| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ErrorS
Caldari
   |
Posted - 2011.02.10 15:24:00 -
[1]
It would make a lot people mad and ruin a lot of setups, but I feel like the game would be more fun. It would 'nerf' the overpowered ships to a normal level, and the rest of the ships would fit in place naturally. The only ships I think any of us are bothered by are only strong because of module stacking. Certain unnamed ships have a nerf coming anyways, even if it hasn't been mentioned, we all know it.
I think it would add more variation and fun in ship setups as well.
________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
Tenar Heaney
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 16:25:00 -
[2]
Edited by: Tenar Heaney on 10/02/2011 16:26:25
Edited by: Tenar Heaney on 10/02/2011 16:25:35
I think the current system of diminishing returns works just fine.
.
|
Jag Kara
Dirty Work Inc.
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 16:35:00 -
[3]
While we're at it, lets make it so resistance mods can get you to 100% resistance across the board.
/not supported
In Soviet Russia, carebears gank YOU! |
Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 17:04:00 -
[4]
It just doesn't work, when there are bonuses which give percentage bonuses. Such bonuses grow insanely huge very quickly and become gamebreaking. I've seen many games start without a stacking penalty system, EVE included, and without fail a short time later they all either have a stacking penalty or a hard limit on how many similar affects a person can have.
/not supported.
|
Malcanis
Caldari
Vanishing Point.
The Initiative.
|
Posted - 2011.02.10 21:54:00 -
[5]
I too think that 4000 DPS abaddons are a good idea.
No, wait 
Mind you, this could make dreadnaughts relevent again...
Malcanis' Law: Whenever a mechanics change is proposed on behalf of "new players", that change is always to the overwhelming advantage of richer, older players. |
Robbie Robot
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 05:48:00 -
[6]
"What about no module stacking at all"
That means no stacking multiple modules of the same type. Instead of diminishing returns, it is "Module doesn't stack with with the same effect". He didn't say "What about no module stacking penalty".
Would this include having multiple armor/shield repair modules? What about capacitor modules? I know that when I do PvE, you have to be cap stable while having an armor rep running. They would have to increase overall cap recharge and shield recharge, or totally revamp PvE. I'm in favor of having more tools to use, instead of having all mid slots cap recharger II's, but I'm wary of this proposal to overhaul the entire fitting system.
I think it would make the game much easier to balance from a CCP perspective, but would require a complete rebalance of the entire system.
<this end up> |
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 12:53:00 -
[7]
What is the goal of your nerf exactly?
- only 1 hp boosting module of each kind (1 shield extender, 1 armor plate, ecc)?
- only 1 module affecting the same stat of the ship (cap recharger, hardener, tracking computer, ecc.)?
- or what?
And what will happen when 1 get to use only 1 tracking computer but my enemy bear 2 or 3 tracking disruptors against my ships (or ECM, or TD, ecc.)?
What will happen when more than one of my friends is RRing me?
Only the strongest module will work? 1 from each ship? Every module coming from other ships will be affecting me but only one of mine would affect me?
Give a reply to all the above and we will see if your idea has some merit.
|
ErrorS
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 15:43:00 -
[8]
I just mean modules.
I can fit one DCU, should be one hardener of each type (one kenetic, one em, etc), one invul field, one extender. Basically just the stat boosting modules. If you think about it, VERY few ship configurations would actually change and those very few are considered overpowered and are going to get 'nerfed' in the future anyways.
I just think hardeners and extenders/plates are too powerful, CCP has been fighting these modules since the game came into being. I'd say just kill shield extenders, but I think a lot of the damage mods screw up mechanics a bit too much.
Obviously not all modules. ECM ships with multiple ECMs, webs, etc.. anything offensive doesn't really count as they're more lke mid-mounted weapons.
and a lot of you think you wouldn't be able to adapt, I'd like to know some ships that would be totally ruined by this change.
Name 3 ships that will become useless in level 4 missions that aren't Battlecruisers (who really shouldn't be solo in Level4 missions) and I'll agree that this change would be stupid.
Or PVP ships that will become completely useless because of this change.
________
I'm strict Caldari
"The grass is always greener on the other side" - Maybe they're not as uber as you think?
-ErrorS |
Robbie Robot
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 15:54:00 -
[9]
 Originally by: ErrorS
Name 3 ships that will become useless in level 4 missions that aren't Battlecruisers (who really shouldn't be solo in Level4 missions) and I'll agree that this change would be stupid.
my abaddon requires 2 hardeners of each type to do hard level 4's. Even Sansha ones require 3 total hardeners. So that means dual repping, and no high capacitor lasers. I'd be back to dual heavy pulse lasers, and Angel's don't take enough damage from those type (without 3 heat sinks) for me to complete the missions in a reasonable amount of time.
However, if they were to implement this, they could scale back NPC resistences and damage a bit to make them doable. [shamless prop]Either that or they could remove the team killing aspect of fleeting, making level 4's take more than one person[/shameless prop].
<this end up> |
Vertisce Soritenshi
SHADOW WARD
OWN Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 16:27:00 -
[10]
What is funny about this entire thread is that everybody has completely misunderstood the OP. He is not saying to "remove stacking penalty" of modules but to "remove module stacking" entirely. Meaning you can only have one BCU on your Drake...period. No need for a stacking penalty because you can't stack modules at all.
Personally I will not support this because it will then reduce the diversity of fits that we have right now and change the mechanics just a bit too much for my liking.
NO BOOBIES LEFT BEHIND! |
|
|
Robbie Robot
|
Posted - 2011.02.11 20:19:00 -
[11]
Originally by: Vertisce Soritenshi
What is funny about this entire thread is that everybody has completely misunderstood the OP. He is not saying to "remove stacking penalty" of modules but to "remove module stacking" entirely. Meaning you can only have one BCU on your Drake...period. No need for a stacking penalty because you can't stack modules at all.
Personally I will not support this because it will then reduce the diversity of fits that we have right now and change the mechanics just a bit too much for my liking.
What is funny is the lack of people reading the thread. The two people above the OP's last post knew it was no stacking.
<this end up> |
Aion Amarra
Minmatar
Real Nice And Laidback Corporation
Black Core Alliance
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 01:18:00 -
[12]
Originally by: ErrorS
Edited by: ErrorS on 11/02/2011 15:51:49
I can fit one DCU, should be one hardener of each type (one kenetic, one em, etc), one invul field, one extender.
The invul won't stack with the hardener that way, though.
|
Venkul Mul
Gallente
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 11:18:00 -
[13]
Originally by: ErrorS
If you think about it, VERY few ship configurations would actually change and those very few are considered overpowered and are going to get 'nerfed' in the future anyways.
....
Name 3 ships that will become useless in level 4 missions that aren't Battlecruisers (who really shouldn't be solo in Level4 missions) and I'll agree that this change would be stupid.
So essentially for the sake of nerfing the drake you want to:
- kill buffer tanks (no stacking of armour plates/shield exenders);
- kill resist set ups (no stacking of hardeners);
- kill gank set up (no stacking of damage and tracking buffing modules);
- kill sniper set up (no stacking of range and sensor enhancing modules);
- kill speed set up (no stacking of speed/agility mods).
At the same time you:
- want to allow staking of of webs, warp disruptors, ECM, target dampers, tracking disruptors, ecc. from the same ship because "anything offensive doesn't really count as they're more like mid-mounted weapons";
- suggest to use drones as a counter (whait, my omidirectional tracking links and c. will stack? They are "like mid-mounted weapons" too);
- "fit more launchers?", as there was plenty of people undrgunning theyr ships;
- suggest to adapt after nerfing the tools to adapt.
Your hate for drakes is very strong if it cloud your judgement so much.
|
Mr LaForge
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 13:29:00 -
[14]
OP needs to show us where the Drake of Supercarrier touched him.
Just for fun I took a battlecruiser in EFT and tried following the OP's rules. Its next to impossible to fit one how I want it. It resembles a noob fit tbh.
|
Corina's Bodyguard
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 20:44:00 -
[15]
So... just stat effecting modules. Like every module in the game (other than weapons, and reppers). So for industrials, we could only fit 1 cargo expander?
This is a bad, and not so thought out idea. Also it would make killing Sansha incursions take more than the beneficial fleet size, therefor removing the point of doing the incursion.
|
Flesh Slurper
Minmatar
|
Posted - 2011.02.12 21:22:00 -
[16]
I think stacking is a good thing, allowing for more diverse setups and choice.
Do you put on a different mod or take a stacking penalty to gain more of the same bonus you already have?
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 :: [one page] |