Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Kismeteer
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
831
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 18:29:15 -
[31] - Quote
Shouldn't have cooldown on a failure to launch. That'd be like getting jump fatigue after undocking and jumping inside a bubble. |
Amber Starview
Federal Navy Academy Gallente Federation
6
|
Posted - 2015.09.11 20:40:43 -
[32] - Quote
+1 No cool down after failure to jump due to scram
keep timers the same imo I think this change would help enough |
Ncc 1709
Fusion Enterprises Ltd Phoenix Company Alliance
202
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 06:36:19 -
[33] - Quote
the ninja scraming is really really iritating. your only pointed for 99% of the fight, you hit the mjd and someone slaps a scram on you before you jump then runs off out of range again before you can react to them, stopping you from jumping.
if your not scramed when the cycle starts, then it has no affect on the present cycle |
Saisin
Chao3's Rogue Operatives Corp Chao3 Alliance
289
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 19:06:05 -
[34] - Quote
+1 ideas to balance the meta better between brawlers and kitters are good.
"surrender your ego, be free". innuendo.
solo? There is a new hope...
|
Reah Darknorth
Republic Military School Minmatar Republic
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.13 21:19:31 -
[35] - Quote
That's the way it should be, and I've said so since MJDs first came out. Nice to see other people feel the same way. +1
Or, "alternatively you could have it where unsuccessful MJDs from scrams incur a shorter cooldown time." Also not a bad idea. If the cool-down were made short enough this would also be fine.
Either way is fine with me. We just shouldn't have to wait out the entire cool-down timer when the damn thing didn't even make its jump.
It would be a decent minor change with all around positive effects. |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
59
|
Posted - 2015.09.14 04:43:32 -
[36] - Quote
Rivr Luzade wrote:Baali Tekitsu wrote:It would make tackling battleships almost impossible, especially those with more than one neut available. Not supported. What do you mean? If an MJD is aborted, it is because of a scrambler applied to the ship. The ship would not be able to activate the MJD again regardless of how short the cooldown is. Even if a BS applies 2 offset medium neuts to a single ceptor, the ceptor can recover enough cap in between these cycles to re-activate the scram (the Faint Epsilon on my ship currently requires 0.6 GJ to activate). It would probably require more skill from the tackler, but if that is a problem to introduce this to make MJD more viable outside PVE, we have more serious problems.
I like how this would encourage more tacklers to engage targets and serve to slightly defeat the kite heavy meta as it stands. However, this wouldn't solve much. Tackling a battleship in that state already takes a lot of work, you need to be able to visually identify when it is that the battleship in question is actually spooling the MJD and then dive the target during that cycle, make it there prior to its completion, and then make it out alive. This is a challenge outright, even for an interceptor, although not as much as it would be any other frigate class.
The frigate class of ship is still as it stands the perfect ship class for accomplishing this objective, as larger ships, wouldn't be likely to escape "death range" upon landing the scram. If this were to be changed so that scram must be maintained throughout the ENTIRE engagement it would be unlikely many ships would be able to withstand that onslaught, under the obligatory, scrams, webs, and neuts that the tackler is likely to face. Especially if ships like the rattlesnake are in concern here, only T3 cruisers and other battleships are going to be able to land the scram for the length of time required to simply stop the target from MJD'ing. Battleships have some extreme longevity and asking any ship to get in commitment range of it and simply brawl with it is a pretty tall order. This proposal offers to change the meta so that either Garmurs and Kereses would be the only class of frigates that even stand a chance at holding scram on a MJDing battleship, or alternatively, having much larger vessel who's original intent isn't tackling, supplant frigates as the better tacklers in this situation.
Ultimately, while I like this idea, if it were to be implemented the meta would simply change to a more annoying method to counter this, not a more tactful one. I can support a shorter cooldown, but not a complete negation of the timer, or a cooldown that is otherwise akin to a negation of the timer.
-1 |
Budrick3
POS Party Low-Class
116
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 15:24:46 -
[37] - Quote
Madd Adda wrote:Alternatively you could have it where unsuccessful MJDs from scrams incur a shorter cooldown time.
This is a good idea, and would encourage people to fly something bigger than the stupid frig, desi meta that is the cancer of eve currently. |
Azazel The Misanthrope
Proioxis Assault Force Exodus.
67
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 15:46:18 -
[38] - Quote
Budrick3 wrote:Madd Adda wrote:Alternatively you could have it where unsuccessful MJDs from scrams incur a shorter cooldown time. This is a good idea, and would encourage people to fly something bigger than the stupid frig, desi meta that is the cancer of eve currently.
Incorrect, the Destroyer class is the top of the meta right now due to T3Ds, but the cruiser class has been on the top of the meta for a significantly long period of time. This would not encourage people to fly larger ships seeing as right now it is the larger ships that defeat the MJDing BC or BS, frigates are used as support in these situations because they do not have the DPS or the tank to survive engaging a properly fit MJDing BC or BS. The job of the vessel is to hinder it long enough that the fleet it is aiding can destroy the MJDer.
The current cancer of the eve meta is the kitey orthrus and the variety of T3Ds. Since brawling is in such a bad spot the ships that can actually land scram on an MJDer are scarce.
|
Maldiro Selkurk
CHEMO IMMUNO RESISTANT VIRUS X
504
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 19:22:24 -
[39] - Quote
Mike Voidstar wrote:Instead of a cooldown timer, make the MJD use some kind of charge with a similar reload timer. That way if a jump occurs you use the charge and have to reload, if a jump does not occur the charge is not used and you may try again immediately.
Hate this idea, in PVE you already carry an MTU and ammo and whatever loot and salvage you already have and adding more charges to the hold and taking up even more space is bad.
Yawn,-á I'm right as usual. The predictability kinda gets boring really.
|
Val'Dore
PlanetCorp InterStellar
1027
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 21:05:10 -
[40] - Quote
Perhaps the T2 MJD that isn't in yet could have this effect.
Star Jump Drive A new way to traverse the galaxy.
I invented Tiericide
|
|
d0cTeR9
Astro Technologies SpaceMonkey's Alliance
239
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 21:27:14 -
[41] - Quote
Supported.
So far the only people against are known to tackle battleships with very small numbers to shoot their resist holes and kill them while they catch them ratting/pve.
We should see more BS on the field.
Been around since the beginning.
|
Xaros IX
Imperial Academy Amarr Empire
2
|
Posted - 2015.09.19 22:17:13 -
[42] - Quote
Although your argument seems to be valid (no real use of module== no penalty), MJD is a very tactical module , you will get a nearly insta 100km distance, disallowing your enemies to dictate their range to target and your range to safety. Since no other module grants you such leverage on distance traversed per unit time (excluding caps and blops) , it should have disadvantages concerning its activation.
You reaped no rewards from activating your module due to being scramed, therefore you wasted the advantage that module could have offered you. You want a second chance. Tough |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1372
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 03:42:30 -
[43] - Quote
This would make BS too difficult to hold down. I could spool up my MJD and then activate my ECM burst. Then it's a matter of spamming the spooled up MJD. This module already gives the BS a hefty leg up on getting out of a fight, it' doesn't need a buff at all.
It would make flying a marauder pretty much get out of jail free. Spool up MJD, hit bastion. When bastion times out it's already a spam the scram race to catch the aligned marauder as it is, add a spooled up MJD and ECM burst, and you have too many options to get away from a fight.
This would NOT make BS meaningful in pvp it would be just another risk aversion tool for the site runners to get out of harms way. |
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1372
|
Posted - 2015.09.20 03:50:11 -
[44] - Quote
d0cTeR9 wrote:Supported.
So far the only people against are known to tackle battleships with very small numbers to shoot their resist holes and kill them while they catch them ratting/pve.
We should see more BS on the field.
How will this put more BS on the field? It'll just put more kiting battlecruisers on the field, or are you proposing this change for BS MJD only? BC just got their range buff, if you give them free spool ups too (or no c/d penalty) - you'll see even fewer BS on the field. This change will do nothing for BS that it won't do twice as well for BC.
All I see is an addition escape mechanism for pve folks (when coupled w/ ecm burst). If guys want to pve where they can't be ganked there are HS missins and incursions. So yeah, if a guy chooses to conduct pve in a place where he can be ganked someone sure as hell ought to have a way to gank him.
NO to more risk aversion |
Reaver Glitterstim
Dromedaworks inc Test Alliance Please Ignore
2769
|
Posted - 2015.12.11 19:15:55 -
[45] - Quote
I think when you're scrammed, your MJD cycle should just stop. No cooldown, but you have to start the cycle from the beginning once the scram is off.
Pirate ship Nightmare, can you fathom
Larger but with smaller spikes than Phantasm
The Succubus looks meaner
But the Revenant cleaner
Seems as they get bigger, the smaller spikes they has'm
|
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2006
|
Posted - 2015.12.12 03:03:56 -
[46] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:d0cTeR9 wrote:Supported.
So far the only people against are known to tackle battleships with very small numbers to shoot their resist holes and kill them while they catch them ratting/pve.
We should see more BS on the field. How will this put more BS on the field? It'll just put more kiting battlecruisers on the field, or are you proposing this change for BS MJD only? BC just got their range buff, if you give them free spool ups too (or no c/d penalty) - you'll see even fewer BS on the field. This change will do nothing for BS that it won't do twice as well for BC.
I thought part of the reason to buff BC's was so that Battleships would have something to snack on?
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Serendipity Lost
Repo Industries
1670
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 15:14:47 -
[47] - Quote
FT Diomedes wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:d0cTeR9 wrote:Supported.
So far the only people against are known to tackle battleships with very small numbers to shoot their resist holes and kill them while they catch them ratting/pve.
We should see more BS on the field. How will this put more BS on the field? It'll just put more kiting battlecruisers on the field, or are you proposing this change for BS MJD only? BC just got their range buff, if you give them free spool ups too (or no c/d penalty) - you'll see even fewer BS on the field. This change will do nothing for BS that it won't do twice as well for BC. I thought part of the reason to buff BC's was so that Battleships would have something to snack on?
My belief is Fozzie is a risk averse kiting armor hac pilot from back in the day. He likes high risists, small sigs and lots of logi suport. To get his head around BC pvp he needed to make them faster and give them a "range projection" bonus so they don't fight in tackle range. Brawling BC just don't make sense to him. (PRO HINT: they are BATTLE cruisers, not SNIPING cruisers - bigger, slower heavier brawling cruisers)
He likes long walks on the beach, range damps and MJD bubble destroyers. His dislikes are puppies, anything that could web your down, painters and pipebombs.
I believe he came up with the geddon changes while in a drunken stupor and the rest of the staff put the change in as a side joke (I can't prove that one yet, but it's the only reasonable explanation for that sort of vandalism) |
Alexis Nightwish
358
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 19:39:46 -
[48] - Quote
Only read the OP which I wholeheartedly agree with; MJDs cost a lot of cap to activate and getting scrammed should not cripple the module for 3 minutes.
Since the original post date was in August I'd like to just say that if this idea were implemented it should NOT apply to MJFGs!
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Alexis Nightwish
359
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 20:20:43 -
[49] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:This would make BS too difficult to hold down. I could spool up my MJD and then activate my ECM burst. Then it's a matter of spamming the spooled up MJD. This module already gives the BS a hefty leg up on getting out of a fight, it' doesn't need a buff at all.
It would make flying a marauder pretty much get out of jail free. Spool up MJD, hit bastion. When bastion times out it's already a spam the scram race to catch the aligned marauder as it is, add a spooled up MJD and ECM burst, and you have too many options to get away from a fight.
This would NOT make BS meaningful in pvp it would be just another risk aversion tool for the site runners to get out of harms way. Ummm no.
You seem to think the ECM Burst is some sort of magic faerie module. It's not. It has a 30 second cooldown and a range of only 6km. If your tackle allowed himself to get within SB/ECM burst range when his scram is at least 9km, you should fire him. And even if he does stray within range the Burst, on an unbonused ship (which is every PvE BC/BS) it's a crap shoot just like EC-300s. It may work, but more than likely it won't. Also the Burst only breaks locks. It does not jam you. So tackle just relocks, and scrams again.
The OP's proposal will change nothing regarding Marauders. Now: Spool up MJD ~8 seconds before Bastion ends, hope they don't scram in that ~1 second window. If you get scrammed, reactivate Bastion and try again in 1 minute (Marauders get a cooldown reduction so the MJD takes 1 minute to cool down just like Bastion cycle time) If proposal is implemented: Spool up MJD ~8 seconds before Bastion ends, hope they don't scram in that ~1 second window. If you get scrammed, reactivate Bastion and try again in 1 minute. I mean, there's no reason to not reactivate Bastion. Not like the tackle is going to stop scramming. The Marauder isn't moving after all. And if you think the ECM burst will solve the problem, please read my first paragraph.
CCP approaches problems in one of two ways: nudge or cludge
EVE Online's "I win!" Button
Fixing bombs, not the bombers
|
Vailen Sere
the oasis group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 21:06:34 -
[50] - Quote
Bodb Derg wrote:Did somebody lose a ship by mistiming the MJD perhaps? :P I've saved alot of ships by not mistiming and raw luck. |
|
Vailen Sere
the oasis group TOG - The Older Gamers Alliance
14
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 21:10:58 -
[51] - Quote
Serendipity Lost wrote:d0cTeR9 wrote:Supported.
So far the only people against are known to tackle battleships with very small numbers to shoot their resist holes and kill them while they catch them ratting/pve.
We should see more BS on the field. How will this put more BS on the field? It'll just put more kiting battlecruisers on the field, or are you proposing this change for BS MJD only? BC just got their range buff, if you give them free spool ups too (or no c/d penalty) - you'll see even fewer BS on the field. This change will do nothing for BS that it won't do twice as well for BC. All I see is an addition escape mechanism for pve folks (when coupled w/ ecm burst). If guys want to pve where they can't be ganked there are HS missins and incursions. So yeah, if a guy chooses to conduct pve in a place where he can be ganked someone sure as hell ought to have a way to gank him. NO to more risk aversion "No Scorpion battleships fitted with ECM burst and MJD's were hurt or escaped in the creation of this post". |
Frostys Virpio
KarmaFleet Goonswarm Federation
2421
|
Posted - 2015.12.14 21:18:37 -
[52] - Quote
Vailen Sere wrote:Serendipity Lost wrote:d0cTeR9 wrote:Supported.
So far the only people against are known to tackle battleships with very small numbers to shoot their resist holes and kill them while they catch them ratting/pve.
We should see more BS on the field. How will this put more BS on the field? It'll just put more kiting battlecruisers on the field, or are you proposing this change for BS MJD only? BC just got their range buff, if you give them free spool ups too (or no c/d penalty) - you'll see even fewer BS on the field. This change will do nothing for BS that it won't do twice as well for BC. All I see is an addition escape mechanism for pve folks (when coupled w/ ecm burst). If guys want to pve where they can't be ganked there are HS missins and incursions. So yeah, if a guy chooses to conduct pve in a place where he can be ganked someone sure as hell ought to have a way to gank him. NO to more risk aversion "No Scorpion battleships fitted with ECM burst and MJD's were hurt or escaped in the creation of this post".
Dem scorpion will blot out the suns in the whole universe!!!!! |
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |