| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Maxine Stirner
   |
Posted - 2005.06.22 07:56:00 -
[1]
Most people are looking at the MWD-target painter situation and pointing at the target painter as the culprit.
This is just because it is the new guy. Starbase owners don't much like it either, but they also have stealth mods so they shut up quick.
The finger should also be pointed at L Turrets, Missiles, Frigs, Frig sigs, and the MWD itself.
As most know (except me until recently), ABs and MWDs add to your ship's mass only when they are activated. This is designed to reduce turning effectiveness. All well and good.
MWDs make you go faster, much faster than ABs, and give one greater transversal velocity. Elementary.
This means they let you close the gap on prey given the target's closer proximity. This is very helpful given that frigates don't have much damage or mischief creating radii.
Secondly, they also let you orbit faster.
In compensation, MWD give most ships that big ol' honking sig rise that makes them easy to target and hit on the approach.
MWD and AB give the same mass penalty for their benefit, which means that the MWD makes you orbit faster, though generally with more orbital eccentricity, thus justifying the big honkin' sig increase.
What if we shifted things up a bit though? If we increase ship mass, ship velocity is not reduced. Merely acceleration is dampened and of course turning rate is dampened by this reduced lateral acceleration capacity.
Let's say AB give less of a mass increase than MWD. Thus, AB become a superior orbitting speed mod, and MWD becomes the superior strait-line speed mod. The net allowance of this, is that we can allow a significant reduction in the sig penalty since some of the effectiveness of MWD is transferred to the AB.
Thus this is mostly an AB buff, and an MWD capability tradeoff.
Alternately, you could hybridize the two and offer a tradeoff between general acceleration capacity, total velocity, and sig increase in three categories of specialization.
Not to mention frigs suxxor vs. battleships.
Locking Times & Evil Asteroids |
Bikini Vampire
|
Posted - 2005.06.22 11:15:00 -
[2]
The Balance between the Two is perfect at the moment.
MWD's have changed enough in previous patches, I say just leave them as they are. I fed up with having to get used to more MWD changes. Best thing to happen was disallowing the Stacking. Now lets just leave it at that.
fact of the matter is, MWD frig nearly size of a Battleship, Get hit easier.
Its relativly easy for 2 or 3 frigs to take down a BS (not firing missiles) |
Maxine Stirner
|
Posted - 2005.06.23 22:25:00 -
[3]
But surely you agree that ABs need improvement? Especially on ships that rely utterly on evasion to survive such as frigates?
MWD should be better at closing the gap, but ABs should be a little better than they are currently at keeping it that way.
AB should get mass penalty cut in half.
This gives MWDers that on-approach survivability boost that results from the partial sig decrease, maybe 25%. Their orbit radius simply becomes a little less tight as a result.
Locking Times & Evil Asteroids |
Blind Fear
|
Posted - 2005.06.23 23:05:00 -
[4]
 Originally by: Maxine Stirner
If we increase ship mass, ship velocity is not reduced. Merely acceleration is dampened and of course turning rate is dampened by this reduced lateral acceleration capacity.
Let's say AB give less of a mass increase than MWD. Thus, AB become a superior orbitting speed mod, and MWD becomes the superior strait-line speed mod. The net allowance of this, is that we can allow a significant reduction in the sig penalty since some of the effectiveness of MWD is transferred to the AB.
Wow.
First, ship mass DIRECTLY affects the amount of speed that a MWD or an AB gives you.
Second, the increase in mass on the modules is in no way intended to slow the menuvering of ships - it is designed to make oversized afterburners and MWDs useless. Decreasing the penalty for afterburners means you'll see frigs with 10mn ABs again hauling ass at 2.6k/s with a 20m sig radius.
Please go learn something about the game history and mechanics before you suggust things.
|
Maxine Stirner
|
Posted - 2005.06.23 23:23:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Maxine Stirner on 23/06/2005 23:27:06
I've noticed that the turning radius on my cruisers are slowed even when I pin the velocity to the same value if ABs or MWDs are activated. The mass jumps about 5M kg. When my mods are stripped, and there is a bug still fixing mass to the raised values, agility is also reduced.
If you have an alternate explanation, please share.
Also, I didn't say it would be eliminated, I said it would be reduced.
If my assumption on the mechanic was wrong, the obvious and intended purpose of the suggested change are still applicable, only through a different avenue of course. AB would have to include an agility boost, and MWD would have to include a slight agility decrease (fairly negligible for linear acceleration with a MWD) coupled with a slight reduction in familiar MWD penalty.
Locking Times & Evil Asteroids |
Blind Fear
|
Posted - 2005.06.23 23:27:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Maxine Stirner
I've noticed that the turning radius on my cruisers are slowed even when I pin the velocity to the same value if ABs or MWDs are activated. The mass jumps about 5M kg.
If you have an alternate explanation, please share.
Increased mass does negitively affect agility, but that is not the reason that MWDs and ABs increase mass.
|
Maxine Stirner
|
Posted - 2005.06.23 23:28:00 -
[7]
What an utterly pointless reply.
Locking Times & Evil Asteroids |
Blind Fear
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 00:04:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Maxine Stirner
What an utterly pointless reply.
Unlike your pointless and ****ty ideas.
Your suggustion will break oversized ABs. Again.
It wont do **** for anything aside from that.
Stop being ignorant.
|
Maxine Stirner
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 10:50:00 -
[9]
There was never much wrong with oversized ABs.. but you're still wrong.
If the approach is taken too excess, then perhaps people can find an oversize advantage or push the margins.. say with BC or destroyers. Those live on the margins anyhow.
The approach is only one of several. I have already listed two.
If we make in some fashion ABs the superior orbitting mod, and MWDs the superior range closing mod, then we have more opportunities for tactical loadouts. There's nothing dumb about it. My guess is that you don't even know how to fly frigates and feel the need to take your resentment out on those who can.
Locking Times & Evil Asteroids |
Bikini Vampire
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 11:05:00 -
[10]
Nope I feel that theres nothing wrong with the ABs, They work fine, Give a small increase to speed which is what they're supposed to do. AB is an AB MWD is an MWD, They are it two different extremes and u fit them as required.
I say leave them as they are. |
Clementina
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 11:59:00 -
[11]
I like the Idea alot, I had always figured that the Afterburner and MWD should do the same thing except the MWD be mid slot and the afterburner be low slot, but this is a pretty good way of increasing afterburner usefulness.
|
theRaptor
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 12:26:00 -
[12]
Originally by: Maxine Stirner
There was never much wrong with oversized ABs.. but you're still wrong.
Yes there was. When used on Intys they broke turret based ships. MWD's have the sig increase for a reason. Frankly I am happy that right sized AB's are actually useful now.
That is not dead which can eternal lie,
And with strange aeons even death may die.
-- Ancient "Dirt" Religious figure. |
Maxine Stirner
|
Posted - 2005.06.24 12:29:00 -
[13]
Originally by: theRaptor
Yes there was. When used on Intys they broke turret based ships. MWD's have the sig increase for a reason. Frankly I am happy that right sized AB's are actually useful now.
In my opinion, they should have left it that way and nerfed inty dps instead, and traded them some interception or warp scramble strength skills.
They're just interceptors afterall.
Locking Times & Evil Asteroids |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |