EVE Search - why we do not want a mwd change...

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

why we do not want a mwd change...

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 9 post(s)
Toran Mehtar	Posted - 2004.11.30 14:21:00 - [91] So if you change all those, then why does the mwd still need changing ? Just because you say so ?
Toran Mehtar	Posted - 2004.11.30 14:21:00 - [92] So if you change all those, then why does the mwd still need changing ? Just because you say so ?
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.30 14:27:00 - [93] Edited by: Grim Vandal on 30/11/2004 14:38:55 Originally by: Toran Mehtar So if you change all those, then why does the mwd still need changing ? Just because you say so ? cuz I belive after these changes... the mwd will still be fitted on 95% of any ships... none the less these changes would be welcomed of course... but I actually fear that it will stay to be a "no brainer" module... most of the setups will still involve a mwd... .... all the other changes are just needed so that this change would be even possible... edit: point is the normal sized AB, even after it got boosted would not be fitted on a frigate would it? your AB will be sustained but so will be your mwd even with the cap penalty... both take one slot... but the mwd still makes you way faster... and a frig with a AB will always loose to a frig with a mwd... now both should have equally high chances to kill each other... so that an afterburner has acutally an advantage in the speed category over the mwd... we need something like the agility change... like eg. compare the AB to something like a combat thruster... lets you orbit the target at high speeds while the mwd is way faster and viable to cover range very fast... but you cant orbit with it... the problem right now is that more speed = more agility which is actually wrong... btw I wouldnt mind to give the mwd no other penalty at all except the agility penalty... Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.30 14:27:00 - [94] Edited by: Grim Vandal on 30/11/2004 14:38:55 Originally by: Toran Mehtar So if you change all those, then why does the mwd still need changing ? Just because you say so ? cuz I belive after these changes... the mwd will still be fitted on 95% of any ships... none the less these changes would be welcomed of course... but I actually fear that it will stay to be a "no brainer" module... most of the setups will still involve a mwd... .... all the other changes are just needed so that this change would be even possible... edit: point is the normal sized AB, even after it got boosted would not be fitted on a frigate would it? your AB will be sustained but so will be your mwd even with the cap penalty... both take one slot... but the mwd still makes you way faster... and a frig with a AB will always loose to a frig with a mwd... now both should have equally high chances to kill each other... so that an afterburner has acutally an advantage in the speed category over the mwd... we need something like the agility change... like eg. compare the AB to something like a combat thruster... lets you orbit the target at high speeds while the mwd is way faster and viable to cover range very fast... but you cant orbit with it... the problem right now is that more speed = more agility which is actually wrong... btw I wouldnt mind to give the mwd no other penalty at all except the agility penalty... Greetings Grim
Toran Mehtar	Posted - 2004.11.30 15:17:00 - [95] Why is being able to orbit with mwd on so bad ? With the sig radius boost, a ship orbiting with mwd on is not much harder to hit than a ship orbiting with mwd off. So, apart from dodging missiles, there is no real reason to orbit with mwd on, unless your opponent is also using speed mods, and can thus dictate the range at which you fight. Strange thing is, a single web can all but cancel out any such advantage. So for any setup that requires getting in close and doing your thing, max speed (i.e. mwd) and web will always be preferable to the alternative under your proposals. Some ship tactics are based on being fastest, so people will always choose to be fastest, whatever penalties you add. The only option then is to add so many penalties that you make those tactics obsolete. I do not understand why your vision for the mwd is so much more preferable to what we have already. How is fly straight in, stop and web better or more balanced than fly in, orbit and web ? In fact, all you are achieving is limiting the use of the mwd to other styles. Some people use mwd to maintain long range orbits and outrange the enemy. You would have these individuals lose the manouverablitiy to keep the range they wanted. They already have to make sacrifices to their setups in terms of less power for weapons and less cap. Again, improved abs would give them an alternative, if missiles are fixed. The current -25% is balanced, as makes people sacrifice other aspects of their setup to achieve maximum speed. The sig radius boost is balanced as it effectively makes high speed seperate to being difficult to hit. The -25% hit to shields is appropriate, as again it causes the pilot to choose between speed and defense, but is perhaps slightly unbalanced due to hitting some harder than others. So if nothing is wrong with the actual module, which in my opinion is the case, why change it ?
Toran Mehtar	Posted - 2004.11.30 15:17:00 - [96] Why is being able to orbit with mwd on so bad ? With the sig radius boost, a ship orbiting with mwd on is not much harder to hit than a ship orbiting with mwd off. So, apart from dodging missiles, there is no real reason to orbit with mwd on, unless your opponent is also using speed mods, and can thus dictate the range at which you fight. Strange thing is, a single web can all but cancel out any such advantage. So for any setup that requires getting in close and doing your thing, max speed (i.e. mwd) and web will always be preferable to the alternative under your proposals. Some ship tactics are based on being fastest, so people will always choose to be fastest, whatever penalties you add. The only option then is to add so many penalties that you make those tactics obsolete. I do not understand why your vision for the mwd is so much more preferable to what we have already. How is fly straight in, stop and web better or more balanced than fly in, orbit and web ? In fact, all you are achieving is limiting the use of the mwd to other styles. Some people use mwd to maintain long range orbits and outrange the enemy. You would have these individuals lose the manouverablitiy to keep the range they wanted. They already have to make sacrifices to their setups in terms of less power for weapons and less cap. Again, improved abs would give them an alternative, if missiles are fixed. The current -25% is balanced, as makes people sacrifice other aspects of their setup to achieve maximum speed. The sig radius boost is balanced as it effectively makes high speed seperate to being difficult to hit. The -25% hit to shields is appropriate, as again it causes the pilot to choose between speed and defense, but is perhaps slightly unbalanced due to hitting some harder than others. So if nothing is wrong with the actual module, which in my opinion is the case, why change it ?
Vampire Blade	Posted - 2004.11.30 15:39:00 - [97] Originally by: Darax Thulain How come half of the mwd topics are made by you Grim..? I think you should just be happy the way things are. You're not a dev, and frankly this post is very useless. THe way you keep posting one could mistake for for being a bigger portion of the eve society than the one person you are. Stop posting please. someone who agrees with me. ----- ----- -----
Vampire Blade	Posted - 2004.11.30 15:39:00 - [98] Originally by: Darax Thulain How come half of the mwd topics are made by you Grim..? I think you should just be happy the way things are. You're not a dev, and frankly this post is very useless. THe way you keep posting one could mistake for for being a bigger portion of the eve society than the one person you are. Stop posting please. someone who agrees with me. ----- ----- -----
Vampire Blade	Posted - 2004.11.30 15:43:00 - [99] Edited by: Vampire Blade on 30/11/2004 15:46:46 Originally by: Crimson Djinn Originally by: Grim Vandal Originally by: Vampire Blade but lets say if 80% of the people vote YAY shouldnt the devs consider to change the mwd? UMMM 80% out of what amount? the 10 or 100 person who reads this stupid thread? The majority of Eve players hardly ever read these forums so should the devs make decision based on a few forum trolls opinions. OMGWTFPWNED lol.. the way you quoted that, it seems to suggest i wrote it.. which i didn't :\| /edit this quoting thing is bugged.. ----- ----- -----
Vampire Blade	Posted - 2004.11.30 15:43:00 - [100] Edited by: Vampire Blade on 30/11/2004 15:46:46 Originally by: Crimson Djinn Originally by: Grim Vandal Originally by: Vampire Blade but lets say if 80% of the people vote YAY shouldnt the devs consider to change the mwd? UMMM 80% out of what amount? the 10 or 100 person who reads this stupid thread? The majority of Eve players hardly ever read these forums so should the devs make decision based on a few forum trolls opinions. OMGWTFPWNED lol.. the way you quoted that, it seems to suggest i wrote it.. which i didn't :\| /edit this quoting thing is bugged.. ----- ----- -----

Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.30 15:44:00 - [101] Originally by: Toran Mehtar Some ship tactics are based on being fastest, so people will always choose to be fastest, whatever penalties you add. The only option then is to add so many penalties that you make those tactics obsolete. I do not understand why your vision for the mwd is so much more preferable to what we have already. How is fly straight in, stop and web better or more balanced than fly in, orbit and web ? In fact, all you are achieving is limiting the use of the mwd to other styles. In fact exactly that is the point! Limiting the use of the mwd to a special playstyles... for the one and only reason that everyone and their dogs use it. ya giving the mwd even more penaltys would be stupid... the point is the mwd should have its use and advantage over the "normal sized AB" while also the "normal sized" AB should have its use and advantage over the mwd. right now this is not the case... in terms of speed there is no single reason to fit a "normal sized AB" instead of a mwd... you fit the module cuz you want speed, and if speed is what you want you will fit the mwd! So where fits the "normal sized AB" here? the agility penalty would exactly give EACH of these modules a role... not like one is better than the other... you got to choose btw high speed and manouverablitiy... but you wont get both with one module... why would this be such a bad change? Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.30 15:44:00 - [102] Originally by: Toran Mehtar Some ship tactics are based on being fastest, so people will always choose to be fastest, whatever penalties you add. The only option then is to add so many penalties that you make those tactics obsolete. I do not understand why your vision for the mwd is so much more preferable to what we have already. How is fly straight in, stop and web better or more balanced than fly in, orbit and web ? In fact, all you are achieving is limiting the use of the mwd to other styles. In fact exactly that is the point! Limiting the use of the mwd to a special playstyles... for the one and only reason that everyone and their dogs use it. ya giving the mwd even more penaltys would be stupid... the point is the mwd should have its use and advantage over the "normal sized AB" while also the "normal sized" AB should have its use and advantage over the mwd. right now this is not the case... in terms of speed there is no single reason to fit a "normal sized AB" instead of a mwd... you fit the module cuz you want speed, and if speed is what you want you will fit the mwd! So where fits the "normal sized AB" here? the agility penalty would exactly give EACH of these modules a role... not like one is better than the other... you got to choose btw high speed and manouverablitiy... but you wont get both with one module... why would this be such a bad change? Greetings Grim
Toran Mehtar	Posted - 2004.11.30 16:13:00 - [103] Originally by: Grim Vandal you got to choose btw high speed and manouverablitiy... but you wont get both with one module... why would this be such a bad change? Currently: you got to choose btw high speed and defence/firepower... but you wont get both with one module... So why do we need to make such a change?
Toran Mehtar	Posted - 2004.11.30 16:13:00 - [104] Originally by: Grim Vandal you got to choose btw high speed and manouverablitiy... but you wont get both with one module... why would this be such a bad change? Currently: you got to choose btw high speed and defence/firepower... but you wont get both with one module... So why do we need to make such a change?
Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.30 17:28:00 - [105] Because everyone goes for the high speed? You know, I would really like to know what would happen if MWD was removed from the game alltogether for a few weeks. What ticks me off about the MWD is that it favors high speed long range ships that use it to keep out of range instead of low range ships that try to use it to get in range.
Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.30 17:28:00 - [106] Because everyone goes for the high speed? You know, I would really like to know what would happen if MWD was removed from the game alltogether for a few weeks. What ticks me off about the MWD is that it favors high speed long range ships that use it to keep out of range instead of low range ships that try to use it to get in range.
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.12.01 18:08:00 - [107] Originally by: Toran Mehtar Originally by: Grim Vandal you got to choose btw high speed and manouverablitiy... but you wont get both with one module... why would this be such a bad change? Currently: you got to choose btw high speed and defence/firepower... but you wont get both with one module... So why do we need to make such a change? NO mate you do NOT choose at least not as a frig or cruiser... you want the highest possible speed in your frig... well thats fine and dandy... but there should be a choice... do you want high maneuverbility or high speed... even after a missile change and even a AB boost (+stackig penalty) the reason will be the same... if you want speed you are going to fit the mwd... so the AB is just like a step up to the mwd. It's the same situation as we had with frigs cruiser and BS... a frig got owned by cruisers... cruiser got owned by BS... and the BS could do everything better you could have dreamed of... = was awfull = and it has been changed!!! everyone fitting the mwd is awfull = so lets change it k? think about it... mwds could even be allowed in complexes again... although I really dont care about that issue... Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.12.01 18:08:00 - [108] Originally by: Toran Mehtar Originally by: Grim Vandal you got to choose btw high speed and manouverablitiy... but you wont get both with one module... why would this be such a bad change? Currently: you got to choose btw high speed and defence/firepower... but you wont get both with one module... So why do we need to make such a change? NO mate you do NOT choose at least not as a frig or cruiser... you want the highest possible speed in your frig... well thats fine and dandy... but there should be a choice... do you want high maneuverbility or high speed... even after a missile change and even a AB boost (+stackig penalty) the reason will be the same... if you want speed you are going to fit the mwd... so the AB is just like a step up to the mwd. It's the same situation as we had with frigs cruiser and BS... a frig got owned by cruisers... cruiser got owned by BS... and the BS could do everything better you could have dreamed of... = was awfull = and it has been changed!!! everyone fitting the mwd is awfull = so lets change it k? think about it... mwds could even be allowed in complexes again... although I really dont care about that issue... Greetings Grim


Pages: 1 2 3 [4] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

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