| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Topic |
Marlenus
Caldari
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
    |
Posted - 2008.08.24 18:51:00 -
[1]
I am taking Mitnal's suggestion and starting a copycat thread to mirror Adaera's awesome ship thread. Plagiarizing heavily:
This thread is to consolidate a list of modules that could use some tweaking, into one thread, for easy dev evaluation.
Note: Please keep arguments/debates out of this thread. Just post using the template below:
Module:
Problem:
Suggested fix:
Other notes:
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!
------------------
Ironfleet.com |
Marlenus
Caldari
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 18:52:00 -
[2]
[reserved for a minute while I do mine]
------------------
Ironfleet.com |
Kepakh
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 18:55:00 -
[3]
Oh no, another spam thread :-/
One Carebear to rule them all, One Carebear to find them, One Carebear to bring them all and in the web range bind them. |
Marlenus
Caldari
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 19:25:00 -
[4]
Module: Tractor Beams
Problems:
1) Low speed. 500m/s is fine for pulling in one can, but when used in a towing role it's too slow for most small ships.
2) Limited range. It's a big grid, 20km is great but lots of times there's need/desire for more.
3) Lack of variety. The T1/Meta 1 is the only model.
4) No utility ships get bonuses to speed or range. Marauder class battleships are awesome, but tractors are work modules; why can't there be a working ship (indy, transport, salvage destroyer, the t1 mining frigates) with tractor bonuses for range and/or speed?
5) Wistful: The hostile tractor beam is a staple of science fiction. In EVE, you cannot tractor things you do not own. Tractor beams should not have ethics chips implanted in the factory. 
Suggested Fixes:
1,2,3) Introduce higher-meta tractors into the loot table, and allow invention of TII tractors. Give these higher-meta items modest boosts to range and/or speed.
4) Alternatives: add tractor bonuses to select utility ships; create a utility highslot module "tractor beam control computer" with bonuses (maybe with alternative range/speed script?) to range and speed; create a new dedicated salvage utility vessel on an industrial or blockade runner hull, with appropriate bonuses.
5) Just for fun, remove the ethics chips from tractor beams and allow them to lock ships. Balance for lulz rather than any effort to make this a serious weapons system (not needed). Simply give each tractor a small acceleration affect on the target ship in the vector the tractor pulls. Add appropriate criminal flags to minimize grief -- I'd say, tractoring ships is the same as shooting them, tractoring cans owned by others is the same as removing contents, tractoring wrecks is same as salvaging (no flag, arguable.)
------------------
Ironfleet.com |
Marlenus
Caldari
Ironfleet Towing And Salvage
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 19:40:00 -
[5]
Module: Exotic Dancers ( link )
Problem: They don't dance. They don't even MOVE. 
Suggested Fix:
1) Fix it. In Ambulation, if you must. We are waiting.
2) Hire real exotic dancers and send them around to our houses. Probably not resource-practical.
Other Notes:
Pretty please?
------------------
Ironfleet.com |
Mag's
MASS
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 20:51:00 -
[6]
- 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.
Mag's
 Originally by: Avernus
One of these days, the realization that MASS is no longer significant will catch up with you.
|
Khraunus
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 20:56:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Khraunus on 24/08/2008 20:56:30
Module: Tech II Armor Plates
Problem: Outclassed by Meta 4 modules of the same type
Suggested fix: Boost the HP modifier of tech II plates
Other notes: I had 4 biscuits, then I ate one. Now I only have 3.
|
Khraunus
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 21:00:00 -
[8]
Module: Civilian Shield Booster I
Problem: My crystal implants have no affect on it
Suggested fix: Make crystal implants affect this module
Other notes: Is it 'Affect' or 'Effect'?
|
Khraunus
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 21:02:00 -
[9]
Module: Energized Regenerative Membranes
Problem: Not enough of an HP boost to warrant fitting over plates
Solution: Give it some sort of additional bonus, like passively regenerating armor or givin reppers a bonus. Power diagnostic units give bonuses to shield hp AND recharge, why should armor tankers not have a similar module?
|
Khraunus
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 21:05:00 -
[10]
Module: All drone upgrades
Problem: No tech II / Meta 2-4 counterparts
Solution: Allow tech II / meta 2-4 to be manufactured, and give them slight boosts.
Other notes: This should not apply to drone control units, as they already cause enough lag as it is.
|
|
Batolemaeus
Caldari
Batolemaeus Corp
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 22:35:00 -
[11]
Module: Sisters Recon Probe Launcher
Problem: No bonuses that justify the additional price tag
Suggested fix: Give it some good bonuses. What about a scan strength bonus?
Other notes:
-----------------------------------
Module: ECCM OMNI
Problem: Plain and simple: worthless. They do not have a use whatsoever.
Suggested fix: Remove them i guess?
Other notes: Racial Eccm has the same bonus, but only a fraction of the cap usage.
------------------------------------------------
Module: Comos Modules. All of them.
Problem: Huge pricetag but perform significantly worse than t2 in most cases
Suggested fix: They are not that dominant because their supply is extremely limited (only a few bpc per character). A fix would probably involve a redesign of comos, currently it's not worth wasting manpower on them i think.
---------------------------------------
Module: Micro cap-booster, Micro cap battery etc.
Problem: t1 Bpos not seeded
Suggested fix: Seed them!
Other notes: There are some fitting where they are useful, mainly on small ships like interceptors. One of my raptor fittings would really make use of a micro cap booster, but they are hard to come by in bulk.
----------------------------------------
Module: T2 Heavy Missiles
Problem: Not worth it, because of the heavy penalties. Faction performs better, even better than precision missiles.
Suggested fix: Boost t2 by removing or altering their maluses.
|
Alski
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 23:06:00 -
[12]
Oh uh, i've been saveing this up for a while... consider this your long post warning 
Electronic Warfare Drones
Most of the Electronic Warfare drones have several major disadvantages that keep people from ever choosing them over combat drones (EC-xxx drones are obviously an exception) these include but are not limited to:
-Pilot has to sacrifice DPS in exchange for special purpose Ewar most of which does not reduce incoming damage or increase effectiveness of outgoing damage in an average fight.
-The small (5m3 / xx-300) Ewar drones have too little effect, while the large (25m3 / xx-900) drones are too large for most ships to carry.
-Most if not all Ewar drones are special purpose, and some are much more specialist than others, whereas more firepower (combat drones) is always useful.
-The majority of sub-BS ships in Eve just don’t have the dronebay space to accommodate any special purpose drones at all.
This is all a symptom of a much greater issue.
When CCP added the drone bandwidth system, it was seemingly for the purpose of limiting certain ships with large dronebays from launching 5 heavy drones (ie: myri, eos) While a very few ships did get a slightly bigger dronebay as well, the vast majority of ships did not change.
This was a missed opportunity to rebalance all drones and make all the rarely used logistic and electronic drones more widely used in everyday fits.
If ALL ships that can carry any amount of combat drones had their bays increased in size, this in conjunction with a rebalancing of EW drones would allow pilots to diversify their drone loadouts and ship capabilities in interesting ways that we have had all along, just without the ability to use.
Increasing the dronebay size on all drone capable ships could bring significant changes to combat in Eve, including:
-Somewhat negates the effects of instant drone shield recharge being removed if a pilot decides not to diversify and carries only combat drones.
-A return to the days when oddball and special purpose fits were more common place, and you were never quite sure what your target might have up his sleeve.
-Increased cost of ships fitting / combat expenses / losses if a pilot decides to utilise all his drone bay (esp. if his choice was a bay packed with hammerhead II’s for example.)
-Specialisation skills for certain types of drone EW could be introduced to make such extra combat utility come at a higher price.
-T2 Ewar drones could eventually become a viable addiction to the game.
-Ships with higher drone bandwidth capability and larger bays would be capable of bringing more significant amounts of drone-electronic warfare to a fight, this is an important balance issue.
The last point is the major issue which CCP would have to look at carefully, this could however be solved to a nice degree by rebalancing some of the xx-300 classes of drones (SD and TD in particular) to be closer in all stats to their xx-600 counterparts, Ie: SD-300’s get a higher damp effect, are a little tougher, a little slower.
EC-600 drones are an obvious exception, as giving all ships with 50mb bandwidth the option of carrying these as they are now would probably be excessive, so they would probably have to be nerfed slightly in terms of ECM strength.
Electronic Warfare Drones Balance issues
EV-300/600/900 Energy Neutralising Drones
It seems to me that these are all reasonably well balanced as they are, at least the amount of cap neutralisation seems about right on all sizes, though there is no real reason to set 5 EV-300’s on a ceptor/tackle frig for example when you could use warrior II’s, so they could perhaps use a slight speed bonus to give them a special purpose (somewhere around 4.5/5k maybe, up from 3.8k on decent skills, ignoreing speed nerf)
Continued....
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Alski
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 23:09:00 -
[13]
SD-300/600/900 Sensor Damping Drones
There are two main issues with these, one is that they are weak, the other is that on top of weakness they are stacking penalised.
Take the SD-600 for example:
1st drones effective dampening: 12%
2nd drones effective dampening: 10%
3rd drones effective dampening: 7%
4th drones effective dampening: 3%
5th drones effective dampening: 1%
In real eve, this means five 600’s can bring a 66km locking range down to 46km for example, or 22km down to 15km.
Although also having the same effect on sensor resolution, they are not very useful, and the problem of fixing them is compounded by the nature of sensor range dampening – either the target still has enough locking range to fight back or he doesn’t; making SD drones useful without being overpowered is perhaps more difficult than balancing all other ECM.
Possible solution: Improved ability but with “Equipment Decay”
Make them much improved in effectiveness, however the drones will take small amounts of hull damage when they are actively sensor dampening, and will eventually pop, as another side effect they could be made several times more expensive and so somewhat costly to replace, thus insuring they are not a “always use these for win” item.
Would also provide a use for small remote hull reps.
Another possible solution is to boost all sizes massively, but also increase the bandwidth use per drone, ie:
SD-300 / 5 -> 25 bandwidth / 5x more powerfull
SD-600 / 10 -> 50 bandwidth / 5x more powerfull
SD-900 / 25 -> 75 bandwidth / 2.5-3x more powerfull (?)
Keeping all other attributes the same, this presents the targeted ship with just a single drone to take out in order to remove the ECM that’s on him, a fair trade for both sides.
Other parameters that could be added to retain balance could be an even harsher stacking penalty, that would force drone heavy ships like the domi to only launch say 1 heavy and some medium combat drones, rather than going for 5 rather powerfull medium SD drones, there could also be stacking penalties to ensure that ships like domi’s and carrier don’t become overpowered in drone electronic warfare.
SW-900 Stasis Webifing Drone
Idea 1. same as now, but reduce m3 capacity and bandwidth to 5 or 10 from 25.
Idea 2. improve maximum speed and webifiing amount slightly, reduce m3 amount to 5, but keep bandwidth at 25, allowing any ship to carry them, but few able to launch a full set of 5, also keep stacking penalisation of web effect.
Note: really really bad idea if the speed nerf turns out to be anything like on sisi 
TP-300/600/900 Target painter drones.
The TP-300s would be good anti-nano/inte/tackler drones if only the painting bonus (4%) wasn’t just another arbitrary number that hasn’t been changed since their introduction, if it were 8% like the TP-600s then five would for example up a maledictions sig up from 148 to 328, TP-900’s up it to nearly 600 (that’s more than what 3 T2 painters on a max skilled Huginn/Rapier/Bellicose would do)
Sadley though 5x300’s will only add 62%, or 90 sig – about as much as two unbonused T1 meta1 target painters that no-one uses at the moment anyway.
600’s however do add a useful amount of ability for targets that are at an orbital speed, they just unfavoured because they are replacing 50-200 DPS worth of damage that you could be doing with combat drones, and are using probably all or most of your dronebay for on most ships.
900s are just silly. There is almost no point in having them for their effectiveness against fast ships, and there is no other situation where you want painters. While somewhere in crazy tactics land you might use a carrier full of them to paint a Battleship so a seigemode dreadnaught can hit it… that just is not going to happen in the real Eve.
Continued...
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Alski
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 23:10:00 -
[14]
Solution:
I want to only half jokingly suggest making them all 1m3 and 5 mbit bandwidth, it seems the only way that people would use special purpose drones that they just will not put in their bays in favour of raw DPS, if this were to be the awnser I would say improve the 300’s by only 2%, (6% total)
Failing that just remove the TP-900’s and give the 20% bonus to the 600s and the 8% bonus to the 300s, as 4% per drone is useless and 25m3 is too much for a very obscure purpose drone, alternatively make both just 5m3 and 5mbit and the 600 more expensive.
TD-300/600/900 Tracking disruptor Drones.
These are actually probably fine at the moment, as their effect is quite noticeable when operating on the edge of a weapons range and tracking speed (example; can take a blasterthron firing null down from 26km opt+falloff to 12km, tracking from 0.066 to 0.030.
Again there lack of use is down to pilots not wanting to sacrifice drone DPS for extra versatility, I think this could be well solved by a combination of the “Equipment Decay” idea (the drones would take hull damage when in use and eventually fail/pop, since these drones are actually rather useable in some respects) and by reducing their size to that of the class below them, ie: 900s become 10m3, 600s become 5m3, 300s stay at 5m3.
Electronics and Sensors
Automated Targeting Systems
Not very much you can do to make these good, though I have one idea…
They do have one small use at the moment, and that is to increase the amount of targets you can lock by 2 for T1 and 3 for T2.
They could be given further functionality by acting as a switch for the auto-lock-back system already in the client, most pvpers turn this off for good reasons, though there are also times when it is useful (ie: piloting an ewar ship where there are other hostile ewar ships on the field trying to jam you first) having the ability to both toggle autolock and have +2 or +3 max targets weather the module is active or not (as it works currently) would give it an occasionally handy role. (no-one uses it for its current purpose anyway, so losing this is not a big deal)
Also the T2 version should have its CPU use lowered massively, it is currently 35, the T1 version uses 1 CPU.
Electronic Warfare Modules
Projected ECCM
These are another module that are in fact awesome aside from a few poor design choices, compare all the ECCM modules in strength:
ECCM: +30% inactive +96% active
Sensor Backup Arrays: +38%
Projected ECCM: 120% (!) to all four sensor types.
Midslots however are still too valuable for this module.
Solution: Reduce fitting requirements by 50% (around 20-25cpu instead of 40-55) and make it a high slot = instant highly useful gang module that shouldn’t be too difficult to fit.
ECM Bursts.
Why don’t we hear about people suicideing into fleets in ECM burst fit ships like we do with smartbomb BS’s? its not just because they are not particularly strong, its because you can only activate one at a time, and they have a 30 second (!) cycle time.
Simple fix here, either remove the 1 module activated limit, or reduce the cycle time very significantly - they currently chew 230 cap per activation which is a fair penalty, that could be increased slightly to compensate, but I think even a reduction to 10 seconds would make these actually used, if only just for comedy value.
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Alski
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 23:11:00 -
[15]
Target Painter
Saving my target painter rant for another day, but if it were up to me, every ship would get a “crap slot”, like a low slot, but worse.
There would be a whole bunch of crap slot modules that have both useful but also obscure and often unpractical effects or abilities, painters would be one of these modules.
Engineering Equipment
Capacitor Batteries
Problems:
-CPU use *way* too high
-PG use a little too high
-Do not add a realistically useful amount of cap
-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.
The high fitting costs are also a problem in themselves, because many ships, particularly any T1 or T2 frigate hulls and several cruiser hulls will have problems squeezing them in, and with the exception of “flying batteries” (BC or BS whose lows and mids are fit soley for maximum cap recharge, usually for heavy remote repping / cap transfer) they provide no advantage in any situation for any purpose.
Solution:
-Lower the CPU&PG use to more sensible levels.
-Increase the amount of cap they add by a fairley wide margin, to the point of a single module adding enough cap to be usefull in a PVP fit that chooses a huge cap reservoir with a slow recharge in place of cap boosters. (probably at least 2 or 3 thousand cap or more for the large instead of 700 for instance)
-Because of the large cap increase they would then outperform cap recharges, to counter this they could have a negative bonus to cap recharge similar to the way capacitor flux coils work but in reverse.
*Small* Energy transfer arrays / Shield transporters / Remote repair systems.
All the small remote logistics modules are effectively useless, at least to the point that no-one fits them except on some fairly special purpose fits (oddball logistics cruiser fits for example) it would be good if frigate classed vessels could actually use them on each other, however there are two limiting factors with this:
- Range! 4800m for T2 equipment with max skills is not useable, there is no harm in giving them at least the same range as the medium versions (still a mere 8400) I think its worth considering that because of the tiny amount of repair/cap they transfer, if it wouldent be good to them a longer range than the medium sized modules (10-15km?) this would at least give them a more general purpose.
- Fitting requirements – They are frigate class modules that you can’t fit on the shipclass’s that would benefit from using them the most – assault frigates and interceptors, PG and CPU are slightly too high on remote armor reps, and while *micro* shield transporters can fit some interceptors due to low PG use, they have a range of only 3600m for the T2, and I’m not sure if the T2 can even be invented (the T1 BPO may not even be seeded, I haven’t checked)
Small Energy Neuts
I have no idea why you’d would want to use near all of your precious cap your ceptor has to neut the cap of another ceptor, but just incase you do, it’d be nice to be able to do it without deliberately flying inside web range to do it, increase range to same as medium sized versions.
Seriously though these could add a nice flavour to inti-v-inte action, if cap batteries weren’t ******ed they could make for some interesting setups, esp. on the stiletto (it has 4 mids for point, web, mwd, battery)
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Alski
Gallente
Di-Tron Heavy Industries
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 23:12:00 -
[16]
Warpcore Stabs.
Just kidding 
Bombs
-Horrible aiming mechanic considering its likely to be used in a laggy situation and in a rush to turn around and save yourself
-Too expensive
-Range is too short
-Damage is too low
Solution: half the price, double the range, its far too easy to kill yourself launching one and ending up not killing anyone else.
If you read all that, have a cookie 
-
(combat) Patch belonging to CCP hits your drones, wrecking their liberty and freedom.
|
Deva Blackfire
D00M.
|
Posted - 2008.08.24 23:49:00 -
[17]
Nosf/neut overheat:
instead of cycle time give it range bonus = another "anti nano" weapon
Deadspace neuts:
they dont exist. Time to create corpum a-type medium neutraliser? :)
Defenders:
oh yea... maybe something in style of tracking ruptors? And might be good idea to think about missile modules (boosting explo velocity and stuff). Ofc missiles would have to be tweaked before that.
|
Thy Filth
Hikikomori Broadcast
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 00:20:00 -
[18]
Module: ECCM
Problem: Not Strong enough, takes up an important mid slots, yet you still easily get jammed
Suggested fix: Increase Strenght
|
Straight Chillen
Gallente
Solar Wind
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 00:55:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Straight Chillen on 25/08/2008 00:56:06
Module: Tech 2 Ammo of pretty much all types
Problem: Penalties remove much usefulness
Suggested Fix: Total Revamp of the T2 Ammo, In purpose and design. For example look at t2 Rail Ammo. We got Spike which is a long range sniper ammo, which works fine. But then theres javelin ammo, and its kinda useless, it gives a bit of a dmg bonus over antimatter, but gimps your tracking which is the opposite of what you'd want close in with railguns that have crappy tracking to begin with. If it gave a tracking bonus instead of the extra dmg it would be much more useful. T2 missiles have stacking penalties that wrecks your speed, making it impossible to catch the fast targets they were intended to. Void ammo for blasters eats away your cap, making it a poor choice for any kind of extended engagement. Where as null is pretty damn handy. Cant really comment on the t2 crystals or proj ammo as I've never used it but I'm sure its probably the same story, some of it can be useful, and some of its useless.
Basically what I would like to see is distinct bonuses for T2 ammo that gives it a defined purpose, without having any negative impact on your ship.
 |
Strill
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 06:24:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Alski
900s are just silly. There is almost no point in having them for their effectiveness against fast ships, and there is no other situation where you want painters. While somewhere in crazy tactics land you might use a carrier full of them to paint a Battleship so a seigemode dreadnaught can hit ità that just is not going to happen in the real Eve.
Five of them can boost a domi's sig radius to 1050. Perfect for a non-siegemode dreadnought.
|
|
Cpt Cosmic
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 06:40:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Cpt Cosmic on 25/08/2008 06:40:18
ECCM dont provide any real protection against ECM, even with 2 mods you are going to be jammed often. ECCM is also useless sub BS.
|
Snow Banshee
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 06:51:00 -
[22]
MODULES: faction weapons ( caldari launchers VS gallente rails of minnie projectiles)
PROBLEM: Caldari launchers do more damage as the T2 counterpart, gut Gallente rails and minnie artillery do less damage as the T2 counterparts ( if T2 spec skill >= 3 ). Actually the only use of faction rails is for lower skill requirement and relative easier fitting req ( not a bit problem anyway for skilled pilots).
Solution: Boost a bit faction turrets , for example giving them +5% damage over T2 rails ( with spech skill lev 4). The Caldari rail should have same damage as the t2 rails ( with spec 4) since their bonus its on optimal, and not in damage.
|
Strill
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 07:35:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Strill on 25/08/2008 07:35:11
Module: Drones of all kinds
Problem: EWAR and combat support drones are ineffective compared to damage drones
The dominix is widely considered to be the most versatile ship in the game, mainly because of its drone bay and drone damage bonus. This leads to setups such as the "NOS Domi" where the dominix fills its high slots with nosferatus and attempts to drain the opponent's capacitor until their active tank fails, at which point the dominix's drones will finish the opponent off. But one peculiar thing is that there is no corresponding mirror setup in which the dominix uses energy neutralizer drones and blasters. After all, the dominix does have a 5%/level hybrid damage bonus. Why is it that it's practical to replace blasters with drones, but it's not practical to replace nosferatus with drones?
The answer is probably that drone damage skills don't apply to EWAR/combat support drones. If drone interfacing and the dominix bonus applied to EWAR/support drones, that would go quite a way into making them viable. Currently neutralizer drones don't drain anywhere near the cap of what a dominix could do on its own with nosferatus and energy neutralizers so they end up not being an alternative. Damage drones are certainly an alternative to guns, and for a dominix, the drones end up doing about the same DPS as what a dominix could get from blasters. However, since Energy neut drones and Large energy neuts are not as interchangeable, the only viable cap draining domi setup uses damage drones and cap-draining modules.
Suggested Fix: Scale EWAR/support drones to be in-line with their corresponding modules. I.e. Damage drones are in-line with guns or missiles in terms of effectiveness. It's practical to fit damage drones and take off some guns, and still be about as effective as you were before. The same can't be said for EWAR/support drones. It's much more effective to fit high slot modules such as Nosferatus and energy neutralizers than it is to fit energy neutralizer drones. A full set of support/EWAR drones should be comparable to a set of their corresponding fitted module.
NOTE: This change would go a long ways to making support drones viable for any ship, not just the dominix. I just used the dominix as an example of how damage drones have utility close to that of their corresponding module, while support drones do not.
|
Kerdrak
3B Legio IX
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 08:56:00 -
[24]
Module: T2 short range ammo (Hail, Quake, Conflagration, Gleam, Void, Javelin)
Problem: Too many penalties makes them less useful than faction ammo.
Suggested fix: Change the role of the ammo or remove/change the penalties.
Other notes:
________________________________________
 |
Mikal Drey
Minmatar
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 09:01:00 -
[25]
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.
 |
Kerdrak
3B Legio IX
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 09:04:00 -
[26]
Module: Energized Regenerative Membrane/Regenerative Plating
Problem: Trimarks are a better choice.
Suggested fix: Make them "regenerate" armor as the name suggest. Something like "5% armor repaired each 5 minutes" or something like that, so armor tankers have a true passive armor repair.
Other notes:
________________________________________
|
M1AU
Gallente
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 09:10:00 -
[27]
Module: MicroWarpdrives
Problem: Just bigger Afterburners; reduces the use of Afterburners in PVP combat; reduces the versatility of truster modifications in general.
Suggested fix: Make MWDs unique by boosting it's speed and acceleration slightly but reducing the agility of ships while the module is active.
Other notes: Powergrid and CPU requirements of MWD and AB modules could be balanced around the new "role". Also Afterburners speed bonus could be increased slightly.
|
Mikal Drey
Minmatar
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 09:13:00 -
[28]
Module : Defenders
Problem : to slow, poorly implemented design, ROF to slow.
Solution :
Again i would prefer a new module/missile than nerfing or mutilating a mod. Think more on the lines of the sunburst anti missile system. where the missile switches target to the heat source instead of the ship.
|
Mikal Drey
Minmatar
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 09:16:00 -
[29]
Module : Heat
Problem : burnout times
Solution: Mooooooooooooaaaarr HP for mods
|
Mikal Drey
Minmatar
ORIGIN SYSTEMS
Atlas Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.08.25 09:22:00 -
[30]
module : Autotargetter
problem : WTF is it supposed to do ? it gives the extra +2 targets but doesnt auto target anything :/
solution : tbh i got no clue if this module even has real value to the game.
Module : Passive targetter
problem : they see you comming
solution : change mod to be specific to bombers and or coverts/recons and allow it to be used to target someone whilst cloaked :)
|
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |