| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Maya Rkell
   |
Posted - 2005.06.19 03:05:00 -
[31]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 19/06/2005 03:05:26
 Originally by: MessiahOfLight
I would change the way that modules work completely. You could reduce the Base values of most of the modules by lets say 50% and then make em all scaleable.
So when you fit one of those modules you can choose how Powerful it should be, but the more powerful you make it, the more CPU or Power (depending on the module) it uses. So lets say for 10% better performance than the base values, youd need 20% or so more CPU. You could then make em really powerful, but also make your ship use a lot more CPU wich then cannot be used for other things (like more Weapons and such).
Named Modules could be more CPU/Power efficent, and T2 Modules could have higher base Values.
But maybe that is too much to change for now or maybe even a possibility for tech 3. Who knows.
thanks for reading
-MOL
MOL,
Two objections.
One, is that for ALL modules? I have an objection to special mechanisms
Two, you realise that it'll take 6+ months anything requiring code changes like that to come in?
Say NO to target painters |
MessiahOfLight
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 03:10:00 -
[32]
No of course not for all modules. I realize that this idea is rather... big and not thought out completely. But i wanted to post it anyways since i think it is the way how most stuff schould work since a whole long time. I dunno if it would require a lot of coding but i think it would be worth it. It would make Stacking useless and make fitting your ship WAY more interesting and importand.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 03:14:00 -
[33]
I'm afraid I don't really see the benefits to Eve compared with other things.
If the problem is stacking, then look at the current stacking algo, and the %'s on damage mods. Yes, they are giving almost-flat values for adding more right now. If they gave (rapidly) diminishing returns, people will stop fitting so many. And it'd need less of a statstical tweak than you might believe at first sight.
Eve is a complex system, and the minimum necessary change is a good thing.
Say NO to target painters |
MessiahOfLight
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 03:22:00 -
[34]
lol
i understand your argumentation and i cant say that your not right. I just liked the idea. Whatever the devs do however should focus on making the setups ppl use more diverse and less one sided, making stacking have a bigger penalty might just do that. since having too many of one mod would make em less useful and other setups a better alternative.
--MOL
|
xaioguai
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 05:45:00 -
[35]
how about this idea
not changing the current damage mod value but increase the energy/ammo comsumption.
the heatsink is suppose to dispatch the heat generate from laser cannon, but while increasing the damage output, i suppose the ship is feeding more energy to the cannon.
same thing with gyro stab, it suppose to stabilize the weapon, not increase the damage, the only good explanation is the cannon feeded with some ammo with multiple warhead and some extra explosive to propule them.
so with 1x damage mod, you are using 2x ammo+2x caps, 2 damage mods, you need 3x ammo+ 3x caps, in such case, a gankgadden will run out the caps in a few cycle while tempest will need to reload ammo every 2 shots if firing from 1400 with 5 gyro2
|
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 14:15:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Parallax Error on 19/06/2005 14:16:12
Meh,
Ok my suggestion but keeping the stacking nerf.
If you have damage mods only affecting RoF instead of damage mod, in my model that would have 2 drawbacks. decreased optimal and inceased cap use/ammo use.
|
infused
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 14:27:00 -
[37]
Originally by: BlueSmok
No not my Target painter!  it's made my 1400's oh so sweet!
How about they just add a bubble around each gate so people can't lock targets withing 15km of it?
Such a simple soultion...
Sorry, I don't agree with what you say main poster. I am not a sniper either. Actually, I agree with sensor boosters... that's about it. Leave target painters alone :|
(\_/)
(O.o)
(> <) This is Bunny. Copy Bunny into your signature to help him on his way to world domination. |
Cummilla
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 16:21:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 18/06/2005 16:57:02
WHAT ARE THE PROBLEMS?
WHAT DON'T WE WANT DO DO?
SO WHAT CAN WE DO?
WHAT DOES THIS DO?
Please stop whining.
|
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 17:37:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Parallax Error
Edited by: Parallax Error on 19/06/2005 14:16:12
Meh,
Ok my suggestion but keeping the stacking nerf.
If you have damage mods only affecting RoF instead of damage mod, in my model that would have 2 drawbacks. decreased optimal and inceased cap use/ammo use.
Exactly what I suggested. Please read others posts.
|
Malken
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 17:44:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Malken, then that overpowers some of the ECM modules and has other undesireable (and exploitable) effects. Reducing the range extension by 60-75% is the best comprimise between long range gun use and sniping imo.
does it really?
they will get longer lock times in return for longer range.
wich means that the scorpion will get some 45-50 sec lock times at maximum range with sensor boosters with my suggestion.
if they move closer and use the other module they will get faster locktimes but will also have alot higher risk.
|
Xune
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 17:50:00 -
[41]
Such topics and the changes the game gone true just let me think what somone said in "Bruce almighty"
since when do Humans realy know what is good for them ?
just stop complaining and let the Dev¦s decide what they want to do with the game... becouse most of the player sugestions just made things worse....
Xune
|
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 21:10:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Selim
Originally by: Parallax Error
Edited by: Parallax Error on 19/06/2005 14:16:12
Meh,
Ok my suggestion but keeping the stacking nerf.
If you have damage mods only affecting RoF instead of damage mod, in my model that would have 2 drawbacks. decreased optimal and inceased cap use/ammo use.
Exactly what I suggested. Please read others posts.
Errm, I'm advocating only the damage mod being affected not the RoF.
Please read everyone's posts very carefully if your going to criticize 
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 21:34:00 -
[43]
Originally by: Xune
Such topics and the changes the game gone true just let me think what somone said in "Bruce almighty"
since when do Humans realy know what is good for them ?
just stop complaining and let the Dev¦s decide what they want to do with the game... becouse most of the player sugestions just made things worse....
Xune
It's a truism with the MMO industry that the players know the game better than the devs. There's a LOT more of us poking arround, after all :)
It's entirely reasonable to present ideas for discussion.
Say NO to target painters |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 21:35:00 -
[44]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 19/06/2005 21:36:08
Originally by: Cummilla
<whaaaa>
Want more cheese with that?
Say NO to target painters |
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 21:43:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Parallax Error
Originally by: Selim
Originally by: Parallax Error
Edited by: Parallax Error on 19/06/2005 14:16:12
Meh,
Ok my suggestion but keeping the stacking nerf.
If you have damage mods only affecting RoF instead of damage mod, in my model that would have 2 drawbacks. decreased optimal and inceased cap use/ammo use.
Exactly what I suggested. Please read others posts.
Errm, I'm advocating only the damage mod being affected not the RoF.
Please read everyone's posts very carefully if your going to criticize
My mistake, I thought you said my suggestion: and then the thing about ROF, and then I thought you meant the drawbacks were a good thing. Which I do, damage mods need drawbacks and increased ROF would provide just that.
|
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 21:54:00 -
[46]
Selim, to be honest i'm undecided on whether or not the damage mods only affecting RoF would be a good thing or not. The main reason I said not to change it is more due to some Inty bonuses being changed away from RoF because of server load.
Either one is decent enough, aslong as there is a penalty to optimal range. I doubt we'd see anything like the amount of pure gank setups if all guns mounted ended up with blaster like ranges.
|
Galk
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 21:57:00 -
[47]
Completely screw up my PVE setup.
So i guess i don't want that... even though your suggesting i do... ummm.
Course when said big nasty npc's target my quick locking damage dealer it kinda dies in very little time.
You ragged on pve, mistake.. 'in groups' (gosh i know) pve is very effective with a couple of damage dealers in tow....
------------------------
----
Little wonder why people were, what this person was telling my friends: http://galk.50megs.com/logs/ |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 21:58:00 -
[48]
Parallax, obviously we'd need to ask CCP, but it was the VERY fast rate of fire of interceptor guns which was causing the issue (approaching 1 second). 3-4 second RoF's (at best, for the fastest firing heavy guns) might not be an issue.
I mean, I'd prefer the damage mod stayed split between damage and RoF (slightly reduced), but pure RoF might be viable.
Say NO to target painters |
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 22:01:00 -
[49]
Damage mods nerfing optimal range in exchange for dmg buff would work.
It would keep close range fighters as the main dmg dealers, and snipers would be suppression fire or supplemental damage dealers more than kill all run fast setups.
~Sobe |
Selim
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 22:13:00 -
[50]
Edited by: Selim on 19/06/2005 22:13:33
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi
Damage mods nerfing optimal range in exchange for dmg buff would work.
It would keep close range fighters as the main dmg dealers, and snipers would be suppression fire or supplemental damage dealers more than kill all run fast setups.
Yeah, I agree totally.
If nothing else, an optimal range penalty on damage mods would be perfect. It does the most to stop long-range gank nonsense while not affecting much else. Maybe 10% optimal/flight time per mod?
Its really the best solution since all the solutions besides this are just to make damage mod stacking weaker. Well why not just make it so that MORE is NOT neccesarily BETTER? And this does just that. Want full damage? Sacrifice range to get it.
|
xaioguai
|
Posted - 2005.06.19 22:21:00 -
[51]
Originally by: Selim
Yeah, I agree totally.
If nothing else, an optimal range penalty on damage mods would be perfect. It does the most to stop long-range gank nonsense while not affecting much else. Maybe 10% optimal/flight time per mod?
Its really the best solution since all the solutions besides this are just to make damage mod stacking weaker. Well why not just make it so that MORE is NOT neccesarily BETTER? And this does just that. Want full damage? Sacrifice range to get it.
/me hug and kiss her AC Pest, pwnage is coming 
|
Parallax Error
|
Posted - 2005.06.20 00:42:00 -
[52]
Optimal penalty on damage mods would be great! I also think modifying sensor modules so that a long lock range doesn't automatically mean you lock quickly as well would help a lot.
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |