open All Channels
seplocked Assembly Hall
blankseplocked [IDEA] Less severe nerf to nanos using a new equation
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic

Red Thunder
WEPRA CORP
White Noise.
Posted - 2008.08.03 23:02:00 - [1]
 

Edited by: Red Thunder on 04/08/2008 09:55:36




In my opinion, hacs going 3.5kms isnt broken at all, as they are easily killable. However, 10kms hacs etc ARE broken, so i propose adding a new formula (instead of the current nerf) that prevents ships from reaching these stupid speeds using the following equation:

new speed=old speed-(mass*old speed^(2.45^(1-(mass/10000000000)))*8.6*10^-14)

Yes, it looks complicated and is probably horribly inefficient, but thats what i came up with eventually. It only really affects the stupidly fast ships, leaving normal nano hacs as a viable pvp option still, though slightly weaker. I feel it would be much better to start with a change like this (the nerf scalple), instead of the current plan (the nerf sledgehammer). This also doesnt damage webs and blaster ships.

New ship speeds with this equation added:
(old speed > new speed)

vaga - dual poly single nano
2k > 2k
4k > 3.5k
6k > 5k
8k > 5.8k
10k > 6.3k - this is the ships terminal velocity, so it cannot go any faster than this speed with its current mass, even if you have full faction and hg snakes.

sac - dual poly dual nano
2k > 1.9k
4k > 3.5k
6k > 4.7k
8k > 5.5k

crow - single nano - ceptors arent affected much due to their low mass, making them better nano counters and keeping their role of being fast
5k > 5k
10k > 9k
15k > 13.5k
20k > 17k


This graph shows these changes in more detail, moving from crow at the top, vaga, sac, and raven at the bottom. The peak of the graph is the terminal velocity, so the ship stops increasing in speed at this point. The y axis is the new speed, and the X axis is the old speed.
http://img99.imageshack.us/img99/25/speedgraphiu2.jpg


Once again, I know this isnt a very big nerf, but I think its best for ccp to take this slower and remove one problem at a time, this change removing the stupidly fast ships.



ps. Please dont reply if your a 4 month old noob or a troll, im fed up of people who dont know what they are talking about.

Amy Wang
Posted - 2008.08.04 00:14:00 - [2]
 

A splendid idea in principle, diminishing returns combined with a de facto hardcap (or rather saturation which is more precise I guess?) is a very good option to prevent "ludicrous speeds" as opposed to nerfing an entire form of pvp combat into extinction.

However imho the actual formula would need some tweaking, the sacri is going too fast in comparison to the vaga and same would be true for the ishtar I suppose?

The problem is if you have ships with de facto trackingless weapons (drones and missiles) going too fast they can deliver their full dps while being unhittable themselves, which is a central part of the whole nano problematic. The vagabond on the other hand as a turret ship does not have this luxury, imho it should go considerably faster then any other hac with nanos, how you actually manage that, be it by tweaking the formula or tweaking the vagas stats doesnt matter really though.


Especially

Red Thunder
WEPRA CORP
White Noise.
Posted - 2008.08.04 09:53:00 - [3]
 

Yea the formula has quite a lot of scope for change, but i dont think there is too much of a problem, as atm sacs go 4kms on average, which will be nerfed to 3.5kms, and vagas go just over 6kms, which will be nerfed to 5kms, so the speed difference between the two only decreases by 500ms.

But like I said before, this formula is just a rough sketch atm :)

Opertone
Caldari
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.08.04 12:23:00 - [4]
 

i support, there is no need to nerf MWD class and speed spree in general

Miss Rumpelstilzchen
Minmatar
Black Horizon Ltd
Posted - 2008.08.04 12:43:00 - [5]
 

very good post and idea Red..

for the proplem for other HAC`s, Ceptors they are going to fast for you, maybe CCP can add extra fromula for the MWD speed .. like the warp speed.

so they can leave the moduls untoucht and can tweak the Ship it self and they are not needet to change the mass of the ship.

maybe this is a option too

Sir Scorpion
Black Banners
Posted - 2008.08.04 13:44:00 - [6]
 

I didnít like Nano for sure, but after looking at the test server I think CCP hit it to hard,

I feel that Nano ships as a game play should be an option regarding my personal feelings,
I think Nano ships need to reasonably killable,

I do not agree with the current nano nerf however its too broad, and CCP will need to change many models and ships that will be effected. And god knows when we will see balance.

This idea right here is viable, let intys do there job.

McDonALTs
Posted - 2008.08.04 13:47:00 - [7]
 

Sorry

Your vaga is as fast as a interceptor.

Also, Why would someone use a AB?

CCP's idea makes AB's viable. Your idea does not. CCP's idea makes nanoships commiting to a fight viable. Your idea does not.

Karentaki
Gallente
Oberon Incorporated
Morsus Mihi
Posted - 2008.08.04 13:51:00 - [8]
 

Edited by: Karentaki on 04/08/2008 13:51:29
I support this in principal, however, I think that this could do with a littlbe bit of tweaking. For example, rather than being:

new_speed = old_speed(......)

it should instead simply take this into account when calculating the speed initially, so that ships are still able to be bumped beyond normal speeds :)

Edited for support.

Red Thunder
WEPRA CORP
White Noise.
Posted - 2008.08.04 14:00:00 - [9]
 

Originally by: Karentaki
Edited by: Karentaki on 04/08/2008 13:51:29
I support this in principal, however, I think that this could do with a littlbe bit of tweaking. For example, rather than being:

new_speed = old_speed(......)

it should instead simply take this into account when calculating the speed initially, so that ships are still able to be bumped beyond normal speeds :)

Edited for support.


yea I wanted to do that initially, but i have no idea what equations ccp uses atm, so i had to make do with this. The equation itself can change, its the idea that slower ships dont get nerfed too hard and stupid speed ships get nerfed badly thats important.

Red Thunder
WEPRA CORP
White Noise.
Posted - 2008.08.04 14:04:00 - [10]
 

Originally by: McDonALTs
Sorry

Your vaga is as fast as a interceptor.

Also, Why would someone use a AB?

CCP's idea makes AB's viable. Your idea does not. CCP's idea makes nanoships commiting to a fight viable. Your idea does not.



ccps idea kill nanoships fullstop, so there will be no commiting to a fight. Also, ccps idea actually nerfs afterburners from a 150% boost to only 100%, and they are only useful in rare circumstances.

Also, i dont see how the vaga is as fast as an interceptor. Even with full faction and snakes you cannot push it much past the 6k area, which a ceptor can beat easily. Most the pvp vagas you will see will be 5kms or lower.

Furb Killer
Gallente
Posted - 2008.08.04 18:24:00 - [11]
 

AB stats can and probably will be tweaked further. CCPs idea removes mwd as mandatory item when fitting a ship, yours does not. AFs are also still useless and close range combat = not moving at all due to 90% webs.

steveid
Viziam

Posted - 2008.08.04 18:30:00 - [12]
 


Aleus Stygian
Posted - 2008.08.04 18:35:00 - [13]
 

Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 04/08/2008 18:37:17

Originally by: Red Thunder
ccps idea kill nanoships fullstop, so there will be no commiting to a fight. Also, ccps idea actually nerfs afterburners from a 150% boost to only 100%, and they are only useful in rare circumstances.

Also, i dont see how the vaga is as fast as an interceptor. Even with full faction and snakes you cannot push it much past the 6k area, which a ceptor can beat easily. Most the pvp vagas you will see will be 5kms or lower.


Point 1): Damn straight.

Point 2): He's talking about how fast he thinks interceptors should go. Well, either that, or the 7 km/s vagabonds against the slower interceptors. Something that only holds up when you take implants out of the equation.

Personally though, I'd tweak the factors in that equation heavily. But even then it doesn't quite hold to my idea, because of the mass 'jump' between ship classes. In short though, I want to say that I think that any ship but a 'Ceptor clocking >2,5 km/s is broken, and that we should implement some other sort of defense alternatives, especially against missiles, that work together with speed. Instead of trying to find a 'middle ground' when it comes to speeds, which we won't at this point, because it has to be set too high, and factor in MWDs which have been both hit with the nerf bat, cause implausible ship characteristics, and still give a 500% speed bonus, placing PvP combat on two different levels of speed: 'slow boating' or 'HOLY****WTFBBQ!!!1!one!!'.

Red Thunder
WEPRA CORP
White Noise.
Posted - 2008.08.04 18:42:00 - [14]
 

Edited by: Red Thunder on 04/08/2008 22:26:40
Originally by: Furb Killer
AB stats can and probably will be tweaked further. CCPs idea removes mwd as mandatory item when fitting a ship, yours does not. AFs are also still useless and close range combat = not moving at all due to 90% webs.


whats better, having assault ships slightly better at shooting big targets, or completely removing a very large chunk of pvp and rendering a lot of ships useless

Gimpb
The Scope
Posted - 2008.08.04 19:09:00 - [15]
 

Interesting idea, but something still needs to be done about frigates in general then--they should be considerably faster than HACs.

Red Thunder
WEPRA CORP
White Noise.
Posted - 2008.08.04 19:27:00 - [16]
 

Edited by: Red Thunder on 04/08/2008 19:26:55
i guess you mean interceptors, and i dont see a problem, all hacs except the vaga go 4kms normally, and a standard t2 fitted ares can do 8kms, so whats the problem?

Abrynn
Minmatar
CCCP INC
Posted - 2008.08.04 19:44:00 - [17]
 

Edited by: Abrynn on 04/08/2008 19:47:00
Originally by: McDonALTs
Sorry

Your vaga is as fast as a interceptor.

Also, Why would someone use a AB?

CCP's idea makes AB's viable. Your idea does not. CCP's idea makes nanoships commiting to a fight viable. Your idea does not.


You obviously have no clue what your talking about shuuush as my ceptor goes much faster than my vaga and AB's will still suck and will not be viable at all.....

PS this is great idea Red Thunder
and you obviously did your homework great job

Abrynn
Minmatar
CCCP INC
Posted - 2008.08.04 19:59:00 - [18]
 

Originally by: Gimpb
Interesting idea, but something still needs to be done about frigates in general then--they should be considerably faster than HACs.


Well frigs arent ment to be fast at anyhting but tackling really i mean tbh how long did you stay in a frig?? HAC take alot of training not only that but minm specifically are ment to be faster than the rest. I think that this idea the red thunder has come up with is a great idea and well thought out not a huge nerf but enough to reign in the stupid ones then again if your moving at 35m/s you arent stopping anytime soon beside theres nuthin better than watching them bounce off the gate when your in a rapier :) although after this nerf they are gonna be crap too.... this nerf just isnt very well thought out. It will effect the industial side as well as the PvP side. As they may as well be nerfing minm invention too......

Larkonis Trassler
Doctrine.
Posted - 2008.08.04 22:18:00 - [19]
 

Outstanding idea CCP take note.

DeathsEmbrace
Minmatar
Beyond Divinity Inc
Excuses.
Posted - 2008.08.04 22:35:00 - [20]
 

I like the above suggestion, but in effect ccp have all ready done the above with their rebalancing of the speed curves for the relative ship classes, basied upon the game mechanic equations. the balancing of astrautic rigs incomparison to their parent modules is again another good soultion to the issue, and comforms to the balancing of the speed curves. Lowering web effectiveness supports these changes aswell, by not eliminating speed altogether. Its the rest of the nerph that is the major issue.

1)Scrams completed turning off MWD's effectively removes MWD's from any close combat engagement fits. there is no other module in the game that has a 100% neutralizing effect on another. For example ECM's used to have that effect, now they are chance baised. Even as a middle ground making the suggested effect of a scram chanced baised would be more preferable to completely invalidating a module.

2)Missiles - I don't know how many times I see people mention missiles and defender missiles. At the current sisi speed those ships designed to speed tank (inty's, vagabond, frigs) can avoid or tank minimal damage from any of the other weapon types. Some are more effective with the suggested changes and thats not necessarily a bad thing. Medium t2 drones should be able to catch most crusiers t1/t2, thats why the drones fall into the same base tactics as the races. Valkeries are faster but have less armor/shields, infiltrators have more armor and are generally slower than other drones etc. turrets can be out run at sub 1k speeds, with the aid of tracking disruptors and the rebalanced webs frigs can now survive to a degree in web range can perform their jobs properly. these are changes that will work, however one weapon type remains un changed or negitively effected by the suggested nerph. Thats missiles.

Currently there is only one effective counter measure against missiles. Speed. Defender missiles are broken and don't perform their role well. There have been plenty of suggested solutions to this, from chance baised missile specific ecm systems to auto firing defender missiles, or auto turret missile defense. Not one suggested solution or alternative soultion to the missile problem has been included in this nerph. Effectively missiles will now hit everything without any counter being availiable. the cerberus is the extreme example of this, as it currently stand a cerb can fire of light and heavy missiles at an approximate speed of 8kms with average skills with good skills 10kms. Add to the other bonuses this ship provides and no ship designed for speed is going to be able to touch the cerb. As I said thats the extreme end of the spectrum.

3)Web drones - Gives that nano'ing is so popular I would have thought the first good balancing option apart from the above speed curve adjustment would be to include medium and light web drones. If kept in balance with the other ewar drone specs these wouldn't be overpowered or excessive. New web drone rigs have come out boosting web drone effectiveness, making them a more viable option against nano boats. Combine that with the optimal range module and your web drones will have an effective range, at maximum, of 15km. A viable soultion.

Wall of text over.Twisted Evil Nice one red o/

d3vo
Posted - 2008.08.04 22:58:00 - [21]
 

This is a rediculously GOOOREAAAATTT idea.

They need to UNDO every single change from this nerf and start this nerf from scratch with this concept.

Red Thunder
WEPRA CORP
White Noise.
Posted - 2008.08.05 12:32:00 - [22]
 

thanks for the support guys Very Happy

Krimishkev
GONE RETARD BACK LATER
Posted - 2008.08.05 12:58:00 - [23]
 

I support this idea, but there is other aspects of the CCP idea, that need to be considered... like the boost to assault frigs viability. I been on test server trying out the new assault frig stats. And now, assault frigs, with scram and AB are actually viable in combat. They are able to disable targets MWD with a scram and orbit them fast enough to reduced incoming dps even while webbed. I actually WANT to spend the money on and assault frig now, cause it wont DIE as soon as it is webbed. Understand? With your idea in place and some of the CCPs ideas in place it will make a good combination. Also, boats that are designed to use any close range gunnery and mwd, should have a resistance to the MWD disabling scram, not sure how exactly, but I think that nerfing blaster ships is a huge hit to gallente race, so not sure how CCP thinks that they are evening things out. In my opinion they should leave base stats of webifier alone and give certain ships bonus to web resistance, as well as SLOW broken speed ships down. No reason to have a battleship going over 3.5km/s with HGSnake, and deadspace mwd. Bumping capital ships with a battleship is rediculous considering the force of the impact would most like destroy both ships, in reality. I dont know if any of this makes sense, I hope so! Good luck with this idea.

Red Thunder
WEPRA CORP
White Noise.
Posted - 2008.08.05 13:16:00 - [24]
 

Originally by: Krimishkev
I support this idea, but there is other aspects of the CCP idea, that need to be considered... like the boost to assault frigs viability. I been on test server trying out the new assault frig stats. And now, assault frigs, with scram and AB are actually viable in combat. They are able to disable targets MWD with a scram and orbit them fast enough to reduced incoming dps even while webbed. I actually WANT to spend the money on and assault frig now, cause it wont DIE as soon as it is webbed. Understand? With your idea in place and some of the CCPs ideas in place it will make a good combination. Also, boats that are designed to use any close range gunnery and mwd, should have a resistance to the MWD disabling scram, not sure how exactly, but I think that nerfing blaster ships is a huge hit to gallente race, so not sure how CCP thinks that they are evening things out. In my opinion they should leave base stats of webifier alone and give certain ships bonus to web resistance, as well as SLOW broken speed ships down. No reason to have a battleship going over 3.5km/s with HGSnake, and deadspace mwd. Bumping capital ships with a battleship is rediculous considering the force of the impact would most like destroy both ships, in reality. I dont know if any of this makes sense, I hope so! Good luck with this idea.



yea assault ships pwn now :) i just ****d a zealot in my jag using that tactic on test server. I agree that other aspects of ccps idea need to be added too. Personally I would give AFs a web resistance, id give the pilgrim the same range as the curse, and id increase the lachesis and arazus damp bonus from 5% to 10%.

And also, with this equation these stupid speed battleships arent useable, a mach can only do around 2.5kms tops now.

Aleus Stygian
Posted - 2008.08.05 17:50:00 - [25]
 

Originally by: Red Thunder
Originally by: Krimishkev
I support this idea, but there is other aspects of the CCP idea, that need to be considered... like the boost to assault frigs viability. I been on test server trying out the new assault frig stats. And now, assault frigs, with scram and AB are actually viable in combat. They are able to disable targets MWD with a scram and orbit them fast enough to reduced incoming dps even while webbed. I actually WANT to spend the money on and assault frig now, cause it wont DIE as soon as it is webbed. Understand? With your idea in place and some of the CCPs ideas in place it will make a good combination. Also, boats that are designed to use any close range gunnery and mwd, should have a resistance to the MWD disabling scram, not sure how exactly, but I think that nerfing blaster ships is a huge hit to gallente race, so not sure how CCP thinks that they are evening things out. In my opinion they should leave base stats of webifier alone and give certain ships bonus to web resistance, as well as SLOW broken speed ships down. No reason to have a battleship going over 3.5km/s with HGSnake, and deadspace mwd. Bumping capital ships with a battleship is rediculous considering the force of the impact would most like destroy both ships, in reality. I dont know if any of this makes sense, I hope so! Good luck with this idea.



yea assault ships pwn now :) i just ****d a zealot in my jag using that tactic on test server. I agree that other aspects of ccps idea need to be added too. Personally I would give AFs a web resistance, id give the pilgrim the same range as the curse, and id increase the lachesis and arazus damp bonus from 5% to 10%.

And also, with this equation these stupid speed battleships arent useable, a mach can only do around 2.5kms tops now.


Now you're talking, at last.

Still, I think that more of a general speed reduction (for missiles too, but not as much) and introducing some alternatives for ECM to affect missiles would be good. It's more and less drastic measures all together that will balance the game out, instead of tip the scales forth and back and forth and back...

Also, Machariel going at 2.5 km/s is still WTFBBQ!!?!

Red Thunder
WEPRA CORP
White Noise.
Posted - 2008.08.05 18:11:00 - [26]
 

na i doubt anybody would fly one that went that slow lol, too easy to catch and not exactly cheap :)

Aleus Stygian
Posted - 2008.08.05 18:26:00 - [27]
 

Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 05/08/2008 18:26:20
Originally by: Red Thunder
na i doubt anybody would fly one that went that slow lol, too easy to catch and not exactly cheap :)


Well, maybe, but only for as long as everyone flies Drakes and Sacrileges. F*ck that.

Combat-wise though, it's still way too dramatic a speed. I, personally, want to see tactics. That does not include everyone with an MWD being able to fly around and be everywhere in a fleet battle, or mess things up in a 1v1, so damn easily. You should have to think and plan.

Miss Rumpelstilzchen
Minmatar
Black Horizon Ltd
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:06:00 - [28]
 

bumb for a good idea

eliminator2
Gallente
Vindicated Blast.

Posted - 2008.08.06 09:29:00 - [29]
 

i think ur idea has to be the best

just to disapointing CCP dnt listen to the players even though we r smarter than them even if we havent or have got the degreese to say we have past the course or crap like that lol :D

eliminator2
Gallente
Vindicated Blast.
Posted - 2008.08.06 09:41:00 - [30]
 

Edited by: eliminator2 on 06/08/2008 09:42:52
Quote:
1)Scrams completed turning off MWD's effectively removes MWD's from any close combat engagement fits. there is no other module in the game that has a 100% neutralizing effect on another. For example ECM's used to have that effect, now they are chance baised. Even as a middle ground making the suggested effect of a scram chanced baised would be more preferable to completely invalidating a module.


first of no one cares that people use MWD's for close range there fitted so we can catch up to more faster ships and get to snipers easyeir i for one dont want to fit a AB and go like 200 m/s or less to get to a sniper or something else and second the complaints were about NANO'S NOT CLOSE RANG so y bring close range ships into this? and what about ships like diemos that gets bonuses to MWD u might as well get ride of that bonus since the scram will get rid of it and it very rare u see any NANO/INTY get in range of 10km for a web so how will a 7,500km scram with the effect of turning mwd's of affect nano's and they still have base speed of wat 200-300 m/s and they nanos r sure to carry a scram incase they r stupid to get cought in one.

and drones allready get destroyed by nanoers so y boost them to catch the nano's since there just going to be destroyed anyway


Pages: [1] 2

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