| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Steppa
Gallente
Sturmgrenadier Inc
R i s e
   |
Posted - 2007.02.15 17:31:00 -
[1]
Tux,
Bravo on the blog. Very interesting and I hope to see those changes to the nanoships implemented.
However, I've got a new cause and it is to end the blight on Eve that is the afk cloaker. Can we PLEASE get something done soon to address this?
|
Steppa
Gallente
Sturmgrenadier Inc
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 15:30:00 -
[2]
 Originally by: Tuxford
Originally by: Izo Azlion
I think this guys hit the target, tbh. There was also a mention of Nos involving tracking. That might make things pretty interesting. Tux - thoughts?
We've actually been discussing this.
Modules that affect other ships should come in two flavors, it seems to me. One set that do area damage, a la burst ecm or smartbombs, and those that are targeted like turrets, nos, warp scram, etc. Notice that second clause...targeted. You have to target something to hit it with a nos. This implies that there is some sort of tracking involved, but not currently built into the game mechanics. Everything in this latter catagory should have a tracking attribute. Thus, it may be exceptionally difficult for a battleship with large nos fit to hit and drain a frigate's cap.
I don't believe new skills are need, but they're always fun. To be honest, I think our current skills that affect tracking should affect targeted modules if this change is implemented.
|
Steppa
Gallente
Sturmgrenadier Inc
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 15:34:00 -
[3]
By the way, having said what I just did, I still think (and have since 2004), that battleships should be able to mount larger versions of the frigate weapons. For instance, a cruiser can fit dual 150mm weapons. A battleship should be able to mount quad-150mm railguns and have that weapon with tracking that can reasonably hit mwd frigates. You have to sacrifice a weapon slot to do it, so there's a tradeoff.
I just keep thinking back to the battles in the pacific and all of those battleships and battlecruisers with the banks of anti-air weapons.
|
Steppa
Gallente
Sturmgrenadier Inc
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.02.16 20:34:00 -
[4]
Originally by: Hektor Ramirez
Any word on stealthbombers yet?
You gotta love Eddie Izzard. He's not doing much of the trans thing anymore, I noticed.
|
Steppa
Gallente
Sturmgrenadier Inc
R i s e
|
Posted - 2007.02.20 15:25:00 -
[5]
Originally by: Max Hardcase
I have to LOL @ the supposed tactics and strategy part for EVE combat. There are no benefits to outmanouvring ships on the tactical scale of things ( other than range that is ). If we had weaker rear armor/shields( in effect a damage multiplier based on bearing of target ship), then maybe.
Cruisers are supposed to be able out manouvre BS on both the tactical and strategic scale of things.
While they may be able to go a good 2x as fast on the tactical sense it doesnt matter much given large gun ranges and the drawbacks of engaging MWD @ range.
Strategical movement is also right out given that they both move @ the same warp speed ( the only difference being the faster align speed ).
BC have it worse given that they have similar tactical speeds as BS and the same align and warp speed ( ok they align marginally faster ).
Destroyers are in the same situation vs Cruisers as Cruisers and BC are vs BS. Not enough tactical and strategic speed differences.
lol, strategical?
|
| |
|