open All Channels
seplocked Ships and Modules
blankseplocked Open letter to CCP - a serious response to the nano changes
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic

Baudolino
Gallente
Royal Crimson Lancers
Posted - 2008.07.31 15:41:00 - [31]
 

Edited by: Baudolino on 31/07/2008 15:48:30
Originally by: Bloody Love


You just don't get it.

The upcoming changes won't be the end for fast roaming gangs. They just won't be invulnerable any more, people will be able to catch you and kill you if you invade their homeland.

And you might actually have to think about how you fit your ship instead of just following the masses like the good lemming that you are.


Ths is one of the greatest misconceptions about nano-fighting. That it`s all about "max" speed and all about f1-f8 orbiting on near autopilot.

Nano combat and nano engagements are the most difficult and tactically demanding we`ve seen since eve went online. Fast paced demanding high level of pre-combat coordination, rapid comms and manual flight capabilities. A nano is dead the second he believes he can simply orbit and go for coffee..

Again i bring attention to my post on nano tactics:
http://myeve.eve-online.com/ingameboard.asp?a=topic&threadID=816890

While not exhaustive it does point to several myths regarding nanos.

Back to topic though:
In my original post i do not state that i`m against changes to the speed mechanics, MWDs or ships themselves.
I simpy emplore CCP to appreciate the complexities of "nano" and accept that while it is poorly defined and suffers from several misundersandings (while at the same time deserving some modifications), "nano" and high-speed flight can be and in my opinion is, of great value to the game.

Keitaro Baka
Babylon Scientific and Industrial Enterprises
Babylon Project
Posted - 2008.07.31 15:45:00 - [32]
 

Wrong forum section for open letter, not an open letter at all, thread delivers on fail a lot tho, 3/10.

Close letter, send to iceland, or get to the correct forum section after testing on SiSi.

Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Bellum Eternus


If you're in a ship that can avoid 100% of any weapon and escape combat at will (I fly a HG Snake nano Vaga/Sac/Ishtar/Zealot btw) and don't think it's broken, you need to get your brain checked.


This.


That. A lot.

Webster Carr
Gallente
The Order of the Oar
Posted - 2008.07.31 15:52:00 - [33]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Bloody Love
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
Originally by: Pheonix Kanan
Edited by: Pheonix Kanan on 31/07/2008 12:17:46
Originally by: Bellum Eternus
You have it the wrong way around. Nano noobs are 'Starcraft', 'traditional' players (everyone else) are 'Total Annihilation' players who are intent on playing the game with it's full range of ships and weapons fully operational.

If you're in a ship that can avoid 100% of any weapon and escape combat at will (I fly a HG Snake nano Vaga/Sac/Ishtar/Zealot btw) and don't think it's broken, you need to get your brain checked.


Your HG snake set is a small percentage of nano pilots. And I have seen plenty of Vagas, Sacs, Ishtars, and Zealots (even with HG snakes) killed like any other ship. They are not invincible. It just takes, like every engagement should take, a plan.

Edit: I have seen plenty of other ships flying around eve that are not nano ships. I've even seen nano ships not being flown as nano ships. It's a choice. People just tend to gravitate towards what others are doing, which is why you see so many nano ships. So you can fly the full range of ships, you just choose not to.


I'm on the same set of HG Snakes for over two years now. What is that telling you?


You haven't flown your nano in over two years now? Twisted Evil


Or maybe 14k/sec is broken? Hell, even 5.5k/sec is broken. And this is coming from someone who flies nano ships. Not because I like it, but because I have to since that's all there is.


This last line is why CCP is changing Nanoships: Currently it is the 'only' way to competitively fit your ship. Let's look at some of their changes rationally:

Balancing speeds between ship classes, with smaller ships actually going faster. Hopefully giving reason to fly said smaller ships again. (For example the much maligned Assault Ships.)

Reducing Web speed reduction. Currently if you're in a smaller ship and you get webbed, you're dead... so again the thrust is to make all ship classes useful.

Warp Disruption shutting down MWD. First: This just makes sense, it is a WARP disruptor and it's a micro WARP drive. Second: Now people don't 'have to' fit MWD, there is now a reason to fit afterburners for PVP speed. Note: Several ships will still want to fit MWD, Interceptors can still use them to get in close (they usually shut them down while orbiting anyway.) Long range ships can still use them to keep beyond 20km distance but now an Afterburner frigate might have a chance of catching a MWD battleship...

Bottom line is it seems like the changes are opening far more options than they're closing...

Webb


Miss Rumpelstilzchen
Minmatar
Black Horizon Ltd
Posted - 2008.07.31 15:54:00 - [34]
 

Edited by: Miss Rumpelstilzchen on 31/07/2008 15:57:04
Originally by: Bloody Love

You just don't get it.

The upcoming changes won't be the end for fast roaming gangs. They just won't be invulnerable any more, people will be able to catch you and kill you if you invade their homeland.

And you might actually have to think about how you fit your ship instead of just following the masses like the good lemming that you are.


so say .. why are you for the nerf?.. i think i know it... you can`t kill a Nano HAC becouse u "can`t" hit it, and can run away form you, if he can`t kill you, or even you make to much dmg if u can hit them.
so you don`t make a kill or get killt --> NERF becouse this *whine*

and don`t come with the "but they fly over 10-20km/s" ... they spend Billion into the ships and Implants


//edit:
and well if this nerf coms ... the new uber weapons will nerft soon.. and so on, and so on, and so on etc bla bla ... and after this .. Eve is dead (nerft to dead)

Groknor
Posted - 2008.07.31 15:58:00 - [35]
 

I feel like I have to throw in my two ISK.

IMO intercepters (and maybe a couple t1 frigs) should be the ONLY ships to be able to outrun gunfire from other players. That is the intercepter's role, get in fast, tackle, and avoid turret gunfire, taking minimal damage from missiles. Any other ship that can do this is "broken" as you all say.

If CCP takes away the ability for intercepters to avoid gunfire then what is the point? They have no armor or shields, and barely enough DPS. I can understand taking speed away from, say, a battlecruiser or even a cruiser, but leave the intercepter alone. (with the exception of the guys who go 13km/s, that's redonkulous)

If anyone complains about a blaster-boat not being able to get in range, then change your tactics. Fit rails or fly a blaster ship in a gang where you can support with damage, rather than try and be god with it.

Haradgrim
Systematic Mercantilism
Posted - 2008.07.31 16:07:00 - [36]
 

Rarely do I read a post on these forums that actually convinces me of something, but Baudolino is absolutely right. The game needs to be changed so that the things that are currently broken that cause nanos to be such a problem are fixed, not so Nano's are removed.

While I haven't played much on Sisi and the full effect of the changes remains to be seen, I would have much rather seen a mechanic change that would allow missiles to hit nano targets in a way that doesn't ignore their speed but doesn't comepletely invalidate missiles as a viable strategy (and CCP has stated missiles are intended as something of a counter to fast moving targets). The same is true for tracking, etc....appropriate weapon classes should be able to hit, even if its for marginal damage, regardless of what speed a target is moving at. The key is mitigation rather than avoidance.

What I'm really concerned about is how these changes will affect gate camps, will AB fitted buffer tank ships always be able to make it back to the gate unless they are dual-webbed? I don't know I like that idea.

McDonALTs
Posted - 2008.07.31 16:15:00 - [37]
 

Edited by: McDonALTs on 31/07/2008 16:16:52
Wow. People unhappy that their ships are going to get blown up insted of immune mode.

Eve tactics are all destroyed due to nano. Everyone has to fit MWD for pvp and AB is a comedy option.

CCPs' canges are fantastic since it gives a point to using the AB in pvp. It brings AF's back to being useable as heavy tacklers. Intercepters are to intercept targets in a small group and AF's are tough tackling ships that can take the punishment that BS's drones throw out as well as kill drones easaly etc. Webs get a 50% nerf (from 90% to 60% is a 50% less effectiveness) so intercepters can do what they are meant to do - get a quick tackle and ge the hell out of there as soon as someone else gets a point.

The Game got a whole lot deeper and better. Eve is entering its golden age now that people can have enjoyable pvp and FC's can now use tactics and distace as a tactical tool for sniping and anti-blob tactics

Impolite Andevil
New Dawn Corporation
Circle-Of-Two
Posted - 2008.07.31 16:18:00 - [38]
 

The comments some people are posting in this thread in support of nanos, namely the fact that they evolved in response to cynojammers, the largeness of 0.0 space, the ability of alliances to bubble camp the entrances to their space and thus prevent small incursions, etc. are all actually proving the point that nano needs to be nerfed. There should NEVER be a single tactic that can be effective against all of these obstacles, and yet nano is. It's rock, paper, steamroller, not rock, paper, scissors, and thus the proliferation of the nano gang.

Nano gangs are very popular because it allows a small group of people to get together with little planning and small numbers and invade enemy space with a high degree of both lethality and survivability. No other tactic can do that, nor should any tactic be able to. When an alliance holds 0.0 space, it should have the ability to protect that space against casual incursions by enemy players looking for easy kills. It should be possible to have 30 players set up a couple of bubble camps at the entrances to a branch and be confident that they can protect the ice mining op going on 2 jumps past them against all but a fairly significant attack. However, as things are now, a group of 5-6 people could fairly easily jump into one of those camps, mwd out of the bubble and out of range, and continue further into the branch to attack the op. Sure, if it was a well organized gatecamp with rapiers/huggins, etc., there is a decent chance that a couple of the attacking gang will die, but no other set of fittings would let ANY members of a casual gang 1/3rd the size of an opposing gang in a prepared camp survive.

Nanos are PvP on easy mode. It really should take some thought and planning and numbers to invade hostile space with any degree of confidence in the outcome. It should be possible for a space-holding alliance to protect its space from casual PvP gangs. It should be pretty much a given that if you jump into a bubble camp that seriously outnumbers you there will be a high probability of death. It should take time for a gang to hop 7 systems into enemy space - time for those mining ops and the ratting groups to be warned by scouts and pack things in or change to PvP setups. With any other fit all of those things are true. With a nano fit, all the other players work and effort can be invalidated with minimal effort or risk.

Nano setups have not led to variety in PvP. It has led to a bland PvP environment where most gangs are nano, most gatecamps are not very effective, and the value of both planning for PvP operations and holding space has been degraded. By bringing the changes CCP is proposing, the variety of PvP should return. I fully expect to see roaming gangs of RR battleships. When was the last time you saw that? It's been months for me - lots of nano gangs, though. I expect to see frigate gangs, cruiser gangs, larger alliance ops because you will need a lot of pilots to break into an enemy system. I expect to see logistics, ewar, and snipers all become more commonplace in normal PvP. Tank, gank, ewar, and cap war all become useful alternatives to me fielding my rapier yet again for nano defense.

I am looking forward to the changes. :)

BTW - I can fly pretty much every nano ship in the game atm. I also fly both matari recons. All of those are getting nerfed. However, I also fly interceptors, the other recons, other hacs, command ships, battleships, interdictors, EAFs, hictors, etc... All of those I see as being comparitively buffed since there is again a reaosn to fly them instead of pulling out the rapier or pulling out a nano-hac.

Euriti
Sniggerdly
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.07.31 16:24:00 - [39]
 

Originally by: Impolite Andevil
The comments some people are posting in this thread in support of nanos, namely the fact that they evolved in response to cynojammers, the largeness of 0.0 space, the ability of alliances to bubble camp the entrances to their space and thus prevent small incursions, etc. are all actually proving the point that nano needs to be nerfed. There should NEVER be a single tactic that can be effective against all of these obstacles, and yet nano is. It's rock, paper, steamroller, not rock, paper, scissors, and thus the proliferation of the nano gang.

Nano gangs are very popular because it allows a small group of people to get together with little planning and small numbers and invade enemy space with a high degree of both lethality and survivability. No other tactic can do that, nor should any tactic be able to. When an alliance holds 0.0 space, it should have the ability to protect that space against casual incursions by enemy players looking for easy kills. It should be possible to have 30 players set up a couple of bubble camps at the entrances to a branch and be confident that they can protect the ice mining op going on 2 jumps past them against all but a fairly significant attack. However, as things are now, a group of 5-6 people could fairly easily jump into one of those camps, mwd out of the bubble and out of range, and continue further into the branch to attack the op. Sure, if it was a well organized gatecamp with rapiers/huggins, etc., there is a decent chance that a couple of the attacking gang will die, but no other set of fittings would let ANY members of a casual gang 1/3rd the size of an opposing gang in a prepared camp survive.

Nanos are PvP on easy mode. It really should take some thought and planning and numbers to invade hostile space with any degree of confidence in the outcome. It should be possible for a space-holding alliance to protect its space from casual PvP gangs. It should be pretty much a given that if you jump into a bubble camp that seriously outnumbers you there will be a high probability of death. It should take time for a gang to hop 7 systems into enemy space - time for those mining ops and the ratting groups to be warned by scouts and pack things in or change to PvP setups. With any other fit all of those things are true. With a nano fit, all the other players work and effort can be invalidated with minimal effort or risk.

Nano setups have not led to variety in PvP. It has led to a bland PvP environment where most gangs are nano, most gatecamps are not very effective, and the value of both planning for PvP operations and holding space has been degraded. By bringing the changes CCP is proposing, the variety of PvP should return. I fully expect to see roaming gangs of RR battleships. When was the last time you saw that? It's been months for me - lots of nano gangs, though. I expect to see frigate gangs, cruiser gangs, larger alliance ops because you will need a lot of pilots to break into an enemy system. I expect to see logistics, ewar, and snipers all become more commonplace in normal PvP. Tank, gank, ewar, and cap war all become useful alternatives to me fielding my rapier yet again for nano defense.

I am looking forward to the changes. :)

BTW - I can fly pretty much every nano ship in the game atm. I also fly both matari recons. All of those are getting nerfed. However, I also fly interceptors, the other recons, other hacs, command ships, battleships, interdictors, EAFs, hictors, etc... All of those I see as being comparitively buffed since there is again a reaosn to fly them instead of pulling out the rapier or pulling out a nano-hac.


So basically if you can't bring more people than the enemy you should just bugger off.

Neutral

SauliusV
Posted - 2008.07.31 16:26:00 - [40]
 

Originally by: Bellum Eternus


I'm on the same set of HG Snakes for over two years now. What is that telling you?


Kinda funny, since i did bother to check your killboard...so how much time exactly did u spend in 0.0 with that HG snake set? ;) Correct me if im wrong, but after quick lookaround i havent seen much 0.0 action this year at least.

so what does it tell about snakes and low sec? :) an why exactly u dont spend any time in 0.0 with snakes? They are invincible arent they? :-)

Sauliusv

GeneralNukeEm
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.07.31 16:58:00 - [41]
 

Edited by: GeneralNukeEm on 31/07/2008 16:58:18
Nano gangs are some of the most difficult gangs to coordinate and pull off correctly. Anybody can collect a group of incompetents together in whatever ships they can or want to fly. Trying to get that same group of incompetents together in a ship fit for the kind of gang you are trying to run, whether it be nano, remote rep, sniping, etc is much more difficult. And unlike battleship gangs, in nano gangs you have to do much, much more than sit there and press f1-f8 while locking the primary target.

Anubis Xian
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.07.31 16:59:00 - [42]
 

CCP already tried to make changes to Eve to adapt to the whole Nanofad rather than nerf it, but the results were not exactly pleasing apparently.

If we really want to get back into an age of limited risk after this patch, simply take warp interdiction away from any ship that doesn't require the interdictor skill.

My issue with nano is that it was too easy to run when nobody else has that option...unless they nano as well.

Nano takes variety from the game, it doesn't add to it.

Megan Maynard
Minmatar
Navigators of the Abyss
Posted - 2008.07.31 17:51:00 - [43]
 

The reclassifying of ship speeds was good on CCP's part.

Boosting AB's was a good thing.
Nerfing webs was a good thing.
Nerfing snakes and Polys was a good thing.
Boosting warp scrams was a good thing.

BUT nerfing the MWD as hard as they did was NOT a good thing.

The patch would be absolutely perfect in my opinion if the MWD nerf wasn't so nasty. Nerf the **** going 10 km/s or more, rebalance the ships, but don't get rid of the speed that most fly at and use. (The 4-7 km/s range.)

Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Gunship Diplomacy
Posted - 2008.07.31 17:54:00 - [44]
 

Originally by: Megan Maynard
The reclassifying of ship speeds was good on CCP's part.

Boosting AB's was a good thing.
Nerfing webs was a good thing.
Nerfing snakes and Polys was a good thing.
Boosting warp scrams was a good thing.

BUT nerfing the MWD as hard as they did was NOT a good thing.

The patch would be absolutely perfect in my opinion if the MWD nerf wasn't so nasty. Nerf the **** going 10 km/s or more, rebalance the ships, but don't get rid of the speed that most fly at and use. (The 4-7 km/s range.)


Yeah, but lets see how it works out once they adjust/nerf missiles accordingly to the new speeds.

DarthJosh
DEATHFUNK
Posted - 2008.07.31 17:59:00 - [45]
 

Originally by: Keitaro Baka

Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Bellum Eternus


If you're in a ship that can avoid 100% of any weapon and escape combat at will (I fly a HG Snake nano Vaga/Sac/Ishtar/Zealot btw) and don't think it's broken, you need to get your brain checked.


This.


That. A lot.


What these three guys said ^^

DarthJosh
DEATHFUNK
Posted - 2008.07.31 18:00:00 - [46]
 

Originally by: SauliusV
Originally by: Bellum Eternus


I'm on the same set of HG Snakes for over two years now. What is that telling you?


Kinda funny, since i did bother to check your killboard...so how much time exactly did u spend in 0.0 with that HG snake set? ;) Correct me if im wrong, but after quick lookaround i havent seen much 0.0 action this year at least.

so what does it tell about snakes and low sec? :) an why exactly u dont spend any time in 0.0 with snakes? They are invincible arent they? :-)

Sauliusv



Do you have a snake set?

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2008.07.31 18:08:00 - [47]
 

Edited by: AstroPhobic on 31/07/2008 18:09:30
Edited by: AstroPhobic on 31/07/2008 18:08:38
Originally by: Megan Maynard
The reclassifying of ship speeds was good on CCP's part.

Boosting AB's was a good thing.
Nerfing webs was a good thing.
Nerfing snakes and Polys was a good thing.
Boosting warp scrams was a good thing.

BUT nerfing the MWD as hard as they did was NOT a good thing.

The patch would be absolutely perfect in my opinion if the MWD nerf wasn't so nasty. Nerf the **** going 10 km/s or more, rebalance the ships, but don't get rid of the speed that most fly at and use. (The 4-7 km/s range.)


The mass changes seemed pretty un-needed. Why did minmatar mass get severely nerfed while other ship's masses got severely buffed? Then in some classes, all races' mass was nerfed. Then in others, all races' mass was buffed. I can see an AF fix, but seriously, did battleship mass need to be touched? All battleships got slower too. Sometimes I just really don't understand WTF CCP is thinking.

Anubis Xian
Ministry of War
Posted - 2008.07.31 18:09:00 - [48]
 

Other than Caldari, mass seemed to be pretty reasonable. If anything Minmatar could use a mass buff not nerf after the patch.

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2008.07.31 18:12:00 - [49]
 

Originally by: Anubis Xian
Other than Caldari, mass seemed to be pretty reasonable. If anything Minmatar could use a mass buff not nerf after the patch.


Not only does it put gallente somewhat in the ****ter, it unevens the battlefield even more in amarr's favor. I could honestly say though, I didn't see a minmatar battleship nerf coming. Especially because minnie BS mass/agility wasn't very superior to begin with.

Plus, I agree with caldari. What was it, the merlin that got 1/3rd of it's mass hacked off, and is now more agile than the rifter? WTF?

Terraform
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.07.31 18:18:00 - [50]
 

no cruiser should ever go above 3.4 km/s. And the whole bla bla about inties not able to survive tackling? not true, i can survive just fine on the test server, tackling cruisers, BCs and BSs. The reason for this success is AB, with an AB your sig is low enough to avoid most, if not all gunfire and missile dmg.

I tried this on a setup ares btw, which has both an AB and an MWD on, thus it's able to MWD into range, switch off MWD and apply AB as it goes into orbit.

Anything but rockets had trouble hitting me, well.. light missiles scratched my paint work a bit, but nothing i should be able to survive long enough for help to arrive.

Vaal Erit
Science and Trade Institute
Posted - 2008.07.31 18:23:00 - [51]
 

Originally by: Lyria Skydancer

Yeah, but lets see how it works out IF they adjust/nerf missiles accordingly to the new speeds.


Fixed. Yeah I've been supporting a nerf on ze missiles. I think I am going way off topic, but then again, this is a whine post so there is no going off topic.

Sol'Kanar
Private Nuisance
Segregati0n
Posted - 2008.07.31 18:51:00 - [52]
 

Originally by: McDonALTs
Webs get a 50% nerf (from 90% to 60% is a 50% less effectiveness)


Sorry, your math is incorrect. 90% to 60% is a 400% reduction in effectiveness.

Using nice round numbers as an example:

You travel 100m/s. A 90% web reduces you to 10m/s. A 60% web reduces you to 40m/s.

40m/s / 10m/s = 4 (or 400% faster)

Furthermore, going from 90% to 60% is not a 50% nerf, it's a 33% nerf. Half of 90% would be 45%.

HankMurphy
Minmatar
Pelennor Swarm
Posted - 2008.07.31 19:49:00 - [53]
 

sad state of affairs this is.

OP, good content.

All of you who want to make this into a 'pilot type A / pilot type B' or 'yes nanos vs no nanos' are the very morons that put us in this situation. Your forced to polorize the arguement so that your brains can get wrapped around it.

Sure speed needs nerfed. But the dont need to break the game to do it.

Karl Luckner
Caldari
Posted - 2008.07.31 20:01:00 - [54]
 

Well, I'm not exactly the nanofan, but I think this nerf is a bit to much. Stackingpenalty, change of riggs and the altered mechanics for the tackling gear is fine in my opinion.
What I really don't like is the change to MWD's and the changed inertias. My battleship is out of cap, before it even get's close to maximum MWD speed.
And my interceptor doesn't feel right too. 4.5k is a bit slow. Make it 5-5.5k for my average ship, which will result in 6-6.5k for absolute pimp inties, because of the stacking penalty.

Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Gunship Diplomacy
Posted - 2008.07.31 20:15:00 - [55]
 

Originally by: Vaal Erit
Originally by: Lyria Skydancer

Yeah, but lets see how it works out IF they adjust/nerf missiles accordingly to the new speeds.


Fixed. Yeah I've been supporting a nerf on ze missiles. I think I am going way off topic, but then again, this is a whine post so there is no going off topic.


Well I sure hope they fix it. Theyve said so. It sure is needed, they are slightly OP right now.

Atsuko Ratu
Caldari
Quafe Industries
Posted - 2008.07.31 20:46:00 - [56]
 

Edited by: Atsuko Ratu on 31/07/2008 20:52:34
Originally by: Bellum Eternus

If you're in a ship that can avoid 100% of any weapon and escape combat at will (I fly a HG Snake nano Vaga/Sac/Ishtar/Zealot btw) and don't think it's broken, you need to get your brain checked.


CCP doesn't seem to understand that your setup is not only extremely rare, but also the only type of nano that is too fast. Now, your HG snakes won't even break 3km/s unless you're in a vaga Confused

Originally by: Lyria Skydancer


Well I sure hope they fix it. Theyve said so. It sure is needed, they are slightly OP right now.


What isn't overpowered Lyria? Rolling Eyes

P'uck
Posted - 2008.07.31 21:00:00 - [57]
 

Originally by: AstroPhobic
Sometimes I just really don't understand WTF CCP is thinking.

I don't really get the battleship thing, either. My theory is, they thought the relation of the ships to each other needs to be retained.

But why the phoon gets heavier and the domi lighter is beyond me. I still suspect a typo on the numpad :)

Gimpb
The Scope
Posted - 2008.07.31 21:12:00 - [58]
 

The nerf does seem a bit overboard but I don't think it'll kill the speed playstyle at all. Until now frigates couldn't really compete in the speed game because they'd get run down by HACs and blown up in very short order. Inties can outrun the HACs of course but inties have to be very careful how they engage HACs and a pimped intie is much more likely to go down than a pimped nano, yet the cost difference isn't that much.

So here's to hoping speed fits just change from T2 cruisers to T2 frigates. That wouldn't be so bad at all, I can see AFs coming forth and filling the hole HACs leave behind very nicely with their newfound speed and the dps/toughness they've always had.

It makes sense that frigates should be the top of the food chain for hit and run and picking fights, that's how the game was designed from the beginning, was it not?

Lyria Skydancer
Amarr
Gunship Diplomacy
Posted - 2008.07.31 21:17:00 - [59]
 

Originally by: Atsuko Ratu


What isn't overpowered Lyria? Rolling Eyes


Easy: Amarr.

AstroPhobic
Minmatar
Holding Corp
Posted - 2008.07.31 21:23:00 - [60]
 

Originally by: Lyria Skydancer
Originally by: Atsuko Ratu


What isn't overpowered Lyria? Rolling Eyes


Easy: Amarr.


Shocked


Oh no she didn't!


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