|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.15 20:18:00 -
[1]
Originally by: Nordvargr For nerfing perma-MWD setups, why not make it so the cap penalty applies to cap recharge buffing modules as well? The cap batteries get a 25% hit to their cap bonus from fitting a MWD, maybe all cap rechargers, power diagnostic systems, and cap power relays should have their cap recharge rate bonus reduced by 25% as well. So a t1 CPR would give a 15% bonus to cap recharge instead of a 20%, etc.
The problem is that these perma-MWD setups people have problems with don't use these modules *at all*. They depend on cap chargers and nossing their targets cap. It's not sustainable forever, of cource, but thats not the point of it.
Originally by: Weirda @Tux Great blog (more pictures next time - even if it is just the smokers lounge at CCP). Weirda worried on small ship nerf to nanos, since currently they are not as much problem as larger ship due to number of available low slot. Weirda think that Zirator idea is VERY good: "So the solution ( imho ) is very easy. They should just change intert stabs in such a way that they don't give a % weight reduction but an absolute weight reduction in KG's."
Instabs are not the real problem. They boosted primarily smaller ships, nanoBS got their main speed boost from the vent rigs, not instabs. A typhoon gets approximately 10% more speed by replacing a few nanos by instabs and about 50% more speed by using 3 vent rigs.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 00:10:00 -
[2]
Originally by: FawKa forgot about fitting tachs.. Wtf? Can a tempest fit 1400mm with T2 tank and gank fittings - NO. Can a megathron just fit neutron blasters and dual LARII rep? no I dont think so..
An apoc needs 2 RCU2 to fit a full rack of tach2s.
Not for the tank. Not for propulsion. Not for anything else. Just. For. The. Guns.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 08:47:00 -
[3]
Originally by: tux For example overdrives increase velocity, nanofbers agility and inertia stabilizers mass. Well we might then switch the istabs and nanos around as it really makes more sense that nanofibers reduce mass. The only problem is that I'm afraid that the agility mod will be sort of useless.
Its quite possible that this alone could fix the whole issue without needing to tinker with MWDs.
If ODs would give a speed boost (unchanged to what they are now, although it might be a good idea to boost t2 ODs to domination stats similar to how t2 nanos are now compared to domi nanos), instabs only a -20% inertia boost (would still be useful on haulers, although it should get stacking nerfed) and nanos only -15% mass it would severly cripple the bigger nanosetups while not having asm uch of an effect to other ships.
For, example, a Typhoon with 4 t2 nanos and 3 LH instabs has right now +150 m/s speed, 22% of it's old inertia and 68% of it's mass.
If the speed items get changed like they are above and the phoon fits 3 domi ODs, 2 instabs and 2 nanos he would +120 m/s speed, 64% of it's inertia and 74% of it's mass. And also 64% of it's cargo room, aka less space for cap charges.
Would result in it having only 83% of the previous max MWD speed and almost 3 times it's previous inertia. If that is still considered too fast you could give ODs only a max 30 m/s speed boost (and loose the cargo penality), then the max speed would be 73% of what it is now. But I think the vastely reduced agility won't make a further velocity reduction necessary.
Advantages: - ceptors wouldn't get hurt much if at all since the agility bonus from nanos and instabs is not really needed by them due to their already high base agility - blaster ships usually do not fit speedmods so won't be effected by this
Ultra-highspeed ceptors would still exist, though, but with the exeption of the crow they cannot do dps at these speeds.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 23:49:00 -
[4]
So it has enough cap to tank & shoot after it uses the MWD to get into blaster distance?
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 11:18:00 -
[5]
Edited by: Aramendel on 19/02/2007 11:15:07 The "increased MWD cap need" MWD nerf actually sounds rather reasonable when you think about it. If it happens for speeds >20 times the base valocity as Tux suggested this would get us penalities at:
Speeds > 8.5 - 9.5 km/s for ceptors. Speeds > 3.4 km/s for the deimos Speeds > 2.5 km/s for the mega Speeds > 6 km/s for the vaga (if you include his 25% speed boost to his base speed)
I do not see how such a MWD nerf would have ANY negative effects on those ships. The blasterships do not reach those velocities with a normal tank setup. The vaga cannot hit it's target at 6km/s, nevermind higher speeds (it can still use higher speed to flee, but then capeffeciency is not really important). Same with ceptors and 8-9 km/s - the only ship nerfed a bit would be extreme highspeed crows.
However...
Speeds > 2.4 km/s for the domi Speeds > 3 km/s for the phoon
Their nanoversion have about 2 times that speed or more. That would result in very heavy cap need of the MWD.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 12:28:00 -
[6]
Originally by: Sherpondeldey Well u need to use snakes and rigs to make those ship go as fast as you say. The problem is not MWD. The problem is with SPEED RIGS and Inertial Stabilizers. So Tux should fix those first.
Changes of instabs, snakes and rigs would also effect the other ship classes which rely on speed. Making MWDs using more cap at 20*base speed won't.
Also, it would act as "failsafe" against future uber speed setups.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 16:45:00 -
[7]
Originally by: DrAtomic Nano-BS in all fairness and that is something that everyone including Tux is forgetting... We're talking 1 billion isk setups here without any defense other then speed. A nano ship comes at a great risk of loosing a lot of isk.
Isk is only a very minor balance factor. Or do you see an HAC easily kill a BS (or even BC)? It's more expensive than it...
Also, you can invest 1 bil into anything else and do not get a similar survivability boost while keeping an equally high nos & dps.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 20:24:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Aki Yamato 2% RoF bonus is not equal to 2% damage bonus.
They are IMO, ROF gives a (slightly) bigger damageboost on cost of higher ammoconsumption and higher capneed for the guns (if they need cap).
Still, "racial boni" is IMO a rather dumb idea.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.21 16:08:00 -
[9]
They develop the game, so, yes, they have the last word how they want to have it.
Also, I kinda doubt that not being able to sustain a MWD at speeds over 8.5k to 9.5k will kill ceptors.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.22 15:43:00 -
[10]
Originally by: Maeltstome interceptor mechanics for dummies
Yes. Thank you. I already know this. You are completely missing the point. Let me quote the important paragraph (admittably a bit hidden in page 5 of this thread):
Originally by: Tuxford I've been toying around with this. The way I did it is that you wouldn't really see increased cap need until you're at something like x times your base velocity. The base velocity of a typhoon is 150m/sec, that means if I want to see increased cap need at 3000m/sec that x is 20. Now if we use that same thing with a ship like the Crow then its base velocity is 425m/sec that means you wouldn't see increased cap until at about something like 8500m/sec which tbh is plenty fast. Special consideration must be taken in the regards of vagabond as its getting a velocity bonus from the ship.
That is the change tux favours currently. In short, until a ship reaches 20 times it's base speed it won't get any (zero. zip. zilch.) additional penalities. Which, for ceptors, would be speeds of over 8.5 - 9.5 km/s. At which speeds they cannot hit anything anyway. So, please, elaborate how such a change would "would compeltely kill interceptors". The only ceptor slightly "nerfed" would be uber-highspeed crows (nerfed as in "becoming a little less invincible", not as in "made useless").
|
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.24 14:57:00 -
[11]
Edited by: Aramendel on 24/02/2007 14:55:43
Originally by: Leon 026 And that fixes..... absolutely nothing, as ships will still be reaching stupid speeds using burst MWD, and the drawbacks will be countered by cap boosters (or dual cap boosters) mounted on battleships.
Burst MWD speeds are no issue. You can fit a 100mn MWD on a zealot and speed it up to > 30 km/s, but it's just a joke setup because it is not useable for PvP
The whole problem of nanoships is the continuous MWD use. And the drawback will only be countered by cap boosters if they do not make the penalities high enough, aka use the wrong numbers. And, guess what: if you use the wrong numbers any single other solution won't work either. Nothing works if you do not use the right parameters.
With the right numbers a nanophoon could use the normal cap at 3 km/s, 5 times the cap at 6 km/s (barely sustainable with 2 cap boosters and heavy nos (aka only useable near a cap charges supply which is limiting the operational range heavily), 20 times at 9 km/s (won't have enough cap for even one cycle),....
Originally by: Tonto Auri Less than nothing... It kills whole MWD use. Noone taking a look at their speed, just command ship to reach object (at any max speed) or to stop completely. That's EVE way to use engines. Unless we see EVE reach the Elite playstyle, we never start use mid-range speeds because it all useless.
Again, wrong. Tell me one ship besides nanoBS which needs more than 20 times it's base speed to work. There is none.
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.25 21:43:00 -
[12]
Edited by: Aramendel on 25/02/2007 21:40:22
Originally by: Leon 026 Going back to the original topic regarding top speeds, the cap usage of MWD wont change how fast ships are going - meaning the whole issue of ships being too fast to even lock down with multiple huginns, remain.
It will. I just told you why. Perhaps stop ignoring my arguments and actually bring some of your own - evryone can say "it is so".
Quote: I honestly dont believe that the problem rests with the microwarpdrive, but with the Intertia Stabilizer mods themselves. They add too high of a velocity + agility bonus, especially battleships, and constantly widen the gap between T2 and faction that with the available margin of error by messing up, how much isk you are able to fork out now protects you from losing your ship, unless you do something so stupid that you deserve to truly lose it.
Wrong, inertias give small ships - especially inties - a much much greater speed bonus than battleships. Are you just interpolating your inty experiences on the BS lvl? That would explain much...
Quote: My proposal for a solution is simple. As suggested before, the simple addition of a damage control's stacking penalty (ie. you can only fit ONE on a ship) to the Inertia Stabilizer will fix the entire issue and reduce ship levels to "reasonable" and manageable levels. This is something that I honestly believe that Tuxford and the Devs should seriously consider to curb the current "need for X
Which would have, as said, minimal impact on nanoBS setups. Would reduce their max speed by less than 10%. If you had ever tried one out you would have known this. Also, it would have absolutely NO effect on the single argument you brought - highspeed crows. The higher capuse at 20x base speed mechanics would have a greater effect there.
|
|
|
|