EVE Search - MWD cap penalty, why is it here?

All Channels

Ships and Modules

MWD cap penalty, why is it here?

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Kaylana Syi Minmatar	Posted - 2006.07.26 14:53:00 - [61] /signed Team Minmatar Carriers need Clone Vats
Nicholai Pestot Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.26 14:56:00 - [62] An excellent proposal. I always wondered why the old nerf was kept after multiple ab/mwd was prevented. Massive sig radius, massive power use and massive fitting requirments are enough drawbacks for a module that is a basic requirement on a certain type of ship. ________________ What you do is you store up the rage, let it fester while you gain strength, then use it to gank those weaker than you... and so the circle of life is complete
Dethis Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.26 14:58:00 - [63] /signed -------- Kill em all and let god sort em out
Nebuli Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.26 15:09:00 - [64] Realy hope Tux actualy reads this post, of the months, even years of people coming up with fixs to close range ships, mostly blaster ships this is the best fix (un nerf) I have read. It will help ALL close range ships ofc, but it will realy help Blasterthron out alot, the new Tier 3 gal ship can get a real bonus (tracking 4tw) ,the diemos can maybe be made decent again (ok probably not, but we can live in hope ) etc etc realy. This just makes total sense, Tux make it so!! CEO - Art of War
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.26 15:14:00 - [65] Originally by: Nebuli Realy hope Tux actualy reads this post, of the months, even years of people coming up with fixs to close range ships, mostly blaster ships this is the best fix (un nerf) I have read. It will help ALL close range ships ofc, but it will realy help Blasterthron out alot, the new Tier 3 gal ship can get a real bonus (tracking 4tw) ,the diemos can maybe be made decent again (ok probably not, but we can live in hope ) etc etc realy. This just makes total sense, Tux make it so!! Hmm. This thread is just a result of people not being happy with the MWD bonus on the new gallente battleship. So now they are trying to change the MWD into having no cap penalties so they can get a new shiny tracking bonus instead. If this ship gets a tracking + damage bonus, is faster and lighter than megathron, and then also have 5 medium slots, it seems way to good. But then again, the rokh is awesome as it looks now too. If they remove the speed penalty from hail ammo, it might allow minmatar battleships to fight blaster boats and not just die to them once they get in range. Other than that, having a speedy blaster boat around with damage & tracking bonuses scares the hell out of me. I dont see myself being able to stay out of its range using any minmatar ship. --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Luc Boye Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.26 15:20:00 - [66] On the subject of hail ammo speed penalty, that is just plain wrong imo. There should be no close range ammo with speed penalty, it just becomes pointless. I can kinda see the logic of speed penalty on vagabond (maybe), but it screws over AC Tempests something awful. If you ask me, I'd un-nerf hail ammo, then solve the eventual issues with vagabond (or other close range ships instead) separately. -------------------------- MWD Cap Penalty?
anotleam	Posted - 2006.07.26 15:40:00 - [67] Without a mwd cap penalty, most of bs would have one. Snipers would use em to stay at range and so on, without a much worse tank. mwd raven ftw, mwd gankaships ftw?. Yeah, it takes grid and cpu but it's not unfitable at all,and 500%+ to speed is a HUGE bonus. With the penalty, this doesnt happen, and the hyperion is the only bs able to fit it and remain mostly unnafected. Maybe the bonus should be a bit bigger so you wont lose the 6% cap with lvl 5 yeah. The tracking problem with hyperion should be fixed by tweaking blasters tracking, optimal, fall off etc, not by accepting that you just need a tracking bonus or comp to actually hit. Largue blasters should be able to hit a orbiting bs withing range without a web imo.
Clavius XIV Auctoritan Syndicate Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2006.07.26 16:48:00 - [68] Speed is overpowered. If you have enough speed advantage over your opponent, and can set up to fight out of web range, you can leave the fight at will. If you fight in web range and also can fit a web, you can similarly leave the fight at will. Who needs wcs? The only general counter besides being faster (or having faster friends), is being able to kill your opponent before he can leave scramble range... MWD should be a choice, not a no brainer. Originally by: Miels All in one module, mind. MWD: greater dps from controlling engagement range MWD: less dps taken from transversal / outrunning explosion velocity / controlling engagement range MWD: makes approach and retreat much faster - crucial for tackling if you're going to put 3 module's bonuses in one, it should have a suitable penalty who wouldn't fit mwd if it wasn't a big penalty to do so? Exactly. In that environment who wouldn't indeed (perhaps some long range battleships).
Luc Boye Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.26 16:58:00 - [69] Originally by: Clavius XIV MWD should be a choice, not a no brainer. It is not a choice for interceptors. It is not a choice for thorax. It is not a choice for deimos. It is not a choice for blasterthron. It is not a choice for hyperion. Now go home with your "no need for range adjustment" conflag L pulse lasers. -------------------------- MWD Cap Penalty?
Nebuli Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.26 17:31:00 - [70] Let me get this right for those opposing it... So youre saying on your sniper BS and Raven you would fit a mwd to it if their was no cap penalty? What a crock, why dont you fit one now? does a sniper run into cap problems? dont think so, so why not fit one now? Does Raven need to adjust its range to hit anything? does it need cap to do what it does? most pvp ravens have a cap injecter anyway so why not fit a mwd anyway? I'll tell you why, FITTING, that right their is why most BS dont fit them now NOT because of the cap penalty. If you dont believe me go fit a megathron with rails and a MWD, you cant fit a 7th rail, so yeah I'm sure if we remove the 25% cap penalty every sniper megas gonna suddenly go out and fit a mwd CEO - Art of War
flashfreaking Titans - Royal Antwerp Warriors 3rd Front Alliance	Posted - 2006.07.26 19:00:00 - [71] /signed would make life a lot better and give us some longer fights against blasterboats, Thoraw who uses his MWD goes down to fast
Pattern Clarc Dark Destiny Inc.	Posted - 2006.07.26 19:26:00 - [72] Originally by: Nebuli Let me get this right for those opposing it... So youre saying on your sniper BS and Raven you would fit a mwd to it if their was no cap penalty? What a crock, why dont you fit one now? does a sniper run into cap problems? dont think so, so why not fit one now? Does Raven need to adjust its range to hit anything? does it need cap to do what it does? most pvp ravens have a cap injecter anyway so why not fit a mwd anyway? I'll tell you why, FITTING, that right their is why most BS dont fit them now NOT because of the cap penalty. If you dont believe me go fit a megathron with rails and a MWD, you cant fit a 7th rail, so yeah I'm sure if we remove the 25% cap penalty every sniper megas gonna suddenly go out and fit a mwd QFFT Roden Shipyards? MWD cap penalty?
Kaeten Hybrid Syndicate	Posted - 2006.07.26 19:44:00 - [73] Originally by: Durethia I think I have a better idea.... for blaster boats as I do fly them. 1) Remove the cap penalities through out like you suggest. 2) For blaster boats... forget tracking... blasters have excellent tracking out of the box. For Gallente Cruiser skill a) 10% reduction in powergrid requirement for fitting MWD per level b) 5% bonus to Medium Hybrid Damage per level ching... my two cents. I think the PG requirements of the MWD in regards to a blaster boat is ridiculous. that would actully work, it would also force blaster boats to fit mwds. High-Sec Piracy Recruitment
Fuglife Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2006.07.26 20:50:00 - [74] If tuxford does this, he wins eve.....and a naked picture of my gf.
Furious Raccoon Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.26 20:58:00 - [75] Must say that Luc has a damn good idea here. Not sure what someone was thinking when they said blasters have good tracking already. Does anyone remember the fix that was just put in to address this issue?
fmercury Contraband Inc.	Posted - 2006.07.26 21:02:00 - [76] I'd like to see a dev response on this. It seems like a pretty interesting proposal.
Nybbas Guiding Hand Social Club	Posted - 2006.07.26 21:11:00 - [77] what i dont understand is how much mwds have been nerfed over and over through the years, a nerf doesnt fix it how they want it so they nerf it in another way while keeping the first nerf on it... first we have mwds that use lots of cap and have a 2 second cycle time, can fit as many as you want, somewhere its changed to use more cap and have a 10 second cycle time... and then the nerfs start, first with the huge nerf to shields and cap... and then further down the road when you had ravens using dual mwds and lolling at everyone as they spammed torpedoes, we had the 1 mwd per ship nerf... and then people whined that they couldnt hit inties etc etc so they added that HUGE freaking sig radius nerf which i dont care who you are, saying it doesnt effect bs's that much is a load of bull. And then caldari whined that they shield tank and that the shield nerf hurts them so they removed the shield nerf from mwds, while keeping the cap nerf that was meant to prevent people from fitting lots of them because of reaching super speeds that they fixed by only allowing one in the first place... sigh I agree with luc 100% OR make all the ships that get the mwd bonus, give it the same as the vindi's... a 10% what is this 5% crap? An apoc gets 25% cap bonus at level 5 BS The new hyperions bonus gives it 5% mwd penalty per level... so basically it only gets a bonus IF it fits a MWD and EVEN THEN its only as much as an apocs energy bonus which well helps it if it were to fit a mwd (why would it but so what) but if it doesnt fit a mwd it gets a lot of cap extra.... wouldnt you say one of those bonus's is rather inferior to the other?
Fi T'Zeh Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.07.26 21:13:00 - [78] I do not sign this, i like having more cap on my Vindi with a MWD, than without. .... POST WITH YOUR MAIN !!!!11111one Real men use blasters
Nebuli Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.26 22:41:00 - [79] Originally by: Fi T'Zeh I do not sign this, i like having more cap on my Vindi with a MWD, than without. Dont be so hasty, never know what that bonus might be replaced by CEO - Art of War
Cuisinart Celestial Apocalypse	Posted - 2006.07.26 22:48:00 - [80] /signed Oh PLEASE. There are alot of things in place today that are obsolete. /begin remotely related rant (i.e. they were there as a fix for another problem that was later fixed again. for example, originally lock times were increased incrementely for each class. Later sig radius and resolution were introduced which effectively made little ships hard for big ships to hit, but the lock times were never returned to their original state. This has always seemed stupid to me as I would expect larger more expensive ships to have larger more expensive computers and sensors. Oh well...) /end remotely related rant
Nebuli Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 01:36:00 - [81] Come on Tux, you know you want to do it CEO - Art of War
Lorette Gallente	Posted - 2006.07.27 01:47:00 - [82] I think that its more because a bonus gets wasted on a ship over the downsides/upsides of the cap size (lets face it almost all blasterboats use cap boosters and dont need lrg cap). I would be just as happy if all dedicated BB's got 25% cap boost to base stats and the bonus to MWD was changed to something else like agility/mass or speed etc.
Nemain Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.27 01:54:00 - [83] Personally whlie I think MWD would be pretty sweet without the cap penalty, I fear that in much the same way Nanofibres compare to Inertial stabs, sig penalty included they would probably make AB's pointless. The only real drawback, sig increase aside, would be fitting reqs and deadspace use. So long as any change doesn't return the AB to the old low skill noob mod on the way to MWD it used to be, I am all for it.
Mateo Barca	Posted - 2006.07.27 02:06:00 - [84] As somebody who flys small ships, I would totally love this. In fact, I'd never fit an AB again if I could help it. So that seems kind of busted. Maybe it's different for the big ships, but I think the enormous difference in speed would be way too much to pass up for a Frig pilot most of the time, even with the sig penalty, fitting requirements, and energy use.
Jimmycs83 The Exiles	Posted - 2006.07.27 02:21:00 - [85] Originally by: Nemain Personally whlie I think MWD would be pretty sweet without the cap penalty, I fear that in much the same way Nanofibres compare to Inertial stabs, sig penalty included they would probably make AB's pointless. The only real drawback, sig increase aside, would be fitting reqs and deadspace use. So long as any change doesn't return the AB to the old low skill noob mod on the way to MWD it used to be, I am all for it. on the setups i use atm with an AB on the only reason im not using a MWD is because of the powergrid requirements hence i doubt this would make the ABs useless entirely - tho definately it would be used less. Also you forgot about the huge cap usage per cycle. high cap usage, the inability to work in deadspace, fitting requirements and increased sig is enough of a penalty for a mod that is prety much required on most close range ships. so yeah i agree with getting rid of this penalty ... tho maybe it might be better to instead bring in a skill to reduce that penalty to 0 at lvl5 so thats its possible to specialise in close range combat futher ... ideally we would also have another skill to 'Reduce ships mass by 5% per level' possibly effecting only BSs ... the biggst pain atm with real close range BSs is the time it take to slow down to a speed your guns can track at (0m/s @ 500m with a b-thron). also maybe an idea for the bonus to replace the MWD one on the diemos would be something a little different like ... 20% reduced cap usage for medium hybrid turrets per lvl .. would be good for such a do or die ship to have its guns immune to NOS atleast Jimmy
Maya Rkell Sebiestor tribe	Posted - 2006.07.27 02:25:00 - [86] Originally by: Luc Boye On the subject of hail ammo speed penalty, that is just plain wrong imo. There should be no close range ammo with speed penalty, it just becomes pointless. I can kinda see the logic of speed penalty on vagabond (maybe), but it screws over AC Tempests something awful. If you ask me, I'd un-nerf hail ammo, then solve the eventual issues with vagabond (or other close range ships instead) separately. Pfft, it's a seperate issue to MWD's entirely. I'm still VERY much in favour of getting rid of the range and damage over T1 amo entirely.
Nemain Amarr	Posted - 2006.07.27 02:32:00 - [87] Edited by: Nemain on 27/07/2006 02:34:56 While I agree that cap usage is higher, the cap reduction penalty does make it seem more so. On my deimos the MWD can run for a long time (maybe permanently tho it's been a while since I last used one due to getting a vagabond, which would benefit alot from an MWD change ). So yes cap use is worse, but not so much that without the 25% cap penalty it would overly hinder you in comaprisson to an AB. Frigs can run them 23/7 now, without a cap penalty I suspect a fair few cruisers BC and BS could as well, again negating the need for AB except for fitting reqs and deadspace use. Like I said I am for the change but would rather it not be at the expense of the AB.
nahtoh Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 02:43:00 - [88] Originally by: Sarmaul This thread gets the Sarmaul Seal of Spammage (aka /signed) I've always felt one of the penalties needed to go. 1) Insane fitting reqs 2) -25% cap penalty 3) High cap use 4) Sig radius Remove the cap penalty, and give blaster boats with a MWD bonus a reduction to the cap use of MWDs instead or something just as fancy. It would let them run the MWD for much longer which I assume would make blastership pilots happy. The high cap use wold be my choice of the things to go... ========= "I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self
Nebuli Caldari	Posted - 2006.07.27 02:50:00 - [89] Dont think it would effect a/b much tbh, do people use these if they can use a mwd instead anyway? The only time I would fit an a/b to a ship now would be either due to dead space or fitting problems, both of which would remain when removing the cap penalty. CEO - Art of War
TuRtLe HeAd Apocalypse Enterprises	Posted - 2006.07.27 08:08:00 - [90] I noticed a while ago that the proposed WCS changes that someone mentioned to me were Absoultely Poo. Sig radius bonus, Signature Resolution gimping, or WHATEVER it is, Just isn't going to affect the PvP ability of a ship What so ever. Once That ships got a lock, its still gonna do alot of damage. "Why are you posting in the MWD Thread you nub" I hear you say. Because ! Move The MWD 25% Less cap over to the WCS. 25% Less CAp per Stab fitted, That would Gimp Alot of ships PvP Ability. Hell Even make it 50%

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.