| Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
d Ankou
   |
Posted - 2005.04.22 01:21:00 -
[1]
This may need to be moved to the ideas thread but i'll stick it here none the less 
Warp core strength of ships is the subject. I think ships should have a natural warp strength. So for example a frigate would have 0, coz its small and therefore easy to unstabilize the warp system. However, a BS could say have +4 as its a big ship, it needs more to make it unstable.
I bring this up as I think its a little stupid to think that a warp scrambler will have the same effect on a frigate as it does on a battleship.
Proposal as follows for warp strength
Frigs - including specialist = 0 warp core strength
cruisers, industrials, transports = +2
Battleships = +4
Ok, so the figures might need tweaking but what are the thoughts on this. EW has been tweaked recently except this which strikes me as being odd. At least bring in a stab greater than +1 
any thoughts?
PS. Yes i use scramblers as well so not just being a carebear, think its all unbalanced thats all
What better place than here, what better time than now? |
DrunkenOne
|
Posted - 2005.04.22 02:26:00 -
[2]
Edited by: DrunkenOne on 22/04/2005 02:27:25
 Originally by: d Ankou
This may need to be moved to the ideas thread but i'll stick it here none the less
Warp core strength of ships is the subject. I think ships should have a natural warp strength. So for example a frigate would have 0, coz its small and therefore easy to unstabilize the warp system. However, a BS could say have +4 as its a big ship, it needs more to make it unstable.
I bring this up as I think its a little stupid to think that a warp scrambler will have the same effect on a frigate as it does on a battleship.
Proposal as follows for warp strength
Frigs - including specialist = 0 warp core strength
cruisers, industrials, transports = +2
Battleships = +4
Ok, so the figures might need tweaking but what are the thoughts on this. EW has been tweaked recently except this which strikes me as being odd. At least bring in a stab greater than +1
Maybe the worst idea I have ever heard, regarding anything, ever.
Quote:
PS. Yes i use scramblers as well so not just being a carebear, think its all unbalanced thats all
lying makes baby jesus cry.
|
Cherok
|
Posted - 2005.04.22 02:35:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Cherok on 22/04/2005 02:55:19
Originally by: d Ankou
Proposal as follows for warp strength
Frigs - including specialist = 0 warp core strength
cruisers, industrials, transports = +2
Battleships = +4
Ok, so the figures might need tweaking but what are the thoughts on this. EW has been tweaked recently except this which strikes me as being odd. At least bring in a stab greater than +1
any thoughts?
PS. Yes i use scramblers as well so not just being a carebear, think its all unbalanced thats all
really really really really really really bad idea
Kinda sums up how I feel about your suggestion.
Keep em coming, really.
while humorous it isn't exactly constructive or good to read on a empty stomach  - Grosvenor Corama
|
spangle monkey
|
Posted - 2005.04.22 02:44:00 -
[4]
I don't really agree with the idea, but i do think there should be better or at least more diverse ways to deal with scrambling (from both scrambler and scrambled pov).
As for the other 2 replys, i presume the idea doesn't suit your game plan?
|
DrunkenOne
|
Posted - 2005.04.22 03:18:00 -
[5]
Originally by: spangle monkey
I don't really agree with the idea, but i do think there should be better or at least more diverse ways to deal with scrambling (from both scrambler and scrambled pov).
As for the other 2 replys, i presume the idea doesn't suit your game plan?
well it would make solo pvp worthless, no one would ever be able to kill eachother except in fleet battles, frigs would be extinct again cause you would need 3 scamblers to scramble one UNSTABBED bs (let alone if that bs had stabs), no one would ever fly anything besides a BS because why fly a frig when A) you cant tackle and B) your bs can get away from any fight.
|
Hotice
|
Posted - 2005.04.22 06:23:00 -
[6]
I like the idea. It is more logical than what it is now for sure. Battleship shouldn't be effected by a frigate webbing/warp disrruptor due to pure thrust and mass. Consider web/warp disrruptor both are based on energy. How could a frigate sized reactor match the power of Battleship reactor? Each class ship should have their own thruster and warp core strength. If a smaller ship want to effect large ship in anyway, then the smaller ship must use all it's resource to do it. It is just silly to see a small frigate goes in with 1 webber and warp disrruptor then stop a huge battleship cold.
Please don't use 1v1 pvp as argument. Nobody stop anybody from flying battleship. Always trying to use inty/frigate/AF to kill a Battle cruiser or Battleship is just foolish. It shouldn't happen at all. When was the last time 1 frigate size ship sunk a battleship in past 60 years?
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.04.22 07:04:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Ithildin on 22/04/2005 07:06:51
Originally by: Hotice
I like the idea. It is more logical than what it is now for sure. Battleship shouldn't be effected by a frigate webbing/warp disrruptor due to pure thrust and mass. Consider web/warp disrruptor both are based on energy. How could a frigate sized reactor match the power of Battleship reactor? Each class ship should have their own thruster and warp core strength. If a smaller ship want to effect large ship in anyway, then the smaller ship must use all it's resource to do it. It is just silly to see a small frigate goes in with 1 webber and warp disrruptor then stop a huge battleship cold.
Please don't use 1v1 pvp as argument. Nobody stop anybody from flying battleship. Always trying to use inty/frigate/AF to kill a Battle cruiser or Battleship is just foolish. It shouldn't happen at all. When was the last time 1 frigate size ship sunk a battleship in past 60 years?
One of the most deadly living organisms on earth right now isn't a big brutish juggernaught of doom. It's actually a rather small creature group often called virus. It infects the massive human body, reproduce, and cause that massive and many times larger body to fail.
A webbifier or warp scrambler is not a rope thrown around the opposing ship, it is infectious nano-electrical virus that destabilizes the rather fragile warp drives of the massive battleships (also note how the difficulty of bringing a ship over light speed and into warp is increased by mass and size rather than the opposite). An unstable warp drive would be suicide to initiate, and thus even the smallest ships can implant an electronic virus into a much greater ship to cause it's failsafe systems to save the pilot (and yes, even his pod, which if destroyed in a failed warp tunnel, will not activate a new clone!)
You see what I am trying to tell you?
Size != power
Not in a high-tech society, at least.
Originally by: Hotice
When was the last time 1 frigate size ship sunk a battleship in past 60 years?
They aren't sunk that much because battleships are too large and highly outdated. There is no production of battleships anymore, and those in service often dates back to before 1950.
In modern times battleships are outdated because they are so easily sunk by destroyers and smaller crafts. Go figure, lad.
It's only in video games that you can survive a bullet to your chest. In real life if it doesn't kill you it maims you. Everything is just a lot more fragile here.
--
If TC causes you discomfort that you feel is unwarranted or may be outside TC's current contract - contact me, please. |
Ademaro Imre
|
Posted - 2005.04.22 14:19:00 -
[8]
I think its truly pathetic some of the respnses made in this thread by trulymall minded people. Although unable to disagree with you, they are unable to point out why they disagree or why your idea might not be good.
I like the idea, and apparently so does CCP. In the new attributes, engine propulsion strength is given. And it only makes sense that a largeer engine would create a greater strength. It hard to see how a frigate module could overcome a battleship's engine. People complain about nerfs, the current system is a built in nerf and shoul dbe un-nerfed.
|
Alyth
|
Posted - 2005.04.22 15:02:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Ademaro Imre
I think its truly pathetic some of the respnses made in this thread by trulymall minded people. Although unable to disagree with you, they are unable to point out why they disagree or why your idea might not be good.
I like the idea, and apparently so does CCP. In the new attributes, engine propulsion strength is given. And it only makes sense that a largeer engine would create a greater strength. It hard to see how a frigate module could overcome a battleship's engine. People complain about nerfs, the current system is a built in nerf and shoul dbe un-nerfed.
Well....seeing as how all this is coming with the web and warp jammer changes anyways I don't think theres much point discussing it. Scrams are gonna be like the new ECM:- Chance based, hence the new drive stats.
Anyhoo.....if you read the description of a scrambler it says it affects the ships computer, not the drive itself so it's highly possible for a small device to disrupt a large computer.
|
Azmodaus
|
Posted - 2005.04.22 15:17:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Ademaro Imre
I think its truly pathetic some of the respnses made in this thread by trulymall minded people. Although unable to disagree with you, they are unable to point out why they disagree or why your idea might not be good.
I like the idea, and apparently so does CCP. In the new attributes, engine propulsion strength is given. And it only makes sense that a largeer engine would create a greater strength. It hard to see how a frigate module could overcome a battleship's engine. People complain about nerfs, the current system is a built in nerf and shoul dbe un-nerfed.
I have noticed these changes as well, much to my dismay. However, as the previous poster has mentioned, it will come with new warp scram changes as well which makes your arguement a moot point. I might be wrong but I think I read something about the devs releasing stronger warp scrams to counter the increased warp core strenghs? I hope it never happens. In my honest opinion the warp scram/defense is well balanced as it is and shouldn't be messed with but alas, the devs just can't help but whip out the venerated nerf bat on something that needs no fixing rather than address issues that truely need thier attention 
|
|
|
Arimas Talasko
|
Posted - 2005.04.22 15:25:00 -
[11]
I don't understand how people can think that the current WCS module is not already horribly unbalanced. Adding even more difficulties for tacklers is about the worst thing that can happen now; existing WCS are already super powerful.
Supremacy Keepin it Real |
TZeer
|
Posted - 2005.04.22 16:01:00 -
[12]
I dont things will change that much.
Already now it`s harder to scramble a bigger ship then a small one. (More lowslots for wcs)
The basic will be the same but how u do it will change.
They might have some ship`s special for scrambling down the road to.
|
Oron
|
Posted - 2005.04.23 04:03:00 -
[13]
Edited by: Oron on 23/04/2005 04:06:31
i dont like the concrete numbers of the orginal post BUT
currently its to easy to warp scramble. One of the t2 scramblers had +3 str! You need 3 low slots moduls to neutrelize one of this beasts.
btw since last patch ships has XXX propulse strength in their atts i guess its from the scramble changes and are not active but i like this idea and hop devs try to tweak this again.
see you outa space
Oron
Deep Space Services
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |