EVE Search - Bloggers #52, Tuxford's Take on Need for Speed

All Channels

EVE Information Portal

Bloggers #52, Tuxford's Take on Need for Speed

» Click here to find additional results for this topic using Google

Monitor this thread via RSS [?]

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] :: one page
Author	Thread Statistics \| Show CCP posts - 6 post(s)
Leon 026 Caldari Omerta Syndicate Exuro Mortis	Posted - 2007.02.25 21:10:00 - [271] Edited by: Leon 026 on 25/02/2007 21:07:06 Originally by: Aramendel 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),.... Except how (un)sustainable are we talking? 1 cycle? 2 cycles? 6 cycles? Might not affect the interceptors much, but increasingly the problem is becoming apparent that its also breaking interceptor combat. I've flown crows for over a year, and now, more than ever before, the gap between a T2'ed up crow and a gistii crow is becoming wider and wider everyday. It used to be that a t2'ed up crow would have an average speed of 4.2km/s, with a gistii crow having an average of 6.5. At that time, prices for a full snake set was about 200-300mil, give or take. We're talking 300mil for a 2.3km/s gap. 2km/s gap is reasonable, and still presents a risk to the snake crow if he drops his speed too much in a tighter turn. Risk is acceptable, and the gap isnt as retarded, thus snakes were more for the 'hardcore inty pilots'. Now, take a look at present day. i-stab t2 crow will go roughly about 4.5-5km/s. Snake crows, LG we're talking 9k/s, with FG being 11k/s, easily up to 15k/s+ with gang, skirmish link, etc etc. The issue is becoming more apparent that the gap between the t2 and snake crow is above 5km/s, in some cases its as high as 10km/s. Prices for snakes have gone up to reflect this, that now, the crow is easy to mess up in, as with a 10km/s difference, you can be the worst inty pilot in EVE, but so long as you know how to click orbit, F1, F2, and F3 you will be regarded as an 'ace'. Frankly, looking at the MWD/i-stab balance from a crow pilot's perspective, thats just broken. IMO, inty fights (dogfights) should be more dependant on player skill in manual maneuvering, and tactics, NOT how deep your wallet is. I admit that my own crow is pimped out, however isk should NOT be the decisive factor in current PvP. 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. 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. 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 XTREME speed" fad. ------- Leon 026 Once I was fallen, now I have wings
Aramendel Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire	Posted - 2007.02.25 21:43:00 - [272] 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.
Taran Summers The Merovingians	Posted - 2007.02.26 14:56:00 - [273] This ones an easy fix. Give them a disintegration speed. Each vessel has a speed, above which, heat from the drive units and vibration on the vehicle frame begin doing structure damage. The % amount over this disintegration speed adjusts the disintegration damage up by that amount. Set this speed by ship class. The interceptors should never have been outrun by a battleship. This will allow us our jolly haha look how fast I got my ship to go, while keeping your ship reined in to what the developers want our speeds to be for all but very short periods of time. Make the damage worse if you trigger a structure repper while running the MWD to prevent tanking your own vibration. Something about vibration of the ship causing faulty welds and reconnections by the repairing equipment. Voila - Uber mad dash speed for a handful of seconds left in place for jollies. And end of the nanophoons and the like. You might even give interceptors a % damage reduction for this, maybe 20% per level of skill so that uber interceptor pilots can be true kings of speed again. Something they completely deserve for the training they put in. (No. I have no skill in interceptor, I just callz em as I seez em.)
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.02.26 18:15:00 - [274] I think I'd prefer a penalty similiar to what you get for oversized ABs. You get to go really fast in a really straight line but your agility gets screwed. I'd probably take away the cap penalty while I was at it so you wouldn't be stuck with too many penalties on a MWD.
Toric Gaul	Posted - 2007.02.27 00:08:00 - [275] I like that you guys are looking at balance, and yes nanophoons need to go, and the amarr need a little love ^^ . Sounds good so far. This is a little off topic I guess, but are there any plans for a tier 2 destroyer? Somthing with a little more hp, an extra 1 or 2 mid/low slots, and the ability to use 7 or 8 of the heaviest small turrets? I know it's not a super popular class of ship, but I'm kinda partial to them for some reason. I guess I just like gun boats. Anyway, keep up the good work, and keep tellin us what ya can about new stuff.
Toric Gaul	Posted - 2007.02.27 00:58:00 - [276] Now for a post that's more in line with the most recent posts. I've not read most of the other replies, so I'm sorry if I'm restating or ignoring somthing posted before. I don't claim to be an expert on anything but I think that what ever gets decided, over all speed, especially on larger ships need to be severly limited from what it is now. I like the idea of one of each module for i-stabs, nanofiber I.S., and overdrive injectors. Maybe 2 with a 50% stacking nerf if people cry too much. I think that MWD's should use quite a bit more cap, and like the idea of not bein able to use cap boosters at the same time. MWD use should be limited to 30-60 bursts. IF this is over kill, then I like the idea of structural damage for pushin your ship too hard. I've no idea what kind of re-programing this would take though. And finally I agree NOS needs work. It's a self powering weapon and there is little defence against them. Cap boosters is about it, but even then yer screwed against say a Nos domi. It seems to me that nos is almost a requirement for pvp. I'd rather not HAVE to use one. I like choices and variety. I'd like energy neutralizers to be useful. I also don't like bein taken out in a frigate by one large NOS. NOS never misses and pretty much kills a frigate's cap in one or two cycles. Make them track like a regular turret. Make them a percentile damage based on remaining cap in the target ship, or limit damage to smaller ships in some way. They probably need to be reduced in overall power return as well. Maybe throw in a stacking nerf to discourage nos myrm's and such. Right now they are the single most effective close range weapon in the game imo. I may not be correct on all counts, but that's what I think.
Senor Angrypants	Posted - 2007.02.27 06:11:00 - [277] Edited by: Senor Angrypants on 27/02/2007 06:09:42 Edited by: Senor Angrypants on 27/02/2007 06:08:55
Invictvs	Posted - 2007.02.27 06:13:00 - [278] I just see inty's getting nerfed by this, and many other chassis' that rely on speed as a viable means of survival and attack(i.e. many minmatar ships which boast speed as a strength). I'm by no means a proponent to ships like the nanophoon, but inty's just seem like a waste of SP after many of the suggestions to the speed problem. I don't know an end-all solution to these problems and dont pretend to; however whatever solution is implemented, I can only hope it's thoroughly thought about how it effects every aspect and ship in the game before being patched.
Kildron AhKahRosx Amarr	Posted - 2007.02.27 07:50:00 - [279] Edited by: Kildron AhKahRosx on 27/02/2007 07:50:11 I don't remember what thread I saw this in... but wouldn't all these issues be addressed with the introduction of heat, ship heat dispensation ratings and the possiblilty of ship damage caused by module (any module, not just MWD) being over used and thus over heating to the point where ship no longer can disipate it and ship system begin taking damage maybe to the point where they might even explode and severly cripple ship? ---
Iphiclus	Posted - 2007.02.27 10:30:00 - [280] I am pleased that the Amarr are FINALLY going to get some loving. Tux for Emperor! Being Amarrian I have found if you actually have to turn on your repairer you were probably already dead (cap issues being what they are) :( and going gank gets you halfway to nowhere with T1 stuff. Doing both is completely out of the question, pfffft! If this doesn't fix it I'm gonna train for a tanking, blaster gank mega... meh.
Smada Templar Republic	Posted - 2007.02.27 15:33:00 - [281] Regarding the speed nerf...If it aint't broke, don't FIX it!
Derran Minmatar Khumatari Holdings Ushra'Khan	Posted - 2007.02.27 15:52:00 - [282] Originally by: Smada Regarding the speed nerf...If it aint't broke, don't FIX it! Um, it is broke which is why they are fixing it. Whenever I used a MWD, it was only just to get a boost in a straight line. Doesn't it seem odd that acceleration is based on agility instead of mass? Agility seems more like a stat for maneuverability and difficulty to hit than a stat for propulsion. It seems the only thing mass is tied to is your top speed. You'd think doing it so mass affects speed and acceleration and agility affects only manueverability and difficulty to hit (along with sig radius) would make more sense.
xOm3gAx Caldari Stain of Mind DAMAGE INC...	Posted - 2007.02.28 04:17:00 - [283] i said it before ill say it again the easiest fix is simple as this... Dont nerf mwd or ab add a negative bonus to istabs and nano's that are cumulative or stack nerfed... Eg: -10%-20% bonus to mwd bonus and -5-10% to ab bonus so... AT 20% 500% speed bnus would be 400% at the first mod 300% at the second if cumulative.... 500% speed bonus would be 400% at the first mod 320% at the second if stacking nerfed... At 10% 500% speed bonus would be 450%at the first at the second 400% if cumulative If nerfed 450 then 405 If a domi does 10km/s (theoretical with nano/istab/mwd) then using this system u would have one that does (if its base speed with mods is 200m/s at 20% per lvl stacking nerfed and 7 lows full of them) Would be exactly: 524.288m/s Thus making the nano boats useless unless your a frig ;) If needed overdrives could see a similar nerf. Here's the rp standpoint... nano's take away from the hull and the ship needs to reduce speed blah blah to maintain hull integ... istabs... - Energy required to stab inertia is taken from the "engines" though only mwd / ab ----------- "Mercinaries never die, we just go to hell to regroup." -xOm3gAx '99
DrEiak Amarr IONSTAR Curatores Veritatis Alliance	Posted - 2007.03.01 09:11:00 - [284] You said the words i never thought i would hear "Boost amarr" I have been adamantly posting about this topic for some time now. AND taking a lot of forum flames. I DONT LIKE the removal of the lottery system, it makes me sad, but that is because i have been doing R&D for 5 months and have already won a T2 ship BPO (because I am hardcore and earned it :) I wish I could have done it all sooner so I could have a nice stockpile of wares, but at least I won something. I guess I was proof that hard work DOES work in the lotto system, although I do think invention needs love, i dont want to see the lotto done away with altogeather. I like my T2 bpo.
Pang Grohl Gallente	Posted - 2007.03.01 23:02:00 - [285] I think that the answer lies in another direction. Let the speed freaks go as fast as they want, but make them pay for it somewhere else. My thought was to tie targeting capabilities to how close you get to a theoretical max non-warp speed. Once you get to 50% of this number you take a hit on targeting range and speed. The closer you get to this number the worse your targeting is. For example's sake I'll call the max non-warp speed 50 times the ship's base speed. Say your ship has a base speed of 100, at 2.5km/s your targeting takes a penalty, call it 50%. If your ship's targeting range is 70km, you can still scramble & NOS, but locking a new target will take a lot longer now, so you need to keep an eye on your range. Also, you are now subject to most most eWar options. This will put going fast up against combat effectiveness as a choice for pilots, rather than taking away going fast as an option. Si non adjuvas, noces (If you're not helping, you're hurting)
Feral Karkassia Minmatar Mean Corp	Posted - 2007.03.02 18:44:00 - [286] 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... that actually doesn't sound that bad. Keep it up and I might take "Nerf Tuxford!" out of my bio. Please, make the Wolf's propulsion trails blue again!!!
quellious COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.03.04 20:47:00 - [287] Sorry if i don't read all reply, but reading the dev blog leads me to a single question/suggestion (basically you/we don't want BS to be too fast): -> Why don't just cap the maximum velocity per ship class ? I mean, for exemple make all battleship able to reach, let say, 1km/s maximum. Then make that limit asymptotic, so that nanofiber or other modules on BS will just make it faster to reach that limit once MWD is activated, or even that limit reachable using an AB and multiple nanofiber to keep cap usage low. - Did you noticed that a pendulum does not swing in deep space ?
quellious COLSUP Tau Ceti Federation	Posted - 2007.03.04 20:47:00 - [288] Sorry if i don't read all reply, but reading the dev blog leads me to a single question/suggestion (basically you/we don't want BS to be too fast): -> Why don't just cap the maximum velocity per ship class ? I mean, for exemple make all battleship able to reach, let say, 1km/s maximum. Then make that limit asymptotic, so that nanofiber or other modules on BS will just make it faster to reach that limit once MWD is activated, or even that limit reachable using an AB and multiple nanofiber to keep cap usage low. - Did you noticed that a pendulum does not swing in deep space ?
Amberly Coteaz Amarr Null Horizon	Posted - 2007.03.05 13:59:00 - [289] Regarding the Omen/Zealot: How about removing the ROF bonus and instead replacing it with a tracking bonus with range penalty and the extra grid/cpu/highslot for one more pulse laser. Just to stop it being so easy to get under the Amarr gank cruiser guns, the same could apply to the Zealot too perhaps. Oh and give Zealots back thier drone bay, evil pirates stole it Regarding Amarr in general: A few Thermal/EM bias crystals would be nice, with small increase in drone bays here and there. I dont thing grid/cpu problems are as bad as everyone claims them to be (oh and arn't tacs are supposed to be beams of dewm also found on 'small moons', thus being hard to fit) Regarding speed nanoBS and all that other crap: Yes I think BS should be able to go 4, 6 maby even 8 km/s. However being able to turn well let alone orbit at those speeds with that mass should be downright impossible and even if it was possible the BS should tear itself in half with sheering forces Personally what I would do is: limit istabs to one per ship decrease the speed boost on large MWD to 250% give industrials an agility increase (blocade runners especially, the rest less so. Cargo expanders get an agility decrease) Maybe having multiple nanos/speed rigs increasing detrimental effects on the ship, starting with the basic hull/armour hp decrease and ending in CPU/Grid/resist penaltie for multiple mods. Lets face it you are replacing vast quantities of ship with lighter materials and just getting rid of vast chuncks of metal in somecases, some performance has to go to compensate
Elkin	Posted - 2007.03.11 12:14:00 - [290] Amarr idea. I cannot tell anything about Tachyon Beam Laser for Cruisers. I have another ideas. 1. It is necessary to shift damage in termal for t2 Laser Crystal. (50%/50% for Aurora and Scorch, i mean) 2.t2 close range Laser Crystal tracking speed multiplier 0.5 -> 0.75 3.Turn back real Amarr Battleship Skill Bonus : 10% bonus to Energy Vampire drain amount per level for Apoc, instead of "Special Ability: 10% bonus to Large Energy Turret capacitor use" (hi, nanoships!!). The Amarr were supposed to be the capacitor race. Apoc- spec race ship same as Scorp or Domi. Nano 1. For Typhoon -remove Special Ability: 5% bonus to siege and cruise missile launcher firing speed. Add Special Ability: 5% bonus to max velocity per level (Fair racial bonus ) 2. Will limit influence of the InStab or Nanofibers for all BS. At speed more than 3000, orbit should be an ellipse. More than 30 km in apogee. Typhoon- spec race ship same as Scorp or Domi. Elkin WarHamster's simple pilot
Aindrias Amarr Fomus-Amarr Industrial Novus Ordos Seclorum	Posted - 2007.03.11 21:40:00 - [291] I didn't read 10pages of this so I dunno if this has been suggested... Make.. Nossies... a Utility Slot Mod Only W00t Aind
Mastin Dragonfly Amarr Navy Runners	Posted - 2007.03.14 19:14:00 - [292] Blog has been out a month, no changes to Amarr yet on Test server that I've heard of, could we get some more concrete info soon?
DanMck Amarr Rionnag Alba Triumvirate.	Posted - 2007.05.01 14:28:00 - [293] Originally by: Mastin Dragonfly Blog has been out a month, no changes to Amarr yet on Test server that I've heard of, could we get some more concrete info soon? same here just looking for a wee bit more info
shinsushi	Posted - 2007.10.20 22:00:00 - [294] Ooomph??? Anytime now.

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 [10] :: one page
First page \| Previous page \| Next page \| Last page

COPYRIGHT NOTICE
EVE Online, the EVE logo, EVE and all associated logos and designs are the intellectual property of CCP hf. All artwork, screenshots, characters, vehicles, storylines, world facts or other recognizable features of the intellectual property relating to these trademarks are likewise the intellectual property of CCP hf. EVE Online and the EVE logo are the registered trademarks of CCP hf. All rights are reserved worldwide. All other trademarks are the property of their respective owners. CCP hf. has granted permission to EVE-Search.com to use EVE Online and all associated logos and designs for promotional and information purposes on its website but does not endorse, and is not in any way affiliated with, EVE-Search.com. CCP is in no way responsible for the content on or functioning of this website, nor can it be liable for any damage arising from the use of this website.