|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 4 post(s) |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
Aerodyne Collective
80
   |
Posted - 2013.01.30 05:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
Ong wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:Essentially we came to the conclusion that, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules If this is the official line that ccp does not like multi function modules then when can we expect the removal of scrams turning off MWD's? They already fill the role of stopping people warping that have stabs. So following this president you are setting then I look forward to the removal of scrams effecting mwd's.
+1
It also affects jump drive, and micro-jump drive. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
Aerodyne Collective
80
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 07:59:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Greyscale wrote:The reason I was happy to leave it to a patchnote was that I didn't feel it was that big a change...
I think I'd be unanimously supported - devs should play the game more.
CCP Greyscale wrote:in the general case, all other things being equal and with caveats and get-outs as necessary, we prefer single-function modules to multi-function modules
I cannot understand what does it mean, and considering your way of making stealthy updates - could you please comment, here in this thread, on the following multi-function modules:
- drone omnilink - tracking & optimal
- autotargeting system - autotarheting itself & +maxtargets
- SeBo (local and remote) - range & scanres
- dampeners - same
- signal amplifier - range & scanres & +maxtargets
- warp scramblers - warp-jam & MWD-jam & MJD-jam & jump-jam
- signal distortion amps - optimal & strength
- cap.batteries - +cap & neut-protection
- power diag. sys - many
- damage control - resists to shield & armor & hull
- damage modifiers - damage & ROF
- track.ench. - optimal & falloff & tracking
- track.comp and links - same
- track.dis - same
|
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
Aerodyne Collective
81
|
Posted - 2013.01.30 11:22:00 -
[3] - Quote
Destination SkillQueue wrote:I don't really have a problem with this change, but I'd like to see the now even more useless shield compensation skills given a reason to exist. Some kind of a passive multi resist module does seem like an obvious candidate to give them that boost. I'd like to see it limited to 1 per ship though. This is something you've done with multiple armor tanking modules, that mimic similar shield modules, so it seems like an approriate limitation for a shield module mimicing an armor module.
I dont mind nerfing active hardeners as well, as they are indeed preferred almost always (except for EANM).
What I disagree with is that it's a minor change and doesnt deserve proper discussion. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
Aerodyne Collective
88
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 05:41:00 -
[4] - Quote
Zilero wrote:Way to go CCP, giant nerf to all shield PVP. There can't be that many people using shield ships for pvp out there.... right? RIGHT?
You may be exaggerating about all ships, but it's definitely a nerf to shield super-capitals. Like if they are so ower-powered now. In a recent battle in Asakai, this Hel is rumored to go down because it couldnt switch on hardeners due to lags. With the new changes, it would have almost insta-popped.
I was trying to make a decision which capital ships I will be training - shield or armor. Now the decision is made. Thank you, CCP Grayscale, you made my life so much easier. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
Aerodyne Collective
88
|
Posted - 2013.02.01 05:46:00 -
[5] - Quote
Sinzor Aumer wrote:
- drone omnilink - tracking & optimal
- autotargeting system - autotarheting itself & +maxtargets
- SeBo (local and remote) - range & scanres
- dampeners - same
- signal amplifier - range & scanres & +maxtargets
- warp scramblers - warp-jam & MWD-jam & MJD-jam & jump-jam
- signal distortion amps - optimal & strength
- cap.batteries - +cap & neut-protection
- power diag. sys - many
- damage control - resists to shield & armor & hull
- damage modifiers - damage & ROF
- track.ench. - optimal & falloff & tracking
- track.comp and links - same
- track.dis - same
Still waiting on comments from CCP. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
Aerodyne Collective
93
|
Posted - 2013.02.04 17:15:00 -
[6] - Quote
Provence Tristram wrote:CCP Greyscale wrote:The patchnotes for this change were written when the change was originally submitted, and will be listed in the release notes when this change reaches TQ. Well that certainly does gloss over 9 pages of most people requesting you to somehow justify this move, albeit in the most minimalistic and, I daresay, passively flippant way possible. You have a lot of people asking you 'why are you doing this?' and the answer I'm basically seeing here is: 'cuz.'
He already presented the justification. One of the reasons being "I didnt know it was important" - which I can understand, also dont appreciate. But other reason was "multi-purpose modules must die". That is something I've never heard before, but the details on this matter were not revealed.
Shall we see damage control to loose it's shield and armor bonuses? Will there be a split of tracking enhancers into two or more modules? What is the fate of capacitor batteries? Get ready for surprises, folks. |
Sinzor Aumer
Atlas Research Group
Aerodyne Collective
99
|
Posted - 2013.02.11 17:52:00 -
[7] - Quote
Shpenat wrote:I think Greyscale used poor wording here. I bet what hi meant was to remove the modules that can be both active and passive.
Maybe. Or maybe not. Who knows? I asked CCP comments on that - it never happened.
|
|
|
| |
|