| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
DubanFP
Caldari
   |
Posted - 2006.10.20 13:31:00 -
[1]
I'm all for longer fleet battles and all, but do you have to screw up EVERYTHING else just to do it? Here's a list of what will get #@$#ed up with the patch.
1) Alpha strike; you might as well just flush all artillery down the toilet. I mean it's the only thing artillery and long-range minmatar still have going for em.
2) Cap usage; Running out of cap will just screw everything up. Cap boosters for starters will lose effectiveness with longer battles because of cargo limitations. Cap usage will become even more importaint "especially a nerf to 20km warp disruptors due to cap usage"
3) Passive shields; With the larger Shield HP and longer recharge time at first glance it seems like nothing would change. However shields will last longer during that last 40% of shields left will have an exponential effect on shields, plus without cap usage "see above" Passive tanks will increase in power an ubsurd amount.
4)Gurilla, and Solo Operations; Longer battles means more time for friendlies to arrive during solo and gurilla operations behind enemy lines. What's the point in even trying to kill the people who fail to watch local if no matter what you do they'll live long enough for friends to arrive and gank you?
I mean it'll just screw everything up and for what? Fleet battles in which lag is only thing that REALLY must be fixed? Not broken don't fix it.
|
DubanFP
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 20:32:00 -
[2]
nice to see no one actually read everything i had to say. . .
|
DubanFP
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 20:40:00 -
[3]
Edited by: DubanFP on 20/10/2006 20:41:07
 Originally by: Letouk Mernel
Battles have got to last long enough for one of those dramatic music pieces that the in-game player can play to finish. I mean, 3:30 or so on average, and your ship blows up during the crescendo finale.
Make battles feel epic!
READ THE $##@ POST BEFORE RESPONDING!!! Longer fleet battles are good and all, but it's not worth screwing up everything else!
|
DubanFP
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 21:00:00 -
[4]
Edited by: DubanFP on 20/10/2006 21:00:43
Sorry if i sounded like i flipped out after i misunderstood you, I didn't flip out just getting very frustrated, but for the record sarcasm + typed words isn't always best thing.
|
DubanFP
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 21:11:00 -
[5]
Edited by: DubanFP on 20/10/2006 21:11:44
Originally by: anyname isfine
I might help alleviate suicide ganking/insurance exploiters by making it possible for the target to make it to the gate, or allowing time for Concord to do their job.
That was the very first thing that came to my mind.
Also longer battles might help level the playing field a bit between older players and newer ones. It remains to be seen if that will be an outcome though.
for that i'd rather see cargo scanning as a concordable offense, i mean it only makes sense really. but back on topic if we can.
|
DubanFP
Caldari
|
Posted - 2006.10.20 22:27:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Roy Batty68
Originally by: DubanFP
Edited by: DubanFP on 20/10/2006 20:47:39
...
3) Passive shields; With the larger Shield HP and longer recharge time at first glance it seems like nothing would change. However shields will last longer during that last 40% of shields left will have an exponential effect on shields, plus without cap usage "see above" Passive tanks will increase in power an ubsurd amount.
...
Tux addressed this point in the Ships and Modules forum thread:
Linkage
Originally by: DubanFP
Longer Battles? At what cost?
I imagine at the cost of whatever ammo you're using... 
. . . If you would read past the first part of it, you would know that even with the 50% increase in recharge time it still is a buff to passive tanks
|
| |
|