Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Dayamb
|
Posted - 2010.10.07 20:38:00 -
[1]
TLDR: Reduce capacitor use on 100mn MWD's by 40%.
Why:
After the nano nerf, and in particular the change to warp scramblers, Microwarps never got a fair look at.
Under the old system, it made a lot of sense for a battleship class MWD to use a boat load of capacitor to prevent it from perma MWD status. But with the nerf to speed, BS speeds got impacted heavily and could ultimately be cut off using this module through a variety of other means for the attacker.
The problem really remains that a BS MWD uses an unbelievably high amount of capacitor that doesn't match it's role. Battleships already have a much higher use of capacitor for guns and active tank, so the unproportional change to the MWD cap use really doesn't make sense when there's no balance needed thanks to the nano nerf.
Lets look at 3 tiers of Amarr ships for comparison.
At lvl 5 skills:
executioner:
cap recharge 4.6 MWD capacitor need is 3.8
so at 5/5 skills, this frigate can perma run a MWD w/o fitting any other mods.
Maller:
cap recharge 9.7 MWD capacitor need is 14.9
On the cruiser class, the ship requires more cap than it's base recharge at lvl 5 skills, but the disparity isn't great. It only requires 2 cap power relays to become cap stable.
Armageddon:
cap recharge 16.9 MWD capacitor need is 59.4
It requires 5 cap power relays with all lvl 5 skills to become cap stable. This seems absurd.
The problem is, you're not scaling the MWD on any reasonable platform. It takes an unreasonably high amount of modules to get it to where it can use a MWD effectively without relying on cap injectors. The real issue come into play for the blaster boats because they have a very high cap use weapons platform, and the need for a very high cap use speed module, and they can either active tank, which is also extraordinarily high on cap use, or plate, which negatively affects the MWD, ultimately using more capacitor to arrive at the same location.
reducing the capacitor use of a 100mn MWD by 40% would give a character with all lvl 5 skills a cap use of 35.64/s. This is still a large chunk of capacitor usage and would make it virtually impossible to perma run an MWD while doing anything else, in particular without any extra capacitor buffs.
|
Grarr Dexx
Amarr GK inc. Pandemic Legion
|
Posted - 2010.10.07 20:42:00 -
[2]
Please state why you think they should be stable?
|
captain foivos
|
Posted - 2010.10.07 20:59:00 -
[3]
Posting in a stealth-Minmatar-buff thread. -- I, for one, welcome the chance to open a bar I can decorate with the corpses of those I have slain. All hail Incarna. |
De'Veldrin
CareBears on Fire The Obsidian Legion
|
Posted - 2010.10.08 17:12:00 -
[4]
Originally by: captain foivos Posting in a stealth-Minmatar-buff thread.
I foresee AC Macharials and Vargurs becoming FOTM if this gets passed.
What the hell, I'll support it, I like Minmatar ships. --Vel
|
Ogogov
|
Posted - 2010.10.08 17:29:00 -
[5]
This would make Gallente blaster boats more useful.
Although it would mean the Thorax would be perma-MWDing everywhere...
|
Dayamb
|
Posted - 2010.10.08 20:20:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Dayamb on 08/10/2010 20:21:10
Originally by: De'Veldrin
Originally by: captain foivos Posting in a stealth-Minmatar-buff thread.
I foresee AC Macharials and Vargurs becoming FOTM if this gets passed.
What the hell, I'll support it, I like Minmatar ships.
This is why you don't rebalance races with damage buffs when other things make more sense. But someone at CCP decide the massive boost to projectiles dps made sense, so balances like these seem to favor one race over another.
However, it does make sense that MWD's use less cap for BS. even with this change, it's unlikely there will be any BS platform that would be totally cap stable with an MWD on without the trade off of at least 2-3 slots that would normally be used for something more combat oriented. I'd say that's a fair trade off.
|
Fournone
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 01:52:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Fournone on 11/10/2010 01:53:55 I promote this thread in the hopes blasterthrons and blasterions get less gimped.
EDIT: CCP really needs to move the 'approve' buton away formt he 'post' button
|
Seamus Donohue
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 04:36:00 -
[8]
Supported. __________________________________________________ Survivor of Teskanen, fan of John Rourke. |
Rented
|
Posted - 2010.10.11 23:31:00 -
[9]
TLDR: This is a buff to battleships in general, not blaster ships. No.
This makes little sense... this doesn't help blaster boats, other battleships get an identical boost to their MWD capability and capacitor as well. If you wish to buff blaster boats you really need to buff something unique to blaster ships, namely the blasters or the ships in question themselves. This would essentially just be a buff to battleships in general, improving their influence on range control versus other ship types and/or improving their capacitor usage. As far as I know, battleships overall are not in need of a buff.
Basically.... No.
|
Nikita Haley
Amarr Collegium Mechanicae
|
Posted - 2010.10.12 00:02:00 -
[10]
Apocs and Ravens don't need any more range-dictating power. Just saying.
|
|
Sepheir Sepheron
Legion..
|
Posted - 2010.10.12 08:01:00 -
[11]
Amarr ships will be able to use them!
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.10.12 09:08:00 -
[12]
Now add the total ammount of cap the different ships relative to the cap use of a MWD into your equation and i think BS suddenly wont look that bad.
Anyway MWD definately does not need a boost. If anything nerf it on frigates (Imo MWD should be quick bursts of speeds and not perma runned).
|
Nuts Nougat
Perkone
|
Posted - 2010.10.12 09:27:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Furb Killer Now add the total ammount of cap the different ships relative to the cap use of a MWD into your equation and i think BS suddenly wont look that bad.
Anyway MWD definately does not need a boost. If anything nerf it on frigates (Imo MWD should be quick bursts of speeds and not perma runned).
Spoiler: Frigate with mwd off is a dead frigate.
Supported because I eat 800s on my tempest like candy. Since QR, I honestly don't see the point of mwds raping cap like they do. ---
|
LiMu Bai
|
Posted - 2010.10.13 03:32:00 -
[14]
I dont think this is a good idea. Battleships should be significantly slower than cruisers and frigates. This is not longer the case if BS perma MWD around 1000m/s. Or even more....
|
Ican Hascyno
|
Posted - 2010.10.13 11:42:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Ican Hascyno on 13/10/2010 11:43:50
Originally by: LiMu Bai I dont think this is a good idea. Battleships should be significantly slower than cruisers and frigates. This is not longer the case if BS perma MWD around 1000m/s. Or even more....
I can already mwd around forever if i bring enough 800s with me. All it means is I have to bring my prowler alt with me if I go to 0.0 with it. An annoyance, rather than limitation.
|
Crazy KSK
|
Posted - 2010.10.13 17:25:00 -
[16]
everything that boost blaster boats I support!
ps: while your at it fix gallente ships guns and mods too!
|
Furb Killer
Gallente
|
Posted - 2010.10.13 18:08:00 -
[17]
Okay i bothered to check it: If we just look at raw cap and ignore regen, t1 MWDs, all lvl 5 skills on everything: 1mn mwd uses 33 energy, incursus has 406, so 8% 10mn mwd uses 135 energy, thorax has 1719, so 8% 100mn mwd uses 540 energy, megathron has 7031, so 8%
If you look more accurate you see it even decreases slightly. So now the difference is mainly that frigates have much higher relative cap regen than battleships, the energy cost of MWDs compared to their total amount of energy is equal.
Imo still MWDs are supposed for quick bursts of speed, not perma running, that is what ABs are for. (And no that wont mean insta death for all frigs, since they can still be dual prop, and one of the main reason AB frigs fail now is that their target just permaruns MWD and lowers transversal to zero, also with AB they are way harder to track).
Imo definately not needed, especially because it is another nerf to blaster ships. I dont really see how it would be a boost as some apparently think. Blaster ships have no reason to permarun their MWD, they burst into range and then web/scram their target and deactivate their MWD. Making it easier to permarun MWDs will be mainly a boost to minmatar BS, and mostly a nerf to gallente BS since it becomes much easier to kite blaster ships.
|
Dayamb
|
Posted - 2010.10.13 23:22:00 -
[18]
Edited by: Dayamb on 13/10/2010 23:25:54
Originally by: Furb Killer
Imo definately not needed, especially because it is another nerf to blaster ships. I dont really see how it would be a boost as some apparently think. Blaster ships have no reason to permarun their MWD, they burst into range and then web/scram their target and deactivate their MWD. Making it easier to permarun MWDs will be mainly a boost to minmatar BS, and mostly a nerf to gallente BS since it becomes much easier to kite blaster ships.
Which again was a fault of some idiotic CCP employee thinking balance meant making damage higher on projectile ships.
This balance would have made far more sense and been far better reaching to affect BS than just boosting Minmatar damage would have been. It would have reestabolished the old parameters set for minmatar where intentionally had lower dps, but better speed and cap superiority.
I can't help that CCP ****ed up minmatar. But this change is still needed.
Sure MWD is meant for a quick boost of speed. Explain to me how a blaster boat is going to perma run an MWD after this change when you add in their gun cap usage, web/scram cap usage, and any possible negative effects such as nos/neut.
And oh yeah, there is that pesky effect that a warp scram has on MWD to. Did you forget? Let me refresh, k. Warp scramblers are + 2 points and kill MWD.
So before you keep saying OMG PERMAMWD, read the OP in detail and realize that your argument is very near sighted.
Have you noticed how in the past 6 months to a year, there has been a strong movement away from BS in general?
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |