| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Captain Merkin
   |
Posted - 2006.03.21 17:57:00 -
[1]
ARGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
can we get on with the nerf some folks can at least whinge about something else now?
Proving natural selection and Charles Darwin wrong since 1981.
The Kamikaze pilot
|
Captain Merkin
|
Posted - 2006.03.22 16:18:00 -
[2]
heres my idea from a thread downstairs a little way that no one seems to noticed!
think that propulsion scrambling should be changed a little.
Leave stabs as they are and change some ships around so that they can scramble better.
Prime example have interceptors that have a bonus to scrambling strengh and use less cap through skills.
Make scramblers so that each one has a set 2 point strengh, 3 with the 7.5km ones and give ships a base point system that can be increased through stabs and skills.
Allow skills in propulsion jamming to increase their potency by 0.25/lv and intercepeptor skill to increase it by 0.3/lv.. thus making ceptors more powerful as tacklers.
also make warp disruptors and scramblers use more cap per cycle for ships without "propulsion jamming upgrades" skill or ceptor skill.
Obviously this would make tackling a little harder for your day to day frig and push ceptors to be used for their "seemingly" designed role. But also it would still alow normal frigs to tackle with relevant skills upped a little ;)
example:
Claw with 7.5km 3 point jammer = base strength
Propulsion Jamming lv5 taken into account mulitplies 3.0 by 1.25 giving strenght 3.75
interceptor skill lv4 adds to this new total mulitiplying it by 1.2 to this bringing it up to a total of 4.5 warp disruption strenght.
The ship you are jamming is for example a ferox with propulsion strenght of 6 and does not have a stab fitted.
You cant jam it with just one jammer this way unless you had two scramblers fitted which is not that usual on a claw.
Now heres where another "theory" could be used, race specific scramblers.. have these with a strenght of 4
Now with this race specific scrambler and the same stats you get a strengh of 6 thus being able to scramble it.
Stabs work in just the same way but can be over powered more easily using multiple jammers and the relevant skills levelled up.
Obviously the stats are just a theory of mine and would need some reworking as its not totally balanced, ships should have a propulsions strengh maybe a little lower and scramblers slightly different or skills more powerful.
any thoughts?
personally I dont care if they change it or not, Im happy how it is but will adapt if it changes :)
Proving natural selection and Charles Darwin wrong since 1981.
The Kamikaze pilot
|
Captain Merkin
|
Posted - 2006.03.22 16:30:00 -
[3]
 Originally by: Grey Area
Originally by: Captain Merkin
Allow skills in propulsion jamming to increase their potency by 0.25/lv and intercepeptor skill to increase it by 0.3/lv.. thus making ceptors more powerful as tacklers.
But no skills to allow an improvement in avoiding being scrambled? Why not?
grey the stabs will remain the same in my theory and maybe there will even eventually have +2 ones in game?
This means ships with a +8 strengh etc. will have a good advantage and be harder to scramble without named mods and good skills, they can also fit stabs to increase this somewhat.
Basically it does not remove the ability for a scrambler to scramble, it simply means that an unskilled pilot will not be able to fully scramble a ship with high propulsion power so easily.
A skilled pilot will still be able to scramble a powerful ship especially if he is flying a dedicated tackler.
It seems fair to me, cheaper ships naturally have lower propulsion strengh yes? (i may be wrong) but more expensive ships are higher in strengh and therefore harder to tackle without boosted skills.
Like I said its just an idea from me... and I cant spell strengh so there
Proving natural selection and Charles Darwin wrong since 1981.
The Kamikaze pilot
|
Captain Merkin
|
Posted - 2006.03.22 16:57:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Grey Area
Edited by: Grey Area on 22/03/2006 16:53:20
Originally by: Pistonbroke
I am not suggesting that WCS are nerfed to the level that they cannot be used, you are reading too much into what has been said.
Unfortunately, every proposed nerf to WCS that I have seen in this and other threads amounts to EXACTLY that...or at least such an infringement on other aspects of gameplay with stabs fitted that they would be too much of a millstone to ever consider fitting.
my idea actually gives people without stabs fitted an inbuild advantage that is only increased more by fitting then.... but also has a couter to them that needs some training to be efficient in works all round in my eyes.
Proving natural selection and Charles Darwin wrong since 1981.
The Kamikaze pilot
|
Captain Merkin
|
Posted - 2006.03.22 16:58:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Rohann
Originally by: Masta Killa
Originally by: Rohann
I disagree and you basically prove my point here. You say you lose slots to fit wcs when you CAN actually fit different and better mods. So I dont get it. If its such a penalty then why fit them if you know you can put better mods there?
How many times do you warp in with 2 bs into an enemy gang of 5-10-20 people?
If your answer is never then you might as well edit all your flaming out, since you obviously know nothing of the matter.
Alot actually.
I think he means NOT WHILST AFK :P
Proving natural selection and Charles Darwin wrong since 1981.
The Kamikaze pilot
|
Captain Merkin
|
Posted - 2006.03.22 17:13:00 -
[6]
on a small scale stabs even the odds in my opinion..
if you have 3 players warping into a group of 20 then there is no reason why those 20 players should not (given a miniscule ammout of organisation) be able to kill at least one of those 3 bs before they have time to allign and warp again.
if you have a group of 20 bs fitted with stabs warp into a fleet of 20 ships then the same applies, however this does give the ones with the stabs the added advantage.
its just a matter of opinion as to where the imbalance lies... in my eyes it is just down to lack of organisation meaning people miss their targets that makes them ****ed off..
Proving natural selection and Charles Darwin wrong since 1981.
The Kamikaze pilot
|
| |
|