Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 03:51:00 -
[61]
Ok fine.. forget it
the structure thing is pointless though. People just use structure repairers to repair their ships when need be.. I know I do. I wouldn't mind spending millions to fix my battleship after a fight.. my fault for being so sloppy
and mainly I think all the ships are too similer.. a change this big, changing the mechanics of the game, making ships sooo different would take a lot of work. I can't imagine the time required for balancing as well.
but at least the structure repairers can be done away with?
I'll say one more time. Structure repairers right now are used for nothing except for repairing someone's ship for free.
but yea, lets keep the unlimited free potions.. adds a lot of challenge ________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 03:51:00 -
[62]
Ok fine.. forget it
the structure thing is pointless though. People just use structure repairers to repair their ships when need be.. I know I do. I wouldn't mind spending millions to fix my battleship after a fight.. my fault for being so sloppy
and mainly I think all the ships are too similer.. a change this big, changing the mechanics of the game, making ships sooo different would take a lot of work. I can't imagine the time required for balancing as well.
but at least the structure repairers can be done away with?
I'll say one more time. Structure repairers right now are used for nothing except for repairing someone's ship for free.
but yea, lets keep the unlimited free potions.. adds a lot of challenge ________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
Mynobe Soletae
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 05:15:00 -
[63]
The (hull repairer) ISK sink for battleships wouldn't bother me per se, cause I'm in empire space and stations with repair facilities are plentiful.
0.0, however, it's not just a sink. It's a hindrance.
|
Mynobe Soletae
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 05:15:00 -
[64]
The (hull repairer) ISK sink for battleships wouldn't bother me per se, cause I'm in empire space and stations with repair facilities are plentiful.
0.0, however, it's not just a sink. It's a hindrance.
|
Urfin
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 06:11:00 -
[65]
Edited by: Urfin on 15/09/2004 08:52:00 Btw, a good idea about limiting the HP increase on ships to structure. That makes alot of sense actually, but only when coupled with both removing structure rapairers and introducing POS with repair facilities.
|
Urfin
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 06:11:00 -
[66]
Edited by: Urfin on 15/09/2004 08:52:00 Btw, a good idea about limiting the HP increase on ships to structure. That makes alot of sense actually, but only when coupled with both removing structure rapairers and introducing POS with repair facilities.
|
Vaya Con'Dios
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 06:57:00 -
[67]
blame ccp... they changed the cap relays to affect shield boosts. so now everyone goes to armor tanking. there are not mods that affect the armor repair stats. you cant make everyone happy.
but i agree... you bomb the hell out of a shield and armor to a bs and in 4 seconds... presto... you have to bomb some more. in a game where ccp wants to make everything more realistic and then they have this jacked up... how about changing these armor/hull repairs to like 10x the cap to use and 10x the time to boost.
i can understand shield boosts. but ro repair a ship that quick? you're talking real nuts and bolts here... its just not feasable.
|
Vaya Con'Dios
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 06:57:00 -
[68]
blame ccp... they changed the cap relays to affect shield boosts. so now everyone goes to armor tanking. there are not mods that affect the armor repair stats. you cant make everyone happy.
but i agree... you bomb the hell out of a shield and armor to a bs and in 4 seconds... presto... you have to bomb some more. in a game where ccp wants to make everything more realistic and then they have this jacked up... how about changing these armor/hull repairs to like 10x the cap to use and 10x the time to boost.
i can understand shield boosts. but ro repair a ship that quick? you're talking real nuts and bolts here... its just not feasable.
|
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 08:03:00 -
[69]
stupid idea... getting rid of armour repairing/tanking would totally gimp all the ships with small numbers of midslots - you'd have to change the slot layout on half the ships in the game to make it work |
meowcat
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 08:03:00 -
[70]
stupid idea... getting rid of armour repairing/tanking would totally gimp all the ships with small numbers of midslots - you'd have to change the slot layout on half the ships in the game to make it work |
|
Drakolus
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 08:28:00 -
[71]
Perhaps a compromise? (yeah I said the C word). I personally like the idea of having to pay for repairs and or managing your ship with an eye to avoiding large amounts of armor and structure damage.
Maybe remove structure repairers. For armor repairers, use some sort of "ammo" to simulate the raw materials these nanites need to replace and repair the ravaged armor of your ship. This would add in another BP'able item, another profit making opportunity for the tradeskillers and serve as an isk-sink to reduce some of the inflation. There could even be different levels of "Nannite fuel" to simmulate varying qualities and tech levels of repair material. (a large slab of steel would probably work better than one of alluminum).
Just an idea, and also please forgive the spelling...I know its horrible.
|
Drakolus
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 08:28:00 -
[72]
Perhaps a compromise? (yeah I said the C word). I personally like the idea of having to pay for repairs and or managing your ship with an eye to avoiding large amounts of armor and structure damage.
Maybe remove structure repairers. For armor repairers, use some sort of "ammo" to simulate the raw materials these nanites need to replace and repair the ravaged armor of your ship. This would add in another BP'able item, another profit making opportunity for the tradeskillers and serve as an isk-sink to reduce some of the inflation. There could even be different levels of "Nannite fuel" to simmulate varying qualities and tech levels of repair material. (a large slab of steel would probably work better than one of alluminum).
Just an idea, and also please forgive the spelling...I know its horrible.
|
Starbrow
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 08:52:00 -
[73]
I agree that shieldtanking seems more logic that amrourtanking, but as said before, CCP ubernerfed cap relays to the level of ubersux. If the cap relays didnt remove 10 % shields, everyone would be shieldtanking again. Today its only the raven and scorp that can shield tank well.
Apocs and armas HAVE to armourtank if they want a chance to live.
Hence, removing armour tanking would suck.
Just my opinion ---
Your parrot flys away... |
Starbrow
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 08:52:00 -
[74]
I agree that shieldtanking seems more logic that amrourtanking, but as said before, CCP ubernerfed cap relays to the level of ubersux. If the cap relays didnt remove 10 % shields, everyone would be shieldtanking again. Today its only the raven and scorp that can shield tank well.
Apocs and armas HAVE to armourtank if they want a chance to live.
Hence, removing armour tanking would suck.
Just my opinion ---
Your parrot flys away... |
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 08:55:00 -
[75]
i know removing armor tanking in it current state isnt possible.. a major rehaul of most of the way ships are set up would be required..
issue right now for me is structure. I still think CCP should do away with structure repairers.. this is something that's not going to hurt any single ship/race/class/whatever. ________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 08:55:00 -
[76]
i know removing armor tanking in it current state isnt possible.. a major rehaul of most of the way ships are set up would be required..
issue right now for me is structure. I still think CCP should do away with structure repairers.. this is something that's not going to hurt any single ship/race/class/whatever. ________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
Vex Seraphim
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 09:09:00 -
[77]
Originally by: ErrorS i know removing armor tanking in it current state isnt possible.. a major rehaul of most of the way ships are set up would be required..
issue right now for me is structure. I still think CCP should do away with structure repairers.. this is something that's not going to hurt any single ship/race/class/whatever.
tell me, have you EVER been to 0.0? if so, have you stayed there for more than 20seconds? just curious.. ------------------- :: finite horizon :: killboard ::
:: bio :: blog ::
|
Vex Seraphim
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 09:09:00 -
[78]
Originally by: ErrorS i know removing armor tanking in it current state isnt possible.. a major rehaul of most of the way ships are set up would be required..
issue right now for me is structure. I still think CCP should do away with structure repairers.. this is something that's not going to hurt any single ship/race/class/whatever.
tell me, have you EVER been to 0.0? if so, have you stayed there for more than 20seconds? just curious.. ------------------- :: finite horizon :: killboard ::
:: bio :: blog ::
|
Kunming
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 10:54:00 -
[79]
Vex Seraphim just put my thoughts about ErrorS in a more violent way, I totally agree with him
Wait a sec..... ermm yes I agree with him
Intercepting since BETA |
Kunming
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 10:54:00 -
[80]
Vex Seraphim just put my thoughts about ErrorS in a more violent way, I totally agree with him
Wait a sec..... ermm yes I agree with him
Intercepting since BETA |
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 12:44:00 -
[81]
If you remove Armor-Tanking you screw everyone who doesn't have enough med-slots. It's already hard to make some ships PvP-worthy because they don't have enough medium slots, that's why lots of people use armor repair.
What I would like to see would be that remote modules are more effective then normal repairers, since everyone has a repairer anyways, why bother with another ship to repair you if their repairer is much less effective when you look at activation cost/points restored ...
|
Noriath
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 12:44:00 -
[82]
If you remove Armor-Tanking you screw everyone who doesn't have enough med-slots. It's already hard to make some ships PvP-worthy because they don't have enough medium slots, that's why lots of people use armor repair.
What I would like to see would be that remote modules are more effective then normal repairers, since everyone has a repairer anyways, why bother with another ship to repair you if their repairer is much less effective when you look at activation cost/points restored ...
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 12:51:00 -
[83]
Edited by: Avon on 15/09/2004 12:57:59 Wow, what a lot of ignorant flames... mostly of the reflex "don't nerf me" type.
Shame.
I like the idea, hell why not.
Shields - can regen Armour - can't
Shield mods = hardners, boosters - use cap and lots of fitting reqs Armour mods = hardners and plates - little or no cap, low fitting reqs.
It would be lovely. Poncy techno shield boys blowing great lumps off the armour boys ships. The armour boys sitting there thinking 'hmmm, there goes another 20,000isk in armour, but there is plenty where that came from', whilst pounding techno boys shields to a pulp, just knowing his cap is going to give out any minute.
Love it.
I'll give it a thumbs up if we actually get to see lumps of armour being blown off ships.
EDIT:- Don't think it as nerfing armour tanking, just changing it a bit. Think how much armour an armour repairer actually fixed during an engagement, and compare that to being able to slap on say 5000hp armoured plates instead. All you are doing is getting rid of the regenerative nature of armour tanking and switching to an ablative system which gives you much more HP. Sure you have to pay to have it repaired, but it would give you the edge, with that advantage lessening per engagement (because some of your armour would have been blasted away), until repairs become a matter of survival. ______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
Avon
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 12:51:00 -
[84]
Edited by: Avon on 15/09/2004 12:57:59 Wow, what a lot of ignorant flames... mostly of the reflex "don't nerf me" type.
Shame.
I like the idea, hell why not.
Shields - can regen Armour - can't
Shield mods = hardners, boosters - use cap and lots of fitting reqs Armour mods = hardners and plates - little or no cap, low fitting reqs.
It would be lovely. Poncy techno shield boys blowing great lumps off the armour boys ships. The armour boys sitting there thinking 'hmmm, there goes another 20,000isk in armour, but there is plenty where that came from', whilst pounding techno boys shields to a pulp, just knowing his cap is going to give out any minute.
Love it.
I'll give it a thumbs up if we actually get to see lumps of armour being blown off ships.
EDIT:- Don't think it as nerfing armour tanking, just changing it a bit. Think how much armour an armour repairer actually fixed during an engagement, and compare that to being able to slap on say 5000hp armoured plates instead. All you are doing is getting rid of the regenerative nature of armour tanking and switching to an ablative system which gives you much more HP. Sure you have to pay to have it repaired, but it would give you the edge, with that advantage lessening per engagement (because some of your armour would have been blasted away), until repairs become a matter of survival. ______________________________________________
Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience. |
jukriamrr
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 13:11:00 -
[85]
Mmmmmm ... to all those who thought this is a thread about bending the game and whining:
you are wrong :)
This is just about ideas. Is there any evil in expressing a point of view, or express an opinion about how you think the game could run, especially when you have a 100% personal point of view on the 'feel' space opera has?
I do agree with the principle of:
- boostable shields, but at great cost (be it energy or offense capability) - very strong armor (and hull), but just that. Nanites could of course exist, but would be far too slow in a combat environment.
Frankly, how many sci-fi universes do you see where nanites are used to repair ships on-the-fly? Not many. However, the shield dream is used everywhere, be it in films or books. So, c'mon, take it easy and simply discuss the way it could be or could have been! :)
This is all suggestion and pure thinking. If you're too paranoid to accept that, please do not enter this thread anymore
And even though I'd really like to see such 'changes' in, say, EVE 2 (who knows, maybeone day?), I agree they would imply far too big a refounding of the current game to be feasible. so, yeah... eerm no :)
Cheers
|
jukriamrr
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 13:11:00 -
[86]
Mmmmmm ... to all those who thought this is a thread about bending the game and whining:
you are wrong :)
This is just about ideas. Is there any evil in expressing a point of view, or express an opinion about how you think the game could run, especially when you have a 100% personal point of view on the 'feel' space opera has?
I do agree with the principle of:
- boostable shields, but at great cost (be it energy or offense capability) - very strong armor (and hull), but just that. Nanites could of course exist, but would be far too slow in a combat environment.
Frankly, how many sci-fi universes do you see where nanites are used to repair ships on-the-fly? Not many. However, the shield dream is used everywhere, be it in films or books. So, c'mon, take it easy and simply discuss the way it could be or could have been! :)
This is all suggestion and pure thinking. If you're too paranoid to accept that, please do not enter this thread anymore
And even though I'd really like to see such 'changes' in, say, EVE 2 (who knows, maybeone day?), I agree they would imply far too big a refounding of the current game to be feasible. so, yeah... eerm no :)
Cheers
|
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 16:55:00 -
[87]
Originally by: Vex Seraphim
Originally by: ErrorS i know removing armor tanking in it current state isnt possible.. a major rehaul of most of the way ships are set up would be required..
issue right now for me is structure. I still think CCP should do away with structure repairers.. this is something that's not going to hurt any single ship/race/class/whatever.
tell me, have you EVER been to 0.0? if so, have you stayed there for more than 20seconds? just curious..
Yea.. was in tha PA for 3 1/2 months .. fought plenty of m0o, evol, rkk, etc. killed more then a few ships, died a few times myself.
someone warps away for 5mins and can come back 100% healed. Doesn't matter if they only had 1% structure left in a battleship.. like taking potions in other mmorpgs.. except, in eve, they recharge.
I cant stand it.. it makes the game feel hokey..
heh.. imagine in WoW having unlimited healing potions. PvP would be very similer to eve. Shield size? armor size? .. not important. Tactics? why.. just outtank, all dependant on capacitor .. set your booster or repairer to recharge non-stop until you're out of cap... it lacks depth.
IMHO
IMHO<---
that means.. IN .. MY.. HUMBLE.. OPINION..
Can't post anything on these forums without being flamed.. you guys are so touchy, it's just a game. ________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 16:55:00 -
[88]
Originally by: Vex Seraphim
Originally by: ErrorS i know removing armor tanking in it current state isnt possible.. a major rehaul of most of the way ships are set up would be required..
issue right now for me is structure. I still think CCP should do away with structure repairers.. this is something that's not going to hurt any single ship/race/class/whatever.
tell me, have you EVER been to 0.0? if so, have you stayed there for more than 20seconds? just curious..
Yea.. was in tha PA for 3 1/2 months .. fought plenty of m0o, evol, rkk, etc. killed more then a few ships, died a few times myself.
someone warps away for 5mins and can come back 100% healed. Doesn't matter if they only had 1% structure left in a battleship.. like taking potions in other mmorpgs.. except, in eve, they recharge.
I cant stand it.. it makes the game feel hokey..
heh.. imagine in WoW having unlimited healing potions. PvP would be very similer to eve. Shield size? armor size? .. not important. Tactics? why.. just outtank, all dependant on capacitor .. set your booster or repairer to recharge non-stop until you're out of cap... it lacks depth.
IMHO
IMHO<---
that means.. IN .. MY.. HUMBLE.. OPINION..
Can't post anything on these forums without being flamed.. you guys are so touchy, it's just a game. ________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
Raymond Drake
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 18:08:00 -
[89]
Here's another thought:
Keep shields and armor and hull the way they are in the game, with this modification: Every time your shield takes damage, there is a random chance (higher as shields drop) that some damage will skip past the shields and hit your armor. Same thing from armor to structure. Then, when your structure takes damage, there is a random chance that parts of your ship like slots (with modules in them) go offline and CANNOT be repaired with a structural repairer. An armor tanking ship may lose its ability to repair its armor in combat, or someone might lose their cap recharging, even though their armor may still be intact (mostly). Adds a lot more variables to combat.
Just a thought. Raymond Drake Weaver of the Dream DreamScape Corporation DreamScape Digest Editor-in-Chief |
Raymond Drake
|
Posted - 2004.09.15 18:08:00 -
[90]
Here's another thought:
Keep shields and armor and hull the way they are in the game, with this modification: Every time your shield takes damage, there is a random chance (higher as shields drop) that some damage will skip past the shields and hit your armor. Same thing from armor to structure. Then, when your structure takes damage, there is a random chance that parts of your ship like slots (with modules in them) go offline and CANNOT be repaired with a structural repairer. An armor tanking ship may lose its ability to repair its armor in combat, or someone might lose their cap recharging, even though their armor may still be intact (mostly). Adds a lot more variables to combat.
Just a thought. Raymond Drake Weaver of the Dream DreamScape Corporation DreamScape Digest Editor-in-Chief |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |