EVE Search - Instalocking Batleships vs Instajumps

Check My IP Information

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Instalocking Batleships vs Instajumps

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page

Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Jim Steele	Posted - 2005.04.29 15:50:00 - [1] Edited by: Jim Steele on 29/04/2005 15:53:29 I think both are un-balanced and thus should be removed, there is no way a bs should be able to lock a frig in less than 10s. /me puts flame retardent suit on I dont know how you'd do this and im sure it would really annoy some people but if they removed the instalock->instagank and instajumping scenario i think PvP would be more intresting then gankfleets ganking gankfleets and lone bses getting ganked by instalocking gankfleets... Currently tanking is a pointless exersise and you may as well go around with a high damage setup unless shooting npc's Thats just my 10isk, but i think if they removed both i.e. only one sensor booster per ship made the jump in point 7.5k on all stargates while removing insta-jumpbookmarks Mabye bses would need support rather than sitting 150k away instaganking anything that jumps in.. whilst without instajumps a frig could scramble stuff whilst the bses locked Edit: damn i put this in the wrong forum, was meant to be in general discussion Death to the Galante
Selim	Posted - 2005.04.29 15:53:00 - [2] Edited by: Selim on 29/04/2005 15:57:56 I definitely agree. I mean, limits suck, and we all know it, but this kind of limit would do alot, if combined with an instajump nerf. The problem is the range though. If sensor boosters are one per ship the range boost should be increased... to at least 100% I'd say.
danneh	Posted - 2005.04.29 15:56:00 - [3] "only one sensor booster per ship" so no more sniping eh? :>
Jim Steele	Posted - 2005.04.29 16:04:00 - [4] Originally by: danneh "only one sensor booster per ship"so no more sniping eh? hmm ive got nothing against people having greater range, but faster locking speeds too? A solution to this would be to mabye make the sensor booster just increase range or something to allow for sniping or have a higher penalty for stacking two modules so the lock time wasnt insanely quick.. Ok there is one module i havnt thought of and thats the "sensor linking" module, i guess that would have to get some balancing too. Death to the Galante
danneh	Posted - 2005.04.29 16:09:00 - [5] Originally by: Jim Steele Originally by: danneh "only one sensor booster per ship"so no more sniping eh? hmm ive got nothing against people having greater range, but faster locking speeds too? A solution to this would be to mabye make the sensor booster just increase range or something to allow for sniping or have a higher penalty for stacking two modules so the lock time wasnt insanely quick.. Ok there is one module i havnt thought of and thats the "sensor linking" module, i guess that would have to get some balancing too. Well, I still like my Sniping Apoc with fast lock time :>
Grut	Posted - 2005.04.29 16:11:00 - [6] one module of a given type per ship = sucky imbalanced module when stacked + stacking nerf of sufficient size = balance By nerfing the crap out of a particular play style with artifical limits you remove it from the game ie dual mwds, by putting a more subtle nerf on you keep it in game but bring it into line with other setups otherwise you end up severly limiting ppls options Mostly harmless
Captin Biltmore	Posted - 2005.04.29 16:17:00 - [7] #1: There is no such thing as an instalock...period, end of story. No matter how many signal boosters you have, or how many buddies you have remote boosting you....you can never get below a 1sec lock time. ALSO, even if you do setup for an insane quick lock....that's gimping your setup and making you vulnerable to a counter. So your insta locking point is moot. End Of Discussion #2: Insta jumps are very effective...and when traveling 30+ jumps (especially in a BS) I wouldn't go any other way. But in a light cruiser and below you can instantly pop the ship with 8 large smartbombs. And any ship that you can't pop with smarties, you just jump through with them and scramble them on the other side because it will take so long for them to align for warp. Your instajump point is moot. End Of Discussion (TRUST me, there is a counter for EVERY aspect of this game, it really is fairly ballanced)
Takrolimus	Posted - 2005.04.29 16:20:00 - [8] If you guys had your way literally EVERY ship would have the same setup: 1 Damage Mod, 1 sensor booster, Whats next? The more you limit, the less variation there is....
Jim Steele	Posted - 2005.04.29 16:35:00 - [9] Originally by: Takrolimus The more you limit, the less variation there is.... I agree i dont want to see snipe ships nerfed and damage mods are awesome its an all or nothing mentality, i just think locking frigs so quickly with multiple sensorboosters is a bit harsh. Ive got nothing against battleships locking eachother so quickly, nor insane damage mods but ships need a fighting chance at a gate camp to be able to run befor getting insta ganked. Death to the Galante
Rexthor Hammerfists	Posted - 2005.04.29 17:04:00 - [10] theres to much work involved to take the instas away, but i agree that the insta lock bs are kinda annoying, and take a cruiser role away.. also uber dmg hitter are annoying too..

Parallax Error	Posted - 2005.04.29 17:11:00 - [11] Edited by: Parallax Error on 29/04/2005 17:12:13 Change Sensor Boosters from: + Lock Range + Scan Resolution To: + Lock Range -Scan Resolution Problem solved, you trade off more range for slower lock times. In the same thread of thought I reckon tracking comps should do the same, better tracking traded off for lower optimal. Obviously the penalties shouldn't be on a 1:1 ratio with the benefit. Say something like +10% lock Range, -5% Sig Res. Edit: Then you should have the polar opposite of these eg +10% Scan resolution, -5% Lock Range.
Shamis Orzoz	Posted - 2005.04.29 18:06:00 - [12] Edited by: Shamis Orzoz on 29/04/2005 18:08:58 Please don't suggest more fitting restrictions...fitting is an art, I can't take all these restrictions, the afterburner/mwd thing was bad enough, if you hit dmg mods and sensor boosters what will be next? On a side note I think it is worth noting that people didn't fit nearly as many sensor boosters or damage mods when it was actually possible for ships to move fast. Don't know if that is a coincidence or not, but it seems to me that for every fitting restriction they add, they just end up promoting some other odd configuration that is used way to often as a result of some restriction.
Sorja	Posted - 2005.04.29 18:08:00 - [13] Originally by: Takrolimus The more you limit, the less variation there is.... At the moment, there is very little variation, you know If we want to see mixed fleets, interesting fights where tactics matter, it should not pe possible to turn a ship into another. A battleship with instalock (name it the way you like) defeats the interceptor purpose and sensor linking skill, like a ship full of damage mods defeats any form of tanking. What we mostly see now is people taking advantage of extreme tactics, which, instead of being interesting, forces the game into 'it suits me I engage, it doesn't suit me I warp off' tactics. It's rather dull. It's already hard to get fights nowadays because of the sniping/blobbing/log off strategies, and when we finaly get a fight, even battleships drop like flies. If we didn't have all damage mods ships or instalock ships and stuff like that, I think PvP would be more enjoyable for everybody (or at least for those who actualy want to fight) and we'd see more ship types in battles.
Shamis Orzoz	Posted - 2005.04.29 18:13:00 - [14] Originally by: Sorja If we didn't have all damage mods ships or instalock ships and stuff like that, I think PvP would be more enjoyable for everybody (or at least for those who actualy want to fight) and we'd see more ship types in battles. A few good points were made in this post. The damage output of ships vs the defense capabilities of ships definitely needs to be adressed. But this should be done through module balancing, not fitting restriction. All fitting restrictions should be accomplished by powergrid/cpu tweaks, not stacking penalties and not directly eliminating the ability to fit more than one module of a certain type.
Kaeten	Posted - 2005.04.29 18:16:00 - [15] 7.5km from gate? poor haulers lol. Imo instas should stay. I don't pay to travel through empire 0.0 for hours on end. Also it takes time to make them test the mand name them. About the sensor boosters if someone instajumps you might be able to lock and shoot. So this plus instas balance each other. Thats just my opionion. ___________________________________ Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante Gallante
Lily Savage	Posted - 2005.04.29 18:26:00 - [16] Insta-lock and insta-gank setups may be spoiling fleet warfare for the tactical purists among you, but that should not be used as a reason to justify nerfing insta-jumps. Insta-jumps are used by pretty much everyone, whatever they are doing: travelling, mining, hauling, mission running, etc. Do the recent warp bubble changes not benefit gate camps?
Tisiph0ne	Posted - 2005.04.29 18:42:00 - [17] All ships have WAY too much range as a base value as it is. That includes NPCs. That is all.
Arthur Guinness	Posted - 2005.04.29 19:15:00 - [18] "Unable to get lock because of warp interferences" first thing ccp should do is the ******* invulnerable frigs, they jumpin and are invulnerable when they decloak. no warpdrive for 5 secs after decloaking please. Your whole problem with sensor booster is moot btw, as frigs really are invulnerable because the 1 sec lag from decloak to warp.
Lord Randalf	Posted - 2005.04.29 19:28:00 - [19] Why the f* do the carebears have to get all they want? There is no f**** reason to remove the possibility of instant jumps and instant locks this is a riddiculus suggestion, ccp has done enaugh to make this game a game of carebears. If there weren't any ships killed then you carebears wouldn't need to build any ships or mine for anything. What would be the fun of EVE then? ________________ "We mine together, we haul together, carebears for life"
Hyey	Posted - 2005.04.29 19:52:00 - [20] Originally by: Tisiph0ne All ships have WAY too much range as a base value as it is. That includes NPCs. That is all. Funny you say that, because its wrong. The lock range on a tempest is pathetically low for how far the guns it has fires... you pretty much NEED a sensor booster to fully use a 1400mm Cannon as is . The more you limit setups the worse this game is going to get, pvp started to get more boring when the cruise missiles on cruiser/frigs was no longer allowed, and it took a steep steep dive in fun when the dual mwd/ab nerf hit the scene, piloting isnt a skill anymore in anything other than a frigate because everything else moves too slow to be a viable variable. Combat is too slow and monotonous as it is, but by all means MAKE IT WORSE. ~~ Hyey I just payed 15 dollars this month just to be able to respond on the forums... stupid cancellation error.

Cummilla	Posted - 2005.04.29 20:15:00 - [21] All instas do is require that your intel asset be placed on the side of the gate the enemy is instajumping TO, while the gank force be placed on the side of the gate that they emerge from after clicking in the next system. Once you see the ship activate the the gate on the side their insta leads to, roll F1 to F8, hit your scrambler\disruptor\webber, and then the moment their bracket appears on your side of the gate.....ONE CLICK baby and the whole show starts up :) As your first couple salvos hit, make range adjustments as needed and wait for the killmail. Easy as 1,2, 3. Instas shouldn't be a problem for anyone.
Sorja	Posted - 2005.04.29 22:02:00 - [22] Originally by: Shamis Orzoz Originally by: Sorja If we didn't have all damage mods ships or instalock ships and stuff like that, I think PvP would be more enjoyable for everybody (or at least for those who actualy want to fight) and we'd see more ship types in battles. A few good points were made in this post. The damage output of ships vs the defense capabilities of ships definitely needs to be adressed. But this should be done through module balancing, not fitting restriction. All fitting restrictions should be accomplished by powergrid/cpu tweaks, not stacking penalties and not directly eliminating the ability to fit more than one module of a certain type. Yes, indeed, there are several ways to accomplish that so that stacking still yields a difference but are not completely out of whack.
Zacheria Malfor	Posted - 2005.04.29 22:19:00 - [23] Edited by: Zacheria Malfor on 29/04/2005 22:27:25 Originally by: Jim Steele Edited by: Jim Steele on 29/04/2005 15:53:29 I think both are un-balanced and thus should be removed, there is no way a bs should be able to lock a frig in less than 10s. Instead of screaming for nerfs all the time, how about using your head and seeking alternate solutions. Granted at times snipers are a pain to say the least but there are ways around. And I dont snipe in case you think thats why I've posted. Edit: Also instalocking BS's are acheived through the use of remote sensor boosters not just ramming your mids full of sensor boosters. Do not fear the reaper, for death is the only certainty in life.
Lord ofRedemption	Posted - 2005.04.29 22:55:00 - [24] Originally by: Hyey Originally by: Tisiph0ne and it took a steep steep dive in fun when the dual mwd/ab nerf hit the scene, piloting isnt a skill anymore in anything other than a frigate because everything else moves too slow to be a viable variable. Combat is too slow and monotonous as it is, but by all means MAKE IT WORSE. so stackin damage modules is being skilled ? atm its boring tbh , gank setup ftw for everyone no more puzzling and thinkin of a setup just make sure you have skills enought to fit sensor boosters/trackin cpu's / dmg mods and thats about it . _____________ Retirement closing in .
Droidster	Posted - 2005.04.29 23:40:00 - [25] Well, in all fairness I think you have to give the ship the flexibility to equip how it wants. And if wants fast lock time so be it. If the ship wastes a lot of slots on boosters obviously it will be weak against an attacker. Of course, that does not help a frigate much :-) but it does mean somebody can come in with a cloaked vessel and nail the sniper more easily. _____________________________________________ I am motivated by various things, mostly ISK.
Auldare	Posted - 2005.04.30 01:27:00 - [26] Edited by: Auldare on 30/04/2005 01:27:34 It's a bit late here, so please excuse me if this idea seems far fetched... How about making a new line of modules, either faster locking time but less range, or slower locking time and longer range. This would allow anyone who wants to have the safety of range to get a handicap in having to wait a bit longer to fire, and anyone looking to quickly target to have to get up close and personal like :) now this idea might be unrealistic and i don't doubt some people will hate it, but hey I'm just adding to the discussion... ================================================
Tisiph0ne	Posted - 2005.04.30 01:32:00 - [27] Originally by: Zacheria Malfor Instead of screaming for nerfs all the time, how about using your head and seeking alternate solutions. I think you are part of the problem. Also, there should be high stacking penalties for sensor boosters and remote sensor boosters. The amount of natural range on ships I find to be stupidly far. If we all warp in at 15km of gate, our guns with sniping range should always be 50% shorter than that figure at the longest, and that should only be on battleships. The same should be true of a 100km, 200km, or 300km warp in point. Instalocking isn't going to go anywhere probably, but insta-getting-within-range-in-a-BS-no-less should sure as hell be. The turretry system ain't broke. They've just run out of wiggle room in finding places for setups in the current situation. The gates are what's broke and need the attention. There's nothing wrong with letting frigates keep their ability to cross a solar system in 2 minutes. There's also nothing wrong with making battleships take over 10 minutes to do the same. Way more firepower=way less flexibility and responsiveness. Frigs and cruisers have no other role besides transient tackling so they deserve that sort of advantage. If we adopt this model, and tweak a few aspects such as speed and time to safespot, fighting and piracy will remain possible, yet insta-ganks or F1..F8-ok-let's-get-some-b33r model of space combat will go away.
Zacheria Malfor	Posted - 2005.04.30 01:32:00 - [28] Sensor boosters are there to boost the strength of your sensors, hence they increase your targetting range and scan resolution both of which are interlinked. Do not fear the reaper, for death is the only certainty in life.
Zacheria Malfor	Posted - 2005.04.30 01:38:00 - [29] Edited by: Zacheria Malfor on 30/04/2005 01:39:54 Originally by: Tisiph0ne I think you are part of the problem. The Feeling is mutual. Originally by: Tisiph0ne The amount of natural range on ships I find to be stupidly far. If we all warp in at 15km of gate, our guns with sniping range should always be 50% shorter than that figure at the longest, and that should only be on battleships. Sorry but, that is one of the stupidest things I've seen on the forums. On a side note, try posting with your main. I apologise to respectable forum goers for my flaming Do not fear the reaper, for death is the only certainty in life.
Auldare	Posted - 2005.04.30 01:44:00 - [30] I know that man, thats the way sensor boosters currently work. What i am adding to the discussion is, how about this? etc etc Imagine that your sensor strength is set at one fixed value, now you can thin your sensors to get to target at longer range but with that it takes longer and vice versa. Now this is only an idea, I'm not screaming that it should be done. but i honestly thing it would add sooo much fun to the game and give short range fighting ships an added boost tactically. Now be honest when was the last time you saw a megathron in pvp? ================================================



Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.