Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Saladinae
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
17
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 07:12:00 -
[1] - Quote
Propulsion modules remove X% of your maximum capacitor upon equip, but no longer drain from your cap while in use.
The idea behind this change is that no ship, especially frigs/dessies, should have their only source of life (propulsion) neuted out. An Arbitrator alone can instant neut any frigate hull. Neuting a frigate is tantamount to a one-shot kill, that can not be adequately countered.
It's bad enough that neuts shut down your point/web/active tank, but this can be intelligently countered by vamps and neuts. However, Propulsion should be off limits, a single cycle of missed propulsion is death. Winmatar > Everything else |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
2404
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 07:29:00 -
[2] - Quote
Right... this won't leave bigger ships at a disadvantage at all and hand speedy ships the ultimate advantage.
Speed is a huge thing and capacitor limitations/weaknesses are one of the few things that threaten kiters. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Saladinae
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
18
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 07:30:00 -
[3] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Right... this won't leave bigger ships at a disadvantage at all.
Speed is a huge thing and neuts are one of the few ways to threaten kiters at range.
Are you saying the Projectile turrets should use cap? Winmatar > Everything else |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
2404
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 07:32:00 -
[4] - Quote
Saladinae wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Right... this won't leave bigger ships at a disadvantage at all.
Speed is a huge thing and neuts are one of the few ways to threaten kiters at range. That's a rock, paper, scissors issue. Welcome to EvE. And you're taking away one of the strengths of rock because "paper can't move fast enough when under pressure."
Bigger ships have some advantages... smaller, faster ships have their own. I see the current status quo as balanced. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Grunnax Aurelius
luna Oscura Clandestina Armada The Nightingales of Hades
98
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 07:34:00 -
[5] - Quote
Saladinae wrote:Propulsion modules remove X% of your maximum capacitor upon equip, but no longer drain from your cap while in use.
The idea behind this change is that no ship, especially frigs/dessies, should have their only source of life (propulsion) neuted out. An Arbitrator alone can instant neut any frigate hull. Neuting a frigate is tantamount to a one-shot kill, that can not be adequately countered.
It's bad enough that neuts shut down your point/web/active tank, but this can be intelligently countered by vamps and neuts. However, Propulsion should be off limits, a single cycle of missed propulsion is death.
I do and don't like this, it can be game breaking, but yes I would love to be able to fly the new Raven with a Cap Stable MicroWarpdrive.
A standard MicroWarpdrive has a -25% capacitor modifier, where as a Meta one is -19%. This is a Hefty Nerf alone, so I dont think it would be totally game breaking your idea, but im not sure, it would need testing.
So this could work.
MicroWarpdrive Tech 1's have a -25% capacitor capacity as they do now Afterburners get given a - 12.5% capacitor capacity both no longer consume cap per cycle, but light weight kitting ships would need to have their tank nerfed a little to balance this but it would be pretty cool. Two Teir Carriers-áhttps://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=207604&find=unread |
Saladinae
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
18
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 07:34:00 -
[6] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Saladinae wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Right... this won't leave bigger ships at a disadvantage at all.
Speed is a huge thing and neuts are one of the few ways to threaten kiters at range. That's a rock, paper, scissors issue. Welcome to EvE. And you're taking away one of the strengths of rock because "paper can't move fast enough when under pressure." Bigger ships have some advantages... smaller, faster ships have their own. I see the current status quo as balanced.
No, what your saying is that kiting Projectile turret boats aren't effected by neuts. Thank you for proving that imbalance. It just so happens that projectiles have very low fitting reqs and are usually able to fit neuts in their high slots as well. Are you ready for this discussion? Winmatar > Everything else |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
2404
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 07:45:00 -
[7] - Quote
Saladinae wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Saladinae wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Right... this won't leave bigger ships at a disadvantage at all.
Speed is a huge thing and neuts are one of the few ways to threaten kiters at range. That's a rock, paper, scissors issue. Welcome to EvE. And you're taking away one of the strengths of rock because "paper can't move fast enough when under pressure." Bigger ships have some advantages... smaller, faster ships have their own. I see the current status quo as balanced. No, what your saying is that kiting Projectile turret boats aren't effected by neuts. Thank you for proving that imbalance. It just so happens that projectiles have very low fitting reqs and are usually able to fit neuts in their high slots as well. Are you ready for this discussion? That's a separate issue altogether (and I'm sure someone else would love to fight it with you).
My issue is with regards to balance. Larger ships should have multiple ways to pin down smaller ships (neuts, scrams, webs, drones). Likewise, smaller ships should have their counters and advantages (nos, ABs, cap boosters, inherently faster speeds, and smaller sig radius). Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
138
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 12:49:00 -
[8] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:My issue is with regards to balance. Larger ships should have multiple ways to pin down smaller ships (neuts, scrams, webs, drones). Likewise, smaller ships should have their counters and advantages (nos, ABs, cap boosters, inherently faster speeds, and smaller sig radius).
this basically. game has to have some balance. While a frigate can be capable of killing outside its weightclass, the more outside its class it goes should have some counters to not have every bc and bs running in fear of frigates. granted events like the flight of 1000 rifters are well liked events (I hear they are a blast to be in, even for the mommie pilot lol), daily eve life can't be run like this.
Its on the frigate pilot to decide whether to go in and face this stuff. Also worth noting since the bait is being thrown for moar winmatar troll crap, no rule is having amarr or gallente run SR guns, SR ammo to where they have to engage this here arbitrator in neut range. Lots of longer range options can hvae amarr and gallene well outside the neut range. Pick you poison here really. Get range lose dps or get dps and voluntarily fly into potential neut crap storms.
|
monkfish2345
D'reg The Methodical Alliance
80
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 13:12:00 -
[9] - Quote
100mn tengu.
i'll stop there. |
Xavier Thorm
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
81
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 14:26:00 -
[10] - Quote
Saladinae wrote:
No, what your saying is that kiting Projectile turret boats aren't effected by neuts. Thank you for proving that imbalance. It just so happens that projectiles have very low fitting reqs and are usually able to fit neuts in their high slots as well. Are you ready for this discussion?
Seriously, if you want to try to get support for your idea, a good starting place would be to not be such an ass, and to be capable of having an actual discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of your idea. |
|
Saladinae
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
19
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:21:00 -
[11] - Quote
Xavier Thorm wrote:Saladinae wrote:
No, what your saying is that kiting Projectile turret boats aren't effected by neuts. Thank you for proving that imbalance. It just so happens that projectiles have very low fitting reqs and are usually able to fit neuts in their high slots as well. Are you ready for this discussion?
Seriously, if you want to try to get support for your idea, a good starting place would be to not be such an ass, and to be capable of having an actual discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of your idea.
No, that is his point. Kiting boats fit passive tanks with projectiles 99% of the time. Neuts don't effect either the tank or the dps. They only affect the propulsion and possibly the point. And this is much easier to manage for the kiting boat because he only needs to fire his cap booster when his propulsion cycle is about to end.
You can hurl rhetoric and spit venom as much as you want, that is what his complaint came down to. Winmatar > Everything else |
Doddy
Dark-Rising
838
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:28:00 -
[12] - Quote
Op gets within 12k of cruiser in a frigate without a cap booster or nos and dies -> expects game to be changed to allow frigate to survive getting within 12k of cruiser without nos or cap booster rather than just fitting a nos or cap booster. |
Danika Princip
Freelance Economics Astrological resources Tactical Narcotics Team
1203
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:38:00 -
[13] - Quote
Saladinae wrote:Xavier Thorm wrote:Saladinae wrote:
No, what your saying is that kiting Projectile turret boats aren't effected by neuts. Thank you for proving that imbalance. It just so happens that projectiles have very low fitting reqs and are usually able to fit neuts in their high slots as well. Are you ready for this discussion?
Seriously, if you want to try to get support for your idea, a good starting place would be to not be such an ass, and to be capable of having an actual discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of your idea. No, that is his point. Kiting boats fit passive tanks with projectiles 99% of the time. Neuts don't effect either the tank or the dps. They only affect the propulsion and possibly the point. And this is much easier to manage for the kiting boat because he only needs to fire his cap booster when his propulsion cycle is about to end. You can hurl rhetoric and spit venom as much as you want, that is what his complaint came down to.
I'll be sure to tell that to the kiting oracle/talos/naga gangs I see in null.
And if you're kiting, what are you doing in neut range anyway?
On top of that, this is a horrible nerf to dual prop, but an utterly hilarious buff to interceptors and nano HACs. I suppose ou want less battleships in use? |
Xavier Thorm
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
84
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 16:55:00 -
[14] - Quote
Saladinae wrote:Xavier Thorm wrote:Saladinae wrote:
No, what your saying is that kiting Projectile turret boats aren't effected by neuts. Thank you for proving that imbalance. It just so happens that projectiles have very low fitting reqs and are usually able to fit neuts in their high slots as well. Are you ready for this discussion?
Seriously, if you want to try to get support for your idea, a good starting place would be to not be such an ass, and to be capable of having an actual discussion about the strengths and weaknesses of your idea. No, that is his point. Kiting boats fit passive tanks with projectiles 99% of the time. Neuts don't effect either the tank or the dps. They only affect the propulsion and possibly the point. And this is much easier to manage for the kiting boat because he only needs to fire his cap booster when his propulsion cycle is about to end. You can hurl rhetoric and spit venom as much as you want, that is what his complaint came down to.
What you just said makes no sense, because it sounds like you're arguing yet no one is disagreeing with that point. You're in danger of sounding... a bit crazy.
Passive-tanked projectile boats do indeed not need cap for their weapons or tank. So? That doesn't make imbalanced that they need cap for their prop mods. |
Madlof Chev
Sniggerdly Pandemic Legion
126
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 17:11:00 -
[15] - Quote
Terrible idea, screams of you not wanting to die so you want to change a perfectly good mechanic. Deal with it. |
Saladinae
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
19
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 17:29:00 -
[16] - Quote
Xavier Thorm wrote:
Passive-tanked projectile boats do indeed not need cap for their weapons or tank. So? That doesn't make imbalanced that they need cap for their prop mods.
Projectile should have either their ftting reqs massively increased, or use cap. That would be the balance.
At the very least afterburners shouldn't use cap, since they use "gas." Winmatar > Everything else |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
2409
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 17:32:00 -
[17] - Quote
Saladinae wrote:Xavier Thorm wrote:Passive-tanked projectile boats do indeed not need cap for their weapons or tank. So? That doesn't make imbalanced that they need cap for their prop mods. Projectile should have either their ftting reqs massively increased, or use cap. That would be the balance. How do projectile fitting requirements have anything to do with your idea about prop mods not using capacitor? The two ideas just don't connect. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Saladinae
Red Federation RvB - RED Federation
19
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 17:46:00 -
[18] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Saladinae wrote:Xavier Thorm wrote:Passive-tanked projectile boats do indeed not need cap for their weapons or tank. So? That doesn't make imbalanced that they need cap for their prop mods. Projectile should have either their ftting reqs massively increased, or use cap. That would be the balance. How do projectile fitting requirements have anything to do with your idea about prop mods not using capacitor? The two ideas just don't connect.
If you remain isolated to the very idea of the OP, no they don't connect, they moment you extrapolate, everything needs to be considered. Winmatar > Everything else |
Xavier Thorm
Dreddit Test Alliance Please Ignore
86
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 17:52:00 -
[19] - Quote
Saladinae wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Saladinae wrote:Xavier Thorm wrote:Passive-tanked projectile boats do indeed not need cap for their weapons or tank. So? That doesn't make imbalanced that they need cap for their prop mods. Projectile should have either their ftting reqs massively increased, or use cap. That would be the balance. How do projectile fitting requirements have anything to do with your idea about prop mods not using capacitor? The two ideas just don't connect. If you remain isolated to the very idea of the OP, no they don't connect, they moment you extrapolate, everything needs to be considered.
I cant tell if you're a half-decent troll, or just really crazy. |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
2409
|
Posted - 2013.05.09 18:06:00 -
[20] - Quote
Xavier Thorm wrote:Saladinae wrote:If you remain isolated to the very idea of the OP, no they don't connect, they moment you extrapolate, everything needs to be considered. I cant tell if you're a half-decent troll, or just really crazy. Indeed. Let's just let this thread die. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
|
Saladinae
Virtual Warriors IMPERIAL LEGI0N
19
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 00:02:00 -
[21] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Xavier Thorm wrote:Saladinae wrote:If you remain isolated to the very idea of the OP, no they don't connect, they moment you extrapolate, everything needs to be considered. I cant tell if you're a half-decent troll, or just really crazy. Indeed. Let's just let this thread die.
No, you're both caught in a trap, either you have to admit that Winmatard ships are barely affected by neuts, and thus their weapons must use cap, or you have to accept the proposal in the OP that removes cap usage for propulsion.
I'll take a compromise for this proposal affecting Afterburners only, since technically they burn "gas." Add a fuel bay for afterburners. Winmatar > Everything else |
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Late Night Alliance
2412
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 00:10:00 -
[22] - Quote
Saladinae wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Xavier Thorm wrote:Saladinae wrote:If you remain isolated to the very idea of the OP, no they don't connect, they moment you extrapolate, everything needs to be considered. I cant tell if you're a half-decent troll, or just really crazy. Indeed. Let's just let this thread die. No, you're both caught in a trap, either you have to admit that Winmatard ships are barely affected by neuts, and thus their weapons must use cap, or you have to accept the proposal in the OP that removes cap usage for propulsion. Or you can accept that your propulsion idea has wide ranging consequences that go above and beyond projectile weapons. It already doesn't take much effort for a frigate (any frigate) to speed tank a larger ship... the exception to this being drone boats which have their own strengths and weaknesses.
edit: basically you choose poorly in trying to engage an Arbitrator in a frigate. Change isn't bad, but it isn't always good. Sometimes, the oldest and most simple of things can be the most elegant and effective. |
Saladinae
Virtual Warriors IMPERIAL LEGI0N
19
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 01:17:00 -
[23] - Quote
ShahFluffers wrote:Saladinae wrote:ShahFluffers wrote:Xavier Thorm wrote:Saladinae wrote:If you remain isolated to the very idea of the OP, no they don't connect, they moment you extrapolate, everything needs to be considered. I cant tell if you're a half-decent troll, or just really crazy. Indeed. Let's just let this thread die. No, you're both caught in a trap, either you have to admit that Winmatard ships are barely affected by neuts, and thus their weapons must use cap, or you have to accept the proposal in the OP that removes cap usage for propulsion. Or you can accept that your propulsion idea has wide ranging consequences that go above and beyond projectile weapons. It already doesn't take much effort for a frigate (any frigate) to speed tank a larger ship... the exception to this being drone boats which have their own strengths and weaknesses. edit: basically you choose poorly in trying to engage an Arbitrator in a frigate.
You think this is isolated to arbitrators? Also where's my lossmail from an Arbitrator? Ad Hominem fail! Winmatar > Everything else |
Domanique Altares
Rifterlings Point Blank Alliance
17
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 01:31:00 -
[24] - Quote
ITT: OP regales us with stories of why it's the other guy's fault that he got caught in neut range trying to fight a drone boat cruiser with a frigate.
Suck it up, OP. People's pilot error shouldn't result in massive changes to how systems work. I die a lot, and it's usually my fault. I fly badly or make poor decisions. It's usually your fault when you die, too. |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Tribal Band
504
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 03:19:00 -
[25] - Quote
Larger neutralizers have much longer cycle times, so you must use multiple neutralizers on a single frigate to keep its capacitor low enough that it can't turn its propulsion module on. Fit a warfare link to your tech 1 battlecruiser. Train Wing Commander. Get in the Squad Commander or Wing Commander position. Your fleets will be superior to everyone else's. |
Zan Shiro
Alternative Enterprises
140
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 06:36:00 -
[26] - Quote
Saladinae wrote:I'll take a compromise for this proposal affecting Afterburners only, since technically they burn "gas." Add a fuel bay for afterburners.
you do know this kills the frigate pvp you are trying to encourage, right? Especially soio.
Lots of good frig fits are AB powered. To go AB frig joy riding you now have to bring haulers for refills. How you do this solo, you work that out. Or it gets interesting...
I wil be nice, you are on a solo rampage and popping ships left and right.
then you see the gas tank running low.
Now I will be mean. You are in 0.0 space. NPC 0.0 is far far away. Any player stations nearby are locked down. You aren't in that alliance. Your killing streak ends not in glory, but from the fact after 1 or 2 ab spanks the gas is gone and you are slow as hell and picked off easily. |
Linkxsc162534
Caldari Provisions Caldari State
1
|
Posted - 2013.05.10 12:13:00 -
[27] - Quote
Saladinae wrote: I'll take a compromise for this proposal affecting Afterburners only, since technically they burn "gas." Add a fuel bay for afterburners.
Just to let you know, when you say gas there I die a little inside.
But now we actually hit a problem because in eve afterburners DONT use fuel. See an afterburner works on a jet engine because after regular combustion happens and exhaust is vented out the back, there's still a bit of unconsumed oxygen (and a few other useful compounds), The afterburner injects MORE fuel into this mix to burn, and shows the aircraft an increase in speed for a dramatic increase in fuel consumption.
In Eve, ships run using, what I can only assume is ion propulsion, or some other form of electrically driven thrust. Hence why when flying normally you never run out of fuel. An afterburner in eve is just a unit that forces more power into the engine to gain an increase in speed (exactly how it works now).
Possibly the only thing I could concede for a new prop mod, would be a cap booster driven module, but like many others have said. For a period of time, now there are unneutable projectile and missileboats.
Though on the cab booster module, i'd say give it an even higher speed bonus, but while using it your agility drops like a rock. Trying to go in 1 direction real fast, good for you, but you're not gonna be able to stop your frig and pull it into a kiting orbit around someone with your web and scram on. |
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |