Jump to content

Recommended Posts

need for speed?

reported by Tuxford | 2007.02.15 15:01:44 | NEW | Comments

Last week I talked to you about our need for speed initiative but you might have guessed I was not talking about Nanophoons. There have been a lot of talk on the forums lately about speed in general. What you may not know is that we here at CCP have also been having a lot of talk about it, we've even dragged our CMO into the discussions (I have a cunning plan where I can blame everything on marketing).

The problem isn't just with Typhoons but rather we have sort of lost track of speed in general. The problem is really there are too many things that affect speed and so few of them stacking nerfed. Some of them we can't really stacking nerf, like skills and implants and some of them are simply just affecting different things. For example MWD, inertia stabilizers and propellant injection vent all affect speed but in different ways. Nanofibers and overdrives also don't stacking nerf with mwd/ab because they affect it in different way, add velocity instead of multiply.

Why don't we like people going really really fast

One of the biggest reasons is the "feel" of the game. Combat in EVE was always supposed to be more about tactics and strategy rather than twitch movement. I know a lot of the community enjoy that style of gameplay but it just isn't EVE.

Another reason has to do with game mechanic and can be summed up to pretty much the same arguement as when warp core stabilizers where balanced. When going into a fight we want people to commit to a fight. That means when you go into a fight you are risking your ship or ships, not just warping in on anything and if you can't handle it you just warp off.

So whats the plan?

A good idea would be to have modules stacking nerf more. For example have low slot hull modules give percentage velocity instead of fixed number, that way it gets stacking nerfed with microwarpdrives and afterburners. Another improvement is to have agility stacking nerfed. That doesn't help with the max velocity but it does affect how fast you can achieve said velocity. It also makes it harder to you to orbit at extreme velocities, forcing you to lower your speed.

Another thing we're discussing is changing those hull mods so they don't affect as many things. For example overdrives increase velocity, nanofbers agility and inertia stabilizers mass. Well we might then switch the istabs and nanos around as it really makes more sense that nanofibers reduce mass. The only problem is that I'm afraid that the agility mod will be sort of useless.

The biggest factor in the velocity is the microwarpdrive. Looking at microwarpdrive stats it shouldn't come as a big surprise that these modules aren't supposed to be sustainable, they have high cap need and give penalties to capacitor. However they can be, so when in doubt nerf the microwarpdrive! Well not really but we have discussed number of modification of it.

* Make it require charges

* Make its cap consumption dependant on velocity

* Not allow people to use cap booster when mwd is active

Making it require charges has the benefit of you not being able to run it indefinitly and you'd have to reload it once in a while. It however has the massive annoyance factor of having to carry yet another consumable in your ever diminishing cargohold. Disable the cap injector when the mwd is active isn't really a perfect solution as you'd probably be able to sustain it with few cap modules and nosferatus. It however would make such a setup a lot more vulnerable to being nossed itself. I like making cap consumption of microwarpdrive dependant on velocity because it can be done so that it only affects ships going really, really fast.

This isn't all nailed down yet, we're still discussing options and exchanging opinions about this but you can be sure its being worked on.

What about the Amarr?!?!

Well I guess I did promise. For me there are number of problems that plague Amarr. The biggest one in my opinion is the popularity of so called omni tank. That is tanks that just boost the tank equally over all the resistances. On smaller ships that can be explained by the ease at which people are fitting oversized plates. On bigger ships it has to do with viability of plates but also people are often choosing EANM over active hardeners.

Comparing EANM with active hardener isn't really straight forward process. You might be tempted just compare the average resistance, or that is the average damage that leaks through. That's fine if it's what you want to do but given that only two types of turrets do EM damage and projectile do little of it, then I'd take a high kinetic and thermal resistance instead of high EM resistance any day. The reason I don't always fit an active hardener is simply because they use up too much cpu. Tech 2 activatable armor hardeners uses 14tf more than energized one and that amounts to a lot of cpu need. In a pinch we might consider fiddling with base resistances, that is increase EM resistance a bit on shield and lower it on armor but that's something we really shouldn't do unless we have to.

Amarr needs oomph. TomB and I have been talking about giving them oomph. What is oomph? I don't know but I sure like typing it. The Amarr were supposed to be the capacitor race, today that can be best characterized by the fact that they need most of it. It seems blatantly obvious that they should get bonus to capacitor warfare. Of course that is totally dependant on how we're "overhauling" nosferatus.

People say that beams are too hard to fit and in general, I agree. Then why haven't we done anything? Well it can be really time consuming and frankly there is always something "bigger" we need to think about. We haven't forgotten about this however.

Khanid MK2. I don't think I need to explain what it is, in general we liked the idea and I don't think it's at all unlikely that we will actually go through with it.

General ship loving. There are some ships that need help and we're gonna give it to them. Which ships you might ask? Well, Armageddon might need some fitting help, the cruisers aren't really that great and Apocalypse might get a bit of a role twist.

When is this going to happen

Don't expect this all in a single patch, there isn't gonna be a general "AMARR BOOST" patch and of course we're going to be careful not to overdo it. This is all something we have planned, if you want some order on this then we'll probably work on omni tanks/EM damage problem first and then look into some of the others.

Yes!

Link to post
Share on other sites

So now, they kill speed.

Great.

See, this is what pisses me off far more than that other stuff. It seems like every playstyle in the game which I enjoy just gets batted down over time. Soon all you'll be able to to is sit there and tank, ecm, or die.

Meh.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I doubt an indirect nerf to mwd would be such a bad thing.

If you got a blasterthron at point blank you're going to die without scratching its shield unless you got autocannons or blasters yourself so making it slightly more difficult for the thron to reach you is ok in my book as both apoc and geddon will lose hands down to them. Mwd on an Amarr bs is just not plausible at all, on minnie ships yes as they use no cap to fire.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I am definately coming around to the idea that the guys at CCP dont know what they are doing.... beef up armour, reduce speed, slow down combat- Limiting the micro is crazy (its a vacuum for the love of god we should all be doing crazy speeds!) I think an Amarr boost would be good mind, but who benifits from a speed drop, missile and torp users possibly....hmmm

- Sitai

Link to post
Share on other sites

The only thing they're talking about doing there (speed wise) is putting an end to 10km/s battleships. I see so many of these now and trying to catch them is next to impossible. When you've got Typhoons and Dominixes going faster then you'll ever get an interceptor, there's clearly a problem.

I really don't think the "legitimate" fast ships have too much to worry about.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think this is all nonsense perpertrated by those who don't rely on, and can't use, speed effectively.

I do use it. I fly as fast as I can, and that's my tank. I do this in frigates, cruisers, BCs and BSs where I need to. If I want to counter it, I climb into a fast ship myself, or I climb into a Huginn or a Rapier, web them, and they slow down real fast. These ships, setups, tactics and counter-tactics are available to anyone who appreciates speed in the game.

I'm Matari, and I can deal with speed, indeed I rely on it - it's all perfectly legitimate to me, in every ship. I've trained for it in ship and navigation skills, I've trained all the relevant leadership and command skills, I've trained for and bought and fitted the plants, including mindlinks. I think they should maybe start nerfing all these 'illegitimate' tanks, drones, skills, related plants and other stuff that I can't do myself or deal with myself, if they nerf speed.

In short: pfft.

BTW: BSs doing 10km/s are faction fitted and their pilots have Snake plants. Even with top command ship bonuses, mods and mindlinks - which I have - you can't do that in a nanophoon otherwise. And those ships costs billions, and have no tank but for speed. As I said, if you deal with that ship with appropriate measures such as a Huginn or Rapier, it's utterly toasted. Cost of loss: immense. It's all risk vs reward, like buying and faction-fitting a Vaga - or should those get nerfed too?

This move really just nerfs speed and hits those who are willing to pay and experiment to go to the edge with it, at great potential cost, and a fair amount of piloting risk. It also nerfs Matari play, hit and run play, yet again. And if you can't get an inty going faster than a BS, it just goes to show you ain't invested in speed as much as these pilots, because any of them could get an inty going far faster at far lower cost with the same plants, skills, and gang makeups. We can delpoy any inty and make it go faster than any nanoBS flown by us: this also equals one webbed and dead nanoBS, and this is perfectly balanced and 'legitimate'.

Like I say: I can't tank like you chaps. So if you do this nerf, also nerf faction tanks, bonuses and related command skills and pirate plants, please. Or else - ffs - deal with speed without crying foul.

Again: Pfft.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You say nano battleships have no tank - an inty has no tank, a battleship has thousands and thousands of armour, shield and structure HP, and can put out hundreds of DPS.

Lots of players will whine if they can't use their nano-BS anymore. Just like players whined when stacking penalties on damage mods were introduced. It's a simple case of a necessary nerf to remove an unbalanced game element.

Yes I have read your post, Gorf, and a lot of what you're saying makes sense. I'm not disagreeing with the fact that using speed and agility is a legitimate tactic, of course it is. But it has to have constraints, just like any other tactic, it has to be counterable to a reasonable degree. At the moment (in the case of nano-BS) it's just too difficult to counter effectively.

I also think it's just straight-out wrong for battlehips to move that fast, it makes the game seem stupid.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it does have constraints, and is counterable - the tools are all in the game.

I'm not scared of nano BSs any more than I'm scared of, say Rooks. I just can't deal with them at all, and their ECM abilities seem way over the top to me - outrageous, even.

What should I do about this?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Inties can't compete with a nano ship. All the Nanoship need do is pack a single NOS and the intie is practically dead in the void.

That's still true if it isn't a nano BS though; all BSs can do that to inties. I think what you're asking for there s a NOS nerf rather than a speed one, isn't it?

You shouldn't need a specifically fitted fleet to counter a single enemy.

You don't. Just use a faster ship.

Just out of interest, how do you guys deal with Vagabonds?

Link to post
Share on other sites

But it does have constraints, and is counterable - the tools are all in the game.

I'm not scared of nano BSs any more than I'm scared of, say Rooks. I just can't deal with them at all, and their ECM abilities seem way over the top to me - outrageous, even.

What should I do about this?

A Rook is a specialised ECM ship. It's offensive and defensive abilities are limited, but it's great at jamming. Furthermore, a Rook is a T2 ship and therefore uninsurable.

A nano battleship can tank (albeit to a lesser degree than a regular battleship), can do tremendous damage, has the ability to fit a whole plethora of high and mid slot modules and it travels insanely fast making it extremely difficult to destroy. Too many ups, not enough downs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can understand Matari having fast ships but it is true that battleships going such daft speeds doesn't mesh in the slightest. The fact is that if you have a fleet of even un-implanted t1 nanoships you can too easily spank the enemy fleet. That is, in games design, known as a dominant strategy which is the cardinal sin in game balancing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with you chaps that the nanophoon is a bit of a blip in the gameplay, but balance is pretty non-existant within the eve-verse at the best of times, the proposed changes would impinge on all fast ships due to fast battleships, which just seems ill planned. The problem with CCP changes is that they seem to be knee jerk reactions, that often fail to achieve balance, resulting in a wide ranging nerf that hurts many who have never speed boosted a BS.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So everyone in eve has to adopt the same strategy of going really fast to compete in any meaningful way?

Of course not. You could, for example, try that module called a webber. Or that other one - ECM, isn't it? Or a sensor dampner. Or various other really, really clever things that evidently only I've been able to work out the use for.

I'll just ask this question again: how do you deal with a Vagabond?

It's interesting to me that the preferred game setup of all those in here is, essentially, to tank; rarely to sacrifice that for speed. This, to be blunt, is why you aren't bothered by the nerf to speed.

And let's get this right: Agent Supercool seems to be the only one who can actually read Tux's words - because what they mean is that a big consideration here is to nerf mwds. NOT BSs, NOT nano BSs, but mwds. Unless you can explain to me how the three mwd options given by Tux above wouldn't also nerf, let's say, a Crow pilot tackling in orbit at 18km with his mwd on, then it seems to me it's speed getting a hit across the board. And then...there's that Vaga.

Now the thing is, I hate fighting Vagas. But really - I've never killed one yet. I don't, however, think they should be nerfed. I think you can (and should) find better ways of killing them. And I think we have.

Tri - it's all very well saying 'but the Rook/whatever is a specialised ship!' - I've no idea what that means. Isn't the Scorp one too? Aren't lots of ships 'specialist'? Cos if that's an exemption, show me how the Vaga - which is as expensive as any of them, and as fit for only one role, and as piss-weak as a tank - will be exempt from the proposals that Tux suggests.

The answer is, it isn't, yet it will take a hit if he follows the line of thinking posted here. Hence, this is a nerf to speed.

As for imbalance, and T1 ships getting too big for their boots, wasn't it Tux who recently introduced a certain T1 battleship that, after Tux had nerfed T2 ammo in part to reduce range and damage, can still actually hit things beyond the 250km maximum lock ceiling of the gameworld itself even with a great tank (for a sniper)? Hmm...what was that you were saying about too many ups and not enough downs; about balance; about pwning fleets?

Man, if you won't accept that this is just part of a pattern of CCP reshaping combat to favour tank over gank, large fleet actions over hit-and-run skirmishes, static tactics over roaming gangs, trying to increase the duration of battles, and in the process hitting manoeuvrability and speed, than there's really no point in debating this. It's perfectly evident that it is, in exactly the same way as it's clear you're not bothered about it because CCP are catering to your play/combat style - and not mine. You struggle to deal with speed and I struggle to deal with tanks.

We know whose side CCP is on, and there's not one right way to design this game or the ships in it - I ain't claiming that. It's a choice they have as to which direction to take things - and you evidently like their choice, and I don't. But please don't try to tell me this is about 'balance' because there is really no such thing in Eve, and even if there were, the proposals made by Tux here would be an utterly laughable excuse for a balancing act.

WTS: One Machariel. Has seen better days. reason for sale: ludicrously fast and hence immoral cos BSs shouldn't go fast. Will swap for Rattlesnake with modest faction tank.

Thank you for flying Minmatar, and good-night.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's a very pretty rant, although I'm not sure who it's directed at. Nano battleships are wrong as far as I'm concerned, that's all I'm saying. Nothing else. I don't have the same urge to question CCPs intentions that you have, probably because I simply don't care that much. Perhaps it's because my playstyle seems to fit in with what you see as CCPs "vision" for the game, perhaps it's just because I care less about the actual game than you do.

If other ships get affected by the nerf than that's daft, obviously.

How do I deal with Vagabonds? I don't, I've never managed to kill one. But I, like you, think that the Vaga is an entirely valid ship. I did actually come close to taking one down once, but its surprisingly effective tank and large damage output meant I ended up in my pod. If someone wants to spend 200mil or whatever they cost now though, then that's fine. Good for them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the compliment. :blink:

I think there are several reasons why nanoBSs are also entirely 'valid' ships, and they aren't exactly new (people have been flying nanoPhoons for a couple of years now). I also think that if people want to spend the money on making a nanoBS go over 10km/s - which is far in excess of 200mil on top of the ship - then good for them, too.

But I suspect this argument has run its course, so there's little point in adding any more reasoning to it. I just don't like knee-jerk reactions, and this nerf, and a lot of the support for it, seems like just that. As such, I expect it to nerf speed for more ships than just the nano Phoon and Domi. In fact, I'm convinced of it: hence the 'rant'.

Would anyone care to bet against that, ingame, to the tune of 100mil ISK? I'll be more than happy to pay up if I'm wrong, as not getting another nerf would be worth at least that much to me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I wouldn't bet against it.

I don't understand why they want to nerf MWDs, surely just putting a stacking penalty on nanos/stabs/overdrives would sort this out?

There already is a stacking penalty on istabs.

I'm not sure if a stacking penalty on a flat stat increase (the speed increase, a figure not a %) is implemented anywhere else in the codebase. If it was just on the modules you could do 2 istab, 2 nano and 2 overdrives (which are vaguely viable now they don't have the inertia multiplier), but all stacking nerfs are attribute based. A large part of stacking nerfs on % based modules is because otherwise it leads to exponential increases. The first heatsink on that gankageddon was worth a 22.9% DPS increase of base, the 8th was worth a 97.4% increase of base, for 520% of base DPS. Indeed, I find one of the most enjoyable things about fitting and skilling in eve is taking advantage of exponents, without the multiplier approach drones would suck incredibly.

Er, anyway, before I went off on that tangent, I imagine they'll go with the "above a certain pre-defined speed the MWD will drain more cap" approach, the predefined speed will probably be a percentage of base, minnie ships will (still?) be the fastest, by several times their base speed, base speed increasing modules would raise the "speed limit", istabs would become useless again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah the heatsinks give you a pitiful return after fitting 3 so i'd rather fit an EANM.

The key skill for drones is absolutely drone interfacing, a whopping 20% damage boost per level. Easy money my friend.

Fixed.

I wish it wasn't such a huge train for 5, though... It's one of those things I won't bother with unless I get a carrier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Suzaku mistook Advanced Drone Upgrades for +1 drone per level, left it training to level 5.

So now he can use up to 5 drone control units... Only usable on carriers.

Suzaku mistook Advanced Drone Upgrades for +1 drone per level, left it training to level 5.

So now he can use up to 5 drone control units... Only usable on carriers. But then again if he got a mothership he'd be able to field 25 Fighters...

Link to post
Share on other sites

I might finally start thinking about capital ships. Invention is proving highly lucrative, I found a blueprint for a 600m Isk item on my second ever hacking site, catapulting me from a perpetual 50-200mil hover to near billionaire in the blink of an eye.

There's players in my corporation far younger than me who can fly capitals, seems like the funds to buy one is the greater obstacle.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely it's exploration, rather than invention, that's proving highly lucrative (expect in a few very focussed cases)?

But yeah, funds are a problem with capital ships. If you're going to fly a carrier you're looking at nearly half a bil for the Carriers skillbook alone. Then there's the rest of the skills...the mods...the fighters...and, oh yes, the carrier. It's often struck me as odd how much cheaper (and quicker to train for) Dreadnaughts are.

Though if you're part of a fleet - or even a large gang - that can support them, they're undoubtedly a great asset. If you're not so sure of yourself though, they're at least as much of a liability. I've ummed and ahhed about them myself recently, but in the end I've come down on the side of umm. Or ahh. Whichever it is that means 'no capital', in both senses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In alliance warfare the lack of dreads can be a huge hurdle. If you are unable to defend your turf in POS wars you will lose. So any alliance would likely welcome a dread pilot with their own dread or provide you with one.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh, for sure. I imagine most leading alliance corps have schemes to encourage/part fund/train Dread pilots - 'even' ISSN used to have one. It's mostly about territory, obviously, and these days that means POS wars. Which also means capital-deploying, capital-killing wars.

I'm not part of an alliance any more, though, and I'm not in any hurry to get involved with them - partly because I found POS wars to be for the most part an incredibly boring, laggy, static, uninteresting grind-fest once the novelty wore off. (I did used to like fleet stuff with, say, Carriers, when there wasn't a POS siege involved, but the POS attacks/defences themselves ultimately just felt too much like playing an RTS - or not so much playing, as being one of the pieces - on a broken computer that kept freezing for 5 seconds after every move was input. And even leaving aside the lag and relatively static deployments, just plugging away for aeons at a large POS shield is, well, inherently dull as fuck, ta very much CCP.)

Hmm. I thought I was less jaded about the game than I was a few months ago, but it would appear I'm not. Bugger.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue. Use of this website is subject to our Privacy Policy, Terms of Use, and Guidelines.