open All Channels
seplocked EVE Information Portal
blankseplocked New Dev Blog: Speed Rebalanced by Nozh
 
This thread is older than 90 days and has been locked due to inactivity.


 
Pages: first : previous : ... 110 111 112 113 [114] 115 116 117 118 ... : last (144)

Author Topic

Markas Crais
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:33:00 - [3391]
 

Originally by: Aenis Veros
Originally by: Tzrailasa

A nano-gang can escape almost unscathed even when they make (many) mistakes. A non-nano gang will pay for it.



If you, like BOB does a lot. Fly with 200 people, then of course you will be more sluggish and not have an as easy option to get the hell out of dodge.

But when you fly with tops 8 people all the time, you have to be mobile to survive. Removing that mobility doesn't solve "the problem", it just creates another.

But if those 8 people don't pick nano-ships then? Then what? Well, of course they can bring half falcons and jam the living crap out of a bigger gang. While using 4 damage ships to take their targets out. Maybe this is what's going to happen then for those who fly in smaller groups. Tons of falcons instead. Guess what you will want to nerf next?


/signed

Commander Tigre
Minmatar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:34:00 - [3392]
 

Originally by: Inflexible
Originally by: Haakelen

Originally by: Inflexible
Did you just say that non-nano HAC is useless?

I sure did. There's about three or four exceptions (four if you count alternate fitting strategies of the same ship), but one of those is a feeble exploit at best.

Don't you think that fact there is ONLY one useful way to do things (fit ships in this case) is quite wrong?


This game is about putting specializations together to make a mash and take it against another. You would not shield tank a abiddon(sp?) or Hyperion would you? This is the same thing. Every ship can be fit a multitude of ways but only certain fits work well, or ever great.

John Quicksilver
Caldari
The Caldari Confederation
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:37:00 - [3393]
 

Originally by: Haakelen
Originally by: Inflexible
Originally by: Haakelen

Originally by: Inflexible
Did you just say that non-nano HAC is useless?

I sure did. There's about three or four exceptions (four if you count alternate fitting strategies of the same ship), but one of those is a feeble exploit at best.

Don't you think that fact there is ONLY one useful way to do things (fit ships in this case) is quite wrong?


I certainly do. The fact that the only real way to fit HACs is nano is not the fault of the HACs or the nano pilots, it's the fault of the server, CCP, and blobbing. Treat the disease, not the symptom, etc.



Good sir i would argue that your generalisation about HACs sucking is wrong.

Sacrilige still pwns.
Munin is a great atry boat from what i've seen
Ishtar is still pwn raep
Cerb is immense aswell

Eagle still seems to suck
Zealot is fine aswell, great dps and range
Deimos, not encountered one yet
Vagabond, I have encountered several and discovered it is much easier to bring them down. Possibly a bit heavy handed with the speed nerf there.

As far as i can see your argument that HACs suck is either based on:

You fly vagabonds, boo-hoo, they're a bit **** now, the eagle has always been **** :P
You're flying the other HACs wrong, fitting them wrong and puting them in the wrong situations.


/troll/flame/whatever.

My opinion I spose, nothing terribly important Smile

Mr Rive
Black Omega Security
Pandemic Legion
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:37:00 - [3394]
 

Originally by: Aenis Veros
Edited by: Aenis Veros on 28/07/2008 22:22:58
So those for this patch, do you agree with this:

1. A force that greatly outnumbers another should most oftenly win.
2. A force that greatly outnumbers another should most oftenly stop their target from leaving the battle.
3. A force that greatly outnumbers another should be able to lock down one gate.

Let's say we have twenty ships on a bottleneck gate:

2 x Arazu
2 x Huginn
2 x Falcon
6 x Drake
1 x Taranis
1 x Crow
1 x Curse
5 x Megathron


Scenario A is current Tranq-mechanics, Scenario B is Sisi-mechanics:

Our 5 man nano gang (Huginn, Rapier, Falcon, Ishtar, Vagabond) jumps into the bottleneck gate:

A) Small gang leader realizes that this fight is impossible to win, and tells his group to speed-align and warp off.
B) Small gang leader realizes that this fight is impossible to win, and tells his group to speed-align and warp off. However, speed increase is too small to get out of range, MWD gets disabled, 3 of the "nano-ships" get destroyed.

Under no circumstance can the smaller gang engage the bigger, despite of how uber the current nano-mechanics are. The speed pretty much only guarantees an ability to get the hell out of dodge, an ability that with scenario B gets greatly reduced. Scenario A is still very risky for our 5 man gang. Most would probably not jump through, but at least if we handle things right we can. Scenario B is pretty much a sure-shot way of stopping the 5 man group. They either will have to take a longer route, die, or go do something different.

The thing is, "the blob" of today, with a well setup gang can still handle nano-gangs. Minmatar recons, ECM, etc. is required, but wasn't the argument that there should be more options for tactics? If there is only one way to evade large numbers in 0.0, nano, then the problem isn't nano. The problem is that there are too few options available for small gangs.

Naturally most "huge" alliances disagree. Because having this speed-option available means problems. While removing it is in favour of them. No longer can a 5 man gang get into those precious ratting-systems and kill unprepared ratters, no longer can the enemy evade a capital hot-drop simply by speeding away. This is of course perfect for a 1000 man alliance, protecting 0.0 is made easier.

I think the mentality from CCP here is a simple one, they've resolved the rock-paper bag-scissors game by (simplified) removing the paper bag. Naturally everyone who favours the rock is going to love this change, but not so much fun if you favour the scissors.

The mentality should instead be to add to this game, increase the number of options of waging war. Which the current solution says it does, but does NOT.

This is the one fatal flaw of the current SiSi-implementation. Saying that you want more tactical options is one thing, doing it is another. As it is with Sisi in it's current form we will see less tactics applied and more of the same old "numbers solves the problem".

How this type of patch can go through in a game previously reknowned for it's 'hard core'-sandbox mentality I don't know. But I guess in a way it reduces the load on the database when more and more people realize that 0.0 warfare is supposed to be clinging together in big groups and fighting until the nodes crash.

A step in the very wrong direction, in this EVE-players humble opinion.




But why should they fit like this when they can just all bring drakes? ITS NOT FAIR CCP YOU HAVE TO MAKE NANOS CRAP

Inflexible
Shokei
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:38:00 - [3395]
 

Originally by: Haakelen
I certainly do. The fact that the only real way to fit HACs is nano is not the fault of the HACs or the nano pilots, it's the fault of the server, CCP, and blobbing. Treat the disease, not the symptom, etc.

Nanos are like blobs - some people really don't like to lose ships.
Statement that nano counters blob is quite... not true.

Cancel insurance and blobs will slowly vanish because most blobers will rat instead.
Nanos have nothing to do with it. They only grant stupid degree of invulnerability to tactical mistakes.

sakana
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:39:00 - [3396]
 

"Guerrilla warfare must remain a viable combat tactic."

lol ccp.



Oniko Sengir
Coreli Corporation
Naraka.
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:40:00 - [3397]
 

Originally by: Inflexible
Originally by: Haakelen

Originally by: Inflexible
Did you just say that non-nano HAC is useless?

I sure did. There's about three or four exceptions (four if you count alternate fitting strategies of the same ship), but one of those is a feeble exploit at best.

Don't you think that fact there is ONLY one useful way to do things (fit ships in this case) is quite wrong?


Yes, I do think this is VERY wrong. CCP needs to introduce more than one way to effectively engage larger fleets.

Commander Tigre
Minmatar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:40:00 - [3398]
 

Originally by: John Quicksilver


Good sir i would argue that your generalisation about HACs sucking is wrong.

Sacrilige still pwns.
Munin is a great atry boat from what i've seen
Ishtar is still pwn raep
Cerb is immense aswell

Eagle still seems to suck
Zealot is fine aswell, great dps and range
Deimos, not encountered one yet
Vagabond, I have encountered several and discovered it is much easier to bring them down. Possibly a bit heavy handed with the speed nerf there.

As far as i can see your argument that HACs suck is either based on:

You fly vagabonds, boo-hoo, they're a bit **** now, the eagle has always been **** :P
You're flying the other HACs wrong, fitting them wrong and puting them in the wrong situations.


/troll/flame/whatever.

My opinion I spose, nothing terribly important Smile


Munnin is a SNIPER BOAT. The eagle is the same way even though most people are not willing to fight/play that way. Each and every ship has a role but whether or not you see it or want to play it that way is another matter. HACs are great, expecially when you realize the role and fight that way.

OMGNOTANOTHERALT
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:40:00 - [3399]
 

A welcome change imo, but possibly a little extreme.

Certainly the MWD reactivation is a little dodgy.

Haakelen
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:41:00 - [3400]
 

Originally by: John Quicksilver
Sacrilige still pwns.

No, the sacrilege still does moderate DPS for a missile boat (if fitted with T2 HAM launchers), and can tank gate guns. Otherwise a Harby is better, unless you have no laser skills.

Originally by: John Quicksilver
Munin is a great atry boat from what i've seen

If your 'fun' is popping pods and frigs from 125km. Arty still has awful tracking.

Originally by: John Quicksilver
Ishtar is still pwn raep

No, it's not. The Myrmidon will tank better (either passive shield oh jesus or armor), will have more EHP (either), and is insurable.

Originally by: John Quicksilver
Cerb is immense aswell

If you like sniping with missiles. Read what I said up there about EHP, tank, and insurance.

Originally by: John Quicksilver
Zealot is fine aswell, great dps and range

The Zealot, until they fix the Locus rig exploit, will have use. Hooray for Amarr Cruiser 5 on me alt.

Originally by: John Quicksilver
Deimos, not encountered one yet

The Deimos is the quintessential example of what HACs will be after the nerf. That is why you don't see them very much, they're ****ing pointless.

John Quicksilver
Caldari
The Caldari Confederation
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:42:00 - [3401]
 

Originally by: Commander Tigre
Originally by: John Quicksilver


Good sir i would argue that your generalisation about HACs sucking is wrong.

Sacrilige still pwns.
Munin is a great atry boat from what i've seen
Ishtar is still pwn raep
Cerb is immense aswell

Eagle still seems to suck
Zealot is fine aswell, great dps and range
Deimos, not encountered one yet
Vagabond, I have encountered several and discovered it is much easier to bring them down. Possibly a bit heavy handed with the speed nerf there.

As far as i can see your argument that HACs suck is either based on:

You fly vagabonds, boo-hoo, they're a bit **** now, the eagle has always been **** :P
You're flying the other HACs wrong, fitting them wrong and puting them in the wrong situations.


/troll/flame/whatever.

My opinion I spose, nothing terribly important Smile


Munnin is a SNIPER BOAT. The eagle is the same way even though most people are not willing to fight/play that way. Each and every ship has a role but whether or not you see it or want to play it that way is another matter. HACs are great, expecially when you realize the role and fight that way.


This man has the right idea. Thats pretty much what i was trying to say through the rambling Laughing

Jaabaa Prime
Minmatar
Brutor Tribe
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:43:00 - [3402]
 

For gods sake, stop it CCP.

I've been adapting for years now, maybe you should try just "adapting" the game instead of "moving the goal posts".

After 5 years, the game is fairly well balanced. The PvPers that use nano fits know the risks, and the people they are fighting against know how to beat them.

I can't help feeling that you are now catering to the "nouvel PvP n00bs" that are now actually fighting in FW against real players and not stupid NPC AI.

What you are currently proposing here will ONLY lead to more blobs and that will only lead to more lag. The more lag, the more "lag petitions" and the more ****ed off players you will have.

You have to really make 100% sure that small gang, hit and run tactics are still viable, if not, then you are going to seriously screw up just about the whole the of entire minmatar racial ships, their bonuses and their advantages (as small as they are).

So please think really hard about doing open heart surgery on a game that has been online for over 5 years.

So just tweak it instead and don't only listen to the "nouvel PvP n00bs" that can't handle the heat and should actually keep out of the EVE PvP kitchen.

Aenis Veros
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:44:00 - [3403]
 

What remains unanswered to me is a valid response to the problem that removing mobility creates. How can a smaller gang feasibly compete with a larger group without it?

I've suggested that falcons might be an answer. The problem with that is of course an enemy with access to a vast amount of allies is going to have more falcons. So with that problem, we come to the question again:

>> How can a smaller gang feasibly compete with a larger group without mobility?

It seems like those who argue in favour of the nano-nerf collectively believe that they shouldn't. And I can accept that, I understand the mentality of not wanting interferences in your style of game-play (your favoured 'rock' to the scissor to paraphraze myself). But the real people to ask it to is of course the developers.

What real options, means will smaller gangs have to interfere with larger groups (keeping in mind where combat takes place *)?

* Gates, asteroid belts, POS, stations, safespots, anomalies and hidden complexes.


I am not arguing in favour of having any combat mechanism being in complete favour of either side, but I want -realistic- options for a smaller gang to combat a larger one, not just through engaging a greater fleet, but for a small gang to get inside a bigger alliance's space and interfering with logistics etc. and having the ability to do so without dying 100% of the time as soon as a group twice their size comes in to stop them.

Commander Tigre
Minmatar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:46:00 - [3404]
 

Originally by: Aenis Veros
What remains unanswered to me is a valid response to the problem that removing mobility creates. How can a smaller gang feasibly compete with a larger group without it?

I've suggested that falcons might be an answer. The problem with that is of course an enemy with access to a vast amount of allies is going to have more falcons. So with that problem, we come to the question again:

>> How can a smaller gang feasibly compete with a larger group without mobility?

It seems like those who argue in favour of the nano-nerf collectively believe that they shouldn't. And I can accept that, I understand the mentality of not wanting interferences in your style of game-play (your favoured 'rock' to the scissor to paraphraze myself). But the real people to ask it to is of course the developers.

What real options, means will smaller gangs have to interfere with larger groups (keeping in mind where combat takes place *)?

* Gates, asteroid belts, POS, stations, safespots, anomalies and hidden complexes.


I am not arguing in favour of having any combat mechanism being in complete favour of either side, but I want -realistic- options for a smaller gang to combat a larger one, not just through engaging a greater fleet, but for a small gang to get inside a bigger alliance's space and interfering with logistics etc. and having the ability to do so without dying 100% of the time as soon as a group twice their size comes in to stop them.



Very good point.

Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:47:00 - [3405]
 

Edited by: Sakura Nihil on 28/07/2008 22:48:48

So, the word on the street is that the goal is actually to remove nano, rather than just weaken it?

Originally by: "Kane Rizzel"
Spotted in FD- on SiSi:
Quote:

[ 2008.07.28 21:58:34 ] CCP Atropos > sigh
[ 2008.07.28 21:58:45 ] CCP Atropos > it's simple really
[ 2008.07.28 21:58:52 ] CCP Atropos > when it becomes the de facto method for fighting
[ 2008.07.28 21:58:55 ] CCP Atropos > it needs ot be nerfed
[ 2008.07.28 21:59:02 ] CCP Atropos > simple as really



I'd argue this point. Ask yourself why its the "de facto method for fighting" - is it because its overpowered, or is it because its necessary in the prevalent combat environment?

Or perhaps both? In a lowsec environment, I can actually agree with nerfing it a bit, as there's no bubbles, no coordinated blobs on your ass, its easier to stay alive with a slow ship and fleet - but in 0.0, everything is against you, you need the ability to be mobile or you will die to the plethora of defense options that exist today.

Still thinking you're doing more harm than good with this "let's annihilate nano" approach...

(I still <3 you though, If...Atropos Razz)

Neutrino Sunset
Bene Gesserit ChapterHouse
Sanctuary Pact
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:48:00 - [3406]
 

Would I be right in thinking that even after these changes any HAC will still **** all over any T1 cruiser? And since a HAC is after all only a combat specialized cruiser isn't that really all it should do anyway?

The belief that a pimped HAC should be able to either kill or escape from almost anything else in the game just because it's expensive was always utterly unfounded (and never backed by CCP), and it clearly only did this due to unforseen consequences of certain game mechanics which were inevitably going to be readdressed at some point irrespective of how vocal the player community is about it.

I'm personally fairly critical of CCP's skills when it comes to game balancing. Their changes always seem inelegant, heavy handed, and based on arbitrary and unrealistic mechanics and these proposals are perhaps no exception.

Having said that though (and trying to look on the bright side), I can't help wondering whether if the proposed changes result in fewer nano gangs, (comprised largely of expensive pimped HACs), and if some of that spare isk ends up getting spent on pimped cruisers, BCs or BS for roaming gangs instead, might we not actually end up seeing more, and more interesting, small gang combat than we currently do?

While some of the proposed changes do at first glance seem somewhat harsh, they also hold the promise of new and innovative fittings and tactics, while at the same time all the old speed tanking tactics still exist, but just in a more limited form less applicable to quite as many ships, but similarly the main counter to speed, the web, also exists in a more limited form.

So in the round it all seems fairly reasonable to me, at the very least I'm pretty sure the world won't end if this is introduced.

Certainly a lot of people who were only used to dying very very infrequently may well end up dying more often than they were previously accustomed to. But surely that's a pretty small price to pay if there's even a chance that a bit more diversity can be returned to small gang PvP.






Aenis Veros
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:48:00 - [3407]
 

Originally by: Jaabaa Prime
So please think really hard about doing open heart surgery on a game that has been online for over 5 years.


Truer words were never spoken.

Shinri Kyo
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:49:00 - [3408]
 

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset
Would I be right in thinking that even after these changes any HAC will still **** all over any T1 cruiser? And since a HAC is after all only a combat specialized cruiser isn't that really all it should do anyway?





Why would you fly a 200m uninsurable HAC to **** over a T1 cruiser if you can buy a 40m insurable BC and do exactly the same thing, only better?

Ka'Shodan'Lah
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:49:00 - [3409]
 

**** of with ur nerf bat its not 20/20

Haakelen
Gallente
The Scope
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:50:00 - [3410]
 

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset
I can't help wondering whether if the proposed changes result in fewer nano gangs, (comprised largely of expensive pimped HACs), and if some of that spare isk ends up getting spent on pimped cruisers, BCs or BS for roaming gangs instead, might we not actually end up seeing more, and more interesting, small gang combat than we currently do?


Yeah, because people certainly won't just spam ever more drakes, confident in knowing that any smaller force will pop before their passive tanks start getting threatened, because missiles have no tracking and won't ever miss now.

Sakura Nihil
Selective Pressure
Rote Kapelle
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:51:00 - [3411]
 

Originally by: Shinri Kyo
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset
Would I be right in thinking that even after these changes any HAC will still **** all over any T1 cruiser? And since a HAC is after all only a combat specialized cruiser isn't that really all it should do anyway?

Why would you fly a 200m uninsurable HAC to **** over a T1 cruiser if you can buy a 40m insurable BC and do exactly the same thing, only better?


Quoting this for great truth.

Aenis Veros
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:52:00 - [3412]
 

Edited by: Aenis Veros on 28/07/2008 22:52:43
Originally by: CCP Atropos

[ 2008.07.28 21:58:34 ] CCP Atropos > sigh
[ 2008.07.28 21:58:45 ] CCP Atropos > it's simple really
[ 2008.07.28 21:58:52 ] CCP Atropos > when it becomes the de facto method for fighting
[ 2008.07.28 21:58:55 ] CCP Atropos > it needs ot be nerfed
[ 2008.07.28 21:59:02 ] CCP Atropos > simple as really



Then please ADD MORE OPTIONS, don't remove the one of a few (if not only) way for a small force to do anything against a larger (not just tactically, but strategically).

You're creating a new defacto method instead, blobbing. Which clearly your engine is not up to specs to handle.

Inflexible
Shokei
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:53:00 - [3413]
 

Originally by: sakana
"Guerrilla warfare must remain a viable combat tactic."

lol ccp.




In my opinion, smaller and nimble gang should be able to avoid larger one and pick targets around. Thats guerilla.
But definitely not be able to fly through its position and totally ignore it. Thats stupid.

Art of guerilla warfare is to be somewhere else than policing force is. If you get caught, you should pay for it.

Markas Crais
Deep Core Mining Inc.
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:53:00 - [3414]
 

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

Certainly a lot of people who were only used to dying very very infrequently may well end up dying more often than they were previously accustomed to. But surely that's a pretty small price to pay if there's even a chance that a bit more diversity can be returned to small gang PvP.








The problem is how does CCP intend on doing this by nerfing webs, MWDs, and giving dual functions to warp scrams? Change is good, but it should come slowly, not all at once like it currently has on SiSi.

Commander Tigre
Minmatar
Merch Industrial
Goonswarm Federation
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:54:00 - [3415]
 

Edited by: Commander Tigre on 28/07/2008 22:56:27
Originally by: Neutrino Sunset
Would I be right in thinking that even after these changes any HAC will still **** all over any T1 cruiser? And since a HAC is after all only a combat specialized cruiser isn't that really all it should do anyway?

The belief that a pimped HAC should be able to either kill or escape from almost anything else in the game just because it's expensive was always utterly unfounded (and never backed by CCP), and it clearly only did this due to unforseen consequences of certain game mechanics which were inevitably going to be readdressed at some point irrespective of how vocal the player community is about it.

I'm personally fairly critical of CCP's skills when it comes to game balancing. Their changes always seem inelegant, heavy handed, and based on arbitrary and unrealistic mechanics and these proposals are perhaps no exception.

Having said that though (and trying to look on the bright side), I can't help wondering whether if the proposed changes result in fewer nano gangs, (comprised largely of expensive pimped HACs), and if some of that spare isk ends up getting spent on pimped cruisers, BCs or BS for roaming gangs instead, might we not actually end up seeing more, and more interesting, small gang combat than we currently do?

While some of the proposed changes do at first glance seem somewhat harsh, they also hold the promise of new and innovative fittings and tactics, while at the same time all the old speed tanking tactics still exist, but just in a more limited form less applicable to quite as many ships, but similarly the main counter to speed, the web, also exists in a more limited form.

So in the round it all seems fairly reasonable to me, at the very least I'm pretty sure the world won't end if this is introduced.

Certainly a lot of people who were only used to dying very very infrequently may well end up dying more often than they were previously accustomed to. But surely that's a pretty small price to pay if there's even a chance that a bit more diversity can be returned to small gang PvP.




I think this is a really REALLY bad assumption being made here. A pimped out (single) nano-HAC costing 500 mill (not implants that could put it well beyond 2 bill) should be able to escape a t2 non-nano 5 man gate camp in certain circumstances. And these speed changes DO NOT allow for nano gangs with effective dps. Just because your nano should not dictate you to inties alone. Sure HACs going 8km/s is excessive but this is what the developers have created when implementing 'other' fixes such as pirate implants and such. This is a problem of oversight in the past and trying desperately to make up for it now.

sakana
Sebiestor Tribe
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:54:00 - [3416]
 

hey so i think missiles should be nerfed so ships can still speed tank ok that is all thank you get to it i demand dev reply.


sophisticatedlimabean
Gallente
Aliastra
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:55:00 - [3417]
 


Originally by: CCP Atropos

[ 2008.07.28 21:58:34 ] CCP Atropos > sigh
[ 2008.07.28 21:58:45 ] CCP Atropos > it's simple really
[ 2008.07.28 21:58:52 ] CCP Atropos > when it becomes the de facto method for fighting
[ 2008.07.28 21:58:55 ] CCP Atropos > it needs ot be nerfed
[ 2008.07.28 21:59:02 ] CCP Atropos > simple as really



God forbid CCP allows the enjoyment to continue.........

Aenis Veros
Caldari
Perkone
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:55:00 - [3418]
 

Originally by: Neutrino Sunset

[...]they also hold the promise of new and innovative fittings and tactics



Innovative fittings and tactics become pointless when numbers > all.


Shinri Kyo
Posted - 2008.07.28 23:00:00 - [3419]
 

Originally by: sophisticatedlimabean

Originally by: CCP Atropos

[ 2008.07.28 21:58:34 ] CCP Atropos > sigh
[ 2008.07.28 21:58:45 ] CCP Atropos > it's simple really
[ 2008.07.28 21:58:52 ] CCP Atropos > when it becomes the de facto method for fighting
[ 2008.07.28 21:58:55 ] CCP Atropos > it needs ot be nerfed
[ 2008.07.28 21:59:02 ] CCP Atropos > simple as really



God forbid CCP allows the enjoyment to continue.........


And CCP apparently can't get it into their fat skulls that people are pushed to nanoing because all the other gangtypes get ass****d by big blobs with MS titans and defence gangs using jumpportals.

Si Raven
Posted - 2008.07.28 23:00:00 - [3420]
 

Edited by: Si Raven on 28/07/2008 23:03:11
Originally by: Tzrailasa
[The high speeds] violates one of the rules that was quoted when CCP nerfed WCS. I can't remember the exact wording, but is was something like "Committing to a fight should mean that you can not extract from it without risk!", but this is exactly what happens today. Committing to a fight doesn't carry a risk for nano-ships that is comparable to other ships.

QFT!!

From what I've read, the pro-nano lobby is complaining about the nerf, not how it is being done.

If you weren't around before the introduction of Snakes and Polycarbs, I understand this change may be too much for you. So leave and give me your stuff. Very Happy

If you've been playing longer, just STFU! You had the same issues before and you managed. You can nolonger stay in alliance space and taunt them all night now. As an old 0.0 player, I know how long alliances take to counter roaming gangs. You can still strike, but it will be harder to stay once they get organised. Find another (unprepared) target!

Although Iím not sure about warp scramblers shutting off the MWDs, and it seems blaster boats will need some more thinking about, this speed nerf is needed. Speed makes a mockery of the range bonus Caldari rail boats get.


Pages: first : previous : ... 110 111 112 113 [114] 115 116 117 118 ... : last (144)

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