Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
|
Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 6 post(s) |
Zembla
Caldari Divine Retribution
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 20:01:00 -
[211]
About the MWD,
Maybe you could factor in the sleekness of the ships (can't really call it aerodynamics here ). Call it the result of space not being a perfect vacnum or something. Ships that have a lower "sleekness" value can go faster without damaging themselves, ships with a higher "sleekness" value will damage themselves by going fast. This damage starts at the shields, and once the shields are down, the armor starts caving away. The damage then would rely on the speed attained. If the person in question would be able to go 8k in an unsleek ship but (s)he corrected the speed to a mere 2k/s he wouldn't be damaged, whereas at 8k/s stuff would start peeling away.
Just an idea. Though to be honest, it gives another variability to speed, which it desperately needs. The main concern is big ships going fast, some ships like an interceptor or a Vaga who are designed around speed, shouldn't be affected by the changes the way other ships are.
<Z>
|
Leon 026
Caldari Omerta Syndicate Exuro Mortis
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 21:45:00 -
[212]
Honestly now, why change a module thats been untouched for 3 years in the game just to solve a current issue? The new issue of ships flying too fast was created due to one single mod being overly buffed : The Inertia Stabilizer.
Solution? Simply either remove it completely, or revert it to its old Cold War/RMR stats and add a stacking penalty so that any more nanos above 3 will have less than significant effect. Simple, and the entire issue of overly fast ships disappear.
A nerf in a module thats been the base of much of pvp and frigate pvp will affect frigates/interceptors to a degree that their entire play style thats been around for YEARS will be changed because of recent 2 month-old innovation. Thats not right. -------
Leon 026 Once I was fallen, now I have wings |
Max Hardcase
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 22:36:00 -
[213]
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 17/02/2007 22:32:59 ^^ *cough* MWD speed rigs *cough*
|
babylonstew
Caldari Caldari Scouting and Intel Group
|
Posted - 2007.02.17 23:09:00 -
[214]
Originally by: Siri Blue You don't have to fiddle with rigs nor any of the modules except for the MWD.
Reduce the AB speed boost for Battleship size to 50% and the Speedboost for MWD Battleship size to 125% (and cruisers 250%)...and thats it. Now listen to me or I will throw random pink fluffy pillows at you!
you dont fly ac or blaster boats much do you?
Originally by: Devilish Ledoux Don't think of it as being kicked out of the Federation; think of it as beating the rush
|
Damien Smith
Turbulent
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 00:50:00 -
[215]
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.
To be honest that sounds like a plan. It fixes the problem of nano-phoon/domi/raven/apoc/moros/avatar/jita 4-4 quite nicely, and doesn't seem that it would break anything else, including interceptors. The only small problem might be that with cap boosters and nos, and both missiles and drones not needing cap that the current nano setups might work, albeit requiring some 1337 cap/speed management skills.
Aside from that small problem, I'm all for it. ----------- Join channel 'Turby' or die! (bring pie) I <3 carebears on toast ^^ - Xorus I'll trade you some carebears for some sheep -Tirg
|
Maximalist
Xenobytes Stain Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 03:58:00 -
[216]
Tuxford's blog exhibits approach, which approximately can be described as "from one extreme to another extreme". Especially for MWD (which already have fitting drawbacks like reduced capacitor size and additinal mass). All proposed changes if introduced at once will surely make revolution in gameplay with whole new style of close-range PvP, emerging new "uberships".
"That standing still and tanking, tanking, tanking and hopefully trying to kill everything immovable alike in sight" (hope thats not the vision of PvP by CCP, or players interested in game with real tactics may consider looking for another game).
Nano-battleships/nano-commandships should be balanced. Indeed. But you dont need to nerf every and all quick ship. All you need to do is slow them down, and this easily acheivable by two steps: 1. Restrict to single inertia stabilizers per ship (as with damage controls) also penalty-stackable with ship mass/agility rigs. 2. Make nanofibers/overdrives/rigs speed boost in percentage and introduce stacking penalty for those modules and rigs.
Those steps are enough to slow down nanobattleships to the point where they would not be able to effectively speed-tank most of the weaponry. Nor they will be able to outrun tackling frigates/interceptors or escape to gate in presence of few webbing interceptors or Rapier/Huggin with sensorbooster.
Step 3 (optional, but will positively improve gameplay in my opinion): nerf nosferatus/neutralizers so that they wont be able to ruin whole capacitor of targeted ship. 25% of capacitor's capacity in my opinion is a good starting point (so that nosfing/neutralizing {nano}battleship can't kill tackling frigate's capacitor in one second and warp out when scrambler cycle ends).
|
Max Hardcase
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 10:23:00 -
[217]
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 18/02/2007 10:23:16 Edited by: Max Hardcase on 18/02/2007 10:20:10
Originally by: kieron Speed is a necessary consideration when engaging the enemy. Faster means harder to hit, especially if you are 'Crossing the T' to borrow a nautical warfare term. However, there are times when you can have too much speed.
<snip>
If you are crossing the T in EVE you are dead, it means little Transversal speed. Further more the term has little meaning in EVE since ships do not have fire arcs.
|
Doxs Roxs
White Wolves Defence league The OSS
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 12:35:00 -
[218]
Originally by: Zarch AlDain Tractor Beam: Potentially add medium and large tractor beams (25 and 30km ranges).
Add new low slot modules:
Tractor Beam Power Augmentor:
This module allow your ship to tractor other ships as well as cans. It would place an acceleration on _both_ ships towards each other based on the relative mass of the ships. i.e. an intie or a battleship tractor each other then the intie will be pulled towards the BS much more than the BS towards the intie. The intie would need to really work to move away from the BS.
This wouldnt be the same as a web, but would pull them towards you. This would also be a useful partial counter to nano battleships when combined with conventional webs as you could pull them in close then web them.
This sounds really cool but I think it really needs to be balanced so that interceptors and other small ships are not instantly pulled into web range and killed. Perhaps the effect should also be dependant on signature radius of the target. The larger the target the better the effect.
Originally by: Zarch AlDain Tractor Beam Warp Cohesion Generator
This tractor beam allows you to follow another ship even through warp while you have a tractor on them, when warping the other ship actually gets the cap drain needed to warp both of you and then you both arrive at the destination together.
Things could get very interesting if you had a 'web' of tractor beams going on, with the whole fight warping together and being pulled together etc. I am not sure how it would work with multiple modules/tractors - but I suggest having a % chance or other value for the strength of the effect. Multiple low core modules would increase that effectiveness, but it is then divided by the number of active tractor beams.
You could even use the warp cohesion one to tractor beam someone and then try and warp them off to somewhere (maybe a friendly POS or fleet standing by?)
I like this idea as well, but I think two completely new modules should be introduced instead of adding lows slot mods to a tractor beam. I do agree that they should be high slot though. That way you give up some offensive capability for the ability to follow someone else into warp or to pull them closer.
I dont think you should be able to pull other ships into warp though, that would potentially be very verpowering. (getting pulled to a hostile POS etc)
Regards
/Doxs After 9 months of being a "!" face, I now discover that Im butt ugly instead... |
Slab Drinklots
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 12:42:00 -
[219]
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.
YES! Oh god yesss! We want it!
Regards
/Doxs
|
SephiriotH
REUNI0N Red Alliance
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 13:33:00 -
[220]
amarr boost... AGAIN ?! what a *rap...
Remember : With a bad word and good torpedo you are always hurting more then with a bad word alone. |
|
myladyoffire
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 15:27:00 -
[221]
there is noting wronge with amar ships if you got right skill and for supper fast bs so what it game let player play the way they what and for all this out crap there noting wronge with nos or ecm or drone every thang in eve has it conters even supper fast bs can be killed with easy if you know how and for nos there alrdy conter to it cap injeters the game is fine as it is and for the rigs mabby cut them back 25% over what they are at now for t1 rigs and let t2 rigs be as is
|
Shayla Sh'inlux
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 15:47:00 -
[222]
Tuxford, your logic sucks.
MWD is not the problem. At all.
Ever since the changes to propulsion we and you have been quite happy with the combat speeds. Going fast took tons of effort and the Nanophoon, which contrary to popular belief has existed for much longer than 2-3 months was quite vulnerable, plus it went like 3k/sec with pirate implants.
Then you had the bright idea of changing Inertia Stabs to reduce mass by a HUGE amount (and a percentage at that for crying out loud) *as well as* add speed enhancing rigs. And now you're wondering why we're flying so fast???
Are you really THAT stupid?
It's like you did with the Damage Control. First we had a useless module, now we have one that might as well be included with the ship since there's not really an option of not fitting it. Same goes for IStabs. If you want to have some speed, fitting anything but an IStab is, well... nevermind.
Nerfing the MWD will do two things:
1) kill interceptors 2) kill close range combat (ie Gallente and Minmatar AC) which is ALREADY so frigging difficult to achieve.
Fix the bloody IStabs/Pirate Implants/Speed rigs and don't touch the already mutilated MWD. It being sustainable is your own fault - it's called cap rigs and the neccesity for a cap injector in today's Nosfest. Like with drones, it's not the actual thing that's overpowered - it's the support around it. Drones are so good because Nos is too strong (thanks for those hitpoint changes I guess eh?) - speed/MWD is so good because of (mostly) the new IStabs. *And you knew it weeks beforehand*.
Your changes over the last year have slowly been killing PvP and turned it into a blob/lag/press buttons and wait fest. You think to fix one issue and your rather loyal community predicts 5 more problems that will come with your "fix". You wave them away and then lo and behold, a week after patchday 4 of the 5 problems are very real.
What you should do is sit back, check how combat worked a year ago and realize how much it sucks now.
Originally by: "Cy4n1d3"
You can't PVP with 4 mids.
|
Jerick Ludhowe
Internet Tough Guys Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 16:03:00 -
[223]
Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe on 18/02/2007 16:02:19 Edited by: Jerick Ludhowe on 18/02/2007 16:00:35
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.
Brilliant man, you pretty much hit the nail on the head as to what is wrong with ship class ballance in EVE. There should be a LARGE speed/agility difference between every class of ship, smaller ships even one class down should be able to out manuver a ship of a class above. I also feel that almost all of the smaller ships need an increase in the number of their tanking slots but that is another argument for another thread.
The strategical movment you speak of is something that I have been worried about for a long time. For the sake of ballance and to make smaller ships (especially cruisers) more valuable lies in the how fast they accelerate and move when in warp. The fact that a BS moves the same speed a cruiser in warp may be "realistic" in some peoples eye's but I feel it really adds to the whole BS > ALL scenario that has plauged eve since it went live. Battleships should be extremely powerfull platforms like they are however there should be some massive weaknesses and this weakness should be their ability to persue and engage targets at will, hence my problem with nano battleships. ------------------------
Another problem I have lies in the formula used to determine how fast a ship accelerates. For example: my plated Thorax actually has quite a bit more mass than my unplated Brutix however it accelerates MUCH faster yet they both use the same MWD moduel that should in theory generate the same ammount of thrust. Now I'm not arguing the ballance of this as I feel even a heavily plated Cruiser should out accelerate a Battle Cruiser. I'm arguing that the entire formula is stupid at best and needs a complete re-write.
Heinrich Klaus: "You need to get a leet signature you****got" |
Max Hardcase
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 18:20:00 -
[224]
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 18/02/2007 18:22:16 I'm not completely adverse to nano BS since they do give up a fair amount of tanking ability but I do think an upper limit ( perhaps in the 2.5-3 km/s region ) should be a tad harder to obtain.
One could liken them to BS like the Hood to make a RL analogy. Superior speed at the cost of protection.
I also think there should a class of ships that gives a bonus to EW stuff ( basically recons lite ). Tier 2 destroyers could play a role in that, just limit offensive weapons in them to say 4 slots.
My other pet peeve is sig radius on the destroyers...some are a tad too big given how the tracking system works.
|
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 19:37:00 -
[225]
Originally by: Udyr Vulpayne
Originally by: Tuxford
We could always just drop the damage by 20% and the cap need by 50% and then replace cap need bonuses with damage bonuses. But you can see that wouldn't really be change at all...
It's not a change in itself but it would allow a much needed change to the amarrian tank line of ships while leaving our damage dealers alone.
the cap use reduction bonus is not a problem on the geddon, omen or harbinger. these ships already have a valid use for lasers.
ships like the punisher, maller, prophecy, apocalypse could finally have a usefull bonus for lasers. as they are meant to be tankers it doenst even have to be a damage bonus. optimal range seems a very nice idea for example (works for the alpha race). or a 2nd tanking bonus...maybe even something related to cap warfare if you want to give that a try. as it stands now these ships have 1 wasted bonus if you want to use them as really good tanks.
Just to make a note. Optimal range bonuses are damage bonuses for ships that rely on closing time/range to outdamage targets. Do a chart for damage at range using the best ammo and you will see why.
The longer the optimal of the weapon system, the higher the bonus, which is why it has little use for ACs and Blasterboats, but a good amount of use for pulse and beams. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Max Hardcase
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 19:37:00 -
[226]
Edited by: Max Hardcase on 18/02/2007 19:38:55 Edited by: Max Hardcase on 18/02/2007 19:35:56 One possible fix could be to pull the sig radius of ship classes and guns even further apart than they are to day. Or just put gun/missile resolution a good 25% above the average ship sig res, that way minmatar get more benefit from their Target painters as well. It will also make destroyers a more valuable anti frigate platform as well.
This is a ship class balance reply btw.
|
Sherpondeldey
Minmatar SolaR KillerS
|
Posted - 2007.02.18 23:43:00 -
[227]
Originally by: Maximalist Tuxford's blog exhibits approach, which approximately can be described as "from one extreme to another extreme". Especially for MWD (which already have fitting drawbacks like reduced capacitor size and additinal mass). All proposed changes if introduced at once will surely make revolution in gameplay with whole new style of close-range PvP, emerging new "uberships".
"That standing still and tanking, tanking, tanking and hopefully trying to kill everything immovable alike in sight" (hope thats not the vision of PvP by CCP, or players interested in game with real tactics may consider looking for another game).
Nano-battleships/nano-commandships should be balanced. Indeed. But you dont need to nerf every and all quick ship. All you need to do is slow them down, and this easily acheivable by two steps: 1. Restrict to single inertia stabilizers per ship (as with damage controls) also penalty-stackable with ship mass/agility rigs. 2. Make nanofibers/overdrives/rigs speed boost in percentage and introduce stacking penalty for those modules and rigs.
Those steps are enough to slow down nanobattleships to the point where they would not be able to effectively speed-tank most of the weaponry. Nor they will be able to outrun tackling frigates/interceptors or escape to gate in presence of few webbing interceptors or Rapier/Huggin with sensorbooster.
Step 3 (optional, but will positively improve gameplay in my opinion): nerf nosferatus/neutralizers so that they wont be able to ruin whole capacitor of targeted ship. 25% of capacitor's capacity in my opinion is a good starting point (so that nosfing/neutralizing {nano}battleship can't kill tackling frigate's capacitor in one second and warp out when scrambler cycle ends).
/signed
|
Max Hardcase
Art of War Cult of War
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 08:02:00 -
[228]
I might /sign that post as well, but what is with the neutralizer hate ? They are pretty fair modules in that they are almost balanced as far as the cap hurt goes. Oversized ones hitting small ships might need a balance, but other than that....
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 11:18:00 -
[229]
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.
|
BobbyRaider
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 12:12:00 -
[230]
Originally by: Juno II
I picked and modified 2 things I thought would be better.
The first one is NOS Tracking?! Great idea. Won't put the nos out of use for anyone except the nanoships!
Large NOS= low tracking Small NOS= High tracking
So Interceptors and AS can still use them,
The other alternative is Webbers.
A webber has say 30 km Range, with falloff. And it's dependent on the Signature of the ship. Bigger signature... More effective webifier (easier for the WEB to get a grip of the ship)
So basically a MWDing Nanophoon would get stuck and killed if meeting wrong ship. Maybe have a small chance by turning the MWD of and FLEE :D (if not killed before)
The smaller ships would still be effective with MWD.
Excellent solution for everything, except would nerf large nos to hell, and make energy vampire setups almost useless, since the best sucking is from large nos.
However, the Minmatar racial speciality is speed, and there has to be some advantages to that. I have to say, it's a biyatch to set up a minnie ship properly, except for one or two. Can't tank, can't do too much damage, nothing is special except for a little more speed than the other races. Imho, the base extra speed is not enough, and should be increased so that even though you can't really tank anything, at least you stand a better chance of not getting hit. So while nanosetups are too uber, you can't nerf that totally, and that would affect all other races also.
There really should be racial bonuses applicable to all ships, for example -
Amarr 5% Guns cap use bonus and 2% Nos sucking/tracking bonus
Caldari 5% Missile explosion velocity bonus and 2% Hybrid guns damage bonus
Gallente 5% Drones durability/damage bonus and 2% Hybrid guns RoF bonus
Minmatar 5% Speed bonus and 2% lower Sig Radius bonus
Additionally, each race should be able to fit one kind of weapon/defensive mod that the other races can't, but I can't think of examples atm, soz.
And btw, the Halo implants really need a boost, they are almost useless as they are atm
The webber falloff and sig radius dependence is an excellent, excellent idea, makes it difficult to run away or to hide, unless you're specifically setup for that :)
Anyway, more as i read the rest ...
Bobby
|
|
Sherpondeldey
Minmatar SolaR KillerS
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 12:21:00 -
[231]
Edited by: Sherpondeldey on 19/02/2007 12:18:20
Originally by: Aramendel Edited by: Aramendel on 19/02/2007 11:15:07 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.
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.
Another solution to Nano-Problem could be something like Stasis Webifier Probe like Interdiction Probe which is to be shooted from Interdiction Sphere launcher and have like 99% speed reduction and 20km radius
|
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 12:28:00 -
[232]
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.
|
Tarron Sarek
Gallente Solid Industries Inc.
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 12:42:00 -
[233]
Great blog. Everything about balance is greatly appreciated.
But I'm also a bit shocked. You don't want people to go really really fast - ok. But let me rephrase that bit - you don't want people to utilize extremes. Because that's what all this boils down to. Extremes are generally, well, extremely hard to balance. Yet you keep adding in more and more modifiers, for example by implementing rigs. May I say that's a bit paradox?
MWDs aren't supposed to be sustainable. So why don't you make sure they aren't? Why do you add in CCCs with a huge 15% bonus? I mean, the devs are supposed to have all the numbers at hand to test it out.
I really don't want to sound harsh, but.. all these problems were quite predictable.
Quote: * Make it require charges * Make its cap consumption dependant on velocity * Not allow people to use cap booster when mwd is active
That's fighting the symptoms, not the cause. If you'll take that path, you'll end up with new problems, guaranteed.
Keep a sharp eye on stacked bonuses (compounded interest) and take smaller bonus steps for variants. There are enough min-maxers out there who would kill for only 1% more. It doesn't always have to be a 5% step. That's my advice. Compress and streamline the bonus system.
As for speed in general, more base speed and less max. speed would be great. Also I think it's absolutely possible to balance nanofibers, inertia stabs and overdrives. I was about to write something about it in the features & ideas forum. Each one of them just has to have some unique usefulness.
Siri Blue's suggestion about different MWD % is interesting. Also Diana Merris's about EANMs and Invulns taking more CPU than the single resist mods.
Last but not least I agree that Minmatar should be the speed race. But that shouldn't necessarily mean extreme nano MWD setups. More base speed, more agility, perhaps more effect of small differences.
___________________________________ _/_/ Game balance isn't just a luxury \_\_ |
Garia666
Amarr adeptus gattacus Lotka Volterra
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 15:11:00 -
[234]
See it before ... ->My Vids<- CCP= More skilz more moneh! |
DrAtomic
Atomic Heroes The OSS
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 15:37:00 -
[235]
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. Why is the complaint only about the BS? What about the vaga or the inties?
IMO, accept speed tanking as a viable form of tanking and implement webifier probes as suggested before... orrrrrrrrrr simply add a maximum speed to ships (structural integrity maximum speed), orrrrrrrrrr link signature radius to speed (the faster a ship goes the quicker it can be locked).
Linking signature radius penalty to speed would solved a huge issue with other speed tanking ships such as interceptors (the fact that they can get in and out without endangering themselves, because they cant be locked in time to take action against them).
Giving NOS tracking would increase usage of tracking disruptors to the point that anything using tracking is useless making missles op.
----------------------------------------------- The BIG Lottery |
Goumindong
Amarr Merch Industrial We Are Nice Guys
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 16:43:00 -
[236]
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.
300m isk will get you 5km/s in a phoon. ---------------------------------------- Thou Shalt "Pew Pew" |
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 16:45:00 -
[237]
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.
|
Namo Iluvatar
Gallente
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 18:39:00 -
[238]
no no no no no! nerfing speed is nerfing a whole ship type! cepters live and breath on speed. without thier speed they are as good as a boat anchor! you might as well go into combat in a shuttle as a cepter. I'll grant you seeing the nano domis with the new rigs zipping around like a cepter is a rather bizzar sight... but i welcome it as a new option to the game that is in itself highly specialized. It's like making a new specialty T2 BS :) Don't take the speed away... PLEASE
*** All skill is in vain when an angel spits in the flintlock of your musket. *** |
Aki Yamato
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 19:56:00 -
[239]
Originally by: BobbyRaider
Caldari 5% Missile explosion velocity bonus and 2% Hybrid guns damage bonus
Gallente 5% Drones durability/damage bonus and 2% Hybrid guns RoF bonus
2% RoF bonus is not equal to 2% damage bonus.
BIG GUN BIG FUTURE |
Aramendel
Amarr Queens of the Stone Age Anarchy Empire
|
Posted - 2007.02.19 20:24:00 -
[240]
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 [8] 9 10 :: one page |
First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |