EVE Search - Think Deadspace should allow MWD's?...Here's your chance to change it

All Channels

EVE General Discussion

Think Deadspace should allow MWD's?...Here's your chance to change it

» 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 - 0 post(s)
Avon	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:14:00 - [61] Originally by: ElCoCo Originally by: Avon In that case it doesn't nerf close range set-ups as claimed, does it? Yes it does as you spend more time trying to get to your target so you take more damage but that's not my point. So with a long range set-up you don't spend more time trying to get away from your target, thus taking more damage? Think man, think! ______________________________________________ Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience.
Avon	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:14:00 - [62] Originally by: ElCoCo Originally by: Avon In that case it doesn't nerf close range set-ups as claimed, does it? Yes it does as you spend more time trying to get to your target so you take more damage but that's not my point. So with a long range set-up you don't spend more time trying to get away from your target, thus taking more damage? Think man, think! ______________________________________________ Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience.
Helplessandlost	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:19:00 - [63] Vote no - except for picking up loot it's not needed. Check us out
Helplessandlost	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:19:00 - [64] Vote no - except for picking up loot it's not needed. Check us out
ElCoCo	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:21:00 - [65] Originally by: Discorporation Like Avon said, the optimal bonus on a caldari ship is useless when you're getting swarmed by small ships, can it be changed to +% (something). That's not a good comparison... is something wrong with caldari ships fitting blasters (like you so rightly said "tried fitting rails?"? The optimal range bonus benefits them as well as they get in their falloff range further away=more damage. Originally by: Discorporation A thorax performs quite well without MWD. If you shoose your complexes wisely, the NPC's will come to you, grently drifting into Blaster optimal range And if the rats were gently drifting into my blaster optimal range without me doing anything I wouldn't even bother to put mwd/AB on would I? (but that is by choice, not imposed) And ofcourse you don't get to choose the deadspace missions you're given...
ElCoCo	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:21:00 - [66] Originally by: Discorporation Like Avon said, the optimal bonus on a caldari ship is useless when you're getting swarmed by small ships, can it be changed to +% (something). That's not a good comparison... is something wrong with caldari ships fitting blasters (like you so rightly said "tried fitting rails?"? The optimal range bonus benefits them as well as they get in their falloff range further away=more damage. Originally by: Discorporation A thorax performs quite well without MWD. If you shoose your complexes wisely, the NPC's will come to you, grently drifting into Blaster optimal range And if the rats were gently drifting into my blaster optimal range without me doing anything I wouldn't even bother to put mwd/AB on would I? (but that is by choice, not imposed) And ofcourse you don't get to choose the deadspace missions you're given...
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:24:00 - [67] Originally by: ElCoCo That's not a good comparison... is something wrong with caldari ships fitting blasters (like you so rightly said "tried fitting rails?"? The optimal range bonus benefits them as well as they get in their falloff range further away=more damage. yeah, opt bonus is pointless when fitting blasters, due to their tiny tiny tiny optimal range. Hey, I know, they should get a 5% tracking boost to Hybrids when they fit blasters (see where I'm going here?) Originally by: ElCoCo And if the rats were gently drifting into my blaster optimal range without me doing anything I wouldn't even bother to put mwd/AB on would I? (but that is by choice, not imposed) And ofcourse you don't get to choose the deadspace missions you're given... You choose to accept them, no? [Heterocephalus glaber]
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:24:00 - [68] Originally by: ElCoCo That's not a good comparison... is something wrong with caldari ships fitting blasters (like you so rightly said "tried fitting rails?"? The optimal range bonus benefits them as well as they get in their falloff range further away=more damage. yeah, opt bonus is pointless when fitting blasters, due to their tiny tiny tiny optimal range. Hey, I know, they should get a 5% tracking boost to Hybrids when they fit blasters (see where I'm going here?) Originally by: ElCoCo And if the rats were gently drifting into my blaster optimal range without me doing anything I wouldn't even bother to put mwd/AB on would I? (but that is by choice, not imposed) And ofcourse you don't get to choose the deadspace missions you're given... You choose to accept them, no? [Heterocephalus glaber]
ElCoCo	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:26:00 - [69] Originally by: Avon So with a long range set-up you don't spend more time trying to get away from your target, thus taking more damage? Think man, think! I think just fine... you can even hit from 1km with long range guns if you get your transversal velocity low enough (which is quite easy -in deadspace- even against frigs using 1ab and cruiser guns).
ElCoCo	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:26:00 - [70] Originally by: Avon So with a long range set-up you don't spend more time trying to get away from your target, thus taking more damage? Think man, think! I think just fine... you can even hit from 1km with long range guns if you get your transversal velocity low enough (which is quite easy -in deadspace- even against frigs using 1ab and cruiser guns).
Haratu	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:29:00 - [71] They just upgraded afterburners to compensate for deadspace. By definition deadspace is a point where warp does not work. since an MWD is a 'Micro Warp Drive' then it would obviously not work in a place where warp did not work. I roleplay... there is this computer game called "Earth - The First Genesis" where i play a character in the early 21st century.
Haratu	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:29:00 - [72] They just upgraded afterburners to compensate for deadspace. By definition deadspace is a point where warp does not work. since an MWD is a 'Micro Warp Drive' then it would obviously not work in a place where warp did not work. I roleplay... there is this computer game called "Earth - The First Genesis" where i play a character in the early 21st century.
LocalHost	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:38:00 - [73] Originally by: Arkive I've seen numerous posts stating that the MWD nerf in Deadspace sucks, and I couldn't agree more. Adaption is one thing, but completely eliminating a way of running missions is another. I compare this nerf to them removing scramblers from the game and pirates having to adapt...it's just too much. Make your voice heard to CCP in this thread and perhaps they will listen if enough people vote. Also, if you don't feel that adding MWD's back to Deadspace is necessary, please don't post here. I'm not trying to prevent open discussion on the topic, I just want this particular thread to reflect the number of players that think the current Deadspace setup wreaks. I also think the standings drops for declining missions is a bit high too, but that's a vote for another thread . Obviously, my vote is a yes for MWD's in deadspace. Current vote stands at: 1 lol! I'll give you an "A" for effort m8. \|Father of 1\|Master of All\|
LocalHost	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:38:00 - [74] Originally by: Arkive I've seen numerous posts stating that the MWD nerf in Deadspace sucks, and I couldn't agree more. Adaption is one thing, but completely eliminating a way of running missions is another. I compare this nerf to them removing scramblers from the game and pirates having to adapt...it's just too much. Make your voice heard to CCP in this thread and perhaps they will listen if enough people vote. Also, if you don't feel that adding MWD's back to Deadspace is necessary, please don't post here. I'm not trying to prevent open discussion on the topic, I just want this particular thread to reflect the number of players that think the current Deadspace setup wreaks. I also think the standings drops for declining missions is a bit high too, but that's a vote for another thread . Obviously, my vote is a yes for MWD's in deadspace. Current vote stands at: 1 lol! I'll give you an "A" for effort m8. \|Father of 1\|Master of All\|
Mrmuttley	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:41:00 - [75] and a big NO from me I like deadspace the way its is Learn and adapt guys MWD is not the be all and end all of NPCing ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hmmm I need a Sig
Mrmuttley	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:41:00 - [76] and a big NO from me I like deadspace the way its is Learn and adapt guys MWD is not the be all and end all of NPCing ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Hmmm I need a Sig
ElCoCo	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:42:00 - [77] Originally by: Discorporation yeah, opt bonus is pointless when fitting blasters, due to their tiny tiny tiny optimal range. Hey, I know, they should get a 5% tracking boost to Hybrids when they fit blasters (see where I'm going here?) That would be an accurate comparison if for instance they said you were forbidden to use shieldboosters in deadspace. That would make a shield boost bonus on a Moa useless, not just decrease it's effect in some cases like what you say with the optimal range. That where I'm going here Originally by: Discorporation You choose to accept them, no? Yup ofcourse... although with current standing losses formula it's almost suicidal to be rejecting missions, but that's another story. And anyway I just hop into a raven for doing kill missions.... fun huh? Oh well... going home now...bbl
ElCoCo	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:42:00 - [78] Originally by: Discorporation yeah, opt bonus is pointless when fitting blasters, due to their tiny tiny tiny optimal range. Hey, I know, they should get a 5% tracking boost to Hybrids when they fit blasters (see where I'm going here?) That would be an accurate comparison if for instance they said you were forbidden to use shieldboosters in deadspace. That would make a shield boost bonus on a Moa useless, not just decrease it's effect in some cases like what you say with the optimal range. That where I'm going here Originally by: Discorporation You choose to accept them, no? Yup ofcourse... although with current standing losses formula it's almost suicidal to be rejecting missions, but that's another story. And anyway I just hop into a raven for doing kill missions.... fun huh? Oh well... going home now...bbl
Kerry	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:57:00 - [79] Originally by: Avon Originally by: ElCoCo Originally by: Avon In that case it doesn't nerf close range set-ups as claimed, does it? Yes it does as you spend more time trying to get to your target so you take more damage but that's not my point. So with a long range set-up you don't spend more time trying to get away from your target, thus taking more damage? Think man, think! ... back at ya, my bonus was completely wiped out of the most major patch added content. What is that about? Really now. That is what this is about. Close combat was removed from the game(unless like Discorporation thinks...) Originally by: Discorporation A thorax performs quite well without MWD. If you shoose your complexes wisely, the NPC's will come to you, grently drifting into Blaster optimal range
Kerry	Posted - 2004.12.21 14:57:00 - [80] Originally by: Avon Originally by: ElCoCo Originally by: Avon In that case it doesn't nerf close range set-ups as claimed, does it? Yes it does as you spend more time trying to get to your target so you take more damage but that's not my point. So with a long range set-up you don't spend more time trying to get away from your target, thus taking more damage? Think man, think! ... back at ya, my bonus was completely wiped out of the most major patch added content. What is that about? Really now. That is what this is about. Close combat was removed from the game(unless like Discorporation thinks...) Originally by: Discorporation A thorax performs quite well without MWD. If you shoose your complexes wisely, the NPC's will come to you, grently drifting into Blaster optimal range
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:00:00 - [81] Originally by: ElCoCo That would be an accurate comparison if for instance they said you were forbidden to use shieldboosters in deadspace. That would make a shield boost bonus on a Moa useless, not just decrease it's effect in some cases like what you say with the optimal range. That where I'm going here I'm just saying, attaching alternate bonusses for ships tied into different situations is bad ;/ Originally by: ElCoCo Yup ofcourse... although with current standing losses formula it's almost suicidal to be rejecting missions, but that's another story. And anyway I just hop into a raven for doing kill missions.... fun huh? Oh well... going home now...bbl k, cya later! [Heterocephalus glaber]
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:00:00 - [82] Originally by: ElCoCo That would be an accurate comparison if for instance they said you were forbidden to use shieldboosters in deadspace. That would make a shield boost bonus on a Moa useless, not just decrease it's effect in some cases like what you say with the optimal range. That where I'm going here I'm just saying, attaching alternate bonusses for ships tied into different situations is bad ;/ Originally by: ElCoCo Yup ofcourse... although with current standing losses formula it's almost suicidal to be rejecting missions, but that's another story. And anyway I just hop into a raven for doing kill missions.... fun huh? Oh well... going home now...bbl k, cya later! [Heterocephalus glaber]
Avon	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:07:00 - [83] >Obligatory post to show interest in the thread, and so Disco doesn't feel ignored< ______________________________________________ Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience.
Avon	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:07:00 - [84] >Obligatory post to show interest in the thread, and so Disco doesn't feel ignored< ______________________________________________ Never argue with idiots. They will just drag it down to their level, and then beat you through experience.
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:10:00 - [85] >Obligatory witty comment to show my appreciation for being noticed< [Heterocephalus glaber]
Discorporation	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:10:00 - [86] >Obligatory witty comment to show my appreciation for being noticed< [Heterocephalus glaber]
Kretin Arnon	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:24:00 - [87] 1: You can decline a mission every 4'th hout with out any standing loss at all. That should easy up on the unwanted missions. 2: I vote NO. 3: Where are the empire controlled cmplexes? I need something new to shoot up.
Kretin Arnon	Posted - 2004.12.21 15:24:00 - [88] 1: You can decline a mission every 4'th hout with out any standing loss at all. That should easy up on the unwanted missions. 2: I vote NO. 3: Where are the empire controlled cmplexes? I need something new to shoot up.
Arkive	Posted - 2004.12.21 19:08:00 - [89] Edited by: Arkive on 21/12/2004 19:09:36 Ok, clearly folks want Deadspace to be left the way it is, at least moreso then they want it changed. I can appreciate that. I don't want to change an aspect of the game if that's the way the majority likes it, and in retrospect, as someone pointed out it would make zipping through them far too easy (not that that's how I'd play it, just that I never thought of it that way). How about this instead, can players who use speed and distance to kill NPC's, can CCP at least waive the standing penalty for denying those types of missions? And yes, I know I can ignore one every 4 hours, but 4 hours is a long friggin time esepcially when RL stuff only allows me bits and pieces of time to play here and there (and not to mention that 4 of the last 6 missions I got from my Agent were Deadspace missions). Or maybe even there were a handful agents in each Corp that didn't send you on Deadspace missions.
Arkive	Posted - 2004.12.21 19:08:00 - [90] Edited by: Arkive on 21/12/2004 19:09:36 Ok, clearly folks want Deadspace to be left the way it is, at least moreso then they want it changed. I can appreciate that. I don't want to change an aspect of the game if that's the way the majority likes it, and in retrospect, as someone pointed out it would make zipping through them far too easy (not that that's how I'd play it, just that I never thought of it that way). How about this instead, can players who use speed and distance to kill NPC's, can CCP at least waive the standing penalty for denying those types of missions? And yes, I know I can ignore one every 4 hours, but 4 hours is a long friggin time esepcially when RL stuff only allows me bits and pieces of time to play here and there (and not to mention that 4 of the last 6 missions I got from my Agent were Deadspace missions). Or maybe even there were a handful agents in each Corp that didn't send you on Deadspace missions.

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

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