|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 8 post(s) |
Murkelost
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 09:31:33 -
[1] - Quote
Your powergrid decrease is to much.
Read: https://forums.eveonline.com/default.aspx?g=posts&t=418061&find=unread |
Murkelost
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
1
|
Posted - 2015.04.11 19:51:21 -
[2] - Quote
Frostys Virpio wrote:Make arty not take over 3 time as much PWG per gun as autos and then re-babalce ships using these around. How can you hope to balance the tank/prop mod of a ship when one of the largest PWG requirement is 3 time as much as the other available option?
The PWR grid nerf is not gonna prevent people from fitting a 10mn AB from what I've learned (atleast what it seems like at this point). Basically this means that the nerf is for nothing PWR grid wise, which is why I think the only solution would be to limit propulsion mods size wise toward specific ship sizes... Just saying |
Murkelost
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.12 08:10:57 -
[3] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:Murkelost wrote:Basically this means that the nerf is for nothing PWR grid wise, which is why I think the only solution would be to limit propulsion mods size wise toward specific ship sizes... Just saying A rather drastic change because of one ship. One ship and its ACs to be exact. AC PG needs to be looked at, nothing more.
You are totally right on the fact that it is a drastic change, but if it's wrong to fit a 10MN AB to a t3 destroyer, why would it then still be possible to fit it to such a vessel, or any other small vessel for that matter. With this said it is just not only about one ship but all. propulsion size mods vs ship size. It just happened to be the awesomeness of a t3 destroyer that surfaced the very dilemma
This is only why I found it to be a better problemsolver to do this instead of nerfing ships in themselves. |
Murkelost
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 05:44:45 -
[4] - Quote
Mayhaw Morgan wrote:As someone who has been putting oversized ABs on my ships since Apocrypha, I feel like I should come in and at least defend the psychology of the choice.
Starting out as a young Minmatar pilot, you always hear "Minmatar ships are fast." This is true, until someone gets webs on you or shuts your MWD off with a scram or if you are fitted with a regular sized afterburner versus a MWDing opponent. At that point, the whole balance of your fitting is usually entirely negated. You can't track. You can't run. You either have a gimped capacitor from fitting a MWD or you are using capacitor to run an afterburner that does essentially nothing for you. You might as well not even have fit a propulsion module, but you can't go back to the fitting window and fix it, now. You're just . . . dead in the water. (Pun intended.)
What do you do? How do you ensure that your opponent doesn't just point->click-> and shut off your ability to maneuver effectively?
A warp disruptor is already telling my ship what to do: Do not warp out! A warp scrambler 1-ups that: Do not warp out and shut down your MWD! A webifier: Fly (much) slower!
As a young destroyer pilot (Thrasher and Catalyst, mostly), all I really wanted, and still want even now, is a module that answers a warp disruptor and/or a warp scrambler and/or a stasis webifier and/or a warp disruptor bubble or scripted warp disruption field generator, simply: No!
Is the problem that I'm moving too fast and you can't stop me or is the problem that you expect to dictate how I fly MY SPACESHIP by clicking just one or two buttons?
The thing I like about what you have written is that it confirms the fact that PVP in Eve is a complex scenario, atleast when you are up against people who know their stuff. Back in the day when vagabonds were really hard to catch, you had to put your mind to it and come up with ways to catch them along with some blind luck not to mention the nanophoons . I know that I setup various traps that included drag bubbles, rapiers for webifying an so on and it was such a joy when one actually nailed one of those fast muppets :)
I think one of the few or many problems that comes along with this is the mental state of convinience/laziness and less skills or knowledge of how to act around various scenarios. No offence to anyone but if you take Rooks and Kings and compare them to a big blobfest alliance (any alliance) I'm sure you will be able to make a distinction between the two.
I also agree that the fitting concept should not be to tightly controlled, but I just find it wrong to nerf a ship/ships when the obvious problem is that a module which people think is wrong to fit to a specific sized ship is actually able to be fitted to it. So question is what's it gonna be, the ongoing tradition of nerfing ships when they in themselves are not the primary issue, or address the real issue behind it (in this case propulsion module size vs ship size).
I am split between both scenarious, but if it was up to me i would prefer to latter. |
Murkelost
FinFleet Northern Coalition.
2
|
Posted - 2015.04.13 07:11:28 -
[5] - Quote
Iroquoiss Pliskin wrote:FT Diomedes wrote:Face it, whether it was Tengus with 100mn Afterburners or T3D's with 10mn Afterburners, they are both cancerous. They are, but only when fitted by default due to generous PG. MWD Confessor and Arty Sviipuls should become very competitive due to these changes.
The generous PG is not the main issue in my opinion |
|
|
|