EVE Search - Please make Tobias Warp Disruptor a T1 BPO

All Channels

Ships and Modules

Please make Tobias Warp Disruptor a T1 BPO

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

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 0 post(s)
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:54:00 - [1] Issue: T2 ammos have extended ranges for all battleships. Ships that specialize in "midrange" like Pulse or AC fitted ships have no way to scramble ships while using thier midrange advantage. Tobias Warp Disruptor Stats Enter the Tobias Warp Disruptor. The fitting requirements means that it can't feasibly be fit on anything under a battleship. And even there, it would be hard to fit it. Tobias Stats: CPU: 19tf GRID: 4,000MW SCRAMBLE STRENGTH: 2 Most fights happen within 20km as that is the jump in radius of a gate and max scramble range. This addition allows a Midrange BS to at least have the option of fighting from thier advantage point, an option they dont have now without a dedicated tackler. TBH I think scramble strength of 2 may be too much when considering the bonus of the Lachesis. Dropping the grid requirements down to 2,000MW and reducing scramble strength to 1 would probably work just as well. In either case, I politely request that the Lachesis be buffed up a bit when this is implemented. Let them scramble at 60km with Disruptors and 30km with Scramblers. This would help ships with a range bonus use thier range bonus, instead of forcing them to fight close range when they are not built to do so. Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:55:00 - [2] I <3 this idea. Scrapheap Challenge Forums - All the cool kids are doing it!
Verus Potestas Caldari Fiat Mort	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:55:00 - [3] Pretty much the carrier win button? RAWR!111 Sig Hijackz0r!!11 - Immy
Testy Mctest	Posted - 2006.10.05 13:56:00 - [4] Originally by: Verus Potestas Pretty much the carrier win button? Carriers and motherships use them already. That's the point. Nyxus' point is that they should be more freely available (and more affordable) to people wanting to use midranged ships; seems like a fair idea to me. Given that only BS can fit them, and at the cost of fitting something else due to their high requirements. Scrapheap Challenge Forums - All the cool kids are doing it!
Viktor Fyretracker Caldari Worms Corp	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:01:00 - [5] seems more like a pirate's wet dream so they can solo gate camp.
Verus Potestas Caldari Fiat Mort	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:02:00 - [6] Originally by: Testy Mctest Originally by: Verus Potestas Pretty much the carrier win button? Carriers and motherships use them already. That's the point. Nyxus' point is that they should be more freely available (and more affordable) to people wanting to use midranged ships; seems like a fair idea to me. Given that only BS can fit them, and at the cost of fitting something else due to their high requirements. Yeah, carriers already use them, at a huge price. RAWR!111 Sig Hijackz0r!!11 - Immy
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:03:00 - [7] I agree with this. It would make a tempest worth using again with autocannons. Well maybe not, it needs more buffs but this would help.
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:06:00 - [8] As Testy said, Carriers already use em. But lets put it in perspective: Tachyon II GRID: 4128 MW Artie II Grid: 3575 MW This scram is harder to fit that a Tachyon II, the largest BS sized weapon available. Thats why I also suggested this: Nyxus Modified Warp Disruptor CPU: 19 tf GRID: 2000 SCRAMBLE STR: 1 RANGE: 40km Still so big it has to be fit by a BS, but a bit easier to fit and still gives range. If the Lachesis got a "hidden" bonus to reduce grid needs of these scrams would be fine as well. Just don't forget them. Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Rod Blaine Evolution Band of Brothers	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:32:00 - [9] Edited by: Rod Blaine on 05/10/2006 14:34:13 Arent domination disruptors already 30km ? Isn't that quite enough ? They might be expensive, but they're certainly alot easier to fit. In the mean time, teaming up with a lachesis arazu or interdictor solves your problem too. It's not like a -1 scramble strength is much these days :/ I normally fit at least -3 when I;m trying to actually tackle someting, don't you ? You see, if you allow these, any group of BS becomes a death zone for frigs again, because up close they at least can evade, but if they need to get away to 40+km before being able to run it's a different story isn't it ? Its pretty simple, medium range is ideal for gangs, long for fleets and short for solo. If you want solo, you want short, fit for it. Old blog
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.10.05 14:53:00 - [10] Warp jamming range need a general boost across the board. Strength 2 scramblers need to define short range (20km) Strength 1 scramblers need to define mid range (50-ish km) Could boost powergrid need of strength 1 scramblers to around 40 so that frigates can't too easily use them, considering that missile frigates with 30km scramblers are already too effective. I do think that it's time to bring scrambling out to nearly reach snipers at best. - Three years old
Assur Minmatar Stronghold corp Imperium Alliance	Posted - 2006.10.05 15:00:00 - [11] or they could just seed the T2 Scramblers and Disruptors which are in the database but have no bpo's seeded as far as I know.
Hiro Kazamatsuri	Posted - 2006.10.05 15:36:00 - [12] I would love to see modules (mainly scrambler) dedicated for long and mid range ship. Give them the same range of usability but at different distances. for instance webber usable between 10 and 20km, doesnt work under 10km. or warp disruptor working between 40 and 60km. even better at "Fitting Time" choose the range of your module between 0 and 100km would rock.
Twilight Moon Minmatar Malicious Intentions	Posted - 2006.10.05 15:44:00 - [13] Bugger me, its a 40km Scram! I want one! (without the price tag please.) /signed ---------------- ...on the other hand using a banana might be a viable alternative. Anyone Recruiting? 8m SP PvP Character looking for a new home, for a life as a pirate. Contact Via EVE-Mail.
Wizie Minmatar Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed	Posted - 2006.10.05 15:46:00 - [14] Increasing range on scrams and disruptors will only push more ppl away from PvP. I have survived about 3 times in the last month in my autopest because I was able to mwd away from groups of ppl (who didnt have tackler support) to about 24K and warp in 10% armor. 30K scrams or 40K scrams would mean that cruisers caught inside the range of enemy BS guns.. might as well eject. BS better pray they can tank and mwd while cap injecting long enough to get to 45K to warp. BAD IDEA. the 4000grid one could be made a tech I bpo though. But only at 4000 grid. ----------------- Sig removed by some noob
Vaslav Tchitcherine Jericho Fraction	Posted - 2006.10.05 15:54:00 - [15] More variation and options in tackling and interdiction are definitely a good thing. That being said, I think this is a ridiculous suggestion. A lowslot module that boosts scram range is a good idea I read somewhere. Further incentive for people who want to engage not to fit WCS. v. jf \| won't somebody think of the pandas?
Jim McGregor Caldari	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:05:00 - [16] What do you think of the idea of making frigate, cruiser and battleship sized warp disruptors with different ranges? --- Eve Wiki \| Eve Tribune \| Eve Pirate
Tasty Burger	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:18:00 - [17] Originally by: Wizie 30K scrams or 40K scrams would mean that cruisers caught inside the range of enemy BS guns.. might as well eject. BS better pray they can tank and mwd while cap injecting long enough to get to 45K to warp. Aye this is true. But still, tempests with autos atm need domination disruptors to kill blasterthrons without ECM, or even with sometimes...
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:20:00 - [18] Originally by: Jim McGregor What do you think of the idea of making frigate, cruiser and battleship sized warp disruptors with different ranges? Good, as long as there is no silliness that a frigate scrambler doesn't work on a battleship. Otherwise, I really like the idea of different size scramblers! - Three years old
Hiro Kazamatsuri	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:21:00 - [19] Originally by: Jim McGregor What do you think of the idea of making frigate, cruiser and battleship sized warp disruptors with different ranges? Would be fine only if a scramblers cant scramble something smaller than him but still scramble something bigger. ofc, bigger scramblers would have a greater range.
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:29:00 - [20] Originally by: Ithildin Originally by: Jim McGregor What do you think of the idea of making frigate, cruiser and battleship sized warp disruptors with different ranges? Good, as long as there is no silliness that a frigate scrambler doesn't work on a battleship. Otherwise, I really like the idea of different size scramblers! I agree, I think there should definitely be differing sizes. They don't necessarily need more strength (although I would love that) but definitely more range. As far as people crying about frigates and cruisers, I don't think its a problem at all. Any frigate witha MWD goes at least 1 km/s, so we are talking about 30 seconds or so to be able to mwd out of scramble range. I don't see why that would be unacceptable, especially since no large or medium turret can hit a smaller ship with a decent transversal. Of course, this assumes the pilot has the smarts not to mwd in a straight line away from a battleship. Actually, seeing as how this would punish stupid pilots, and reward skilled ones I like it even better. How much of a boost would the Lachesis need to compensate for this? Personally a bonus, hidden or no, that allowed them to fit all the scrams seems good enough to me. Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Wild Rho Amarr PIE Inc.	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:31:00 - [21] Dislike the idea in general as it promotes the "bigger is better" ideal and severely reduces the role of tacklers in a group. I have the body of a supermodel. I just can't remember where I left it.
Wizie Minmatar Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:33:00 - [22] Originally by: Tasty Burger Originally by: Wizie 30K scrams or 40K scrams would mean that cruisers caught inside the range of enemy BS guns.. might as well eject. BS better pray they can tank and mwd while cap injecting long enough to get to 45K to warp. Aye this is true. But still, tempests with autos atm need domination disruptors to kill blasterthrons without ECM, or even with sometimes... I honestly think that the issue with blaster/auto ships has more to do with tech II ammo (null and barrage primarily) than with scramble range. Null negates the autocannon falloff advantage (ions and above). However, I would not like to see a mod as eve-play regulating as a warp scrambler adjusted simply to counter an imbalance (IMO) between 2 ships duking it out. ----------------- Sig removed by some noob
Nyxus GALAXIAN Rule of Three	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:38:00 - [23] Originally by: Wild Rho Dislike the idea in general as it promotes the "bigger is better" ideal and severely reduces the role of tacklers in a group. How so? Battleships really lock too slowly to take the place of tacklers in a camping situation, and the short scramrange we have now disallows for any range advantage in short range fights. I guess I don't understand how this promotes "bigger is better"? Nyxus Originally by: Tux The thought of a missile spewing armor tanking cool black looking ship makes me happy in the pants
Wizie Minmatar Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:39:00 - [24] Originally by: Nyxus Originally by: Ithildin Originally by: Jim McGregor What do you think of the idea of making frigate, cruiser and battleship sized warp disruptors with different ranges? Good, as long as there is no silliness that a frigate scrambler doesn't work on a battleship. Otherwise, I really like the idea of different size scramblers! I agree, I think there should definitely be differing sizes. They don't necessarily need more strength (although I would love that) but definitely more range. As far as people crying about frigates and cruisers, I don't think its a problem at all. Any frigate witha MWD goes at least 1 km/s, so we are talking about 30 seconds or so to be able to mwd out of scramble range. I don't see why that would be unacceptable, especially since no large or medium turret can hit a smaller ship with a decent transversal. Of course, this assumes the pilot has the smarts not to mwd in a straight line away from a battleship. Actually, seeing as how this would punish stupid pilots, and reward skilled ones I like it even better. How much of a boost would the Lachesis need to compensate for this? Personally a bonus, hidden or no, that allowed them to fit all the scrams seems good enough to me. Nyxus While your scenario might appear common, most situations of people having to run out of scrambled range occur when the person running is outnumbered. Raven with 50K scrambler. OMGWTFPWNEVERTYTHINGLIKENOWAI! Cruisers running mwd (non - Vaga) can be tracked quit well) by close range guns... manually creating spiraling orbits to finally end up out of the 40-50K scramble range of a BS, while its drones pound you, and his nos has already eaten half of your cap. YEAH I like that too.. Not. I would definitely fly my battleship.. A LOT MORE. Anyhow, the 4K grid one being a tech I BPO is fine. My issue is with Ithils idea of having a 50K scram so we can catch snipers. The issue with snipers (specially with tier 3 BS coming out)... They can fit 2-3 stabs and still do quite well at 150K. Its the non-stab ones that you can already catch most of the time who will die. In the end be forced to install more stabs. ----------------- Sig removed by some noob
Jet Collins Dynamic Endeavors	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:41:00 - [25] Originally by: Nyxus As Testy said, Carriers already use em. But lets put it in perspective: Tachyon II GRID: 4128 MW Artie II Grid: 3575 MW This scram is harder to fit that a Tachyon II, the largest BS sized weapon available. Thats why I also suggested this: Nyxus Modified Warp Disruptor CPU: 19 tf GRID: 2000 SCRAMBLE STR: 1 RANGE: 40km Still so big it has to be fit by a BS, but a bit easier to fit and still gives range. If the Lachesis got a "hidden" bonus to reduce grid needs of these scrams would be fine as well. Just don't forget them. Nyxus I'll agree to this would make fights more interesting and not all close range. Would also make the Minmatar webber bonuse much more usefull. They can web 60km why can't someone scrable 60km away. Jet
Wizie Minmatar Euphoria Released Euphoria Unleashed	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:42:00 - [26] Originally by: Jet Collins Originally by: Nyxus As Testy said, Carriers already use em. But lets put it in perspective: Tachyon II GRID: 4128 MW Artie II Grid: 3575 MW This scram is harder to fit that a Tachyon II, the largest BS sized weapon available. Thats why I also suggested this: Nyxus Modified Warp Disruptor CPU: 19 tf GRID: 2000 SCRAMBLE STR: 1 RANGE: 40km Still so big it has to be fit by a BS, but a bit easier to fit and still gives range. If the Lachesis got a "hidden" bonus to reduce grid needs of these scrams would be fine as well. Just don't forget them. Nyxus I'll agree to this would make fights more interesting and not all close range. Would also make the Minmatar webber bonuse much more usefull. They can web 60km why can't someone scrable 60km away. Jet Maybe because they are two different things? Or are all things the same? ----------------- Sig removed by some noob
Hydrian Alante The Loot Company	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:45:00 - [27] Originally by: Jim McGregor What do you think of the idea of making frigate, cruiser and battleship sized warp disruptors with different ranges? That is exactly the same thing that I thought. A complete reowrk of the propulsion jamming and WCS stuff. Webifiers and scrambler in 3 sizes. It would make PvP much more interesting - one single frigate can¦t lockdown a Battleship anymore. you need at least multiple frigs. - same as for cruiser sized scramblers (2 cruiser to lock down a bs at least or more scrambler) - while fitting a bs sized webifier you can easily catch battleships and slow them down but on frigs It won¦t work. same goes for the other way. - WCS gets changed to 3 sizes. - The actual WCS stay in game as the small WCS. - Medium sized WCS will use almost the double of the CPU and at least 10-20 grid are fitted on cruiser/battlecruisers. - Large wcs for Battleships will take something around 100 CPU Changes like this will make ecerybody happy but they require some work from ccp. So they will never come...
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:48:00 - [28] The entire warpmechanism needs to be changed imo _________________________________________________
madaluap Gallente Mercenary Forces	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:51:00 - [29] Originally by: Hydrian Alante Originally by: Jim McGregor What do you think of the idea of making frigate, cruiser and battleship sized warp disruptors with different ranges? That is exactly the same thing that I thought. A complete reowrk of the propulsion jamming and WCS stuff. Webifiers and scrambler in 3 sizes. It would make PvP much more interesting - one single frigate can¦t lockdown a Battleship anymore. you need at least multiple frigs. - same as for cruiser sized scramblers (2 cruiser to lock down a bs at least or more scrambler) - while fitting a bs sized webifier you can easily catch battleships and slow them down but on frigs It won¦t work. same goes for the other way. - WCS gets changed to 3 sizes. - The actual WCS stay in game as the small WCS. - Medium sized WCS will use almost the double of the CPU and at least 10-20 grid are fitted on cruiser/battlecruisers. - Large wcs for Battleships will take something around 100 CPU Changes like this will make ecerybody happy but they require some work from ccp. So they will never come... what a freacking crap idea...making bs pwn more and making em I WIN again. really crappy... frigs should lay on -4 points (10k 1 scram) cruiser -2 points (20k scram) bs -1 point (40 k scram) offcourse with the fitting that suits there size...You can actually keep the lachesis current bonus because it will scram -2 from 40 k out with maxed skills. looks fine to me _________________________________________________
Ithildin Gallente The Corporation	Posted - 2006.10.05 16:53:00 - [30] Originally by: Hydrian Alante Changes like this will make ecerybody happy but they require some work from ccp. So they will never come... Ah. Perhaps it is sufficient to say that the idea that you'd need more than one frigate to scramble a battleship, and then voicing that idea, is a sure fire way of getting flamed. By a lot of people. I believe the general idea, and most of all need for the game, is that a frigate scrambler is equally efficient against a shuttle as against a dreadnought (to chose the two extremes). A frigate's main role is to tackle, what ever Maya Rkell say about this, although they can be used for other things. The important thing is that they remain very, very, effective in tackling. As the game stands right now, getting one single frigate in close enough is enough pain, getting more would be nearly impossible. And as the game stands now you almost need more than one frigate as it is. - Three years old

Pages: [1] 2 3 :: 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.