EVE Search - An actual suggestion to the end of all Microwarpdrives

Search EVE-Online forums for:

All Channels

Ships and Modules

An actual suggestion to the end of all Microwarpdrives

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] :: one page

Author	Topic
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.08.03 06:37:00 - [1] In spite of stark opposition, and working on an idea that sparked up in my mind when arguing with Boz Well, I have come up with a suggestion. Seeing as having afterburners, that are already boosted enough by tech and skills but incomparable to MWDs in end speed, increased in efficiency would be unreasonable without tacking on some sort of penalty, and cutting MWDs entirely would be too severe, let's find a middle ground. My proposed solution is replacing MWDs with another module, far less powerful but also less penalty-inducing. Call them 'Reactor Links' or 'Engine Power Routers'. Mid-slot modules, their effect basically, when activated, or perhaps when simply mounted, is to lead part of what energy would have gone into the capacitor directly to the engines instead, thus offering a percentage boost in base speed, and a decrease in capacitor recharge rate. The systems that make up their construction take up some power and space as well, and increases the exhaust of the ship's engines, adding a slight bit of mass and a signature penalty and bringing a permanent but manageable decrease to capacitor base capacity. And they are loadable with scripts called 'adjustments' to regulate just how much capacitor and energy they should take up and how much speed and signature increase they should offer. They do not penalty stack with Overdrive Injectors, but one can only mount/keep one active at a time. 'Energy Bypass Routing' or 'Energy Augmentation Systems' would be the skill required to fit them, listed under Engineering and requiring Engineering V, Mechanic III and Afterburner IV. Other than that, they would either take over the bonuses and skills of MWDs, or if balancing was required, take fewer skills. Now, hopefully I will get some opinions...
Robert Rosenberg Amarr Imperial Academy	Posted - 2008.08.03 07:02:00 - [2] Sounds like a boost to MWD to me.
Falcon Troy Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.08.03 07:07:00 - [3] I guess everyone looking over the patch notes is completely missing these factors: (I'm now going to make up some numbers but it serves the purpose) Currently - Two Webs, bring your speed down90%. Post-patch - One web and one Scrambler bring you down 90%. Web strenght will be greatly diminished, topped by the fact that Scramblers have less range than webs. Am I the only one not missing this? Blasterboats will be in the same position they were before along with interceptors and any other ships that relied on speed. _____________ Hai.
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.08.03 07:13:00 - [4] Originally by: Robert Rosenberg Sounds like a boost to MWD to me. Well, that's just the thing. You use these things instead. And kick MWDs from the game entirely. I mean, what's a strange, unmanageable and crazy little warp-thingy doing on the ships in the first place?! Either you warp, or you don't warp! You don't just go halfway and microwarp and *** up the whole place! It's like trying to drive and park with a 4000 horsepower car and having only reverse and sixth gears working. You're going like 'Alright, just a little... little... CRASH! DAMNIT!'. Sorry. Either way, perhaps these things could increase propulsion strength at the same time? That would work against the problem you're talking about, Falcon. But, don't forget that a nano ship pilot strives to never get within webber range to begin with.
Wideen Contraband Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.03 07:19:00 - [5] Originally by: Falcon Troy Currently - ONE Web, bring your speed down90%. Post-patch - One web and one Scrambler bring you down 90%. I bolded the funn.... no but seriously, one fleeting or t2 web will bring a ship down to 90%, otherwise I believe it's accurate
Falcon Troy Caldari State Protectorate	Posted - 2008.08.03 07:21:00 - [6] Edited by: Falcon Troy on 03/08/2008 07:24:29 Originally by: Aleus Stygian Originally by: Robert Rosenberg Sounds like a boost to MWD to me. Well, that's just the thing. You use these things instead. And kick MWDs from the game entirely. I mean, what's a strange, unmanageable and crazy little warp-thingy doing on the ships in the first place?! Either you warp, or you don't warp! You don't just go halfway and microwarp and * up the whole place! It's like trying to drive and park with a 4000 horsepower car and having only reverse and sixth gears working. You're going like 'Alright, just a little... little... CRASH! DAMNIT!'. Sorry. Originally by:** Wideen Originally by: Falcon Troy Currently - ONE Web, bring your speed down90%. Post-patch - One web and one Scrambler bring you down 90%. I bolded the funn.... no but seriously, one fleeting or t2 web will bring a ship down to 90%, otherwise I believe it's accurate Like I said, I was fudging the numbers but I believe my point still stands that you are at equal risk to being slowed down as you were before. Either way, perhaps these things could increase propulsion strength at the same time? That would work against the problem you're talking about, Falcon. But, don't forget that a nano ship pilot strives to never get within webber range to begin with. Eactly my point. If they strive to never get into web range before, how is this new Scrambler mechanic going to hurt them any less than webs did with Scramblers also having a diminished range at 9km? People that were fast before aren't going to be screwed by this new Scram mechanic, but by drones and missiles that can now hit them because thier base speed was nerfed. _____________ Hai.
Wideen Contraband Inc.	Posted - 2008.08.03 07:27:00 - [7] Originally by: Falcon Troy Either way, perhaps these things could increase propulsion strength at the same time? That would work against the problem you're talking about, Falcon. But, don't forget that a nano ship pilot strives to never get within webber range to begin with. Eactly my point. If they strive to never get into web range before, how is this new Scrambler mechanic going to hurt them any less than webs did with Scramblers also having a diminished range at 9km? People that were fast before aren't going to be screwed by this new Scram mechanic, but by drones and missiles that can now hit them because thier base speed was nerfed. Yup, and if you get in web range/scrambler range of a blaste boat, which is indeed necessary if you wanna slow it down, he'll blast you to pieces. In this regard, I don't really see a problem.
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.08.03 07:37:00 - [8] Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 03/08/2008 07:40:15 Well, since that seems the case, I think they should just retract the damn warp mechanic then, together with the MWDs. And not nerf the webifiers. The whole point is really to make the attainable speeds lower to effectively curtail these extremes of velocity that we see among MWDing ships today, and make certain game elements (EWAR options, actual tanking, missile usage, etc.) viable and useful once again, but to keep those relatively 'low' speeds maintainable for the ships that still need, and work most effectively, mounting a speed tank configuration. This would help in reducing or nullifying the amount that implants, modules and rigs need to be nerfed, in a comparatively simple manner. I have also proposed earlier that other measures should be used to counter possible problems with missile ships becoming too powerful against the speed tanks, namely making tracking disruptors work to throw missiles off and have them explode too far away from the ship, or introducing signature-reducing but hp-weakening armor and having signature radius affect missiles as well...
Gladiator Jonny Omniscient Order Pandemic Legion	Posted - 2008.08.03 11:49:00 - [9] Best way to fix eve. Remove rigs imhop would remove insane buffer tanks, and insane speed. would mean people who spend billions in implants deserve them.
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.08.03 11:56:00 - [10] Originally by: Gladiator Jonny Best way to fix eve. Remove rigs imhop would remove insane buffer tanks, and insane speed. would mean people who spend billions in implants deserve them. You're really only attacking polycarbs here. Snake implants are a bigger issue, but they shouldn't have their usefulness completely hamstrung either.

Artemis Rose Odd End of the Universe	Posted - 2008.08.03 12:46:00 - [11] Well I think the general idea is to nerf MWDs in order to make ABs competitive. Your new midslot module, if it goes fast enough, would replace both MWDs and ABs, leaving us where we are now. Originally by: Gladiator Jonny Best way to fix eve. Remove rigs imhop would remove insane buffer tanks, and insane speed. would mean people who spend billions in implants deserve them. Wow, your "issue" with 2 rigs (Polycarbons and Trimarks) warrants removing them all? You do realize the "I spent billions, I win" is a completely flawed argument, because you will never say it if your enemy has the pimped ship and you don't. __________________________________________________ Currently Playing: Trolls from Outer Space Current Equipment: VISAcard chain mail, +2 Amulet of Epic Whine. WTB Purple Nerf Bat.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2008.08.03 12:56:00 - [12] Actually from what I could see AB and MWD have a good balance now. Inties will still want an MWD in general. Some other ships can choose depending on what they are doing. This change is great, let's face it it is better then the previous situation where ALL propulsion mods where MWDs and ALL points where disruptors and ALL hacs and recons were nano'ed. This patch will bring alot more choices in fitting and remove alot of lame cookie cutter setups. ----------------------------------------- [Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.08.03 12:57:00 - [13] Originally by: Artemis Rose Well I think the general idea is to nerf MWDs in order to make ABs competitive. Your new midslot module, if it goes fast enough, would replace both MWDs and ABs, leaving us where we are now. That's the thing. It wouldn't be that powerful. And it certainly wouldn't be able to offer the direct boost-for-cap effect of the AB. It would simply be a thing to bring ABs up in effectiveness to cope for the loss of MWDs, and making sure that pilots who want that edge of speed would still have to make appropriate sacrifices to capacitor and powergrid and further...
Boz Well Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.03 13:01:00 - [14] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Actually from what I could see AB and MWD have a good balance now. Inties will still want an MWD in general. Some other ships can choose depending on what they are doing. This change is great, let's face it it is better then the previous situation where ALL propulsion mods where MWDs and ALL points where disruptors and ALL hacs and recons were nano'ed. This patch will bring alot more choices in fitting and remove alot of lame cookie cutter setups. That all sounds well and good until you think about what it will do to nano's, roaming and pvp in general. Tank fits were possible on HACs before, nothing changes that. The only difference is that now nano fits aren't viable. So basically, you're just getting fewer options, even though you talk like you're getting more. If people wanted to plate HAC's and roam in those, they could have before this patch and would have if it was viable. The problem is there are so many advantages to defenders in 0.0 that roaming neccistates speed. Now we just don't have roaming. Yay.. more options.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2008.08.03 13:06:00 - [15] Originally by: Boz Well Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Actually from what I could see AB and MWD have a good balance now. Inties will still want an MWD in general. Some other ships can choose depending on what they are doing. This change is great, let's face it it is better then the previous situation where ALL propulsion mods where MWDs and ALL points where disruptors and ALL hacs and recons were nano'ed. This patch will bring alot more choices in fitting and remove alot of lame cookie cutter setups. That all sounds well and good until you think about what it will do to nano's, roaming and pvp in general. Tank fits were possible on HACs before, nothing changes that. The only difference is that now nano fits aren't viable. So basically, you're just getting fewer options, even though you talk like you're getting more. If people wanted to plate HAC's and roam in those, they could have before this patch and would have if it was viable. The problem is there are so many advantages to defenders in 0.0 that roaming neccistates speed. Now we just don't have roaming. Yay.. more options. Go play on sisi, trust me there are MORE options to fit the general ship now. AB, or mwd? hmm. Scram or Disruptor? hmm. Tank or a bit more speed or something inbetween? hmm. Neuts in that last high for AB-frig protection¦now that webs arent wtfpwn? hmm. There are ALOT of options and decisions to be made for fitting now. ----------------------------------------- [Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.08.03 13:11:00 - [16] Originally by: Boz Well That all sounds well and good until you think about what it will do to nano's, roaming and pvp in general. Tank fits were possible on HACs before, nothing changes that. The only difference is that now nano fits aren't viable. So basically, you're just getting fewer options, even though you talk like you're getting more. If people wanted to plate HAC's and roam in those, they could have before this patch and would have if it was viable. The problem is there are so many advantages to defenders in 0.0 that roaming neccistates speed. Now we just don't have roaming. Yay.. more options. With the proposed changes, the Nanos still seem viable to me. Because they can still keep a good portion of the speed, courtesy of the MWDs, and with lesser use and thus less use for speed modules they'll want to slap on resists and reppers and boosters and whatnot. And it's damn hard finding the threshold where speed stops and tanking begins, and to balance on it with any sort of sense or purpose. The continued existence of the MWD and its extremes makes it possible to fit ships way out of their mission roles, and makes balancing a ***ing hassle, because with any lone element that has that large an impact being adjusted indirectly* and imprecisely rather than directly, it becomes like a dance on a knife's edge. Either you make MWDing and speed tanking rule the game, or you make it completely obsolete. Why, why, why can't the developers just simply balance it out and let speed be a potential strength with potential weaknesses and a strategy like any other?
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2008.08.03 13:15:00 - [17] Originally by: Aleus Stygian Why, why, why can't the developers just simply balance it out and let speed be a potential strength with potential weaknesses and a strategy like any other? It still is but now its not an easy choice that wins by a landslide. ----------------------------------------- [Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.08.03 13:22:00 - [18] Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 03/08/2008 13:22:19 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer It still is but now its not an easy choice that wins by a landslide. It still has the potential. And still, essentially, if all this goes wrong, then with the increased penalties and risks, there is also the potential that everyone will stop flying MWDing nano-fitted ships in the first place for fear that just a slight mistake will turn their ship into scrap. Considering what cowards these vultures seem to be generally, I think that's likely. And so, you will have people overlooking the MWD anyway, and you will have eliminated speed tanking from the game and made it all the poorer, tilting things to the precise opposite extreme of what is now. Congratulations.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2008.08.03 13:23:00 - [19] Edited by: Lyria Skydancer on 03/08/2008 13:24:40 Originally by: Aleus Stygian Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 03/08/2008 13:22:19 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer It still is but now its not an easy choice that wins by a landslide. It still has the potential. And still, essentially, if all this goes wrong, then with the increased penalties and risks, there is also the potential that everyone will stop flying MWDing nano-fitted ships in the first place for fear that just a slight mistake will turn their ship into scrap. Considering what cowards these vultures seem to be generally, I think that's likely. And so, you will have people overlooking the MWD anyway, and you will have eliminated speed tanking from the game and made it all the poorer, tilting things to the precise opposite extreme of what is now. Congratulations. How is speed tanking eliminated? A whole ship class STILL and CAN depend/s on it. They are called frigs. Frigs are supposed to tank with speed generally. Cruisers use speed to dictate range and not primarily to tank. BS/BC use speed to just move and rely on tank and firepower. That is how shipclasses work. Before nerf we had: Frigs, cruiser, BC/BS all viable for speed tanking. Meh. Thats just wrong. ----------------------------------------- [Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name
Boz Well Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.03 13:23:00 - [20] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Boz Well Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Actually from what I could see AB and MWD have a good balance now. Inties will still want an MWD in general. Some other ships can choose depending on what they are doing. This change is great, let's face it it is better then the previous situation where ALL propulsion mods where MWDs and ALL points where disruptors and ALL hacs and recons were nano'ed. This patch will bring alot more choices in fitting and remove alot of lame cookie cutter setups. That all sounds well and good until you think about what it will do to nano's, roaming and pvp in general. Tank fits were possible on HACs before, nothing changes that. The only difference is that now nano fits aren't viable. So basically, you're just getting fewer options, even though you talk like you're getting more. If people wanted to plate HAC's and roam in those, they could have before this patch and would have if it was viable. The problem is there are so many advantages to defenders in 0.0 that roaming neccistates speed. Now we just don't have roaming. Yay.. more options. Go play on sisi, trust me there are MORE options to fit the general ship now. AB, or mwd? hmm. Scram or Disruptor? hmm. Tank or a bit more speed or something inbetween? hmm. Neuts in that last high for AB-frig protection¦now that webs arent wtfpwn? hmm. There are ALOT of options and decisions to be made for fitting now. Those were all in the game before. Those all weren't viable for roaming heavily defended sov. Now they STILL aren't viable. It's not like they buffed tanks, buffed AB, etc. They just kicked the crap out of nano fits so that they aren't viable. A "little more speed" isn't useful, because it won't allow you to disengage. The key to speed is having a shot at disengaging, because that allows you to go up against rough odds and have a shot at coming out of it. Now, nano fits are so slow that they can't tank via speed, nor can they disengage. The speeds on SiSi are too slow with t2 nano fits and a MWD, and when you factor in scramblers (and faster AF's too), the odds of you ever disengaging are pretty slim I imagine. Basically, those options were all in the game prior to this patch. People just didn't use them for roaming because they didn't come with the perks of nano. Now nano has been kicked into submission so hard that it's not viable, and so you're left with less versatility in overall fits (tank or nano is now tank). Yes, there's some additional flexibility in scramb/disruptor, and maybe ab/mwd, although I still see mwd being mandatory. But for the most part, they are nerfing one type of fitting out of existence, and that leaves you with LESS choices overall, not more.

Lyria Skydancer Amarr Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2008.08.03 13:27:00 - [21] Originally by: Boz Well Those were all in the game before. Those all weren't viable for roaming heavily defended sov. Now they STILL aren't viable. It's not like they buffed tanks, buffed AB, etc. They just kicked the crap out of nano fits so that they aren't viable. A "little more speed" isn't useful, because it won't allow you to disengage. The key to speed is having a shot at disengaging, because that allows you to go up against rough odds and have a shot at coming out of it. Now, nano fits are so slow that they can't tank via speed, nor can they disengage. The speeds on SiSi are too slow with t2 nano fits and a MWD, and when you factor in scramblers (and faster AF's too), the odds of you ever disengaging are pretty slim I imagine. Basically, those options were all in the game prior to this patch. People just didn't use them for roaming because they didn't come with the perks of nano. Now nano has been kicked into submission so hard that it's not viable, and so you're left with less versatility in overall fits (tank or nano is now tank). Yes, there's some additional flexibility in scramb/disruptor, and maybe ab/mwd, although I still see mwd being mandatory. But for the most part, they are nerfing one type of fitting out of existence, and that leaves you with LESS choices overall, not more. You said it yourself. Heavily defended sov. Sorry but if you dont have the firepower to go into a heavy hostile territory in slower ships you dont. Easy enough. If you want to pick off their ratters/ships in their sov you use FRIGS for hit and runs. Also not everything is a matter of heavily guarded sov territory. For other types of pvp there are now ALOT more fitting options to be considered. Sorry but youre not convincing me. ----------------------------------------- [Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name
Boz Well Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.03 13:31:00 - [22] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Aleus Stygian Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 03/08/2008 13:22:19 Originally by: Lyria Skydancer It still is but now its not an easy choice that wins by a landslide. It still has the potential. And still, essentially, if all this goes wrong, then with the increased penalties and risks, there is also the potential that everyone will stop flying MWDing nano-fitted ships in the first place for fear that just a slight mistake will turn their ship into scrap. Considering what cowards these vultures seem to be generally, I think that's likely. And so, you will have people overlooking the MWD anyway, and you will have eliminated speed tanking from the game and made it all the poorer, tilting things to the precise opposite extreme of what is now. Congratulations. How is speed tanking eliminated? A whole ship class STILL and CAN depend/s on it. They are called frigs. It's eliminated for cruiser class ships. I guess you might see roaming gangs of AF's, but I imagine the noobs will just cry about that too. I'd guess the Falcon is next on the whine list though. In the meantime, CCP has nerfed the hell out versatility in the cruiser line-up and fittings. Nano hac's needed something, but not to be wiped out of the game. A good fix in my mind would have left nano fits viable. A well thought out solution could have balanced HACs to still allow for speed tanking, buff AF's, add more counters against nano's, yada yada. That's asking too much I guess. Maybe if they'd stayed for 5 more hours in their uberlong meeting, they could have come up with something better than just nerfing the shit out of nano's, but meh.
Boz Well Minmatar	Posted - 2008.08.03 13:39:00 - [23] Originally by: Lyria Skydancer Originally by: Boz Well Those were all in the game before. Those all weren't viable for roaming heavily defended sov. Now they STILL aren't viable. It's not like they buffed tanks, buffed AB, etc. They just kicked the crap out of nano fits so that they aren't viable. A "little more speed" isn't useful, because it won't allow you to disengage. The key to speed is having a shot at disengaging, because that allows you to go up against rough odds and have a shot at coming out of it. Now, nano fits are so slow that they can't tank via speed, nor can they disengage. The speeds on SiSi are too slow with t2 nano fits and a MWD, and when you factor in scramblers (and faster AF's too), the odds of you ever disengaging are pretty slim I imagine. Basically, those options were all in the game prior to this patch. People just didn't use them for roaming because they didn't come with the perks of nano. Now nano has been kicked into submission so hard that it's not viable, and so you're left with less versatility in overall fits (tank or nano is now tank). Yes, there's some additional flexibility in scramb/disruptor, and maybe ab/mwd, although I still see mwd being mandatory. But for the most part, they are nerfing one type of fitting out of existence, and that leaves you with LESS choices overall, not more. You said it yourself. Heavily defended sov. Sorry but if you dont have the firepower to go into a heavy hostile territory in slower ships you dont. Easy enough. If you want to pick off their ratters/ships in their sov you use FRIGS for hit and runs. Also not everything is a matter of heavily guarded sov territory. For other types of pvp there are now ALOT more fitting options to be considered. Sorry but youre not convincing me. Yes, and ALL THOSE OTHER FITTING OPTIONS EXIST IN THE GAME NOW. You aren't getting MORE versatility, you're getting less choices in fitting post-patch, lol. You could tank your HAC now and go into poorly defended sov. You can do that post patch. And I imagine your tanked HAC will be just as strong now as it will be then. Yet post-patch, there will be fewer choices in fitting your HAC, because now any nano fit won't be viable, heh. You can take any piece of crap ship into poorly defended sov and not worry too much about it, as most ratters will just run to POS's and they can only muster gatecamps at prime time. The difference is, now it's just one more blow against being able to pierce well-defended space in a small gang. And so maybe they just delegate all that to AF's, which did need some sort of buff. I'm on the road now, and haven't had a chance to try out the AF's, though I have seen the new HAC speeds. What really just gets me about this patch is they COULD buff AF's, add more counters (scramblers, I like scripted webs too), and nerf nano hac's in a way that leaves them VIABLE. T2 fit hacs weren't the problem, and were definitely killable pre-patch. Adding more counters and perhaps ditching polycarbs would be enough in my mind to balance them out. It's not that I'm railing against all the changes (I'm glad AF's got something, the scramb idea isn't bad), it's just that I think CCP has (as is typical for them) gone too far in their nerfs.
Aleus Stygian	Posted - 2008.08.03 13:44:00 - [24] Edited by: Aleus Stygian on 03/08/2008 13:45:00 Originally by: Boz Well A well thought out solution could have balanced HACs to still allow for speed tanking, buff AF's, add more counters against nano's, yada yada. That's asking too much I guess. Maybe if they'd stayed for 5 more hours in their uberlong meeting, they could have come up with something better than just nerfing the shit out of nano's, but meh. I'll agree with you when it comes to these things at least. And I'll say that they pulled a damn bad choice in targeting Minmatar ships in addition. However I still claim that they should have taken the bat harder to the MWD and left the damn Overdrives alone. And while the implants have become fine, they should have modified stacking penalties or limited ships to the use of only one module of a kind with certain modules, before starting to crunch the numbers on the attributes themselves. The way they're going at it they're not balancing the game so much as reacting violently to anything that stands out or is whined at by the community. What confuses me then is that they still manage to overlook MWDs entirely, when their performance is so extreme. Anyway, I've made another thread about this whole issue that I hope will prove more well thought-out and to gain more attention from the CSM themselves.
Lyria Skydancer Amarr Eve Defence Force	Posted - 2008.08.04 08:46:00 - [25] Originally by: Boz Well Yes, and ALL THOSE OTHER FITTING OPTIONS EXIST IN THE GAME NOW. I stopped reading right there. No point reading any further. Yes all those other fittings did exist but were NOT VIABLE. Now THEY ARE VIABLE. End of story. ----------------------------------------- [Video] I'm a soldier, so remember the name
Khardullis	Posted - 2008.08.04 08:49:00 - [26] Originally by: Aleus Stygian Wall of text probably not worth reading Stop posting about nano...
J'Mkarr Soban Amarr Proxenetae Invicti	Posted - 2008.08.04 11:05:00 - [27] Actually, I've got to say that this isn't strictly true - there was always a problem with vast amounts of speed, starting with being able to run multiple MWDs/ABs at the same time, then the fact that nanofibers reduced your mass and increased max speed. Both of these were knocked on the head, and this is just the next stage. -- These are my personal views and in no way represent the views of Proxenetae Invicti, which maintains a neutral stance stemming from the strong ethics demanded of its work.
RayBanJockey	Posted - 2008.08.04 11:18:00 - [28] Of course you realise what the problem really is, don't you. Since this game went live really. It's MWD's. They have to go.
Amandin Adouin	Posted - 2008.08.04 13:35:00 - [29] Just like I said about your other idea, I think it's a waste of time to be thinking up these new game mechanics, when the devs are infinitely more likely just to change existing game mechanics. Also the removal of Microwarpdrive from the game completely? Even if you have a replacement system, the removal of it is just way too game breaking. The devs are already making way too many big changes all at once with this patch. You're suggesting even bigger changes.

Pages: [1] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.