Pages: [1] :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Threm
Heavy Rains Public-Enemy
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 12:42:22 -
[1] - Quote
o/, just as a proposal and might have been proposed some other day:
Proposal: Create rigs for each disruptor, scrambler and webifier range. Magnitude to be determined to avoid out of balance, I would have expected 15% for T1 and 20% for T2. Calibration costs that would allow 2 T1 or 1 T2.
No real proposal on penalty currently. Maybe also increase of signature radius to compensate damage reduction for the larger distance. I.e. who was able to hit a kiter should still have the same chance. A speed penatly would contradict the idea and is therefore not proposed. There is a automatic penalty as it requires rig slots that would have used for resistance, buffer or speed.
Reason: Beside some ships with specific bonus the warp disrupter, scrambler and webs range can only be alternated by faction+ items which are often relatively expansive to t1 and t2 standard fittings. It shall complete the speed and range control options by rigs as we have currently speed, agility. warp speed and similar available.
Summary It would allow to add a diversity to the current speed/range-control spectrum and increases fitting variability.
Regards, Threm |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1664
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 13:13:30 -
[2] - Quote
Why do you want to nerf the ranges on these modules and force people to fit a rig.
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4272
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 13:13:56 -
[3] - Quote
Does the orthrus really need a buff? |
Threm
Heavy Rains Public-Enemy
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 13:23:12 -
[4] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Does the orthrus really need a buff?
To avoid OP for some special ships like the orthrus it could need some adjustment on this end. For example that it does not combine with ship bonuses simply. My proposal focusses on the larger majority of t1 and t2 fittings and the variarity there. |
FT Diomedes
The Graduates
2317
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 13:24:59 -
[5] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Why do you want to nerf the ranges on these modules and force people to fit a rig.
This is what would happen. This is why your idea is bad.
CCP should add more NPC 0.0 space to open it up and liven things up: the Stepping Stones project.
|
Lugh Crow-Slave
1666
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 13:31:21 -
[6] - Quote
Threm wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Does the orthrus really need a buff? To avoid OP for some special ships like the orthrus it could need some adjustment on this end. For example that it does not combine with ship bonuses simply. My proposal focusses on the larger majority of t1 and t2 fittings and the variarity there.
So now we're adding special rules to go with this nerf
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Threm
Heavy Rains Public-Enemy
6
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 13:49:28 -
[7] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Threm wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Does the orthrus really need a buff? To avoid OP for some special ships like the orthrus it could need some adjustment on this end. For example that it does not combine with ship bonuses simply. My proposal focusses on the larger majority of t1 and t2 fittings and the variarity there. So now we're adding special rules to go with this nerf
For one it is not unusual to have effects not combined, see booster implants on capitals etc. and yes, to keep balance in an environment of many specialitiies is tricky. Are you afraid of complex fitting rules?
But your line of argumentation is not to do something for the majority because you are afraid of one special item to get overpowered. Adjust the special item not even nerf it. Its quite simple thing. Otherwise you cant change much in Eve anymore.
To assess it, leave the current Orthrus OP out and asses its advantage/disadvantage as intended. Individual OP can be prevented easily if the concept makes sense in total. |
Danika Princip
GoonWaffe Goonswarm Federation
4276
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 14:12:34 -
[8] - Quote
Threm wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Does the orthrus really need a buff? To avoid OP for some special ships like the orthrus it could need some adjustment on this end. For example that it does not combine with ship bonuses simply. My proposal focusses on the larger majority of t1 and t2 fittings and the variarity there.
This is a rule that does not apply to anything else in the entire game. When you have to start adding in special conditions to your idea, it is a hint that the idea itself is unsalvagable. |
Lugh Crow-Slave
1667
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 14:14:10 -
[9] - Quote
Threm wrote:Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Threm wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Does the orthrus really need a buff? To avoid OP for some special ships like the orthrus it could need some adjustment on this end. For example that it does not combine with ship bonuses simply. My proposal focusses on the larger majority of t1 and t2 fittings and the variarity there. So now we're adding special rules to go with this nerf For one it is not unusual to have effects not combined, see booster implants on capitals etc. and yes, to keep balance in an environment of many specialitiies is tricky. Are you afraid of complex fitting rules? But your line of argumentation is not to do something for the majority because you are afraid of one special item to get overpowered. Adjust the special item not even nerf it. Its quite simple thing. Otherwise you cant change much in Eve anymore. To assess it, leave the current Orthrus OP out and asses its advantage/disadvantage as intended. Individual OP can be prevented easily if the concept makes sense in total.
Again your idea nerfs EVERY THING.
Also your rule is unique because you would need a roof top not effect a specific ship not a module. Not to mention toy would be the only ship unable to even try and recover from your blanket nerf to the propulsion disrupting modules
Citadel worm hole tax
|
Lucy Callagan
V0LTA WE FORM V0LTA
48
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 14:48:57 -
[10] - Quote
no
Frugu.net
|
|
Robert Caldera
Caldera Trading and Investment
1115
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 16:17:37 -
[11] - Quote
no. I dont want nerf to disruptor range etc. |
Iria Ahrens
Space Perverts and Forum Pirates
822
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 16:59:01 -
[12] - Quote
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Why do you want to nerf the ranges on these modules and force people to fit a rig.
Historically, this is exactly how CCP has worked. CCP balances based off max achievable values. Thus rigged, boosted, implants, and max skills.
My choice of pronouns is based on your avatar. Even if I know what is behind the avatar.
|
ShahFluffers
Ice Fire Warriors Snuffed Out
9665
|
Posted - 2016.03.06 17:17:08 -
[13] - Quote
Danika Princip wrote:Threm wrote:Danika Princip wrote:Does the orthrus really need a buff? To avoid OP for some special ships like the orthrus it could need some adjustment on this end. For example that it does not combine with ship bonuses simply. My proposal focusses on the larger majority of t1 and t2 fittings and the variarity there. This is a rule that does not apply to anything else in the entire game. When you have to start adding in special conditions to your idea, it is a hint that the idea itself is unsalvagable. Not empty quoting.
Creating ship specific exceptions opens a Pandora's Box where others will try to ask for the same thing on other ships or modules. This will have the undesirable effect of creating inconsistencies in general rule sets... something CCP is trying to get away from with its "Teiricide" efforts (see: they are trying to make things more consistent and easy to understand).
Lugh Crow-Slave wrote:Again your idea nerfs EVERY THING. Also not empty quoting.
And I notice the OP has not addressed this. I'm going to go on a limb and assume he doesn't understand why people are saying this.
CCP has historically never given anything a straight buff to power or flexibility. Some examples:
- When freighters were "buffed" to allow the limited fitting of modules, they nerfed the cargohold, agility, and HP of Freighters.
- When mining barges were rebalanced, the DEVs buffed each barge line in one respect and nerfed it in other critical areas (see: defense, ore capacity, mining yield... choose one).
- When combat ships are given mobility buffs, typically the DEVs increase their sig radius or lower the agility of a ship. Alternatively, combat ships lose top speed and gain more agility.
What I am basically saying OP is this; if the DEVs were to introduce warp disruptor/scrambler and/or stasis webifier extension rigs then the natural range of those modules would be cut down across the board.
Now REALLY think about what you are proposing here.
How did you Veterans start?
"Learn how things work. The intricacies, interactions, and hard limits... knowing these things will grant you far more power in the long run."
|
|
|
|
Pages: [1] :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |