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)
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.29 10:53:00 - [1] Edited by: Grim Vandal on 29/11/2004 10:55:47 I noticed that the majority of the playerbase does not feel like this module needs to be further changed... I would like to hear the pros and cons of whatever change you have in mind for this module... First of lets assume that missiles "are" changed and you do not need a mwd anymore to evade them. And that normal sized ABs got boosted to around + 100% with a stacking penalty included for them. So the idea is: give the mwd NO signature penalty but instead give it an agility penalty so you can only use it to move straight forward. Vote YES or NO and state your reason for your vote. now lets get this started Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.29 10:53:00 - [2] Edited by: Grim Vandal on 29/11/2004 10:55:47 I noticed that the majority of the playerbase does not feel like this module needs to be further changed... I would like to hear the pros and cons of whatever change you have in mind for this module... First of lets assume that missiles "are" changed and you do not need a mwd anymore to evade them. And that normal sized ABs got boosted to around + 100% with a stacking penalty included for them. So the idea is: give the mwd NO signature penalty but instead give it an agility penalty so you can only use it to move straight forward. Vote YES or NO and state your reason for your vote. now lets get this started Greetings Grim
Siddy	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:00:00 - [3] no - let the ccp screw this game to oblivion they are on right course and it will be abaut done when GuildWars come so i can say EvE is crap game and go play it instead -------------------------------------------
Siddy	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:00:00 - [4] no - let the ccp screw this game to oblivion they are on right course and it will be abaut done when GuildWars come so i can say EvE is crap game and go play it instead -------------------------------------------
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:05:00 - [5] Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 29/11/2004 11:09:05 Originally by: Grim Vandal Edited by: Grim Vandal on 29/11/2004 10:55:47 I noticed that the majority of the playerbase does not feel like this module needs to be further changed... I would like to hear the pros and cons of whatever change you have in mind for this module... First of lets assume that missiles "are" changed and you do not need a mwd anymore to evade them. And that normal sized ABs got boosted to around + 100% with a stacking penalty included for them. So the idea is: give the mwd NO signature penalty but instead give it an agility penalty so you can only use it to move straight forward. Vote YES or NO and state your reason for your vote. now lets get this started You relate mwd to missiles too much. MWD isn't solely a missile defence module. It has other purposes and an agility nerfage would severely gimp usage for purposes such as navigating during combat, killing off many loadouts/tactics which are completely balanced atm. The problem is that with current default ship speeds and distances in eve, you cannot nerf it without gimping every conceivable close range loadout that just wants to get into range and couldn't give a rats ass about missiles. Pain is meant to be felt
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:05:00 - [6] Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 29/11/2004 11:09:05 Originally by: Grim Vandal Edited by: Grim Vandal on 29/11/2004 10:55:47 I noticed that the majority of the playerbase does not feel like this module needs to be further changed... I would like to hear the pros and cons of whatever change you have in mind for this module... First of lets assume that missiles "are" changed and you do not need a mwd anymore to evade them. And that normal sized ABs got boosted to around + 100% with a stacking penalty included for them. So the idea is: give the mwd NO signature penalty but instead give it an agility penalty so you can only use it to move straight forward. Vote YES or NO and state your reason for your vote. now lets get this started You relate mwd to missiles too much. MWD isn't solely a missile defence module. It has other purposes and an agility nerfage would severely gimp usage for purposes such as navigating during combat, killing off many loadouts/tactics which are completely balanced atm. The problem is that with current default ship speeds and distances in eve, you cannot nerf it without gimping every conceivable close range loadout that just wants to get into range and couldn't give a rats ass about missiles. Pain is meant to be felt
theRaptor	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:05:00 - [7] When I first started playing EVE I thought the MWD could only move straight ahead. It seemed logical to me seeing how it was based on warp drive. I was shocked when I saw my first MWDing orbiting frigate --------------------------------------------------
theRaptor	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:05:00 - [8] When I first started playing EVE I thought the MWD could only move straight ahead. It seemed logical to me seeing how it was based on warp drive. I was shocked when I saw my first MWDing orbiting frigate --------------------------------------------------
theRaptor	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:17:00 - [9] Originally by: Siddy no - let the ccp screw this game to oblivion they are on right course and it will be abaut done when GuildWars come so i can say EvE is crap game and go play it instead Can I have your stuff? --------------------------------------------------
theRaptor	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:17:00 - [10] Originally by: Siddy no - let the ccp screw this game to oblivion they are on right course and it will be abaut done when GuildWars come so i can say EvE is crap game and go play it instead Can I have your stuff? --------------------------------------------------

Vampire Blade	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:33:00 - [11] grim, stop playing dev/nerf master it's annoying :( ----- ----- -----
Vampire Blade	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:33:00 - [12] grim, stop playing dev/nerf master it's annoying :( ----- ----- -----
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:41:00 - [13] Originally by: Juan Andalusian Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 29/11/2004 11:09:05 Originally by: Grim Vandal Edited by: Grim Vandal on 29/11/2004 10:55:47 I noticed that the majority of the playerbase does not feel like this module needs to be further changed... I would like to hear the pros and cons of whatever change you have in mind for this module... First of lets assume that missiles "are" changed and you do not need a mwd anymore to evade them. And that normal sized ABs got boosted to around + 100% with a stacking penalty included for them. So the idea is: give the mwd NO signature penalty but instead give it an agility penalty so you can only use it to move straight forward. Vote YES or NO and state your reason for your vote. now lets get this started You relate mwd to missiles too much. MWD isn't solely a missile defence module. It has other purposes and an agility nerfage would severely gimp usage for purposes such as navigating during combat, killing off many loadouts/tactics which are completely balanced atm. The problem is that with current default ship speeds and distances in eve, you cannot nerf it without gimping every conceivable close range loadout that just wants to get into range and couldn't give a rats ass about missiles. quite honestly you would easily be able to cover the range as fast as now with the mwd changes above... btw I would not call mwds balanced if 99% of the cruisers and frigs have to fit while there only option is to fit an oversized AB instead... is this what you call variety??? is this really, what you call balance? I dont want it to be removed! Just changed it in a way that it is a viable OPTION but not a module I do have to fit. There is no single specialized mwd user out there... cuz 90% of the setups include this module... again is this balanced??? your inty would cover the range as fast as it would nowadays but you would not be able to keep the mwd online while orbiting someone... so actually nothing changes here instead intys get actually boosted... why? cuz a cruise missile like assumed above will not be able to catch your inty while it is in close orbit with NO speed boosting mod!!! tho you could always fit a 1mn AB which would make it as fast as about 1200 m/s. so the tackler wont change... well why would anyone not fit a mwd then? lets get a slower ship eg. our thorax with a 10mn mwd. you in a stabber with a 10mn AB (+100%) boost. the point is now the stabber SHOULD have a chance to evade the thorax... eg. the thorax is 30k away from the stabber... the thorax fires up his mwd... the stabber fires up the AB (+100%)... now the stabber approaches the thorax at an angle of 90¦ in this case the thorax will fail to get close to the stabber... cuz the thorax can NOT turn while his mwd is active. now exactly this will lead to people think twice before they either fit an AB or mwd... and this is what I call balance... all you close range guys are going to flame me now . But honestly think twice before you do so. why? lets see AT THE MOMENT we have the following situation: if I would be in a moa with 250mm rails and NO mwd and NO AB. you are in a blasterrax with an mwd... the blasterrax will definately win... but honestly if I really would be in a moa I would fit a mwd myself well... yah right, I would fit one as well.. suprise... suprise... and you will not catch me with my changes a few less people will fit the mwd... and therefor you will have at least a chance to catch the moa... while of course if the moa would fit a mwd it would still be able to evade the thorax... so nothing changes if both fit a mwd... Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:41:00 - [14] Originally by: Juan Andalusian Edited by: Juan Andalusian on 29/11/2004 11:09:05 Originally by: Grim Vandal Edited by: Grim Vandal on 29/11/2004 10:55:47 I noticed that the majority of the playerbase does not feel like this module needs to be further changed... I would like to hear the pros and cons of whatever change you have in mind for this module... First of lets assume that missiles "are" changed and you do not need a mwd anymore to evade them. And that normal sized ABs got boosted to around + 100% with a stacking penalty included for them. So the idea is: give the mwd NO signature penalty but instead give it an agility penalty so you can only use it to move straight forward. Vote YES or NO and state your reason for your vote. now lets get this started You relate mwd to missiles too much. MWD isn't solely a missile defence module. It has other purposes and an agility nerfage would severely gimp usage for purposes such as navigating during combat, killing off many loadouts/tactics which are completely balanced atm. The problem is that with current default ship speeds and distances in eve, you cannot nerf it without gimping every conceivable close range loadout that just wants to get into range and couldn't give a rats ass about missiles. quite honestly you would easily be able to cover the range as fast as now with the mwd changes above... btw I would not call mwds balanced if 99% of the cruisers and frigs have to fit while there only option is to fit an oversized AB instead... is this what you call variety??? is this really, what you call balance? I dont want it to be removed! Just changed it in a way that it is a viable OPTION but not a module I do have to fit. There is no single specialized mwd user out there... cuz 90% of the setups include this module... again is this balanced??? your inty would cover the range as fast as it would nowadays but you would not be able to keep the mwd online while orbiting someone... so actually nothing changes here instead intys get actually boosted... why? cuz a cruise missile like assumed above will not be able to catch your inty while it is in close orbit with NO speed boosting mod!!! tho you could always fit a 1mn AB which would make it as fast as about 1200 m/s. so the tackler wont change... well why would anyone not fit a mwd then? lets get a slower ship eg. our thorax with a 10mn mwd. you in a stabber with a 10mn AB (+100%) boost. the point is now the stabber SHOULD have a chance to evade the thorax... eg. the thorax is 30k away from the stabber... the thorax fires up his mwd... the stabber fires up the AB (+100%)... now the stabber approaches the thorax at an angle of 90¦ in this case the thorax will fail to get close to the stabber... cuz the thorax can NOT turn while his mwd is active. now exactly this will lead to people think twice before they either fit an AB or mwd... and this is what I call balance... all you close range guys are going to flame me now . But honestly think twice before you do so. why? lets see AT THE MOMENT we have the following situation: if I would be in a moa with 250mm rails and NO mwd and NO AB. you are in a blasterrax with an mwd... the blasterrax will definately win... but honestly if I really would be in a moa I would fit a mwd myself well... yah right, I would fit one as well.. suprise... suprise... and you will not catch me with my changes a few less people will fit the mwd... and therefor you will have at least a chance to catch the moa... while of course if the moa would fit a mwd it would still be able to evade the thorax... so nothing changes if both fit a mwd... Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:51:00 - [15] Originally by: Vampire Blade grim, stop playing dev/nerf master it's annoying :( well this is a simple vote... the point is if people dont want it to be changed, why would the devs change it? but lets say if 80% of the people vote YAY shouldnt the devs consider to change the mwd? and it seems to me that too many people think that this module is fine as it is... I want to know how many people share either my opinion or another... you may noticed that I havent used the word "nerf" a single time except now. Before you think OMG nerf would you plz read this thread first? Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:51:00 - [16] Originally by: Vampire Blade grim, stop playing dev/nerf master it's annoying :( well this is a simple vote... the point is if people dont want it to be changed, why would the devs change it? but lets say if 80% of the people vote YAY shouldnt the devs consider to change the mwd? and it seems to me that too many people think that this module is fine as it is... I want to know how many people share either my opinion or another... you may noticed that I havent used the word "nerf" a single time except now. Before you think OMG nerf would you plz read this thread first? Greetings Grim
Siddy	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:56:00 - [17] and the point of this simpple vote is? i admire your stubbornes, but i gave up long time ago, i sugjest you do that too - devs never ever look in here anymore -------------------------------------------
Siddy	Posted - 2004.11.29 11:56:00 - [18] and the point of this simpple vote is? i admire your stubbornes, but i gave up long time ago, i sugjest you do that too - devs never ever look in here anymore -------------------------------------------
Maya Rkell	Posted - 2004.11.29 12:01:00 - [19] No MWD should be useable in combat. Stop trying to remove them from it. Things are tough enough for single MWD frigates and interceptors as it is! "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 - 2004.11.29 12:01:00 - [20] No MWD should be useable in combat. Stop trying to remove them from it. Things are tough enough for single MWD frigates and interceptors as it is! "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 - 2004.11.29 12:05:00 - [21] Originally by: Maya Rkell No MWD should be useable in combat. Stop trying to remove them from it. Things are tough enough for single MWD frigates and interceptors as it is! they will stay useable in combat k? Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.29 12:05:00 - [22] Originally by: Maya Rkell No MWD should be useable in combat. Stop trying to remove them from it. Things are tough enough for single MWD frigates and interceptors as it is! they will stay useable in combat k? Greetings Grim
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2004.11.29 12:41:00 - [23] Originally by: Grim Vandal quite honestly you would easily be able to cover the range as fast as now with the mwd changes above... Covering the range isn't the only thing. Considering as well that with a huge agility nerf as you ask for even covering the distance will become a pain in the ass when it comes to ships that can move around at decent speeds or are using mwd themselves. Quote: btw I would not call mwds balanced if 99% of the cruisers and frigs have to fit while there only option is to fit an oversized AB instead... is this what you call variety??? is this really, what you call balance? The flaw lies elsewhere. Just because most, if not all the support craft have to run MWD or Oversized AB that doesn't mean the problem lies with the MWD or Oversized AB. The problem lies with current pvp situation of "If the cruiser or frig ain't fast enough it will DIE". Quote: I dont want it to be removed! Just changed it in a way that it is a viable OPTION but not a module I do have to fit. You need other changes to happen for this... and not only missile changes. Quote: your inty would cover the range as fast as it would nowadays but you would not be able to keep the mwd online while orbiting someone... so actually nothing changes here instead intys get actually boosted... why? cuz a cruise missile like assumed above will not be able to catch your inty while it is in close orbit with NO speed boosting mod!!! tho you could always fit a 1mn AB which would make it as fast as about 1200 m/s. I am a taranis pilot... quite a fanatic one. There is nothing i miss more than the pre great accuracy balancing changes era. Where microwarpdriving while in orbit around the BS was pointless and a needless cap drain. Because 1) your turrets would hit less and 2) missile launch mechanics didn't allow ships launch missiles directly at the target, and torpedoes didn't have the hps to survive small sbombs. Back then you only needed mwd to approach and take evasive manuevers momentarily. However a simple agility nerf isn't a welcome change to the current situation. .... Honestly? i dream of nothing less than being able to replace my MWD with an AB. It would make my style of play at least 50% stronger or more powerful. However a "lets get people to switch from mwd to ab" change is anything but simple... you need to change many things about current pvp mechanics in order to support this as a change with purpose rather than let it become a meaningless nerf. Pain is meant to be felt
Juan Andalusian	Posted - 2004.11.29 12:41:00 - [24] Originally by: Grim Vandal quite honestly you would easily be able to cover the range as fast as now with the mwd changes above... Covering the range isn't the only thing. Considering as well that with a huge agility nerf as you ask for even covering the distance will become a pain in the ass when it comes to ships that can move around at decent speeds or are using mwd themselves. Quote: btw I would not call mwds balanced if 99% of the cruisers and frigs have to fit while there only option is to fit an oversized AB instead... is this what you call variety??? is this really, what you call balance? The flaw lies elsewhere. Just because most, if not all the support craft have to run MWD or Oversized AB that doesn't mean the problem lies with the MWD or Oversized AB. The problem lies with current pvp situation of "If the cruiser or frig ain't fast enough it will DIE". Quote: I dont want it to be removed! Just changed it in a way that it is a viable OPTION but not a module I do have to fit. You need other changes to happen for this... and not only missile changes. Quote: your inty would cover the range as fast as it would nowadays but you would not be able to keep the mwd online while orbiting someone... so actually nothing changes here instead intys get actually boosted... why? cuz a cruise missile like assumed above will not be able to catch your inty while it is in close orbit with NO speed boosting mod!!! tho you could always fit a 1mn AB which would make it as fast as about 1200 m/s. I am a taranis pilot... quite a fanatic one. There is nothing i miss more than the pre great accuracy balancing changes era. Where microwarpdriving while in orbit around the BS was pointless and a needless cap drain. Because 1) your turrets would hit less and 2) missile launch mechanics didn't allow ships launch missiles directly at the target, and torpedoes didn't have the hps to survive small sbombs. Back then you only needed mwd to approach and take evasive manuevers momentarily. However a simple agility nerf isn't a welcome change to the current situation. .... Honestly? i dream of nothing less than being able to replace my MWD with an AB. It would make my style of play at least 50% stronger or more powerful. However a "lets get people to switch from mwd to ab" change is anything but simple... you need to change many things about current pvp mechanics in order to support this as a change with purpose rather than let it become a meaningless nerf. Pain is meant to be felt
Toran Mehtar	Posted - 2004.11.29 13:22:00 - [25] I vote no to your suggestion. MWDs are fine and balanced. Oversized abs, correct sized abs, and missiles are not.
Toran Mehtar	Posted - 2004.11.29 13:22:00 - [26] I vote no to your suggestion. MWDs are fine and balanced. Oversized abs, correct sized abs, and missiles are not.
Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.29 13:50:00 - [27] I think the Sig penalty is fine, the decreased capacitor sucks...
Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.29 13:50:00 - [28] I think the Sig penalty is fine, the decreased capacitor sucks...
MatStar	Posted - 2004.11.29 13:56:00 - [29] damnit the mwd is fine as it is, I really wish people would leave it alone. if this ever happened all people would fly is missile boats it does not need changing anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
MatStar	Posted - 2004.11.29 13:56:00 - [30] damnit the mwd is fine as it is, I really wish people would leave it alone. if this ever happened all people would fly is missile boats it does not need changing anymore!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Vampire Blade	Posted - 2004.11.29 13:59:00 - [31] Originally by: Grim Vandal Originally by: Vampire Blade grim, stop playing dev/nerf master it's annoying :( well this is a simple vote... the point is if people dont want it to be changed, why would the devs change it? but lets say if 80% of the people vote YAY shouldnt the devs consider to change the mwd? and it seems to me that too many people think that this module is fine as it is... I want to know how many people share either my opinion or another... you may noticed that I havent used the word "nerf" a single time except now. Before you think OMG nerf would you plz read this thread first? i read all of your threads, and they all boil down to the same thing - a nerf. just because you don't use the term "nerf" doesn't necessarily mean you're not implying one. i'm confident in thinking ****** didn't use the term "genocide" when it came to gassing millions of jews.. ----- ----- -----
Vampire Blade	Posted - 2004.11.29 13:59:00 - [32] Originally by: Grim Vandal Originally by: Vampire Blade grim, stop playing dev/nerf master it's annoying :( well this is a simple vote... the point is if people dont want it to be changed, why would the devs change it? but lets say if 80% of the people vote YAY shouldnt the devs consider to change the mwd? and it seems to me that too many people think that this module is fine as it is... I want to know how many people share either my opinion or another... you may noticed that I havent used the word "nerf" a single time except now. Before you think OMG nerf would you plz read this thread first? i read all of your threads, and they all boil down to the same thing - a nerf. just because you don't use the term "nerf" doesn't necessarily mean you're not implying one. i'm confident in thinking ****** didn't use the term "genocide" when it came to gassing millions of jews.. ----- ----- -----
Selenite LaTronche	Posted - 2004.11.29 15:27:00 - [33] Having played with no mwd, single mwd, dual mwd and now oversized AB+mwd, with cruisers and frigs, I find mwd (bonuses and drawbacks) to be well done. CCP Devs must keep in mind that the interest of EvE game lies in its equilibrium between small , medium and big sized ships. It's like the (sorry for the poor english) "stone/cisor/paper" child game : BS kill cruisers, cruisers kill frigs, ... but frigs can kill BS. If u change things like mwd, u may destroy this, reducing EvE fights to a very small number of reliable fittings and disgusting lots of fighters of EvE just like I've been disgusted of D**C for such reasons.
Selenite LaTronche	Posted - 2004.11.29 15:27:00 - [34] Having played with no mwd, single mwd, dual mwd and now oversized AB+mwd, with cruisers and frigs, I find mwd (bonuses and drawbacks) to be well done. CCP Devs must keep in mind that the interest of EvE game lies in its equilibrium between small , medium and big sized ships. It's like the (sorry for the poor english) "stone/cisor/paper" child game : BS kill cruisers, cruisers kill frigs, ... but frigs can kill BS. If u change things like mwd, u may destroy this, reducing EvE fights to a very small number of reliable fittings and disgusting lots of fighters of EvE just like I've been disgusted of D**C for such reasons.
Lhyda Souljacker	Posted - 2004.11.29 16:35:00 - [35] Edited by: Lhyda Souljacker on 29/11/2004 16:38:12 I'll suggest this again, now that MWD is nerfed into non-function and only usable on alternate sundays during months begining with "Feb" . . . Why not make WMD a charged based module like cap boosters? Make it so the module can carry only few class specific charges, each with a typical MWD duration, and then make the reload time about 30-60 seconds, dependent on MWD skill level. Then remove all the FREAKING penalties on the damn thing!!! This will allow close range setups to approach a target without getting wtfpwnd but not allow a ship to use MWD for sustained missile evasion. Make it a tactical module instead of a POS. Ideas? Edit: Oh, and no dual modules. ... That's when I reach for my revolver ...
Lhyda Souljacker	Posted - 2004.11.29 16:35:00 - [36] Edited by: Lhyda Souljacker on 29/11/2004 16:38:12 I'll suggest this again, now that MWD is nerfed into non-function and only usable on alternate sundays during months begining with "Feb" . . . Why not make WMD a charged based module like cap boosters? Make it so the module can carry only few class specific charges, each with a typical MWD duration, and then make the reload time about 30-60 seconds, dependent on MWD skill level. Then remove all the FREAKING penalties on the damn thing!!! This will allow close range setups to approach a target without getting wtfpwnd but not allow a ship to use MWD for sustained missile evasion. Make it a tactical module instead of a POS. Ideas? Edit: Oh, and no dual modules. ... That's when I reach for my revolver ...
Vampire Blade	Posted - 2004.11.29 16:39:00 - [37] Edited by: Vampire Blade on 29/11/2004 16:41:51 i like mwd now test: DAOC ----- ----- -----
Vampire Blade	Posted - 2004.11.29 16:39:00 - [38] Edited by: Vampire Blade on 29/11/2004 16:41:51 i like mwd now test: DAOC ----- ----- -----
juduzz	Posted - 2004.11.29 16:46:00 - [39] there is nothing wrong with MWD! agility is worst then a sig penalty. MWD has a set duration it runs at if you make it so you can only near enough go in a straight line you will over shoot your target very quick and thus removing its usefullness. Over sized modules are not a problem an inty with one goes pop SOOO easily because they give up alot of defence/offence to use one that even goes for th crow with standard missile launchers being so low fitting requirements. Duel AB cruisers. are np ( FYI i fly only inties) a nub dual 100mn AB cruiser pilot get pwned by a couple of ceptors like any nubler in any ship would, damn killed enough of the nublers and lost enough to the good pilots. They only thing that should have changed and did was dual MWD frigates which had stupidly insane speed. ----------------------------------------------
juduzz	Posted - 2004.11.29 16:46:00 - [40] there is nothing wrong with MWD! agility is worst then a sig penalty. MWD has a set duration it runs at if you make it so you can only near enough go in a straight line you will over shoot your target very quick and thus removing its usefullness. Over sized modules are not a problem an inty with one goes pop SOOO easily because they give up alot of defence/offence to use one that even goes for th crow with standard missile launchers being so low fitting requirements. Duel AB cruisers. are np ( FYI i fly only inties) a nub dual 100mn AB cruiser pilot get pwned by a couple of ceptors like any nubler in any ship would, damn killed enough of the nublers and lost enough to the good pilots. They only thing that should have changed and did was dual MWD frigates which had stupidly insane speed. ----------------------------------------------

Vigilant	Posted - 2004.11.29 17:05:00 - [41] Grim, Do you run agent Missions ? The MWD already got nerfed...Its called "DeadSpace"... MWD is fine as it... Sig Penality and Cap/Grid Penality alone for installing the damm thing is bad enough...
Vigilant	Posted - 2004.11.29 17:05:00 - [42] Grim, Do you run agent Missions ? The MWD already got nerfed...Its called "DeadSpace"... MWD is fine as it... Sig Penality and Cap/Grid Penality alone for installing the damm thing is bad enough...
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.29 20:55:00 - [43] Edited by: Grim Vandal on 30/11/2004 09:43:45 Originally by: Vigilant Grim, Do you run agent Missions ? The MWD already got nerfed...Its called "DeadSpace"... MWD is fine as it... Sig Penality and Cap/Grid Penality alone for installing the damm thing is bad enough... nope I have never done a mission and I will not do one in the future... I dont play this game for its npc part... So actually I dont care if the mwd is allowed in complexes or in missions cuz in the end its only a npc ****... Whatever... I may play this game for too long now... nearly 2 years including beta... I am already a member of this forum since august 2000... 20mill sp char in pure combat... btw interesting idea about the charges... the problem tho... close range ships like the mega heavily depend already on cap charges and I doub that they would have any room left for more charges... none the less at least someone with another idea... Those of you who call the current situation balanced are nuts! By now way can a module which every frig and cruiser depends on be balanced... I cant belive that so few people dislike the fact that this is a "no brainer" module. Again I dont want to make it unuseable or remove it... The use of the mwd should be a viable tactic/option BUT honestly this is simply not the case! Why else do so many setups involve the mwd??? besides due to missiles and besides that normal sized ABs suck it has pretty harsh penalties but still everyone fits it... something really stinks here... why do so few of you smell it? Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.29 20:55:00 - [44] Edited by: Grim Vandal on 30/11/2004 09:43:45 Originally by: Vigilant Grim, Do you run agent Missions ? The MWD already got nerfed...Its called "DeadSpace"... MWD is fine as it... Sig Penality and Cap/Grid Penality alone for installing the damm thing is bad enough... nope I have never done a mission and I will not do one in the future... I dont play this game for its npc part... So actually I dont care if the mwd is allowed in complexes or in missions cuz in the end its only a npc ****... Whatever... I may play this game for too long now... nearly 2 years including beta... I am already a member of this forum since august 2000... 20mill sp char in pure combat... btw interesting idea about the charges... the problem tho... close range ships like the mega heavily depend already on cap charges and I doub that they would have any room left for more charges... none the less at least someone with another idea... Those of you who call the current situation balanced are nuts! By now way can a module which every frig and cruiser depends on be balanced... I cant belive that so few people dislike the fact that this is a "no brainer" module. Again I dont want to make it unuseable or remove it... The use of the mwd should be a viable tactic/option BUT honestly this is simply not the case! Why else do so many setups involve the mwd??? besides due to missiles and besides that normal sized ABs suck it has pretty harsh penalties but still everyone fits it... something really stinks here... why do so few of you smell it? Greetings Grim
Nomen Nescio	Posted - 2004.11.29 21:15:00 - [45] MWD should be redone from the scratch: it should be hight slot, very hight speed no turns, no lock targets TRAVEL module. Like dock undock, apporach to collect cans and such. Burners should be extended and modified: - Several burners in class, such as 1 mw, 0.5 mw, 2 mw... - Burners should give real boost, med burner in class should give +100% speed minimum. - All penalties should be removed, burners are combat module essential for all close range fighters, fitting is the penalty. - Issue of "need for speed to run from missles" should be addressed by large burner in class which gives 150%-250% boost. Then ships which meant to outrun will do so, others wont. PS The situation then trasher can mount 2 cruser burners and go 3km/s with full set of close range guns and NO PENALTY is TOTALY STUPID. At the same time gallente destroyer which is BLASTER BOAT by design can't be used due to grid/speed/med slots (2 is not enough for close range fighter). And no, I dont fly gallente.
Nomen Nescio	Posted - 2004.11.29 21:15:00 - [46] MWD should be redone from the scratch: it should be hight slot, very hight speed no turns, no lock targets TRAVEL module. Like dock undock, apporach to collect cans and such. Burners should be extended and modified: - Several burners in class, such as 1 mw, 0.5 mw, 2 mw... - Burners should give real boost, med burner in class should give +100% speed minimum. - All penalties should be removed, burners are combat module essential for all close range fighters, fitting is the penalty. - Issue of "need for speed to run from missles" should be addressed by large burner in class which gives 150%-250% boost. Then ships which meant to outrun will do so, others wont. PS The situation then trasher can mount 2 cruser burners and go 3km/s with full set of close range guns and NO PENALTY is TOTALY STUPID. At the same time gallente destroyer which is BLASTER BOAT by design can't be used due to grid/speed/med slots (2 is not enough for close range fighter). And no, I dont fly gallente.
John Blackthorn	Posted - 2004.11.29 21:38:00 - [47] Yes, I want to see a mwd change. I want to see the shield penalty removed or set to an exact number. The penalty being a % of total shield unfairly penaltizes a shild tanking ship. -BT
John Blackthorn	Posted - 2004.11.29 21:38:00 - [48] Yes, I want to see a mwd change. I want to see the shield penalty removed or set to an exact number. The penalty being a % of total shield unfairly penaltizes a shild tanking ship. -BT
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.29 21:49:00 - [49] Originally by: John Blackthorn Yes, I want to see a mwd change. I want to see the shield penalty removed or set to an exact number. The penalty being a % of total shield unfairly penaltizes a shild tanking ship. -BT nice one Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.29 21:49:00 - [50] Originally by: John Blackthorn Yes, I want to see a mwd change. I want to see the shield penalty removed or set to an exact number. The penalty being a % of total shield unfairly penaltizes a shild tanking ship. -BT nice one Greetings Grim

snutt	Posted - 2004.11.29 23:15:00 - [51] They should just delete it and add a teleporting module instead . That way closerange fighters can still close distances but not orbit in 3000+ m/s. Ofcourse then every ship in eve would use one . (j/k) Mess with the best, die like the rest Real men structure tank
snutt	Posted - 2004.11.29 23:15:00 - [52] They should just delete it and add a teleporting module instead . That way closerange fighters can still close distances but not orbit in 3000+ m/s. Ofcourse then every ship in eve would use one . (j/k) Mess with the best, die like the rest Real men structure tank
Darax Thulain	Posted - 2004.11.29 23:35:00 - [53] 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.
Darax Thulain	Posted - 2004.11.29 23:35:00 - [54] 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.
Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.29 23:46:00 - [55] Originally by: Grim Vandal Originally by: Vigilant Grim, Do you run agent Missions ? Those of you who call the current situation balanced are nuts! By now way can a module which every frig and cruiser depends on be balanced... I cant belive that so few people dislike the fact that this is a "no brainer" module. Again I dont want to make it unuseable or remove it... The use of the mwd should be a viable tactic/option BUT honestly this is simply not the case! Why else do so many setups involve the mwd??? besides due to missiles and besides that normal sized ABs suck it has pretty harsh penalties but still everyone fits it... something really stinks here... why do so few of you smell it? That's exactly how I feel about it, everyone fits an MWD in every ship, no matter what the ship is for. Acctually Micro Warpdrives are amongst the biggest reasons this game is unbalanced. Ships with low range need it to get to their targets, but their targets have an MWD too and start kiting them. MWDs should allow hard hitting close combat ships to get into action, not long range ships to run forever. That's why I think the best thing to do would be remove the shield and cap penultie from MWDs, and make it impossible to fire any weapons while using the MWD instead. Due to the signature increase long range ships could get in some good hits before others are able to close the gap, but they wouldn't be able to kite indefinatly...
Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.29 23:46:00 - [56] Originally by: Grim Vandal Originally by: Vigilant Grim, Do you run agent Missions ? Those of you who call the current situation balanced are nuts! By now way can a module which every frig and cruiser depends on be balanced... I cant belive that so few people dislike the fact that this is a "no brainer" module. Again I dont want to make it unuseable or remove it... The use of the mwd should be a viable tactic/option BUT honestly this is simply not the case! Why else do so many setups involve the mwd??? besides due to missiles and besides that normal sized ABs suck it has pretty harsh penalties but still everyone fits it... something really stinks here... why do so few of you smell it? That's exactly how I feel about it, everyone fits an MWD in every ship, no matter what the ship is for. Acctually Micro Warpdrives are amongst the biggest reasons this game is unbalanced. Ships with low range need it to get to their targets, but their targets have an MWD too and start kiting them. MWDs should allow hard hitting close combat ships to get into action, not long range ships to run forever. That's why I think the best thing to do would be remove the shield and cap penultie from MWDs, and make it impossible to fire any weapons while using the MWD instead. Due to the signature increase long range ships could get in some good hits before others are able to close the gap, but they wouldn't be able to kite indefinatly...
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.29 23:54:00 - [57] 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. Since something needs to be done about this module was totally obvious for me. At least as long till the devs told us that the mwd will get no further changes about 2 months back. Again I didnt start earlier with these posts since it was and still is a obvious change for me... which I thought would get its attention as time passes on... since this isnt the case, you see me posting here. not a single person told me yet that this module is NOT a "no brainer"... as long as this stays the way it is, I will prolly keep posting this crap... honestly tell me other solutions... my ears are open... but to say it is balanced is bull****! I will not refuse to see the simple facts which tell us that something is wrong here... Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.29 23:54:00 - [58] 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. Since something needs to be done about this module was totally obvious for me. At least as long till the devs told us that the mwd will get no further changes about 2 months back. Again I didnt start earlier with these posts since it was and still is a obvious change for me... which I thought would get its attention as time passes on... since this isnt the case, you see me posting here. not a single person told me yet that this module is NOT a "no brainer"... as long as this stays the way it is, I will prolly keep posting this crap... honestly tell me other solutions... my ears are open... but to say it is balanced is bull****! I will not refuse to see the simple facts which tell us that something is wrong here... Greetings Grim
Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.30 00:18:00 - [59] There are other modules like that though... Cloaking devices are also a no brainer, as in, nobody uses them. But yea, there are those kinds of modules that should be installed on ships that use them as a special strategy but end up either on every ship or not on a single one, and I agree that they should be changed.
Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.30 00:18:00 - [60] There are other modules like that though... Cloaking devices are also a no brainer, as in, nobody uses them. But yea, there are those kinds of modules that should be installed on ships that use them as a special strategy but end up either on every ship or not on a single one, and I agree that they should be changed.

Darax Thulain	Posted - 2004.11.30 01:11:00 - [61] Ok, I'll say it then. It is not a NO BRAINER, if you are going for a fleet-vs fleet combat a mwd on a BB hardly works well as its defence is EW. Frigs may actually be more useful orbiting battleships doing remote tracking computers and webbing any other frigs stupid enough to engage the fleet it defends. Some cruisers I have engaged with my mwd Rupture has been far more effective with a slot of EW than a mwd. THe same with frigs, it requires one racial jammer to be totally invulnerable to an inty(sans FoF) or damps, they always work. Work you way around the problem, dont make something out of nothing, but you probably heard this 100 times before. You know, tracking disruptors work miracles on other frigs too. No point orbiting another frig at insane speeds if you guns cant hit for $hit. /me thinks Grim Vandal is more on the forums than on the battlefields.
Darax Thulain	Posted - 2004.11.30 01:11:00 - [62] Ok, I'll say it then. It is not a NO BRAINER, if you are going for a fleet-vs fleet combat a mwd on a BB hardly works well as its defence is EW. Frigs may actually be more useful orbiting battleships doing remote tracking computers and webbing any other frigs stupid enough to engage the fleet it defends. Some cruisers I have engaged with my mwd Rupture has been far more effective with a slot of EW than a mwd. THe same with frigs, it requires one racial jammer to be totally invulnerable to an inty(sans FoF) or damps, they always work. Work you way around the problem, dont make something out of nothing, but you probably heard this 100 times before. You know, tracking disruptors work miracles on other frigs too. No point orbiting another frig at insane speeds if you guns cant hit for $hit. /me thinks Grim Vandal is more on the forums than on the battlefields.
Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.30 02:46:00 - [63] The people orbiting you at insane speeds usually use missiles from what I understand of it.
Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.30 02:46:00 - [64] The people orbiting you at insane speeds usually use missiles from what I understand of it.
Necrologic	Posted - 2004.11.30 02:54:00 - [65] i havn't had time to read all this, but let's just remember that Grim is discussing a mwd "change" not Nerf. _______________________________________________________ Et nunc, reges, intelligite, erudimini, qui judicati terram.
Necrologic	Posted - 2004.11.30 02:54:00 - [66] i havn't had time to read all this, but let's just remember that Grim is discussing a mwd "change" not Nerf. _______________________________________________________ Et nunc, reges, intelligite, erudimini, qui judicati terram.
Kaylona Tso	Posted - 2004.11.30 04:45:00 - [67] The only problem is that the only ships that have a bonus that Negates some of the penalties are thorax based. I don't think that is healthy NOR very Role Play centric. The should role play some Minmatar ships to aquire the technology such as the stabber. The Megathron should get a similar bonus as the Thorax but maybe 2.5% instead of 5. Also I would like to see the Scorpion get one too since it has uber electronics equipment and is a$$ slow. -----
Kaylona Tso	Posted - 2004.11.30 04:45:00 - [68] The only problem is that the only ships that have a bonus that Negates some of the penalties are thorax based. I don't think that is healthy NOR very Role Play centric. The should role play some Minmatar ships to aquire the technology such as the stabber. The Megathron should get a similar bonus as the Thorax but maybe 2.5% instead of 5. Also I would like to see the Scorpion get one too since it has uber electronics equipment and is a$$ slow. -----
Torvus Jay	Posted - 2004.11.30 05:45:00 - [69] Quote: quite honestly you would easily be able to cover the range as fast as now with the mwd changes above... btw I would not call mwds balanced if 99% of the cruisers and frigs have to fit while there only option is to fit an oversized AB instead... is this what you call variety??? is this really, what you call balance? Grim you keep saying it is a no brainer module. Let me ask you in an apoc and you are defending yourself with armor what module will you use for it? An armor rep. Now what choice do you have about this? Absolutly none. Same goes for shields. Same goes for offense on a raven you ahve 2 choices siege or cruise launchers. Speed is a valid defense. Just like the other 2 valid defense strategys their is one module that the ship is built around defensively. Also as another important part of mwd is that is allows you to tackle. Closing 40km at a 0.0 gate jump in is not possible with a meager 100% ab boost. And you have never once answered this question about your no agility mwd change. How does a blasterthron deal with a lonnger range apoc that has an mwd on and moves at a 90 angle to all attempts at approach. How will the mega ever catch the apoc in this scenerio. ______________ Aim careful, and look the devil in the eye.
Torvus Jay	Posted - 2004.11.30 05:45:00 - [70] Quote: quite honestly you would easily be able to cover the range as fast as now with the mwd changes above... btw I would not call mwds balanced if 99% of the cruisers and frigs have to fit while there only option is to fit an oversized AB instead... is this what you call variety??? is this really, what you call balance? Grim you keep saying it is a no brainer module. Let me ask you in an apoc and you are defending yourself with armor what module will you use for it? An armor rep. Now what choice do you have about this? Absolutly none. Same goes for shields. Same goes for offense on a raven you ahve 2 choices siege or cruise launchers. Speed is a valid defense. Just like the other 2 valid defense strategys their is one module that the ship is built around defensively. Also as another important part of mwd is that is allows you to tackle. Closing 40km at a 0.0 gate jump in is not possible with a meager 100% ab boost. And you have never once answered this question about your no agility mwd change. How does a blasterthron deal with a lonnger range apoc that has an mwd on and moves at a 90 angle to all attempts at approach. How will the mega ever catch the apoc in this scenerio. ______________ Aim careful, and look the devil in the eye.

Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.30 06:10:00 - [71] How will the Mega ever Catch the Apoc now? The entire point of the MWD in combat should be a chance for close range ships to be able to atack their enemies, instead it's used to outrun everything with low range while killing it. The best thing would be if you simply couldn't use any offensive equipment while running an MWD, that would make combat a lot more interesting because running would acctually mean running, not just making it impossible for any low range ships to engage you.
Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.30 06:10:00 - [72] How will the Mega ever Catch the Apoc now? The entire point of the MWD in combat should be a chance for close range ships to be able to atack their enemies, instead it's used to outrun everything with low range while killing it. The best thing would be if you simply couldn't use any offensive equipment while running an MWD, that would make combat a lot more interesting because running would acctually mean running, not just making it impossible for any low range ships to engage you.
Jonas Bane	Posted - 2004.11.30 06:28:00 - [73] Or have the MWD increase your weapon's signature resolution instead of increasing your signature radius. That way you simply can't hit very much while MWDing. This way the MWD is used for gaining position on your opponent, and the AB is used for the speed-based defense. Close range ships won't be affected much, since they aren't firing while they're closing the distance. And long range sniper setups can still use them, but they can't fire as effectively while they try to keep range. Tackling frigates can still do their thing, since webbers and scramblers don't use signature stats. The only real concern will be missile ships who have MWDs, as they don't use signature stats either. Only thing I can think of is to simply make missiles "go dumb" when the firing ship engages a MWD. Although this might be too severe.
Jonas Bane	Posted - 2004.11.30 06:28:00 - [74] Or have the MWD increase your weapon's signature resolution instead of increasing your signature radius. That way you simply can't hit very much while MWDing. This way the MWD is used for gaining position on your opponent, and the AB is used for the speed-based defense. Close range ships won't be affected much, since they aren't firing while they're closing the distance. And long range sniper setups can still use them, but they can't fire as effectively while they try to keep range. Tackling frigates can still do their thing, since webbers and scramblers don't use signature stats. The only real concern will be missile ships who have MWDs, as they don't use signature stats either. Only thing I can think of is to simply make missiles "go dumb" when the firing ship engages a MWD. Although this might be too severe.
Demangel	Posted - 2004.11.30 06:49:00 - [75] I personaly love the size concept for AB's (mentioned in an above post with .5MN, 1MN and 2MN for small class ships, and counterparts for the medium and large class ships. (Ie 5MN, 10MN, 20MN, and 50MN, 100MN and 200MN). The small ends: (.5MN, 5MN, and 50MN) grant the current speed boost (45%+ speed boost). And have 50% the current fitting requirements (5MN requires 25PG). The mid range: (1MN, 10MN, and 100MN), grant a 100% speed boost, and have the same fittings as they have now. (10MN takes 50 PG for example). The high end range: (2MN, 20MN, 200MN), grant 200% speed boost, and require maybe 50-75% more fitting than the current standard AB's. (why not +100% fitting? because then a MWD would clearly be the better choice for most people, making AB's useless again... Remember the 200% speed boost isn't even half of what a MWD can grant, and the MWD penalties don't make it so poor a module afterall really). Remember, we want AB's to see MORe use, without oversized fittings! Right now a 1MN isn't very useful for most frigs for example unless you need the extra fitting desperately, and still want a little added speed. Same goes for the 10MN for cruisers. So what about oversized fitting? This should be removed completely. And not by increasing the PG and or CPU usage of the current AB's/MWD's. That would pretty much kill them completely... They would nerf everyone who would use them as intended, just to stop a few from spamming it... BAD idea. Instead simply have it so the thing can't be fitted to the ship if it's the wrong size class, with a popup on the fitting screen saying something like: "Due to structural limitations, your ship cannot handle the pure acceleration of this oversized AB without tearing itself apart." For people bent on technical stuff, why can a MWD give you such good speed if the ship can't handle that accleration? Simple, MWD isn't an impulse drive, it is a MICRO WARP DRIVE. Using the same principle as normal warp. In normal warp your ship "Aparently" suffers from none of the ill effects of sudden acceleration. Meaning no inertia. Which means your ship won't squish like an eggshell under an elephants foot. By using short small bursts of the warp drive, you move through normal space at accelerated speeds, but for your ship the amount of inertia is no more perhaps than a 100% speed increase. So what does this have to do with MWD? Well, I for one think MWD is just about perfect as it is. YES it sucks for shield tanks, so maybe something could/should be done there... But I can't really say what exactly... Only change I would make to MWD would be to make it impossible to set them for autorepeat. Make it so they can only be manually activated, and leave everything else alone unless it's helping shield tankers a bit... Maybe grant Caldari ships a +5% to shield cap per level or -5% to MWD shield penalty per level or something. But that might be too much... We all know most people who PVP fly Amarr or Caldari ships these days anyway as it is heheheh, so the caldari can't be that broken... Galaxion > If you drove a car shaped like a thorax women would call you Demangel > Dude... I would call.. Demangel > wait that sounded g@y I bet. Galaxion > Just a bit.
Demangel	Posted - 2004.11.30 06:49:00 - [76] I personaly love the size concept for AB's (mentioned in an above post with .5MN, 1MN and 2MN for small class ships, and counterparts for the medium and large class ships. (Ie 5MN, 10MN, 20MN, and 50MN, 100MN and 200MN). The small ends: (.5MN, 5MN, and 50MN) grant the current speed boost (45%+ speed boost). And have 50% the current fitting requirements (5MN requires 25PG). The mid range: (1MN, 10MN, and 100MN), grant a 100% speed boost, and have the same fittings as they have now. (10MN takes 50 PG for example). The high end range: (2MN, 20MN, 200MN), grant 200% speed boost, and require maybe 50-75% more fitting than the current standard AB's. (why not +100% fitting? because then a MWD would clearly be the better choice for most people, making AB's useless again... Remember the 200% speed boost isn't even half of what a MWD can grant, and the MWD penalties don't make it so poor a module afterall really). Remember, we want AB's to see MORe use, without oversized fittings! Right now a 1MN isn't very useful for most frigs for example unless you need the extra fitting desperately, and still want a little added speed. Same goes for the 10MN for cruisers. So what about oversized fitting? This should be removed completely. And not by increasing the PG and or CPU usage of the current AB's/MWD's. That would pretty much kill them completely... They would nerf everyone who would use them as intended, just to stop a few from spamming it... BAD idea. Instead simply have it so the thing can't be fitted to the ship if it's the wrong size class, with a popup on the fitting screen saying something like: "Due to structural limitations, your ship cannot handle the pure acceleration of this oversized AB without tearing itself apart." For people bent on technical stuff, why can a MWD give you such good speed if the ship can't handle that accleration? Simple, MWD isn't an impulse drive, it is a MICRO WARP DRIVE. Using the same principle as normal warp. In normal warp your ship "Aparently" suffers from none of the ill effects of sudden acceleration. Meaning no inertia. Which means your ship won't squish like an eggshell under an elephants foot. By using short small bursts of the warp drive, you move through normal space at accelerated speeds, but for your ship the amount of inertia is no more perhaps than a 100% speed increase. So what does this have to do with MWD? Well, I for one think MWD is just about perfect as it is. YES it sucks for shield tanks, so maybe something could/should be done there... But I can't really say what exactly... Only change I would make to MWD would be to make it impossible to set them for autorepeat. Make it so they can only be manually activated, and leave everything else alone unless it's helping shield tankers a bit... Maybe grant Caldari ships a +5% to shield cap per level or -5% to MWD shield penalty per level or something. But that might be too much... We all know most people who PVP fly Amarr or Caldari ships these days anyway as it is heheheh, so the caldari can't be that broken... Galaxion > If you drove a car shaped like a thorax women would call you Demangel > Dude... I would call.. Demangel > wait that sounded g@y I bet. Galaxion > Just a bit.
Crimson Djinn	Posted - 2004.11.30 07:12:00 - [77] 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
Crimson Djinn	Posted - 2004.11.30 07:12:00 - [78] 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
DeFood	Posted - 2004.11.30 08:33:00 - [79] hmmm. All fittings should work on a linear scale. i.e. 5MN AB uses 5/20 the CAP - and has 5/20 the fitting requirements of a 20MN AB. Well, about. Then you never have a problem putting the wrong sized modules on anything as the penalties & fitting requirements always scale exactly correctly.
DeFood	Posted - 2004.11.30 08:33:00 - [80] hmmm. All fittings should work on a linear scale. i.e. 5MN AB uses 5/20 the CAP - and has 5/20 the fitting requirements of a 20MN AB. Well, about. Then you never have a problem putting the wrong sized modules on anything as the penalties & fitting requirements always scale exactly correctly.

Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.30 12:12:00 - [81] Originally by: Jonas Bane Or have the MWD increase your weapon's signature resolution instead of increasing your signature radius. That way you simply can't hit very much while MWDing. This way the MWD is used for gaining position on your opponent, and the AB is used for the speed-based defense. Close range ships won't be affected much, since they aren't firing while they're closing the distance. And long range sniper setups can still use them, but they can't fire as effectively while they try to keep range. Tackling frigates can still do their thing, since webbers and scramblers don't use signature stats. The only real concern will be missile ships who have MWDs, as they don't use signature stats either. Only thing I can think of is to simply make missiles "go dumb" when the firing ship engages a MWD. Although this might be too severe. I don't see how that would be too severe, it would turn MWDs into exactly what they are meant to be, a way to gain a favorable position on the battlefield fast, not just a 500% speed boost you can use while doing whatever. The sig radius increase we have right now acctually favors kiting ships by allowing them to do even more damage, while ships designed for close combat can't even get in range. I think it should be the other way around, MWD shoud be used by short ranged ships to get to their targets, and if long range ships have an MWD and decide to run they shouldn't be able to kill whoever is coming after them without stopping.
Noriath	Posted - 2004.11.30 12:12:00 - [82] Originally by: Jonas Bane Or have the MWD increase your weapon's signature resolution instead of increasing your signature radius. That way you simply can't hit very much while MWDing. This way the MWD is used for gaining position on your opponent, and the AB is used for the speed-based defense. Close range ships won't be affected much, since they aren't firing while they're closing the distance. And long range sniper setups can still use them, but they can't fire as effectively while they try to keep range. Tackling frigates can still do their thing, since webbers and scramblers don't use signature stats. The only real concern will be missile ships who have MWDs, as they don't use signature stats either. Only thing I can think of is to simply make missiles "go dumb" when the firing ship engages a MWD. Although this might be too severe. I don't see how that would be too severe, it would turn MWDs into exactly what they are meant to be, a way to gain a favorable position on the battlefield fast, not just a 500% speed boost you can use while doing whatever. The sig radius increase we have right now acctually favors kiting ships by allowing them to do even more damage, while ships designed for close combat can't even get in range. I think it should be the other way around, MWD shoud be used by short ranged ships to get to their targets, and if long range ships have an MWD and decide to run they shouldn't be able to kill whoever is coming after them without stopping.
Directive	Posted - 2004.11.30 13:01:00 - [83] Disable guns (and make missiles explode in their launchers if you try to use them) while MWD is working, otherwise that nice scenario of a close-range ship chasing equally fast long-range ship is just plain stupid.
Directive	Posted - 2004.11.30 13:01:00 - [84] Disable guns (and make missiles explode in their launchers if you try to use them) while MWD is working, otherwise that nice scenario of a close-range ship chasing equally fast long-range ship is just plain stupid.
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.30 13:03:00 - [85] Originally by: Torvus Jay Quote: quite honestly you would easily be able to cover the range as fast as now with the mwd changes above... btw I would not call mwds balanced if 99% of the cruisers and frigs have to fit while there only option is to fit an oversized AB instead... is this what you call variety??? is this really, what you call balance? Grim you keep saying it is a no brainer module. Let me ask you in an apoc and you are defending yourself with armor what module will you use for it? An armor rep. Now what choice do you have about this? Absolutly none. Same goes for shields. Same goes for offense on a raven you ahve 2 choices siege or cruise launchers. Speed is a valid defense. Just like the other 2 valid defense strategys their is one module that the ship is built around defensively. Also as another important part of mwd is that is allows you to tackle. Closing 40km at a 0.0 gate jump in is not possible with a meager 100% ab boost. And you have never once answered this question about your no agility mwd change. How does a blasterthron deal with a lonnger range apoc that has an mwd on and moves at a 90 angle to all attempts at approach. How will the mega ever catch the apoc in this scenerio. like Noriath already told you... what happens today? what happens if a blasterthron tries to get close to an apoc with an mwd??? ya you just confirmed my thoughts... you choose siege or cruise launchers for a raven... you choose pulse lasers or beam lasers for an apoc (well although you would choose pulse lasers 90% of the time but thats another issue ) and its pretty much the same as with pulse and beam lasers... you choose to fit 2x large armor reps or one medium instead... you can choose to fit 2x large shield booster instead of one xlarge shield booster anyway would you choose a pulse laser over a beam laser 90% of the time??? would you choose a 100mn AB instead of a 100mn mwd on your BS??? would you choose a 10mn AB instead of a 10mn mwd on your cruiser??? would you choose a 1mn Ab instead of a 1mn mwd on your frig??? you really gotta see the issue now dont you??? to tackle someone will still work mate... even with the agility change... the point is to make this module desired for certain setups... but as it stands now you fit a mwd but so does your opponent... I want to get it to a point where you fit the mwd while your opponent doesnt fit it... BS aside in this case... cuz this is the only shipclass which doesnt depend on mwds as much as any other shipclass out there... even more it sucks that any cruiser without a mwd and or oversized Ab sucks except the BB... this is only achievable if the long range setups dont need to use the mwd anymore... while it would still be a viable choice... to achieve that... I can only think of a solution where a mwd using ship will NOT ALWAYS catch the same ship with a "normal sized AB"... overshooting the target could be a problem... we could change the mwd to 1 secs activation time ... with correspondending cap useage... there is another problem... aligning the ship with the mwd active would not be possible with the agility change... so you would have to align your ship first then hit the mwd... well the agility penalty could go up correspondending to the ships speed... so as long as your mwd is active you will recive an agility penalty < 500% while it will peak at 500% agility penalty at full speed (while the mwd is active) this would mean you could align your ship at slow speeds with an active mwd... now lets keep posting can we? Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.30 13:03:00 - [86] Originally by: Torvus Jay Quote: quite honestly you would easily be able to cover the range as fast as now with the mwd changes above... btw I would not call mwds balanced if 99% of the cruisers and frigs have to fit while there only option is to fit an oversized AB instead... is this what you call variety??? is this really, what you call balance? Grim you keep saying it is a no brainer module. Let me ask you in an apoc and you are defending yourself with armor what module will you use for it? An armor rep. Now what choice do you have about this? Absolutly none. Same goes for shields. Same goes for offense on a raven you ahve 2 choices siege or cruise launchers. Speed is a valid defense. Just like the other 2 valid defense strategys their is one module that the ship is built around defensively. Also as another important part of mwd is that is allows you to tackle. Closing 40km at a 0.0 gate jump in is not possible with a meager 100% ab boost. And you have never once answered this question about your no agility mwd change. How does a blasterthron deal with a lonnger range apoc that has an mwd on and moves at a 90 angle to all attempts at approach. How will the mega ever catch the apoc in this scenerio. like Noriath already told you... what happens today? what happens if a blasterthron tries to get close to an apoc with an mwd??? ya you just confirmed my thoughts... you choose siege or cruise launchers for a raven... you choose pulse lasers or beam lasers for an apoc (well although you would choose pulse lasers 90% of the time but thats another issue ) and its pretty much the same as with pulse and beam lasers... you choose to fit 2x large armor reps or one medium instead... you can choose to fit 2x large shield booster instead of one xlarge shield booster anyway would you choose a pulse laser over a beam laser 90% of the time??? would you choose a 100mn AB instead of a 100mn mwd on your BS??? would you choose a 10mn AB instead of a 10mn mwd on your cruiser??? would you choose a 1mn Ab instead of a 1mn mwd on your frig??? you really gotta see the issue now dont you??? to tackle someone will still work mate... even with the agility change... the point is to make this module desired for certain setups... but as it stands now you fit a mwd but so does your opponent... I want to get it to a point where you fit the mwd while your opponent doesnt fit it... BS aside in this case... cuz this is the only shipclass which doesnt depend on mwds as much as any other shipclass out there... even more it sucks that any cruiser without a mwd and or oversized Ab sucks except the BB... this is only achievable if the long range setups dont need to use the mwd anymore... while it would still be a viable choice... to achieve that... I can only think of a solution where a mwd using ship will NOT ALWAYS catch the same ship with a "normal sized AB"... overshooting the target could be a problem... we could change the mwd to 1 secs activation time ... with correspondending cap useage... there is another problem... aligning the ship with the mwd active would not be possible with the agility change... so you would have to align your ship first then hit the mwd... well the agility penalty could go up correspondending to the ships speed... so as long as your mwd is active you will recive an agility penalty < 500% while it will peak at 500% agility penalty at full speed (while the mwd is active) this would mean you could align your ship at slow speeds with an active mwd... now lets keep posting can we? Greetings Grim
Toran Mehtar	Posted - 2004.11.30 13:42:00 - [87] Grim, why are you obsessed with proving that the problem lies with the mwd ? You say that mwd is a 'no brainer' module, but you don't say why. The only reason every frig pilot, and many cruiser pilots, fit mwd is to avoid missiles, because there is no alternative for them to deal with them (discounting oversized ab). Yet, this doesn't mean that missiles are the only reason to fit mwd. For example, a thorax pilot fits an mwd in order to close the distance between him and his target. Does he currently have an alternative (again discounting oversized ab) ? No. So why is mwd the problem ? Surely what we should do is provide more options, not chop to bits the only option there is. Firstly, we need to change missiles so that frigs can have a chance of surviving a battle where cruise missiles are present without having to fit mwd. Second, make normal size abs worth fitting, so that pilots have an alternative option for increased velocity. Mwd for uber speed + drawbacks, ab for good speed, no drawbacks. Third, change the stacking of mwd/ab to add not multiply, otherwise mwd wil be dead and buried, as everybody will just fit 2 new-improved normal abs to get mwd speed without the drawbacks. None of the above requires 'fixing' mwd, yet addresses all the issues you have raised.
Toran Mehtar	Posted - 2004.11.30 13:42:00 - [88] Grim, why are you obsessed with proving that the problem lies with the mwd ? You say that mwd is a 'no brainer' module, but you don't say why. The only reason every frig pilot, and many cruiser pilots, fit mwd is to avoid missiles, because there is no alternative for them to deal with them (discounting oversized ab). Yet, this doesn't mean that missiles are the only reason to fit mwd. For example, a thorax pilot fits an mwd in order to close the distance between him and his target. Does he currently have an alternative (again discounting oversized ab) ? No. So why is mwd the problem ? Surely what we should do is provide more options, not chop to bits the only option there is. Firstly, we need to change missiles so that frigs can have a chance of surviving a battle where cruise missiles are present without having to fit mwd. Second, make normal size abs worth fitting, so that pilots have an alternative option for increased velocity. Mwd for uber speed + drawbacks, ab for good speed, no drawbacks. Third, change the stacking of mwd/ab to add not multiply, otherwise mwd wil be dead and buried, as everybody will just fit 2 new-improved normal abs to get mwd speed without the drawbacks. None of the above requires 'fixing' mwd, yet addresses all the issues you have raised.
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.30 13:59:00 - [89] Originally by: Toran Mehtar Grim, why are you obsessed with proving that the problem lies with the mwd ? You say that mwd is a 'no brainer' module, but you don't say why. The only reason every frig pilot, and many cruiser pilots, fit mwd is to avoid missiles, because there is no alternative for them to deal with them (discounting oversized ab). Yet, this doesn't mean that missiles are the only reason to fit mwd. For example, a thorax pilot fits an mwd in order to close the distance between him and his target. Does he currently have an alternative (again discounting oversized ab) ? No. So why is mwd the problem ? Surely what we should do is provide more options, not chop to bits the only option there is. Firstly, we need to change missiles so that frigs can have a chance of surviving a battle where cruise missiles are present without having to fit mwd. Second, make normal size abs worth fitting, so that pilots have an alternative option for increased velocity. Mwd for uber speed + drawbacks, ab for good speed, no drawbacks. Third, change the stacking of mwd/ab to add not multiply, otherwise mwd wil be dead and buried, as everybody will just fit 2 new-improved normal abs to get mwd speed without the drawbacks. None of the above requires 'fixing' mwd, yet addresses all the issues you have raised. well right... you have read my first post didnt you? I'll quote myself: Originally by: Grim Vandal First of lets assume that missiles "are" changed and you do not need a mwd anymore to evade them. And that normal sized ABs got boosted to around + 100% with a stacking penalty included for them. Greetings Grim
Grim Vandal	Posted - 2004.11.30 13:59:00 - [90] Originally by: Toran Mehtar Grim, why are you obsessed with proving that the problem lies with the mwd ? You say that mwd is a 'no brainer' module, but you don't say why. The only reason every frig pilot, and many cruiser pilots, fit mwd is to avoid missiles, because there is no alternative for them to deal with them (discounting oversized ab). Yet, this doesn't mean that missiles are the only reason to fit mwd. For example, a thorax pilot fits an mwd in order to close the distance between him and his target. Does he currently have an alternative (again discounting oversized ab) ? No. So why is mwd the problem ? Surely what we should do is provide more options, not chop to bits the only option there is. Firstly, we need to change missiles so that frigs can have a chance of surviving a battle where cruise missiles are present without having to fit mwd. Second, make normal size abs worth fitting, so that pilots have an alternative option for increased velocity. Mwd for uber speed + drawbacks, ab for good speed, no drawbacks. Third, change the stacking of mwd/ab to add not multiply, otherwise mwd wil be dead and buried, as everybody will just fit 2 new-improved normal abs to get mwd speed without the drawbacks. None of the above requires 'fixing' mwd, yet addresses all the issues you have raised. well right... you have read my first post didnt you? I'll quote myself: Originally by: Grim Vandal First of lets assume that missiles "are" changed and you do not need a mwd anymore to evade them. And that normal sized ABs got boosted to around + 100% with a stacking penalty included for them. Greetings Grim

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]

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.