| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Joshua Calvert
   |
Posted - 2003.11.23 16:10:00 -
[1]
Discuss, please.
My opinion is that the shield penalty for MWD is too large and should be adjusted to 25% in line with the capacitor penalty.
I'd also like to see a restriction of one MWD equipped per ship unless CCP can change the effect of webifiers.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
j0sephine
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 16:13:00 -
[2]
... I don't mind the shield penalty, but what really bites is how it affects both the capacitor size (like it's stated in module description) and capacitor recharge rate (which is never mentioned) Would really like to see the latter fixed... :/
|
Nirvy
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 16:16:00 -
[3]
I've always been a firm beleiver in having only one MWD fitted. How the hell can you have 2 or 3 warp fields around a ship?
As for the penalty, i think 50% is fine. Seems a good trade off.
Mercenary | The Azath |
Omniwar
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 16:21:00 -
[4]
Edited by: Omniwar on 23/11/2003 16:23:41
I personally think MWD¦s should have even more penalty, but that is based on that peaple should not ever think about fighting with MWD, perhaps -75% shields, -75% shield recharge, -50% max cap and -50% cap recharge.
MWD should only be used to travel and nothing else.
Changing it so that each ship could only fit one MWD is a good start though and we really need 20km webifiers.
*edit* perhaps double/trible the cpu and power grid needs so you cant fit your best setup with a MWD
Spawn of the Devil
|
Galk
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 16:22:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Galk on 23/11/2003 16:26:19
Yes nerf the multiple mwds.
Hate campain starts here.
Dam those carebears, if they don't want to fight, lets give the pesky wimps no way out of player who wants to fight v's player who can't/doesn't:P
Dam those whinning carebears.
Ps.
Ships and modules Luv.
Unless your intent is to stir it up more by bringing it into general because it more effective in starting arguements
------------------------
----
Little wonder why people were, what this person was telling my friends: http://galk.50megs.com/logs/ |
Valeria
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 16:29:00 -
[6]
Should be increased if anything. My MWD is pretty much fused to my last med slots... it's invaluable in combat.
Your 425mm Prototype I Gauss Gun perfectly strikes some nublar, wrecking for 1155.0 damage. |
Centuri
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 16:31:00 -
[7]
Edited by: Centuri on 23/11/2003 16:33:19
I agree that only 1 mwd/ship should be implemented, there's no way you can stop a ship with dual mwd or more.
Maybe there should be a stacking nerf on microwarp drives i.e 1 mwd gives a 7X multipier to speed, second only gives 2X or lower multiplier and the bonus should be so low on a third mwd that no one would use three.
I don't know whether the shield penalty % should be lowered. Speed is a huge advantage in combat, it allows you to kill people and allows them to get away. Giving it only 25% shield penalty CCP might as well take 1 medslot from all ships and fit a permanent mwd, because everyone will use them.
-Centuri
|
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 16:32:00 -
[8]
I'd still rather suffer the 50% shield penalty and keep the ability to move quickly to/from danger but it is impossible to stop anyone with 2 MWD's unless you use 5 webifiers from a standing point.
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 16:46:00 -
[9]
 Quote:
If anything, MWD needs a boost. Webbies serve only pirates for the most part, besides there are no anti-webby mods so somthing has to be there to counter it.
Are you kidding?
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
Treylon
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 16:46:00 -
[10]
If anything, MWD needs a boost. Webbies serve only pirates for the most part, besides there are no anti-webby mods so somthing has to be there to counter it.
|
Nirvy
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 17:12:00 -
[11]
Quote:
If anything, MWD needs a boost. Webbies serve only pirates for the most part, besides there are no anti-webby mods so somthing has to be there to counter it.
God God i hope your kidding.
Mercenary | The Azath |
Lliad
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 17:15:00 -
[12]
Quote:
If anything, MWD needs a boost. Webbies serve only pirates for the most part, besides there are no anti-webby mods so somthing has to be there to counter it.
Take a bb shove 2 MWDs on.
Now take a scorp and put 8 webs on.
Go see how long it takes him to get away.
|
Omniwar
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 17:24:00 -
[13]
Quote:
If anything, MWD needs a boost. Webbies serve only pirates for the most part, besides there are no anti-webby mods so somthing has to be there to counter it.
That has to be one of the most unbalanced remarks I have seen on these here forums.
1 MWD against 1 webifier and you still get out, 2 MWD¦s against 2 webifiers and you will never be locked before you are at 40km range.
Not only pirates use modules that can be used to help killing another pilots, perhaps you will find yourself in the situation later on that other players escape you because they have multiple MWD¦s, picture "corp wars", "allince wars", "bounty hunters" and you have alot more pilots than all pirates combined.
Spawn of the Devil
|
Treylon
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 17:28:00 -
[14]
The way i see it, most ppl who complain about there webbies not keeping ppl from getting away are pod-killers and greifers. Perhaps some honest bounty-hunters have a point to complain, which i have no problem with, but they are a rarity.
In my line of work, having to take on pirates with superior ships and numbers, you need a way out. I don't get to pod many pirates, but blocking a gate or making them retreat is victory egnough for me. Webbifiers is a luxury the anti-pirate cannot afford, having to anticipate the vast possibilities scramble, jamm, ECM stuff out there.
Pirates got it much easier, being able to choose weaker targets, and then they complain when those targets can use somthing to get away, so typical.
|
NeoMorph
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 17:31:00 -
[15]
I honestly think CCP should leave how things currently work... but introduce new tech that combats what is out there presently.
For example for people who use multiple MWDs there should be a mod that destablises a warp field in relation to it's field strength. ie if someone is using 2 MWDs the field strength is high and hence the destabiliser will cause a cap feedback that drains it at 4 times the normal speed.
This way it would enable the pirate to "stall" the enemy ship and let him close... I think it would be a better solution than "rewriting history" every time someone complains about something like this. To be honest with the amount of changes that have happened to how the universe is now compared to at launch I'm amazed that the Bureau of Unlawful Temporal Tampering havent arrested the devs already!
-------------------------------------------
<Stavros> the first motor bike i ever rode
<Stavros> was a honda gold wing
<Ak-Gara> hah
<Stavros> |
Jera
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 17:58:00 -
[16]
(
Right, microwarp drives are such of a strategical advantage that they deserves an even bigger penalty, or some nerf.
Everything comes at a price.
)
Discuss loyalty to the State issues on the 'Caldari' channel
|
Centuri
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 18:19:00 -
[17]
If mwds stay how they are how about making a "approach" speed for a gate, i.e. you cannot jump unless you are under 800m/s. It doesn't seem very realistic that a ship can maneuver into a stargate at 10kmps. 
If the invul timer stays how about having a 12 sec period before you can go to warp again? 
|
StealthNet
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 18:19:00 -
[18]
Quote:
Discuss, please.
My opinion is that the shield penalty for MWD is too large and should be adjusted to 25% in line with the capacitor penalty.
I'd also like to see a restriction of one MWD equipped per ship unless CCP can change the effect of webifiers.
In fact, I think that ANY kind of cap is a harm. It's a blatant proof that the game is unbalanced.
Since the first months, I've been saying and suggesting modifications to the MWD and related stuff, in an attempt to remove the cap they placed.
I think the best one is to make them unstackable.
It's funny tho. Back when I first sugested that some modules would not stack, ppl replied with all sort of flaming. Now it is implemented.
Make it impossible to stack MWDs (altho 1 MWD and ABs should be possible). Remove it's limitations.
_______________________________________________
|
xeno calligan
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 18:24:00 -
[19]
Quote:
... I don't mind the shield penalty, but what really bites is how it affects both the capacitor size (like it's stated in module description) and capacitor recharge rate (which is never mentioned) Would really like to see the latter fixed... :/
It's really a function of the fubar way the cap recharge works; The cap has two stats: capacity and recharge time. Every bonus to recharge rate is actually a reduction in recharge time and the actual (average) recharge rate is given by capacity/recharge time. Thus if you add 5% capacity, you also increase the recharge rate 5%, rendering the cap flux modules kinda pointless (decreases the recharge time, but decreases the capacity -- and there by increases the recharge time again ).
This also means that cap batteries not only give a bonus to capacity, but recharge rate too. With large cap batteries, some souped-up cruisers can beat the recharge rate of a battleship (maller in particular comes to mind), simply beacuse adding 400 cap to even a 1200 cap gives a huge boost to the recharge rate. But ofcourse cap batteries suffer from diminishing returns as you add more.
|
Tbear
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 19:22:00 -
[20]
Leave MWD's alone. You've got to remember that when I carry two MWD's, I'm giving up a slot for something else I could use. It's about freedom of choice, not making it easier for PK'ers to kill you. Having two MWD's does not guarantee safety as I found out recently.
CCP needs to keep this game alive by not messing around with players choices. If I want to stack mods, let me. Let me design the ship I want so it will do what I want.
Somebody will always find a way to counter my build out if they really want to kill me. Otherwise, PK'ers need to work for kills. As the game stands today, they can kill at will and really don't have to work at it...
|
Tabius
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 19:28:00 -
[21]
I've always been a bit confused as to the reason for the penalty at all....
I could understand a balance where you have to decide between speed and weaponry. But speed and defense seem to go hand in-hand.
If I were to adjust the MWD, I'd make it a high-slot item. And force people to choose... I'll either fight, or flee... but I can't be good at both.
|
Galk
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 20:22:00 -
[22]
Quote:
If I were to adjust the MWD, I'd make it a high-slot item. And force people to choose... I'll either fight, or flee... but I can't be good at both.
The choice allready exists.
Look a little deeper.
Before they nerf'd mwd's at the begining, thats exactly what people were doing.
Now the choice exists.
Whats realy being said is, noone should be able to get away, they want you to stay and fight.
It won't be fair, you will lose ect....
But thats how it must be, you ain't gona be given a choice.
It's not about combat with mwd's, it's the people who do want to just flee they want to penalise.
Id much rather have other things in my mid slots, but alas im consigned to having to run for it, because i never trained my player to be a fighter. Not that i would stand a chance against 2 battleships sitting at a gate anyway.
------------------------
----
Little wonder why people were, what this person was telling my friends: http://galk.50megs.com/logs/ |
Archemedes
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 20:25:00 -
[23]
Leet's look at a "generic" ship rigged for combat rather than high speed and carrying mid-range looted MWD(s) vs mid-range looted web(s). Numbers are approximate and will vary by skill.
Base speed: 200 m/sec
Base speed, 1 web: 40 m/sec
1 Looted MWD: 1600-2000 m/sec
1 looted MWD, 1 web: 300-400 m/sec
1 looted MWD, 2 webs: 60-80 m/sec
2 looted MWDs: 13-20 km/sec
2 looted MWDs, 1 web: 2.6-4 km/sec
2 looted MWDs, 2 webs: 520-800 m/sec
2 looted MWDs, 3 webs: 100-200 m/sec
So 1 good webifier does NOT fully counteract 1 good MWD (and adding an afterburner makes it worse). Perhaps the solution would be to simply reduce the top speed bonus for MWDs by about 20%? And maybe add a skill that boosts webifier effect like Acceleration Control boosts MWD effect? After all, no one uses TWO MWDs in combat, you'd drain your cap in seconds. Even one MWD drains a cruiser dry in half a minute... but I suspect a battleship can maintain it longer. The real problem is the invulnerability timer lets a ship get moving BEFORE you can web it, so just neutralizing the extra speed isn't enough when they already are 10k from the jump gate...
However, THE INVULNERABILITY TIMER IS GOING AWAY. The devs have already stated they will be fixing loading lag by letting the client notify the server when it's loaded. This will fix the jump-in / warp-in ganking so NO MORE invulnerability will be needed. (The devs finaly realized fixing this was worth allowing an absolutely useless "exploit" where a hacked client can tell you about the pounding the 10 battleships at the gate will give you in advance... but NOT in time to avoid it  )
So before we bring out the Nerf Sledge Hammer of Doom(TM) let's see how MWDs work after the invulnerability timer is gone...
|
drunkenmaster
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 21:35:00 -
[24]
Quote:
The devs have already stated they will be fixing loading lag by letting the client notify the server when it's loaded.
Any info on this? this is the first I heard of it.
If it's true, then things will be looking up, for everyone.
.
|
Zinke
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 21:39:00 -
[25]
I think that MWD should be limited only to Gallente ships and should not have any penalties or a very slight ones (not like now).
Why do i say that?
Because Devs were tweaking hybrid guns (blasters) recently and asked that they (guns) are tested on Gallente ships and not Caldari ones.
Because Devs except Gallente ships to use Blasters with optimal range of 1000-1400 meters.
Because there is no way to Mega or Domi to get to that distance before it gets killed.
In meantime other ships could see those ships approaching fast and could still make decision to warp away or face fight.
|
Jarjar
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 21:40:00 -
[26]
Quote:
Quote:
The devs have already stated they will be fixing loading lag by letting the client notify the server when it's loaded.
Any info on this? this is the first I heard of it.
If it's true, then things will be looking up, for everyone.
At least for the pirates with locking times < 1 second camping gates 
(Of course, for us pirate hunters too  )
I'm looking forward to getting this fixed.
|
KrapYl
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 21:47:00 -
[27]
with a little skill, i keep my cruiser and a MWD going forever, along with 2 250 proto's.... thats the best MWD, Quad LiF fueled rocketbooster
|
drunkenmaster
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 21:57:00 -
[28]
as to the topic at hand...
My idea:
MWD #1 : full performance
MWD #2 : oh no you don't
K.I.S.S. 
.
|
Ana Khouri
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 22:18:00 -
[29]
Edited by: Ana Khouri on 23/11/2003 22:19:43
Quote:
Because Devs except Gallente ships to use Blasters with optimal range of 1000-1400 meters.
Because there is no way to Mega or Domi to get to that distance before it gets killed.
In meantime other ships could see those ships approaching fast and could still make decision to warp away or face fight.
- Blasters got a range boost on chaos, it's no 4400-6000 before skills and ammo, 2640-3600 with AM and lvl4 sharpshooter. And please note that blasters have this big falloff for a reason. Their effective range is not in their optimal range.
- It's quite easy to get close to another BS with a MWD without suffering too much damage. Can show you that anytime on chaos, just drop a message.
-----------------------------------
Ontopic:
MWD defiatly does not need boost, it's quite good atm, you just need to know how to use it.
free speech not allowed here |
Joshua Calvert
|
Posted - 2003.11.23 22:31:00 -
[30]
My Christmas list to Santa Claus:
1) Only one MWD per ship.
2) Jumpgates cannot be insta-jumped from a bookmark or by jumping from a certain planet/moon.
3) Invulnerability timer is changed.
4) Simultaneous loading for clients to remove lag-inducing game engineering
5) Random, or at the very least numerous (more than 4), jump-in points per system.
6) Cameron Diaz in her birthday suit
LEEEEERRRRRRRRRRROOOOOOOOOYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY! |
| |
|
| Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 7 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |