|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 11 post(s) |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
252
   |
Posted - 2014.01.06 21:56:00 -
[1] - Quote
Oh look, more dumb shiny crap added for the sake of adding stuff, while huge issues get ignored once again.
Also, if the MSI works inside FW plexes, then you will have effectively kill a significant portion of FW PvP, great job. |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
255
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 17:18:00 -
[2] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:Ok everyone, here is our first round of changes since the beginning of public feedback. These are some quite large changes but we think the end result is a much stronger design.
Mobile Micro Jump Unit
We're cutting the EHP of the structure by 80%, to 5000hp.
We're increasing the time that the MJU takes to activate to 1 minute.
We're increasing the range at which the MJU can be used to 5000m.
We're increasing the minimum range from other MJU structures to 10km.
We're disabling the ability to jump while cloaked.
Mobile Scan Inhibitor
Ships inside the area of a MSI's effect will have their own directional scanner and probe results disabled.
We're adding a minimum distance of 75km from wormholes.
We're reducing the sensor strength of the structure to 5 and increasing the signature radius to 500. Go ahead and apply as many projected ECCM to that as you want.
We're increasing the build cost to ~15m isk.
We're decreasing the structure's lifetime in space to 1 hour.
Minimum distance to another MSI is now 100km.
We're increasing the volume of the structure to 100m3.
I'll be updating the OP momentarily.
Nerfed into the ground, excellent. The only thing remaining is to disallow the use of the MSIs inside FW plexes. At that point, the only outcome that could be better is these deployables never having been developed or introduced into the game at all.
Seriously, that's how silly this is. The only way this garbage isn't game-breaking is to nerf it to the point of uselessness outside of tiny niches. Don't get me wrong, I'm very happy that that has happened. I would be perfectly fine with never running into either of these two deployables in game ever. However when your shiny new flagship concept gets announced and you get 30 pages of negative and lackluster responses and then the only way to fix it is to make the deployables so weak as to discourage widespread use, then I think you need to seriously reexamine your design process and work priorities. |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
255
|
Posted - 2014.01.09 17:29:00 -
[3] - Quote
Kagura Nikon wrote:Btw, can any FW dweller explain me why they think this still does nto help with FW issues? I ran FW for some time, but the metagame might have changed a lot...
Anyone inside a FW plex has a significant advantage over anyone coming into a plex as they can setup and dictate the range of the engagement. So for someone to be willing to even take the gate into a plex, they have to consider themselves at at least a slight advantage over what they see on d-scan just to make the playing field level. So unless you're flying in a blob, seeing one of these inside a FW plex is a big sign saying "it isn't worth risking coming in here". And since you can make 15 to 20 mil per medium plex in well under the 1 hour expiration time on the MSI, there's no reason for risk averse players not to spam these 5 mil safe-plexing deployables across the warzone. So yes, the use of MSI inside FW plexes is important to be disabled. |
Rekkr Nordgard
The Ardency of Faith
353
|
Posted - 2014.01.21 18:31:00 -
[4] - Quote
Priestess Lin wrote:The status quo seems to be happy with the MSI it now that it is near useless.
Success?
Yes, definitely. Everyone other than you prefers useless deployables to game-breaking ones.
Of course we prefer actual useful features over useless deployables, but that's a different matter. |
|
|
| |
|