open All Channels
seplocked EVE General Discussion
blankseplocked Dear CCP, RE: speed changes and Interceptors
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

Author Topic

SurrenderMonkey
Posted - 2008.08.05 16:54:00 - [61]
 

Originally by: Tobin Shalim
Originally by: Stab Wounds
No difference between the nano***s and inty pilots, the both try to break the engine by using speed. nerf fixes this. And their whining is epic with such sweet tears.

5km/sec inty is invulnerable to everything get a clue. have you seen heavy missile explosion velocity? gun tracking? lol can't hit a 5km/sec inty if their lives depended on it.

hopefully after the patch you don't have to have your ship perma locked down by a griefer inty pilot


Except there is one critical difference here: a nanoship isn't designed for ludicrous speed, interceptors are. We're not trying to break the engine with speed, we are merely using our ships in their intended role with what we have been given. Interceptors are so damn paperthin with HP that we have to have the speed as our tank.

5km/s inty isn't going to lock anything down. At least not for long. You need to be going at least 6-7km/s to avoid the damage that is going to be rained down upon you, given that you're keeping the ship from going to warp.

From your trolling, I would guess that you have been locked down by an inty before and got nailed by the rest of the gang that came in and beat you like a circus monkey? And FYI: it's not griefing if you're using your ship for the ROLE IT WAS DESIGNED FOR.


What game are you playing, exactly, where 5KM/sec isn't enough to lock most anything down?

khosta
Posted - 2008.08.05 17:32:00 - [62]
 

Originally by: Nova Fox

Last Dev replied said something they think there is an issue with close range ships particularly the shortest ranged of them all the blaster boats


Any chance you could provide a link to this dev post? I would love to see that the problem has been noticed, but havent seen anything to confirm this yet.

Savage Roar
O X I D E
Posted - 2008.08.05 17:34:00 - [63]
 

There is a really really really really simple solution that can be coded by a blindfolded monkey in 5 minutes and will make everyone happy.

Give interceptors an inherent +50% MWD speed bonus bonus. This will compensate the speed nerf they will recieve from loss of 660% boost down to 500% from the MWD itself, and the subsequent stack nrefing of nano and overdrive, thereby allowing interceptors to stay just as fast.

Oh, and before I get whines, itīs not hard to kill a ceptor going at 10km/s. Done it myself a couple times, using different techniques... try sniping them from 150km, or putting a couple speed links in your mids and sending out the warrior2īs...

the point is, even the fastest ships have a counter, and so they shouldnt be totally nerfed. The OP is right, if the changes are implemented in their current fashion, then CCP may aswell remove the interceptor class from the game and redistribute our ceptor SP because it will be virtually completely useless... only good for catching pods with fast lock time, nothing else.

You shouldnīt be able to kill a ceptor with medium-size weapons off a cruiser, or anything larger, when itīs orbitting you. Thatīs just not right.

SurrenderMonkey
Posted - 2008.08.05 18:05:00 - [64]
 

Originally by: Savage Roar
There is a really really really really simple solution that can be coded by a blindfolded monkey in 5 minutes and will make everyone happy.

Give interceptors an inherent +50% MWD speed bonus bonus. This will compensate the speed nerf they will recieve from loss of 660% boost down to 500% from the MWD itself, and the subsequent stack nrefing of nano and overdrive, thereby allowing interceptors to stay just as fast.

Oh, and before I get whines, itīs not hard to kill a ceptor going at 10km/s. Done it myself a couple times, using different techniques... try sniping them from 150km, or putting a couple speed links in your mids and sending out the warrior2īs...

the point is, even the fastest ships have a counter, and so they shouldnt be totally nerfed. The OP is right, if the changes are implemented in their current fashion, then CCP may aswell remove the interceptor class from the game and redistribute our ceptor SP because it will be virtually completely useless... only good for catching pods with fast lock time, nothing else.




Yes, if you do a few very specialized things, it's possible to kill them. The thing is, it's really not that much easier to kill a 5km/s interceptor than a 10km/s one. You're still not, for instance, going to be hitting it with guns unless you're sniping from far out.

Quote:

You shouldnīt be able to kill a ceptor with medium-size weapons off a cruiser, or anything larger, when itīs orbitting you. Thatīs just not right.


Go kill an orbiting 5km/s interceptor with cruiser guns, come back and tells us all about it.

Leon 026
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2008.08.05 19:29:00 - [65]
 

...assuming a 5k interceptor actually orbits at 5k.

Sean Forrest
Posted - 2008.08.05 21:17:00 - [66]
 

Apparently CCP doesn't think that you should be able to lock down a cruiser/battleship risk-free anymore. I know, it's totally not fair that you don't get to be a lazy ass and take the easy job because you dumped money and skill points into interceptors. Just because those *******s didn't gear up their ships to specifically fight intys, why should they have a chance to fight back or escape? Clearly they should accept their fate because you're just a superior person to them because you chose to fly an interceptor.

Get off your soapbox. You had it easy for a while, as long as you didn't run in and tackle a neut-boat, life was golden for you. Now things are changing, life's hard.

Otellus
Imperial Shipment
Posted - 2008.08.05 21:19:00 - [67]
 

Originally by: Sean Forrest
Apparently CCP doesn't think that you should be able to lock down a cruiser/battleship risk-free anymore. I know, it's totally not fair that you don't get to be a lazy ass and take the easy job because you dumped money and skill points into interceptors. Just because those *******s didn't gear up their ships to specifically fight intys, why should they have a chance to fight back or escape? Clearly they should accept their fate because you're just a superior person to them because you chose to fly an interceptor.

Get off your soapbox. You had it easy for a while, as long as you didn't run in and tackle a neut-boat, life was golden for you. Now things are changing, life's hard.


Riskfree? The BS could fit a heavy neut and some warrior IIs. As soon as the neut sucks your cap dry your MWD stops working and you either have to warp or die to the warrior IIs. Or you bring friends to keep the nasty ceptor off you.

Sean Forrest
Posted - 2008.08.05 21:26:00 - [68]
 

Right, so apparently there are only 3 gameplay options in Eve. Fly an inty, fly a normal ship, or fly a ship fitted to kill intys, but not normal ships. Congrats on reducing the game to rock paper scissors.

Look, as much as you guys like your highspeed ships, it breaks down to the same problem as the nanos caused. People only have the choice of fitting to fight against speed tanks, and being screwed against anything else, or fitting for normal fights, and not being able to touch an inty.

Maybe it's a whiners argument to say that that isn't fair to other pilots, but there it is. If your flying around and run into a cruiser, you attack. The possibilities are: He has a neut, or you win. Even if he does have a neut mounted, he only wins if your friends arn't close enough, or if you don't just decide to leave as soon as you realize he has a chance. They don't get that option to run away.

For you, it's chess. A lot of variables are involved, choices and chances based on how good your fit is, how close your allies are, you've got options. For them, it's a coin flip. They are either screwed, or you're going to run, and if you run, they still have to haul ass before you get friends and come back.

Leon 026
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2008.08.05 21:31:00 - [69]
 

Edited by: Leon 026 on 05/08/2008 21:31:12
Originally by: Sean Forrest
Apparently CCP doesn't think that you should be able to lock down a cruiser/battleship risk-free anymore. I know, it's totally not fair that you don't get to be a lazy ass and take the easy job because you dumped money and skill points into interceptors. Just because those *******s didn't gear up their ships to specifically fight intys, why should they have a chance to fight back or escape? Clearly they should accept their fate because you're just a superior person to them because you chose to fly an interceptor.

Get off your soapbox. You had it easy for a while, as long as you didn't run in and tackle a neut-boat, life was golden for you. Now things are changing, life's hard.


Oh here we go. Was wondering when a battleship supremist was going to show up and lead the crusade against interceptors. I know, its totally not fair that a person spending his time, money and skill to tackle is able to tackle some brain-dead solo pilot that things he's safe in a big bad battleship without any escort ships. Clearly, they should accept that because they fly small ships they are inferior to the superiority of the almighty battleship.

Get off your soapbox and bring an escort ship.

Sean Forrest
Posted - 2008.08.05 21:33:00 - [70]
 



Oh here we go. Was wondering when a battleship supremist was going to show up and lead the crusade against interceptors. I know, its totally not fair that a person spending his time, money and skill to tackle is able to tackle some brain-dead solo pilot that things he's safe in a big bad battleship without any escort ships. Clearly, they should accept that because they fly small ships they are inferior to the superiority of the almighty battleship.

Get off your soapbox and bring an escort ship.


So your arguement is that not only should your small ship be superior to a larger ship, but that it should require a minimum of two people to even hurt you? People I might add, which still can't actually lock you down and kill you, only drive you away long enough for them to flee?

That is impressive. And I don't fly battleships you twit.

Leon 026
Caldari
Veto.
Veto Corp
Posted - 2008.08.05 21:37:00 - [71]
 

Edited by: Leon 026 on 05/08/2008 21:37:46
What, are you saying my crow's 68 DPS is an actual threat?

Because if you're including the gang thats behind the inty, then it doesnt matter if a Slasher or a Rook scrambles you. You'll die regardless.


Sean Forrest
Posted - 2008.08.05 21:49:00 - [72]
 

And thats sort of the point of all the ships being universally slowed down in my opinion. I'm not trying to be insulting really, but I just cant fathom how it makes sense to you that enough money dumped into a ship should make it an invincible tackler.

And yeah invincible is excessive, there are a few counters, but they are hard options to fit for our in low/nullsec unless you know you have to. I think its perfectly fine for small fast ships to be able to avoid normal turret fire and cruise missiles. As it is currently however, even precision lights, missiles specifically designed for small fast targets, can't keep up. The smallest and most advanced drones, which use MWDs of their own, can't keep up. Its a mild hinderance for a ship to pack certain drones or weapons, whereas packing neuts and other inty counters really means your screwed if you have to fight another BS/Cruiser who didnt fit neuts.

A better solution might be to bring intys down somewhat, so they are just in reach of precision lights and small level II drones, but make those options harder to fit. Limit some ships drone capacity so they cant pack a drone for every situation, that sort of thing. I can't say I know exactly what should be done, but I do feel that outflying all missiles and drones is excessive

Ekrid
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2008.08.05 22:33:00 - [73]
 

Edited by: Ekrid on 05/08/2008 22:34:26
Im going to say this:

All these nano nerf whine threads (which ironically is the same style and logical procedure when describing the problem as people who whined ABOUT nano)remind me a lot of the days when people had carriers in lowsec and people whined about their immunity to EWAR making them able to cyno out whenever they had a deadly threat to their ship.

note what their whines consisted of;

Anti-whiners - Its not fair, we cant pin them down so they can just cyno out after killing lots of our BSes and there's nothing we can do to kill their ship.

Anti-whiner-whiners - Our ship costs billions! so why shouldn't we be able to try to save it?

As you can see, its no longer carriers but nano-speed ships. So CCP nerfed them, just like CCP added interdictors to deal with the carrier crap.

The line of thinking of the n00b FOTM whoires is that they pay so much money, so they SHOULD be invincible.

When is that ever good for a game? Should people be immune to death simply by paying more money? Its already that way with normal ships going normal speeds when you have webbing BSes killing cruisers and frigs. And you want MORE? Your pointless whines waste forum space. get out of eve.

Interceptors are T2 tacklers, for hitting far targets, and fast targets. Don't kid yourselves, they are doing the job of the atron, executioner, and such, and thats what they're there for. They're NOT some sort of solo I win-or-escape-but-never-die-mobile.

OH NOES! Now you will have to USE interceptors with INTELLIGENCE and TACTICS. Woe to all you.




Ekrid
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2008.08.05 22:41:00 - [74]
 

Edited by: Ekrid on 05/08/2008 22:59:32
Edited by: Ekrid on 05/08/2008 22:57:37

Originally by: IRevolution
note to devs:

If speed nerf on the mwd is going to effect the capaictor penalty.

I see the t2 mwd does -17% cap penalty now.

If this is the case I suggest you make fixes to the galentte hull class 'Thorax' as it's now bonus '-5% to mwd penalty' is useless at level 5.


No, cause you're stupid. its -5 to the PENALTY. Whats -25% @ level 5 of 17% of 100%? go back to basic elementary math ffs.

Where x is total capacitor, y is unmodified MWD penalty to capacitor.
.17(x) = y
.25(y) = z
y-z = a
New Penalty,
a(x) = b

Where b is the final version, with the bonus to penalty reduction at Level 5 which is 25%. I could've added more variables so you could plug in L1-L4, but Im just trying to prove that I know more than you from grade school.

Ghoest
Posted - 2008.08.05 22:44:00 - [75]
 

Originally by: Savage Roar
There is a really really really really simple solution that can be coded by a blindfolded monkey in 5 minutes and will make everyone happy.

Give interceptors an inherent +50% MWD speed bonus bonus. This will compensate the speed nerf they will recieve from loss of 660% boost down to 500% from the MWD itself, and the subsequent stack nrefing of nano and overdrive, thereby allowing interceptors to stay just as fast.

Oh, and before I get whines, itīs not hard to kill a ceptor going at 10km/s. Done it myself a couple times, using different techniques... try sniping them from 150km, or putting a couple speed links in your mids and sending out the warrior2īs...

the point is, even the fastest ships have a counter, and so they shouldnt be totally nerfed. The OP is right, if the changes are implemented in their current fashion, then CCP may aswell remove the interceptor class from the game and redistribute our ceptor SP because it will be virtually completely useless... only good for catching pods with fast lock time, nothing else.

You shouldnīt be able to kill a ceptor with medium-size weapons off a cruiser, or anything larger, when itīs orbitting you. Thatīs just not right.


Good idea or at least on the right track. Inties should be really fast and able to get away - its the trade off for being so weak in all other ways.

As for the minm in general - they need to rework the larger speed ships so they are a bit more well rounded.

DogSlime
Caldari
Wilde Cards
Posted - 2008.08.05 23:05:00 - [76]
 

Edited by: DogSlime on 05/08/2008 23:43:55
The problem with lumping inties in with the nano HAC/Recon argument is that interceptors simply cannot tank and still have slots/speed to tackle.

Other "nanoships" have used the advantage of speed to speed tank as an OPTION. In an interceptor, it isn't an option - you either speed tank, or you instapop.

If you slow inties down to the point where they are rapidly destroyed by any BS fielding Warrior II drones, then the interceptor can't tackle. Maybe it can tackle for 15 seconds before it is destroyed, but that makes it useless.

I don't have first-hand experience of inties on Sisi since the nerf but reports seem to indicate that inties get popped very rapidly now. Guns may have a problem with them, but warriors and missiles don't seem to.

If this is the case, then CCP need to adjust interceptors separately from the other "nano" ships.

Interceptors are the one class of ship that simply has to speed tank. If CCP nerf that too hard without doing something to compensate, then I agree that inties are likely to become useless. This would be a shame. I imagine that some other ship will be able to jump into the role that inties used to have, but it's a shame to make a whole class of ship useless. AFs were considered useless. Now with the speed balancing, AFs seem to be getting a role again, but it's a shame if inties lose their role at the same time.

Tobin Shalim
Eclipse Industrials
Quantum Forge
Posted - 2008.08.06 01:09:00 - [77]
 

Edited by: Tobin Shalim on 06/08/2008 01:31:00
Originally by: SurrenderMonkey
Originally by: Tobin Shalim
Originally by: Lui Kai
Re-read the blog. Look at the chart again.

This is an interceptor buff.

...
We now travel much slower than before (going off the chart, we'll do no better than 4km/s, assuming I read it right)
...



You didn't. Maybe next time you could do a little research (or, perhaps, test for yourself!) before posting an ignorant rant with its basis in false information.



Since I'm assuming you read the thread to get to this point, I DID test it on Sisi. My OP came from reading the figures in the dev blog and being highly concerned off of just that. Later testing confirmed that it's as bad, if not worse, than I first thought.


Originally by: Ekrid

The line of thinking of the n00b FOTM whoires is that they pay so much money, so they SHOULD be invincible.

Interceptors are T2 tacklers, for hitting far targets, and fast targets. Don't kid yourselves, they are doing the job of the atron, executioner, and such, and thats what they're there for. They're NOT some sort of solo I win-or-escape-but-never-die-mobile.

OH NOES! Now you will have to USE interceptors with INTELLIGENCE and TACTICS. Woe to all you.



1. I'm trying to have a civil discussion about this issue, so please no smack. That applies to everyone here, myself included.

2. FoTM? Are you joking? Nano ships are FoTM, double MWD ships were FoTM. Interceptors are NOT FoTM by the simple fact that they were explicitly designed by CCP to be a ship that can lockdown bigger ships until a gang can arrive and kill it. They are T2 frigates that rely on going fast so as to live long enough to not die before their gangmates can follow and blow up said ship. The reason you NEED the speed is to defeat most of the guns/missiles/drones (although I fit rockets to counter) that are aimed at you because you simply do NOT have a tank at all. You're so incredibly fragile in total HP that a few well-placed shots will kill you. It has happened to me before. I have been neuted before, my MWD dies, and I have enough time to think "oh ****" before I'm out of my ship and usually in a clone vat quickly after. Interceptors DO die, but with this patch, they will die in EVERY SINGLE ENGAGEMENT they head into while trying to fulfill their roles.

3. I'm not saying we should be immune to death. Inty's still die, even the fastest of them, while they use "intelligence and tactics". However, we're a specialty role ship that isn't made to die in every single engagement like the cannon fodder of battleships/bigger ships than a frig. We are DESIGNED to be fast, we HAVE to be fast, and we have our role in PvP (and the rest of the game, except as a cute scout ship) GONE because of this. This is not a whine because I'm no longer OMGPWNSOLO ship; I never was. But a frigate shouldn't be beaten by a BATTLESHIP because they're not going fast enough to defeat their weapon tracking.


To ALL: Please do not lump a viable, planned, and released role/ship/profession by CCP along with all the nano crap. Interceptor pilots themselves look down on the nanoship problem. Interceptor pilots are for the nano nerf, but not at the expense of losing the designed ship/role/profession that we all worked long and hard for when it was RELEASED and PLANNED by CCP, and not a happenstance of module fitting+implants.

Idea: Savage Roar had it on the right path. We NEED the nano nerf, but not at the interceptor expense. So we should have a role/ship bonus granted to our speed to keep us viable as a tackler that doesn't die in 10 seconds. By nerfing everything else (implants+modules) it will bring the insane speeds down for everyone, us included, which is a good thing SO LONG AS interceptors have some bonus to speed/MWD's so we become nothing more than an expensive T1 frig since we're easily as poppable as them.

I would like to see other pilots posting some viable ideas, maybe we can get CCP's attention.

Decard Sune
Posted - 2008.08.06 01:52:00 - [78]
 

So Inty's and Nano HAC's will now actually be hit by the missiles designed to hit them and take some damage rather that taking 0 damage by out running them....yep total invulnerability vs missile boats I can see how that's balanced.....

Stab Wounds
Caldari
State Protectorate
Posted - 2008.08.06 02:02:00 - [79]
 

Originally by: Decard Sune
So Inty's and Nano HAC's will now actually be hit by the missiles designed to hit them and take some damage rather that taking 0 damage by out running them....yep total invulnerability vs missile boats I can see how that's balanced.....


This.

Speed tanking is FOTM and now inty pilots come here with their nano-tears trying to justify how they should be invulnerable to damage lol. mwd isn't i-win get out jail free card anymore. 5km max skilled snake implanted inty is quite balanced, they are invulnerable to missiles and drones at that speed, what do you want? cheat codes? lol

ViRUS Pottage
Cutting Edge Incorporated
RAZOR Alliance
Posted - 2008.08.06 02:10:00 - [80]
 

Tbh, if this patch is put onto TQ, EVE is ruined. I bet atleast 50 people quit. Intys have been pretty much destroyed. They are more like AF's, but suck even more. They have no role, they cannot tackle. Afterburner and scram WTF! Thats maybe ok for a ranis but a crow is now totally usless.

This cause people couldnt be bothered to fit a damn neut or web? Cmon... I agree with the HAC nerf, cruisers shouldnt go that fast, but intys should be left alone. Small gang 0.0 pvp is ruined.. Everything will get away... Theres no inty that will get to tackle a Raven cause it will die...

If you're going to nerf nanos, then please nerf faction fit-carebear-mission-CNR tanks that can tank over 1.5k dps. Carebears are the ones who complained about this, no nerf them aswell. If we cant pvp anymore, they shouldnt be able to PVE anymore. Remember like mission runners, we payed lots of isk to get our speed, just like they paid to have their uber resistances and omgwtf shield boost.

Meh. Basically, put this on TQ, and lose ALOT of players and money.

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.06 02:10:00 - [81]
 

Originally by: Decard Sune
So Inty's and Nano HAC's will now actually be hit by the missiles designed to hit them and take some damage rather that taking 0 damage by out running them....yep total invulnerability vs missile boats I can see how that's balanced.....
Obvious troll is obvious but wtf why not as its an easy riposte. Check the post right above you for the reasons that intys are not and never will be considered nanofotm ships unlike cuisers and BS that for the moast part go even faster than intys. Killing inty speed is like having nascar races obey the highway speed limit. Its stupid because they are designed for speed as their sole tank unlike every single other nanofit ship. Kill the intys speed and you kill the intys role. Granted my past stance on permatackle intys was that they were indeed invulnerable to 99% of the ship fits out there and needed a slight tweak to make them just slightly less invulnerable but the changes on sisi make them 99% vulnerable to those same ships. That faaaaar too big of a balance swing for a ship that even with top skills can't kill even a properly tanked T1 cruiser. ugh

Sylper Illysten
Caldari
Ex Coelis
The Bantam Menace
Posted - 2008.08.06 03:08:00 - [82]
 

Originally by: Zeba
Originally by: Decard Sune
So Inty's and Nano HAC's will now actually be hit by the missiles designed to hit them and take some damage rather that taking 0 damage by out running them....yep total invulnerability vs missile boats I can see how that's balanced.....
Obvious troll is obvious but wtf why not as its an easy riposte. Check the post right above you for the reasons that intys are not and never will be considered nanofotm ships unlike cuisers and BS that for the moast part go even faster than intys. Killing inty speed is like having nascar races obey the highway speed limit. Its stupid because they are designed for speed as their sole tank unlike every single other nanofit ship. Kill the intys speed and you kill the intys role. Granted my past stance on permatackle intys was that they were indeed invulnerable to 99% of the ship fits out there and needed a slight tweak to make them just slightly less invulnerable but the changes on sisi make them 99% vulnerable to those same ships. That faaaaar too big of a balance swing for a ship that even with top skills can't kill even a properly tanked T1 cruiser. ugh


So your justification to Inty's being able to easily outrun light misisles and rockets is that they should be able to....

I think there might be a hole in your logic.

If you really want to keep the Inty speed as is then the weapon systems designed to counter them need to be boosted to the point where they cna do so. So far all the threads whining about the proposed chanegs boil down to the following - We might actually be hit by missiles now! That's not fair! NERF MISSILES!

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.06 03:25:00 - [83]
 

Originally by: Sylper Illysten
So your justification to Inty's being able to easily outrun light misisles and rockets is that they should be able to....

I think there might be a hole in your logic.

If you really want to keep the Inty speed as is then the weapon systems designed to counter them need to be boosted to the point where they cna do so. So far all the threads whining about the proposed chanegs boil down to the following - We might actually be hit by missiles now! That's not fair! NERF MISSILES!
Interceptors with the warp disruptor/scrambler range bonus before the proposed speed nerfs = Permatackle vs anthing but a Huginn or Zealot and in need of a rebalance. Interceptors with the warp disruptor/scrambler range bonus after the proposed speed nerfs = wtfpwnd before the gang that was supposed to warp to you can even start alinging vs anthing with a drone bay, light missiles or even medium turrets. Sound like the intys role can be used to even the minimum usable effect? No? Thought not. CCP said the changes are completely dependant on player input for implimentation so here we are stating our opinion. Is it your opinion that intys as a whole class of ship should be tossed in the bin for the sake of reining in the recons/hacs? ugh

Richard Angevian
The Crusaders.
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:42:00 - [84]
 

Interceptors will be more useless than Assault Frigates after this update.

They will be slow (barely 1K faster than a nano HAC if that) have no tank at all, no DPS at all, and their tackling is weaker than dictors/hictors which at least can be fitted to be effective in their role and able to take a full volley of something other than another one of their class.

Quelque Chose
New Eden Roller Disco Supply
Posted - 2008.08.06 04:58:00 - [85]
 

"If guns can't track it that's fine and dandy, who cares about guns anyway? But nothing should ever outrun missiles. Missiles should be UBER. Because missiles are what I use and the entire game should be balanced around my usual loadout obviously.

Oh and I don't fly interceptors either."

Ash Vincetti
Agony Unleashed
Agony Empire
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:14:00 - [86]
 

Originally by: Ekrid

... As you can see, its no longer carriers but nano-speed ships. So CCP nerfed them, just like CCP added interdictors to deal with the carrier crap.



Except CCP DIDN'T add anything to deal with the nano crap. They NERFED nano ships. When they were looking for a solution to deal with carriers in lowsec, they ADDED something to deal with the issue. They added dictors and HICS. I don't see any new ships added to all the races that can "stop nanos on their tracks" - I see an over-reaching nerf that is affecting interceptors too much.

Now, we aren't "whining" about all "nano FOTM" ships being nerfed - the nerf was justified. However, there already IS a ship that can deal with interceptors. Actually several. The Minmatar recons, and to a lesser degree, the minmatar EAFs are BUILT to slow other ships down at range. That means that a single huginn can stop an interceptor from doing their job of tackling a fleet and all he's got to do is stay in the middle of his fleet to prevent that interceptor from coming within 60km.

Furthermore, now the combination of a minnie recon plus a medium range HAC will render an interceptor dead in it's tracks before it can even warp out. And now we have to add gallente recons to the mix of "ohshi!" ships.

So, in order to "Balance" a "FOTM NANO ****" problem, you now have a situation in which a ship class that's designed with one role in mind, can no longer perform that role, because the counters that already existed for that ship type are still in place, and the ship that is intended for that role is now too slow to perform it.

Please note that this thread isn't about "OMG THEY NURFD MY HAC!" It's about concerns with the interceptor ship class, which has never been "immune" - it's always been a fragile glass cannon that doesn't really have any DPS, who's entire role is to be able to hold a single ship in an engagement and prevent that ship from warping out. With the current changes, it can't even do that effectively.

Ekrid
Amarr
Imperial Academy
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:20:00 - [87]
 

Edited by: Ekrid on 06/08/2008 05:23:39
Well, for all these people whine (and how!), they certainly never thought that their sig radius had something to do with it. Try turning off your MWD sometime, you might be surprised.


at BASE speed, classes under should ALWAYS be speed tanking.

frigates tank cruiser+
cruiser tanks BS+

with speed.

Thats how the game is designed. Even highly damaging missiles become like gimped light missiles vs a fast moving inty with L5 in the skill of the ship, thus reducing its sig radius for even more damage reduction.

But lets ignore all this as you have done.


So, then what is the real problem? Drones.

I've been gallente, and I liked using drones, but I always felt that they were ******ed, because it can give BSes the power to field 5 SPECIFICALLY ANTI FRIGATE drones, and its THIS and only THIS which RUINS the ability of Inty.

Large guns have low tracking so this isnt an issue, since your inty should be speed tanking any guns except for destroyers and other frigate, and should be sig and speed tanking ANY missiles.


But let's ignore the real problem and cry about how You need to go so fast as to break the game physics engine that speed runs on. Yeah, lets do that instead of looking at the real issues.

F'ing tards.

Lets look at the most underused ships.

destroyer.
assault frigates.

why? because a BS can house enough drones to be their own ANTI FRIGATE detail, without needing a small ships help, thus noone needs to fly anything else but BSes and maybe HACs.

Sig radius = lock time isn't really a good tanking mechanism vs BSes who have 5 warrior 2s. And isnt this the real issue? that frigate sized vessels are completely r@ped by light drones?

You're saying you want the game mechanic to stay broken in your favor, via keeping you as fast as before, because its ONLY THEN that drones cant keep up and destroy you.

But the physics engine says, and the devs say NO!.

So stop being idiotic and look at the real problem, which is a needed nerf to light drones.


Willow Whisp
Sadist Faction
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:25:00 - [88]
 

Edited by: Willow Whisp on 06/08/2008 05:27:58
Originally by: Ekrid
But let's ignore the real problem and cry about how You need to go so fast as to break the game physics engine that speed runs on. Yeah, lets do that instead of looking at the real issues.

F'ing tards.


Ah, i see. So in an ideal world, you could (at base speed) tank BS AND cruiser guns, and BS AND cruiser missiles, in an interceptor, while doing your job of holding a battleship in a skirmish down, without getting killed. So, really, this whole "If you get hit by a neut and your MWD gets disabled" is a non-issue, since at those (base speeds), you have nothing to worry about, and you should still be safe from cruiser & BS guns & missiles. You should be able to speed tank them, no problem.

edit

Originally by: Ekrid
So stop being idiotic and look at the real problem, which is a needed nerf to Battleships fielding light drones


Fixed it for you. Frigates using light drones should still be effective.

Ishquar Teh'Sainte
Euphoria Released
Merciless.
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:28:00 - [89]
 

Edited by: Ishquar Teh''Sainte on 06/08/2008 05:28:00
@OP:

i'm an interceptor pilot (blasteranis)

and i think you have no ****ing clue how to fly an interceptor.

Zeba
Minmatar
Honourable East India Trading Company
Posted - 2008.08.06 05:31:00 - [90]
 

Originally by: Ekrid
But the physics engine says, and the devs say NO!.

So stop being idiotic and look at the real problem, which is a needed nerf to light drones.




Actually the physics engine only broke when they sped up missile velocity and the explosion radius to compensate for the high speed hacs and recons could reach. Slower cruisers and normal current tq speed intys with unchanged weapon mechanics will not break the physics engine. Read the dev blogs a little slower this time and don't be a f'ing nanotroll. Very Happy


Pages: 1 2 [3] 4

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