open All Channels
seplocked Features and Ideas Discussion
blankseplocked Speed-tank balancing : absolute top speed limits (class/race specific)
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

Author Topic

Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2008.07.11 21:09:00 - [61]
 

You really think a bunch of nanos with next to zero DPS are going to be able to kill slave-implanted, mindlinked-damnation-boosted, spider-tanked armor tankers? The armor tankers may or may not have the tools and tactics at hand to catch the nano fleet, but the nano fleet definitely doesn't have the tools to kill the armor tankers.

I've noticed that you often try to prove that nanos are not counterable by posing an incredibly hypothetical opponent fleet (such as a fleet composed entirely of one race's ships, or a fleet composed solely of armor tankers presumably with no e-war or interceptors)... and even these hypothetical fleets are quickly shown to have sufficient counters.

Let's go back to basics. Why don't you lie back on that leather couch there and start by telling us about your feelings. Instead of blathering nonsense, tell us why you want us to think nanos are bad.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.07.11 21:43:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
a bunch of nanos with next to zero DPS

Right Rolling Eyes

Quote:
Instead of blathering nonsense, tell us why you want us to think nanos are bad.

SPEED TANKS aren't inherently bad. They're quite nice to have, actually.
BUT after a certain speed (depending on ship size) they become way too good compared to... well, anything else.

Like I said, I can observe the word "balance" doesn't mean anything to you, so I don't know why I even bother.
Point is, I have no problem with reasonable speeds on ships (and I mentioned what I consider "reasonable", multiple times) - but I do have problems with even the possibility that some ships could go faster than what's reasonable, no matter how expensive (or inexpensive) it might be to fit them to go that fast, nor what conditions (i.e. Claymore in fleet) have to be fulfilled.

Last but not least, MOST of today's "nano fits" (the ones not sporting snake-full heads nor bil ISK mods) wouldn't even be affected much, or at all by my proposed change.
And those that would be affected, yeah, sure, they don't get as much speed... but they get the added advantage of slightly lower sig and better agility - so they're not directly "nerfed into oblivion", just slightly vulnerable.

Jim Raynor
Caldari
Bad Kitty Inc.
Wildly Inappropriate.
Posted - 2008.07.12 05:08:00 - [63]
 

Originally by: Zarch AlDain
Originally by: MacGrowler III
Originally by: Akita T
Unless you have something CONSTRUCTIVE or CRITICAL to say about the ISSUE instead of the POSTERS, with al due respect (that is, not much), STFU !



Who died and made you a moderator Razz

And just who exactly said the other 3 races don't have an anti nano option ? I can think of several but maybe thats because I look at a problem and try and work out how I can overcome it rather than asking for game changes to be made for players of limited intellect, imagination or desire.

What exactly is a curse designed for other than stopping a vaga or other turret based nano ship dead in its tracks ?

Top base speed is how fast the ship flys, mods and skills influence this, just as they do tracking, tanking etc.

Following your argument to its logical conclusion, then all ships should perform uniformly regardless of skills and fits. This will provide that no player will have any advantage, and we can all live happily togeather sitting around a campfire singing sweet team building songs into the wee hours. Shocked


Your argument is weak. 'Taking things to their logical conclusion' never actually takes them to their logical conclusion. It takes them beyond the logical conclusion to some point of absurdity in order to make a "point" that is invalidated by its own absurdity.

I fly nano ships. I still think they are stupid and crap - the single worst balance point of eve at the moment. Even worse than capital ships online and POS bashing online. They are sort of fun, effective as hell, and unbalanced beyond belief.


Curse works well, battleships with heavy neuts are sort of ok, rapier works well. There are other options for gunships.

Funny thing is, none of the good options are Caldari. Most of my characters started as Caldari and they have all cross trained to the other race as fundamentally Caldari sucks for PvP as it currently is in eve - and one major reason for this is the nanocraze.

So please, give me a Caldari gang that can counter a nano gang. I don't mean just tank it till it gets bored and goes away, I mean properly fight and kill. Rather than bragging about how easy it is share some of these fine insights of yours.


I'm not sure this is the best solution - but its a solution and something is needed.



This is correct. It is a horrible time to play Caldari right now. Our ships don't nano very well, not at all. It's not like Caldari ships are slightly slower, they are INCREDIBLY slower. They really ought to balance speed, that's all.

I'm not saying nerf speed setups into dust, though I think they should be considerably slower.

Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2008.07.12 05:40:00 - [64]
 

Notice the OP changed the thread title to try and make it look like something new was on offer.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.07.12 05:54:00 - [65]
 

Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Notice the OP changed the thread title to try and make it look like something new was on offer.

You never quit trying to make a fool out of yourself, do you ?
It's a clarification of the direction the non-trolling part of the thread is heading.

Oh, and for you ? /hug.

Leandro Salazar
Quam Singulari
Posted - 2008.07.12 07:44:00 - [66]
 

Love how the nano***gots get all defensive now when their i-don't-lose buttons are being threatened. But really you shouldn't be afraid. Some inventive fellow will surely find another way for you to get your killmails without risk to yourself soon after nano is finally balanced. Not that I expect that to happen anytime soon...

Sweet Rosella
0utbreak
Posted - 2008.07.12 09:51:00 - [67]
 

Speed is not the be all and end all, while your speed tanking in a fast ship apart from crow is it very hard to do damage or your damage is reduced due to tracking, also speed is hard to control, its not as great as people may think you can over shot your target, bounce of gates etc

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2008.07.12 11:42:00 - [68]
 

Originally by: Taram Caldar
(..) But hey it's not our fault you can't play with the big kids in 0.0. (..)
This is just a random example, but it's quite fitting.
All those personal attacks and general aggression make me sick.
Well it seems like the 'big kids' are really just that.. and they want to keep their candy.

As for the topic: The devs should decide how they envisioned the EVE game mechanics. Then they should take the appropriate steps to ensure it.
I myself will welcome and deal with it, because I value balance more than my precious e-peen.


Euriti
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.07.13 10:56:00 - [69]
 

Originally by: Akita T
For the insane amount of nanowhines on the forum


You shouldn't take them serious because 75% of them calls it "exploits" and "cheats".


Euriti
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.07.13 11:01:00 - [70]
 

Edited by: Euriti on 13/07/2008 11:08:05
Edited by: Euriti on 13/07/2008 11:05:21
Edited by: Euriti on 13/07/2008 11:01:39
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Matrixcvd
speed tanking

Keyword "tanking". As in "reducing incoming damage to manageable levels". Not "completely avoiding all damage".

When you can have a ship that can outrun speed-boosted drones of the appropriate ship class, when you have a ship that can mostly outfly appropriate sized guided missiles (or in the case it doesn't outfly them due to headings, then at lreast reduce their damage to practically zero due to "explosion velocity falloff"), and when the same ship can also avoid (either via range or via out-tracking) practically all turret damage from just about any firing ship in an area, yeah, I'd really call that as "broken".



I'll redirect you to my alt posts:

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=806494&page=1#25

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=806494&page=3#73

At the same time all nanos but Sac and Ishtar have to slow down to hit anything. The ishtars drones can be destroyed and the sac has a max range of 20km unless you decide to fit heavy missiles. Now throw 1 good timed heavy neut on them (aka between mwd cycles.) and they're sitting ducks.

The sheer amount of bad facts displayed on the 1st page just tells me that this is another pointless whine with facts that are not true.

You are saying cruisers are faster than ceptors. This is wrong unless you decide to not speedfit your ceptor while snakeing your vagabond.

You are also saying "9km/s". This is totally unrealistic, no one EVER goes that fast, there's no point, you hit nothing, you can not keep a steady orbit. Totally, utterly pointless and totally utterly ****.

You wanna put a cap on speed, that's fine, but you are setting it unreasonably low (3.5-4km). That is the speeds where you are getting buttrapped by every single medium turret and this would serve only to nerf the vagabond. 5km/s is more reasonable if a cap is to be introduced but pidgeonholeing things as these and trying to keep people within boundaries in what is a sandbox game in fundamentally wrong.

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2008.07.13 18:16:00 - [71]
 

Uhmhm. Actually I would rather prefer the devs keeping their game and possible extremes in check by making use of existing game mechanics and concepts such as stacking penalty and diminishing returns. Plus some changes in stats here and there.
It's only the massive stacking of bonuses that creates problems, not the 'normal' T2 fitted Interceptor or HAC.
Regarding stat changes, Polycarbons are due for a change. Afaik it's the only rig where the T1 version gives a bigger bonus than the comparable T2 module.

Chi Quan
Bibkor Enterprises
Posted - 2008.07.13 18:18:00 - [72]
 

i serously support looking into the balance of polycarbons, i mean why the hell should i fit aux thrusters and low friction noozle joints if i can get the same (technically more, due to less drawbacks) out of a single polycarbon engine housing

Euriti
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.07.13 19:11:00 - [73]
 

Edited by: Euriti on 13/07/2008 19:10:41
Nanos are clearly overpowered.

https://www.pandemic-legion.com/killboard/view_kill.php?id=116571

Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2008.07.13 19:45:00 - [74]
 

Originally by: Tarron Sarek
As for the topic: The devs should decide how they envisioned the EVE game mechanics. Then they should take the appropriate steps to ensure it.
I myself will welcome and deal with it, because I value balance more than my precious e-peen.

The devs have created the game mechanics.
With these mechanics, ships can be made to go really really fast.
I suggest you welcome and deal with it!

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.07.15 09:00:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
The devs have created the game mechanics. With these mechanics, ships can be made to go really really fast. I suggest you welcome and deal with it!

Oh wow nice line of logic... so, the devs are superhuman and can never do anything wrong or out of balance, is that what you're saying ?

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.07.15 09:22:00 - [76]
 

Originally by: Euriti
Edited by: Euriti on 13/07/2008 11:08:05
Edited by: Euriti on 13/07/2008 11:05:21
Edited by: Euriti on 13/07/2008 11:01:39
Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Matrixcvd
speed tanking

Keyword "tanking". As in "reducing incoming damage to manageable levels". Not "completely avoiding all damage".

When you can have a ship that can outrun speed-boosted drones of the appropriate ship class, when you have a ship that can mostly outfly appropriate sized guided missiles (or in the case it doesn't outfly them due to headings, then at lreast reduce their damage to practically zero due to "explosion velocity falloff"), and when the same ship can also avoid (either via range or via out-tracking) practically all turret damage from just about any firing ship in an area, yeah, I'd really call that as "broken".



I'll redirect you to my alt posts:

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=806494&page=1#25

http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=806494&page=3#73

At the same time all nanos but Sac and Ishtar have to slow down to hit anything. The ishtars drones can be destroyed and the sac has a max range of 20km unless you decide to fit heavy missiles. Now throw 1 good timed heavy neut on them (aka between mwd cycles.) and they're sitting ducks.

The sheer amount of bad facts displayed on the 1st page just tells me that this is another pointless whine with facts that are not true.

You are saying cruisers are faster than ceptors. This is wrong unless you decide to not speedfit your ceptor while snakeing your vagabond.

You are also saying "9km/s". This is totally unrealistic, no one EVER goes that fast, there's no point, you hit nothing, you can not keep a steady orbit. Totally, utterly pointless and totally utterly ****.

You wanna put a cap on speed, that's fine, but you are setting it unreasonably low (3.5-4km). That is the speeds where you are getting buttrapped by every single medium turret and this would serve only to nerf the vagabond. 5km/s is more reasonable if a cap is to be introduced but pidgeonholeing things as these and trying to keep people within boundaries in what is a sandbox game in fundamentally wrong.


I love these kind of posts.

Nobody is talking about the DPS you can effectively apply at your max speed. That is highly irrelevant. The topic is about mitigating/avoiding damage that is beyond any other tanking method. Speed tanks are far superior in that regard.

You can still slow down to apply your damage, just when things start to look unfavorable, you just accelerate to your full potential and there is almost no way to stop you from escaping. And the existing options are highly specific to 2 ships (huginn and rapier).

MenanceWhite
Amarr
Emi Raaf's Corporation
Posted - 2008.07.15 09:59:00 - [77]
 

Just make a max speed limit for each ship and make the ships take "overheat"-ish damage when moving past that limit.

Bumping damage Cool

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.07.15 10:17:00 - [78]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 15/07/2008 18:14:37

Originally by: Euriti
You wanna put a cap on speed, that's fine, but you are setting it unreasonably low (3.5-4km). That is the speeds where you are getting buttrapped by every single medium turret and this would serve only to nerf the vagabond. 5km/s is more reasonable if a cap is to be introduced but pidgeonholeing things as these and trying to keep people within boundaries in what is a sandbox game in fundamentally wrong.

4km as "average" of top cruiser speeds.
Minmatar, and especially Vagabong getting most likely the upper cap on that, as per example, so around 4.8km/sec most likely as Vagabond speed cap (maybe even 6km/sec, if we also let the base speed modifier change the top speed modifier too).

Also, the sandbox argument doesn't really fly... I could argue I want siege launchers on my Kestrel, and complain about this sandbox being broken since I can't... seriously...

Hugh Ruka
Exploratio et Industria Morispatia
Posted - 2008.07.15 12:12:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Edited by: Akita T on 15/07/2008 10:18:02
Originally by: Hugh Ruka
You wanna put a cap on speed, that's fine, but you are setting it unreasonably low (3.5-4km). That is the speeds where you are getting buttrapped by every single medium turret and this would serve only to nerf the vagabond. 5km/s is more reasonable if a cap is to be introduced but pidgeonholeing things as these and trying to keep people within boundaries in what is a sandbox game in fundamentally wrong.

4km as "average" of top cruiser speeds.
Minmatar, and especially Vagabong getting most likely the upper cap on that, as per example, so around 4.8km/sec most likely as Vagabond speed cap (maybe even 6km/sec, if we also let the base speed modifier change the top speed modifier too).

Also, the sandbox argument doesn't really fly... I could argue I want siege launchers on my Kestrel, and complain about this sandbox being broken since I can't... seriously...



Misquoting or I do have an evil twin I do not know about ?

WillageGirl
Posted - 2008.07.15 12:52:00 - [80]
 

Edited by: WillageGirl on 15/07/2008 12:53:31
Nerfing speed is no way reasonable. If modules give you opportunity to get that speed then thats the speed you should get.

However silly speeds should have some negative effects like:
MORE Inertia Razz
just like most people know, mass tends to continue it's movement into one direction once it gets into speed... so much more inertia penalty.

Sensors Cool
if your ships moves around like crazy, your sensors should also have a penalty for what they can detect and from what distance (cant have anything locked while in warp now can you...)

Drone bandwidth Twisted Evil
Refer to sensors....

Im sure there are many more ideas to nerf nano setups into oblivion and back, but the important part is to find a balance for the whoel thing.

Matrixcvd
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.07.15 14:30:00 - [81]
 

So this is another sad attempt at calling for a nanonerf from the "Le Whine Brigade" Currently this is 1 of 3 topics filled with utter failsauce. There is nothing wrong with nanos. Gotta learn to PVP.

Nian Banks
Minmatar
Berserkers of Aesir
Posted - 2008.07.15 14:55:00 - [82]
 

Why don't we just make 3d models of each ship, put the models in a wind resistance program, reduce the resistance to something silly, near 0 atmosphere and then see how fast they can go before shaking to bits.

Then set the max safe velocity to be that which it can do without damage and a red line with a warning on the velocity dial, if you disregard the warning, you take damage, with it scaling according to how much you go over your max safe velocity. Make the damage structural.

Dav Varan
Posted - 2008.07.15 15:42:00 - [83]
 

Nano ships are a bit of a pain as they can only be countered by there own type.
Dont think absolute top speed is a great idea , just like the absolute limit on target range is not a great idea.

How about an absolute limit on dps.
An absolute limit on resists.
An absolute limit on scan res.
An absolute limit on .....

Better to boost the modules that counter nano , like webs and web drones and the precision ammo which atm is useless.

Would like to see 50% increase in web range and 15km falloff to webs , plus fast light web drones with better stats.

Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2008.07.15 16:30:00 - [84]
 

Originally by: Akita T
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
The devs have created the game mechanics. With these mechanics, ships can be made to go really really fast. I suggest you welcome and deal with it!

Oh wow nice line of logic... so, the devs are superhuman and can never do anything wrong or out of balance, is that what you're saying ?


No, that's what Tarron Sarek was saying. I just fired it back at him.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.07.15 18:22:00 - [85]
 

Edited by: Akita T on 15/07/2008 18:40:15

Originally by: Nian Banks
Why don't we just make 3d models of each ship, put the models in a wind resistance program, reduce the resistance to something silly, near 0 atmosphere and then see how fast they can go before shaking to bits.

Except that, you know, EVE is actually a submarine simulator Laughing
You know, the whole base max speed thing and so on and so forth making it feel like the entire space is actually filled with motor oil or somesuch.
But even like you put it... the space shuttle top re-entry speed is about 10 km/sec, and that speed in the upper layers of the atmosphere is enough to give it all those thermal problems... oh, and the space shuttle is the size of an EVE frigate.

Thank <insert deity here> we don't want to go for REALISM in any way, shape nor form in EVE... and can simply go for gameplay value instead.

Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
No, that's what Tarron Sarek was saying. I just fired it back at him.

Ah... my bad, then. Fair enough Wink

Originally by: Dav Varan
Nano ships are a bit of a pain as they can only be countered by there own type.
Dont think absolute top speed is a great idea , just like the absolute limit on target range is not a great idea.

How about an absolute limit on dps.
An absolute limit on resists.
An absolute limit on scan res.
An absolute limit on .....

Better to boost the modules that counter nano , like webs and web drones and the precision ammo which atm is useless.

Would like to see 50% increase in web range and 15km falloff to webs , plus fast light web drones with better stats.

Well, the absolute target range is there for gameplay reasons, just the way the base speed limit and other "ship attributes" are there for gameplay reasons also. You may not like it much, but then again, they're necessary even for a remote semblance of balance.

As for your "how about limits on" thing, let's see why not.

First off, damage only has two type of modifiers - volley damage and ROF, both stack-nerfed. There's only one module affecting them (aptly nicknamed "damage mods"), and rigs only affect one of the two. There are no gang effects to increase damage. Damage is decreased by enemy range, velocity and signature size. There is no "damage pirate implant set".

Second, resists only have one stacking-nerfed category regardless of source. The gang effect bonus is stack-nerfed together with hardeners and rigs. At least nothing directly decreases resists. There is no "resists pirate implant set".

Third, scan resolution. Again, just one stack-nerfed category, with one active, one passive and one remote module affecting it. There's also a counter-module for it. The gang bonus is max 10%, coming from the Leadership skill. There is no "scan resolution pirate implant set".

And finally, you have speed. Speed is a factor of mass, base top speed and propulsion mod thrust boosting.
Base speed gets modified stack-nerfed by lowslot modules and rigs (aux thrusters are worthless compared to polycarbons for MWD speed purposes), but also non-stack-nerfed by skirmish warfare (up to 15% base from mindlinked commander). That, plus there's a whole SET of pirate implants that can grant up to around +53% base speed.
Mass is modified by polycarbon rigs mostly, but also nanofibers. You will just use polycarbons most of the time for a speed fit... usually even the third polycarbon gives a better overall result than Aux thrusters, especially if you plan to use any overdrives at all. Mass is not affected by any gang effects.
Finally, the propulsion thrust modifier, which is affected by a gang link, and a 3% base value gang link at that. On top of the 5% per level Accel Control skill.

So, there you have it, three attributes that get boosted to acheive insane MWD speeds, and the only one you mentioned with a corresponding pirate implant set too.
There's simply just too many directions you can go about to increase your MWD speed, compared to any other things mentioned.

Akita T
Caldari Navy Volunteer Task Force
Posted - 2008.07.15 18:47:00 - [86]
 

...char limit reached


Ok, granted, there is one HUGE nerf to speed, and that's webs.
But the web range is completely inadequate except on a very limited number of ships (T2 minnies and blood raider ships), and even there it's not quite that great for T2 webs. Speaking of which, why the hell don't T2 webs get a range bonus compared to T1 ? And range-extended navy faction webs are nowhere near decent enough... just take the CN web and compare it with the domination web... WTF, 12 vs 15 km ? Pathetic.

So, yes, generally available longer-ranged webs, or even a kind of falloff for webs (falloff, as in reduced effectiveness, NOT reduced chance to web) would also be good possibilities.
Still, THAT would actually mean you needlessly punish NON-NANO close-range ships, which is sort of bad.
So, instead of nerfing entire classes of ships, wouldn't it make more sense to limit the effectiveness of one type of tanking instead ?

Malachon Draco
eXceeded
Posted - 2008.07.15 18:52:00 - [87]
 

You don't need Huginns and Rapiers to keep nano's at bay. As a pilot who regularly flies in biggish nanogangs, both those with ishtars and those with gunships (zealots mostly), there are several tactics that can help a fleet stand and fight against nanos.

1. Rapier/huginn.
2. Remote rep/sniper BS gang staying close together and focusing on the drones (vs ishtars) or the gunships (zealots) depending on the kind of nanogang you are fighting. If you're fighting a gunbased nanogang, they will need to slow down to do damage. If you are facing an ishtar based nano-gang, the drones are the weakspot. But you will need to stay close together.
3. Same as 2, but also having logistics and interceptors. The key with a fleet like this is to keep the ceptors close to the own fleet, as a screen. Keep the nanoships at 100km+ distance, and they can't tackle you. If they come close, you can swarm them with ceptors (though not beyond 70km of your own fleet, since then you'd lose remote repping).
4. ECM is pretty effective.

Mistakes I see a lot vs. nanogangs:
- Ceptors chasing the tacklers from the nanogang, they get webbed by the nano-rapiers/huginns and slaughtered by vagabonds.
- Fleet spreading out too much. Nanogang can warp in and pick off individual ships. You gotta stay together.
- Shooting ishtars and not drones. Its fun racing around at 5 kms in an ishtar and seeing the pretty lights of missiles all missing you/hitting for 1 point of damage while your sentry drones rip the enemy apart, but are left unmolested.

Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Biotronics Inc.
Initiative Mercenaries
Posted - 2008.07.15 22:57:00 - [88]
 

Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
As for the topic: The devs should decide how they envisioned the EVE game mechanics. Then they should take the appropriate steps to ensure it.
I myself will welcome and deal with it, because I value balance more than my precious e-peen.

The devs have created the game mechanics.
With these mechanics, ships can be made to go really really fast.
I suggest you welcome and deal with it!
Yeah, and they've already stated that they kinda dislike the current state of speed and capital ships.
Your point?

Joe Starbreaker
M. Corp
Posted - 2008.07.16 01:29:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Joe Starbreaker on 16/07/2008 01:29:53
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Originally by: Joe Starbreaker
Originally by: Tarron Sarek
As for the topic: The devs should decide how they envisioned the EVE game mechanics. Then they should take the appropriate steps to ensure it.
I myself will welcome and deal with it, because I value balance more than my precious e-peen.

The devs have created the game mechanics.
With these mechanics, ships can be made to go really really fast.
I suggest you welcome and deal with it!
Yeah, and they've already stated that they kinda dislike the current state of speed and capital ships.
Your point?
Thank you for telling me what the devs want. However, I still hold the deluded belief that the best way to figure what the devs wanted to build is to look at what they built.

The devs have built a game in which ships can go quite fast if they are fit very expensively for speed. Thus it seems to me that the devs did not want a game where speed is impossible and irrelevant. You claim to want to accept what the devs give you. So, accept it.

Spurty
Caldari
V0LTA
VOLTA Corp
Posted - 2008.07.16 02:45:00 - [90]
 

What we really need is 'an absolute limit on nano whine threads'.


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5

This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 


The new forums are live

Please adjust your bookmarks to https://forums.eveonline.com

These forums are archived and read-only