Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Cailais
Amarr VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 09:33:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Mikal Drey Module : ECCM Problem : Not effective
Solution : Maybe a complete overhaul of anti ECM measures need to looked at. I would like to see ECCM become an active module that you could click on demand when jammed. It would then break the ECm cycle and give you back locking capabilities.
As for balance ECM/ECCM becomes more of a fight for supremacy where lock times become more significant. you would need to break ECM then relock all in the space of the ECM ships cycle.
ECCM - agreed and this is an interesting proposal.
NOS - Should be Cap total vs Cap total rather than Cap % vs Cap %. Nos is therefore a weapon system used by smaller vessels vs larger vessels and Neuts the opposite.
CLOAKS - Should remove the player from local, but should also switch of cap replen and sloowly burn cap once active. A similar concept to early submarine / u-boat tech where the vessel had to surface to replenish its oxygen reserves to run its deisel engines. Extended 'patrol times' could be achieved by fitting cap batteries etc.
C.
Originally by: Tarminic Your continued whining is somewhat diminished by your continued willingness to give your money to CCP.
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 09:44:00 -
[32]
Originally by: Mikal Drey Module : ECCM Problem : Not effective
Solution : Maybe a complete overhaul of anti ECM measures need to looked at. I would like to see ECCM become an active module that you could click on demand when jammed. It would then break the ECm cycle and give you back locking capabilities.
As for balance ECM/ECCM becomes more of a fight for supremacy where lock times become more significant. you would need to break ECM then relock all in the space of the ECM ships cycle.
Some of them give a 48%, some a 96% boost and the remote ones give a 120% boost.
Show me another module that gives such a huge boost to a stat.
|
Cailais
Amarr VITOC
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 09:53:00 -
[33]
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: Mikal Drey Module : ECCM Problem : Not effective
Solution : Maybe a complete overhaul of anti ECM measures need to looked at. I would like to see ECCM become an active module that you could click on demand when jammed. It would then break the ECm cycle and give you back locking capabilities.
As for balance ECM/ECCM becomes more of a fight for supremacy where lock times become more significant. you would need to break ECM then relock all in the space of the ECM ships cycle.
Some of them give a 48%, some a 96% boost and the remote ones give a 120% boost.
Show me another module that gives such a huge boost to a stat.
"Just present your case, don't argue against anyone else's. (There are enough other threads to flame people in. This way the devs can have an easy time reading through this and make their own decisions. Who knows, we might get something done!" - OP
Please dont derail the thread.
C.
Originally by: Tarminic Your continued whining is somewhat diminished by your continued willingness to give your money to CCP.
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 10:01:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Cailais
"Just present your case, don't argue against anyone else's. (There are enough other threads to flame people in. This way the devs can have an easy time reading through this and make their own decisions. Who knows, we might get something done!" - OP
Please dont derail the thread.
C.
You cannot tell ppl they do not have the right to disagree and doing so is not the way to get a broad view on the issues, as a lot will be a individuals opinion and perhaps wrong or deliberatly misleading.
A counter point is always needed or ppl will just claim that everybody supports them vby their silence.
|
Typhado3
Minmatar Ashen Lion Mining and Production Consortium Axiom Empire
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 10:39:00 -
[35]
module: most non best meta modules
problem: meta x is just better than meta x-1 (cept a very marginal cost) also many same meta lvl items are exactly the same (eg. some caldari navy / dread guristas stuff).
suggested fix: what I propose is modify some of the stats to make different meta levels specialize at different aspects (eg. rof bonus/dmg bonus/cpu fitting/cap usage) while maintaining the increase in effectiveness as meta levels go up.
module: ore scanner
problem: not use friendly and not most useful mod
suggested fix: when one is active allow you to see health directly on the roids (or in overview column/when you mouse over). May also allow you to detect if your mining lazer has finished roid but not finished cycle
|
Szap Light
Caldari Minds Of Space Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 11:14:00 -
[36]
Originally by: marakor
You cannot tell ppl they do not have the right to disagree and doing so is not the way to get a broad view on the issues, as a lot will be a individuals opinion and perhaps wrong or deliberatly misleading.
A counter point is always needed or ppl will just claim that everybody supports them vby their silence.
Sry i had to answer on this (and i will keep it short)
You have not understood the purpose of this thread. It is not at all for discussion just for proposals and to see what people think is broken in the game - a thread where a dev could look in and find some idea to redesign something. It is not meant to discuss because discussion of proposals is utterly useless - if the Devs like the idea even if all players said "NO WAI THIS IDEA IS CRAP" (and lets say every player would agree on this) they will bring it. If the Devs dont like the idea (and even if every player in eve would like the idea) they wont bring it. Gamedesign is not democratic.
|
Szap Light
Caldari Minds Of Space Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 11:20:00 -
[37]
Module: Complex (mostly pith ) Small shield transporters
Problem1: far too much cpu - cannot be fitted on the intended ship size (frigattes). if you want to fit a Cruiser with Shield transporters you will use an Osprey (due to supreme Bonus) and will use Medium or Large Transporters. Problem2: Too much energy usage.
at this time Pith small shield transporters are worse then t1 counterparts
Solution: Review small shield transporters alltogether; Reduce Cpu Requirements on Pith (and gist?) small shield transporters (50%?) Reduce energy amount to be around the t2 module
Modules: all small shield/armor transporters
Problem: Lack ships to fit to
Solution: Create some
Other notes: Why not create some more t2 destroyer sized vessels, something really fast and agile with medic capabilitys
|
Jim Pansen2
Republic Military School
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 11:20:00 -
[38]
Module: Shortrange T2 Turret Amno/many T2 Missles
Problem: They got outperformed in her field of use by Faction Amno, some T2 Missles donŠt even have a real field of use.
Suggested fix: Rework T2 Amno, same penaltys with higher Damage, that seperates them from Faction Amno or a new special use against smaller Targets.
Other Notes:
Idea in line with current TQ gameplay: Increase Damage by 25%, keep the Pentaltys so it is a specialized anti same size/bigger size Target Amno that donŠt work paticuar good in general but better in his special use.
Idea in line with the new changes on Sissi: By higher Tracking or reduced Target Resulution of Turrets(lets say -50% so a Large Turret goes 400 -> 200m), same for Missles. The Amno becomes a close range defence against smaller ships. In this case the Amno should be reduced in Damage(50%) to not make it the first choice agaist all kinds of Targets.
Reducing the penaltys/removing them would make Faction/T2 short Range Amno next to the same and will make 1 of them useless, so this is not the right way to do it.
---
Alt of The Djego, currently on a long therm Skill. |
Szap Light
Caldari Minds Of Space Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 11:34:00 -
[39]
Charge: all T2 Missiles
Problem: They are Outperformed by their Faction and mostly even tech 1 Counterparts (had a long post on that in the ships thread and it was deleted - sry cannot bring it back at this time) Solution: Complete Redesign of T2 Missiles - i cannot see any other way.
Other note: I was proposing a sort of "Sniper missile" with lower damage and some drawbacks like beeing unable to hit fast targets but lets say 5x increased Travel speed. (no range increase)
|
Reatu Krentor
Minmatar HotRock Mining PLC
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 12:48:00 -
[40]
Module: ECCM Problem: ineffective use of mid slot. Suggested Fix: Add a new mechanic to the midslot ECCM that reflects every jam attempt back towards the jamming ship. A succesfull jam would still jam the ECCM user but the more ECM a jamming ship uses against him the bigger the chance he jams himself in the process for a normal 20s cycle due to reflected ECM signal. A reflected ECM signal would not get reflected again by ECCM(that would be hamsters dying bad) -- stuff -- |
|
BiggestT
Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 14:34:00 -
[41]
does this include ammo?
if so..
ammo: t2 javelin ammo
problem: No-one uses it, making it short range WITH v.poor tracking on top of an already poorly tracking weapon system is just useless.. poudly annoying fc's since 2007
Originally by: Sheriff Jones *ding ding!*
Wrangler: Hello and w
*ding ding!*
Wrangler: ...damn nanowhiners...*goes back to reading*
|
Kransthow
Sage Industries
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 14:47:00 -
[42]
Module: Target painters
Problem: They suck
Suggested fix: Anything target painted can be targeted by anyone even if ecm'd, damped, beyond targeting range etc.
|
BiggestT
Caldari Space Oddysey Pupule 'Ohana
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 14:52:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Cailais
Originally by: Mikal Drey Module : ECCM Problem : Not effective
Solution : Maybe a complete overhaul of anti ECM measures need to looked at. I would like to see ECCM become an active module that you could click on demand when jammed. It would then break the ECm cycle and give you back locking capabilities.
As for balance ECM/ECCM becomes more of a fight for supremacy where lock times become more significant. you would need to break ECM then relock all in the space of the ECM ships cycle.
ECCM - agreed and this is an interesting proposal.
An excellent proposal!
Also..
Capital shield transfers
problem: far too cap and fitting heavy, the of sheild tanking capitals (already the minority interms of ships that use it) effectiveness is not only worsened just because their rr is less popular (as armour tanks are more common) but its harder to use, making sheild rr a pain to get in fleet situations.
solution: lower cap use and fittings
note: Perhaps even lower its req's more so than armour remote reppers, which may offset the fact that sheild tanks are a minority in cap fleets anyway. poudly annoying fc's since 2007
Originally by: Sheriff Jones *ding ding!*
Wrangler: Hello and w
*ding ding!*
Wrangler: ...damn nanowhiners...*goes back to reading*
|
Thy Filth
Hikikomori Broadcast
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 17:16:00 -
[44]
Module: Autocannons/ Tracking Computer/ Tracking Disruptors
Problem: Autocannons relie on Fall off, Tracking Disruptors effective Falloff, Tracking Computers only effect optimal range and tracking
Suggested fix: Another script which effects fall off, or change the optimal script to effect both.
|
SirFett
Omni-Core Freedom Fighters Ethereal Dawn
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 19:08:00 -
[45]
Module : Certain t2 items are inferior to highest t1 meta level item such as plates
Suggested fix : adjust values to warrant higher fitting requirements
Module : All COSMOS Items
Problem : rare but a bit meh
Suggested fix : bring em to faction powers while retaining their nice fitting requirements
Module : All shortrange t2 ammo
Problem : Faction is simply preferred
Suggested fix : lessen their negative sides and/or buff them a bit
Module : Damage controls
Problems : no faction or other counterparts
Suggested fix : make some up and seed them
Module : Artys
Problems : lost their high alpha wich made them what they are
Suggested fix : higher damage mod, lower rof
Module : Defenders
Problem : Useless
Suggested fix : make them shoot none positive standing missiles etc aswell (probably entails huge amounts of code however lol )
Module : All split EWAR systems on BONUSED ships
Problem : Everybody is complaining about their usefullness (with right) on dedicated ewar ships
Suggested fix : why not give them both bonuses instead of that script fumbling about but only on those dedicated ships perhaps only t2 (i suggested that in the ship problem thread aswell non dedicated ships would still need to decide between ether or due to rp : "computers cant handle the strain of target calculations hence why dedicated ships have extra special super computers blablabla"
Module : Regenerative plating
Problem : Is not regenerating and in its present form useless
Suggested fix : Rename and adjust value or make it actualy regenerate armor
Module : Energized everythings
Problem : Arnt realy Energized
Suggested fix : Find a guy that can write propper descriptions
|
Yon Krum
Sigillum Militum Xpisti
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 06:47:00 -
[46]
Module: Passive targeter
Problem: If you can target someone, you're not being very passive, already. Only useful therefore when in highsec scanning gank-targets, or in large fleet blobs when you're hoping noone gets to you faster than you alphabatized name.
Suggested fix: In addition to current effect while active, permit module to passively enable locking while cloaked (cannot activate modules while cloaked).
Other notes: This would "fix" some of the Stealth Bomber's issues.
-----
Module: Defender missiles
Problem: Fundementally broken.
Suggested fix: Make defenders like FOF missiles, only they auto-target other missiles instead of aggressive ships. Remove ability of defenders to be used by "normal" launchers and introduce balanced line of dedicated defender launchers with revised fitting requirements/ROF/damage mods. Introduce similar gunnary "Point Defense" skill and line of modules based on blaster, laser, and projectile weapons, which fit in turret slots and synergize with gunnary skills.
Alternatively, make defender launchers slot-independent so they can be used in utility highs.
Other notes: This is probably the simplest fix for defenders. Currently their damage is based on the launcher they are fired from... but who wants to dedicated a seige launcher to defending from torpedoes? As for non-missile missile defense--based on one official story the Jove have an energy-based missile defense, and as we all know projectile-based defenses are very practical with the technology of EVE.
--Krum
--Krum |
Doxs Roxs
Free Collective Sons of Tangra
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 09:18:00 -
[47]
Module: Regenerative Platings
Problem: The name suggests they regenerate armor, however they dont.
Suggested fix: Increase their bonus to armor amount and also add regeneration just like that of shields. More plates = more regeneration. Also add stacking penalty to avoid creating an overpowered module. Higher tier/T2 regenerative plates get a higher regeneration rate then basic or tier 1 mods.
Other notes: This would give armor tankers the ability to slowly repair themselves without an active armor repairer. After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead... |
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 11:39:00 -
[48]
Edited by: Tonto Auri on 26/08/2008 11:44:23
Originally by: Alski Capacitor Batteries[/b] Problems: [snip] -Do not improve cap recharge as much as cap rechargers*
First off I’ll address the last issue listed, that they don’t improve cap recharge as well as cap rechargers; obviously they should not, however if they are not going to help cap recharge much then they need to add a usefull amount of cap, which they currently do not do.
Sorry to say, but you have no clue. Cap batteries are great module if used properly. It nearly double effective compared to cap recharger. Same rule as with shield extenders - they are nearly useless for BS, but god's gift for cruiser. Also they are great to counter MWD penalty.
Originally by: Typhado3 module: most non best meta modules
problem: meta x is just better than meta x-1 (cept a very marginal cost)
Compare them, really >.< Different meta weapon have different fitting cost. Meta 4 mining laser worthless comparing to XeCl miner due to insane CPU usage. I saw EWar bomber fitted with Malkuth's due to CPU shortage, and it were doing very well.
Ok, here we are: Module: Rockets (torpedoes seems to be okay, HAM's have issues, but I unsure about possible fixes) Issue: They're sucks, comparing... to anything. Okay, I know (well, I really know) - it is absolutely separate weapon classes, but some parallels exists. At least light missiles are closer counterpart, than, say, drones or guns. So, keeping it in mind: Issue #1: Reload time affecting rockets DPS insanely. Namely by 10%. I've had feeling that all what i'm doing flying my Vengeance, is waiting for rocket launchers to reload... then I've placed numbers on paper... and saw it was not only feeling.
Suggested fix: Increase launcher capacity. (Double it at least)
Issue #2: Single rocket doing close to no damage, they're fired often, resulting in Issue #1 plus huge load to EVE cluster. Comparing damage of single load of light missiles with single load of rockets... Please, don't laugh... Lights: 4.125 Rockets: 1.031,25 Well, that not too crappy, if you think a bit deeper and compare DPS. It actually ok', but see Issue #1 and take a look at Rocket launcher duration. I, with my skills and four launchers, can, literally, fill space with rockets, firing them every second or more often.
Suggestion: Increase duration, damage in half.
Issue #3: Rockets are slow. Really... Not a counter to interceptors. Not even close to. I suggest increase in speed. From half to twice increase.
Who want to play with numbers: Screenshot and OOo calc document
ADD: Considering all these changes, Suggested addition: Increase rocket launchers fitting cost a bit. More precisely, increase PG usage slightly (keep in mind to increase available PG on some ships as well, if that hurts them, namely Kestrel has so weak powergrid, depends on increase, it may never be able to fit rockets on it any more) -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Cpt Branko
Surge.
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 12:38:00 -
[49]
Originally by: Mag's
- Module: Short range Tech 2 ammo.
- Problem: Penalties mean this ammo is all but useless, and very subpar to Faction ammo.
- Suggested fix: Reduce penalties by at least 50%.
Other notes: Tech 2 long range ammo, seems to be fine.
I'd prefer something like this:
(a) Void fix -reduce falloff penalty from 0.5x to 0.75x -remove tracking penalty (it's a short range ammo, it cannot operate efficently with tracking penalties)
(b) Conflag fix - remove tracking penalty (see void)
(c) Hail fix -remove optimal range penalty (or alternatively make it 0.75x) -remove tracking penalty (see void/conflag).
Generally, that would mean T2 high damage ammos still retain capacitor penalties (higher activation costs in case of Conflag and Void, cap recharge nerf in case of Hail), and a part of their range penalties so they're all worse then faction ammo for shooting outside optimal but have somewhat longer optimals (sans Conflag which has the same range-wise stats as AN MF and gets to keep them) - with total scrapping of the tracking penalties which murder the usefulness of high damage ammo in short range combat (where it's supposed to be used) anyway.
Sig removed, inappropriate link. If you would like further details please mail [email protected] ~Saint |
Abrazzar
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 12:57:00 -
[50]
Module: Regenerative Plating
Problem: Inefficient compared to Armor or Resistance Plating
Solution: Give it a constant repair amount less than a small armor repairer.
===
Module: Energized Regenerative Membrane
Problem: Inefficient compared to Armor or Resistance Plating
Solution: Give it a constant percentage based armor regeneration.
Other notes: See this thread for a more in depth analysis.
-------- Ideas for: Mining
|
|
Daan Sai
HAZCON Inc
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 14:20:00 -
[51]
Module: Augmented and Integrated drones
Problem: Availability is effectively nil, production failed to take off
Suggested fix: Make them inventable like T2 variants
Other notes: 5x Augmented hammers (effectively split kin therm hammer IIs) are selling for 430 million (!) isk in Jita, simply because they are so rare they are merely collectors items
|
Dal Thrax
Multiverse Corporation Cosmic Anomalies
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 14:34:00 -
[52]
Module: Remote ECCM
Problem: Once the target has been jammed, Remote ECCM has no effect until the next ECM role. Can be defeated by cycling relatively equal targets (only really useful with a ship you know will get jammed, like a logistics).
Suggestion: Allow a roll to break jamming (perhaps with some delay depending on the meta level of the module) when a Remote ECCM activates on a ship.
Suggestion: Delete ECCM and make the modules a scripted option for sensor boosters.
Module: Information Warfare Link Sensor Integrity
Problem: 33% bonus of sensor strength is not really useful, especially in a large fleet. This is a Gallente mod that deals only with sensor strength.
Suggestion: Keep ECCM boost the same bonus all other EWARable attributes by half the amount that a Electronic Warfare Link - Electronic Superiority boosts EWAR ability for the various EWAR modules.
Module: Sensor Status Scanner
Problem: Does not exist
Suggestion: Introduce a scanner that can show if a target is currently jammed or damped (for example by an auto controlled POS battery).
Originally by: HEXXX In all seriousness; I think I made a miscalculation originally. . . We either need to fix this or fix our advertising.
|
Strill
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 17:58:00 -
[53]
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: Mikal Drey Module : ECCM Problem : Not effective
Solution : Maybe a complete overhaul of anti ECM measures need to looked at. I would like to see ECCM become an active module that you could click on demand when jammed. It would then break the ECm cycle and give you back locking capabilities.
As for balance ECM/ECCM becomes more of a fight for supremacy where lock times become more significant. you would need to break ECM then relock all in the space of the ECM ships cycle.
Some of them give a 48%, some a 96% boost and the remote ones give a 120% boost.
Show me another module that gives such a huge boost to a stat.
T2 Armor Hardeners: give you a 122% boost to your EHP for a given resistance.
|
marakor
Gallente Anti Lag Forum Smackers
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 18:27:00 -
[54]
Edited by: marakor on 26/08/2008 18:34:22
Originally by: Strill
Originally by: marakor
Originally by: Mikal Drey Module : ECCM Problem : Not effective
Solution : Maybe a complete overhaul of anti ECM measures need to looked at. I would like to see ECCM become an active module that you could click on demand when jammed. It would then break the ECm cycle and give you back locking capabilities.
As for balance ECM/ECCM becomes more of a fight for supremacy where lock times become more significant. you would need to break ECM then relock all in the space of the ECM ships cycle.
Some of them give a 48%, some a 96% boost and the remote ones give a 120% boost.
Show me another module that gives such a huge boost to a stat.
T2 Armor Hardeners: give you a 122% boost to your EHP for a given resistance.
And yet nobody complains that they are not invulnerable or that the hardener switches off all dmg from its type when its activated.....plus thats a unstacked stat while a ship already has some str against jamming.
|
Szap Light
Caldari Minds Of Space Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 22:51:00 -
[55]
For Gods sake DO NOT DEBATE IN THIS THREAD
|
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2008.08.26 23:08:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Szap Light For Gods sake DO NOT DEBATE IN THIS THREAD
Why not? It is a spam post anyway...
One Carebear to rule them all, One Carebear to find them, One Carebear to bring them all and in the web range bind them. |
|
CCP Mitnal
C C P
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 00:31:00 -
[57]
Please keep within the spirit of the thread and do not debate items, I would hate to take this further.
Think of this as providing devs with much needed feedback on problem modules, any proposed changes will give ample opportunity for debate!
Mitnal Community Representative CCP Games, EVE Online Email / Netfang |
|
Tonto Auri
Vhero' Multipurpose Corp
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 01:14:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Daan Sai Module: Augmented and Integrated drones
Problem: Availability is effectively nil, production failed to take off
Suggested fix: Make them inventable like T2 variants
Other notes: 5x Augmented hammers (effectively split kin therm hammer IIs) are selling for 430 million (!) isk in Jita, simply because they are so rare they are merely collectors items
Right suggestion for issue: Fix blueprint search in contracts so they can be found at last, after half-year... -- Thanks CCP for cu |
Ferocious FeAr
THE FINAL STAND
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 01:30:00 -
[59]
Edited by: Ferocious FeAr on 27/08/2008 01:31:28 I apologize if I repeat what has already been said.
Module: Stasis Webifier II Problem: No clear advantage over best named module.
Suggested Fix: Increase webifier range.
-----
Module: Tracking Disruptor II Problem: No clear advantage over best named module.
Suggested Fix: Increase optimal, falloff and tracking speed bonus.
-----
Module: Medium Capacitor Booster II Problem: Electrochemical uses less pg and does the same job as its tech 2 counterpart
Suggested Fix: Faster reload time, this will also help (not fix) the neutralizer situation that seems to cripple non battleship hulls.
If I think of others I'll post some.
Don't hate me, learn to love me |
Daan Sai
HAZCON Inc
|
Posted - 2008.08.27 01:52:00 -
[60]
Originally by: Daan Sai Suggested fix: Make them inventable like T2 variants
Clarification: when an inventor is making say Hammer IIs, let them choose to make Hammers IIs or Augmented Hammers (like the T2 ship variants), using the same input materials as hammer IIs. Add integrated drones to loot drops as T1 meta variants, or let them be built as an option when making T1 drones.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |