to catch before the patch and now damn ultra hard to ever catch one now.
Trying to be fair I am thinking on it from the other side.
...and I think cov ops is a step too far yes.
Does it really even make any sense for such a big hull to carry a cov ops cloak considering the fluff around it where even the cov ops cruisers were a bit of a stretch and just considered very specially designed?
Well you know where I'm going with this, I don't think they should be able to warp cloaked aswell, a bit too easy.
The web nerf + the agility buff + the cov ops cloak for blockade runners, it's just too much isn't it when all added together and you think about the results it produces when trying to catch these ships.
I'd make them use a standard cloak and give them a related velocity bonus like the stealth bomber if it was up to me, make them have to think a bit more and add a little bit more risk, but not as much as before.
I'd take back the agility changes by at least 50%-75% too, but I don't think anyone will convince me any different about changing webs though, I hated the static gameplay they produced.
You, and everyone else here since they didn't catch it, must not pilot Blockade Runners. As a Crane pilot I have to let you guys know that the Crane lost its +2 WCS bonus and a ton of agility. I used to align like an inty. Now its like a Dessie.
|
Taua Roqa
Minmatar Eve University Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 07:20:00 -
[88]
what's this bump on the back on my head??!
|
Johnny Gurkha
Death Cult Covenant
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 07:45:00 -
[89]
Fly something less expensive, take more risks, don't worry about K:D ratios... fund your losses with a few BS rats and the odd faction drop every now and again. Zipping around in a "Suicide Desy/AF/Cruiser of Doom" is quite exilerating even if it does pop alot XD
|
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. The Firm.
|
Posted - 2008.12.10 08:59:00 -
[90]
Originally by: Poast Warrior
Originally by: Black Scorpio
Falcons were not buffed Endless.. they're the same as always.. just used a lot more, b/c it's in a lot of people's mouths.
They slowed down intys and hacs (well, pretty much everyone) and over nerfed jav and cruise missiles, all which indirectly boost the falcon.
gg ccp.
Take it from me: speed was a terrible counter to falcons even before QR.
Hint: fast ships are hilariously easy to jam.
What kills falcons are: warp bubbles and dictors, gallante recons, cerbs/cruise ravens, snipocs, curses, lag
What drives falcons away: stealth bombers (especially Purifiers), drones, sniperokhs.
What gives falcon pilots some idle amusement: watching XxChumpxX try and rush in his EA Vagabond, jamming him at 40Km and warping off just before his drones get close. Kind of like playing keep-away. Actually, not it's not even as much fun now.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |