| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
|
|
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 1 post(s) |
Avon
   |
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:38:00 -
[151]
 Originally by: Maya Rkell
um?
Tracking is LESS important at range. At ultra range, you can quite easily pick off frigates because anything they do, even moving at 1km/s with an AB (MWDing makes you even MORE vulnrable) is unlikely overwhelm the tracking of the BS.
Dual bonus mod my dear Maya.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Calenth
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:38:00 -
[152]
If the problem is t2 ammo as much as it is sensor boosters. .perhaps just a soft cap on range, period, at about 150km. It seems that the game just isn't built for doing much past that range.
Signature removed - file size/width too large.Laurelin |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:40:00 -
[153]
If you split them all, then you get into splitting things like damage mods. And once they're nerfed, more people WILL use WCS. Desireable? Uhm...
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:41:00 -
[154]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
If you split them all, then you get into splitting things like damage mods. And once they're nerfed, more people WILL use WCS. Desireable? Uhm...
How does that logic follow?
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:43:00 -
[155]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 19/03/2006 16:43:41
Because if I now get a far lower bonus from my lowslot modules (and you'll need to remove things like Energised adaptive nanos outright - *4* bonuses!) then fitting the single-bonus WCS to ensure that I can allways escape is far more tempting.
What is WRONG with the idea to halve the sensor booster bonuses? It'd be far more effective, and has no major drawbacks I can see (one or two ships might need slightly lockrange adjustments, yes, but tnat's minor).
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:44:00 -
[156]
Edited by: Avon on 19/03/2006 16:46:05
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Because if I now get a far lower bonus from my lowslot modules (and you'll need to remove things like Energised adaptive nanos outright - *4* bonuses!) then fitting the single-bonus WCS to ensure that I can allways escape is far more tempting.
Your enemies are penalised in exactly the same way, the status quo is maintained.
Anyway, that is just a good arguement for my low-slot 'insta' mod, innit? 
(And adaptives are competely different, just like invun fields are - 4 types of hardness improved, but each less efficient than a specific hardner)
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Remedial
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:44:00 -
[157]
That doesn't really follow. It's more likely that people will have think more tactically about range vs. tracking vs. damage
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:47:00 -
[158]
No, it is NOT a good argument for removing the usefulness of over half the ships in the game in 0.0 space. NOTHING is a good argument for that, or for allowing insta autopilot travel. NOTHING.
And Remedial, the "split" modules will be a lot less effective, and current single bonus modules will either thus need nerfing or they just got a major realtive boost in usefulness. It'd NOT prevent the snipers from hitting at range, at best it'd reduce their damage slightly and it WOULD prevent a lot of ships from striking back (since smaller ships have less slots and are less versatile)
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:48:00 -
[159]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 19/03/2006 16:48:11
No, it is NOT a good argument for removing the usefulness of over half the ships in the game in 0.0 space. NOTHING is a good argument for that, or for allowing insta autopilot travel. NOTHING.
And you are talking about the number of bonuses a module has. A duck is a duck is a duckm Avon. You STILL haven't explained how just nerfing the sensor booster to 50% of its current won't work FAR better than getting in your EXTREMELY complex (balance-wise) fix.
And Remedial, the "split" modules will be a lot less effective, and current single bonus modules will either thus need nerfing or they just got a major realtive boost in usefulness. It'd NOT prevent the snipers from hitting at range, at best it'd reduce their damage slightly and it WOULD prevent a lot of ships from striking back (since smaller ships have less slots and are less versatile)
You're funny. 
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:50:00 -
[160]
What, because I'm right and you can't answer my point Avon?
Lame.
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
|
|
Calenth
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:53:00 -
[161]
So what would be the problem with simply putting a soft cap on range at ~150km?
Signature removed - file size/width too large.Laurelin |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:54:00 -
[162]
That it's uncessary?
If sensor boosters gave a 25% boost to range each, then it'd be a LOT harder to reach the current insane lockranges.
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:54:00 -
[163]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 19/03/2006 16:48:11
No, it is NOT a good argument for removing the usefulness of over half the ships in the game in 0.0 space. NOTHING is a good argument for that, or for allowing insta autopilot travel. NOTHING.
In your opinion, but it is not one I share.
I want instas gone and a suitable replacement to be introduced which requires compromise.
You do not.
Your doom saying does nothing to forward that topic, and yet you feel the need to post it without thought to evidence, or even a thought out opinion.
Quote:
And you are talking about the number of bonuses a module has. A duck is a duck is a duckm Avon. You STILL haven't explained how just nerfing the sensor booster to 50% of its current won't work FAR better than getting in your EXTREMELY complex (balance-wise) fix.
Is that all I proposed?
No, but it suits you to make it seem as such.
Quote:
And Remedial, the "split" modules will be a lot less effective, and current single bonus modules will either thus need nerfing or they just got a major realtive boost in usefulness. It'd NOT prevent the snipers from hitting at range, at best it'd reduce their damage slightly and it WOULD prevent a lot of ships from striking back (since smaller ships have less slots and are less versatile)
Unproven, and likely untrue.
Fit a sniper ship, and remove half the mods.
Go sniping.
Let us know how it all works out for you.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:55:00 -
[164]
Edited by: Avon on 19/03/2006 16:56:25
Originally by: Maya Rkell
That it's uncessary?
If sensor boosters gave a 25% boost to range each, then it'd be a LOT harder to reach the current insane lockranges.
Remote sensor boosters?
Why am I even pointing this out - you didn't even know why people used tracking computers on sniper setups.
I'm not sure you are fully qualified to even discuss this subject tbh.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:56:00 -
[165]
Quote:
Lifewire
Then don't post about it here. This thread is for debate and discussion - if you can't bring your points to the table, don't bring them, don't just talk about how uber they are.
And blah blah - it DOSN'T MATTER. They are aligned. They are at speed. The only possible tactic is a ram and scramble by the covert, and that usually fails and costs you the covert into the bargain.
Been there, done it - from both sides.
No-o, you are wrong, snipers can easily be killed...and evaded. They will only hit ships with no transversal, they cannot destroy a tanked ship. So there is nothing to discuss here, only some whiners that failed nailing a sniper because they didnt want to pay 100 mil to to get the perfect anti-sniper-feature.
The only reason why snipers do actually kill people is that most pilots have no knowhow how to evade the sniper guns. Again compare to real life: if you dont move you make it easy for a sniper to hit you. And if you have no kevlar-suit his guns will hurt. So transported into EVE this means: move your a$$, if possible transversal. Tank you ship! This is the passive defense against snipers. And if you want to nail them, convo Lifewire, pay 100 mil and i¦ll explain you how.
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/
Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips
Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 16:58:00 -
[166]
Originally by: Lifewire
No-o, you are wrong, snipers can easily be killed...and evaded. They will only hit ships with no transversal,
Not so.
You worked out the max transverse a good sniper can hit at 150km+?
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Calenth
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 17:01:00 -
[167]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
That it's uncessary?
If sensor boosters gave a 25% boost to range each, then it'd be a LOT harder to reach the current insane lockranges.
yeah, but people who can't reach the current insane ranges but need sensor boosters to get to "acceptable/standard" sniping bs ranges will get nerfed too, when they aren't the problem.
If the problem is 'extreme range," then it would seem that the simplest solution would be to limit just that, with a ~150km soft cap on range, and not anything else. People who had t2 ammo would get free midslots, people who had sensor boosters could challenge at range, etc.
I'm a big fan of addressing balance changes as precisely as possible and in as limited a fashion as necessary/possible. I admit I could be missing something but I don't see why a soft cap on range at ~150km is flawed. It seems the most minimal solution with the fewest secondary effects.
Signature removed - file size/width too large.Laurelin |
Remedial
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 17:01:00 -
[168]
Originally by: Lifewire
The only reason why snipers do actually kill people is that most pilots have no knowhow how to evade the sniper guns. Again compare to real life: if you dont move you make it easy for a sniper to hit you. And if you have no kevlar-suit his guns will hurt. So transported into EVE this means: move your a$$, if possible transversal. Tank you ship! This is the passive defense against snipers. And if you want to nail them, convo Lifewire, pay 100 mil and i¦ll explain you how.
Hurrrrrrrrrrrr did you even read this thread or the original post? WE KNOW THERE ARE WAYS FOR INDIVIDUAL PILOTS TO NOT GET KILLED BY SNIPERS. That does not *actually* remove the sniper as a threat however, so you can tell every one of your gang/corp/alliance to hang out in super tanked or super transveral ships, and unless you bring your own sets of snipers, the enemy BS sniper gang can still just warp off and come back whenever they feel like it.
God, stop trolling this thread. Your homespun 2 cents of crap wisdom is already known and has already been discussed. Fitting everybody out to survive sniper battleships does not actually remove the sniper battleships, and delays the problem instead of dealing with it. GO AWAY.
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 17:02:00 -
[169]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 19/03/2006 17:05:40
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 19/03/2006 17:05:07
Avon,
I know why - I've run the calculations - have you? I don't believe so, by the nature of your comments (Incidently, they're wrong - hit quality does NOT depend on tracking, per Naughty Boy's experiments).
And remote sensor boosters would have to be looked at, sure. Ditto the lowslot range modules. But that's still only 3 module families to the dozens and dozens you'd alter by splitting all dual modules.
Calenth,
Can't make omlets with breaking eggs. Either range (and sniping IS) is a general issue or it isn't. If it is, then the modules need to be altered - and trying to affect only one small class of player isn't going to work. In truth, only a very few classes of setup are lockrange dependent and I don't really feel bad for the effect it'd have on them.
Arbitrary limits are bad for the game, and make you feel like you're on rails rather than in a free, exciting universe.
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 17:06:00 -
[170]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
It'd NOT prevent the snipers from hitting at range, at best it'd reduce their damage slightly and it WOULD prevent a lot of ships from striking back (since smaller ships have less slots and are less versatile)
I think that post is a perfect example of why reducing sensor boosters to 25% won't work.
How fortunate you had already posted the reason it wouldn't work before you reaffirmed the proposal.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
|
|
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 17:07:00 -
[171]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 19/03/2006 17:05:40
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 19/03/2006 17:05:07
Avon,
I know why - I've run the calculations - have you? I don't believe so, by the nature of your comments (Incidently, they're wrong - hit quality does NOT depend on tracking, per Naughty Boy's experiments).
WTF?
You still haven't got a clue why I mentioned tracking computers, do you?
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Hellspawn01
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 17:08:00 -
[172]
Its actually very easy to kill a sniping BS. It just involves some intel, a covert ops, an interdictor and some backup. I leave the rest up to you. If you cant figure it out, then you deserve to die to a sniper.
------
Ö
Ship lover
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 17:08:00 -
[173]
Edited by: Maya Rkell on 19/03/2006 17:08:38
Avon,
Except that you're wrong (And nitpicking among my many points until you find one which supports your extremely narrowminded viewpoint dosn't win you friends).
Smaller ships do not have the weapons range to strike back ANYWAY, and given their speed a relative reduction in range will still allow them to bring their shorte-ranged weapons into play more quickly since their base lock range will still cover most OF that range.
As for tracking computers, give it up Avon, as I said I've run the figures. FFS.
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 17:09:00 -
[174]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
As for tracking computers, give it up Avon, as I said I've run the figures. FFS.
Tracking computers aren't used for tracking.
Jeez, you know what - learn Eve, k?
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 17:10:00 -
[175]
Originally by: Hellspawn01
Its actually very easy to kill a sniping BS. It just involves some intel, a covert ops, an interdictor and some backup. I leave the rest up to you. If you cant figure it out, then you deserve to die to a sniper.
And at least five times the sniper's numbers in 15+ mil characters, assuming he dosn't immediately safespot when you enter local. Oops, maybe that ISN'T really a good soloution!
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
Avon
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 17:11:00 -
[176]
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Smaller ships do not have the weapons range to strike back ANYWAY, and given their speed a relative reduction in range will still allow them to bring their shorte-ranged weapons into play more quickly since their base lock range will still cover most OF that range.
More quickly is fantastic.
They'll be so much closer when they watch the sniper warp off.
The Battleships is not and should not be a solo pwnmobile - Oveur |
Lifewire
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 17:12:00 -
[177]
Quote:
Hurrrrrrrrrrrr did you even read this thread or the original post? WE KNOW THERE ARE WAYS FOR INDIVIDUAL PILOTS TO NOT GET KILLED BY SNIPERS. That does not *actually* remove the sniper as a threat however, so you can tell every one of your gang/corp/alliance to hang out in super tanked or super transveral ships, and unless you bring your own sets of snipers, the enemy BS sniper gang can still just warp off and come back whenever they feel like it.
God, stop trolling this thread. Your homespun 2 cents of crap wisdom is already known and has already been discussed. Fitting everybody out to survive sniper battleships does not actually remove the sniper battleships, and delays the problem instead of dealing with it. GO AWAY.
You guys actually want a sniper nerf - so you want to nerf piracy again. You want that the DEVs end our activity and end our style of playing EVE.
That¦s why i will not stop telling you:
Snipers can easily be evaded
Snipers can eassily be killed
And:
If Sniping is nerfed this game looses tactical deepth. Long range combat is part of warfare. archers, artillery, cruise missiles...it¦s all sniping in the end. Remove long range combat or even demanding this is plain stupid adn would only hurt EVE.
Forum:http://www.tundragon.com/forum/
Movies:http://www.tundragon.com/pub/eveclips
Killboard:http://www.tundragon.com/
|
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 17:13:00 -
[178]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Maya Rkell
As for tracking computers, give it up Avon, as I said I've run the figures. FFS.
Tracking computers aren't used for tracking.
Jeez, you know what - learn Eve, k?
Heh. I see your point perfectly, however it's far LESS of a factor these days because there are +100% amo's avaliable as well as +60% ones. Incidently, this favours certain guns which rely on optimal for sniping (rather than the traditional ones).
It is, in other words, not a major factor. One midslot less (for 2/2 rather than 3 sensor boosters) is STILL viable on snipers, and the loss of the tracking component of the other module means less than nothing at longest ranges.
I prefer to stay focused on the ACTUAL issues, thanks.
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
Maya Rkell
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 17:15:00 -
[179]
Originally by: Avon
Originally by: Maya Rkell
Smaller ships do not have the weapons range to strike back ANYWAY, and given their speed a relative reduction in range will still allow them to bring their shorte-ranged weapons into play more quickly since their base lock range will still cover most OF that range.
More quickly is fantastic.
They'll be so much closer when they watch the sniper warp off.
Yep, but how would having longer range sensor modules help when they could never hope to get their weapons to work at that sort of long range anyway? Oh wait, they couldn't. In other words, your "point" is a distraction and a smokescreen from the real issues at hand, and does in no way make the nerfed sensor booster less attractive (Callenth had a real point, you don't).
Digital Communist> The Jin-Mei are probably more profficient in training for Tofu and Noodles than Spaceship Command |
Calenth
|
Posted - 2006.03.19 17:18:00 -
[180]
Originally by: Lifewire
If Sniping is nerfed this game looses tactical deepth. Long range combat is part of warfare. archers, artillery, cruise missiles...it¦s all sniping in the end. Remove long range combat or even demanding this is plain stupid adn would only hurt EVE.
We don't want sniping removed, just brought into balance, which will increase tactical depth.
Signature removed - file size/width too large.Laurelin |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 .. 18 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |