| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Raem Civrie
   |
Posted - 2005.04.26 08:54:00 -
[1]
What the topic says. Do you want the Dmg Mods to be limited to one per ship or increased in CPU requirement?
I personally feel that the latter course should be taken, but alongside that a skill introduced that reduces dmg mod CPU usage per level. Either that or a pre-existing skill adjusted.
|
Ortu Konsinni
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 09:10:00 -
[2]
Increased fitting requirements = no-no. A lot of frigates have enough fitting problems as it is.
|
Jim Steele
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 09:11:00 -
[3]
I like stacking damage mods.. so no.. the stacking penalty still applys so why do you want to nerf it again?
Death to the Galante |
Vaarmoth Malinigvious
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 09:13:00 -
[4]
You could always seperate dmg modifier and rof modifier into two seperate modules. Although that might be a bit extreme for some people and probably heavyly unbalanced on certin ships. |
Raem Civrie
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 09:15:00 -
[5]
I don't. TomB does. They require 30cpu as it is. Might be increased to 50cpu, but if we get a 5% reduction in CPU per skill level, with lvl 4 it would go down to 40. You can still manage.
As long as we don't get "one per ship" nerfs again. The MWD was ok, sure, but that's a special case.
|
Jim Steele
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 09:18:00 -
[6]
 Originally by: Raem Civrie
I don't. TomB does.
TomB and his dreaded nerf bat strikes again! anyway do you have the link to his post, i cant seem to find it
Death to the Galante |
Raem Civrie
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 09:39:00 -
[7]
I just heard it on the grapevine, I'm afraid. It sounded to TomB'ish that I decided to believe the whole concept straight away.
I wonder how these things happen. Does he sniff glue the whole day with Hammerhead and then come up with BRILLIANT things? Like...
"You know what would be funny? GIVING THE RETRIBUTION ONLY 1 LOWSLOT! HAHAHA-hurk-*vomiting sounds*"
or
"I bet if we screw with weapon mods, the statue of liberty will take her clothes off. Either that, or we lead a rebellion against our livers with liquor."
|
Loka
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 10:45:00 -
[8]
Restriction may be necessary, but let me warn all of you, who whine about current setups.
What makes EVE so fantastic? Imo one of EVE strength is the huge versatility of ships. The huge amount of different setups for different situation makes EVE great.
If CCP continue to nerf our abilitys to develop great setups for our ships, one of the biggest plus point in EVE will be gone and for sure EVE will loose some of its attractiveness.
You say gankships are overpower, i say attack gankships with 3 frigates and it has 0 chance. No defense only offense, you sacrifice a lot for the firepower you gain.
_____________________________________
Dead or Alive
|
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 10:48:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Raem Civrie
I just heard it on the grapevine, I'm afraid. It sounded to TomB'ish that I decided to believe the whole concept straight away.
I wonder how these things happen. Does he sniff glue the whole day with Hammerhead and then come up with BRILLIANT things? Like...
"You know what would be funny? GIVING THE RETRIBUTION ONLY 1 LOWSLOT! HAHAHA-hurk-*vomiting sounds*"
or
"I bet if we screw with weapon mods, the statue of liberty will take her clothes off. Either that, or we lead a rebellion against our livers with liquor."
Let me guess, you believe everything you read on the internet too. Thought so.
~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~
A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX
The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Raem Civrie
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 12:29:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Gariuys
Let me guess, you believe everything you read on the internet too. Thought so.
Only when it's about TomB and nerfing
|
OzaLoni
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 12:32:00 -
[11]
I think stacking dmg mods should stay... if u don't know how to tank a BS u should not be flying one......
There are loads of different ways to configure your ship, if u choose to mass the damage up, don't cry when u get ganked by 3-4 bs's..... As is previously stated, the skills required to get to that level (ie 20 sec kills) is quiet a bit .....
I digress - I think if this is introduced its just another set of skills to frighten new plays off from the game....... I understand the new EW skills are kind of required, but i think the specialisation of dmg mod skills is OTT
The Great Oz... |
Ishmael Hansen
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 13:37:00 -
[12]
Totally agree with Loka, it doesn't mind how you fitt your ship, there isn't any way to have a invincible-in-all-situation setup, there is always a counter setup. If you take, or restrict the choices each one can make in his own ship you take away all the fun, and the great thing about this game.
Every damned day there is a new post about some module being overpowered, raven is overpowered, mega is overpowered, gankageddon is overpowered, wcs are overpowered, target painters are overpowered, torps are overpowered...
I bet everytime someone looses a ship he thinks "hey, that guy just killed me, he must be overpowered, how the hell can he beat my ubber ship, lets go to the forums and moan"
Tomb, use your nerf bat on my ISP, I wanna play eve again, he for once is underpowered.
|
Heikki
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 14:11:00 -
[13]
Originally by: Loka
What makes EVE so fantastic? Imo one of EVE strength is the huge versatility of ships. The huge amount of different setups for different situation makes EVE great.
I think that is just what CCP is trying to do with these nerfs and boosts; to make sure there is no win-all ship&setup.
Hope they could implement some kind of dynamic balancing. Like the more people are using module X, the weaker it stats would get..
-Lasse
|
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 14:14:00 -
[14]
Originally by: Heikki
Originally by: Loka
What makes EVE so fantastic? Imo one of EVE strength is the huge versatility of ships. The huge amount of different setups for different situation makes EVE great.
I think that is just what CCP is trying to do with these nerfs and boosts; to make sure there is no win-all ship&setup.
Hope they could implement some kind of dynamic balancing. Like the more people are using module X, the weaker it stats would get..
-Lasse
And with the amount of modules, skill lvls and ships we got atm. That can't be easy.
Your idea is a bit sucky to be honest, cause how would that work for modules everybody has on every ship. Damage mods are a good example. Or guns, or shield boosters/ armor reps. hardners. And how to balance that against how many people are flying different races ships. Just wouldn't work.
~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~
A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX
The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Darrik
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 15:12:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Loka
Hope they could implement some kind of dynamic balancing. Like the more people are using module X, the weaker it stats would get..
-Lasse
problem is certain mods r used more then others because u have to have them, whith ur idea XL/L shield boosters and armour repairers would end up worse then there med and small versions.
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 15:26:00 -
[16]
Not that it should matter but it would probably my last staw as an Amarri player, i'd probably quit if dmg mods were nerfed.
Perhaps if our ships were not designed to ***** them i would not feel so bad.
Anyway, there is no indictation of damage mods being nerfed, afaik the last word on them was that they are untouchable.
________________________________________________________
|
Damien Vox
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 15:33:00 -
[17]
All I have to say is if damage mods get a CPU boost the Jag and Wolf better get more CPU and PG because its hard as is to fit those two ships especially the Wolf.
|
Mr rooflez
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 15:39:00 -
[18]
Why not do it like this?:
Make 3 different sizes of damage mods, one for medium, one for small, and one for large.
Decrease the small ones fitting reqirements and increase the large ones.
|
Jim Steele
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 16:00:00 -
[19]
Edited by: Jim Steele on 26/04/2005 16:01:16
Originally by: Damien Vox
All I have to say is if damage mods get a CPU boost the Jag and Wolf better get more CPU and PG because its hard as is to fit those two ships especially the Wolf.
crusaders and maledictions are also hard to fit... it is anoying since the pulse nerf getting a decent setup for range on one.
I also dont like the idea of limiting damage mods, more make tanking a bit more effective, either by increasing resists or increasing hitpoints (which was on the test server for a while but went the way of the bat.. )
Death to the Galante |
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 16:17:00 -
[20]
Originally by: Meridius
Not that it should matter but it would probably my last staw as an Amarri player, i'd probably quit if dmg mods were nerfed.
Perhaps if our ships were not designed to ***** them i would not feel so bad.
Anyway, there is no indictation of damage mods being nerfed, afaik the last word on them was that they are untouchable.
amarr arent designed to fit damage mods, they are designed to tank. players just got smart and realized that the abundance of lowslots meant they made awesome gank platforms.
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 16:21:00 -
[21]
Originally by: Selim
amarr arent designed to fit damage mods, they are designed to tank. players just got smart and realized that the abundance of lowslots meant they made awesome gank platforms.
Really, so thats why a Zealot has all those lowslots right?
I suppose the Sacrilege isn't suppose to be the tank hac right
________________________________________________________
|
Jim Steele
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 17:02:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Selim
amarr arent designed to fit damage mods, they are designed to tank. players just got smart and realized that the abundance of lowslots meant they made awesome gank platforms.
Quote:
The mighty Armageddon class is the main warship of the Amarr Empire. Its heavy armaments and strong front are specially designed to crash into any battle like a juggernaut and deliver swift justice in the name of the Emperor.
So the geddon is meant to armout tank is it?? No in my opinion the Amarr ships are meant to be lethal, why? since they are easily countered with a em and thermal hardener.
Death to the Galante |
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 17:15:00 -
[23]
Edited by: Selim on 26/04/2005 17:16:26
You found an exception to the normal situation, yipee!
Yes, the zealot and geddon does seem to be made for ganking.
And yes, the sacrilege is funny with its only average lowslot number, but thats mostly because it is a khanid ship.
But for the most part amarr are entirely designed to tank, and tank well; the fact that they are the best at fitting craploads of damage mods is a side effect of that. Just because amarr have more lowslots doesnt mean that they are 'made for ganking'. Thats just a consequence of players realizing that although amarr lowslots were given to them by ccp for tanking, they can be equally used for damage mods.
I'd say the gallente and minmatar are more of the damage mod type anyway, their weaker tanks means that forgoing tanking altogether and focusing damage is more their 'style'. Once again, of course, they dont have to do that. Thats what makes ships fun, you can set them up in countless ways, and the same applies to amarr.
edit: and honestly who cares? it doesnt matter what the amarr are meant to do, you can set ships up in whatever ways you want and nerfing damage mods doesnt make amarr useless.
And I would like to clarify that I dont want damage mods nerfed.
|
mavskji
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 17:17:00 -
[24]
OK Lets limit tanking modules to one per ship or give them higher fitting requirements...
how about NO 
|
Sadist
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 17:46:00 -
[25]
Edited by: Sadist on 26/04/2005 17:46:43
I would be for this idea, if their stats were changed to 20-25% ROF and 20-25% damage, this would save a slot or 2 on some ships that have trouble with them, but have spare CPU.
_______________________________________________
|
Gierling
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 19:41:00 -
[26]
I'm waiting for the day they decide that ALL modules will no longer stack.
Could you imagine the howls and the screams...
Bastards we are lest Bastards we become. |
Discorporation
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 19:48:00 -
[27]
Originally by: Selim
rephrase: Amarr ships are desgined for tanking but eve ships fun coz you can set them upp for anything!
[Heterocephalus glaber]
|
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 19:51:00 -
[28]
Originally by: Discorporation
Originally by: Selim
rephrase: Amarr ships are desgined for tanking but eve ships fun coz you can set them upp for anything!
Discorporation FTW
~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~
A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX
The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Damien Vox
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 19:55:00 -
[29]
Originally by: Discorporation
Originally by: Selim
rephrase: Amarr ships are desgined for tanking but eve ships fun coz you can set them upp for anything!
Unless your Minmatar then you can't viably do anything but watch the welding peel off with the 'uber' speed bonuses.
|
TaaS
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 20:29:00 -
[30]
Damage mods can sometmies be a major waist of a slot. I would say they are one of the most balanced items in game |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 21:36:00 -
[31]
Damage mods are really OK, the problem is that passive tanking mods are so horrible.
An active tank can't repair fast enough to keep you alive against gankships, and shield extenders, armor plates, resistance plating etc. are just not anywhere near as efficient as damage mods - and on top of all that, you can't fit 6 or 7 modules to improve active tanking on your ship because a good active tank already takes up 4-5 slots.
Also the diminishing returns on resistances are a lot more severe then on damage mods, at high resistances the benefit you can gain from fitting more hardeners become marginal, stacking them is nor really possible...
|
Shamis Orzoz
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 22:19:00 -
[32]
Every item in eve should have constant stats, and no fitting restrictions.
They put in fitting restrictions a long time ago, they were called powergrid and cpu. With each additional restriction they add, eve gets a little dumber.
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 22:38:00 -
[33]
Originally by: Discorporation
Originally by: Selim
rephrase: Amarr ships are desgined for tanking but eve ships fun coz you can set them upp for anything!
What is your point?
Of existance, I mean.
|
Panzer Faust
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 23:01:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Discorporation
Originally by: Selim
rephrase: Amarr ships are desgined for tanking but eve ships fun coz you can set them upp for anything!
+1
Exactly.
they aren't made for tanking, neither for gank setup, the real strongpoint of eve is that you can set em up for whatever you want, don't restrict them to one precise role.
---
Proud Owner of a Navy Issue Raven. |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 23:15:00 -
[35]
While that is true, certain ships lend themselves better to one setup the others. Nobody uses a gank-apoc or a tanking-geddon.
|
Panzer Faust
|
Posted - 2005.04.26 23:22:00 -
[36]
Nobody? ever tried an apoc with a full rack of tachyons dmg mods and tracking comps in meds? thats a hell of a sniper. And as the apoc has more powergrid than a geddon, apoc is way better for that job imo.
As for geddon, quite alot of ppl still use them for npcing (even tho apoc can tank better, dont forget geddons are cheaper... and still nice)
---
Proud Owner of a Navy Issue Raven. |
Plim
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 01:06:00 -
[37]
As a general rule when you setup a turret ship for gank, you usually cannot tank properly - for obvious reasons. Therefore this is balanced.
...
WTF! Balanced!  NERF IT QUICK! QUICK!!!! FOR THE LOVE OF GOD! WONT SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!
*ahem*
Needless to say I think nerfing damages mods is the stupidest idea ever.
-----------------
|
Antic
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 01:18:00 -
[38]
Edited by: Antic on 27/04/2005 01:19:23
Whats the point of a tank if the best tank gets broken by a gank setup anyway? thats not "multiple roles, and counter tactics for every tactic" thats inbalance. Pure damage is better than every other alternative in eve, to a point where its the only real choise. Also once you get above 1 Vs 1 ship combat then a tank gets even more useless but the gank setup just gets more effective. As a tank that cant handle 1 gank ships damage for sure cant handle 2 or more. so 2 gankers vs 2 tankers = gankers win every time.
Now if combat actualy lasted more than a couple of seconds then perhaps things could have a chance of being different. Meaning that the tank ships can have a chance of exploiting the gank ships lack of defence. They dont today.
But it seems like people in eve want to keep these "I win" buttons that gank setups are infront of real diversity.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 01:38:00 -
[39]
I do think T2 damage mods are about 5 CPU low.
And yes, I do use them on several setups I use.
*shrugs*
They're "fine" as it is, I just feel that a slight tweak could easily be justified. No more than a slight tweak, mind you.
"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" |
Noriath
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 01:42:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Antic
But it seems like people in eve want to keep these "I win" buttons that gank setups are infront of real diversity.
That's the story of all MMORPGs, the number of people who just uses whatever the flavor of the month is and wants to hold on to that till the end of the world will always be greater then the number of people who want a game that is rich in different strategies that can achieve the same results...
|
DrunkenOne
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 02:48:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Heikki
Originally by: Loka
What makes EVE so fantastic? Imo one of EVE strength is the huge versatility of ships. The huge amount of different setups for different situation makes EVE great.
Hope they could implement some kind of dynamic balancing. Like the more people are using module X, the weaker it stats would get..
-Lasse
So what would you do if they had "dynamic balancing" on warp stabs and smartbombs?
|
Sorja
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 03:45:00 -
[42]
One per ship, definately.
Damage mods stacking completely defeats the tanking setups and make fleet fights a joke.
CCP is well aware of the problem, and tried to fix it by increasing ship hitpoints, which has proven impossible because it would cause even more unbalances.
This nerf is unavoidable, and there's no reason to be upset about it if you like to fight.
Bad news for gankers and snipers though...
Seriously, who is against longer fights?
Who is against fights were tactics and maneuvers matter?
Who thinks gankfests are fun?
|
gr8razorx
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 04:24:00 -
[43]
If ccp were to ever change so only one dmg mod per ship was allowed i personally would hope they do the same with warp core stabs or any other module for that matter. First off when in a fleet engagement your primary targets are not going to benefit from having any sort of tank on. You will never under any circumstances be able to tank vs a fleet. So what else to spend your lows on? Lets face it not a heck of alot. Tracking enhancers and dmg mods are the only things usefull in fleet combat. So as for hampering our fleet setup's i would strongly suggest not to do so
My Stats |
Zenst
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 05:30:00 -
[44]
Well all these people who stack dmg mods are neglecting other area's that require low-slots, So its a balance/choice they make.
Now pro's/cons aside it would make logical sence that the cap usage of the gun went up in proportion to the DMG output, least as far as lasers are concerned. Of course this will hit Amarr the hardest but its there choice to stack away then and they have the cap love to handle it. Galantes's will get semi hit and Minimater will go waheyy with caldari's still scratching there heads like wanabe NPC pirates going "whats going on" in large groups.
Ok why has this issue been raised, well gankegeddons- simple as. I personaly dont touch Amarr or Minamater BS's but still dont mean there sexy in there own right. You can take any BS and stuff its lows with DMG mods (imagine the days when there was no stacking penalty - happy days) But you end up neglectinging other area's. Given these gankaships do pretty much focused dmg types with simple scouting and little planning you can setup a ship to tank em kill them in couple of voleys, remember they have no tank at all, just pure damage.
Anyhow lets play this out.
gankaships to powerfull - solution nerf dmg mods even more.
dmg mods get nerfed so all amarr's go ew what new tricks can we do, we have biggest caps lets fit load of neuits sensor boosters and end up cap whacking them instantly so even our scout in a velator can ri;p them apart let alone our drones.
Crowds gather and declare amarr ships too overpowered as they have bigger caps than anybody else and bigger powergrids to fit more cap batteries so there caps even bigger.
New posts start forming how they should nerf nosferatu's/energy neuts and amrarrians cap......
Its a balance, look at both sides and the longterm aspects. If its a good solution then adapt it; If it dont suit your style then work around it.
Take ECM , people said it was overpowered, now its well err nice but whilst in some ways better in others it is lacking. ECM damage mods would be nice, given it has a sudo `tracking` kinda factor to it in that you role zee dice.....
Personaly I'd like to see cap usage proportionatly increased be shot in relation to ANY added damage mod. So a 10% dmg bost whislt already eating more cap due to rate of fire increase would also increase in cap usage per shot. Coz still dont eliminate gank ships but would mean that there more suitable for people who have the skills beyond say a few levels in certain area's. On on that I'll end my input as you just dont want to get me started on the whole 2 month nublets flying ravens with named mods whoring agents and having more isk than most players earned the hard way over two years.
So in summary I dont care i fly scorpions and megathrons and my nerf bat credit is well up so yeah kill the dmg mods do it, i dont care at all as might actualy make some of my SP's more valuable :) but please please please, gimp up the missile first and give us some ecm damage mods now you have made it possible to have ships almost impossible to jam (yes there is a way and I know its not stacking the now totalay usless T2 backup arrays) a more cunning way and i'm not telling lalalalallalala :D
So any chance of putting the people who brought us the great ECM changes and the excellent AP fix's. Any chance you can set them onto the DMG mods. Hey maybe give the work to hammer so it can slip in thru that great QA net every ew other patch it not meant to be in.
Do it I dare you :)
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 06:26:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Sorja
One per ship, definately.
Damage mods stacking completely defeats the tanking setups and make fleet fights a joke.
CCP is well aware of the problem, and tried to fix it by increasing ship hitpoints, which has proven impossible because it would cause even more unbalances.
This nerf is unavoidable, and there's no reason to be upset about it if you like to fight.
Bad news for gankers and snipers though...
Seriously, who is against longer fights?
Who is against fights were tactics and maneuvers matter?
Who thinks gankfests are fun?
How horribly ignorant.
Guess what, ships will tank forever with 1 dmg mod limited per ship. Battleships won't be able to break other battleships tank 1 on 1 without nossing the hell out of them.
To sum up, this idea would kill solo play and further encourage large gank fleets.
Don't even get me started about how logging off plays into this...
Great idea, really
________________________________________________________
|
Bad'Boy
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 06:38:00 -
[46]
yea, lets all fly tanked APOCS...not
B.A.D.B.O.Y.: Biomechanical Android Designed for Battle and Online Yelling
"Bad Boys,Bad Boys, what you gonna do, what you gonna do when WE come for yoU"
|
Gabriel Karade
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 08:30:00 -
[47]
Originally by: Sorja
One per ship, definately.
Damage mods stacking completely defeats the tanking setups and make fleet fights a joke.
CCP is well aware of the problem, and tried to fix it by increasing ship hitpoints, which has proven impossible because it would cause even more unbalances.
This nerf is unavoidable, and there's no reason to be upset about it if you like to fight.
Bad news for gankers and snipers though...
Seriously, who is against longer fights?
Who is against fights were tactics and maneuvers matter?
Who thinks gankfests are fun?
You have zero, I repeat ZERO defence when using a 'gank' setup, so where is the problem? (And by the way, that is the Gallente Philosophy to war-fighting -read the description on the Gallente logistics cruiser). Bringing fleet battles into this is also a complete red herring. You won't make a bit of difference to fleet battles until you make it worthwhile not focusing all firepower on one ship at a time...
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) "That's no ordinary rabbit!...that's the most foul, cruel and bad-tempered rodent you ever set eyes on" |
Flash Landsraad
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 08:55:00 -
[48]
I'm guessing those for the change are mining barge pilots who want a bit more of a chance from getting ganked in a belt....
________________________________________________
Stop Whining!!!
Level  Superiority |
Shayla Sh'inlux
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 09:30:00 -
[49]
Nerfing damage mods will make ships last 15 seconds in fleets instead of 10.
It will make small engagements a tank fest and totally boring and pointless. Logging tactics anyone?
It will also make EW fairly useless because what OTHER than the now useless Backup array II are you gonna stick in those lowslots in fleets?
Nanofibres? WCS? Armor plates?
Whatever you do to 'gank' setups, ganking will always occur and will always be effective. It will just take longer to destroy something. Even if you removed damage mods altogether and halved gun damage, people would STILL gank and it would still work just as effective and people would still complain about the 'gankageddon'.
-------------------------------------------------------
"Do you really think that's air you're breathing?" |
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 13:23:00 -
[50]
nerfing gankships with current EW, as lowslot backups are joke is really smart thing to do... i wonder if it will take 16 bs to kill 2 scorps...
|
ponieus
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 14:01:00 -
[51]
take away the stacking?... pffft..
what brilliant moron thought of this..?..
I mean seriously you take away the ability to loadout what you want. Fight how you want. Basically if this happens everyone and there mother will be tanking which is fleet combat is completely useless..
hmmm.....
|
Oberon Oblique
|
Posted - 2005.04.27 16:08:00 -
[52]
War is about destruction, and vast amounts of it. I say remove stacking penalties and lets have some real fun.
I love the fact that offence is stronger than defence, thats the way of combat.
Massed firepower is sheer joy, may all pilots fear the combined destructive power tapping them, reminding them to bring 2 gold coins for the ferry:D
-The mind is strong and the flesh is weak, but oh the flesh... |
Letifer Deus
|
Posted - 2005.04.28 02:28:00 -
[53]
I would simply suggest increasing the stacking penalty...
I am the OG PIIIIIMP |
Sorja
|
Posted - 2005.04.28 03:27:00 -
[54]
Edited by: Sorja on 28/04/2005 03:42:23
Originally by: Meridius
Ships will tank forever with 1 dmg mod limited per ship. Battleships won't be able to break other battleships tank 1 on 1 without nossing the hell out of them.
To sum up, this idea would kill solo play and further encourage large gank fleets.
Don't even get me started about how logging off plays into this...
1¦ Cap is limited so it won't mean it's impossible to beat an opponent 1 vs 1.
2¦ Eve is already Ganking Online. I for one would like to see more solo fights, but that's another topic. Better survivability means pilots will have more chances to align and escape if not tackled properly, while at the moment tacklers are not even needed in many fights.
3¦ Since cap would again be an issue, WCS would gimp the setups much more than now. Where's the difference between a pilot logging off and a pilot escaping with multi WCS fitted ? If a pilot accepts the fight, it will be too late for him to logoff when he sees he can't win the fight. And if more than 2 pilots are engaged, it won't be possible to log off in time anyways.
4¦ In large fleet fights, it doesn't matter much if people are tanked or not: they will go down if tackled properly, which proves full racks of damage mods are not necessary.
Those 10 or even 5 seconds more for a tanked ship will mean better chances to align and escape if not tackled, and the opportunity to come back to the fight after repairs.
Longer fights, more fun.
5¦ Removal of stacked damage mods will improve tactics. Tacklers will be more needed and cruisers could maybe play some role in fleet fights (after next patch that will improve them).
Removing stacking of damage mods isn't the end of the world, really.
Pilots will adapt, tactics will evolve.
Keep your mind open 
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.04.28 04:04:00 -
[55]
damage mod limiting = tanked-apocalypse-only fleets
|
Mortuus
|
Posted - 2005.04.28 04:11:00 -
[56]
Edited by: Mortuus on 28/04/2005 04:13:22
Edited by: Mortuus on 28/04/2005 04:11:05
Originally by: Sorja
Edited by: Sorja on 28/04/2005 03:42:23
Originally by: Meridius
Ships will tank forever with 1 dmg mod limited per ship. Battleships won't be able to break other battleships tank 1 on 1 without nossing the hell out of them.
To sum up, this idea would kill solo play and further encourage large gank fleets.
Don't even get me started about how logging off plays into this...
1¦ Cap is limited so it won't mean it's impossible to beat an opponent 1 vs 1.
2¦ Eve is already Ganking Online. I for one would like to see more solo fights, but that's another topic. Better survivability means pilots will have more chances to align and escape if not tackled properly, while at the moment tacklers are not even needed in many fights.
3¦ Since cap would again be an issue, WCS would gimp the setups much more than now. Where's the difference between a pilot logging off and a pilot escaping with multi WCS fitted ? If a pilot accepts the fight, it will be too late for him to logoff when he sees he can't win the fight. And if more than 2 pilots are engaged, it won't be possible to log off in time anyways.
4¦ In large fleet fights, it doesn't matter much if people are tanked or not: they will go down if tackled properly, which proves full racks of damage mods are not necessary.
Those 10 or even 5 seconds more for a tanked ship will mean better chances to align and escape if not tackled, and the opportunity to come back to the fight after repairs.
Longer fights, more fun.
5¦ Removal of stacked damage mods will improve tactics. Tacklers will be more needed and cruisers could maybe play some role in fleet fights (after next patch that will improve them).
Removing stacking of damage mods isn't the end of the world, really.
Pilots will adapt, tactics will evolve.
Keep your mind open
Ahaha, ok, thats a good one. Cap an issue in combat? Hahaa, gimme an Apoc and it can run 2 large reps and 3 hardeners forever, easy. Or long enough that the server will shut down for daily maintanence first.
I can see it already, fleet combat wihout damage mods. Uber tanks and Uber tanks with Nos...one to deal out pathetic damage and the other to remove the enemies ability to tank it. Who's nos will arrive first? Oh noes. OR, 20 uber tanked Apocs will target your one uber tanked Apoc and no amount of tanking will keep you from dying in 15 seconds anyway.
I think my latter scenario is more likely. Battles occur in fleets. Thats the way of things. Gank happen when a fleet finds someone solo. No tank will save you. Manuever means very little in eve outside of the map and who finds who first. There are no firing arcs, there isn't a weaker side to the ship. So it doesn't matter where you attack from. You want to see tactics during a fight that are more than kill them faster than they kill you then you need to have a reason for them to exist.
The nature of manuever is to take advantage of a weakness in the enemy force. Without a weakness other than range thats what all fights will boil down too. If they added terrain and made it so they blocked fire (like old roids blocked missles) and set ruins and roids near gates you'd get interesting fights. As it is its whoever breaks the enemy tank first or whoever brought more friends (generalities, exceptions do occur).
Now to go back to dreaming of an eve where frigates and cruisers can outmanuever battleships by using terrain in order to kill them instead of the ol' MWD and orbit.
OH DEAR GOD IN HEAVEN! I agree'd with Selim!!
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.04.28 04:15:00 -
[57]
Quote:
The nature of manuever is to take advantage of a weakness in the enemy force. Without a weakness other than range thats what all fights will boil down too. If they added terrain and made it so they blocked fire (like old roids blocked missles) and set ruins and roids near gates you'd get interesting fights. As it is its whoever breaks the enemy tank first or whoever brought more friends (gernalities, exceptions do occur).
Now to go back to dreaming of an eve where frigates and cruisers can outmanuever battleships by using terrain in order to kill them instead of the ol' MWD and orbit.
devs dont have enough vision to do that, they only like the math and hard numbers of gun tracking. that would be a very welcome addition to combat, though. and of course, there's more to it than terrain.
|
keepiru
|
Posted - 2005.04.28 04:46:00 -
[58]
Originally by: Selim
devs dont have enough vision to do that, they only like the math and hard numbers of gun tracking. that would be a very welcome addition to combat, though. and of course, there's more to it than terrain.
i've only been here for a few months, but i'd have to agree ... frankly i find it a rather.. clinical attitude to fun and tactics.
-------------
Originally by: Gnauton
It was purely accidental. We really don't have a sense of humour at all.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |