| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 9 post(s) |
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
2274
   |
Posted - 2016.02.07 21:12:45 -
[1] - Quote
BS buff with a 200 PG requirement? This is more like a nerf since you have to massively compromise tank or offensive capabilities.
I also do not see how that would help against Svipuls. They can just stay further away than 10 km with their Arties and still outrack your BS' guns. All in all, quite useless module.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
2274
|
Posted - 2016.02.07 21:27:35 -
[2] - Quote
Owen Levanth wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:BS buff with a 200 PG requirement? This is more like a nerf since you have to massively compromise tank or offensive capabilities.
I also do not see how that would help against Svipuls. They can just stay further away than 10 km with their Arties and still outrack your BS' guns. All in all, quite useless module. I don't think so. Some battleships have problems with CPU, others with PG. So it balances out. Some ships can fit the new modules pretty damn easily (like the Scorpion or the Typhoon) others demand a little bit of sacrifice. But on the other hand, 85% webs. I'm already sharpening the knifes for the sacrifices. 
I would have problems fitting that one my preferred Armageddon unless I compromise point or neut range, or even tank due to CPU issues.
Furthermore, when something is at 0 on me (like Deimoses), they usually tend to not orbit me to make their weapons track better on my BS regardless; and further away, I need the 10 km 60% webs and not reduced web strength that allows my targets to escape easier or make my drones hit other drones less reliably. Still useless.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
2277
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 11:07:32 -
[3] - Quote
Ncc 1709 wrote:Zhilia Mann wrote:I made a pretty graph on tab 2. This is definitely interesting. For both heated and unheated there's only a narrow window at the edge of normal web range where a normal web is actually better than these. It's an interesting concept. can you do the same for faction web and grapple, and top meta web and grapple please?
These calculations are wrong as per #17.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
2277
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 11:55:23 -
[4] - Quote
Mr Spaxi wrote:Rivr Luzade wrote:
There's nothing to elaborate. CCP goes from a All or nothing approach to a All or largely useless to nothing approach with their fall-offs implementation. If it was a steadily declining fall-off (eg. like with weapons), this module would be interesting but with this new 100-50-6% fall-off rubbish that CCP introduced with neuts and remote reps, this module is nigh useless.
Fall-off on new modules works the same as with guns. At optimal+1xfalloff you get 50% DPS on a target with 0 transversal.
That's not how the changed remote reps and neuts work.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
2277
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 13:00:52 -
[5] - Quote
ZagaBoom wrote:Webs have no counter and are the single most OP form of E-war in the game hands down barred none. So naturally CCP adds more of them.
Technically, the counter to webs are Overdrive Injectors, Nanofibers, Afterburners and Microwarpdrives.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
2277
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 14:38:50 -
[6] - Quote
CCP Fozzie wrote:So we have confirmed in the code why these modules cause less of a orbit vector disruption than one might expect. It's actually a very unintuitive mechanic behind the scenes, far from ideal. The upshot is that although this isn't a big deal for the Grapplers (since they only cause very slight orbit changes), we may found have an easy solution to the general case of orbit vector changing drastically when webbed or when you turn on a prop mod. Still doing some testing and investigating.
No more 180-¦ degree U-turns when I turn on/off the AB would be really appreciated. 
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
Rivr Luzade
Kenshin.
DARKNESS.
2277
|
Posted - 2016.02.08 17:27:25 -
[7] - Quote
Longdrinks wrote:CCP Fozzie wrote:So we have confirmed in the code why these modules cause less of a orbit vector disruption than one might expect. It's actually a very unintuitive mechanic behind the scenes, far from ideal. The upshot is that although this isn't a big deal for the Grapplers (since they only cause very slight orbit changes), we may found have an easy solution to the general case of orbit vector changing drastically when webbed or when you turn on a prop mod. Still doing some testing and investigating. Fixing that would take away the advantage a experience player gets from piloting their own ship vs a noob just pressing orbit button. Please dont take away mechanics that allow higher skilled players to shine.
This behavior has nothing to do with skilled piloting. It's plain ridiculous; the fix of that behavior is actually something CCP should have done long ago to actually improve the game.
UI Improvement Collective
My ridicule, heavy criticism and general pale outlook about your or CCP's ideas is nothing but an encouragement to prove me wrong. Give it a try.
|
| |
|