Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Changrey
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 01:19:00 -
[61]
Wouldn't a dev rsponse be absolutely briliant right about now? Before it gets out of blown out of proportion and becomes the sole reasoning for 3453498 'I quit' posts?
|
Gierling
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 01:33:00 -
[62]
Edited by: Gierling on 24/09/2005 01:33:22 I agree with this in principle, however it is overboard.
The problem is that you can't nerf plates of the proper size at the same time. Doing this AND the speed penalty is just a kick in the gooch too.
They need to add mass, but not nearly so much. You basically want a 1600mm plate to take 10% of a battleships speed away more or less. And likewise on down the line.
Bastards we are lest Bastards we become. |
Weirda
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 01:49:00 -
[63]
Originally by: Changrey Wouldn't a dev rsponse be absolutely briliant right about now? Before it gets out of blown out of proportion and becomes the sole reasoning for 3453498 'I quit' posts?
tuxford prolly been working on a post all day...
(poor tuxford) -- Thread Killer (attempting to train verbosity from 4 back down to 1) <END TRANSMISSION> |
Caeden Nicomachean
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 01:51:00 -
[64]
The thing is, we want battles to last longer. We just don't want everyone wearing the same setup.
Another thing is that slow movement is about boring. It makes the entire game feel sluggish, and its why folks hate hauling.
The game would be all the better if every darned ship out there moved faster and lasted longer. I have no great love for plates themselves, I just hold those two ideals as pretty important to the game.
So I can't help muse about other solutions than weighting down the ships. You could blow up the sig radius of the ship they are on instead, with the logic bending behind it that when they are fitted the propulsion system is jacked to match by an electronic membrane, yadda.
Sig radius is more important an issue to smaller ships than to big ones - and thats where the problem with plates is at anyhow.
Slugtacularing ships is something I wish we could avoid all the way around on battleships down.
|
Sadist
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 02:38:00 -
[65]
Originally by: Alex Harumichi
Originally by: keepiru
That is, ofc, if they removed the set % penalties. But then nanofibers wouldnt have a reason to exist.
How about if nanofibers added a bit less mass? That would give a reason to use them.
Nanofibers add mass? Wtf are you on? ---------------
VIP member of the [23] |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 02:48:00 -
[66]
"Nanofibers add mass? Wtf are you on?"
Likely means the nanofiber plates, the named ones that have smaller speed penalty than others ^^;;
|
Mr Floppyknickers
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 03:00:00 -
[67]
Originally by: Gierling The problem is that you can't nerf plates of the proper size at the same time. Doing this AND the speed penalty is just a kick in the gooch too.
Sorry but the whole gooch bit has me *****ing up right now.
Now that the giggles have subsided, I can only wonder what this will do to many tanked DOMI set up.
Currently in the lows I run:
1 named large rep 2 1600 tungstens Therm, Kinetic, and explosive hardners cap relay 1
Now sometimes i swap out the relay for a 3rd Crystal plate when I help tank level 4's with a freind. But even with the AB i pack on my domi it looks likely I'll be putting around at 100m/s with it running.
|
Gronsak
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 03:14:00 -
[68]
great, stupid 1600mm plated HACs will now move half the speed, allowing BS to hit them more easilly
TBH we all used the overpowered plated rax or maller at one point and we all know its over powered
this had to happen to just balance things
and its nor too server as with skills a 400mm plate adds 1k HP, 800mm plate does 2k HP using 800 on a cruseir increases HP by >150% so should not fit on crusiers
|
Malacore
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 03:22:00 -
[69]
Nothing is final, it can't be. It's too far overboard.
Was a change needed? Yes. But this is a lot.
Half the mass changes, and keep the speed effect I think.
|
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 03:38:00 -
[70]
Hmm... you know what's funny? This change as it currently is, appears to effectively kill the oversized afterburner "fix".
Maller with 'current' armour plate: with 10mn mwd: 1.67 km/sec, with 100mn afb: 1.24 km/sec (~440 m/sec difference)
same Maller, with "new" 800mm plate: with 10mn mwd: 1.25 km/sec, with 100mn afb: 1.13 km/sec (~120 m/sec difference)
same Maller, with "new" 1600mm plate: with 10mn mwd: 1.02 km/sec, with 100mn afb: 1.04 km/sec (yes it actually starts to move faster with oversized afb with that kind of mass :s
Now granted, it doesn't seem like there'll be cruisers able to mount 1600mm plate and the oversized afb, but 800mm plate + afb might actually find some takers... seeing how "correct" mwd no longer offers enough speed advantage to offset huge sig penalty, with such setup.
(note: numbers might be well off... were calculated using the propulsion modules formula from the sticky thread)
|
|
Nyxus
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 03:38:00 -
[71]
Originally by: FalloutBoy the problem is if they are only useable on the intended class then they are unuseable since they won't give enough of a boost to make them viable. the correct move would be to shift the penalties over one notch and add a 3200mm plate with the 1600s penalty and drop the lowest plate.
1600 and 3200 plates would be BS plates and mass penalties won't effect them much at all 400 and 800 would be cruiser plates and mass penalties won't effect them much at all 100 and 200 would be frig plates and mass penalties won't effect them much at all
I agree the 1600 and 400 plates caused issues on cruisers and frigs. but 800s or 200s were fine on cruisers and frigs which are getting equally nerfed.
/signed becuase its a damn good idea.
Nyxus
PS- "Slugtacularing" (new word coined by Caeden N.) is a perfect description of what we don't want to have happen.
|
Netto
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 04:16:00 -
[72]
Originally by: Caeden Nicomachean The thing is, we want battles to last longer. We just don't want everyone wearing the same setup.
Another thing is that slow movement is about boring. It makes the entire game feel sluggish, and its why folks hate hauling.
The game would be all the better if every darned ship out there moved faster and lasted longer. I have no great love for plates themselves, I just hold those two ideals as pretty important to the game.
Wow, well put. Amen.
Slow movement is boring. Longer fighting = good!
Netto
|
Zungen
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 05:31:00 -
[73]
so how bad would be for those people who use 6 plates on their bs's now? lol :P
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 05:36:00 -
[74]
plates really do need nerfing to be honest, i mean think about, a lot of fights come down to whose got an oversized plate on and who doesnt, it's such a hugely stupid advantage to have a 1600mm plate on a cruiser or a 400mm plate on a frigate or whatever.. ------
|
Kyoko Sakoda
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 05:52:00 -
[75]
They really don't need anything more than an adjustment of the HP bonus. Dunno why they're changing the masses.
|
Altai Saker
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 06:18:00 -
[76]
Originally by: Nyxus
Originally by: FalloutBoy the problem is if they are only useable on the intended class then they are unuseable since they won't give enough of a boost to make them viable. the correct move would be to shift the penalties over one notch and add a 3200mm plate with the 1600s penalty and drop the lowest plate.
1600 and 3200 plates would be BS plates and mass penalties won't effect them much at all 400 and 800 would be cruiser plates and mass penalties won't effect them much at all 100 and 200 would be frig plates and mass penalties won't effect them much at all
I agree the 1600 and 400 plates caused issues on cruisers and frigs. but 800s or 200s were fine on cruisers and frigs which are getting equally nerfed.
/signed becuase its a damn good idea.
Nyxus
PS- "Slugtacularing" (new word coined by Caeden N.) is a perfect description of what we don't want to have happen.
This I also agree with!
|
P'ercev'hal
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 06:49:00 -
[77]
Edited by: P''ercev''hal on 24/09/2005 06:49:53 Errmm... It's nice to see that they're finally doing something about oversized plates. But what I don't quite undestand is why they havn't changed the plates to a percentage increase.
EX) 1600mm Plate | Heavy - 18% Boost to armor HP (requiring more pg/cpu) 1600mm Plate | Light - 10% Boost to armor HP (requiring less pg/cpu)
And perhaps a light stacking penalty and an increase on pg/cpu requirements.
|
Elaine Threepwood
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 07:31:00 -
[78]
Originally by: FalloutBoy the problem is if they are only useable on the intended class then they are unuseable since they won't give enough of a boost to make them viable. the correct move would be to shift the penalties over one notch and add a 3200mm plate with the 1600s penalty and drop the lowest plate.
1600 and 3200 plates would be BS plates and mass penalties won't effect them much at all 400 and 800 would be cruiser plates and mass penalties won't effect them much at all 100 and 200 would be frig plates and mass penalties won't effect them much at all
I agree the 1600 and 400 plates caused issues on cruisers and frigs. but 800s or 200s were fine on cruisers and frigs which are getting equally nerfed.
I've wanted a plate mass increase for a looooong time, and am happy it's here, but I still agree with this post, plus remove the flat speed penalties. Mass on plates is good, this much mass is too much.
|
H0ot
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:00:00 -
[79]
To put it bluntly, this sucks. Yet another unnesessary nerf that nobody was asking for. My plated Crusader is all I fly these days, if this goes live its back to the Scorpion (yawn)
The good news is, Pirates of the Burning Sea beta starts soon... stuff like this makes me want to /cancel all the more.
|
Malacore
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:01:00 -
[80]
Originally by: H0ot To put it bluntly, this sucks. Yet another unnesessary nerf that nobody was asking for.
You blind then?
|
|
Ticondrius
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:05:00 -
[81]
* was perfectly struck by TOmB's nerfbat..wrecking for OMGTHATF***INGHURT damage
You guys realize that this will REALLY hose the use of plates now, right? Just up the grid on 1600mms to like 800 or 1000 instead of 500. I mean, I've seen battleships with 4 of these things on. That's a bit silly.
Nerfing the 800mm like this will make HACs, especially the armor tanking ones, into hangar trophies...."Ahh...remember when I could actually take you out and hunt down other ships?"
Then let's talk about the smaller frig sized plates...no..let's just don't.
The issue is allowing cruisers to fit 1600mm plates. They shouldn't be able to...so just crank it's grid upwards. Problem solved. LEAVE ALL OTHER PLATES ALONE.
|
H0ot
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:10:00 -
[82]
Originally by: Malacore
Originally by: H0ot To put it bluntly, this sucks. Yet another unnesessary nerf that nobody was asking for.
You blind then?
What I meant was, I've never heard anyone say "AMAGHAAD NURF ARMOR PLATES" ingame. Which is usually a better indicater than what you read on the forums, since some of the posting public cry nerf at everything.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:40:00 -
[83]
Originally by: Ticondrius
You guys realize that this will REALLY hose the use of plates now, right? Just up the grid on 1600mms to like 800 or 1000 instead of 500. I mean, I've seen battleships with 4 of these things on. That's a bit silly.
Nerfing the 800mm like this will make HACs, especially the armor tanking ones, into hangar trophies...."Ahh...remember when I could actually take you out and hunt down other ships?"
Then let's talk about the smaller frig sized plates...no..let's just don't.
The issue is allowing cruisers to fit 1600mm plates. They shouldn't be able to...so just crank it's grid upwards. Problem solved. LEAVE ALL OTHER PLATES ALONE.
i dunno i pvp in my cerberus and it does okay without an armor plate or a shield extender (not that you can actually fit a decent one LOLOLOL) ------
|
LUKEC
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:40:00 -
[84]
adding pg need to 1600 & 400mm plate would solve the problem okish.
800pg on 1600 & 40pg on 400. If you like to fit that... gl.
|
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:52:00 -
[85]
Originally by: LUKEC adding pg need to 1600 & 400mm plate would solve the problem okish.
800pg on 1600 & 40pg on 400. If you like to fit that... gl.
thats nice and all but that still doesnt solve the huge imbalance between shield extenders and armor plating, which i think this 'nerf' is trying to do
800mm II is 1,682 extra armor for only 28 cpu and 230 grid <-this is easy to fit on a cruiser and gives a huge boost
the medium shield extender is 86 cpu and 83 grid <-this is hard to fit on a cruiser and gives 1/2 the HP
the small medium shield extender II gives 210 shields, geewhiz that sucks, and it still uses an ungodly amount of CPU for a "small" module, 58 cpu 6grid? wtf
needless to say, the biggest problem with armor plating i have is that quite frankly armor plated shields have a huge advantage in EVE over non plated
a 1600mm plate boosts a cruiser considerably, the 800mm does too quite frankly, in cruiser combat these modules more or less make or break your setup, as a caldari guy myself this has bugged me since caldari ships have rather subpar armor, and few lot slots, and as far as fitting shield extenders, well i cant, i generally don't have a slot to sacrifice for it, nor do i have the CPU for it, and even if i do gimp myself a bit to fit it ------ its 1/2 the HP of an armor plate or worse, so why bother?
so now we have plates that bring your ship to a crawl and shield extenders ya still cant realistically use for any viable pvp setup ------
|
Fred0
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 08:58:00 -
[86]
Plates were overpowered, you know this when every cruiser fitted for pvp has one.
This adresses that but maybe takes it too far. I still think we'll see oversize plated cruisers. They just won't be as free-roaming as before.
|
Sobeseki Pawi
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 09:29:00 -
[87]
Originally by: sableye what you going to do about oversized shield extenders perhaps a cap nerf for these maybe that will make all you nerfers happy.
Extenders are fine, pain in the ass to fit...as they should be.
~Captain Cutie, Razor's Kiss
Biomass fears me. |
MOS DEF
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 09:31:00 -
[88]
Originally by: FalloutBoy \o/ yay nerf the rax even more
Gankrax with HAC DPS 4tw!
|
Ithildin
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 09:36:00 -
[89]
Edited by: Ithildin on 24/09/2005 09:37:33 I prefere this idea with this specific implementation
Summed up: EDIT: Forgot to write that this idea is modeled after the current 800mm plate (which with this implementation will become the 400mm plate) There's a strong and a weak plate for each category. The strong plate adds 125% armour to the strongest Amarr ship of the class but also takes 25% of the powergrid. The weak plate adds and takes half as much. A shield extender appropriate for it's class (read their descriptions) add 100% shield to the strongest Caldari ship of the class and takes 25% of the total powergrid of said ship (before the skill which potentially reduces PG req. with 25%)
Battleship modules: 800mm Plate, 1600mm Plate, Large Shield Extender. Cruiser modules: 200mm Plate, 400mm Plate, Medium Shield Extender. Frigate modules: 50mm Plate, 100mm Plate, Micro Shield Extender, Small Shield Extender.
12.5% of an Apocs powergrid (amounts to approx 1500 PG) is not something a cruiser can spare. Maybe a battlecruiser can, but...
Examples (note that due to scaling of CPU, CPU is left alone more or less): 800mm Plate - 1500 powergrid and 3750 armour. Large Shield Extender I - 2800 powergrid (2100 at level 5) and 6000 shield. --
I'm in to murder, arson, and pillaging. I differe from a soldier in nothing but name and allegience. |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.09.24 09:48:00 -
[90]
Edited by: Jim Raynor on 24/09/2005 09:50:55
Originally by: Sobeseki Pawi
Originally by: sableye what you going to do about oversized shield extenders perhaps a cap nerf for these maybe that will make all you nerfers happy.
Extenders are fine, pain in the ass to fit...as they should be.
if they're a pain in the ass to fit and give little benefit, then what is the point?
who is going to give up a precious midslot for a medium shield extender?
ive tried to use one on my cerberus but it's not worth it
my base shields on my cerby right now is 1870 the extender boosts it to 2972, unfortunately i lose the ability to fit a large shield booster and afterburner, two modules i more or less need to survive in pvp, it also takes up a valuable slot for electronic warfare (mostly tracking disruptors), which again, i need.. also a cerberus must have a photon scattering fitted or my shields are toasted in 1 volley by a zealot or whatever.. ugh?
no setup with extenders has ever worked out for me, i either sacrifice a lot of DPS (on a ship that can barely ***** a 'decent' tank with 4 bcu) or i give up my ability to defend myself (electronic warfare, tactical shield modules, ect).
bleh :|
and before anyone calls me on hijacking i think extenders and plate both need reviewing =] ------
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 6 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |