| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Grim Vandal
   |
Posted - 2004.10.15 00:15:00 -
[1]
do we even want it to be changed?
IMHO YES.
first balance the projectile weapons and pulse lasers .... then change the missiles
after that ECM
we assume that no more local and no more map info in 0.0 is available and system scanning works
we assume the mwd has been nerfed so that you can only fly straight ahead with it (no sig penalty)
we assume afterburners have been beefed up
and now ....
... now we assume that you can NOT reapair HP the way we can do it atm!!!!!! it needs to be way slower on the other hand I want eg. 200.000 hitpoints for a BS....
reason: Its all about the oppertunity to be able to do damage even if it takes hours!!! atm you either break the tank or not. Its again too simple .... 100% or nothing ...
repairing would need to be soo slow that you wont benefit while you are in a battle from it.
lets do some simple calcs:
lets say an average BS with large guns should need about 10 mins to kill a non tanked BS. Now a fully tanked BS would last about 20 mins vs the same BS.
so its all about resistance and armor plates or shield extenders (they would of course give way more HP as well).
that beeing said I bet most dont like it but why? why is the current way better?
I can think of a situation where a group uses shield transfers and remote armor reps ... so you could actually tank a few other BS but what else? In this case give support ships the ability to remote enhance the resistance or give them the ability to lower the sig radius of the target friendly ship ....
well the devs have chosen the current way but why??? was it never intended to totally outtank the opponent???
anyway give HP repairing mods -80% efficiency and leave the cap use the same. and give all ships 50x the current HP
some issues tho:
logging..... make it so a ship wont dissapear as long as it recives any kind of agression. it would still try to warp out of course ....
gate camping:
well this would involve another change muahahahahahah no more instant jumping BMs  I bet most love this one 
docking: this one is quite difficult but dont forget that you will just destroy his station, and/or up the docking timer to about 5 mins after your last aggression
jumping:
again up the timer to about 5 mins after your last agerssion. Even more you will NOT be able to know who or what is on the other side of the gate due to no local chat and no 0.0 map info.
Capacitor issue:
atm this balances "somewhat" the offence ability vs the defence ability since less cap means less tanking ... one way to keep that balance is to give active resistance boosting modules more cap useage and passive resistance boosting mods more requirements in PG and CPU.
teh difference?? atm EVE is good
EVE will be awesome
now these changes would make EVE 1337
anyway I want to hear some opinions....
Greetings Grim |
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 00:15:00 -
[2]
do we even want it to be changed?
IMHO YES.
first balance the projectile weapons and pulse lasers .... then change the missiles
after that ECM
we assume that no more local and no more map info in 0.0 is available and system scanning works
we assume the mwd has been nerfed so that you can only fly straight ahead with it (no sig penalty)
we assume afterburners have been beefed up
and now ....
... now we assume that you can NOT reapair HP the way we can do it atm!!!!!! it needs to be way slower on the other hand I want eg. 200.000 hitpoints for a BS....
reason: Its all about the oppertunity to be able to do damage even if it takes hours!!! atm you either break the tank or not. Its again too simple .... 100% or nothing ...
repairing would need to be soo slow that you wont benefit while you are in a battle from it.
lets do some simple calcs:
lets say an average BS with large guns should need about 10 mins to kill a non tanked BS. Now a fully tanked BS would last about 20 mins vs the same BS.
so its all about resistance and armor plates or shield extenders (they would of course give way more HP as well).
that beeing said I bet most dont like it but why? why is the current way better?
I can think of a situation where a group uses shield transfers and remote armor reps ... so you could actually tank a few other BS but what else? In this case give support ships the ability to remote enhance the resistance or give them the ability to lower the sig radius of the target friendly ship ....
well the devs have chosen the current way but why??? was it never intended to totally outtank the opponent???
anyway give HP repairing mods -80% efficiency and leave the cap use the same. and give all ships 50x the current HP
some issues tho:
logging..... make it so a ship wont dissapear as long as it recives any kind of agression. it would still try to warp out of course ....
gate camping:
well this would involve another change muahahahahahah no more instant jumping BMs I bet most love this one
docking: this one is quite difficult but dont forget that you will just destroy his station, and/or up the docking timer to about 5 mins after your last aggression
jumping:
again up the timer to about 5 mins after your last agerssion. Even more you will NOT be able to know who or what is on the other side of the gate due to no local chat and no 0.0 map info.
Capacitor issue:
atm this balances "somewhat" the offence ability vs the defence ability since less cap means less tanking ... one way to keep that balance is to give active resistance boosting modules more cap useage and passive resistance boosting mods more requirements in PG and CPU.
teh difference?? atm EVE is good
EVE will be awesome
now these changes would make EVE 1337
anyway I want to hear some opinions....
Greetings Grim |
Shamis Orzoz
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 00:29:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 15/10/2004 00:35:39
Interesting Rant. It does make sense to increase the hitpoints of all ships a bit. But I think tanking is ok the way it is otherwise.
As for the other stuff...
Balancing projectiles and pulse lasers is needed.
Changing missle damage on small targets is needed.
MWD nerf's are NOT needed. I'm tired of this crap. If I see my High speed maneuvering 5 training become worthless then I'll be quite upset. The ONLY MWD nerf that I would support is increasing their cap usage.
Instjumps don't really have to be removed, but they need to fix the Mobile Warp Disruptors so they work properly and stop doing bizarre things.
ECM is fine as is. If you make it a % thing then few people will want to risk getting unlucky and having to watch their defenseless EW ship disintegrate in seconds. Sensor Dampening needs to be rethought a little bit though. Perhaps splitting the functionality into 2 devices, 1 that decreases locking speed, and another that decreases targeting range.
Removing ships in space from the map, and removing local icons would immensely improve the game. Scouts and covert ops pilots would be extremely useful, but they really need to let covert ops ships perform cargo and ship scans while cloaked.
Another thing that really needs to be fixed is that covert ops pilots can't cloak if they were previously locked, even after they move outside of the enemies targeting range. This needs fixing.
|
Shamis Orzoz
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 00:29:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 15/10/2004 00:35:39
Interesting Rant. It does make sense to increase the hitpoints of all ships a bit. But I think tanking is ok the way it is otherwise.
As for the other stuff...
Balancing projectiles and pulse lasers is needed.
Changing missle damage on small targets is needed.
MWD nerf's are NOT needed. I'm tired of this crap. If I see my High speed maneuvering 5 training become worthless then I'll be quite upset. The ONLY MWD nerf that I would support is increasing their cap usage.
Instjumps don't really have to be removed, but they need to fix the Mobile Warp Disruptors so they work properly and stop doing bizarre things.
ECM is fine as is. If you make it a % thing then few people will want to risk getting unlucky and having to watch their defenseless EW ship disintegrate in seconds. Sensor Dampening needs to be rethought a little bit though. Perhaps splitting the functionality into 2 devices, 1 that decreases locking speed, and another that decreases targeting range.
Removing ships in space from the map, and removing local icons would immensely improve the game. Scouts and covert ops pilots would be extremely useful, but they really need to let covert ops ships perform cargo and ship scans while cloaked.
Another thing that really needs to be fixed is that covert ops pilots can't cloak if they were previously locked, even after they move outside of the enemies targeting range. This needs fixing.
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 00:32:00 -
[5]
Some good ideas but really i think they are too radical. Your ideas would require thousands apon thousands of hours of play testing to get working right. I just don't see how it's viable at this stage in eve's life.
________________________________________________________
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 00:32:00 -
[6]
Some good ideas but really i think they are too radical. Your ideas would require thousands apon thousands of hours of play testing to get working right. I just don't see how it's viable at this stage in eve's life.
________________________________________________________
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 00:38:00 -
[7]
Uhm...
A strong tank uses more cap than is regenerated. I fail to see how that's "all or nothing" - keep pounding, and he WILL run out. That works for me. If his cap is set up so he can run it forever, you'll be able to do enough damage to pound through it in short order.
You're trying fix what isn't broken. Give it up.
"As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade" |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2004.10.15 00:38:00 -
[8]
Uhm...
A strong tank uses more cap than is regenerated. I fail to see how that's "all or nothing" - keep pounding, and he WILL run out. That works for me. If his cap is set up so he can run it forever, you'll be able to do enough damage to pound through it in short order.
You're trying fix what isn't broken. Give it up.
"As far as I can tell, It doesn't matter who you are, If you can believe there's something worth fighting for " - Garbage, "Parade" |
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.10.16 18:32:00 -
[9]
yep maya but the strong tank will easily outank eg. a cruiser.
the point is that its not even worth to shoot the BS in your single cruiser since there is no way you will do any harm to him.
btw most tanks run their tanking forever....
in this case you either do more dmg than he can tank or you will not do any harm whatsoever...
yes you could always cap drain him but in a cruiser??? 
again its too simple ....
btw it works both ways, since if your tank gets "outdamaged" you die within secs while if you can tank the dmg nothing happens to you.
that way one single shot/missile will be worth to be shot at an enemy while atm you would laugh your aº$ off.
I dont say the current way doesnt work ... it works but it could be better right?
The only real problem is that the devs maybe dont have the pants to do such a critical change to the game. And as always it will be even more difficult if you guys wait even longer.
another few issues I thought about:
shield recharge time? yes it actually would need to be lowered accordingly
shield boosters: as mentioned so many times ... these mods would affect shield reacharge time!!! whith this HP change it would be possible since atm you just have way too less shield HP to make it useable since you recharge rate varys eg. very low at 80% and up while it recharges fastest at about 40%. anyway the shield booster would be still way less effective as compared to now and would use the same amount of cap. that way you would not use it during a fight since you need your cap for your resistance boosting mods... (they would need more cap)
some pilots would even choose to use no HP repairing mod at all ... this and the fact that repairing takes time (dont forget that about 200000 HP take some time to recharge if you get about 10 hp each sec ... ) would make repairing facilities more important as well even if they cost money!!! since you will save precious time ....
hmm even more ... support ships would be more important with their remote HP restoring mods ... out of battle and during battle since they "would" have the bonus to HP restoring mods which could actually mean something during battle ...
that way it "would" be possible to kill a fully tanked BS with a single frig however it would take AGES! but we have the oppertunity and that is important.
any more comments?
Greetings Grim |
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.10.16 18:32:00 -
[10]
yep maya but the strong tank will easily outank eg. a cruiser.
the point is that its not even worth to shoot the BS in your single cruiser since there is no way you will do any harm to him.
btw most tanks run their tanking forever....
in this case you either do more dmg than he can tank or you will not do any harm whatsoever...
yes you could always cap drain him but in a cruiser???
again its too simple ....
btw it works both ways, since if your tank gets "outdamaged" you die within secs while if you can tank the dmg nothing happens to you.
that way one single shot/missile will be worth to be shot at an enemy while atm you would laugh your aº$ off.
I dont say the current way doesnt work ... it works but it could be better right?
The only real problem is that the devs maybe dont have the pants to do such a critical change to the game. And as always it will be even more difficult if you guys wait even longer.
another few issues I thought about:
shield recharge time? yes it actually would need to be lowered accordingly
shield boosters: as mentioned so many times ... these mods would affect shield reacharge time!!! whith this HP change it would be possible since atm you just have way too less shield HP to make it useable since you recharge rate varys eg. very low at 80% and up while it recharges fastest at about 40%. anyway the shield booster would be still way less effective as compared to now and would use the same amount of cap. that way you would not use it during a fight since you need your cap for your resistance boosting mods... (they would need more cap)
some pilots would even choose to use no HP repairing mod at all ... this and the fact that repairing takes time (dont forget that about 200000 HP take some time to recharge if you get about 10 hp each sec ... ) would make repairing facilities more important as well even if they cost money!!! since you will save precious time ....
hmm even more ... support ships would be more important with their remote HP restoring mods ... out of battle and during battle since they "would" have the bonus to HP restoring mods which could actually mean something during battle ...
that way it "would" be possible to kill a fully tanked BS with a single frig however it would take AGES! but we have the oppertunity and that is important.
any more comments?
Greetings Grim |
Marcus Aurelius
|
Posted - 2004.10.16 18:59:00 -
[11]
I dont think these changes are needed at all.
So what if you cannot destroy another ship single handedly because its pilot chose the trade off some offensive abilities for being able to run its tank nonstop ?
What IS unbalanced is that one race can do this alot more easier then another.  megapulse/apoc cap nerf needed imo.
Other then that ? what would be the difference ? Hours to kill a ship single handedly one way or another is still the same ...
|
Marcus Aurelius
|
Posted - 2004.10.16 18:59:00 -
[12]
I dont think these changes are needed at all.
So what if you cannot destroy another ship single handedly because its pilot chose the trade off some offensive abilities for being able to run its tank nonstop ?
What IS unbalanced is that one race can do this alot more easier then another. megapulse/apoc cap nerf needed imo.
Other then that ? what would be the difference ? Hours to kill a ship single handedly one way or another is still the same ...
|
Agent 452
|
Posted - 2004.10.16 21:32:00 -
[13]
okay, lets forget about game mechanics for a second...
A) shield tanking - okay, you're in a multi-million ISK piece of hi-tech combat machinery, you have a big shiny shield that things bounce off, if things start to hurt the shield, you put your military strength capacitor into action, and drain it somewhat to replenish your shield and be safe again. that's fine, we're all happy, right?
B) Armour tanking - so you're in another piece of aforementioned machinery, this time you've had your grease monkies (read "homeless") diligently polishing and hardening your armour plating, you're a behemoth, quite literally. things start chipping away at your armour, you've lost heaps of it, and then you think "it's okay, i'll just convert the energy in my reactor into mass, as i replenish the thickness of my armour plating" and your capacitor drains, magically adding tons of armour to your behemoth. what the?
*re-inserts game mechanics*
how about, you have shield tanking stay operating the same way it is now (balancing may or may not be needed) and have armour tanking changed to something similar to what Grim Vandal has proposed. I've got no problems with the "you either break through or you dont" game with an energy field, of course, watching tons of armour yo-yo on and off has always seemed just a little "off"...
not to mention the fact that the mind boggles with the new combat strategy that would be needed, and making a significant difference in the sheer number of approaches to combat there are...
"if only i can power my shields long enough to chip through that damn plating" is a phrase i would much rather hear than "if only my shields hold long enough for him to stop regenerating his armour plating"
*disclaimer* the existence of 1600mm plating makes one thing that yes, armour is 1.6m think plate, rather than the flimsy, energy layers some may have been concieving to justify the energy -> armour connundrum
A caldari navy pilot discharged under mysterious circumstances, now seen protecting caldari interests in areas where the navy has "no official involvement"
currently educating minmatar in the art o |
Agent 452
|
Posted - 2004.10.16 21:32:00 -
[14]
okay, lets forget about game mechanics for a second...
A) shield tanking - okay, you're in a multi-million ISK piece of hi-tech combat machinery, you have a big shiny shield that things bounce off, if things start to hurt the shield, you put your military strength capacitor into action, and drain it somewhat to replenish your shield and be safe again. that's fine, we're all happy, right?
B) Armour tanking - so you're in another piece of aforementioned machinery, this time you've had your grease monkies (read "homeless") diligently polishing and hardening your armour plating, you're a behemoth, quite literally. things start chipping away at your armour, you've lost heaps of it, and then you think "it's okay, i'll just convert the energy in my reactor into mass, as i replenish the thickness of my armour plating" and your capacitor drains, magically adding tons of armour to your behemoth. what the?
*re-inserts game mechanics*
how about, you have shield tanking stay operating the same way it is now (balancing may or may not be needed) and have armour tanking changed to something similar to what Grim Vandal has proposed. I've got no problems with the "you either break through or you dont" game with an energy field, of course, watching tons of armour yo-yo on and off has always seemed just a little "off"...
not to mention the fact that the mind boggles with the new combat strategy that would be needed, and making a significant difference in the sheer number of approaches to combat there are...
"if only i can power my shields long enough to chip through that damn plating" is a phrase i would much rather hear than "if only my shields hold long enough for him to stop regenerating his armour plating"
*disclaimer* the existence of 1600mm plating makes one thing that yes, armour is 1.6m think plate, rather than the flimsy, energy layers some may have been concieving to justify the energy -> armour connundrum
A caldari navy pilot discharged under mysterious circumstances, now seen protecting caldari interests in areas where the navy has "no official involvement"
currently educating minmatar in the art o |
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 11:44:00 -
[15]
anyone else who wants to comment?
I would like to know how you guys think about it ...
yep it's a radical change of gameplay...
so is that the reason why it should not get changed???
this game will be active over the next few years ... I bet up to 5 if not even longer...
so yes the devs currently do not have the time to change it and they prolly dont have the time to do it inbetween shiva and kali so post kali maybe?
but the problem at this stage would be that too many players good used to the current way (well which is already the case)...
so this means that we didnt beta test enough... and now its too late or what??? a shame
Greetings Grim |
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 11:44:00 -
[16]
anyone else who wants to comment?
I would like to know how you guys think about it ...
yep it's a radical change of gameplay...
so is that the reason why it should not get changed???
this game will be active over the next few years ... I bet up to 5 if not even longer...
so yes the devs currently do not have the time to change it and they prolly dont have the time to do it inbetween shiva and kali so post kali maybe?
but the problem at this stage would be that too many players good used to the current way (well which is already the case)...
so this means that we didnt beta test enough... and now its too late or what??? a shame
Greetings Grim |
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 12:25:00 -
[17]
well, i think the agility on missiles should be changed only. not that they do less damage to smaller targets, becouse i also want my turrets to hit all the time, but do less damage to smaller targets. making it so would still make missiles a no brainer module since it would still hit frigates.
as for cruisers not able to take down tanks, that is true unless you fitt your thorax with 5 electrons and 5 dmg mods times 2 and hope you will survive. but interceptor and assault frigates on the other hand can take down the tank easily when in packs of x 3 or more. that should be changed, interceptors are interceptors and not damage dealers.
"We brake for nobody"
|
Admiral IceBlock
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 12:25:00 -
[18]
well, i think the agility on missiles should be changed only. not that they do less damage to smaller targets, becouse i also want my turrets to hit all the time, but do less damage to smaller targets. making it so would still make missiles a no brainer module since it would still hit frigates.
as for cruisers not able to take down tanks, that is true unless you fitt your thorax with 5 electrons and 5 dmg mods times 2 and hope you will survive. but interceptor and assault frigates on the other hand can take down the tank easily when in packs of x 3 or more. that should be changed, interceptors are interceptors and not damage dealers.
"We brake for nobody"
|
Cracken
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 12:55:00 -
[19]
Edited by: *****en on 17/10/2004 12:59:59
*watches as the ability too tank an npcs ridiculous damage dissappears* how about no you frog minded idiot. 
As for weapon balancing yes they're doing it right now.
Yes Ab's need beefing up maybe give the minmatar another bonus too their ships thats gives them x % ab boost, thrust, or speed increase.
You make some good points but tanking is fine the way it is if your changes were impletmented we'd have no chance of tanking the npcs ridiculous amounts of damage you say then change their damage.
What planet are you on it's best the way it is right now reduce their damage and they would get owned horribly making the game boring for mission runners.
Leave their damage the way it is and leave tanking alone.
No need too try to fix something that isn't broken.
|
Cracken
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 12:55:00 -
[20]
Edited by: *****en on 17/10/2004 12:59:59
*watches as the ability too tank an npcs ridiculous damage dissappears* how about no you frog minded idiot.
As for weapon balancing yes they're doing it right now.
Yes Ab's need beefing up maybe give the minmatar another bonus too their ships thats gives them x % ab boost, thrust, or speed increase.
You make some good points but tanking is fine the way it is if your changes were impletmented we'd have no chance of tanking the npcs ridiculous amounts of damage you say then change their damage.
What planet are you on it's best the way it is right now reduce their damage and they would get owned horribly making the game boring for mission runners.
Leave their damage the way it is and leave tanking alone.
No need too try to fix something that isn't broken.
|
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 13:14:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Grim Vandal on 17/10/2004 13:28:34
 Originally by: *****en
Edited by: *****en on 17/10/2004 12:59:59
*watches as the ability too tank an npcs ridiculous damage dissappears* how about no you frog minded idiot.
As for weapon balancing yes they're doing it right now.
Yes Ab's need beefing up maybe give the minmatar another bonus too their ships thats gives them x % ab boost, thrust, or speed increase.
You make some good points but tanking is fine the way it is if your changes were impletmented we'd have no chance of tanking the npcs ridiculous amounts of damage you say then change their damage.
What planet are you on it's best the way it is right now reduce their damage and they would get owned horribly making the game boring for mission runners.
Leave their damage the way it is and leave tanking alone.
No need too try to fix something that isn't broken.
hmm interesting...
in this case you care more about missions and npcs as of the pvp part of this game??? wtf are you stubborn ... holy **** dude its nice to have you as a paying customer but honestly your views are what ruins that game ...
ohh plz for gods sake dont tell me that you care more about npcs and missions as of the pvp part of this game...
nothing else to say but that your comments are ubber lame...
anyone else?
Greetings Grim |
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 13:14:00 -
[22]
Edited by: Grim Vandal on 17/10/2004 13:28:34
Originally by: *****en
Edited by: *****en on 17/10/2004 12:59:59
*watches as the ability too tank an npcs ridiculous damage dissappears* how about no you frog minded idiot.
As for weapon balancing yes they're doing it right now.
Yes Ab's need beefing up maybe give the minmatar another bonus too their ships thats gives them x % ab boost, thrust, or speed increase.
You make some good points but tanking is fine the way it is if your changes were impletmented we'd have no chance of tanking the npcs ridiculous amounts of damage you say then change their damage.
What planet are you on it's best the way it is right now reduce their damage and they would get owned horribly making the game boring for mission runners.
Leave their damage the way it is and leave tanking alone.
No need too try to fix something that isn't broken.
hmm interesting...
in this case you care more about missions and npcs as of the pvp part of this game??? wtf are you stubborn ... holy **** dude its nice to have you as a paying customer but honestly your views are what ruins that game ...
ohh plz for gods sake dont tell me that you care more about npcs and missions as of the pvp part of this game...
nothing else to say but that your comments are ubber lame...
anyone else?
Greetings Grim |
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 13:24:00 -
[23]
Originally by: *****en
Edited by: *****en on 17/10/2004 12:59:59
*watches as the ability too tank an npcs ridiculous damage dissappears* how about no you frog minded idiot.
As for weapon balancing yes they're doing it right now.
Yes Ab's need beefing up maybe give the minmatar another bonus too their ships thats gives them x % ab boost, thrust, or speed increase.
You make some good points but tanking is fine the way it is if your changes were impletmented we'd have no chance of tanking the npcs ridiculous amounts of damage you say then change their damage.
What planet are you on it's best the way it is right now reduce their damage and they would get owned horribly making the game boring for mission runners.
Leave their damage the way it is and leave tanking alone.
No need too try to fix something that isn't broken.
you still could
but you would have to warp out for repairing and come back to finish the npcs and so on
Wanna fly with me?
|
Nafri
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 13:24:00 -
[24]
Originally by: *****en
Edited by: *****en on 17/10/2004 12:59:59
*watches as the ability too tank an npcs ridiculous damage dissappears* how about no you frog minded idiot.
As for weapon balancing yes they're doing it right now.
Yes Ab's need beefing up maybe give the minmatar another bonus too their ships thats gives them x % ab boost, thrust, or speed increase.
You make some good points but tanking is fine the way it is if your changes were impletmented we'd have no chance of tanking the npcs ridiculous amounts of damage you say then change their damage.
What planet are you on it's best the way it is right now reduce their damage and they would get owned horribly making the game boring for mission runners.
Leave their damage the way it is and leave tanking alone.
No need too try to fix something that isn't broken.
you still could
but you would have to warp out for repairing and come back to finish the npcs and so on
Wanna fly with me?
|
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 13:58:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
well, i think the agility on missiles should be changed only. not that they do less damage to smaller targets, becouse i also want my turrets to hit all the time, but do less damage to smaller targets. making it so would still make missiles a no brainer module since it would still hit frigates.
as for cruisers not able to take down tanks, that is true unless you fitt your thorax with 5 electrons and 5 dmg mods times 2 and hope you will survive. but interceptor and assault frigates on the other hand can take down the tank easily when in packs of x 3 or more. that should be changed, interceptors are interceptors and not damage dealers.
this is not the right thread but here we go anyway...
first of all yes a simple agility change IS POSSIBLE and would help to make missiles faster... what we want right?
the problem with this approach of balancing is that the mwd using pilots will benefit most out of it! it will just be easier to evade them with an mwd as without one...
so if that happens missiles may be more the desired long range weapon ... but nothing would change about the mwd whoring...
so its honestly a bit more complicated...
again missiles WONT EVER MISS but they could have such a low agility that they would not catch a target if it turns around or orbits ... anyway with this approach we could at least achive that light missiles would be more effective vs smaller targets as cruise missiles or torps ...
but again it would nothing change about the mwd whoring...
now just think if the mwd would stay a nobrainer module...
it currently already sucks in combat since 99% of the pvp setups of frigs and cruise involve a mwd or oversized AB...
combat is honestly too fast .... atm it fails the part where you would need time to get to your optimal range (except for BS) a smaller vessele will be at the desired range in less than a few secs... it needs to be a tiny bit more ...
exactly that would change through an oversized AB nerf and a standard AB boost... but now dont forget that the mwd still benefits you the most.... so nothing changes except that everyone fits a mwd in the end... somethings wrong here right???
therefor the missiles change which involves a hidden mwd nerf...
the idea behind it is quite simple:
a "normal" sized AB using frig or cruiser should have more chances to "dodge tank" as compared to the same frig or cruiser using a mwd....
you will fit a mwd if you really need to catch your target but you actually would last longer with a standard AB...
if such changes happen then of course the oversized AB would be overpowered therefor it will be nerfed...
now the next problem ... if the cruise missile cant hit the interceptor the light missile should ... but if the light missile would "always" hit the interceptor it would kill the interceptor too fast .... therefor we need some sort of dmg reduction but on the other hand the missile has to hit otherwise anyone will just fit speed mods (mwds) to be fast enough again to outrun them...
so the missile has to hit but the dmg gets scaled down if the target moves fast and if the target has a low sig radius.
than again why dont we take away the sig raduis penalty of mwds and let them only be flying straigh ahead (so instead of +500% sig penalty give them -500% agility) that way you can not orbit with you mwd module online .... but again in this case missiles would need to be changed cuz otherwise you would not be able to outrun them anymore ...
as for a thorax who can take out a BS or about 3 intys.... think about a tech 2 BS post shiva.... if the resistances get as high as compared to the assault ships.... there would be no way that even a full dmg thorax with heavy neutron blasters would do anything to that BS... therefor this thread ...
anymore comments?
Greetings Grim |
Grim Vandal
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 13:58:00 -
[26]
Originally by: Admiral IceBlock
well, i think the agility on missiles should be changed only. not that they do less damage to smaller targets, becouse i also want my turrets to hit all the time, but do less damage to smaller targets. making it so would still make missiles a no brainer module since it would still hit frigates.
as for cruisers not able to take down tanks, that is true unless you fitt your thorax with 5 electrons and 5 dmg mods times 2 and hope you will survive. but interceptor and assault frigates on the other hand can take down the tank easily when in packs of x 3 or more. that should be changed, interceptors are interceptors and not damage dealers.
this is not the right thread but here we go anyway...
first of all yes a simple agility change IS POSSIBLE and would help to make missiles faster... what we want right?
the problem with this approach of balancing is that the mwd using pilots will benefit most out of it! it will just be easier to evade them with an mwd as without one...
so if that happens missiles may be more the desired long range weapon ... but nothing would change about the mwd whoring...
so its honestly a bit more complicated...
again missiles WONT EVER MISS but they could have such a low agility that they would not catch a target if it turns around or orbits ... anyway with this approach we could at least achive that light missiles would be more effective vs smaller targets as cruise missiles or torps ...
but again it would nothing change about the mwd whoring...
now just think if the mwd would stay a nobrainer module...
it currently already sucks in combat since 99% of the pvp setups of frigs and cruise involve a mwd or oversized AB...
combat is honestly too fast .... atm it fails the part where you would need time to get to your optimal range (except for BS) a smaller vessele will be at the desired range in less than a few secs... it needs to be a tiny bit more ...
exactly that would change through an oversized AB nerf and a standard AB boost... but now dont forget that the mwd still benefits you the most.... so nothing changes except that everyone fits a mwd in the end... somethings wrong here right???
therefor the missiles change which involves a hidden mwd nerf...
the idea behind it is quite simple:
a "normal" sized AB using frig or cruiser should have more chances to "dodge tank" as compared to the same frig or cruiser using a mwd....
you will fit a mwd if you really need to catch your target but you actually would last longer with a standard AB...
if such changes happen then of course the oversized AB would be overpowered therefor it will be nerfed...
now the next problem ... if the cruise missile cant hit the interceptor the light missile should ... but if the light missile would "always" hit the interceptor it would kill the interceptor too fast .... therefor we need some sort of dmg reduction but on the other hand the missile has to hit otherwise anyone will just fit speed mods (mwds) to be fast enough again to outrun them...
so the missile has to hit but the dmg gets scaled down if the target moves fast and if the target has a low sig radius.
than again why dont we take away the sig raduis penalty of mwds and let them only be flying straigh ahead (so instead of +500% sig penalty give them -500% agility) that way you can not orbit with you mwd module online .... but again in this case missiles would need to be changed cuz otherwise you would not be able to outrun them anymore ...
as for a thorax who can take out a BS or about 3 intys.... think about a tech 2 BS post shiva.... if the resistances get as high as compared to the assault ships.... there would be no way that even a full dmg thorax with heavy neutron blasters would do anything to that BS... therefor this thread ...
anymore comments?
Greetings Grim |
Riddari
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 14:27:00 -
[27]
The only argument seems to be that a battleship can tank a cruiser forever or so...
I don't see a problem with a single cruiser not being able to kill a single battleship which is tanking.
¼©¼
a history |
Riddari
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 14:27:00 -
[28]
The only argument seems to be that a battleship can tank a cruiser forever or so...
I don't see a problem with a single cruiser not being able to kill a single battleship which is tanking.
¼©¼
a history |
Jane Vladmir
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 16:19:00 -
[29]
I'm with you on this.
Mobile warp D's should stop all insta-jumpers.
|
Jane Vladmir
|
Posted - 2004.10.17 16:19:00 -
[30]
I'm with you on this.
Mobile warp D's should stop all insta-jumpers.
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |