Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Kalel Nimrott
Sky Fighters
788
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 21:31:00 -
[241] - Quote
Fastest warp and slower sublight speeds. My opinions are not my own. They come from the consensus of my corp. So, suck it. |
Chitsa Jason
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
1163
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 21:35:00 -
[242] - Quote
Just want to add my 2ISK here. CCP has been provided with links to this thread during the summit, so everything you post here is gonna get considered and talked about. CSM8 Member Twitter:-á@ChitsaJason Skype: Casparas
|
Sum Olgy
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
55
|
Posted - 2014.02.18 21:45:00 -
[243] - Quote
As others have said - make Black Holes worth living in or at least being in - give them a bonus to PI or extra spawns or WH moon goo or guaranteed Ghost Sites or something.
Perhaps guaranteed ghost sites but no moons?
Anything that'll make people want to fight over them, despite the fact the actual fighting is painful. Greed is good, as is pvp. |
Kagura Nikon
Mentally Assured Destruction The Pursuit of Happiness
1283
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 11:20:00 -
[244] - Quote
Make any supercapital in normal space that warps or passes durign warp within 1au of a wormhoel to a black hoel be sucked in and stay there stuck.. forever... "If brute force does not solve your problem..... -áthen you are -ásurely not using enough!" |
Lloyd Roses
Blue-Fire
518
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 11:34:00 -
[245] - Quote
Tythihoz wrote:Due to the gravity from the Black Hole all ships should get 20-40% added mass.
oO - Density increases. "I honestly thought I was in lowsec"
Moving pictures: The Enyo |
Kaban Bastanold
The Motley Few
6
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 13:55:00 -
[246] - Quote
Chitsa Jason wrote:Just want to add my 2ISK here. CCP has been provided with links to this thread during the summit, so everything you post here is gonna get considered and talked about.
Can you let us know if we get referenced somehow, It would be nice to know if we had input. |
Chitsa Jason
Future Corps Sleeper Social Club
1164
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 14:18:00 -
[247] - Quote
Kaban Bastanold wrote:Chitsa Jason wrote:Just want to add my 2ISK here. CCP has been provided with links to this thread during the summit, so everything you post here is gonna get considered and talked about. Can you let us know if we get referenced somehow, It would be nice to know if we had input.
If that happens sure I will. CSM8 Member Twitter:-á@ChitsaJason Skype: Casparas
|
Noxisia Arkana
Deadspace Knights
170
|
Posted - 2014.02.19 18:52:00 -
[248] - Quote
Lloyd Roses wrote:Tythihoz wrote:Due to the gravity from the Black Hole all ships should get 20-40% added mass.
oO - Density increases.
That would be a huge pain in the ***.
Also, what happens to the POS's in black holes if the moons get removed?
Missile bonus is the only thing that makes sense with the current effects. CCP could just remove black hole effects and add in something completely new. It would open up a wider range of possibilities than trying to find something that makes sense in a black hole. |
Proclus Diadochu
Obstergo Red Coat Conspiracy
1231
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 05:04:00 -
[249] - Quote
Alright, guys... Been giving this some thought, and came up with an idea. I bounced this off some of the guys in alliance, and it seems to not sound crazy, so before I write an article about my "crazy" idea, thought I'd ask you guys.
Black holes, as it seems, have a strange effect on Morphite which causes some interesting effects:
Black Hole Wormhole Effects
Affected Stat C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 T2 Armor HP (+24%)(+44%)(+55%)(+68%)(+85%)(+100%) T2 Shield HP (+24%)(+44%)(+55%)(+68%)(+85%)(+100%) T2 Specific Bonus (+24%)(+44%)(+55%)(+68%)(+85%)(+100%) Heat Damage (+10%)(+19%)(+27%)(+34%)(+41%)(+50%) Repair/Shield Boost Amount(-10%)(-19%)(-27%)(-34%)(-41%)(-50%)
So this idea would increase T2 ships in Black holes, however would impact heat damage, and also local reps (because Marauders would get busted). Any thoughts? CSM9 Candidate | Twitter: @autoritare | Gmail: [email protected] Campaign Thread: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=325889 Wormhole Discussion: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326273 |
Karen Galeo
Sin Factory Infinite Anarchy
5
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 05:47:00 -
[250] - Quote
That does not sound crazy, but how easy would it be for CCP to designate which hulls get which bonus? I do not know enough about how the ship object database works to be able to tell if that one is feasible, but it is interesting. ^^ Even if I can;t fly T2's quite yet.
On the other side, we have wormholes that buff light weapons... what if we had a wormhole that buffed the large turrets and cruise missiles? Author of the Karen 162 blog. Karen Galeo is running for CSM9! |
|
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Awakened.
1411
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 09:05:00 -
[251] - Quote
Proclus Diadochu wrote: Stuff about T2 ships
That's pretty cray cray.
All ccp needs to do to "fix" black hole systems is turn the negative weapons related bonuses to positive (e.g. C6 wormholes give a 50% increase to optimal and falloff). +1 |
Glyndi
Doom Generation THE H0NEYBADGER
169
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 09:21:00 -
[252] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Proclus Diadochu wrote: Stuff about T2 ships That's pretty cray cray. All ccp needs to do to "fix" black hole systems is turn the negative weapons related bonuses to positive (e.g. C6 wormholes give a 50% increase to optimal and falloff).
I'm with Rek on this one. Seems like it could be easiest to just reverse the current stats. You'd move like a brick but hit and at a longer range |
Janeway84
Masters Of Destiny Pride Before Fall
78
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 12:15:00 -
[253] - Quote
Proclus Diadochu wrote:Alright, guys... Been giving this some thought, and came up with an idea. I bounced this off some of the guys in alliance, and it seems to not sound crazy, so before I write an article about my "crazy" idea, thought I'd ask you guys.
Black holes, as it seems, have a strange effect on Morphite which causes some interesting effects:
Black Hole Wormhole Effects
Affected Stat C1 C2 C3 C4 C5 C6 T2 Armor HP (+24%)(+44%)(+55%)(+68%)(+85%)(+100%) T2 Shield HP (+24%)(+44%)(+55%)(+68%)(+85%)(+100%) T2 Specific Bonus (+24%)(+44%)(+55%)(+68%)(+85%)(+100%) Heat Damage (+10%)(+19%)(+27%)(+34%)(+41%)(+50%) Repair/Shield Boost Amount(-10%)(-19%)(-27%)(-34%)(-41%)(-50%)
So this idea would increase T2 ships in Black holes, however would impact heat damage, and also local reps (because Marauders would get busted). Any thoughts?
Looks like some intresting stats def. a unique set of bonuses
Although would be cool with a wh that gave a boost to large guns and missiles like some one mentioned above. Maybe if if could be added somewhere.. |
Proclus Diadochu
Obstergo Red Coat Conspiracy
1232
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 13:28:00 -
[254] - Quote
Glyndi wrote:Rek Seven wrote:Proclus Diadochu wrote: Stuff about T2 ships That's pretty cray cray. All ccp needs to do to "fix" black hole systems is turn the negative weapons related bonuses to positive (e.g. C6 wormholes give a 50% increase to optimal and falloff). I'm with Rek on this one. Seems like it could be easiest to just reverse the current stats. You'd move like a brick but hit and at a longer range
I don't know, bro. I want people to want to move into Black holes. Moving like a brick sounds like a pretty good deterrent. But, it still sounds better to me than an industrial wormhole, but then again, some people enjoy that part of the game and may support an industrial style. I just felt that the T2 bonus scheme was something that would excite me about the systems...
Just trying to get out of the box, and I'm not sure how difficult it would be to be able to check [yes] it's a T2, therefore add bonuses. It also seems like an idea that would encourage more to move into the lower class blackholes? CSM9 Candidate | Twitter: @autoritare | Gmail: [email protected] Campaign Thread: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=325889 Wormhole Discussion: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326273 |
Rek Seven
Probe Patrol Awakened.
1414
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 13:47:00 -
[255] - Quote
Proclus Diadochu wrote: Just trying to get out of the box, and I'm not sure how difficult it would be to be able to check [yes] it's a T2, therefore add bonuses. It also seems like an idea that would encourage more to move into the lower class blackholes?
During the Chitsas Wormhole meeting last week, while people were talking about their ideas for wormhole space, i found my self thinking "would CCP actually be willing to do this?" and IMO the answer was often "no". I think your proposal falls into that category. If we want any changes to wormhole space, we need to keep it simple and not too resource intensive.
Let's say they did change it to the way i describes, yes you would still turn like a boat but you would be very fast and would have the damage projection to kite effectively. T2 hull would be king in this type of wormhole anyway as they are naturally faster and more agile than T3 hulls.
Damn i'm good... maybe i should run for CSM +1 |
Proclus Diadochu
Obstergo Red Coat Conspiracy
1232
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 13:53:00 -
[256] - Quote
Rek Seven wrote:Proclus Diadochu wrote: Just trying to get out of the box, and I'm not sure how difficult it would be to be able to check [yes] it's a T2, therefore add bonuses. It also seems like an idea that would encourage more to move into the lower class blackholes?
During the Chitsas Wormhole meeting last week, while people were talking about their ideas for wormhole space, i found my self thinking "would CCP actually be willing to do this?" and IMO the answer was often "no". I think your proposal falls into that category. If we want any changes to wormhole space, we need to keep it simple and not too resource intensive. Let's say they did change it to the way i describes, yes you would still turn like a boat but you would be very fast and would have the damage projection to kite effectively. T2 hull would be king in this type of wormhole anyway as they are naturally faster and more agile than T3 hulls. Damn i'm good... maybe i should run for CSM
I don't disagree that your idea had it's merit and should be relatively easy to implement. However, I'm not going to dismiss ideas just because I think that CCP might say "no". I also won't dismiss ideas just because they may be difficult or take time to implement. Also, unless you are a programmer, I don't think either of us can posit the resource intensity of any of these changes outside of our "guessing", which leads back to my point that I'd push for good ideas regardless of how simple or complex they sound...
You should just vote for me instead CSM9 Candidate | Twitter: @autoritare | Gmail: [email protected] Campaign Thread: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=325889 Wormhole Discussion: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326273 |
Soldarius
Deadman W0nderland Test Alliance Please Ignore
594
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 13:55:00 -
[257] - Quote
All T2 items are meta 5. So its just a matter of checking if(metaLevel==5){gib bonii}.
As far as adjusting those wormhole effects, I can't imagine it would be much harder. Mass and range are also just numbers in a database. Modifying them should pose no trouble.
The big question is whether the changes are acceptable to both CCP and players. Free Ripley Weaver! |
Meytal
School of Applied Knowledge Caldari State
328
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 15:28:00 -
[258] - Quote
It seems like CCP intended Black Holes to be high-speed brawl systems maybe? The specific bonuses and penalties also make PvE harder and more skill-intensive, but that's just too bad. Systems where you have to get up close and personal before throwing stones at each other is quite nice :)
If that was the case, where the design failed was not accounting for the increased speeds with application of damage. Increase tracking and explosion velocity relative to speed increase. Because there is effectively a system-wide sensor dampener in effect, remote sensor damps should also not work, whether ship-based or POS module. |
Henry Cummings
Rapax.Legion
32
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 16:03:00 -
[259] - Quote
Let's not make black hole effect systems systems to buff t2s in comparison to the t3 meta. T2 ships need to stand on their own two feet, without a crutch. The entire suggestion just seems reminiscent of a bigger problem: t3 ships vs t2 ships.
Suppose t3s are, in the future, nerfed to the ground and t2 ships are buffed, or even stay as they are. (Not saying ccp would do this but for the sake of arguement let's suppose)
Suddenly, black holes are the only system worth a damn in an ironic perversion of the current meta. Let's avoid that. |
Proclus Diadochu
Obstergo Red Coat Conspiracy
1233
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 16:19:00 -
[260] - Quote
Henry Cummings wrote:Let's not make black hole effect systems systems to buff t2s in comparison to the t3 meta. T2 ships need to stand on their own two feet, without a crutch. The entire suggestion just seems reminiscent of a bigger problem: t3 ships vs t2 ships.
Suppose t3s are, in the future, nerfed to the ground and t2 ships are buffed, or even stay as they are. (Not saying ccp would do this but for the sake of arguement let's suppose)
Suddenly, black holes are the only system worth a damn in an ironic perversion of the current meta. Let's avoid that.
Henry, you have your scope too narrow. I'm not suggesting that this is the best idea either, however it is diverse, and also doesn't take away the virtues of the other non-vanilla wormholes. It would mean that T2's would fair better against T3's in those holes, and this is based on the current mechanics. Noone argues that T3's could use improvements, but the only nerf I'd see CCP implementing would be HP, but even with a marginal HP nerf, most T3's would still be comparable even in this type of wormhole environment. So this wouldn't break anything and surely wouldn't make Blackholes the only system worth anything. Let's not get dramatic, bro.
I'm working on a thing with my overall T3 discussion. A ton has to do with the perception, direction, and meta of T3's and where proposals "could" go to better those things. Let's see how that discussion goes as we continue the necro'd Blackhole one :) CSM9 Candidate | Twitter: @autoritare | Gmail: [email protected] Campaign Thread: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=325889 Wormhole Discussion: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326273 |
|
cpt Mark
The Great Harmon Institute Of Technology Heiian Conglomerate
3
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 17:07:00 -
[261] - Quote
Ships near the black hole should be sucked in depending on mass and ship velocity (some ships like frigs etc should be able to escape from closer to the black hole)
POS structures should require additional anchoring to prevent them being sucked in.
Ships warping past the black hole should be thrown off course into dead space, taking shield damage.
Stars being sucked into black holes should release solar flares that blow out shields and capacitor in all syst |
Henry Cummings
Rapax.Legion
32
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 19:11:00 -
[262] - Quote
Proclus Diadochu wrote:
Henry, you have your scope too narrow. I'm not suggesting that this is the best idea either, however it is diverse, and also doesn't take away the virtues of the other non-vanilla wormholes. It would mean that T2's would fair better against T3's in those holes, and this is based on the current mechanics. Noone argues that T3's could use improvements, but the only nerf I'd see CCP implementing would be HP, but even with a marginal HP nerf, most T3's would still be comparable even in this type of wormhole environment. So this wouldn't break anything and surely wouldn't make Blackholes the only system worth anything. Let's not get dramatic, bro.
I'm working on a thing with my overall T3 discussion. A ton has to do with the perception, direction, and meta of T3's and where proposals "could" go to better those things. Let's see how that discussion goes as we continue the necro'd Blackhole one :)
While t2 ships being inferior to t3s, in general, is a commonly exhibited phenomena in wormhole space, making ships better only in 'certain' situations would be a mistake.
My example was intended to display the worst possible outcome of your suggestion. I do not see it happening, but it still displays what I dislike about your suggestion; empowering certain ships by the merit of them being terrible in comparison to other ships rather than just looking objectively at t2 and t3 ships themselves.
Another problem is the 'current mechanics' point, which is at best unnoteworthy, and at worst downright dangerous. With t3s soon(tm) to undergo a revamp, changing black holes to introduce alternatives to t3s seems silly, and if they are not looked at again after the rebalance, the wormhole community may find itself in a poor situation where this debate will happen yet again.
Another reason I find conflict with your idea is that it seems like a 'waste' of a wormhole effect, especially when so many interesting other ideas have already been proposed. Why waste a wormhole slot balancing ships when we could enjoy far more interesting (and day I say, fun) effects?
While it may be argued that this already happens with other wormhole effects (e.g. Wolf Rayet, Pulsar, CC), I'd like to make the distinction that these effects instead promote a certain type of gameplay rather than just certain ships, which encourages a variety of playstyles to take place.
A good example of this are pulsars. Shield is favoured there when armour isn't (as in the rest of W-Space) which leads to shield-interested groups settling there and successfully challenging armour-oriented groups on occasion. Pulsars also at least have an equivalent counterpart in armour, where a fleet would be hard-pressed to engage with a shield comp in that system.
In contrast, your black hole idea does not display the same level of flexibility, and certainly is not as diverse as you claim, with only certain ships falling into that category and given arbitrary damage boosts to make up for their shortcomings. My perfect situation would be that where t2 ships are given boosts or t3 ships given nerfs in order to make t2 ships a viable alternative to the old standard of armour t3s across all wormholes, not just wasting them on just black holes.
This is just my two cents. I hope my more general explanation of affairs eliminated the conception of my narrow-mindedness, as I can assure I think long and hard before I post anything.
That includes the shitposts
|
Proclus Diadochu
Obstergo Red Coat Conspiracy
1235
|
Posted - 2014.03.14 19:42:00 -
[263] - Quote
So, you mean like a Wolf-Rayet that provides bonus to small weaponry, therefore shows bias to Frigs and Destroyers? I am not saying that I disagree that T3's need rebalancing, but to suggest that a wormhole effect providing bonuses to a particular class would break anything, I'm going to say that I don't agree with you. This I don't believe this idea will break the game and just like an already existing wormhole class that favors one type of ship over another, will provide positives that would bring players to want to live in them.
That said, the idea to just fix the weapon "bonuses" would probably fix that hindrance just as easily, or even easier. I don't know. If anything, I still think that my idea is oodles better than an industrial wormhole... CSM9 Candidate | Twitter: @autoritare | Gmail: [email protected] Campaign Thread: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=325889 Wormhole Discussion: http://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=326273 |
Henry Cummings
Rapax.Legion
32
|
Posted - 2014.03.15 00:49:00 -
[264] - Quote
Proclus Diadochu wrote:
So, you mean like a Wolf-Rayet that provides bonus to small weaponry, therefore shows bias to Frigs and Destroyers?
Again, I think a distinction must be made; this time between the synergy between a wolf-rayet's bonuses and those of your suggested black hole bonuses.
Wolf-Rayets have one (1) bonus specific to only certain ship classes. This bonus is relatively small; a 50% to small weapons is, in absolute (non-percentage) terms, a small increase in dps and has little to no effect on the viability of small-hardpointed ships in a wolf-rayet. It is, more or less, a 'flavour enhancer' that takes advantage of the sig size bonus, which happens to be granted to all of the ships in that wormhole. It has little effect on the overall viability of fleet comps in wolf-rayet systems, but instead allows for more, fun options, like destroyers and assault frigates to be used very successfully againt ABC fleets. It gives them an extra little 'flavour boost'.
Your suggestion, on the other hand, has three (3) gigantic, across-the-board bonuses to only one class of ship, out of (5) bonuses, with one (1) other added, as you say, to make another type of t2 ship viable, bringing us to 4 out of 5 bonuses for a specific type of ship, with one 'flavour' bonus added in. In this way I do not think wolf-rayet bonuses and your suggested black hole bonuses are comparable, and should not be treated as such.
Proclus Diadochu wrote: I am not saying that I disagree that T3's need rebalancing, but to suggest that a wormhole effect providing bonuses to a particular class would break anything, I'm going to say that I don't agree with you.
I shall reiterate; it is only in the worst possible scenario your suggested effects will 'break' anything.
Henry Cummings wrote: My example was intended to display the worst possible outcome of your suggestion.
It is in the principle of your proposal in which I disagree; t2 ships must be allowed to stand on their own two feet and be viable in all of w-space, not just in black holes. I personally do enjoy flying t2 ships, but often don't get such a chance when t3s are the way to go. I appreciate your sentiment of making t2 compositions a viable alternative to t3 compositions, but this is not the way it should be done. Black holes should have other, more general effects that will have a tangible effect on all ships, which almost all current wormholes have (red giants don't really have much effect).
Trust me, proc. I want to mess around in eagle fleets as much as the next guy, but this is not the way to do it. nerf t3s(correctly, but I don't want to get into this) and allow the glorious beagle to roam free in any wormhole by its own merit, rather than because of 3 arbitrary buffs that will apply only occasionally.
Proclus Diadochu wrote: If anything, I still think that my idea is oodles better than an industrial wormhole...
Looks like we're in agreement, then. |
Leah-Ayrn
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
2
|
Posted - 2014.03.15 13:18:00 -
[265] - Quote
Just a thought, but how about this: Black Holes keep the current effects regarding ship mobility, but give an positive bonus to drone usage (optimal, tracking, damage. pick one)
Currently only 2 effects specifically target drones, and both do so negatively. So how about a positive? While it might encourage PvE more than PvP, targets are targets. At least it would encourage people to get into the systems. Plus it could add a neat little layer into the meta; roll into a BlackHole and already know what weapon system you face, and know at the same time you'll be at a disadvantage.
Of course it may need refined, and figure out how to deal with carriers/fighters. But its an idea. |
Anize Oramara
S T R A T C O M Critical-Mass
148
|
Posted - 2014.03.15 14:47:00 -
[266] - Quote
I've been looking into Black holes from a purely cap escalation point of view and have noticed a few interesting things with the effects as they currently are.
To run cap escalations the most efficiently requires Moroses. Naglfars are no slouches but at all 5 skills they just can't compete with the close range dps of a moros.
An interesting thing happens in a Black hole though.
Naglfars, because they rely more heavily on Falloff and because they have so many more mids they can nearly ignore one of the negative effect of these wormholes. Suddenly Naglfars are far superior to Moroses when running these sites.
That said you still lose over 2k dps at the 36km orbiting range but that's nothing compared to the nearly 5k a Moros loses, not to mention the horrible projection at further ranges. The difference between a Nag and Moros just grows after that.
This has actually got me thinking, why do people REALLY hate black holes so much? With this new information I would like to put forward that the real reason is pretty simple.
Because people are unable or too lazy to adapt.
Regardless, from what we've seen there are enough unoccupied normal C5s out there that I have not heard a single valid argument against BHs existing considering you can cap escalate at 80-85% efficiency.
In fact, with how many sites are clogged up in BHs at the moment I can't understand why people aren't flooding them as we speak.
Granted this IS only from a cap escalation POV but we have run enough C3-C4 BHs to see that they are also easily adapted to and in fact with certain tactics can even run them FASTER than normal because of the increase in ship speed. (Think blasters)
I wouldn't advocate for a boost in drone or missiles to help boost lower class BH wormholes simply because all other sub C5 WHs are currently already run most efficiently with these two weapon systems (RR Tengus and Domis)
Perhaps BHs shouldn't be changed at all, rather the people living in wormholes should be the ones that should get off their fat, lazy asses and change. |
Traba Regina
Serene Vendetta
9
|
Posted - 2014.03.16 00:25:00 -
[267] - Quote
Why not make the so called Black hole have more chance of wondering K-space connections? might link the various classes up a little bit more than atm.
Or a bonus all be it reduced similar to Wolf Rayat and cataclysmic so shield and armo are a little boosted. maybe 50% of a rayat? https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=225281&find=unread Join Serene Vendetta now! |
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
5
|
Posted - 2014.03.16 09:21:00 -
[268] - Quote
I'd prefer something like this:
Ship velocity +10% +18% +22% +27% +34% +50% Inertia +10% +18% +22% +27% +34% +50% Repair amount +25% +44% +55% +68% +85% +100% Shield boost amount +25% +44% +55% +68% +85% +100% Shield transfer amount -10% -19% -27% -34% -41% -50% Remote repair amount -10% -19% -27% -34% -41% -50% Capacitor recharge +10% +18% +22% +27% +34% +50%
- I like the speed/inertia changes in black holes, as of right now they are simply too strong - there is no effect that promotes active boosting in pvp in particular - to counter local-rep-boost for pve-activities (cap escalations especially) capacitor needs to be nerfed
Edit: Yes, marauders would be even more overpowered in such a hole. But there is counters to everything, amirite ... |
Saede Riordan
Alexylva Paradox
6065
|
Posted - 2014.03.16 13:13:00 -
[269] - Quote
This is a slightly out there idea, but give wormholes natural tidi, with level of tidi going up with system class. This adds some really interesting pvp dynamic, since things are slowed down so much. Could even like, if the second stellar body was ever added as a physical place in the systems instead of just being background, make tidi more and more intense as you get closer to the black hole (dunno how technically feasible this is)
I like the maneuvering changes that black holes generate, I just think they need something more.
Torn from grace, gotta find your faith or the devils gonna claim your soul
|
Ab'del Abu
Atlantis Ascendant
5
|
Posted - 2014.03.16 14:31:00 -
[270] - Quote
Saede Riordan wrote:This is a slightly out there idea, but give wormholes natural tidi, with level of tidi going up with system class. This adds some really interesting pvp dynamic, since things are slowed down so much. Could even like, if the second stellar body was ever added as a physical place in the systems instead of just being background, make tidi more and more intense as you get closer to the black hole (dunno how technically feasible this is)
I like the maneuvering changes that black holes generate, I just think they need something more.
excellent trolling! |
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 [9] 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |