| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
TortoiseX
Gallente
The Diplomats
Quantum Star Alliance
   |
Posted - 2007.02.26 20:30:00 -
[31]
above a certain speed wouldnt the shields emmiters short out?
-----------------------------------------------
however fast u run the tortoise is always one step ahead |
Rekam Evarg
Caldari
Union Of Xtreme Military
The Forsaken Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.27 16:38:00 -
[32]
Thanks for the input guys,
Some more great suggestions there, lets hope that a fix is in place sooner rather than later.
No matter what the fix is, it is needed and it is needed SoonÖ
Rek
RekamEvarg
Oh Hello, You can see the pub from here.
No Animals were harmed in the writing of this post
|
Kilostream
Caldari
Roving Guns Inc.
RAZOR Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.27 19:37:00 -
[33]
Edited by: Kilostream on 27/02/2007 19:45:16
You will get your wish, Grave Maker, but I don't like it...
People who make their ships silly fast pay a terrible price in the fact that they have no tank. At all. Risk vs Reward, imo.
However, the recent blog on speed tells us the nano-mwd setup is gonna get nerfed - but the only reason it's popular is because the old popular setups have been nerfed out of existence due to whiners crying on the forums.
And when this setup is nerfed, the pvp'ers will try other ways of setting up ships, a new dominant setup will again emerge, whiners will whine, and hey! onto the next nerf.
Also, I am struggling with CCP's constant nerfing of everything anyway - I've been playing eve for 3 years and am well used to CCP's strategy of; nerf something so it's useless and simultaneously bring out a wedge of "advanced" skills that lump on another months training just to try and mitigate the nerf a bit.
But what galls me the most is that they justify it by saying things like; " 'x' was too much of an 'I Win' button" and; "ship 'x' is not supposed to be a solo pwn-mobile" - they then follow this up by introducing titan into the game with a bl00dy Chuck Norris smartbomb on it that wipes out 100 man fleets in the blink of an eye.
Cyno in, f1, cyno out - and they are fussing round worrying about nanofibers......
|
Xandahar
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 01:56:00 -
[34]
im thinking that a good possible fix would just simply be that by taking away mass, you make things too easy for the engines to push it, and run the risk of blowing your sublight drives, then it would be an S.O.S., for a tow back to the nearest station and a hefty chunk of isk to have your engines replaced. but thats just my $.02  had been thinking of things along these lines for a while.
|
Missy Black
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 05:06:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Missy Black on 14/03/2007 05:05:02
Simple, the more power you engines give from behind, the less they give to the sides or front.
In other words, the faster you go, the slower you turn. So, orbiting some one at 20kms is impossible, your basically going in a strait line.. 
That makes sense ok!? it also keeps speed in the game, but stop it form being the own all.
ALSO, note im not a science geek, BUT, ever tried turning a car at over 100MPH? does it turn easy? and more to the point, can u fang it around like a beasty boi!? NOOO, the faster you are going, the less likely you are to U-turn. I might be wrong, but aint that called inertia!?
>!
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente
Endica Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.03.14 08:34:00 -
[36]
Edited by: Tarron Sarek on 14/03/2007 08:36:22
Well tbh my biggest gripe with nano and i-stab battleships is their wiggling, bouncing and lurching.
It's such a huge immersion breaker. It looks silly and wrong.
Even without agility mods, huge ships sometimes move in a strange and unrealistic manner - think about titans being bumped or hit with missiles, or BS'es colliding with other objects.
Yet in combination with those mods it is extreme and unbearable.
CCP, do something about your game design. Flickering planet textures and whizzing battleships don't help making the game look authentic. It really hurts the atmosphere, along with gameplay.
I guess it's safe to say battleships weren't meant to be used that way, for a reason. If you want speed, use an interceptor.
___________________________________
_/_/ Game balance isn't just a luxury _/_/ |
Tyranis Marcus
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 13:28:00 -
[37]
Instead of making it a % mass reduction, it should be a set amount of mass reduction, stated in kg. Then you'd have different sized modules for different sizes of ships. The problem would be easy to sort out and manage then.
Besides, where in RL have you ever seen one-size-fits-all custom body panels? Not too likely to ever exist imo. :)
You'd then want to take a similarly realistic approach with handling inertia and agility bonuses. You'd probably end up with two modules instead of three; one would be mass reduction. Mass reduction would inately give you increased agility and a lower inertia figure, and these would be derived from how much of the ships total weight was shaved off by installing the module. The other type of module would be a direct speed increase, and you'd do that by increasing thrust, so it'd have some effect on accleration and maneuverability also, but not on decelleration, unless you considered that the ships used braking thrusters, which may be the case since they decellerate on their own in a vacuum? Anyway, the maneuverability bonus/penalty would have to be thought through pretty carefully, but the answer lies in basing game mechanics on real-world believability and sorting it out from that perspective until it works in an acceptable manner. Rewriting the laws of the universe always results in nerfing frenzies in mmo's. Mother nature had billions of years to get it right, why try to reinvite the wheel in a few months?
|
Vincent Almasy
Gallente
The Underground
|
Posted - 2007.03.22 13:33:00 -
[38]
 Originally by: Tyranis Marcus
Instead of making it a % mass reduction, it should be a set amount of mass reduction, stated in kg. Then you'd have different sized modules for different sizes of ships. The problem would be easy to sort out and manage then.
Besides, where in RL have you ever seen one-size-fits-all custom body panels? Not too likely to ever exist imo. :)
You'd then want to take a similarly realistic approach with handling inertia and agility bonuses. You'd probably end up with two modules instead of three; one would be mass reduction. Mass reduction would inately give you increased agility and a lower inertia figure, and these would be derived from how much of the ships total weight was shaved off by installing the module. The other type of module would be a direct speed increase, and you'd do that by increasing thrust, so it'd have some effect on accleration and maneuverability also, but not on decelleration, unless you considered that the ships used braking thrusters, which may be the case since they decellerate on their own in a vacuum? Anyway, the maneuverability bonus/penalty would have to be thought through pretty carefully, but the answer lies in basing game mechanics on real-world believability and sorting it out from that perspective until it works in an acceptable manner. Rewriting the laws of the universe always results in nerfing frenzies in mmo's. Mother nature had billions of years to get it right, why try to reinvite the wheel in a few months?
Different sizes of a module which does not cost pg or cpu, a cepter will just use a BS and weigh 1kg if that much.. now add on the infanant run of a 10MW AB...
|
Jeanne Deveroux
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 07:07:00 -
[39]
What about mass difference between ships and thrust difference between modules?
Why not make it simple : the bigger ship , the smaller acceleration from respective speed mod, i.e.
frigate getting 120%speed increase from AB, cruiser ,say,70%
( numbers just to illustrate the idea)
I don't think that current simple proportion is way to go .It just works like x mass-y thrust - z accel
then 10x mass- 10y thrust- 10z acceleration.
I reckon that to give battleship speed increase the same as frigate has , that BS-sized module would be just that - size of battleship itself, with relevant mass addition.
Perhaps that would get more sciente into our favourite science-fiction game
cheers
|
tikinish
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 08:10:00 -
[40]
awsome idea, i like some new thinking and designs in the game that stills leave you the opening to do this but at a high risk,.
we shouldn't remove the abillity thereby giving them a "fixed" setup, but instead giving a proper konsequence for the actions:)
-why sp gain shouldn't be| http://oldforums.eveonline.com/?a=topic&threadID=569893&page=1Pv |
Rooker
Lysian Enterprises
|
Posted - 2007.08.05 13:26:00 -
[41]
Necro.... -_-
|
halykon
|
Posted - 2007.08.24 10:06:00 -
[42]
Edited by: halykon on 24/08/2007 10:13:03
Edited by: halykon on 24/08/2007 10:08:41
Just because, can we stop applying real world physics to Eve. Real world the top speed of a ship is limited by the speed of the propellant minus absolutely minimal drag. Acceleration, and only acceleration is affected by mass and engine output. Eve doesn't even try to use a real world physics system for flight because it would be near friggin impossible, and very not fun. For instance, lets say you are on a head to head course with another ship, both of you are at maximum velocity obtainable by your respective ships. You get a round or two of firing in, and then your past. If you want to chase the other ship, you must then slow down to a relative stop(which takes time) and then speed back up. Assuming you don't want to turn yourself into an absolute pancake, you can't slow down much faster than 4-5g relative. Which means hours of slowdown, while being shoved against your chair. Then you have to start to chase the other person, yet again limited to 4-5g, while being shoved against your chair. This all assumes your propellant has a faster burn rate than said ship, and that mass/engine output give you a higher rate of accleration. Of course, a faster burn rate just adds in more time you have to slow down because your velocity is faster to begin with, meaning you get farther afield. Of course you can add in inertia sumps to drain relative Gs off of acceleration limit, science fiction has been doing that for decades. But the basic problems still exist, because the other ship will have the same sumps.
So, lets say all that is true above, and you are now chasing him. Well, guess what. If you add in your relative velocity to his effective gun range, you're now in range of his weapons long before he's in range of yours, so now you are getting pounded and you can't fire back because your effective gun range shortens because of the relative velocity difference. And, it takes less time for his guns to hit you, than it takes for yours to fire back.
This doesn't even begin to add in other odds and end complications(like say.. turning), this is just the bare basics needed to be anywhere near realistic.
So, I say again. Can we please leave real world flight physics comparisons out of Eve.
|
halykon
|
Posted - 2007.08.24 10:46:00 -
[43]
Oh ya, if Eve uses any real world flight physics model. Its atmospheric flight, and we won't even go into how wrong it gets that as well. So stop, please stop. You are all only giving me, and people like me, headaches everytime we have to muddle through a post where everyone takes a very basic idealized view on how the universe works, and try to apply it to a game which doesn't come anywhere near using those rules. Mostly because of complexity, and fun factor. If you make things too realistic it will either become A: Not Fun, B: Too Complicated To Handle, or C: Both A & B.
|
skullkeeper
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 10:55:00 -
[44]
Do some thing about these nano****abonds, extend the time from decloak untill you can jump through a gate, they jump into a system thats camped, wait 30 sesc then mwd back to the gate and jump out. :( even multi webbin huginns have almost NO chance to stop them
|
Cease n'Desist
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 11:55:00 -
[45]
arg....necro
|
Dotries
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 13:01:00 -
[46]
Waaaa waaaa waaa waaaa....
Nerf the cry-babies who want everything nerfed.
--------------
Stupid Monkey.
|
Reggie Stoneloader
Teikoku Trade Conglomerate
Visions of Warfare
|
Posted - 2007.11.29 23:48:00 -
[47]
Tarron put his finger on it almost a year ago: Originally by: Tarron Sarek
Pimped and un-pimped max speed shouldn't differ by 100-200% or more.
That's the trouble right there. The problem is that there's a powerful tactic that can only be accessed by people with huge skillpoint requirements and faction/officer gear. NosDomi could be put together with all T1/T2 hardware. It wouldn't be as tough as a fancy one, but it would do the same job. You cannot use conventional equipment to make a NanoPhoon, or to counter one.
Rich, high-SP player can steamroll poorer, less skilled players all day and all night because their advantages mean more in the field of nano setups than they do in any other arena. If the super-skilled, faction fitted, rigged/implanted/boosted setups were only 20% faster than the T2-fit variants, then it might be worthwhile to consider other tactics, but the "risk/reward" of nanoships right now can be reduced to "You'll die if you get shot ten times" and "You'll never get shot". So the choice is obvious.
There are only two main counters that stand half a chance of working: The first is another nano gang, which requires all the money and skillpoints that the first one requires, and no raiding nanogang would engage it anyway. The second is the minmatar recon class, which everyone knows are made of glass, and a nanogang with three braincells will annihilate within the first few seconds of the fight.
I think there should be a restriction on duplicate speed mods. The first nanofiber replaces your hull components with lighter materials. What does the second one do? The third one? How about overdrives? Your engine already has one on it, where does the second one go? Last time this was a problem, limiting ships to one afterburner was the right solution. Why is that not a good idea now? Nobody complains that they can't git two MWDs, or two damage controls. Fitting two nanofiber hull modifications is silly.
Crusades: Bounties & Security Status |
Redd Lenses
Murder-Death-Kill
|
Posted - 2007.11.30 04:13:00 -
[48]
|
George Jones
|
Posted - 2008.02.12 23:08:00 -
[49]
Dang, the thred was so long I did not manage to read all the ideas. Apologies if this one is already there.
Just as warp disruptors were invented to stop ships going into warp, and evolved into 'dictors, heavy 'dictors, and warp bubbles, webbers should be evolving down the same path, ultimately to webbing bubbles. Look at how technology evolves in real war situations and this path of development would not be so unusual.
I like the ideas posted associated with physics and engineering. I remember stripping out an old car, removing a lot of dead weight, and seeing a percent increase in acceleration and top speed before wondering why the suspension turrets were starting to ***** etc.
|
VJ Maverick
Caldari
R.E.C.O.N.
Black-Out
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 02:45:00 -
[50]
Originally by: George Jones
Dang, the thred was so long I did not manage to read all the ideas. Apologies if this one is already there.
Just as warp disruptors were invented to stop ships going into warp, and evolved into 'dictors, heavy 'dictors, and warp bubbles, webbers should be evolving down the same path, ultimately to webbing bubbles. Look at how technology evolves in real war situations and this path of development would not be so unusual.
I like the ideas posted associated with physics and engineering. I remember stripping out an old car, removing a lot of dead weight, and seeing a percent increase in acceleration and top speed before wondering why the suspension turrets were starting to ***** etc.
I disagree with you 100%. I think speed has gone out of control precisely because webs are out of control and have been for a long time. So now you want to further boost webs? Guess what's going to happen! It will be countered with even more speed.
Telling your girlfriend that you play EvE is like telling her about your herpes. Timing is everything. |
Omo Men
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 04:00:00 -
[51]
Edited by: Omo Men on 13/02/2008 04:00:49
My friend has been playing Eve for 4 months and can get his interceptor up to over 7km/s.
The best interceptors in the game go over 21km/s.
The best Nanofoon can only do a little over 3km/s with all level 5 skills and no implants.
If your being chased down by battleships in your interceptor get better skills and a better fit!
|
Linda Mei
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 04:50:00 -
[52]
Since the Nano-nerf, the nanoships are quite balanced already. Nano-battleships are pretty much gone now.
Originally by: Uncle Angelus Xenotov
Look at it this way, a battleship has massive engines, right? Rip out every piece of internal structure and that thing is now basically a set of massive engines with little else.
Exacly! People should read what the modules does before whinning for more reality. The nanofiber makes perfect sense to me. So does the extra thruster (overdrive). Combine the two and makes perfect sense the speeds they reach.
Originally by: Uncle Smokey
word!
ive never been that into physics but could someone gimme a hint why do i-stabs give mass reduction but tuning with lightweight parts does not? just curious. 
I thought this was fixed ages ago.
|
Sidewayzracer
Caldari
D00M.
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 06:13:00 -
[53]
Since we are all being realistic here why would speed have any affect on matter in space. There is no atomphere there for no friction = zero speed limit no matter size or mass of a object.
/not signed
|
Koyama Ise
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 09:54:00 -
[54]
Originally by: Sola Sun
fairly easy to code
Don't say it's easy to code unless you can present us with the coding in the correct locations it should be.
Now for the thread; It is a bit silly that a vaga can go faster that an intie IMHO so an intie should go even faster  . If the nanofags are really annoying you, I have one word, Recons, all of them can do something. Caldari Jam it so it can't do anything, Gallente Damp it so it lock past the pilot's nose, Minmatar web it nano ship going at 100 ms^-1 is a dead ship, Amarr neut it & tracking disrupt if it uses turrets.
--------
Yes, I know I'm an alt, what are you going to do about it? |
Kegstand Mcfarland
Caldari
Phoenix Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 22:52:00 -
[55]
Couldn't you just implement a signature radius multiple for ships not meant to be flown this way? I dont drive a curse ishtar or Vaga in this manner but I do plan too. I have fought these beasts on several occasions and can tell you many ways to screw these setups. Unfortunatwely its usually ratters not paying attention who lose the most...and thats their own fault. Nano ships make the perfect deep space infiltration, suprise-gank mobiles. As much as I hate going against them in normal ships I would imagine the game to be much more boring without these wolves popping in and out behind enemy lines.
|
Kegstand Mcfarland
Caldari
Phoenix Industries
|
Posted - 2008.02.13 22:54:00 -
[56]
Originally by: Grey Area
LINK to my idea on this in another thread.
If you can't be bothered to follow it - basically we have frigate, cruiser and BS sized MWD's and AB's - so why not apply the same logic to the inertial mods?
Seems silly to me that a module that reduces the inertia of a 1,000,000kg frigate can have an equal effect on a ship 100 times that size for the SAME power, CPU and CAP output...
Could be well worth checking into.
|
Ratzap
Gallente
InterGalactic Corp.
Imperial Republic Of the North
|
Posted - 2008.02.16 13:46:00 -
[57]
I was thinking on much the same lines, at least I checked the commonly proposed ideas thread before posting ;)
Personally, I was thinking more along the lines of a CCP set max speed for each ship (based on ship classes and races). Make it reasonably generous - like 6 to 8km/s for interceptors and at speeds over the maximum calculate hull damage based on the amount over and vector. This would allow someone to burn away in a straight line without too much hassle but if you go way over the limit and orbit someone you'll simply fall apart. The old "she cannae tek it captain" principle. Maybe factor in mass over base or inertia factor if the devs are feeling fancy (so trying to turn a high factor mega fast ship makes a fireball faster).
You could un-nerf the speed mods then and remove the stacking penalties as they'd be unnecessary - going too fast is a pilot decision and the consequence is his/her choice. All the calculations are already done by the server to move your ship around so it probably wouldn't add much to the load either.
You could even add rigs with stack penalties to increase the max for a particular ship (nano-glue bots ;) ) if you felt like it.
Ratzap
|
Johnnny B
Caldari
Caldari Advanced Response Division
G Thanks Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 20:09:00 -
[58]
Hi guys, not sure if this is the right place or not..
or even if its been suggested before...
i was thinking that a interdiction stasis web probe be brought in to the game
to help counter these soo called nano gangs..
any thought on this at all?
fly safe guys.... |
Ezekiel Sulastin
Gallente
Eve University
Ivy League
|
Posted - 2008.03.11 22:30:00 -
[59]
Originally by: Johnnny B
Hi guys, not sure if this is the right place or not..
or even if its been suggested before...
i was thinking that a interdiction stasis web probe be brought in to the game
to help counter these soo called nano gangs..
any thought on this at all?
fly safe guys....
A web bubble would make 0.0 gatecamps an I-Win button. No.
----
WTB Armor Nerf Hardener II, 10^100 isk OBO |
Renfus
Omen Incorporated
Brutally Clever Empire
|
Posted - 2008.03.12 00:04:00 -
[60]
Ok... here we go crying nerf again...
Soon we'll lose the functionality & usefullness of a few more mods / ships in the game...
every time something gets nerfed in the name of "Balance" it tends to cause something else to become un-Balanced..
then someone will be crying for another nerf..
When will it stop???
Ya know this game was not intedned to be balanced !!!
Each race has strenths & weaknesses.. not ment to be balanced... BUT you have the ships & tools to counter what ever setup people can come up with...
thats the great thing about this game....
so what.. a nano BS can go fast.. it's not gonna out manuver an Intercepter... and its nothing a few webbers can't handle.
A heavy dictor with a good web or 2 will lock a nano ship down long enough for a couple guys to pop him.
We have the tools to counter fast ships..
So No.... speeds is not gonna kill EVE..
Its people asking for balance(nerfs) thats gonna kill EVE...
|
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] 3 :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |