| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
ActiveX
   |
Posted - 2005.10.11 02:06:00 -
[1]
Boosting tanking and nerfing Ganking.... at the same time... VERY VERY bad Idea.
Suggestion:
2x Damage mods should be slightly more effecient than todays 2x damage mods.
3x damage mods should ALO be slighly more effecient than todays 3x but not at the same ratio as the 2x damage mods.
4x damage mods should be equivilant to todays 4x damage mods
5x should be the same
6x same
7x slightly less
8x bigger nerf than 7 but still close.
Damage setups are a fun part of the game. Gettign damage levels to beat everyone elses is just fun.
An alternative is to base the damage mods reduction on a skill.
But this idea that I just suggested could make people want to change up from pure gank but if its needed they can. Laying siege to a POS shouldnt NEED a dread....
____________
Sex / Rank 9 / SP: 1280 of 2304000 
|
DrunkenOne
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 02:12:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: ActiveX
Boosting tanking and nerfing Ganking.... at the same time... VERY VERY bad Idea.
Suggestion:
2x Damage mods should be slightly more effecient than todays 2x damage mods.
3x damage mods should ALO be slighly more effecient than todays 3x but not at the same ratio as the 2x damage mods.
4x damage mods should be equivilant to todays 4x damage mods
5x should be the same
6x same
7x slightly less
8x bigger nerf than 7 but still close.
Damage setups are a fun part of the game. Gettign damage levels to beat everyone elses is just fun.
An alternative is to base the damage mods reduction on a skill.
But this idea that I just suggested could make people want to change up from pure gank but if its needed they can. Laying siege to a POS shouldnt NEED a dread....
|
Ampoliros
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 02:17:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Ampoliros on 11/10/2005 02:18:18
You know, I honestly rather like the devs idea, and I really hate your idea, because its the same junk, different package. The dev's idea means I might be able to do something with my lowslots on my tempest besides as many gyro2s as I can fit.
------------------------------------
|
Smithers
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 02:43:00 -
[4]
One unforseen (probably) bad point of dmg mod nerf is now people will fit stabs, which means they will be harder to trap.
|
Horg
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 03:01:00 -
[5]
Then add a penalty to using multiple stabs... more stabs = less effective ship in combat. That way if your transporting valuable cargo, you can fit full stabs and not care about fighting. But If you fit a bunch of stabs on a combat ship you'll be gimped alot. I was thinking something like signature resolution penalty that grows in a exponential way... so that one or two stabs dont really gimp your set up but a full rack makes you useless for combat :)
Hmmmm.... kinda off subject am I ... well I too like the devs idea for damage mods we should never stack more than 4 of any mod!
|
Azuriel Talloth
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 03:07:00 -
[6]
Give stabs a cap penalty like MWD. Or increase fitting requirements. Or give a sig radius increase penalty. Or a reduced targetting range penalty. Or make them high slot items. Goddamnit I gotta stop reading this forum at 4am 
"Making no mistakes is what establishes the certainty of victory,
for it means conquering an enemy that is already defeated." |
Death Merchant
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 03:15:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Azuriel Talloth
Give stabs a cap penalty like MWD. Or increase fitting requirements. Or give a sig radius increase penalty. Or a reduced targetting range penalty. Or make them high slot items. Goddamnit I gotta stop reading this forum at 4am
Cap penalty.. .yes, yes.. I like. Maybe even a capacitor penalty also. If you wanna run fine, your gonna run out of cap and you might get left behind in fleet battles.
|
Meridius
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 03:20:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Smithers
One unforseen (probably) bad point of dmg mod nerf is now people will fit stabs, which means they will be harder to trap.
You mean like stabageddons?
4 dmg mods, 4 wcs, full rack of mega pulse II 4tw.
________________________________________________________
|
Sadist
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 04:45:00 -
[9]
Originally by: Smithers
One unforseen (probably) bad point of dmg mod nerf is now people will fit stabs, which means they will be harder to trap.
No, now actually people will stand and fight, because they know their tank setup stands a chance against a gankship, and their lesser ships like cruisers and BC wont get popped before being able to do damage.
---------------
VIP member of the [23]
Sadist - harsh to the idiots, kind to the smart |
Jim Raynor
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 05:28:00 -
[10]
Originally by: ActiveX
Boosting tanking and nerfing Ganking.... at the same time... VERY VERY bad Idea.
Suggestion:
2x Damage mods should be slightly more effecient than todays 2x damage mods.
3x damage mods should ALO be slighly more effecient than todays 3x but not at the same ratio as the 2x damage mods.
4x damage mods should be equivilant to todays 4x damage mods
5x should be the same
6x same
7x slightly less
8x bigger nerf than 7 but still close.
Damage setups are a fun part of the game. Gettign damage levels to beat everyone elses is just fun.
An alternative is to base the damage mods reduction on a skill.
But this idea that I just suggested could make people want to change up from pure gank but if its needed they can. Laying siege to a POS shouldnt NEED a dread....
Translation: Don't Change Anything.
I think damage modules need nerfed, I think warpcore stabs to too though, and the new defensive changes might be a bit too much as well, ugh. :\
------
If Captain James T. Kirk and Mr. Spock embracing one another, in a bath tube, nude, in space, is wrong, I don't want to be right. |
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 05:29:00 -
[11]
Edited by: ELECTR0FREAK on 11/10/2005 05:30:36
Stabs definately need a stacking penalty though or everything will go to hell and a handbasket.
As for stacking penalties... I'll have to actually try out what the devs are proposing before I can comment really.
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
Shamis Orzoz
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 05:35:00 -
[12]
I like the devs idea much better. I can't wait to be able to run a blasterthron or a autotempest again...and finally put my nav skills to use 
|
McCool
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 07:03:00 -
[13]
whats the point in using a geddon if it cant gank?
|
ELECTR0FREAK
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 07:48:00 -
[14]
Originally by: McCool
whats the point in using a geddon if it cant gank?
Adapt. Those of us who used missiles had to. Welcome to the club.
-Electrofreak
Discoverer of the Missile Damage Formula |
Weirda
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 09:15:00 -
[15]
Originally by: Meridius
Originally by: Smithers
One unforseen (probably) bad point of dmg mod nerf is now people will fit stabs, which means they will be harder to trap.
You mean like stabageddons?
4 dmg mods, 4 wcs, full rack of mega pulse II 4tw.
as weirda have been saying - just move stabs to the high slots... ouila.
--
Thread Killer
(attempting to train verbosity from 4 back down to 1)
<END TRANSMISSION> |
Clipped Wings
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 09:22:00 -
[16]
Originally by: Weirda
as weirda have been saying - just move stabs to the high slots... ouila.
Your posts are normally well-founded and, if nothing else, Out of the ordinary...but I'm not sure you've thought this one through.
If stabs are moved to highslots, there are ships that will be pretty much boned on this account.
Haulers, to mention one.
I don't fly one, so I'm fine either way, but haulers specifically would need to either have more highslots added (which would lead to some rather strange possibilities, like a nos-fitted combat hauler), or have built-in stabs, like some of the advanced haulers already do.
There are no doubts some ships that'd have to be looked at as well. The thing I'd fear the most would be quad-stabbed frigates. With microwarpdrives. Those things would be literally uncatchable.
Imagine a Rifter with 4 stabs, MWD and 3 nanos. Scout from hell :s
Anyways, I think I'm drifting off course here.
-Clipped Wings of LFC
"I believe in the theoretical benevolence, and practical malignity of man."
~William Hazlitt
|
Vishnej
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 10:15:00 -
[17]
Edited by: Vishnej on 11/10/2005 10:19:51
Edited by: Vishnej on 11/10/2005 10:17:03
For warp core stabs, what do you think of side effect: -30% warp speed per WCS?
It would halve warp speed with two stabs, bringing you down to a quarter your normal warpspeed with four stabs.
Or perhaps 30% is too high, and 20 or 25% would be more appropriate. (named/t2?)
-----------------
T2 Destroyers: a proposal |
Luc Boye
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 11:34:00 -
[18]
Nerf both dmg mod stacking and warp core stabs. It has become rather pointless to fit anything else in low slots for fleet fights. Kinda boring really.
You either fit full rack of dmg mods or mix of dmg mods and tracking enhancers. All those modules like hardeners and stuff are only used for grinding npcs and missions.
|
Liu Kaskakka
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 11:54:00 -
[19]
Originally by: McCool
whats the point in using a geddon if it cant gank?
tee-hee
|
Agnar Koladrov
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 12:09:00 -
[20]
The new to be implemented dmg stacking formulas will be very nice from what I heard, so no need to change those.
About warp stabs: the guy or gal with the most scramble strength or the most war core strength now, wins. Basta, simple as that.
Penetalizing warp core stabs is ok, but only if they are limited to a max ammount of scrambling strength. If by penetalizing the results in scrambler strength vs warp core strength become too powerfull, then whole change is useless.
If we really want scrambler and wcs to be at par with eachother, then there is a need for an extra variable in the scrambling formula. Instead of I have more scramble strength I WIN WHOOHOO!!! Or the opposite ofcource.
|
lythos miralbar
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 12:12:00 -
[21]
Sugested nerfs to wcs include :-
1) Each WCS fitted in a low slot should remove one high slot from a ship
2) Each WCS takes up 25% cpu and 25% base available powergrid after skills but before any mods are fitted.
3) Each WCS doubles the cap usage of all high slot modules.
In no way should WCS nerf the mass/agility, speeds, or speed of warp of a ship. Remember we want them viable for traveling but iffy for combat, not useless for everything.
|
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 12:28:00 -
[22]
Originally by: McCool
whats the point in using a geddon if it cant gank?
The same as it had before people started the whole ganka trend... being a good battleship.
~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~
A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX
The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
McCool
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 12:49:00 -
[23]
Edited by: McCool on 11/10/2005 12:49:24
Originally by: Gariuys
Originally by: McCool
whats the point in using a geddon if it cant gank?
The same as it had before people started the whole ganka trend... being a good battleship.
im fairly new to this game so please explain what they could do before the ganka trend and my question to your answer will probably be, is it something that the apoc cant do better?
|
Dimitri Forgroth
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 12:51:00 -
[24]
Originally by: McCool
Edited by: McCool on 11/10/2005 12:49:24
Originally by: Gariuys
Originally by: McCool
whats the point in using a geddon if it cant gank?
The same as it had before people started the whole ganka trend... being a good battleship.
im fairly new to this game so please explain what they could do before the ganka trend and my question to your answer will probably be, is it something that the apoc cant do better?
Deal damage..? ZOMG, no 1200dps ships! What is it coming down to? 800-900? And leaving 3-4 low slots open for plates and reps? OH NOES.
Originally by: Oveur
I do not recall having intellectual intercourse with Paint.
DPS Sheet |
McCool
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 13:00:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Dimitri Forgroth
Originally by: McCool
Edited by: McCool on 11/10/2005 12:49:24
Originally by: Gariuys
Originally by: McCool
whats the point in using a geddon if it cant gank?
The same as it had before people started the whole ganka trend... being a good battleship.
im fairly new to this game so please explain what they could do before the ganka trend and my question to your answer will probably be, is it something that the apoc cant do better?
Deal damage..? ZOMG, no 1200dps ships! What is it coming down to? 800-900? And leaving 3-4 low slots open for plates and reps? OH NOES.
and the point of nerfing the dmg mods if a geddon still can do 800-900 dps is? longer fleetbattles? gank dont win against tank?
|
Eyeshadow
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 13:02:00 -
[26]
Edited by: Eyeshadow on 11/10/2005 13:02:16
WCS = -10% Max capacitor capacity, -10% max shield
All the power is diverted to ya warp core. Also increase CPU to 40 or eve 50 CPU. Job done
My Latest Vid: Linky |
Eyeshadow
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 13:04:00 -
[27]
As for dmg mod stacking, fitting anymore than 3 should be pointless. I despise the "must fit for max damage" mentatity in EVE atm. It makes it really boring
My Latest Vid: Linky |
Gariuys
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 13:04:00 -
[28]
Edited by: Gariuys on 11/10/2005 13:04:21
800dps vs 1200dps is after resists, let's go standard 60% all, 320 vs 480, is if you go with 100dps repaired from 2 large reps or something. 220 vs 380 going through. End result is a a fight that lasts 73% longer. Beautiful don't you think.
~{When evil and strange get together anything is possible}~
A tool is only useless when you don't know how to use it. - ActiveX
The grass is always greener on the other side. - JoCool |
Nyxus
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 13:07:00 -
[29]
Each fitted WCS adds +50% to lock time
If you are going to run, run. If you are going to fight, stay and fight.
Job done.
Nyxus
|
Slater Dogstar
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 13:17:00 -
[30]
Originally by: McCool
whats the point in using a geddon if it cant gank?
Lol obviously it means it becomes a good battleship.It can fit a good tank and true the apoc is better at it but then again the apoc is a tier 2 battleship so should be better.
The only reason the geddon was more popular was because in the old bad system 8 lowslots meant a bigger gank unlike the apoc which had 7 low slots.
This also means fights last more than 10 seconds now so are worth the time to work for.
Gillet The Best A Man Can Get |
McCool
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 13:23:00 -
[31]
Originally by: Gariuys
Edited by: Gariuys on 11/10/2005 13:04:21
800dps vs 1200dps is after resists, let's go standard 60% all, 320 vs 480, is if you go with 100dps repaired from 2 large reps or something. 220 vs 380 going through. End result is a a fight that lasts 73% longer. Beautiful don't you think.
lets u have 4400 hp in armor. then 4400/220 = 20 sec, and 4400/380 ~ 12. plus a few seconds from shield and hull. so the fight goes from lasting 12 to 20 sec. plate isnt counted for but still, not much of change, and for fleetbattles i would guess that the battles last hrm just few sec longer.
|
Kilpelainen
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 13:27:00 -
[32]
Edited by: Kilpelainen on 11/10/2005 13:27:59
Originally by: Nyxus
Each fitted WCS adds +50% to lock time
Best suggestion so far. Couldn't think any better way to "nerf" WCS's.
edit: of course this is off-topic - just how i like it. 
|
danneh
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 14:22:00 -
[33]
ROFL, seeing Caldari pilots say "ZOMG" haha, remember the missile threads? hahahaha.
Hello. |
DrunkenOne
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 14:46:00 -
[34]
Originally by: Eyeshadow
Edited by: Eyeshadow on 11/10/2005 13:02:16
WCS = -10% Max capacitor capacity, -10% max shield
All the power is diverted to ya warp core. Also increase CPU to 40 or eve 50 CPU. Job done
That wouldnt work. 5 stab ravens would become 4 stab + 1 co-proc ravens. They dont need any cap to shoot, and they use EW in mids so they dont need cap to tank, and their shields dont matter cause they can just A) jam/dampen anything shooting them, and B) warp out when they take damage.
|
Magunus
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 15:02:00 -
[35]
Originally by: Nyxus
Each fitted WCS adds +50% to lock time
If you are going to run, run. If you are going to fight, stay and fight.
Job done.
Nyxus
Meh. If fitting a warp scrambler is a valid combat tactic, fitting a warp core stabilizer is also a valid combat tactic. I don't disagree that they could use some sort of penalty, but making any ship that uses them useless in combat isn't the way to do it. If you did that, then mounting a scrambler should also have a penalty.
Now, a stacking penalty on WCS to strength would help quite a bit. If the first WCS gave +1, the second would make it 2 or whatever (guessing at what the new stacking formula would do), and the third would make it 2.5 or so. Fourth would do very little (say 2.8), and 5th would make it 2.9 or 3.
That way, fitting 1 would save you from -1, fitting 2 would save you from a -2, fitting 3 wouldn't do squat, fitting 5 would save you from -3, but that's about as good as you could get.
They might have to do a bit of balance with the scramblers and disruptors to make it all work, but it'd just be tweaking the base values a bit and maybe adding a skill to increase strength.
---
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-- Douglas Adams, 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe' |
danneh
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 15:07:00 -
[36]
NERF STABS plz, 100 cpu each plz.
Hello. |
Bruchpilot
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 20:34:00 -
[37]
Another solution: Decrease the rof of the guns by 10% (maybe a bit more and no stacking, harhar ) per stab. Voila, it isn't used anymore, or just 1 max 2 cause loosing damage sucks, expecialy on ships like the Geddon.
|
Illuvator Brightstar
|
Posted - 2005.10.11 22:23:00 -
[38]
Yeah, lets make them 100 cpu each! That way, those pesky frigs cant even fit one!
|
CargoCult
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 00:34:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Death Merchant
Originally by: Azuriel Talloth
Give stabs a cap penalty like MWD. Or increase fitting requirements. Or give a sig radius increase penalty. Or a reduced targetting range penalty. Or make them high slot items. Goddamnit I gotta stop reading this forum at 4am
Cap penalty.. .yes, yes.. I like. Maybe even a capacitor penalty also. If you wanna run fine, your gonna run out of cap and you might get left behind in fleet battles.
No bad
- remember fit on a stabs on a hauler if a resonable use
- hauler V little cap
would take <edited> ages to warp anywhere if they did that!, just nerf locking range ro something instead - i.e. something a wee bit more combat related
- on a related note a cap negative would have no effect on a sniper rigged ship
--------------------------------------------------
All the right letters, just not nescacarily in the right order - morcam and wise
Its not working sir!
Well thump it then |
Zyrla Bladestorm
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 00:43:00 -
[40]
Originally by: Bruchpilot
Another solution: Decrease the rof of the guns by 10% (maybe a bit more and no stacking, harhar) per stab. Voila, it isn't used anymore, or just 1 max 2 cause loosing damage sucks, expecialy on ships like the Geddon.
I agreee, Being equivalent to Anti-Damage mods seems like the right penalty to me, can fit and run them fine like now when you don't want to fight, but you won't be nearly as effective at ganking.
.
-----
Apologies for any rambling that may have just occurred.
|
danneh
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 01:16:00 -
[41]
Originally by: Illuvator Brightstar
Yeah, lets make them 100 cpu each! That way, those pesky frigs cant even fit one!
Why is the hell whould a damn frig fit a stab, if ur gonna get cought its gonna be threw a bubble or a instalock sniper.
Hello. |
Vishnej
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 07:14:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Vishnej
Edited by: Vishnej on 11/10/2005 10:26:24
For warp core stabs, what do you think of side effect: -30% warp speed per WCS?
It would halve warp speed with two stabs, bringing you down to a quarter your normal warpspeed with four stabs.
Or perhaps 30% is too high, and 20 or 25% would be more appropriate. (named/t2?)
So they can evade you, but if you can set up a tackler in the next system before they get to the gate...
Does noone like my idea? It fits logically into the role of the warp core stab(the warp bubble is extra stable, less speedy/erratic), and I think it creates a valid tactical penalty to using them, without crippling them (And they're not going to cripple them - we have entire ship classes devoted to defeating WCS, the devs have spoken), while leaving an effective counter.
-----------------
T2 Destroyers: a proposal |
Famine Aligher'ri
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 08:19:00 -
[43]
Man all the gank sheeps are whinning and it's going to get WCS's nerfed so us solo pilots have no chance of getting into 0.0 without a fast damn frig. I can see the light.
-Famine Aligher'ri, of The Aligher'ri
|
Matthew
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 12:22:00 -
[44]
Originally by: Magunus
Meh. If fitting a warp scrambler is a valid combat tactic, fitting a warp core stabilizer is also a valid combat tactic. I don't disagree that they could use some sort of penalty, but making any ship that uses them useless in combat isn't the way to do it. If you did that, then mounting a scrambler should also have a penalty.
Except fitting a warp core stabiliser isn't a tactic to win a fight - it's a tactic to avoid a fight. You don't need target locks to be able to run away. So mounting a warp stab forces you into a particular tactic (i.e. running away). The scrambler does the same thing due to it's range restriction - whoever is mounting the scrambler is forced into high-speed short-range tactics, otherwise they're unlikely to be able to scramble their target.
You can do anything. But you can't do everything. |
Bruchpilot
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 13:19:00 -
[45]
Originally by: Famine Aligher'ri
Man all the gank sheeps are whinning and it's going to get WCS's nerfed so us solo pilots have no chance of getting into 0.0 without a fast damn frig. I can see the light.
Solopiloting doesn't nescessary mean you have to fit WCS. I don't fit any on my ships. If you get ganked, well tough luck.
|
Magunus
|
Posted - 2005.10.12 13:52:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Matthew
Originally by: Magunus
Meh. If fitting a warp scrambler is a valid combat tactic, fitting a warp core stabilizer is also a valid combat tactic. I don't disagree that they could use some sort of penalty, but making any ship that uses them useless in combat isn't the way to do it. If you did that, then mounting a scrambler should also have a penalty.
Except fitting a warp core stabiliser isn't a tactic to win a fight - it's a tactic to avoid a fight. You don't need target locks to be able to run away. So mounting a warp stab forces you into a particular tactic (i.e. running away). The scrambler does the same thing due to it's range restriction - whoever is mounting the scrambler is forced into high-speed short-range tactics, otherwise they're unlikely to be able to scramble their target.
That's where it gets sticky. Mounting a full rack of WCS is a tactic to avoid a fight. Mounting one or two is a tactic to save your ship if you're in a fight you can't win. Better part of valor and all that.
If you say anyone who avoids losing a ship by using a tactic like mounting WCS, you might as well say that armor reppers reduce your damage, and shield hardeners decrease your ROF. All are valid ways to avoid or repair damage. But mounting shield hardeners already has a downside. The stacking penalty, to prevent you from making yourself invulnerable. Isn't this really the same thing? People are stacking WCS to make themselves invulnerable?
---
In the beginning the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and been widely regarded as a bad move.
-- Douglas Adams, 'The Restaurant at the End of the Universe' |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 :: [one page] |