Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 20:54:00 -
[1]
Reading through the Assault Ship thread here in GD, several posters discussed that one thing that could help assault frigates is to change the mechanics of MWDs and Afterburners to make Afterburners more viable in PvP. Currently, the drawbacks of using a MWD (signature radius, max capacity) are not enough to discourage people from using them due to the impressive bonus to speed. Afterburners, however, are not used because the speed advantage it provides is extremely unimpressive compared to a MWD.
Basically, Afterburners are Civilian MWDs that happen to work in deadspace complexes. This is not good.
1. Bring MWDs and ABs Closer Together First of all, we need to bring MWDs and ABs a bit closer in general - reduce the speed bonus of MWDs from 550% to 450%, and increase the speed bonus of ABs from 135% to 250-300%.
Now don't freak out yet over the MWD nerfing, I'm not done explaining how this will work. Patience!
Currently both MWDs and Afterburners can have their speed bonus altered by the ratio of their thrust attribute to the fitting ships' mass attribute. As in lighter ships will get a bigger boost, heavy ships get less. This leads me to my second and third points.
2. Make Afterburners More Effective on Heavier Ships There needs to be a scenario where fitting an Afterburner in PvP is more effective than fitting a MWD - as it stands, the capacitor penalty is not nearly enough when considering the huge difference in speed bonus.
Afterburners need to function well where ships are too heavy to benefit terribly well from an MWD (after the MWD speed nerf described in #1). They need to receive their full bonus even if a ship is 20% heavier than average.
3. Make MWDs More Effective on Lighter Ships Microwarp drives follow the same thrust/mass rules as MWDs, but they need to have greater benefits for being fit on lighter ships. This has two effects: Light ships like interceptors maintain their previous speeds, while heavier ships receive less of a bonus.
Combining points 1-3, heavy ships fitting a MWD will be no faster or only marginally faster than if they fit an AB. Fitting a MWD would also incur the penalty to maximum capacitor and signature radius.
Light ships, however, would take better advantage of MWDs due to their smaller mass and maintain their speed advantage relative to MWDs.
What do you guys think? Would this create more variety in PvP, or would it just make using a MWD more of a pain in the ass and still leave ABs in the dust? Support your answers, preferably. ---------------- Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.2 |
Kweel Nakashyn
Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 20:58:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 17/03/2008 20:58:51 10m ?
- edit - I asking because you got me a few times :) 2isk
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 21:00:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 17/03/2008 20:58:51 10m ?
Crap, it's always a bad sign when I post a serious idea and that happens.
No, I'm being serious. ---------------- Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.2 |
Kruel
Beyond Divinity Inc
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 21:18:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Kruel on 17/03/2008 21:18:22 IMO just make webs only effect MWDs. Done. ABs would then be used in combat again.
|
RigelKentaurus
Flying Tartiflette Caldari Deep Space Industral
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 21:19:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Kruel Edited by: Kruel on 17/03/2008 21:18:22 IMO just make webs only effect MWDs. Done. ABs would then be used in combat again.
Or make scramblers affect MWD too. _________
Someday, EVE may look like this. |
Kayoss
HeartVenom Inc.
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 21:23:00 -
[6]
Edited by: Kayoss on 17/03/2008 21:23:03 I like your idea
|
Cottage Pie
Caldari Provisions
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 21:24:00 -
[7]
well you know what they say about the boy who cried (boost the) wolf.
i think the altering how the mass/thrust thing works is innovate, could work, only I'd like to see 2 people with a T2 100mn MWD/AB bpo debate about this :P (it seems that MWD would become very unfavorable on larger ships?)
|
Kweel Nakashyn
Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 21:35:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn Edited by: Kweel Nakashyn on 17/03/2008 20:58:51 10m ?
Crap, it's always a bad sign when I post a serious idea and that happens.
No, I'm being serious.
Ok, so I like your idea too (aka boost the AB to 200/250%) but I don't want anybody to nerf my mwd's (being a Matar, and nanotanking some of my ships). Speeds and nanoships are allready balanced as they are now.
Making Web working only on mwds is not that a nice idea because it's relativly easy to have the speed of 1/2 kps with only an AB on a T1 nano-fregate. The target would go out of range in a few seconds. So it would be a massive nerf to webs... And webs are pretty fines as they are.
The problem is nobody plays with the sig radius because we can't change it. So AB are left out. Same about target painters, if you do the math, the benefits of them are pretty crapantastic. 2isk
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 21:37:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Cottage Pie (it seems that MWD would become very unfavorable on larger ships?)
Each class of MWD would be balanced based on their size (i.e. 1MN 10MN, 100MN).
An Armageddon has a mass of 100,000,000, or about average: Speed bonus with MWD: 450*1% = 450% (562 m/s) Speed bonus with Afterburner: 300*1 = %300 (375 m/s)
An Abaddon has a mass of 117,500,000KG, or about 20% greater than average: Speed bonus with MWD: 450*0.8 = 390% (448 m/s) Speed bonus with Afterburner: 300*1 = %360; (345 m/s)
So an Abaddon may get another 90% speed bonus, about an extra 100 m/s, but it suffers the full drawbacks from using a MWD. An Armageddon has an average mass, so it would probably be better off using a MWD, depending on what its being used for of course. ---------------- Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.2 |
Kahega Amielden
Legacy Syndicate space weaponry and trade
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 21:37:00 -
[10]
MWDs already jack up your sig radius...which makes you much easy to hit. However, I rather like the idea of the AB speedboost not being affected by webs.
|
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 21:41:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn Ok, so I like your idea too (aka boost the AB to 200/250%) but I don't want anybody to nerf my mwd's (being a Matar, and nanotanking some of my ships). Speeds and nanoships are allready balanced as they are now.
Ah hah, and that's how things balance out - nanoships have less mass than normal ships (or may have their stats adjusted to make this the case) so they would be able to achieve the same speeds as before. For example:
Vagabond: 75,000,000 KG (-25% mass to make this viable) MWD: 450%*1.25 = 562.5% Speed Bonus AB: 300%*1 = 300% increase
Munnin: 11,500,000 KG (Unchanged) MWD: 450%*0.85 = 382% Speed Bonus AB: 300%*1 = 300% Speed bonus
So a Munnin might be better off with an Afterburner and a Vagabond would definitely be better off with a MWD. Speed tanked ships don't suffer at all. ---------------- Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.2 |
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 22:26:00 -
[12]
Any other feedback? ---------------- Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.2 |
Malcanis
R.E.C.O.N. Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 23:17:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Kahega Amielden MWDs already jack up your sig radius...which makes you much easy to hit. However, I rather like the idea of the AB speedboost not being affected by webs.
Sig radius increase make little difference to BC/Bs
CONCORD provide consequences, not safety; only you can do that. |
Neaghan Grebs
Ta'liq
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 23:27:00 -
[14]
One of the best thought out solutions i've heard. AB's certainly need some lovin. As somebody mentioned above the sig radius drawback doesn't mean much when you're already in a large ship, could another drawback be swopped in for it I wonder?
|
Lo3d3R
MAFIA Pirate Coalition
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 23:37:00 -
[15]
Edited by: Lo3d3R on 17/03/2008 23:37:51
I would like to have an upgraded afterburner allot, gief mie , overall good idea . ___________________
Sexy Time: |
Celeste Coeval
The Gosimer and Scarab
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 23:45:00 -
[16]
I like the ideas in this thread.
Originally by: Death Kill Go travel or live in the rainforest if neccesary, just dont turn to religion as its a cul de sac.
|
Methesda
The Avengers
|
Posted - 2008.03.17 23:57:00 -
[17]
Love it Tarm. Great stuff.
One thing tho... The new system would have to be very well tested;
If the balance of usage was centred around cruisers, so that nano's still benefitted from MWD, then that would be great.
We wouldn't want a situation where basically cruiser sized ships would still benefit from MWD's. My point is that until polycarbs are nerfed, this would still be a likely outcome.
Will need some very fine tuning, but with that I think this is a great idea.
|
Kweel Nakashyn
Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 00:39:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Tarminic
Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn Ok, so I like your idea too (aka boost the AB to 200/250%) but I don't want anybody to nerf my mwd's (being a Matar, and nanotanking some of my ships). Speeds and nanoships are allready balanced as they are now.
Ah hah, and that's how things balance out - nanoships have less mass than normal ships (or may have their stats adjusted to make this the case) so they would be able to achieve the same speeds as before. For example: (...)
Ok...
Originally by: Lo3d3R's sig sexy
Then Tarminic I agree with you but who will rebalance the ~250 ships in the game ? 2isk
|
schurem
Silver Snake Enterprise
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 00:42:00 -
[19]
frackin great idea, might take some man-hours to implement tho
However, I still think EvE needs more and better tactical warning sounds.
<<<< No Boundaries, No Fences, Fly Free Or Die Trying >>>>
|
Kweel Nakashyn
Aeden Tau Ceti Federation
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 00:46:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Methesda We wouldn't want a situation where basically cruiser sized ships would still benefit from MWD's. My point is that until polycarbs are nerfed, this would still be a likely outcome.
I agree there too. Polycarb play with mass (and Nanofiber too). So if you mess with ship's masses (changing things) then you'll have to change nanofibers's and poly's bonuses.
100.000kg - 5% = 95.000kg 80.000kg - 5% = 76.000kg 2isk
|
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 13:21:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Kweel Nakashyn Tarminic, when you fit your ships there's a problem. And with the mass comes alignements changes, warp out times and manouvrabilities, it'll be a nightmare to balance :(
Aye, that's my biggest issue so far - I'd prefer to avoid having to screw around with the mass of ships unless I absolutely had to, as it would be a lot of tedious work (i.e. it would require a designer to sit down and tinker with the mass and agility modifiers of every combat ship.
Polycarbs, I think, will retain their roles as being helpful mainly to MWDs regardless of this change - balancing them is a related but different issue. Perhaps change the bonus to a boost to the AB/MWD speed bonus? Just a thought.
Thanks for all the feedback though. ---------------- Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.2 |
astowv
Armoured Assassins Synchr0nicity
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 13:46:00 -
[22]
theres alliance's missing here.
----
|
ry ry
StateCorp Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 13:47:00 -
[23]
Edited by: ry ry on 18/03/2008 13:48:50
i think afterburners should accelerate much faster, whilst retaining their reduced speed boost.
hit the AB and be at max speed really quickly, hit the MWD and it'll take longer to wind up but the final velocity will be higher.
ABs now have a use - larger ships getting back to gates and running bubbles - which is what most people seem to be using MWDs on BS for anyway (nanos excluded).
|
Everyone Dies
Lucky Tampon
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 14:05:00 -
[24]
Originally by: RigelKentaurus
Originally by: Kruel Edited by: Kruel on 17/03/2008 21:18:22 IMO just make webs only effect MWDs. Done. ABs would then be used in combat again.
Or make scramblers affect MWD too.
this
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 14:17:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Everyone Dies
Originally by: RigelKentaurus
Originally by: Kruel Edited by: Kruel on 17/03/2008 21:18:22 IMO just make webs only effect MWDs. Done. ABs would then be used in combat again.
Or make scramblers affect MWD too.
this
But:
1. Interceptors, ships that pretty much have to fit MWDs to do their job well, are now much more easily taken out because all one does is fit a long-range scrambler. 2. These same ships would be more likely to fit WCS since interceptors are forced to stay outside warp scrambler range (24KM), and using the range bonus to their own warp scramblers. That means they are guaranteed to only have 1 point of scrambling strength.
3. Ships will most likely still fit MWDs, especially nano ships, because they generally stay more than 24KM away from target anyway (to avoid heavy neutralizers)
4. This makes the Huggin and Rapier nearly obsolete, because the Lachesis and Arazu do the same thing to ships still fitting MWDs which by my estimate would be most of them. ---------------- Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.2 |
Cinimrat
Black Flame Industries The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 15:48:00 -
[26]
I, someone not affiliated with the Kind and Generous Tarminic, fully support this post!
|
ry ry
StateCorp Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 15:55:00 -
[27]
i think my idea is better than tarminic's >:(
|
Tarminic
Forsaken Resistance The Last Stand
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 15:59:00 -
[28]
Originally by: ry ry i think my idea is better than tarminic's >:(
It's an interesting idea, sorry I didn't address it earlier.
The problem I have is that gives afterburners a role, but it's still a very niche role. Quickly making it back to a gate is nice, but it would still go relatively unused in PvP. I'm trying to change things so that Afterburners have a much larger role in PvP.
However, maybe we can add that in addition to the changes I've suggested, I don't think it will do any harm. ---------------- Tarminic - 33 Million SP in Forum Warfare Play EVE: Downtime Madness v0.79.2 |
ry ry
StateCorp Insurgency
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 16:15:00 -
[29]
Edited by: ry ry on 18/03/2008 16:16:16
it's also make getting to warpout-speed quicker, which would be a valuable addition to a sniper.
my thinking was that afterburners are **** on small ships, so make them good on large ships, which in practice are using their MWD for something more specific than just 'being really fast'. the extra fitting it frees up would help negate the 'advantage' nanoships have over slower heavier ships too.
...then toss in a afterburner speed bonus for AFs and you've solved 2 problems with one stone! ;)
|
Matrixcvd
Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.03.18 16:20:00 -
[30]
Originally by: Tarminic Any other feedback?
First, you need to clearly define what your goal is, is it to help AF's? is it to bring AB's into more use?
If you are trying to help AF's, then you are going about it the wrong way. A role bonus unique to AF's is whats necessary, not adjusting an item every ship uses to differentiate AF's from all other ships.
Regarding AF/MWD. You are splitting hairs here Tarminic. The whole concept of AB verse MWD needs to be re-evaluated from the ground up. Bringing them closer together isn't the answer unless significant penalities can arrise. People will pick the one that makes them go faster, no matter what, if they need speed. Penalties must be severe for a real choice to be made, not just a 30% boost.
I offer this example
Now, if running a MWD continually had a percentage change of blowing up, lets say an inherent overheat , and you could only run it for short periods of time, and I am talkin like 10-15 seconds, think of this as an internal thermo/heat concept. Your MWD is damaged and needs repair, either in space or not, you now have a significant alternative, where by increasing AB speed to 50% of MWD would be a significant leveling of the playing field. You have a choice, can i go 1500m/s all teh time or can i control myself for 10 seconds or so at 3000m/s. You deciede
My concern is this, and this has been my problem with CCP for a long time. As the game changes new things get added and players utilize and develop strategies and flight tactics, it is quite obvious there is a significant resolve by the Dev's to identify modules/ships/items that are going obsolete due to the above, let us term this "natural selection", and slam the dev hammer down to force a "balance" and save these modules/ships/items from their own inevitable extinction.
My problem with this is that thru time, the community has caused the extinction, the players have taken what was given and determined what was necessary and what was not. The dev response is to "Balance" things out. I offer a different way, i support the notion that if the player base has lost interest in said module/ship/item, LET IT DIE, instead of forcing the player to "adapt" . Its counter-intuitive to everything we know.
Develop a tool, discard old tool. You don't develop new tool, bond old tool to new tool just to save old tool.
Get my point?
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] 2 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |