| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Aerial Boundaries Inc.
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
   |
Posted - 2006.10.03 10:48:00 -
[1]
The people who didn't sign this need to be smacked in the head. Hard.
Two of my favorites are:
Territorial Variation: Gimping a certain type of ship is variation?
Use an AB instead: Do you even know what a blasterboat is?
A honorable mention goes out to those who pointed out that MWD's in missions could be exploited, for supporting that all too easily dismissed argument that two wrongs make a right.
/signed, ffs
----------
Nerf Caldaro! |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Aerial Boundaries Inc.
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.10.03 12:31:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Nev Clavain
What do you not get about the inherent problems of turning level 4 missions into total cash cows for even relatively new players in the game?
What do you not get about the inherent problems of breaking blasterboats to fix missions?
----------
Nerf Caldaro! |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Aerial Boundaries Inc.
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.10.03 12:33:00 -
[3]
Originally by: Dotus Bronson
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Territorial Variation: Gimping a certain type of ship is variation?
Well, yes, it is. The rules are different in place A than in place B, hence there is a variation based on where you are. The main problem is that there is only one type of ship ever placed at a disadvantage. The answer is to not get rid of the territorial variation that exists but to create more territorial variations so that everybody's at a disadvantage somewhere.
How about all ships go slower as a variation? Or all ships have trouble maintaining locks? Is gimping particular classes of ships the only way to vary the playing field?
----------
Nerf Caldaro! |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Aerial Boundaries Inc.
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 08:44:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Nev Clavain
Edited by: Nev Clavain on 03/10/2006 13:28:03
Originally by: Crumplecorn
Originally by: Nev Clavain
What do you not get about the inherent problems of turning level 4 missions into total cash cows for even relatively new players in the game?
What do you not get about the inherent problems of breaking blasterboats to fix missions?
I already said that I wouldn't care about MWD's in deadspace, if you could remove the much deeper implications that introducing them has.
So:
A) Give rats more speed and AI to catch Kiters and inty sheepdogs with their webs
B) Make complex stages further apart so it is no longer feasible to mwd between stages.
Then MWD's in deadspace becomes more viable.
See, the bit your missing is that when I say allow MWDs because breaking them is a bad fix, I assume that another better fix would be used, like smarter rats that can adapt to the tactics.
I am not suggesting that MWDs be fixed and that any resulting problems be left alone. It's called balacing.
----------
Nerf Caldaro! |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Aerial Boundaries Inc.
Interstellar Starbase Syndicate
|
Posted - 2006.10.04 15:34:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Demon Johnson
Give the Thorax (and all dedicated close-range ships) a mass-reduction bonus instead of a MWD Cap bonus.
...
----------
Nerf Caldaro! |
Crumplecorn
Gallente
Aerial Boundaries Inc.
|
Posted - 2006.10.10 11:09:00 -
[6]
Originally by: RichThugster
If MWDs are allowed in deadspace, then a interceptor fitted low sig radius, and MWD, can agg the entire lvl, whilst a total damage fitted cruiser can go round and pretty much kill everything.
1 cruiser and 1 interceptor being able to do pretty much any complex (limited by whether the cruiser can outdamage the tank of the real high end NPc) is a bad thing
Rats are too stupid to change targets and can be exploited. What do we do? Gimp the ships that are able to exploit it. Genius.
Keeping the flawed parts flawed and breaking other stuff instead FTW \o/
----------
Nerf Caldaro! |
| |
|