|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 15 post(s) |
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 14:06:00 -
[1]
Dear Fail PvP-alliances, you will still fail after the nano-nerf. Don't get your hopes up. (*choke* HYDRA *choke*)
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 16:02:00 -
[2]
Originally by: Gypsio III
You'll still be able to dictate range. You'll still have the buffer to take considerable fire. You'll still be able to disengage at will.
Unless there's an Arazu in the enemy's gang. Then you'll sit still and die. Wonderful act of balancing.
Quote:
You'll still whine.
You'll still be clueless.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 16:13:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Hoshino Rika
Originally by: Aenis Veros
Unless there's an Arazu in the enemy's gang. Then you'll sit still and die. Wonderful act of balancing.
Dear sir, now you die when there is huggin rapier in gang, with far greater range on T1 than faction ( domination! ) fitted arazu
Dear clueless alt, a web is not a scram. If you're webbed outside scramrange currently, you can warp off. The wonderful new Arazu does the job of the minmatar recon AND the gallente recon. Way to make ships obsolete. CCP sure knows their stuff.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 16:50:00 -
[4]
I wonder what would happen if they introduced an 'idea'-BLOG with a list of "ideas" that would:
1. Make so cruise missiles went at max 40km away from the ship and had the flight-time of torpedoes. 2. Removed 2 midslots from the Raven. 3. Made so missions in high-sec didn't drop any loot, and wrecks couldn't be salvaged. 4. Made so missions in high-sec gave 1/4:th of their current ISK-payouts. 5. Made so insurance on caldari ships was no longer possible. 6. Increased the mineral-cost on t2 heavy missile launchers. 7. Made SPR2's cost 10mil each (again by manipulating the BP-values). 8. Removed sentry guns from low-sec gates, and made so anyone could warp into anyone's mission anytime. 9. Made so that the falcon only could jam other caldari ships.
And in this devblog they said: "5 of us were sitting and discussing the carebear-problem, and these are some ideas we will introduce to Sisi on monday".
You think that any "Well look at it on Sisi before you make a judgment"-remarks would work against that onslaught of whines? Especially if some dev said "Well, I have a high-grade crystal set on this raven and it still tanks quite nicely".
Really, CCP. Get a hold of yourself and shake until whatever screw is lose falls out so you then can proceed to re-attach it properly.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 17:13:00 -
[5]
How about keeping everything as-is and just changing the warp-scrambler into an anti-MWD module, eg with scripts:
Warp Scrambler, changes from a continual-effect module to a "stop"-module (think manual mode with a long reactivation timer): a) -50% range (5km with t2), Disables MWD b) +50% range,(15km with t2), Reduces target MWD-speed by 90% instantly c) Unscripted, -80% range (2km with t2), Disables MWD & Reduces target MWD-speed by 50% instantly.
It no longer stops any ships from warping away, it's 100% designed to stop MICROWARPDRIVES. Make it have a 20 second delay before it can be used again.
The scrambler in this case isn't a continual point, but a stop-module. You use it on one target, it can still warp away, but it's designed to work against nano-ships. It's very short-range so you either have to get up close and personal, or be in an Arazu.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 17:18:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Entelechia
We have something like this already. We call them stasis webifiers. In fact, we even have ships that are really good at catching nanoships and stopping them cold. They are called the Rapier and the Huginn.
No, stasis webifiers slow a ship down, and do not disable your module. What I propose here is a module that stops you dead in the water and disables your MWD at very short range, or scripted does either effect.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 17:52:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Tillakna About time, much respect CCP!
...now time to go back to our old days pvping, yarr!
Old days pvping? You've had 100 kills in your entire EVE-life, that's what some of us do in a month. GTFO. You can have your mining and ratting, just let us keep our damn nanoboats.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 17:55:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Call'Da Poleece QFT ... I could flush the toilet with the amount of tears in this thread. By the looks of it almost all of Pathetic Legion will be unsubscribing in a couple of months... oh the joy
How about you post with your carebear alliance ratting main instead?
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 18:20:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Moon Kitten
- False dilemma (false dichotomy): where two alternative statements are held to be the only possible options, when in reality there are several.
Example: There are only two states of combat in Eve:
- the current state of balanced nanospeeds
or
- the proposed ridiculous nanonerf
This is not true, it is in fact false. There are far more than two types of combat scenarios in Eve. Eve is not black or white, it is gray.
CCP made the right decision in the first place, and it doesn't need to be changed.
fixed
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 18:23:00 -
[10]
Originally by: TheAdj
CRUISE MISSILES. Have you ever tried to kill ratters in a HAC? Yea, it's pretty hard unless you can go just fast enough to not get hit by cruises. With this change, that disappears. Cruises are a battleship weapon, and with this change ratting ravens (which everyone knows is the most common PVE ship, be it in 0.0 or in empire running L4 missions) will roll all over any roaming HAC.
Not to mention drakes or cerberuses with heavy missiles.
|
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.25 21:42:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Bobby Atlas
The changes in the mentioned dev blog will make it so that 'speed tanking fleet battles' can not happen where you just swoop in at obscene speeds into groups of hostiles - do damage to target x and run away at obscene speeds. It will actually require some tactical thinking now which is perhaps just a bit too much work for some people.
You mean to say that the 'groups of hostiles' didn't have ECM, NEUTS, WEBS or fast ships of their own? Don't say there isn't any tactics involved just because you don't know how to counter nanos.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 20:08:00 -
[12]
This is some Mickey Mouse BS. You went from making the MWD the most used module to making it basically useless. If you wanted more counters against nano, then add more counters - don't nerf tons of ships. Just make missiles a tad better, keep the arazu-change and boost some tracking.
Honestly Nozh, stop defending this sinking ship of an idea, it's full of holes and you need to get back to the drawing board.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 20:30:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Aenis Veros on 28/07/2008 20:35:26 CCP, I want you to test these things:
1. 5 guys in Vagabond, Ishtar, Falcon, Rapier, Huginn go through a 0.0 gatecamp with a bubble and 20:ish ships. Pre-patch they can get into 0.0 with a very small chance of dying. Why is this important? It is important because it gives a small gang the chance of getting into hostile space and doing guerrilla warfare.
Questions:
a) Is the intention that a defending gang of 20 should always win in this scenario? Eg. if they have one or two arazu, should that be the end of anyone trying to get through? Eg. place sensor-boosted arazu's on 0 at the gate and activate mod = dead nano ships = end of guerrilla?
b) If that is the intention, then please provide me how you mean that guerrilla warfare is still possible? Eg. small gang can engage a bigger gang or at least get away from it? How is it, do you say that this tactic would still be viable? From my tests the Arazu is the new ship that you HAVE to have in a gang. Seems imbalanced.
c) If that is not the intention, then at the very least provide nano ships with a module to stop one scram from disabling your MWD.
2. Have 4 nanoships engage 4 drakes on a gate, using the current transversal & speed mechanics. When we tried it, it resulted in four very dead nanoships because at no time did the speed provide enough protection versus the missiles for the four nano ships to do anything against the 4 drakes. With four cerberuses it was even worse. And if we removed one drake and replaced it with an Arazu, it was extremely one-sided. To us it seemed as though you now want very predictable warfare. Whoever puts the most missile ships on a gate, wins. How is this a more tactical option?
Having a falcon coming along with the nano-gang didn't work either, as soon as the falcon uncloaked we managed to jam the Arazu, but the drakes loaded F.O.F's which made the falcon go popsicle, and with the setups we had to use to gain any speed there was simply not enough damaged caused by our nano-ships to bust the camp. In one trial we managed to kill the Arazu (losing the falcon), but then we had to get away. If it had been a 20 man gatecamp there would be a 90-95% chance of all of us dying. Making big gatecamps the be-all-end-all of controlling space and stopping small incursions.
You may wish to evade this empiric evidence all you want, I am warning you. The causality of this change actually goes against what you intend to accomplish. You wish the warfare to become less predictible. More tactical, and keep the option of guerrilla warfare.
It is my conclusion that the patch in it's current form very much goes against that intent, and instead breaks the option for smaller groups to have a viable way of at the very least get away from "the blob".
----
Here are some of the ideas from the test-group:
a) Make so that all 0.0-gates you decloak at a 30km distance from the gate. This way it will be more difficult to plug the gates and leaves room for smaller gangs to get through still.
b) Add a module that "protects" the MWD. From getting Arazu'd (eg. stops the anti-MWD effect).
c) Keep nano the way it is, but make it so while an MWD is activated you are unable to target anything. Provide all interceptors+assault ships with a bonus that evades this change.
d) Change the webs, but make the rapier & arazu instead of a target painting bonus have a web amount bonus. Add this bonus to the Bellicose as well, making the bellicose slightly less useless
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:44:00 -
[14]
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.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:48:00 -
[15]
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.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:52:00 -
[16]
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.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 22:55:00 -
[17]
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.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 23:07:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Aenis Veros on 28/07/2008 23:08:48 Edited by: Aenis Veros on 28/07/2008 23:08:16
Originally by: Si Raven If you've been playing longer, just STFU! You had the same issues before and you managed.
You mean when every ship could fit ECM and NOS was standard-issue on any ship, and damage mods weren't stacknerfed, peak players on Tranq was around 10,000 or when you could fit multiple AB:s and MWD:s, or when even a small group could pop a ship in 5 seconds because it was before the HP-buff. Your argument is the same as Nozh's, and it sucks since the game was completely different then. (If you really were around at that time you would realize it, dear Steam-playing faction warfare loving 3 month old troll-jockey).
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 23:30:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Si Raven
Not all those nerfs happen after the intro of snakes and polycarbs, so don't go from 1 extreme to another.
No, they happened before the introduction of polycarbs, and most of them before snakes. Like I said, the game was very different before polycarbs and snakes (thanks for repeating my argument for me).
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 23:38:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Jaabaa Prime
I think that long time players should have at least equal say and not have to endure "STFU" abuse from the likes of yourself.
I'm all for adjusting the game and making changes to it, otherwise I wouldn't still be here after over 5 years.
But what CCP is proposing here is not adjusting so that people can adapt, they are talking about a serious change in game mechanics. Sometimes, after investing literally years of training in the game, you have to draw a line as to what is adapting to game development and what is simply an over reactionary response to forum whines.
EVE is a cold and dark place, get used to having people, that have the skills to do things that you can't do yet, kill you.
You should adjust to PvP life, not the PvPers being *FORCED* to adjust so that you can grow a pair and finally fight another player like he is an NPC.
EVE is about thinking about how to attack, defend and generally getting ahead in the game. The operative word being "think". If you can't do that, then EVE probably isn't your game because other players in EVE don't think like CCP's AI NPCs, so adapt from your NPC ways.
Wisdom, my man.
I just think there should be added options, for instance there is nothing wrong with this chain of thought:
* Let's increase the usefulness of the afterburner in PvP. * Let's improve upon the ability of the Arazu. * Let's make nano's not be the one option for PvP.
They are all solid reasons, but the solution was just :facepalm:
Increasing opportunities for PvP by removing an option of how to do it is totally wrong in my opinion. Make the others at least as viable. How about working with buffing other things instead of nerfing things? For instance by making Black Ops. battleships move ANY ship with them with their jump portal? Or by creating several ways of getting through a blob other than speed. For instance, the ability to make you use an afterburner while cloaked. (Think about it, if you have an MWD on your rapier you can't move quickly while cloaked - and it would make the Pilgrim more fun as well).
It's just innovative thinking and making IMPROVEMENTS that get people positive. While CCP currently is working in a very negative fashion of nerfing things. Of course it's gonna **** people off. Who gets ****ed off if you decide to increase several ships ability to deal with not only nano, but with other ways of doing combat too?
I think there has been a little too little use of imagination in this patch. Are the devs seriously this unimaginative? =/
|
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 23:48:00 -
[21]
Over 3400 posts have been made as feedback, and it seems that player feedback really isn't that important anymore unless it's in favor of what CCP is doing. Well, it's their game, and I obviously pay for it (and likely will continue to). I will adapt by changing the way I play the game and accept the inevitable consequences of what they're doing. And I think most of us will.
But I think that the sacrifice made will have lasting effects that I have no clue about right now, but my best guess is that they will make the game less fun, and promote a type of game play that it actually was made to combat (one-sided cookie cutter PvP).
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.28 23:49:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Si Raven Maybe I need to get some sleep
Probably :), PvP was way different then because there were other options in combat that aren't available anymore.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 04:14:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Evil Pookie I think its safe to assume at this point that noone is reading this thread. Especially not anyone from ccp. But keep the bitter tears flowing, it amuses me
Why would they read it? They wouldn't have made the code and put it on Sisi if they weren't intending to put it on Tranquility. Maybe with a slight figure change in one or two modules. I have never seen CCP roll out an announced patch on Sisi that didn't make it to Tranquility at least 90% the same as announced.
Buy lots of named webs and start trashing those polycarbons gentlemen.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 13:27:00 -
[24]
Guys, give up. CCP has already put this thread on ignore and are going to do things the SOE way.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.29 16:05:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Sakura Nihil Where's this new Nozh post btw?
Nowhere, CCP are ignoring this thread and only saying things on Sisi.
Unfortunately that means that they *could* just deny anything like that.
From what I understand is that this patch will go ahead as announced and tweaking will be done over the next months.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 11:17:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Call'Da Poleece
Originally by: Miss Rumpelstilzchen so a Warp Disruptor are effectiv on the WarpDrive, and the Warp scrammler are effective on the WarpDrive and MwD,
scram just shuts down the mwd, you can warp out when scrammed, disruptor stops you warping out
Dear readers, don't read the above post as it contains false information.
Warp Scramblers now put 2 points of scram and disable MWD.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 23:42:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Andnowthenews Edited by: Andnowthenews on 30/07/2008 22:28:33 We have tested:
1. NANO VS snipers....snipers owned.
2. NANO VS battle cruisers/hacs and recons(general mix tbh)..mixed fleet owned.
3. NANO VS RR bs....rr bs fleet owned.
4. NANO VS Other nano (although im not sure why)...lol.
Conventionally Tanked hacs/recons/BS vs a mixed gang of BC....mixed gang of BC owned.
5. Conventionally Tanked hacs vs a mixed gang of BC....mixed gang of BC owned.
All nano ships had HG snakes and were T2 fitted and had a claymore in gang.
In all of the serious tests the hacs lost all if not 90% of there fleet while the other ships lost nothing in also virtually all casses.
And in all cases we made it so the gangs were of similar size (10-20 SHIPS ON EACH SIDE) a consideration that i doubt many defending alliances will follow.
The guys assigned as the "hacs/roaming gang" eventually got p*ssed off and hot dropped the assigned "defender team" with a large fleet of RR bs and carriers.
Your post is really unclear, do you mean to say that NANOships owned the RR BS gangs etc.? How in the hell did you have a mixed gang without a huginn/rapier/curse/neut-ship and lost to a nano-gang? Dear Sir if that is the case you simply suck at tactics.
If your post means to imply the opposite, then you just need to learn how to write more clearly.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 23:42:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Andnowthenews Edited by: Andnowthenews on 30/07/2008 22:28:33 We have tested:
1. NANO VS snipers....snipers owned.
2. NANO VS battle cruisers/hacs and recons(general mix tbh)..mixed fleet owned.
3. NANO VS RR bs....rr bs fleet owned.
4. NANO VS Other nano (although im not sure why)...lol.
Conventionally Tanked hacs/recons/BS vs a mixed gang of BC....mixed gang of BC owned.
5. Conventionally Tanked hacs vs a mixed gang of BC....mixed gang of BC owned.
All nano ships had HG snakes and were T2 fitted and had a claymore in gang.
In all of the serious tests the hacs lost all if not 90% of there fleet while the other ships lost nothing in also virtually all casses.
And in all cases we made it so the gangs were of similar size (10-20 SHIPS ON EACH SIDE) a consideration that i doubt many defending alliances will follow.
The guys assigned as the "hacs/roaming gang" eventually got p*ssed off and hot dropped the assigned "defender team" with a large fleet of RR bs and carriers.
Your post is really unclear, do you mean to say that NANOships owned the RR BS gangs etc.? How in the hell did you have a mixed gang without a huginn/rapier/curse/neut-ship and lost to a nano-gang? Dear Sir if that is the case you simply suck at tactics.
If your post means to imply the opposite, then you just need to learn how to write more clearly.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 23:44:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Wizzkidy LOL just LOL - I bet EVERY SINGLE pilot that has moaned about these changes either has a set of snakes in there head or fly nano's on a regular basis - dont deny it :D
LOL I bet you are a clueless carebear who have no idea how to counter nanoships and cry nerf when your inability to perform reaches critical. Don't deny it.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.07.30 23:44:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Wizzkidy LOL just LOL - I bet EVERY SINGLE pilot that has moaned about these changes either has a set of snakes in there head or fly nano's on a regular basis - dont deny it :D
LOL I bet you are a clueless carebear who have no idea how to counter nanoships and cry nerf when your inability to perform reaches critical. Don't deny it.
|
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Alphaflight
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 18:07:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Aenis Veros on 31/07/2008 18:08:02
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Synapse Archae Terrible change. ALL your most highly skilled PVPers are nano pilots. We love it, we think it's balanced fine.
What an excessively GOOD argument FOR the nano nerf! You're just demonstrating that you all KNOW that nano'ing ships are overpowered too. Otherwise, why are you ALL flying them????
Sorry, but you just pointed a BIG shotgun at the pro-nano teams foot!
No, not really. The reason that NANO is used by a lot of people is the same reason why missiles are used by a lot of people, or ECM, or trimarked plate tanks. If we had a massive nerf to "passive" armor tanks and removed slaves and introduced stacking to plates and made remote-reps less effective (including remote armor drones) it would be the same amount of whine. Why? Because they're all effective tactics for PvP.
The reason why there is such extra resistance about NANO is because NANO-ships is one (if not the only) way for a small gang to NOT ALWAYS GET CAUGHT by blobs. There simply isn't any other effective means to avoid blobs if you want to eg. get through bottlenecks.
|
Aenis Veros
Caldari Perkone
|
Posted - 2008.07.31 18:07:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Aenis Veros on 31/07/2008 18:08:02
Originally by: Kerfira
Originally by: Synapse Archae Terrible change. ALL your most highly skilled PVPers are nano pilots. We love it, we think it's balanced fine.
What an excessively GOOD argument FOR the nano nerf! You're just demonstrating that you all KNOW that nano'ing ships are overpowered too. Otherwise, why are you ALL flying them????
Sorry, but you just pointed a BIG shotgun at the pro-nano teams foot!
No, not really. The reason that NANO is used by a lot of people is the same reason why missiles are used by a lot of people, or ECM, or trimarked plate tanks. If we had a massive nerf to "passive" armor tanks and removed slaves and introduced stacking to plates and made remote-reps less effective (including remote armor drones) it would be the same amount of whine. Why? Because they're all effective tactics for PvP.
The reason why there is such extra resistance about NANO is because NANO-ships is one (if not the only) way for a small gang to NOT ALWAYS GET CAUGHT by blobs. There simply isn't any other effective means to avoid blobs if you want to eg. get through bottlenecks.
|
|
|
|